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.

Does anyone really think that though? I know that my other son who is middle of the set for everything would clearly benefit from any additional work of whatever nature. Surely that is the same for any child, the more help and assistance and practice they get the more this will help them? But at the same time, if those children are struggling with the core maths they need to know, then the additional time is better spent focussing on that and getting it right.

I have one DS who is at the top of the class in everything and one DS who is middle is everything and so I'm certainly not just blinkered and focused on "gifted" children. In fact DS2 gets far more of my time and attention. I don't even think DS1 is "gifted" I think he's just a very bright and able child who applies himself to everything he does and has a desperate desire to do well.

At our sons' school, for maths, everyone is now taught in year groups for four out of five days (with fully differentiated work within that year band's content). On Mondays, they are taught in their classes (mixed year groups, 1/2, 3/4 and 4/5), and work in small groups on open-ended maths 'challenges'. Interventions are in place for kids with SEN, or who are perceived to be struggling for other reasons.

Because they've spent most of their school life in the system that raced them through levels, our sons (currently Y6) were happily completing L6 SATs papers last year - so 'enrichment' is being provided for them through plenty of autonomous learning. They self-audit, then follow online tutorials that take them through areas they've identified as a weakness and/or topics they are interested in exploring. Home learning tends to be maths adventures from nrich, as well as some practice of the core Y6 content as required.

They are really enjoying it - and, I think, becoming much more confident and mature mathematicians the more they use their skills to spot patterns and solve problems. The school hasn't got it entirely right yet, by any means - but it's moving in the right direction (and for once, it's coalition/Tory reform that has prompted that change!)

"Does anyone really think that though?"

Yes. Research scientists. That's about it for now, but, y'know, everything starts with research...

Also, the point is that it is through problem solving and opportunities for creative thinking that kids who are struggling with 'core maths' are most likely to improve at 'core maths'. Not through repetitive teaching, worksheets, or endless applications of basic algorithms. And certainly not from an awareness of what 'ability group' they are in.

I don't think that we can expect schools to cater for the very able students tbh.
In an ideal world, yes they would. However, with the way that gov dictate how schools are managed and the funding they are prepared to provide for schools, it isn't possible.
Parents are expected to make up the shortfall in education provision whether a child is struggling or G&T, that's the way it's always been.
State schools are there to provide a very basic service and to enable every child to receive a basic education.
Many aren't able to ensure all children meet their potential.

we have been extremely fortunate and I feel sad that the opportunities aren't there for all children.

"I don't think that we can expect schools to cater for the very able students tbh"

I disagree. And happily, so do both the primary school my sons now attend, and the secondary they will attend from September .

multivac, problem is, if your dc is in school which doesn't differentiate children properly, it's not going anywhere. If my ds was given open ended problem solving at school, I would be very happy. I asked him recently what they do with him, he said they gives him work with few more digits than other children. when other children are doing 7 x 8, he may be given 78 x 86 or 456 x 567, but it doesn't make his understanding of maths any deeper. That's why I am concerned. Other subjects, like English, I trust school because I think it's easier to differentiate.

No I meant does anyone really think that those who don't score well in tests wouldn't benefit from support?

Surely it doesn't take a research scientist to know that unless a problem solving lesson is building on concepts that a child hasn't yet been taught, all children have the ability to benefit. Nobody is advocating repetitive teaching and endless algorithms but if a child doesn't know their times tables for example, there will come a point at which they're limited in their ability to participate in other (potentially far more stimulating) maths based activities.

On the awareness of what ability group they're in point you make multivac there is no way that a child with any awareness of the world around them wouldn't know. Call the groups red yellow and blue, call them top when you mean bottom and bottom when you mean top, it makes no difference. They will still know. This year at DSs school they have three groups. Two "top" which are completely mixed up and one "bottom" They have been given random letters from the alphabet. The children knew immediately which group they were in and worked out the fact that there were clearly two "top" groups rather than a top middle and bottom group.

And we already use wildmath. It's great.

95% is typical progressive Boaler-bollox to be filed in the same bin as her 'anyone can be a brain surgeon'. The premise that she andher ilk have tripped over some educational magic that has eluded humanity for 100+ years is nonsense.

I sometime think the prevalence of divorced-from-reality progressive ideology is a kind of mass 'in denial' reaction to a reality where we're looking at a future with humans genetically engineered for intelligence and $deity-knows what else (all human characteristics are heritable to some degree). Ideologies rooted in blank-slatism are walking-dead stuff and have been for quite a while now. The clock is ticking down. It will begin with tweaking away serious single gene defects, possibly within a single figure number of years, but whatever international moratoriums are thrown up we're likely to see some very interesting things starting to happen in the next decade or two. It's no coincidence that DD, like many children now, spends half her time reading dystopian fiction.

Meanwhile back at the anecdotes, DD was called a 'natural mathematician' in her final primary Y6 report which was quite endearing given that it's so terribly incorrect to say anything like that. We had never taught her any maths at home and as the stoic high-achieving good-girl she typically had the joy of sitting next to the very disruptive and violent, excluded from elsewhere, boy in class (she collected lots of bruises). So how did she get to be so good at maths?

"On the awareness of what ability group they're in point you make multivac there is no way that a child with any awareness of the world around them wouldn't know"

Exactly. Which is why the secondary school my sons will attend in September haven't had ability groups for about five years; and their primary school no longer has them, either.

"The premise that she andher ilk have tripped over some educational magic that has eluded humanity for 100+ years is nonsense"

Why? I mean, an understanding of gravity eluded humanity for a few thousand of 'em. What is so daft about the notion that being able to view the brain in ways we couldn't previously, might influence our thinking about how it develops - and how we can help it develop?

