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?

The amount of pressure put on the 'top' kids is ridiculous and doesn't benefit the children involved. It's all about stats for the school or college.

I have 1 who was pushed into all of the extra lessons etc because he "could get 9's" and what it actually dis was psych him out and he came out with worse grades and a much worse attitude towards learning. He is now at a top uni but college was painful because of the experience of GCSE's.

Next one has always got top marks in everything, rarely gets anything wrong and is still bored in the extra lessons so they do nothing for him.

Youngest has SEN, is also very clever but people mostly see a naughty kid so he isn't put into the extra classes that might actually challenge him and reduce his impulsive behaviour because he wouldn't be bored.

I don't really think the education system works for many children but it works enough for enough kids and allows parents to work so we persist with a very narrow model.

But by discriminating between current abilities, it can be more possible to get all of the kids the right provision that enables all of the kids the chance to become high achievers.

At the start of GCSEs, my teacher said that he wanted every kid on the class to get an A. Second year, he unashamedly sorted us into three rows - B, A, A, and spent 90% of his time after delivering the core content working with my best friend who was the most able pupil. I was sat next to her, but got an A when I might have made the A* grade if he and I had made the effort.

If he'd had a little maths club to indulge teaching A level maths to GCSE students, then all of the rest of us might have been better off.

This post makes an important point. It is related to why I am cautious about tutoring to prepare for the next level.

A ‘top level’ child can get top grades without breaking a sweat, at least through secondary education. (HE should challenge everyone.) The number who can get these marks through hard work is still not large, and these children are very able, but there is a difference.

It can be delicate to know how hard they should be encouraged to work; the answer will be different for different personalities. If we thought more about helping children to thrive and less about the shortest path from primary to grammar to Oxbridge (or Durham/St Andrews at a pinch), which is not going to work out for the large majority anyway, the children would be happier and ultimately better off.

The OP is referring to the children being 9 and 10, not that they are in year 9 and 10, they are not undertaking GCSES. Don't worry, I can assure you that rigid labelling of ability at GCSE stage alongside performance analytics, is certainly an obsession of most British state secondary schools!

But equally, allocating students for the the side group has the potential for error due to teacher biases (as we all have them) and subjectivity. For example, where there are borderline cases how do you decide?

WTF OP! The problem is that your child needs more help. Not that those doing well have a chance to improve and learn more. And raise the bar, which is barely getting off the ground these days, to be honest. Well done to your school! I do hope you do understand that there would be a number of autistic and ADHD children in that group too.

If your DD has been diagnosed officialy, then she presumably gets PIP. So that money can be used for private tutoring, if your school cannot manage more support than the one you already get.

Do you receive PIP if you are dyslexic?

So you believe that your chance to 'learn more' should be decided at 9?

There's a difference between learning more (e.g. chess club) and learning what's next at the time you're ready for it (the next level of maths), which prevents you from getting bored and not learning to challenge yourself because you can just coast at the level being actively taught to the rest of the class.

And I wasn't confusing the ages of the children, I was only giving a different example based on my own experience.

I never had to work hard at schoolwork, I put all my efforts into interests. I'm the same as an adult. I coast in a decent paying job knowing I'm "top of the class" at work, whilst not actually trying anything near my hardest, and enjoy my hobbies.

Which is fine for society for the odd person, but it would be a lot better for everyone if I were habituated to stretching myself a bit.

Why should the parents of gifted children have to pay for them to reach their potential? I was one of those gifted children allowed to just get on with it because I wasn't going to fail.
My son needs additional support due to neurodivergence. It isn't a fight. You will also probably find the children requiring support take up more teacher and TA time during lessons. There should be appropriate provision for both.

Surely, if it was innate you wouldn't have needed that push and you would have attained an A* with no problem? With regards to Maths my eldest had a friend like that and he achieved the highest grade effortlessly for A level maths and further maths as well. He was so good at other subjects which lowered his options post 18.

I don't understand your argument are you suggesting none streaming has limited your potential?

I know that the rules change so often but when I was still teaching 'special needs' included those who need more stimulus as well as those who need more support. Even with streamed classes it was difficult to cram in all the syallabus at the top end and I used to have after school classes for anyone wanting to go for the highest grade, then it would be A*. It would be just as wrong to not address their needs as it would be not to address the needs of the lower ability pupils but in many cases attempts to have extra classes after school or at lunchtime to help them was seen by a lot of parents as a punishment!

But there isn't going to be a class of G&T, they are not that, they are 'high achievers', at 9 and 10 this not a predictor of anything that is, 'exceptional'. You are not going to have a class of exceptional students in one primary school. As I pointed out previously, this very much dilutes the meaning of G&T.

