Schools

[Judy1234]

The telegraph has some interesting articles on schools today - one about the BFS schools scheme - to rebuild every school in the UK although that seems to be giving some local councils an excuse to close successful schools.

And another below about clever children in state schools not being stretched because they are in mixed ability primary school groups.

Schools failing to nurture gifted children

By Julie Henry, Education Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:25am GMT 06/01/2008

Bright children are being failed by teachers who do not stretch them enough or give them the individual attention they need, Government research has found.

Your View: Should parents have more choice over their children's schools?

The battle of the badge

Popular schools face closure in £45bn scheme

Gifted pupils are routinely put in the wrong ability groups and are set targets that are too low, a study by the Department for Children, Schools and Families discovered. In many schools, young people who show early promise are left to fall behind.

Schools failing to nurture gifted children
Government has spent almost £400 million in the past decade on gifted and talented programmes

Almost a quarter of the 140,000 children who achieve an above-average level 3 in assessments at the age of seven do not go on to score high marks in tests at 11.

The results are a significant blow to the Government, which has spent almost £400 million in the past decade on gifted and talented programmes in an attempt to convince many middle-class parents that bright children will be nurtured in the state sector.

The report, Able Pupils Who Lose Momentum, found shortcomings in the 37 primaries across England visited by Government advisers.

One of the key problems uncovered by researchers was the failure to put children into ability sets or groups. Even when children were put in classes with children of similar abilities, clever children were still grouped with other "lower ability" pupils when carrying out work.

"Children often worked exclusively in mixed-ability groups and rarely worked with children who were making similar rates of progress," the report said.
advertisement
Click to learn more...

Six talents of gifted children

Case study: Kate Distin

Most boys missing GCSE targets

"They often perceived themselves as additional support to less able pupils. But the majority of children said they would have liked more opportunities to work in ability groups or independently."

Less than half of the schools had good systems to track and monitor children's progress.

Reviews of how children were doing were infrequent and it was not uncommon for targets to remain unchanged for more than a term.

In about one in four primaries that were visited, the targets set for bright children were often pitched at a low or rudimentary level.

Teachers over-emphasised simple functional skills, such as "join up your handwriting", "finish more worksheets" and "be neater".

'Journey to class is harmful'

'Panic' over languages teaching

School advisers also found that some of the pupils, particularly girls, were "invisible children" because they were quiet and undemanding. As a result they received less of the teachers' time.

"Many children said they rarely received help from the teacher when working on their maths," the report said.

"Some expressed the view that their teachers always work with the pupils in the 'lower groups', while others said a few able children monopolised the teacher's time. Some children talked about wanting to do the more challenging work that these pupils were given."

The findings come as ministers announced a new measure in school league tables to show how bright children progress, in yet another attempt to force schools to focus on talented pupils.

Under guidelines, schools are expected to provide extra help to bright pupils, giving them more challenging work, after-hours classes and registering the most able with the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, established by the Government in 2002.

In reality, 35 per cent of primaries still do not identify their brightest pupils and one in 10 secondaries do not give them extra support.

Stephen Tommis, the director of the National Association for Gifted Children charity, said many pupils were still being failed by schools. "There is greater awareness than there has ever been, and gifted and talented children are on the political agenda," he said. "But it seems to be taking an awful long time for the idea to permeate through to the schools.

"Too many schools give no extra support. In some of the others, it is a matter of ticking boxes rather than sustained provision. Teachers need to realise that it is not elitist and it is not going to go away.

"During a career, teachers will meet hundreds of gifted children. They can provide them with opportunities or they can deny them.""

The fact is Hurricane, that having spent a fortune on private schools, it is necessary to justify it by believing at all costs and in the face of every scrap of evidence to the contrary, that your children would have collected no more than an NVQ in Eastenders and a couple of ASBOs if you had sent them to a state school.

hurricane - I think the Sutton Trust research supports what Xenia says and sees it as a problem. As in something to be rectified. You pretending it isn't true is not going to change things. Is your school one of the state schools listed by the Sutton Trust as one of the few that do have some success at getting their pupils into Oxbridge?

