AIBU to want more from the school system academically than getting children 'where they need to get to'?

[Cortina]

It seems to me that there is no concept in the state system that the child is the client with an entitlement to an education that will enable them to 'be the best that they can be'.

Rather the client is the state and this means that all curricula are geared towards a common set of standards too demanding for some and too easy for others.

I've been reading a lot recently that seems to chime with the above.

A good teacher can work within the system to ensure that children work at their own pace and make steady progress. It's got to be tough though with large class sizes and low level disruption (in our experience).

I keep hearing that I should be reassured my children will get to where 'they need to get to'. They will meet the average goal for the end of the key stages so not to worry and all is fine and dandy. Of course the teachers would like them to do better than this but are reluctant to take steps that would increase the likelihood of this happening IME (not through negligence but by their belief their way is the safest way.) We, the parents, try to do that at home ourselves it seems.

Thing is, I want them to do better than reach an expected target, I want them to absolutely fly, I want any latent talent to be discovered, I want them to be the absolute best that they can be. It is as if some teachers have forgotten the bigger picture? Or are too scared of negative consequences of stretching children? The danger is many children have a habit of delivering exactly what is expected of them, mine certainly seem to.

Is it too much to expect this to happen at a state school, should I be grateful with average academic results going forward? Do teachers ever under estimate children? In some cases they might not realise what they are capable of and perhaps under estimate their potential for fear of putting them off learning or lowering their self esteem if things go wrong? I believe children should be stretched, do I have this all wrong? (I read over in the primary section about this sort of thing with reading etc and children demonstrating they are capable of much more at home etc.)

I hate the thought that continuous assessment means that a child can be marked down if they do surprisingly well at Maths or English (KS1). I hate the thought a teacher has the power to 'decide' whether or not a child is below average, average, or above average and potentially the power to make an ability label stick. Of course this shouldn't happen because of continuous assessment etc, most teachers are good and dedicated I am sure, but this doesn't mean to say that there are not flaws in the system?

Do any teachers find the NC limiting? Is there a way to teach creatively around it in a state school without being reprimanded? I am beginning to wonder. I know that many here say they use it as a rough guide which is very encouraging. Is it wrong to want your child to be the best that they can be?

An eleven year old said to me the other day "When I go to school I should be allowed to learn what I want to learn". What a wonderful concept, and surely that is what drives home edders. In State schools you learn what the Government wants you to learn.
When I started teaching you could go with the class, take an interest where they wanted it to go. Now, with the straight jacket of the National Curriculum and the need to achieve that can only happen to a limited extent, within the parameters laid down for you.
I agree with the comments about state school pupils being trained to be compliant. Good Citizens of the State- and what a scary concept that is.

What do the teachers think about the idea of taking GCSE's early ?
My current train of thought was to get them out the way as early as possible so we have the pieces of paper then they can do the A'Level subjects which actually interest them and start specialising via home education, OU degrees, more A'Levels maybe.
I don't buy the whole everyone is ready for exams at the same time and therefore were sat around loosing motivation whilst the rest of the class/school/system catches up.

You are not being unreasonable, and we took our son our of the state primary for this very reason. We stretch ourselves in ways we weren't anticipating to afford a very good local independent school, where he is understood as an individual learner, and indeed flying.

That is what I have always wanted for him - that he remains passionate about learning - whatever that may be.

In contrast, the year and a half that he spent at our local state primary was a pure joke. He arrived there, already having achieved all the targets set for the reception year. In fairness, the school did recognise this, and he was put a year ahead to work with the year one group. In reality, he had already achieved the academic targets for this year group too - but he was never assessed properly, so they didn't realise this. Instead, at parents evenings I used to hear exactly what you talk about - "Please don't worry Mrs MellowDrummer, your son has achieved targets at an above average standard. We are very pleased with him".
The fact that he was bored rigid, and all that he was "learning" was that there was absolutely no expectation in school for him to actually use his brain, was neither here nor there. His social needs were pretty much ignored, and I still feel guilty about his level of unhappiness over those 18 months.

I do appreciate that not all state schools are like this. My faith in the system was severely shaken however, by the fact that even having gone to appeal, we were unable to access a state school able to cater for his particular needs. I think you hit the nail completely on the head when you talk about the average being the important result. With our son, it seemed that there was almost an expectation that for the odd child each year, the system would not meet their needs - but that the rest of the class were doing largely very well, so that was ok then. Also, his SATS results would not have raised any problems (indeed, they would have bumped up the schools results a bit!), so there was no great incentive to do much about his individual issues.

