Keeping child in at lunchtime for failure to complete work

[Elizabeth1970]

Is this reasonable that my child's school have decided to keep her inside at lunchtime if she has not completed her work, she is in yr 1.
She struggles with writing so takes a long time even at home with no distractions ( only child ) to complete a writing task so I feel it's very unfair she is banned from going out after lunch, instead being sent back to class to continue the writing task.
Break times are unaffected so she has 15 minutes at 10am and another 15 at 2pm but this is all most days now.

Taking away from play time has a knock on effect and leads to poorer concentration and performance and just leads to an endless loop of work not being finished and staying in . I know I'm the in minority though because in the school I worked at it was normal to keep the kids in. I never kept the kids in. If a child was consistently not completing work I'd make sure I kept on top of them during the lesson and would anticipate this. If it still persisted it would mean either a greater level of support or further differentiation or make time to sit quietly with the TA during other times.

That's a very wholesome view you have of a 5yos home life. Their parent may well find the most appropriate time amongst playing, sport and dance or when their child isn't on their ipad or they might not get them to do it at all.

In which case poo the better option at that age would be for the work not to be completed, or you risk an endless cycle of being kept in increasing the poor concentration & the likelihood is that the child will be totally put off learning.

Sherazade you sound like a great teacher.

In the schools I've worked in I've never known a child be kept in more than twice. And kids were only kept in if they were messing around during work time. Strangely enough once children know that doing the work at playtime isn't an empty threat they find themselves able to do it at work time.
If you give them a choice of messing around or working then it's unsurprising that some will choose to mess around.

And presumably the time the child would be spending sitting with a Ta that sherazade describes would be when the other children were accessing the continuous provision. So they would be missing out on that.

Taking away playtime from a 5 year old makes as much sense as taking away maths. Playtime is when they learn.

If a child is regularly struggling to complete a task during the allotted time, the task is set at the wrong level and needs to be differentiated.

It's too young.

She struggles with writing so takes a long time even at home with no distractions

The above indicates that it is beyond her control and not due to messing around. You could double check that with the teacher.

OP hasn't been back. I do think it is a fair question whether she was chatting.

I didn't send my kids to school till they were 7 or 8, I won't say I home schooled as it wouldn't be true. I let them play and do what they wanted and as an example one of mine started school at 8 and was assessed by the teacher who said she was ahead of the class in reading, writing and arithmetic. She was also on grade 4 music, very good at IT. All because it was what she wanted to do. At the other extreme I had one start school pretty much where they are in reception, he could read a bit, could write his name and was OK with numbers. I was honest with his teacher and she was brilliant. Probably an advantage that she had just moved to Keystage 2 after always teaching reception/year 1.

By the end of that year he was on top table for everything. At the end of the year I took her a gift to thank her for all she had done and she said I had made her feel her whole career had been a waste of time. I was shocked and said I thought she was a wonderful teacher and she said yes but I've spent years trying to get 4, 5 and 6 year olds to do things they aren't ready to do and if we just left it till they are ready look what they can achieve. So my son achieved 5 years work in 1 years. He had 8 years being a kid and enjoying himself and no he never got kept in at playtime.

He currently has a 1st from a great university and is working on his masters. Not too bad for a boy who was 4 years behind his peers.

If she is too slow to get "enough" writing done then she isn't ready yet. Let her develop at her own pace, forcing her won't achieve anything.

grannytomine:

Not everyone has children who are able enough to not fall seriously behind given such a laissez faire approach to education.

His teacher didn't agree with you. She felt years were wasted. Just think if school started say three years later so basically keystage 1. You could then have classes of half the size in years 3, 4 and 5. So standard state school with classes of maximum 15 kids to 1 teacher plus whatever TA support there would be. How much progress would kids make? Or even if you said 4, 5 and 6 year olds shouldn't be in a classroom for 6 hrs a day so they did half days, 15 did mornings and 15 did afternoons. I bet they would all do better.

This is one of the main reasons I took my son out of school. I'd been asking for help for him since year 1. He was diagnosed with ADHD (inattentive type) and ASD in year 3, which obviously the school knew.

This means he had concentration problems and also had trouble handwriting (very slow, very messy, found it painful doing it for a length of time)

Their answer was to keep him in to finish work at break and lunch. This meaning he didn't get a chance to run around meaning his concentration was worse in the afternoon meaning I'd get moaned at that he hadn't done any work at all all day and he'd have to do it at home. No. He won't.