Well done to you and your pupil btw, in gaining a place at Oxford.

You're missing my point Swedes. I totally understand and despise the fact that there is a problem with social mobility in this country (the worst in Europe and the US). I know and detest the fact that those students who emerge from private schools are more likely to get A grades and go to the top universities and go on to take up influential and high earning jobs (like becoming MPs as those stats prove). Where I differ from Xenia and the like is that I believe and research (including that from the Sutton trust) supports is that divisions in English education esp. private schools, grammar schools, faith schools and then league tables, online OFSTED reports etc are in large part the cause of this problem. In coutnries where private education, grammar schools and faith schools don't exist or are rare there is greater social mobility. What a surprise!!

Where I also differ in the reasons why kids from private school are more likely to be successful. Xenia and many others believe that the private schools themselves miraculously transform the children who enter their hallowed grounds and provide them with amazing opportunities. The point being missed is that those kids who get to private schools ALREADY have all the advantages that are denied to many/ most state schools kids in the first place. They are well supported and well funded.

Any able kid with supportive and well educated parents and quite a bit of money is highly likely to do well academically (and this is the ONLY kid accepted into private schools).

Private schools select children (on ability but also on paretns' ability to support and to pay) can then continue to push these already advantaged children in ways that the state sector can't what with having to deal with EVERY child and all. Added to that the snobbery, entrenched class system, historical links with Oxbridge, MPs etc which exist in this country and the real surprise is that every kid going to a private school doesn't end up with A*s and and Oxbridge education.

Hurricane - sorry my misunderstanding.

((((((Round of applause for Hurricane.))))))

Well said!

So the solution hurricane surely is to abolish all state schools give parents vouchers to any private school they choose and let the market decide. Free markets always work best.

I think it's dreadful that a system that educates 6% of children takes up about 50% of the places at the better universities. I don't believe all private school children are clever, many are as thick as a plank so it's not just that the schools are selective and the not so clever children end up in the state system at all. it's that the private schools are obviously getting some things right that the state schools perhaps should copy.

The universities want the brightest children regardless of income level or class, I'm sure of that but you cannot undo at 18 problems like inability to write essays or spell etc.

Thanks truly.

2 more points worth re-iterating:

1.) It's far too easy too underestimate the importance of parental support, awareness and education. I think that recent research (I'll try and find a link) which says a child from a deprived background with a higher IQ that a child from an affluent background is actually going to start falling behind the wealthier child in standardised tests by aged 5. The differences become more pronounced by aged 7 and so on. In other words regardless of how naturally intelligent a child may be he or she will be disadvantaged by not having educated/supportive etc parents BEFORE they start school. Once they start school their disadvantages will be compounded if they start to compare themsleves with peers who are from more academic backgrounds.)

As a mother of 2 young children and an English teacher I am very and increasingly aware of the advantages an eduatec and supportive family background make. For example, whereas at GCSE in English a bright student can get a C and even a B without having read very much or have a particularly wide vocabulary at A Level it's much much harder. In order to award a top A for English at A Level examiners are looking for originality, creativity, flair and style as well as analtyical skills and understanding. These are qualities which it is extremely difficult to teach and are largely dependent on wide reading and a good vocab.

One thing those researchers noticed when testing kids at aged 5 is the discrepancy between the vocabulary of the children from different backgrounds. And this is certainly something I notice in my teaching. A middle-class student who has been encouraged to read, discuss issues with parents, go to the theatre etc etc is often more likely to do better than the student who has had none of these advantages but may (in terms of IQ be brighter).

2.) Anyone who argues that getting more kids from deprived backgrounds into grammar schools/Oxbridge as a solution to the problem of lack of social mobility is very silly since grammar schools and Oxbridge are only ever going to educate a minority. They are intentionally elitist.

