To think extra lessons for top students isn’t fair?

[Beepboobeep]

My DD’s state primary school has a “top maths club” and “great writers club” for the top performing students in yr 5 and 6 held outside of school hours. There is no charge for this - so it’s free childcare and free tutoring. You have to be invited. This has been running since the second week of the school year and is restarting on the first day of this half term.

By contrast, my dyslexic DD is in a group for those needing more support in writing, also outside of school hours. But they only managed 2 sessions last year and it hasn’t started back up this year. She gets ad hoc in school support; where it happens she misses other lessons that aren’t then caught up on, putting her further behind in the those.

I appreciate these children deserve challenging, but surely that could be done in class with different work and the teacher’s out of hours time, if available, used to help those struggling?

Is this even allowed in a state primary?

Both are autistic, if she wants more seesaw homework she wants more seesaw homework. Her thirst for letters and words is well supported, books, reusable writing books for letters and words that look like school worksheets, other apps similar to seesaw.

My point is the school shouldn't just be aiming to get everyone to average, if a child has the possibility of doing academically very well the school should also be supporting that. Not all academically capable children are born to supportive parents or parents who can provide extra. My children are, neither will miss out because I'll move mountains to ensure they have what they need and I do daily.

When I was growing up as 1 of 5 in significant poverty with parents who became disabled and were dependent on benefits And it was the 80s in northern ireland and there was plenty to stress about etc...mybteachers recognized I was ahead and they arranged for a mobile library to come to my house monthly, they ensured I was in composite classes so when I inevitably finished my work I got the work of the year ahead, when I'd run out of that they'd send me to the next class for a visit, so I was in a P5/6 class, id finish P5 work, be given the P6 work and then if time remained I'd pop into o6/7 and do the P7 work.

That primary school absolutely set me a trajectory to succeed.

A child who is working above class level. An become bored and disruptive particularly if neurodivergent, their learning needs also need to be met

Yes but such learning helps to develop a 'growth mindset' which is much more advantageous in the attainment of high grades for external credentials such as GCSES. Average or even above average pupils not afforded those opportunities at 9 or 10 are therefore at a disadvantage and this doesn't comply with Statutory Teaching Standards that require an equitable delivery of education.

But this is an argument in semantics, it is not a legal definition and as such should not be afforded some special privilege.

Or, as in my school 90% of lessons were taught at the level of the lowest performing students so the more able ones are bored out of their minds.

The word ‘club’ suggests inclusivity, but these groups are by invitation only. I wonder why?

Is the sharp elbowed MC competing so fiercely for grammar places that otherwise the groups would be overwhelmed, and lose their usefulness? Sadly I can see how restricting numbers then makes sense.

Or is this an expression of elitism? I have so many stories from top STEM students (with top A levels) whose talents were not recognised when they were younger that I do not believe the school is capable of discerning who has meaningful mathematical talent, as opposed to good computational facility, at this age. ( The two often go together, but certainly not always.) Interest counts for an awful lot.

I'm thinking this is more akin to the exclusionary and privileged educational experiences of those attending the school in 'The Dead Poets Society' i.e. you can see how inequality of opportunity arises.

I’m the parent of a high attaining child who spent her primary career bored because the only form of stretch was giving her an additional maths question if she spent most of the lesson working through the one too easy for her. Lack of stretch all too easily turns into failure to develop a growth mindset and an unhealthy perfectionism (because you are effortlessly “perfect” when working below your level and aren’t being taught resilience and how failure and striving is part of learning). In the longer term, potentially disengagement with education and not reaching potential. It is hard to explain to a child who sits all day bored in class going over for the seventh time something they already understood the first why going to school is important and valuable.

I’m also the parent of another child who is not meeting expectations in one area and the school’s support consists of putting her in an intervention group for something other than the thing she is struggling with because that is the only thing on offer they have capacity to staff.

I don’t feel that my younger daughter’s problems at school are somehow more “valid” than my elder’s. Both were/are being let down in different ways and it is not a competition or a race to the bottom.

And actually doing remedial support at home to get the little one on track is a lot easier as a parent than trying to somehow provide challenge outside that will make the school day not feel like tedium.

I am in quite an elitist environment and strongly support parity in education for gifted students. However no one us arguing against this. OP and others are pointing out that in many places legally required opportunities at the other end of the spectrum are elusive.

I adore BE but I don’t ‘see’, because I cannot believe you are suggesting that any significant portion of the DC who would rightly benefit from enrichment opportunities are generational talents.

