The glass ceiling for very able children

[var123]

Has anyone else encountered the sense that the school is merely paying lip service to the ideals that they will challenge all children and work to bring all the children in the class to their potential?

I bumped along it a couple of days ago in a face to face conversation with one of the teacher's at my children's secondary.

He was full of buzzwords (like resilience and challenge) but there was a complete vacuum when it came to detail about how he planned to achieve that wrt to my children. In fact, he kept lapsing into telling me how my DC might help the others "by inspiring the less able".

Honestly, has there ever been a human being born into this world, who feels inspired to keep ploughing away at something due to being in the presence of someone who learned to do it without breaking stride?? People who struggle and then succeed are the inspiring ones because they make you feel like if you can do it, then maybe you can too. The ones who always find it easy and are just waiting for you to catch up so they can move on are just disheartening to contemplate.

The problem with leaving families to individually choose to top up, is that some parents would choose not to top up and to hell with what happens to the child - the well I didn't get any special help and look how well I turned out type

Some will mean to top up, but then they start weighing up how much they already pay in taxes and what the implications will be for the basement extension or the new kitchen, and then scale back.

Then others will kill themselves trying to contribute more than they can afford.

Newlife - how exactly does it work at your school? Do the parents get a means tested bill or do they just chip in what they want?

Teacher, yes I understand what you are saying about us being a self-selecting group. You are right, i don't know what its like at the coal face for parents of children who aren't at the top of the class.

I guess where I am coming from is that both my children have been set targets for this year that are identical to what the school already knows they can do. Not just for a minute but the school has evidence that they have attained these levels several times, and never slipped back. So, you have to ask who it helps asking them to accept no progression for a whole year (not even broadening or deepening- just more of what they already mastered)? The answer has to be the teacher because it makes her job easier to keep the class together and the students who haven't mastered that material yet.

The relatively less able students are now defining how long my Dc will have to wait, and I read that as their needs are being prioritised. If you can tell me that they are all being treated equally (equal opportunity not equal outcomes), or that it shows that the more able kids needs matter, then I'd be interested to hear what makes you say that?

var I don't really think topping up is a solution either. Just countering berts usual logic that ignoring the needs of the top end is the only practical way to help the least able.

And to add to what you said about your ds waiting for the rest, if able children aren't ignored, why do ks2 sats only go to l6? Why not level 8? And why is there absolutely no guidelines or policy to object to your child being prevented from progressing at their rate?

TheFallenMadonna "My school's More Able provision was written with them in mind."

I think you'd struggle to find one that isn't, but apart from the bits about identification [box-ticked] I reckon a lot will be as cunningly non-commital as the one on Y8 DD's school web-site [box-ticked] and quite a few will result in nothing of value or in DD's case nothing [resources saved]. They dutifully grepped 'G&T' to "Most Able" [box-ticked], but that nothing applies to both the 'gifted' and 'talented' sides discussed within the doc. Well unless it's a sport and you're non-academic, but I'd better not start on that story.

Meanwhile three years after pimping their "landmark" report, Wilshaw just said "The most able are not being stretched." No caveats. They and the most-most subset clearly are to some extent in some schools, but Wilshaw can't afford to be to be too free and easy with truth these days so I'm taking that as an indictment of the majority.

Lurkedforever1, "I'm not convinced there should be a burden of proof to demonstrate a net profit to society in educating the most able."

FWIW it has already been done. Several times. The relationship between an educated "smart fraction" and GDP (adjusted for luck of oil, mineral wealth etc. in some countries).

teacherwith2kids, "the other is a 'comparison with all other groups'"

Call me selfish, but living on the wrong side of the tracks, the comparison I care about is with children like DD in a selective (private, grammar, religion, huge mortgage).

noblegiraffe, "When people moan about clever kids never getting extra funding, are they ignoring stuff like extra qualifications?"

Well that's not what I'm moaning about and they all get the same time in school in classes with teachers, surely? If it's exam costs then perhaps I should have moaned a lot more about those very many GCSE retakes and multiple entries that were apparently fine and dandy a few years ago. Especially given that interesting ST (discussed on LSN) article on how few grades improved, almost as if some kind of limit had been hit.

