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?

In many comprehensives, the top 25% of pupils would probably be the top set (near us most schools are 4-6 8 forms per year, the bigger ones don’t tend to have 6 sets, they split the year group in 2 and have two lots of sets 1-3).

i appreciate not everyone who passes the 11+ will be a maths whizz but I doubt many of them are scraping 1/2s and being taught alongside those getting 8/9s as might be happening in a comprehensive school mixed ability class.

Very true. However one doesn't go through the stress of the 11+ and travel to a grammar school so that one's daughter can have an experience equivilent to that in a "bog standard" comp. I was hpoing for some more differentiation than the top 25% at 10 being lumped together for 5 years.

entropynow I agree. How do researchers know that very able children don't suffer? Just because they may perform well and come out top of the class doesn't mean they are achieving their potential.

When I was doing my PGCE (long ago, admittedly) were were told 'be aware that you may be teaching children who are more able/intelligent than you are'. I've worked in both secondary and primary state schools and I've seen lots of cases where teachers just didn't recognise this and let very able children coast (or occasionally worse - they developed a chippy, grudging attitude to them). Not teacher bashing- I don't know how teachers do it these days with all the demands made on them, and in the situation they find themselves in, something has to snap - they're not superhuman.

And class size is important! I can't see how anyone could question this. Any teacher knows that the difference between 25 and 30 is very noticeable. Smaller would be even better, not only for able children but the less able who often find waiting for the teacher's attention very difficult - a big cause of disengagement and disruption.

The better private schools set for maths very early on. Without it they would not be able to access some of the higher Maths they need eg for engineering.

That is teacher BS and you know it.

Because nobody from a state school ever managed to do an engineering degree and succeed in that field, of course.

I have two DDs of similar academic ability (on the high side) but about 5 years between them. DD1 was taught mostly in ability groups, but clearly policy has changed in the intervening years at the same school and DD2 is being taught in mixed ability groups for everything.

The difference in their progress and where they are academically at the same age is more than noticeable - to the extent that I am concerned that DD2 is being failed by the same school and being held back.

Absolutely agree OP. My fairly bright DD was told bluntly, and in my earshot, the her state primary were only teaching the basic maths to achieve a 'meets expectations ' SATs grade and if she wanted to attempt Greater Depth we would have to buy books and teach her at home. Same for English, they were confident she would pass and wouldn't stretch her, preferring to have her help less able friends
We've chosen a secondary that sets from xmas of y7

Surely it varies by school? I thought our (state) secondary school handled this really well but the primary less well.

It also depends on how motivated the DCs are.

DC1 grabbed every single opportunity the school gave, worked very hard and and is very clever. Got 4 x A* at A-Level.

My experience at school (admittedly a while ago!) As a bright kid was that setting is really beneficial. We were set for all core subjects apart from english. None of the bright kids wanted to work in English as we would be mocked/bullied. So I messed around like everyone else to fit in. I got Bs in English and A/A* for everything else at GCSE. In maths for example with other bright children it was a good space to ask questions and learn. Im in Trafford and if I have kids they will be aimed for the 11plus and grammar (and I'll pay for private if they don't pass!).

DD’s state grammar pushed. DD’s take was anything below a 7 (A) was viewed as unacceptable. No sets except there was one top maths set who also did further maths. It’s not super selective - top table in primary in catchment should get a place. Other local schools are outstanding so catchment parents only tend to enter children school will be a good fit for. It’s not a full grammar county we are up north.

Don't be ridiculous but at the top school ie Imperial, many state school pupils are at a massive disadvantage and they know it. A lot of our state school students are playing catch up because they usually haven't had the opportunity to study Applied or Further Maths.
That is the problem with not setting for Maths early on.

It obviously depends on the child. My DD is a gifted mathematician, now using her maths in a research and medical setting at a top university. Went to bog standard comp. She was used to 'tutor' less bright, or worse, disruptive kids in her year in broadly streamed classes. IN other words the top sets had a broad range of ability. She was fine. It made her cross, sure. But tbh there's a limit to the knowledge you need to get an A star at A level, and she coasted that. So didnt need any extra push. I can see how some young people would be alienated by this treatment, and tbh it used to piss me off. But she rode it and used it to her advantage on her UCAS form. It's hard to find things to talk about for maths and she shoe-horned in her ability to explain and demonstrate tricky concepts.
It didn't happen to DS, who was the arty farty child (though equally gifted in his fields). Its seems to be the mathematicians who cop this treatment most!
@Valeriekat what are you talking about? I know masses of young engineers and mathmos, very few of whom went to a 'better private school'.