And your 'natural mathematician' argument is circular. Does being told she is a natural mathematician make her one?

I like "Boaler-bollox". She should trademark that.

Oh, and redhat, I am hugely in favour of children rote learning their times tables from as early an age as possible, if that helps.

Linking that essential work to yet another externally moderated test at KS2, the results of which could impact a school's future... not so much.

I would be surprised if the lack of ability groups in a subject such as maths doesn't start to create some issues at secondary level. The gap between those who work hard and apply themselves and those who come to school to see their mates and think it's fun to be disruptive will simply be too great and the teacher's ability to effectively teach either group to the best of their ability will be affected.

redhat

It's all about context, though; the school hasn't just ditched ability groups and done nothing else. FWIW, the number of students making 'expected or better progress' (which interests me more than final results) in maths at the moment is higher than the national average.

multivac

I'm sorry but I don't believe you.
Yes, they can differentiate and maybe run a club for more able children etc etc etc.
I doubt very much they'll be able to work at college level when still in primary, which let's face it that's the level the truly gifted will be working at.

As for knowing about ability tables my dd had is sussed in y1 when they sat children on tables of ability. She knew she was near the top of the second table, with the G&T on top table.
I'm not saying I agree with this btw, just that she noticed it then.

I am not at all convinced that a state school or even most private schools can cater for the very able, enabling them to reach their potential at each step of the way through their education.
Only a specialist subject one to one tutor could achieve this.

It's fine, I don't need you to believe me.

Why? Because they're cherry-picking and hugely exagerrating what credible, replicated science says. See how many real scientists you can find who claim we can e.g. significantly shift cognitive ability from the left to the right side of the curve if only we supply the right kind of nurture. There is definitely a case against the teach-to-test behaviouralism we have in schools right now, but the best solution to that are more genuine challenge which implies raising those ceilings, but that will of course increase 'gaps' and make it more difficult to achieve those ideological equality of outcome goals.

The argument is not circular because that label came after the fact at the end of Y6. Do you have any other thoughts on my 'how did she..' question?

Meanwhile I think every teacher should read Stuart Ritchie's recent and quite 'accessible' book on intelligence i.e. acquire some decent basic knowledge in the areas these educationistas[1] keep invoking..

Specifically on Hannah's Sweets people could do a lot worse than read this take on it (and perhaps look at some of their other posts there): drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/a-difficult-question-about-sweets.html

[1] I understand it's a 'revolution'...

You want to know why I think your daughters' teachers thought she was a 'natural mathematician'? I have no idea, I'm afraid. Did they never teach her anything? Were they dumbfounded by her SATs results?

And FWIW, I think Sugata Mitra is as deluded as Toby Young. I don't bunch thinkers together and label them 'progressive', or 'traditional' - nor do I have any issue with an education system that results in a wide range of outcomes for students.

My DSs school is an academically selective school with subject teachers from year 2 and streamed classes for maths english and science. This enables the children to work at the level which is best for them. All of the children at the school are bright since they passed the entrance assessments.

DS1 is in top sets for everything. DS2 has been moved down from the top set in maths and is actually benefitting from that. He is working at a better pace and level for him with additional time to make sure the concepts are sticking. He is still working at a level above "expectations". I don't believe mixed ability groups are beneficial for either those who are ahead or those who are performing at a different level. At primary level the difference might not be significant. By secondary stage there will be some children who try as they might simply struggle with certain parts of the curriculum and would benefit from being taught at a different pace to the brightest in the year.

I also don't believe that in completely randomly mixed year groups performing maths in small teams there are not dominant children in those groups taking over. Sorry but that just isn't the way these things work. There may well be some general positive impact from the group working but a child at the top for maths in year 6 working with a child at the bottom of their year from year 5 is bound to come up wth the answers first and therefore "take over" the group even if that is not intentional.

Perhaps if the groups are actually structured in terms of ability i.e. top of year 5 working with bottom of year 6 then that might work a bit better but then that is actually streaming under a different guise.

Interesting about equality: does equality mean that every single child must receive the same level of support? At the moment it doesnt, it looks like the less able receive all supports they need while other might have NONE, absolutely ZERO, especially for maths in primary.

If it was the government saying: hey, we only have budget foroverall all children in the school reach to abcd level in abcd subject. Nothing for any higher achiever, pay more tax then we will. However this isnt true. Some of you already mentioned here, some schools have that support for more able(at least there was g and t registered, we dont have that at our school).

To be honest, I am only saying here for the sake of the argument we are having but I know the answer now for my circumstances. Sometimes, life needs a little tweak here and then and as a parent who loves and hope our child to have anything better than our life then the effort I am putting on my daughter now is still Zero, there are so much more I could do for her and for not stop moaning about her maths at her school and focus on other things instead. I have no interest in changing the school rule nor govenment priority bullshit whatsoever.

"I also don't believe that in completely randomly mixed year groups performing maths in small teams there are not dominant children in those groups taking over"

They don't always work in groups - sorry, I explained that badly. Sometimes they are working individually. Other times as a whole class.

And I think if you've bought into the benefit of 'streaming' right from the point of school entry, I'm highly unlikely to convince you that a particular classroom can work without it at all; again, that's fine. I don't need or want to convince anyone. We all make choices on behalf of our children when it comes to education, and all in good faith. I just felt compelled to add an alternative viewpoint to this thread, that's all.

@multivac, No, just the answer to this question given the context that preceded it in my earlier post: "So how did she get to be so good at maths?"