My DD turns up to lessons on time with everything, learns the class lesson very quickly, typically does associated work very well and very quickly, twiddles her thumbs, behaves like a bloody saint (not so much at home), gets nothing much (also fewer of those bribes pesky school rewards). She's one of the very cheapest in terms of attention and resources.

lurked I can't speak for other subjects but the evidenced-based recommendation of ACME is that children should not be accelerated in maths as a rule as this can be counter-productive. Enrichment is the official recommendation. See Principle 1 in www.acme-uk.org/media/10498/raisingthebar.pdf

Pique same time in class with teachers isn't the only cost in terms of funding and effort. As well a extra exam entry costs there's extra mock printing and resourcing and extra textbooks. And speaking as a teacher, it cost me a considerable amount of extra time and effort in planning and marking.

noble tell me how that works in practice for the most able. In terms of the actual work they do in a lesson on a particular topic, without going ahead. And how do you cope with the fact the most able can indepently leap ahead in the nc simply by grasping more complex applications of basic concepts?

Because, lurked there are many, many sideways applications of maths without having to trudge on through the next curriculum level.

That link is pretty scary noble, and sums up exactly why I hate all the so called enrichment crap. L6 isn't exactly stretching at primary, but better than nothing, but the article thinks the time would be better spent on just the ks2 stuff. However the article defines able as those capable of doing a-level, which is a very broad group. And how this approach benefits everyone. I'd love to know how they researched the benefits to the most able.

On a selfish level I'm massively relieved Dds primary didn't buy into this shit, or go in for ofsted approval, and she's not at the mercy of the state system and whatever silly theory someone may have on the benefits of rehashing the same thing she knew years ago.

And it is unacceptable many people have no choice but to do it.

Give me an actual example noble. If a ks1 class are doing number bonds, how do you enrich that for a child manipulating multiple 3 digit numbers in their head?
How in a ks3 lesson on basic/ intro algebra concepts do you take it sideways for a child who was confident with it before starting reception?
And so on. Tell me how it actually works for the child sat in the classroom with actual examples, not just theories

why I hate all the so called enrichment crap.

I suspect you are not a mathematician! The 'enrichment crap' can be when you get away from a fairly boring curriculum and into the good stuff.

Aside from enrichment, when you see what certain other countries do to push the most basic topics to their limits, you'd understand why they tend to produce better mathematicians than us.

take it sideways for a child who was confident with it before starting reception?

I've never met a child who was confident with algebra before starting reception so I can't say from experience. There are clearly some extreme outliers for whom a normal school curriculum will never suffice as they outstrip their teachers but there is no point in saying that KS2 should test beyond level 6 because little Johnny was the next Euler when for the vast majority the evidence shows rushing through the curriculum is a bad idea.

As for pushing sideways, say a basic topic like fractions of amounts there's stuff like nrich.maths.org/2312 starts easy but ends with an open-ended task that challenges thinking about number.

I would say that in relevant circles; academics teaching on the most selective courses, those involved in the widening participation schemes it is accepted that too many highly able children are being failed by the state education system.

It's why we have endless think tanks and conferences on it. It's why we spend so much of our previous time working on the issue. It's why we have to make contextual offers.

Successive governments have accepted the issue exists and have introduced a variety of schemes ( the identification of G&T being a historical one, the introduction of the 'new' year 11 public exam is the latest).

There are so many things we could do. But they take time, energy and resources from an already over stretched teaching profession and perhaps more importantly they require a change of mindset by many school SLTs.

"There are so many things we could do. But they take time, energy and resources from an already over stretched teaching profession and perhaps more importantly they require a change of mindset by many school SLTs."

And we come full circle. Of course there are so many things we could do- for all kids in school. But the time, energy and resources just aren't the there. So we come back to making a case for whether most able are a group more deserving of a bigger slice of the pie than any other group. And nobody seems prepared to try and make that case.

noble suspect what you like. If you are gifted/ able in maths the fact remains you can't make it challenging without including more complex aspects. Because able children just don't need to do lots of practice to master something, and take it to a higher level.

I also don't think grasping the idea of basic algebra before starting school is the sign of a super rare genius. If your mind works that way it's not difficult. If you understand how to balance an equation, you understand it. You can't make it challenging by making it a word problem, or mixing it up with other age related concepts. Nor can you prevent able children making the leap themselves.

Again, give me specific examples of the actual work the class would be doing in a lesson, and how you'd enrich that for the most able without going ahead.

