To think state schools should do more to push academic pupils?

[PickleM]

I've worked in both state and private schools. My observation with my own dc (in state schools) is that those who are very able academically could be given better opportunity to excel, but aren't. I see it as a great shame.

It seems like in order to tick the 'inclusive' box or help those who need more support, the children who are more capable aren't really given very challenging work.

An example would be that my dd is put in a very mixed ability group for maths and English. However, previously the class had different tables depending on level of work - those most able were given more challenging work. Those less able were given less challenging work. I've now been told by the teacher that this wasn't 'inclusive' enough for the slt. Apparently my dc is learning through 'coaching others'. I think she should give a higher level of work to those most able, I'm not interested in my dc 'coaching others' when she could be learning more complex work.

Private schools seem to have no issue with streaming children. Perhaps I've just been unlucky, ultimately it doesn't matter as I help my children learn at home, but what about capable children who don't have home support?

Mixed ability grouping has been proven to have a positive impact on lower attainers but no detrimental impact on higher attainers.

I know from my own state education that statement is completely dependent on the teacher of the class. Like with all professions a few teachers are excellent, while most are good and some poor.

Yes the OP DD can learn through coaching others but it shouldn't be because the teacher won't give her additional work that will stretch her.

But it negatively impacts the lower attaining children. What about their social mobility?

Do you mean 'stream' [be in a single group for all subjects] or 'set' [placed in the correct group for each individual subject]?

I know of no state secondary schools that don't set pupils in Maths at least from very early on. IME, they then set across a wider range of subjects through KS3 (Maths; English; Sciences; sometimes languages; often PE). Some remain in mixed ability groupings right through to GCSE (often humanities and arts).

Streaming is rare, again IME, because it has such obvious issues - why should a child who excels in Maths but finds English hard be placed in a 'middle' stream as an average?

I would also say that - as a parent of two able children, both state educated throughout - that they have been very obviously extended throughout, and this is well reflected in their final results and destinations. Yes, Further Maths GCSE and the option of a third language to GCSE were after school clubs, not delivered during the school day, but they were most definitely 'there'.

Please don't lump low achieving kids in with disruptive kids. That Venn diagram is nowhere near being a perfect circle and it is both offensive and ignorant to phrase your post this way.

My kids school absolutely pushes all children. The highest achievers come out with nothing less than a 7 and the vast majority will have a clean sweep of 8’s and 9’s. The less able will still get very good grades mainly 6’s and 7’s and only a tiny proportion, say about 15 out of a year of 180 will get less than the 5 good passes. They are set for maths, science and English from year 9

My child’s school only sets for PE and Science in KS3. They set for Maths and English in Y10 and Y11. That seems very standard in our city - setting has gone dramatically out of fashion (due to the research cited earlier in the thread) but the problem is that only the very best teachers can differentiate adequately in a completely mixed ability Maths class.

Why have you extrapolated from your DC's school to all state schools?

Your comment is a sweeping generalisation. My daughter is yr 9 in a state comp. Did well in her physics exam. School have organised a special group for to 20% female physics students in the year to cover extra work, being mentored by yr 11 pupils who also excel in physics.

I went to a comprehensive school but it streamed us for every subject from year 7 onwards which was introduced in the time between my older sister going there and me going there (4 years). We went in at the same sort of standard and similar level of natural intelligence/inclination to work hard, but our experiences were totally different and I did much better as well as enjoying school more. If I have a bright child I’ll definitely be looking for a secondary that streams from the start.

Your reference to 'tables', however, makes me wonder whether you are actually taking about primary schools? Setting is rare in primary schools, for obvious reasons of the way the primary timetable works. The idea of fixed 'ability tables' is widely discredited, because of the ceiling of expectations it can place on some children. However, I would say that the idea of core and extension work, accessible to all and reached by the higher attainers in each specific lesson (whether they be the children who are seen as 'always able', or whether they arte a child who simply excels in that particular aspect of the subject while struggling in others) is also a normal part of every primary teachers' armoury - being asked to 'coach others' is a lazy solution. Not one I have come across in person, I point out, but I have heard of it.

I agree. Schools' failure to give gifted children work that will challenge them is a form of neglect, in my opinion.

@eatsleepswimdive That sounds brilliant. You are extremely fortunate to have access to a school like that. No schools in my city would fit that description. I think it’s hard for parents wuth kids in excellent state schools to understand how low expectations are elsewhere in the sector.

It seems like in order to tick the 'inclusive' box or help those who need more support, the children who are more capable aren't really given very challenging work.