Innate is a fairly controversial word to use in this context…..

most mathematicians agree that school level maths is not difficult and also that it is taught in a non creative way.

some children who seem to be good at maths have had a very “maths Rich” environment - like my ex husband who had a father who did lots of maths with him for fun and taught him programming etc.

the aim of the maths circles programme at least, and of quite a few enrichment programmes is to develop a “maths Rich” environment where students can explore around conjecture and proof in many maths areas rather than pushing on to the next level of school maths.

there’s a lot of breadth there that school maths doesn’t cover.

In the same way that many people would feel that it’s important to read widely rather than just he school books.

There will always be some very able pupils who can achieve the tops grades with no extra help and well done to them. I still recall one boy who would come up with his own ingenious methods of doing some tasks, his simultaneous equations were amazing, but many do not have that innate ability but with support can achieve the top grades and they too deserve that help.

Yes but that is those who are G&T not just high achievers who are mostly that way at 9 or 10 due to nurture not nature. In terms of the initial OP, I think that's the picture she is painting.

op will they be sitting the sats and so affect the school data? Or so far behind they can be removed?

Our school almost intentionally made sure the kids who wouldnt probably pass were so bad so they didnt take it..
It does sound like in your area and school parents are selecting the school on the high number getting greater depth so parents probably care less about a small number not meeting the 100.
More broadly though the dyslexia diagnosis a bit like others (adhd/asd) are potentially being given somewhat unfairly/unnecessarily. In that whilst the ops child has presumably got more severe struggles, there are kids who are getting exceeding on the reading sats with no adjustments but still saying they have dyslexia because they picked up learning to read slowly at under 7.
That is a huge difference to those who still cant read…
I guess the question is what are people gaining other than extra time? Because i dont think most people are expecting the dyslexics to be getting into the top 25% for reading sats (over 110). Its a lot to read in a short space of time and would lead to perhaps grades 6-9 at gcse.

These programmes sound marvellous but I don't get the impression this is what is happening in the OP's scenario, the group and school sound very privileged.

Oh I see, good point but I don't think that is happening in the OP's case and I don't think we should be streaming 9 year olds.

So you claim “most” are tutored.

How do you know this? And what about the ones who aren’t in the “most” group because their parents can’t afford tutoring?

A further argument would be that children who have spent the day struggling to keep up with academic subjects probably prefer not to spent another hour being faced with lessons that they find hard, and would be better off doing activities which boost their self esteem and confidence and don’t just confirm to them that they find learning hard.

@Beepboobeep let me be sure I've understood, you are about to move your DC to a private school but you are complaining that the state primary your DC is currently at offers high achievers some extra teaching at no extra cost to the parents? You think it isn't fair that they offer bonus freebies for some DC but not all DC and particularly not your DC? But you are moving to private school anyway - so why do you care?!

All children should be able to access the curriculum and get the support they need but we all know that doesn't happen fairly across the 4 countries, each county and each local authority and even within different classes within individual schools!

If you do decide to stay at your local state primary, why don't you volunteer to help run an afterschool club for those with dyslexia? You might not be able to teach, but you could offer to be another adult in the room and clear up afterwards. I'm guessing that either teachers or parents must be volunteering to do the extra classes for the high achievers - if it is free at the point of delivery.

I don't think it needs a label as such but I was pleased that one of my daughters took part in the gifted and talented programme at primary school which recognised her high academic abilities and interest. She was able to visit the local university for science days and other input. These early interventions kept her interest up all the way through to PhD and a career in a scientific field. As she came from a single parent family at a low achieving comprehensive school I consider this a successful programme. I did have to intervene a secondary school as she was losing interest in Maths as the class was only focussed on getting the Ds to CS when she was capable of far more. As a country we must nurture our talented students.

As a country we must surely "nurture" 'all' children in state education. All children are entitled to a good education and I personally think, that provision should not only be based upon your test results as delivering a successful education requires a holistic approach.

Will the children struggling with reading and writing want to /be able to cope with staying longer at school to do even more of what they find so hard? Woudknt it be better for them to do a hobby like sports or art where they can feel confident and achieve? I think this club is for those who genuinely love writing.

To me this kind of thing is a bit different.

I am a STEM academic and I remember well the dearth of female role models when I was growing up. Exposing your DD to the world beyond her low achieving school was important and good and I would want that opportunity for all of her peers, but perhaps especially girls: sexism sets in early. I am so glad DD had this chance and that it may have had a big impact on her life.

Obviously programmes like the one you describe can’t stretch far enough, so they need some kind of filter, and that is a real shame. I am with you in wishing to downplay the G&T label and focus more on the individual.

My sense is that a good part of what’s being discussed on this thread is de facto tutoring for the 11+ and the slog to an Oxbridge attempt under the guise of enrichment, a far cry from thinking about every child holistically. To be clear, I have said several times above that I feel equally badly for all children not getting their needs met at school.

I am always reminded of the physicist Richard Feynman, not merely a Nobel laureate but one of the dozen or so most notable physicists of the 20th c and perhaps the best scientific communicator of the second half of that century. He was rather perversely proud of having a fairly average IQ. Food for thought for some.