I did, lurked, I posted a link to an example activity.

I would say that in relevant circles; academics teaching on the most selective courses, those involved in the widening participation schemes it is accepted that too many highly able children are being failed by the state education system.

Yes, I agree, but I think it is worth pointing out that many academics do not agree with the "solutions" proposed continually on this board.

Most of my students have straight A stars at GCSE and A level, so people on this board would argue that they needed to be taught beyond GCSE/A level. However, they all lack basic skills(*) which are meant to be taught at GCSE and A level: I think the primary issue is that assessments have not been sufficiently challenging, not that more material needed to be taught. Many top universities have used the same incoming tests for mathematicians for years and have seen gradual declines in scores for years, even though the cohorts should be approximately comparable (and incoming grades have gone up a lot).

(*) Although those coming in from top private schools are qualitatively different.

Superselectives are always going to be controversial, for reasons which have already been discussed on this thread. Identification of students is difficult and subject to distortion by background, many people are late developers, how do you deal with twice exceptional children, how do you deal with children who are very strong in some areas not others, how do you deal with children with anxiety/mental health issues.

More generally, anxiety and mental health is an enormous issue amongst high achievers and one which has massively escalated in the undergraduate population over the last 20 years. A highly competitive environment of high achievers is not a good environment for the mental health of many "gifted" children, many of whom are perfectionist and particularly prone to anxiety.

Superselectives and gifted programmes also ignore the fact that "high achievers" are around 30% of the school population. Catering for the needs of the top 1% on the grounds that the other 29% are OK ignores the fact that currently all high achievers are relatively neglected. (Getting a C rather than a D is far more important for schools than getting an A instead of a B or A star instead of A.) Many of the top 10% end up making very poor subject choices and restricting their options accordingly, but schools are forced by the league table system to go along with poor choices (e.g. non-facilitating subjects which get higher grades look better in tables).

bert if a child is not getting an education appropriate to their needs then they should receive resources to ensure they are.

No one would argue that DC with SEN shouldn't receive more of 'the pie' to help them obtain an appropriate education ( whether this happens in practice is a whole other thread if course).

Of course the most cost/time/ energy effective way is to group them together. Super selective schools actually receive less cash generally- economy of scale.
But you are adamantly against that.

So if you refuse to apply economics of scale, surely you have to accept more resources are necessary for this group?

Because your stance is beginning to sound like the I'm-alright-Jackery that you are always so very keen to level at other posters.

Sorry noble I thought you were just linking the site, I'll look now. While I am, what age are we talking, and what is the rest of the class doing for comparison?

Talking about acceleration and the most able leading to shallow understanding of the basics, I was teaching a very bright Y9 class the other day equations of perpendicular lines. We came up against issues not because they couldn't do the algebra or understand the concept, but because they struggled with calculations with fractions, e.g. -4+7/3. That's where rushing through fractions and ticking it as done when they could 'do' straightforward adding and subtracting hasn't set them up with a thorough understanding.

disquit I find myself agreeing with you for the third time in as many days ( different threads).

And I think I've listed various solutions that schools could implement many many times on MN. Actually 'solutions' is too grand a description; they won't solve the problem. But they could alleviate matters.

But I have persistently said that I am not all right Jack- I am making the best of it and it turning out surprisingly well Jack!

I am not adamantly opposed to super selectives. I was, but some arguments on here have caused me to reconsider. However, I am not convinced they are the right way forward for the many reasons already outlined on this thread. But chiefly because I don't think they would be good for the children at them. And because I don't see how they would work practically.

Well maybe your DS is fine bert because you have ensured he is!

You have one child at home, you don't work, are well off and well educated. You devote yourself to bridging the gap.

You most certainly are not relying on the school for him to fullfill his potential.

I do generally like Khan, but won't make a judgement till I know how it's implemented in a nc stage rigid setting. But I'd like to know the age group/ school year, and for how long a child would be doing problems such as the last one, while the rest of the class were getting to grips with the first. And in what manner it's offered in a lesson. Also what happens if the rest of the year group are at the curriculum stage of an introduction to the idea of fractions? Does the able child still get just left to tackle the last? Or do they have to wait for everyone to be at the stage they understand the first?

noble btw I'm not denying what you say about some more able children not mastering basics. I just don't think it's applicable for the top most able. Ime they think differently.