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?

My dd’s school used to provide 3 levels of work colour graded for complexity. Pupils could then choose which they did. It was offered to all so was inclusive. Perhaps you should suggest something like that with the head?
This is the sort of "differentiation" which is no longer considered acceptable for a number of - some valid - reasons.

@MrsHamlet - is it more acceptable for everyone to attempt the lowest level, then move onto the harder questions if there is time? Or are there just easy questions present? It really depends on how big the range of ability is - and I expect the range will grow as kids get older.

Private schools seem to have no issue with streaming children.

I this is obvious. Parents are paying a lot of money! OP

I do agree with others that if academically gifted children are not pushed it can cost them later in the university years when they actually have to knuckle down and do the hard yards. Some of my highly intelligent friends who coasted all throughout secondary ended up failing University because of lack of work effort. I am dyslexic so really had to work my arse off throughout secondary to achieve decent grades, which then transferred to University and I graduated with a masters.

That might have a lot more to do with number of pupils in class and a smaller gap in ability.

In my y10 class this year I have students with targets of 7 and students with targets of 2.
I am expected to teach to the top end and support those at lower end to get somewhere close there. My subject has untiered exams.
It's all about the scaffolding. I don't make differentiated worksheets. I teach the scaffold.

It’s a long time ago (70’s) but my experience in some ways wasn’t great. I changed schools twice between 11 and 16 and the approach to setting me for maths (which I found difficult) at the new school was just to ask which book I had been on at the previous school and send me to a particular set. This took no account of the fact that I was one of the few people in that group who was actually prepared to concentrate and work steadily rather than talking, walking round the room.....(you get the picture). Also, homework was always to get to the end of exercise (whatever) which I had already done in class. I got a CSE grade one but with a little attention and stretching in a more focussed group surely I could have got an actual O level.
In today’s terms, I’m afraid the focus on the middle ability range
must have lot to do with the attention given to “value added” and overall achievement in the school - it’s easier to make sure the lower-middle ability pupils come up to “decent” and get the “magic 5” GCSE A-C than it is to make the top groups get all A. (Sorry some of my terminology may be out of date but the general idea still stands).

Progress 8 means that the focus on the progress of ALL students, not the "magic 5".
If Bob doesn't get his 2, the same questions will be asked as if Delphine doesn't get her 9.

Miss Dolly mix ,Yes state schools can be very good.My DS missed the GS by a few points ,but excelled at his state School ,He is now working in industry with an MSC!

Thanks @Namenic will look those resources up

The old trope about class sizes is largely a myth, though, certainly at primary school and for the most part up to A level. Or rather, it is a much less important factor than is typically supposed – the quality of teaching is significantly more important.

It is better to be in a class of 30 with a great teacher than in a class of 15 with an OK teacher, for example.

There is plenty of pedagogic research to back this up.

@thing47 I am primary. But why compare 30 with a great teacher and 15 with an ok teacher? If both teachers are great is there still no difference?

And I didn't just say class size , when you add in a (or several) cohort with a very significant difference in ability, not just from low to highs, but even between the lows and the next group up. We did do it though,we definitely tried our best, worked incredibly hard (it definitely wasn't easy) under extreme pressure and scrutiny, but even so,I'm sure there was at least one lesson(or more likely several) where we failed at least one kid.

Oh I'm on your side, @IdontWanna in that I was saying having a good teacher is way more important than most other factors. In fact, the single most important factor.

Maybe I was wrong to tag you, it's just that so many parents seem to think smaller class size is the Holy Grail of education, whereas the real Holy Grail is great teachers. The evidence supports this.

Able pupils for less affluent backgrounds are not encouraged/supported nor shown how to access the top universities.
That is the scandal

There is no evidence re class sizes because the research doesn't get funded.
It is self evident that students in a smaller class get more teacher attention and better feed back.
Some of the posters on here must be the LT.

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

Proven where? It causes a great detrimental impact on the majority of pupils, other than the very lowest attainers who couldn't give a damn and the very highest attainers who will succeed despite the distractions. The concept of 'mixed ability' has always been nonsense, as a Maths teacher it was ridiculous to try and teach the Higher skills of the National Curriculum in a mixed ability class, the reason that the vast majority of schools started setting for most subjects.

Then I would be looking for another school if they're not setted by Year 8 or Year 9 at the very latest, it is doing your child no favours, it's simply ticking pc boxes sticking with mixed ability for Maths.

the very lowest attainers who couldn't give a damn
This is a really unpleasant statement.

My DD's state secondary streams for nearly all subjects. She's in a huge school that I think does a great job of pushing her, as well as supporting those who need extra help. The school run a 'gifted and talented' programme which DD was selected for. She's also been able to select EPQ as one of her GCSE options, as she's in G&T. I appreciate that all schools are different though.

other than the very lowest attainers who couldn't give a damn

why do you think low attainers don’t care?

Thank you for your input. She is yr 10, we were promised setting for year 9. We had started to look at a few schools in yr 8, then Covid. She returned to her school in Sept 2020 (yr9) they kept them in the same class and classroom for everything because of Covid, then of course the school closed again. I thought they had been set this year to start their GCSE courses, we only learnt they weren't at parents' evening in Febuary. Moving her now would be very disruptive. Her brother has just done Maths and Further maths A-level one of his friends is going to help her next year as she is simply not being stretched in maths. This is a grammar school btw.

Explaining methods to others is also an excellent way of embedding learning, improving understanding, improving mathematical vocabulary and stretching quick learners.

Interesting you should say this. When DD was revising for her finals one of her friends hadn't paid any attention in the lectures for the module the next exam was on, so she did several revision sessions with him using a whiteboard to explain concepts. She said that it helped her enormously with her revision.

In answer to @PickleM's observation this was something that ofsted criticised DD's old school about a few years ago. They were told not just to get GCSE pupils up to a C from a D, but to get the A and B students up to A* and A.

EEF is a reputable source of summaries of education research that gives an indication both of impact of a factor and strength of evidence:

Within class attainment grouping

Setting and streaming

Reducing class size

This is the home page from which a research on whole range of possible factors is linked.

Not so. It has been extensively researched over a number of years, not least by Ofsted (in this country) and PISA (internationally), as well as by other sources, both objective and subjective.

I have no idea what LT stands for, I'm afraid, but I do have a background in educational research and no personal dog in the fight as a) I'm no longer in this field and b) my own DCs are post-school age.

cant I don't know if the EEF have updated their setting research page in the last few years but their findings have been heavily disputed (with maths!) here:

teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2018/04/02/the-eef-were-even-more-wrong-about-ability-grouping-than-i-realised/