But in practice, why should only one end of the spectrum be afforded additional attention or tailored support?

That doesn’t feel right ethically, nor does it seem right economically: we should want our brightest and best to do the best they can in service of growing our economy.

This.

Think of it this way - the higher achieving kids are having to sit through, say 2h of maths classes that they already know, during which the main focus is children who are learning it for the first time.

I was that kid. I could finish tasks in minutes, whilst other kids were receiving the lesson. The stretch provision WAS the lesson.

I agree that schools cannot discern this at such a young age. Anecdotally, I know of quite a few adults and late teens where this was the case i.e. they were not identified as high achievers at 9 or 10 possibly above average/average or those deemed to have SEND that have achieved the highest grades at A level, have gone to Oxbridge or top of the league universities, have achieved 1st class degrees, have become renowned Architects, are notable Economists etc.

Lovely post, lovely child.

You are conflating free, after school clubs run by teachers outside of their contracted hours, with the required/compulsory SEN provision that a school is obligated to offer.

By your logic, no school could offer a band program, choirs, musicals, language classes, dance, chess, or any other extracurriculars until every student in the school had adequate SEN provision, whatever that means.

Good luck with that.

How are the clubs you listed comparable to the 'Top Maths Club' or 'Top Writer's Club' that the OP described in the OP, they are 'invite only' so inaccessible for most of the school.

To be in band you have to play an instrument reasonably well. To make the school sports team you have to be a good athlete. Anyone can try chess club, but if you are terrible at chess and lose every game, it is unlikely you'll find it a pleasant environment and will probably leave soon.
All the clubs end up selecting for a small group based on some kind of trait or ability unless deliberate efforts are made to prevent it.

At primary school there are not going to be sports clubs or orchestra club tiered by ability levels and they would be accessible to all.

This is the situation for my son. He is always ‘above expected standard’ and spends a lot of time in class either helping other children or reading whilst the teacher focuses on the children who need more support. This isn’t an issue - all children need to learn and I am glad the teacher is focusing on those who find it more challenging.

I am grateful for the additional sessions him and other high academic achievers get as this keeps him engaged and challenged - we need academic high achievers as much as we need to be supporting those who struggle.

This doesn't happen in a state primary school, are you thinking of prep schools?

You simply cannot determine what that is at 9 or 10, I'm not referring to G&T classifications, that's a different thing.

@LucieO is simply reacting to the way things are bow. Her DS helps others, which is good for everyone, then he and the others who are currently good at maths get enrichment. It doesn’t sound like anyone is going beyond that into permanent labels or anything.

YABU OP, I have nothing to thank my son's primary school for, they were woeful in their lack of support. In contrast there was an independant education plan in place and a special tutor for someone in his class who was gifted and talented in maths. Thankfully we were able to fund some of they services our child needed and secondary school was fantastic. It's all about SATS results.

I was referring to the sentence, "we need high achievers". We certainly do but we don't need to apply these rigid labels to children at 9/10 years old as it will just result in missed potential of certain groups of children.

Most primary schools have clubs that are open to anyone.

some of the bigger ones have “clubs” that are invite only. Year 6 football team for example in a bigger primary is usually invite only although most teachers will try to make sure that the opportunity is spread around.

year 6 production would be another example - year 6 teachers absolutely will include everyone but large speaking and singing parts will go to people able and willing to learn them and act or sing moderately well.

same applies to the nativity in year 2 - not a good idea to choose the kid who can’t read or memorise any lines to have the major part.

equally, some things are invite only due to being only for pp students or similar.

we used to do sensory circuits before school for a number of the autistic children and lots of the others wanted to join in but it was invite only because it’s part of our SEN provision.

some bigger primaries also do young carers groups - again, these are invite only as they are meant to be support for young carers.

Agreed.

Both of my children went to huge intake primary schools/junior schools, the football club at 9 or 10 would not be tiered, there is just no way that you are going to have enough kids to play at a top talent level. My nephew was spotted for a big London club at that age, attended a primary school with a large number of pupils and found the school team was very easy due to their simply not being enough kids playing at different levels to make it challenging for him.

School productions are not a 'club' they are part of the curriculum. Targeted groups for autistic children, are they even clubs? The children in the OP don't necessarily have G&T status, she gives the impression they are very much, 'high achievers' so why the special treatment, unsure how they creates an inclusive environment.