Behaviour in the classroom is a very big issue. Ds has been in both state schools and private schools so he's experienced both. I can honestly say that as a parent I found the behaviour of the children in the state school terrible (sorry if I've offended, I know not all schools are like this). shouting out, physical bullying etc. This isn't acceptable. When he told the teacher he was told to sort it out himself , I myself was told by a headteacher that the children in her school all came from "good families" so wouldn't have tried to pull my child's underpants down in the playground. During his first week here he cam home and told be that a group of children were playing a game where they were wrapping flowers up in leaves, pretending they were drugs and walking around 'selling them'. There was no punishment for the little sod who rammed my son's head into a filing cabinet, I was just told that my son acknowledged that he should have kept away from this boy

The schools appear to not care, they just want to move these children and their crap behaviour in and out of the schools without causing them extra work.

Again, this is just the experience that we have had, I accept that not all schools are like this.

All very well to want the level of personal attention to bring every child to his or her full potential.

But do you want to pay the 65-70% tax rate that would enable it?

Is that really the case ninedragons?

We currently pay £6000 per year for our son to have a fantastic eduction. No bells and whistles, but good teachers, small class size, a truly caring environment and a learning programme that meets his individual needs.

I believe (may be wrong, so please correct me if so), but I think the state budgets £4000 per child currently don't they? Surely with the economies of scale that should be achievable, we should be able to do better as a nation.

Economies of scale only apply to things that are mass-produced, which seems to me to be the exact opposite of what you are wishing for.

Cortina, it is not unreasonable to want to expect the state system to stretch each children. But it is unreasonable to expect it without having to pay much more in taxes.

You achieve customer status in the private sector, not state. Same with NHS.

This is compounded by the comprehensive system, which is essentially one size fits all. So teaches to a minimum standard, which is lowest common denominator, rather than highest common factor.

You will have to supplement the state sector with enrichment at home. It is the trade off.

each child

I'm a teacher - I get offended by the lumping all of my kind together to be honest, and I was in two minds about replying to this because it's very much smacking to me that you've decided we're all scummy failures out to inconvenience you and nothing we say will ever change that.

I push bright children - I push them for one real reason - the brutal truth that there are few potential forces for classroom mayhem than a bright bored child. I was one, and I acted up because of it - the the point where I managed to get a temporary exclusion and referral to an ed-psych while still in primary school.

I think you're being somewhat naive in your understanding of what goes on in schools to be honest - we often reply with the "they're where they're expected to be for their age group" answer - because generally the two questions we get asked on parents evenings are "is he/she where they should be" and "are they being a pain in the bum in class".

Yes, we get hammered by forces on high if we don't bring the levels in at the end of the day - but it's not all down to levels 4 and 5 (and in the KS2 test they CANNOT get higher than a level 5, it's not teachers not pushing for higher levels, it's how the tests are actually designed - English - which I'm marking national tests for at the moment - can only give a 3,4,5 or working below level 3 in terms of final levels... Maths is set up similarly). Throughout school (I'm primary, can't speak for secondary - they're scary and bigger than me) every year group is tracked and expected to make two sub-levels progress (so if they come in on a 2c, they're expected to get to 2a and so on) - it means issues get flagged up earlier than year 6, that those starting from a lower point or a higher point are still being expected to make the same kind of progress curve - just higher or lower down the axis. Obviously kids don't slot conveniently into these boxes, you have issues such as a dip in year 3 (nothing to be concerned about - it's much harder to get a level 2 using KS2 criteria rather than KS1 critera and the nature of the assessments changes as they move into KS2 which throws the results out there) and you've got kids who'll stall a little one year, then get a massive spurt on the following year - that's natural because kids refuse to slot into the boxes Govt advisors set out for them.

Personally I'd value teacher assessment much higher than Sats (although technically they're not called that) scores - a teacher knows how a child performs consistently throughout the year, rather than one week in May - and half the stuff the schools teach is how to artificially jump through hoops to inflate your test score (I can't blame them for doing it - so much rides on the wretched tests - but as a marker, it's blooming blatent to see schools that are trying to do this). I don't see why having two scores - one TA/one test is some kind of fundamental slight or wrong - some kids are fantastic at tests, some kids aren't (my husband's the best mathemetician I know - but he went to pieces in his maths exams at school) - both scores get considered and looked at, just consider one a longer-term video and one a short-term photograph so to speak.

