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.

"What does concern me is the mental effect of years of boredom, which can put a child off learning, and leaves them with no experience of having to try academically"

That concerns me, too. It should concern everyone. I'm not sure why you think setting - especially given that most posters on this thread are discussing children with effectively no peers with whom they could be grouped anyway - might be so very helpful in avoiding that?

"communist type"

Setting is not the answer, it is a sub-optimal solution. However, mixed ability classes favour no one.

An optimal solution, if resources were infinite, would be to not try to group the children together at all. However, resources are limited and its about obtaining the best solution for the future of the country (because that's what the tax payer is investing in).

Not that anyone has mentioned this yet, but I sense it may be coming:
Lots of people cite the Finnish model with its well-educated, well-paid teachers and mixed ability classes as the ideal. Maybe they cite it because it suits their own prejudices.

However, the conclusions drawn from looking at the Finns do not stand up to scrutiny, even according to the Finns themselves who see significant flaws in their current set-up. The Finns came very high on the league tables but have been in decline for several years, although still ranked highly. The cohort of children who delivered the good results that are so often quoted, actually had the majority of their school years streamed by ability with the new mixed ability teaching only appearing in the last year or two. (or so some expert interviewees on Radio 4 say).

Why I loathe mixed ability classes:
The one time I was told off in school was for reading a book hidden behind the book we were supposed to be reading as a class because I already finished it. This week (a mere 35 years later) DS yr7 came home and said 'Friend & I were so bored doing fractions again we went on and started algebra. Miss B marked it though and we got them all right!' The boredom drives the child to 'technically misbehave'.
I'm looking forward to an interesting parents' evening in a couple of weeks.

I think of it like being a Porsche on a motorway. You could go extremely fast if permitted, but if the only choice is between doing 45-50mph behind 1 litre cars or 70mph with the Mercedes and BMWs, then you'd choose the 70 mph option.
However, mixed ability classes oblige everyone to drive at 50mph then the 70 mph cars find it easy, the Porsches struggle not to stall and the three wheeled del-boy vans have no chance of keeping up.

Don't forget the 'stinger' for those in the fast lane that exceed the limit, Var

Poorly taught mixed ability classes may well work like that. But I'm not arguing in favour of poorly taught mixed ability classes. I don't see the need for artificial and arbitrary speed limiters on anyone's engine (to stretch an analogy that's already struggling a little, frankly...)

"three-wheeled del boy vans"

It is such a mystery why people get arsey when this topic is raised amongst parents of children with mixed ability; it really is...

The wellspring of mixed-ability ideology is the 60s Plowden Report on primary and that acknowledged that measurable outcomes were better in streamed schools, which were then the overwhelming majority. Claims about educational benefit have long been a quite transparent smokescreen for political, social goals.

I rather like Var's analogy cos even 'Del boy's three wheeled van' would be subjected to a 'stinger' in certain circumstances - just saying

'Measurable outcomes were better in streamed schools, which were then the overwhelming majority"

Do you see the problem with that statement?

Nope. I think I know what your personal view will be, but explaining that is your job.

It's not very scientific.

Anyway, as I said earlier, I'm not here to evangelise; just sharing an alternative viewpoint, given that I agree the current system, in general, is far from ideal.

"It's not very scientific."

In what sense? Those are almost the precise words from that very weighty formal game-changing report that wiped out the majority of primary school streaming in quite short order. If you have a brilliant way to undermine that particular pillar of 21st century idiocy, then please do elaborate.

Well, until there is unlimited funding for education, we have to be pragmatic. And (I know I am going to get brick batted for this) while there is so little money available, the kids who should attract the most time and money and attention are the ones who are least self motivated, and who have the least opportunity in life generally. Because that is what is best for society as a whole. My child is not gifted, but he is in a school where he is without much effort top of his year, and is sometimes bored. But he will do well, will get where he wants to go. Of course I would love it if he had an individual teaching programme designed just for him- but back here in the real world, I would much rather his teachers devoted the majority of their energy on those of his classmates who will, without careful support, end up disaffected and alienated from society. And to those who, with a push, will get the grades they need to lift themselves out of poverty and disadvantage. His teachers do what they can- but there are only so many hours in a day and so many pence in a pound.

As a matter of interest, how much mixed ability teaching is there? Don't most schools set?

the kids who should attract the most time and money and attention are the ones who are least self motivated, and who have the least opportunity in life generally. Because that is what is best for society as a whole.

I've heard this said many times before and I've genuinely never really understood why it should be true. Would someone tell me please because I really would like to understand?

Is setting where the children are subdivided by ability and the same DC find themselves in the same set for every subject? Whereas streaming is where they get subdivided by ability on a subject by subject basis? Is that right?

If yes, then I think streaming for certain subjects is common (maths, PE, possibly science, english or languages), but for most subjects they children are all taught together in a mixed ability setting.

"I've heard this said many times before and I've genuinely never really understood why it should be true. Would someone tell me please because I really would like to understand?"

Because for underprivileged children school is usually the only opportunity they have to lift themselves out of disadvantage. And disaffected, undereducated people form an underclass which is bad for society.

"but for most subjects they children are all taught together in a mixed ability setting."

Interesting. I don!t know any secondary schools which do this. Maybe it's different in different parts of the country?

No, it's the other way round. Streaming is where they are "classified" by attainment in one subject and are kept in that group for all other subjects too. Setting is by subject.

"while there is so little money available, the kids who should attract the most time and money and attention are the ones who are least self motivated"

That is a fine, noble principle but for me it's not about giving more to one group (pupil premium = no problem), it's about neglecting another. Robbing Peter to pay even more to Paul then telling Peter they have been enriched by the experience.

Here primary was all mixed ability. Y7 secondary was all mixed ability, except for maths but the parallel set structure diluted that. Y7 was largely a write-off except in maths and two other subjects. Y8 is much, much better because half the academic subjects are now set - according to their web-site it was supposed to be all of them except Je-graffy for some unknown reason.

I wouldn't tell Peter he has been enriched by the experience. I would tell Peter that he is incredibly lucky in many ways and there is much he is getting out of school even if it is not "stretching" him academically as much as under different circumstances it might. Actually, I would hope not to have to tell him that- I woild hope he was capable of working it out for himself.