I teach English so I think it's easier for pupils to work at their own level. I try to stretch and challenge every pupil, but tbh I think a lot of that reaching for extra challenge comes from within. My eldest has an offer from Oxford for October. She was perfectly happy at our bog-standard comprehensive but a lot of her drive and ambition came from her.

My boys are both very bright but they will underachieve because of their personalities. They probably would be doing better in a privately school but I think that being state-educated makes you a more rounded person.

The problem at the top tier in state schools is definitely access to Oxbridge and other high institutions, rather than exam results. IME anyway. A stars aplenty. But no extra help for the specialist entrance exams, let alone interview practice. DS was lucky; his dad went to Oxford so 'got' what was required for the Cambridge application. School did diddly squat. By contrast the nearest private school did Wednesday afternoon sessions specially tailored for oxbridge, vet and med school.
I'd like to blame our school but I suppose they're too busy fire fighting further down the pecking order - trying to get kids across the lines set by exams.
But yes, state school kids (by which I mean most comps) are hugely disadvantaged when it comes to applications when it comes to Oxbridge and specialist places.

I am not saying that state school pupils can't get their engineering degrees but they have to work very much harder to compete with overseas pupils and students who have been able to do Further/Applied Maths.
It can mean the difference between a First and a 2 1.
They are at a massive disadvantage you can't think that this is a good thing surely?

What is mathmos?

Sorry @Valeriekat geekspeak for mathematicians. It's what mathematicians call one another (and what others call them!).

@Valeriekat Where's your evidence about state pupils struggling to get Firsts? I am a fangirl for state schools. As I've said, the disadvantage pupils face is gaining access to 'top' universities. And that's not about grades - it's about the way private schools have special sessions and teachers to coach students through the process whereas state don't. This is something Oxbridge etc need to address. There is abundant talent in state schools.
DD did Further maths at her comp, and it wasn't a great one.

I think it is fair to say that students who don't have access to FM A level but who would wish to study it will be disadvantaged.
What I don't know is how many students that would be?

I can imagine some schools not having sufficient numbers to run it, but I am also surprised (probably naive?) if there wasn't a different school within reach for those students to move to for A levels. Too often I see posts on MN where current school doesn't offer desired subjects, but the student is reluctant to move. However I am in Hants with gigantic colleges so small 6th forms isn't an issue.

It's not really surprising that private schools with lots of money and resources, who can choose which children attend are able to support higher achieving children better.

It's not a fair comparison.
Give state schools more money and of course they'd do more.
State schools and staff have only so much capacity.

This interests me, schools quote phonics as the answer to all reading problems. What was the problem with the and what was the spanner for the nut that your dd needed?

@Summerwhereareyou sorry I tried to reply to your post above

There were only 3 students taking FM A Level in DS's year. For any other subject, this would have meant they didn't run it. However, the school sees that being able to offer FM is important and so accepts it will run with small class size (there were 2 large Maths A Level classes, so perhaps between the 3 groups it evened out). Like you, I'd be surprised if any but smaller schools would opt not to offer it at all.

My very bright dd has had excellent support in the state system.

At primary school, she was consistently given extension work and taken out to do stuff with a TA or with the deputy head. The school also worked with a group of other local primary schools to stretch their most able pupils, with the deputy head of each school taking a turn to set a monthly challenge for the most able pupils and then provide feedback.

There was less extension work at secondary, but they set for all subjects except art, music, PE etc from year 7, which probably helped. There was still a wide range of ability in the top sets, but actually, I think dd did learn a lot - both academically and socially - from having to explain stuff to her peers on a regular basis, and I never saw this as a negative thing at all.

I think a lot depends on the school, but perhaps there is less resource now in primary schools to replicate the kind of experiences that my dd had. Schools have so little money now!