I HE now, he does his handwriting practice everyday and has so much running around time that it means his concentration is so much better when he does have to sit and work. Amazing, who'd have thought running around and exercise could be good for kids?

grannytomine:

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm a teacher too and I think not, to be honest. Most students would struggle, starting at 7, to catch up to where students are who start at 4 by GCSE. Again, in my opinion.

Why are people comparing this situation to someone at work - "if you don't finish your work would you be kept in at lunchtime??". If I started pissing around at work, I'd be sacked. If a child pisses around, they don't get "sacked", but they get asked to stay in to complete the work they didn't do while chatting. What's so hard to understand??

Sorry, was a busy day yesterday and didn't have time to reply
I will clarify if she was just chatting but I think it's unlikely as the others on her table currently ( they get moved around per term ) are all boys and she doesn't tend to join in with their talk as doesn't know what they are taking about, superheroes etc!
She's a quiet child and does take longer to write so this is why I jumped to this conclusion.
My husband picks up and if she had been messing around I think the teacher would have let him know, but she didn't.
The social reasons meant we started her at 4, I worried how she would settle into a class that had been together for 3 years.
I think my worries were justified seeing and hearing some of the nonsense just over the short period of reception and year 1 with certain children being excluded from groups and so o.

Trifleorbust, mine all did well, all went to uni, all got firsts. 3 have post grad qualifications and the youngest is doing his masters now. My husband is from a country where children don't start school until they are 7 so it was normal for him and he persuaded me to give it a try. One of the things that persuaded me to give it a try was knowing several children who had arrived her after school starting age who didn't even speak English and by 18 were out performing English kids who started school at 4.

You might think not but maybe you are wrong, maybe I was lucky. I think it would take a big study to prove either of us right.

grannytomine:

Fair enough. I hope you don't mind if, given that I do this for a living and have taught hundreds of children, I continue to think I have more insight into this than you. No offence.

Elizabeth, I worried about how mine would fit in at 7 or 8 but it varied as much as most things in life. One had a really hard time, the one who went in top of the class put a few noses out of joint and led to bullying, one was very popular, everyone vying to be friends with the new boy and show him round. I'm not sure if it would have been any different if they started at 4, as some of it was just down to their personalities and the particular class involved

. The one who fitted in well, popular new boy, is still good friends with those classmates nearly 20 years later and they are all off on a boys trip at Easter.

Trifleor bust, no offence everyone entitled to their own opinion. However, several teachers I know don't agree with you. When we went to home ed groups for social activities I was always struck by how many of the kids had a parent who was a teacher, one family I knew had a dad who was Head of an outstanding local school.

Generally I find the people who understand home ed have experienced both systems, the people who are anti generally only have experience of school. Not 100% of course but my experience.

grannytomine:

I'm not anti home education at all, actually.

Fair enough. I hope you don't mind if, given that I do this for a living and have taught hundreds of children, I continue to think I have more insight into this than you. No offence.

As a secondary teacher, teaching children almost all of whom started school in reception, some high achieving, some not, how do you have any more insight than anyone else?

I'm a teacher and I disagree with you Trifle

I teach and I have kept children in before, not every day but it has happened. They are 7 and 8.

I always differentiate the workload between different groups, based on ability, and then I further differentiate my own expectations of what each child is expected to achieve in the group. They may be in the same group and have the same task but I don't expect wee Timmy to do the same as Tommy.

I only keep a child in when they really have not worked during the lesson. For example sitting for over an hour and not even completing 1/4 of the assigned task because they prefer to talk.
I'd never keep a child in who had been struggling to complete a task or if the task/concept was brand new to the group/child. However, if I know they can do it and have chosen not to then that is a different matter.

My rule has always been that it will only happen at break time, as lunch time is one hour later, or at golden time. They can eat their snack while working and as soon as they are finished they are free to go outside/join in golden time for the duration. Never have I returned to class to see a child still working away, they've generally completed the task to the expected standard in 5 or 10 minutes, letting me know they were just messing around in class time.

I could never send jotters/books home for the work to be completed as I need to use them the next day and I look over every single piece of work each night to monitor progress and check for any difficulties (so normally about 75 different marked tasks - 25 literacy, 25 maths and 25 topic/science/rme etc).

I don't like keeping them in and have only done it a handful of times although those who have been kept in are generally spurred on more towards break time as they know the consequences.

CecilyP:

I think that's too obvious for debate, to be honest. Education is a contentious business and hardly anyone agrees with anyone else on everything (two teachers in an otherwise empty room will argue over something!), but I think it's obvious that people who have taught hundreds or even thousands of children have more insight into what will or won't help more if those children to learn, than non-educators. Forgive me but I think that's clear.