Any really effective attempt at improving opportunities for deprived children has to look at the WHOLE system and get rid of inequalities within it rather than getting a few more kids into institutions which are exclusive (meaning they exclude the majority) and only ever going to support the status quo anyway.

'I don't believe all private school children are clever, many are as thick as a plank'

Exactly. So it's mistaken to assume that the kids have got into private schools because of their natural braininess (rather than their pushy parents and their money and the advantages financial and otherwise which their parents have given them). And similarly it's mistaken to think that it's the schools that then lead to A grades and Oxbridge because of the inherent merits of the schools themselves (rahter than the continued advantages of pushy parents combined with how easy it is to teach and push kids in small classes who all have pushy parents and an advantageous start in life).

'so it's not just that the schools are selective and the not so clever children end up in the state system at all.'

See above

'it's that the private schools are obviously getting some things right that the state schools perhaps should copy.'

If state schools could select by ability and by ability to pay ensuring that they only took children from a certain class who are generally well-motivated and well-supported with generally well-educated parents and could chuck out any kids who didn't meet the grade (academically or behaviourally). If state schools could in small classes where every child in each class met a certain standard before entering the class then I think AMAZINGLY you would find that the results in state schools would rival or better those in private schools.

But they wouldn't be state schools any more would they?

And they'd only be educating a minority.

I would argue that the private sector has much to learn from the state sector and does. I know for a fact that many private schools use a text book that I have written after my experience teaching in the state sector for example.

I also know that many teachers and schools in the private sector know very little about teaching students with special educational needs or behavioural difficulties (largely because most don't accept them) or about really motivating students (because most of the studetns are already motivated) etc etc

As I'm sure I've said many times before, you can't both bemoan the fact that more working class kids aren't getting A grades and into Oxbridge and then support a system which by its nature excludes them and belittles their achievements.

Here's that research from education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2175931,00.html

'Compelling evidence demonstrates how early the problem begins. At 22 months, the link between socio-economic background and "educational" attainment is evident. By the age of six, "middle-class" children who had low scores in cognitive tests at 22 months have completely overtaken the few poorer children who had done well in those tests. The socio-economic gap actually widens as children progress through school. If a poor child manages to stay in the top attainment bracket at seven, they are 40% more likely to drop from it by age 11 than their more "advantaged" peers. By GCSE stage, the gap becomes a gulf. So when we reach university entrance, it is small wonder applications are dominated by the middle-classes.

Complex socio-economic factors drive this divergence in life chances. In the early years, middle-class children benefit from households with more resources, a nourishing linguistic and intellectually stimulating, stable environment. They much better equipped to flourish at school, and they tend to congregate in the same high-performing schools which, in turn, foster a high aspiration culture.

Independent school pupils are far more likely to apply to Russell group universities. And as John Denham puts it: "universities cannot offer places to talented students who do not apply".'

Which leads me to a couple more points, sorry:

1.) Parental expectations and individual aspiration and peer aspriation are hugely influential. In a private school those not applying to university (and to top universities) are likely to be the exceptions. What if you're in a state school where the majority of kids are hoping to work in ASDA or whatever and where your parents can't wait for you to leave school and get a job?

2.) I've genuinely taught kids who were advised about applying to Oxbridge and chose not too. Some because Ox and Camb didn't offer the right courses for them and some because they didn't want to leave their home town for cultural or financial reasons.

It's very patronising to think that there are 1000s of bright kids from deprived backgrounds out there who are sitting at home thinking their life is a failure because they didn't get in or even apply to Oxbridge.

You can say let state school children go to private schools however if you believe private schools are better.

The private sector has a lot of schools where hardly anyone gets to good universities because the children who get in there are not very bright. I think they do very well for those children too.

Also if something is good the answer is not to shut it down or criticise is and ram everyone into something that doesn't work so well, surely.

I certainly agree about vocabulary. I think they found that the lower your class the fewer words you hear each day said to you as a toddler which is perhaps why the very deprived do better in nurseries than at home.