Yanbu. It's because the government want to "close the gap" and basically the only way this will ever happen is if the most able are held back.

Actually mixed ability grouping has been shown to result in better outcomes for lower and middle ability pupils, but poorer outcomes for upper ability. Theres a conscious decision to relegate the needs of those children to give more attention to the less able.

My DH is miles ahead on maths. School don't give him any suitable work. All it means is we are struggling to resist the temptation of private school. It's not what we want and we are trying desperately to avoid it, but we can easily afford it and he gets nothing from his state school. 80% of the teacher's time & attention goes on the bottom third of the class.

In the state sector bright children are just ignored. It's actually worse than when I was a child; when i was a child the bright kids were taken out with the TA to do extension work as often as the struggling kids went out for intervention/support.

(I would also point out that I work in a town where all but one of the private schools are routinely outperformed by the local comprehensive. Private does NOT = better)

It seems like in order to tick the 'inclusive' box or help those who need more support, the children who are more capable aren't really given very challenging work.

When you look at the current GCSEs, you'll see that this is balls and actually it is the lower achieving students who are poorly served by the current school system.

Completely agree. Mixed ability classes just mean they either all learn at the speed of the slowest, or that the slowest get left behind. And bright kids coaching less bright kids sounds like bs to me and I would be very unhappy if that had happened in DD's school.

At my school, this isn’t enough for a significant minority so we also press on with the year aboves work

God I wish you taught my son. He is in reception and can easily do his cousin's y2 maths.

His teacher harps on about mastery but there's only so many ways you can approach number bonds to 20 and he knew was so secure on them all before starting school :(

Streaming is a really bad idea for children that are good in some subjects and not so good in others - they are bound to be in the "wrong" stream at least some of the time.

My academic DD has spent her secondary years in a school that doesn't set (which might be what OP means) at all except for maths and is on target for good grades in all subjects. What this did require was excellent teachers, and she's been fortunate that many of her teachers were. The ideal would be that every child would be given work to their ability level with the ability to stretch themselves if appropriate.

Are you really saying that every primary school in the country fails children because they (necessarily) teach mixed ability classes??

Or are you saying that in some classes, some of the time, a few children may not have their precise needs met in a few lessons? (IE that not every teacher and school can offer a perfect experience for every child all of the time, which is an obvious truth?)

With limited resources, the goal has to be to support the majority of the children to reach the minimum standard. Unless you think the less able children should be left to sink

It's not either/or. All children should have their needs equally prioritised.

all children matter equally.

DD has just left school. She is the most able in her class and is likely to get mostly 8/9 in her exams. She used to finish classwork within ten minutes, get full marks and then get told off for sitting doing nothing
She's also never won a single award, certificate or even a single one of those merit point thingys in her entire school life - because she doesn't try 🤷‍♀️
I know it's tough for teachers to differentiate for everyone but is a little bit of encouragement too much to ask?

My DD went to a primary with a very challenging demographic. Definitely didn't get pushed academically. Went on to a fairly pushy academic state secondary. In first few months she saw a big difference between herself and peers. Didn't take long to catch up. Pushed herself. They were heavily tutored at home and her response was to work harder. No pushing from me. She got mostly 9s in GCSE and all from her own self pushing.

To my mind I would prefer state schools focused more energy of the students who struggle.

When I was a student teacher I was shocked by the attitudes towards the brightest students. They were safely going to “do well” ie at least 5 A-C grades so the focus was on the less able.

Coming from an independent school and oxbridge I couldn’t get my head round the lack of support to get students from 5 A-C grades at GCSE to 9 or 10 A grades (absolutely possible).

The teachers thought the grades they would get would be “enough” to get to sixth form and university. They lacked the ambition to help these kids raise their grades so they could go to almost ANY university and study anything.

I found it so utterly depressing.

It depends how it's done. For example a very bright child might be perfectly able to do something, but struggle to explain in any meaningful way or actually understand what they are doing so they can then apply it to something else.That means they can't often answer reasoning/why questions which are just as important as the ability to do long division in your head. Explaining the workings of a problem 1 2 1 with a peer, in a way they can understand it deepens their own understanding of the method and it helps "stick".

Now if you have one kid supporting a whole table just doing the questions for them or giving them the answers, that's pointless for everyone.

I imagine it is entirely possible that some individual schools may have a culture like this (unusual, but possible).

To state, as the OP does, that this is a sector-wide situation that includes every single state school everywhere in the country is extrapolating a long way from a single data point......