As for "labelling" children - how else would you expect the very bright children to BE challenged if they weren't identified in some way? Whether they're the Red group, the Motorbikes or whatever - to target work at the level of a child, you have to identify in some way the level of that child - otherwise you're just stabbing around in the dark. Same with children who aren't as confident/able with a particular type of work - it's totally counter productive to give a bunch of struggling mathematicians something way way above their level - that just sets them up for a lifetime insecurity about maths. We group children, not to personally pee you off, not to scar children for life (that's why they're generally grouped according to various innocuous names that confound and confuddle supply teachers), but so we can set work within a class of 30 at a level appropriate for each group of children - it's pointless giving the children who are still working on number bonds to 10 the same work as children who can confidently add three digit numbers... so any good teacher will introduce a topic (say addition), differentiate questionning in the whole class part so that things get targetted across the whole ability range, and then set individual or group tasks at an appropriate level to each set of children (it might be different tasks, it might be allowing them to use apparatus like cubes or counters, it might be by a level of support or whatever). Then you get to split yourself into parts making sure you spend time pushing each group on - not just one.

I don't quite know what you expect - some kind of wonder world where we do all of this without grouping children at all? Some kind of world where we don't assess children at all all year but rely purely on end of year test levels? Or did you just fancy a grotesquely overgeneralised teacher-bash session? I'd love to see your answer to this - and I actually am deeply insulted by the way you've painted teachers as some kind of vindictive group who label children indelibly out of some kind of spite - and never reconsider those labels... we track, assess and tweak groupings all the time.

Like I say - I think you've very much made your mind up and won't be convinced about anything I say (much like any anti-teacher post that crops up on here). If the school's causing you so much resentment - then vote with your feet and move elsewhere - but unfortunately all the state schools are bound by the same skeleton framework (it's been scaled back a lot from what it was... I just about remember the full 10 ringbinder National Curriculum), so if you want something different to what's on offer - you have to pay out or start lobbying politicians.

As a teacher who is very influence by Ignatian philosophy I do see it as my role to help my students become the best they can be. I don't feel in any way limited by the national curriculum. I am not perfect so I am sure that I have underestimated the odd child.

I do agree though that this is where parents are vital.

DecorHate I just don't recognise your description of teaching, I am constantly stretching my students and often teach far and beyond what a curriculum or exam syllabus requires. My classrooms are full of free thinkers and I am just an average teacher in a good state school.

Sorry cat jumped on my laptop, there are schools that fail pupils but I would like to think this is not the norm.

Sadly my dd is at a quite awful primary which means as a parent I have a lot to do at home to make up for that.

Emptyshell - I so agree with your post.
My experience of 2 children having gone through primary, and one still at primary is exactly as you write it.
Yes some teachers are better or more experienced than others, but overall, my children have received, and are receiving a fantastic state education. The older 2 were both recognised as being bright and were pushed accordingly, the younger has needed more support to build her confidence, and again, she has received this.
The state is not perfect, but it's pretty damn good here.

It's interesting to read what you say emptyshell, and I have no doubt that you are a fantastic teacher. As are many many others in the profession of course.

It doesn't lessen the frustration that I feel around our own situation however. In fact if anything, it increases it. Yes there are many many great teachers who manage to stretch and inspire every child as they should be stretched and inspired. Just as there will be many many children who survive fairly duff teaching, and go on to meet their potential. This was not the case for my son however, and I'm sure many other children. It is not ok that large numbers of children are failed by the current education system. On average, there probably are a large number of excellent teachers out there. Going by the averages, it may not matter too much that a certain proportion of our children are failed each year. However it mattered a HUGE amount to me, and it mattered a HUGE amount to my son.

The opening poster was talking about the system of education wasn't she, not individual teachers. When things went wrong for our son, there really was very little we could do about it. That is a systems failure isn't it. He's lucky that we could afford (just about!) to opt out of that system. That's obviously, and sadly, not the case for everybody.

emptyshell - can't say I see where I've been terribly insulting towards all teachers and the profession? You sound committed and passionate and I'd don't actually think we're wildly different in where we're coming from and what we want to see happening. As to what's realistic I don't know but certainly I don't see why we can't hope for some of the good things the best of the private sector delivers to children. Why shouldn't that children are 'the best that they can be' why should we say oh it's ok we don't pay that much in tax so 'where they need to be' is fine. Never mind if the current school doesn't have too much of an idea if there's a passion or an undiscovered talent.

I am prepared to listen and to see another perspective.

I have thought about becoming a teacher in the past and might again in the future. If I did I would see it as my duty to enable every child in my class to smash every target and fly in any way and every way possible. To achieve more than 'where they need to be' and to help them unearth every passion and strength possible. I appreciate this is very idealistic.

