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?

I am asking you how well primary teachers can know when even as children mature, considerable effort is put into assessing their abilities, and the stakes are high, the statistics are so dismal?

If a child is not already 'Working at a Greater Depth' at age 9 and 10, then there is a bit of a question mark over the notion of being 'gifted'. I don't think there is anything wrong with that but it just proves it is completely arbitrary for the OP's 'high achievers' group and that exclusivity is even more damaging as it's based upon subjectivity, exposure to a subject, confidence of the child, advantage from family circumstances, biases held by the teacher etc. not on any solid, objective metrics.

Who is paying for those lessons? In our (also top 60) primary the maths club for high achievers was paid with PP/PPP funding. So funding intended for vulnerable - and often struggling - children was used to boost results for top achievers. Check your school's website...

INAL but disability is a protected characteristic and the school is failing to make reasonable adjustments (extra lessons that actually take place).

Maybe I haven't explained myself very well.

The OP has made points about high achieving students getting more input because they're being tutored and, as such, they are less deserving of extra input in school.

Simultaneously, the OP has said they spend £2k per month on extra curriculars for their DD, including tuition.

That seems hypocritical, by her own logic, to believe her daughter (who is tutored externally) is entitled to additional input, whilst high achievers are less deserving because they receive additional input via external tutoring.

I absolutely do not believe that what parents spend on their children outside of school should have any bearing whatsoever on what a school offers a child. Quite the opposite. Hence my take that high achieving students at OP's DD's school, who receive external tuition, are no less entitled to additional input in school.

I'm also in complete agreement on the benefits of exploring anything and everything beyond the curriculum (both in school, to the extent a school can offer such opportunities, and outside via private provision).

Some bright kids think it is cool to look stupid. Some are bored. Some have dyslexia or dyscalculia, though they are very intelligent.

Some are severely traumatised; in any primary classroom of yore, and possibly still, there will have been two or three children too paralysed by abuse to engage in learning. I could go on and on.

The other children have no idea about any of this.

Also, kudos on the PhD. I have enormous respect for anyone who studies to such a depth.

"Working at greater depth" doesnt mean they are done learning. They can still learn more. It is not arbitrary, it is meeting them where they're at and offering them opportunities. Something that all children deserve.

It's not being taught to work at greater depth though, it's being given the opportunity to work at a depth greater than what is available in the classroom or being introduced to topics and theories that are completely outside the curriculum.

It's not an innate 'gift', regardless of this meaningless definition within schools, some children can definitely work beyond what they have been taught, mine were both working at a Greater Depth in SATs but they didn't get taught how to do that as it wasn't that type of school. Some kids teach themselves, exposure to books helps, learning by osmosis in the family home etc.

Some funding will be allocated to due to postcodes, funds vary.
As far as teacher time and school resources SEN are allocated more per pupil. This club seems to an extra that the school or teacher has chosen to offer

See above.

Where did I imply that they are, 'done learning'? It 'is' arbitrary, I'm referring to how being 'gifted' is determined.

Yes, absolutely all of this!

I never mentioned anything about an innate "gift", I spoke only of high achievers i.e. those who are achieving at a high level based on what's been put before them.

By your logic (that high achievers do not need additional input) high achievers don't need to progress through education at all because they can just... Teach themselves everything?

I was at a point of achieving Level 5s on all SATs papers in Year 4. In Maths, I was obtaining 100%. There is no "greater depth" from there without moving to the Level 6 curriculum, which isn't generally taught in classes as standard. My school couldn't even offer Level 6 science because it didn't have the equipment so how the hell would I have been able to teach myself? They didn't have the time to give us lessons on Level 6 English. And we received about 3 Level 6 Maths lessons over the course of Year 6.

But that's not relevant to the other kids. We had our class positions published every term.

We didn't have kids with the dyslexia etc as they wouldn't have got in our school in the first place

What has actually changed that so many children are being diagnosed as SEN?

Did more children just fly under the radar and be ignored in school ?

Has it always been 20% SEN but only half of them actually recognised as such?

Thank you. I think OP is concerned about the invitation-only groups provided free tuition after school. I don’t think the provision some parents may make for paid tuition is part of her thinking.

OP describes the set up as extra teaching for the most able, by invitation only. I addressed this upthread. I would bet that it is really prep for the 11+, which is why group membership must be restricted. (Generally, true intellectual enrichment for primary pupils does not attract so many that numbers must be controlled.) I can see why a school failing to meet its promises to her DD in order to provide this would leave a very bad taste.

To be fair this is absolutely true. There were many girls at my secondary who fell into this category, they were coached into passing exams rather than being naturally bright. Many of them went on to struggle at university and in life generally.

You can't teach someone to be naturally bright or gifted.

But to the OP's original post, naturally bright kids should not miss out on stimulating extra curriculars because other kids struggle. Some of the kids attending may just be hard workers, sure, but that isnt really a reason to shut the whole thing down.

So how did they determine what children "got in"? Was this a long time ago and was it a private school? It seems very harsh to rank young children in order of ability for the whole class to see- what age did this start- 4, 5?

I so agree with you about university placement.

We don’t know what this EC activity is. We do know it is by invitation only. My bet is that it is coaching for the 11+, which is why numbers must be controlled. And that coaching carries exactly the same risks as what you’ve said about the girls who were tutored into university and couldn’t cope.

I believe in the judicious use of tutoring and don’t hesitate to recommend it on the HE Board where it can help. But I never think it’s a good idea to use it to get in over your head, and I do not understand why so many British parents seem to feel differently.

Why do companies send their high performers on extra courses and talent development programmes?

Why do football academies focus on the strong players not just the weak ones?

Supporting struggling children is a very important function of schools, but it’s not the only important one.

Yeah private selective prep. I had a scholarship as being the daughter of a postman and shop worker my parents couldn't afford the fees

Did entrance exam at age 6. Dont see what is harsh about ranking us by subject tbh

True. This coaching business seems to be far worse than when I took the 11 plus exam in the late 90s.

I was shocked to hear one of my colleagues had taken holiday to coach their child through the 11 plus. If said child isn't bright enough to pass without all that preparation then surely they will struggle for 7 years? Or just be miserable and stressed.

Personally I could not countenance doing that to my child.

If the after school club is for 11+ prep then I would not be supportive of that. I am however, generally in favour of stimulating extra curriculars for bright kids.

I've never known any state school do coaching for the 11plus.