I think some children are being denied the chance to move up and better themselves in a way children could if they passed the 11_ in the grammar school days or under the assisted places scheme before labour abolished it.

It was that salvation for the bright from the very poor areas where all the comps were full of pretty under achieving children (and there are still areas like that) to be able to dissassociate yourself from that environment that did help so many and that route has been cut off. One answer would be forcible bussing in the state sector or school places by lottery as in Brighton so that you're as likely to be in class with children from the council estate as those who can afford a £1m Brighton home if they go to state school.

I don't think referring to all parents of private school pupils as 'pushy' actually strengthens your case, hurricane.

Some of us are reluctantly in the private sector because, perhaps, we weren't pushy enough in the state sector. I should have insisted that my shy but bright son was pushed more and given more attention in his state primary. I should have insisted on the children who brought in knives and threw furniture were excluded.

I don't think referring to 'all' parents of private school pupils as 'pushy' actually strengthens your case, hurricane.
I am not pushy, I promise you.

Whoops--sorry! I'm not actually that angry that I meant to post two slightly different posts. Don't know what's wrong with my computer today: this keeps happening to me!

I think what private schools have is a critical mass of parents who are, for one reason or another, very keen on their child's education. Put an equivalent critical mass into a state school and you'll get a very dynamic, active PTA, fundraising, competition for governor places, etc etc. That makes a big difference.

Hurricane I think actually that everyone now realises the importance of parental expectations and influence. The problem from where I am sitting is that this government seems to think that somehow this is an unfair advantage. To me they seem to be doing everything in their power to dumb things down, fix results so it appears children are getting a better education than they actually are and cut off all options for children from a challenging background to move on. Presumably they think that getting these children in education from 3 will help the problem. It will not. We need more education for the parents of these children, we need people to believe that if they get a good education they will be able to get a reasonably paid job and a reasonable standard of living (ie better than that of living on benefits), we need people to respect the job that other people do regardless of what it is.

Believe me I am all for the state system - I already pay for it so want to use it. However I want it to be the best for my child, if it isn't I want to feel that I can somehow influence/help change it so it is. My experience to date is that I can do neither of those things.

I am not in any way anti-private ed, being a product of it, but I am truly shaking my head at Xenia describing me as "just a state school teacher" as if teaching is a default career and crudely connecting my brother's career success only with money. I am rightly proud of my brother's career success but, equally, he is of mine.

To answer Xenia's question as money is the language she understands, I do not know precisely how much my brother earns, it simply isn't the done thing to ask. However, since I work in the public sector and our wages are capped and my brother is in the corporate, he would be paid more. However, if it concerns you I have the bigger house but he the bigger car...

If I get off my facetious high horse, I think it is pertinent to say I CHOSE to teach in what Ofsted describe as an outstanding STATE school (top 4% in the country) & this year 2 students I teach won an AQA award for being amongst the top 5 students in the country. I CHOSE not to become a solicitor with a respected Covent Garden law firm because it did not inspire my passion or feed my soul; teaching English, and particularly literature, does.

Xenia's unflattering portrait of teaching colleagues just doesn't exist in my world.

What my post intended to indicate was that, having had experience of both private and state school environments, bright students can & do excel in state schools.

On a secondary & personal note, there are at least 2 teachers I know of (one recently qualified, one without final qualifications), who have gone into private education, not having passed the close scrutiny state ed gives to its staff, who I would not want anywhere near my children & I would be mortified to think that was the calibre of staff in front of them, let alone paying for the privilege.

Agree completely Heated.

Again, Xenia, when you talk about grammar schools being the 'salvation' for the poor you are very much mistaken.

It was a small minority of working class kids who got into grammar school which were themselves in a minority relative to other schools.

Did you not read this description of the 50s from earlier in the thread?

'Many young people left school with low levels of literacy and numeracy, which partly explains why so many adults are struggling with maths and English today even though they were educated in the "golden age". In 1959, around 9% of 16-year-olds got five or more O-levels, and more than a third of grammar-school pupils failed even to get three. All this in an age when society was arguably more stable and schools didn't have to take responsibility for coping with family breakdown, mental-health issues and the influx of non English-speaking pupils.'