You say As for "labelling" children - how else would you expect the very bright children to BE challenged if they weren't identified in some way? I would say it's dangerous to 'label' children in any way. What is a 'bright' child, what are the criteria to judge this? There's much more evidence out there now to suggest intelligence is learnable rather than fixed. Ability does not have a ceiling for the majority. 'Bright' students may struggle less often, but when they do they are even more prone to feeling stupid than their 'less able' peers. Students who have been told they are 'bright' often come to associate their brightness with easy success. if they find themselves unable to do something easily, and having to try harder, that feels to them like evidence they are not as bright as they are supposed to be. They are not living up to their billing. That is an uncomfortable thing to feel.

Our local non selective prep gets pretty much 100% level 3s at KS1 are all the children intellectual giants? I think not.

In an ideal world the solution is smaller class sizes and rolling out the curriculum individually, it's something the best in the private sector have being doing for years. I appreciate it would be difficult to do the same in the state sector but I simply don't accept that we should all sit back and say oh it's ok they're 'where they need to be'. To do so is to fail a child on many levels IMO.

I think this is not the fault of teachers, or even schools. Teachers are horribly frustrated by the strictures laid down to them. But those who said that schooling was all about the workplace were rigt unfortunately. I genuinely don't think all private schools are better, if anything they are more dependent on the pieces of paper than state because they are in a competitive market. (I was schooled privately and loved it so say that with no chip on my shoulder.)

Despite being a teacher I can see many benefits to home schooling for this reason. Character development is down to parents.

Oh, and schools aren't just judged on Cs, they are far better off getting percentages at A*s, As, Bs etc than all Cs.

I work within the system and don't feel constrained or frustrated, I acknowledge that I am lucky in my subject. Perhaps if I taught Maths or English I would feel differently.

I am not judged by the C grades I achieve but against each child's target and I have to explain to the head the failure of any child to get that target. I also teach in a school that sets aspirational targets, there is no dumbing down or allowing for medocrity.

What you're asking then is completely unattainable in a school system with classes containing more than one child. If you're wanting a world with no targets, no groupings of children to differentiate... you may as well take your child out and home school because there is NO WAY ON THIS EARTH that any teacher can provide what you're asking them to do.

It's unfair, it's offensive and you ARE being incredibly unreasonable for bashing teachers for not being able to individually educate your child within a class of 30 (20 if you're lucky and have a school with smaller classes) full-time between the hours of 9 and 3.30 each day. Bashing a human because they can't split themselves into 30 and have to group tasks, and because there ARE children who are above and below the mid-point in the group - that's unfair.

What you want isn't a school, it's a nanny, a private tutor, a slave - bash the system, not those doing their best by ALL the kids (and I bitterly resent any accusation that I either let the upper or lower end of the spectrum down).

Like I said to start with - you didn't want any answers you just wanted a teacher-bash thread. Trying to argue with someone on such a kick is about as effectual as trying to train my cat not to sleep exactly where my cat's decided it's going to sleep.

I still say I'm not teacher bashing. I haven't said you don't do a great job, you obviously feel very passionately and sound committed as I said.

So your view is that I am unreasonable in wanting the school system to offer a chance for my child to be the 'best that they can be'? Your view is that's impossible due to the constraints that teachers/schools are bound by? That's ok, it's your opinion. I don't want to 'teacher bash' I trying to explore things in a friendly, open way.

I do think a good teacher can give a child individual attention, not all the children all the time but it is possible. It does however take a lot of work.

Using after school, lunchtime, pre school tutorials, email, the VLE, lending books, recommending television or radio programmes and detailed feedback on work I feel I do this.

For example one of the girls in my GCSE class fell in love with Greek Philosophy because of something we did briefly in class. I put the exam to the side and we followed this interest as a class for one lesson. I then lent her books, invited her to an A Level after school session, set her a project to do which she emailed me. We chatted on a school forum about what she had been reading. She is even now saving to go to Greece! Over the summer she is looking at doing a local philosophy course.

I could give countless similar examples. It requires me to work often insane hours during term time ( but a holiday is always round the corner) and it requires parents who are involved.

I am just a very average teacher in a good state school. I am sure my colleagues do very similar things.

It's interesting that you think we need a 'nanny, a private tutor, a slave' if we really want our children to fly? I am not clear what you mean?

Maybe it is a completely unrealistic expectation if we state educate our children? Is that what you're saying? What do others think?

Katycarr that sounds brilliant and I'd be over the moon if I was the parent of the girl you mention.

I do not think it is an unrealistic expectation, it can't happen all the time for every child in either sector. But every child should end an academic year feeling like they have had the chance to "fly" as you put it.

It is not just down to teachers though. My dd has countless opportunities like this, they have all been created at home or through activities and classes we pay for.