And again, you appear to be deliberately missing my points. In what ways do you believe private schools are 'good' and better than state schools? And in what ways are state schools 'bad' or worse than private schools?

A school, however good its management, its ethos, its teachers can only really be as 'good' as its intake and all the things they bring into the school with them or don't bring in.

If I bused all the kids from my nearest state school into the nearest private school and vice versa and changed nothing else I would be very surprised if the exam results for each set of kids would be any different from what they would have been if they'd stayed in the same school.

This picture of really able kids languishing in state schools secretly doing quadratic equations and dying to get into Oxbridge but being suppressed by their inadequate, unqualified teachers is not one I recognize.

There are many, many bright kids in state schools and they DO go on to fulfil their potential frequently getting A grades and even going on to Oxbridge if they choose to and there are many bright kids in state schools who do not fulfil their potential because they are hampered by parents expectations, a poor vocabulary, drug abuse or whatever. These factors have taken their toll well before the kids even get to school and would still hinder the kids whatever school they went too.

Yes that was a good description of 1950s education which you don't often see. But if the result in 2007 is fewer poor children are at good university not more then something is surely going wrong.

It was bit personal a question of me to ask Heated but I do find people from state schools have lower expectations and end up in worse paid careers even those who flunk their private school at 15 but seem whether because of accent, class, assertiveness, family money or connections end up in better paid jobs anyway.

We obviously need good teachers in all sectors and if people put money and the financial interests of their own children before their career goals then we wouldn't have teachers except those who couldn't earn more doing something else so it's juts as well many are still prepared to teach.

I take your point Xenia.

The pupils I teach are mostly confident and articulate (or are dragged to an approximation of it!) but students at the nearby public school are exceptionally confident almost to a man (boys' school!). There is a culture of success in public and most private schools - it would be odd indeed if you had 700 bright students hot-housed together, who have confident and articulate parents, and they were not confident.

I know that certain employers such as the FO and govt depts trawl from Oxbridge, and might slum it a bit by taking a few Bristolians, but that is the culture & mindset of those employers (like calls to like), rather than a critique of state ed. Yes, private school gives a child an advantage but then I would imagine that your children would still be successful without being privately educated; parenting is the major influencing factor.

May be but you might as well pay if you can afford it, the parties are better and the other parents...... and it's a less selfish life choice than buying a big car or expensive shoes.

PMSL at Xenia's apparent assumption that state school are populated by a homogenous mass known as 'the poor'.
But if you are popping down my way Xenia old thing, a pot of calves foot jelly would go down very nicely.

The other parents are "better"?

Do they have better ethics as well?

OK--so the parents of the state school children are poor and dull. But the parents of the private school children are pushy.

I've got one child in each system--does that make me pushy AND dull? Dear me.

Why is it then that many children of immigrant parents who tend to liave in the more socio-deprived areas and attend the local comp end up with getting decent qualifications, a good trade or even go to university. That is my background.

Parents are from Jamaica and were not educated beyond 11yo due to poverty.

They sent me to the local primary and comp - neither high achieving and replete with working class kids with a smattering of middle class kids (1970s).

My comp streamed and I was in one of the two top sets. I passed all of my GCE despite teachers telling me and the other black girls that we wouldn't, let alone get into university. I also had no extra tutoring - just worked hard. I then did A'levels (Chemistry, Physics, Biology), went university and ended up doing a PhD (I was even offered a place at Oxford for my PhD but turned it down to continue my studies at my old university).

I know lots of children of immigrants like myself. We succeeded academically despite having uneducated parents but our parents aspired for us to do well, they pushed us and because of that, we believed in ourselves.

People always tell me how confident I am. That is because I don't believe anybody is better than me, especially those who have had a more privileged start in life. That is the ethos DH and I will instil in our DTS.