Enrichment vs. Acceleration?

[LongDeadMotherofHorrors]

One of my kids is very able. She is in Y4 and currently working at Y5/Y6 level. Teacher says she would prefer all children to be enriched within their year group rather than accelerate. This on the basis of "otherwise she'll be doing a degree in Y6".

It's a tricky one. Any views?

That's nonsense. Acceleration is assumed by schools to mean just one thing: acceleration along the curriculum.

We've found that that doesn't have to be the case (not in Maths anyway) - acceleration can happen outside the curriculum.

Why on earth do they feel they have to choose between enriching and accelerating? Strange. What's wrong with doing both? In fact, that's what the experts recommend.

By accelerate teachers usually mean moving her up a year for some or all lessons. I know a number of children who have done this and to be honest in more cases than not it's not really worked out all that well. So I'd tend to agree with the teacher except in extreme cases (which year 5-6work in year 4 isn't imo) or when the child is clearly unhappy.

Does your child learn a musical instrument (or two), would chess or something similar appeal? There is loads of stuff outside school you can do with a bright child. They are often quite multi-talented and can do sport to a high level as well.

Not entirely sure what DAL means by acceleration outside the curriculum (isn't that enrichment?)

IMO acceleration rarely 'solves' any problems. If a child is particularly able in a specific subject, then they need an adapted curriculum, not just a faster one.

eg if a child is a couple of years' ahead of their peers in Maths in yr4, working with yr6 students will achieve little. It is likely she will continue to make fast progress and will soon overtake them.

It is much more beneficial to offer wider activities, over and above and beyond the normal curriculum; rather than just accelerated opportunities.

For example (one of many we've experienced), both of my boys have written stories and entered writing competitions whilst at primary school, with the support and encouragement of their teachers; rather than just ploughing on doing 'literacy' in prep for SATs.

By accelerate teachers usually mean moving her up a year for some or all lessons

I agree, that's what they usually mean. So it wouldn't hurt to point them in the right direction.

snorkie, it's widely accepted that "really" gifted children need depth, breadth (enrichment) and acceleration. Acceleration in my son's case involved teaching him maths concepts outside of the curriculum. It's easier to do this in maths than other subjects.

roisin, acceleration on its own may not solve a problem. However, the DCSF recommends for all G&T children the three pronged approach I mentioned above. Numerous studies, including the latest EPPI review conducted by the DCSF, show that these (top 10%) children make best progress - and are happiest - when they are working in groups of ability peers. Is there any particular reason you believe the UK government policy is wrong on this?

"Wider activities" without acceleration is pretty much just dumbing them down for the teacher/the school's convenience.

"Wider activities" without acceleration is pretty much just dumbing them down for the teacher/the school's convenience.

I would take 'wider activities' to be anything that is outside the curriculum (including your ds's maths extension work), and I don't think I'm alone in thinking of it as enrichment rather than extension either. Music theory (but not without the practical side as well), chess and other problem solving activities would be other examples.

Before dismissing 'wider activities' you need to find out what they are and at what level. They might well include acceleration by your definition, but not in the common parlance of whoever is talking about them.

Before dismissing 'wider activities'
I do not dismiss any single component of the overall recommendations.

I don't get to define these things.

Whether it's SEN, G&T or acceleration, there isn't a "my" definition and then "common parlance".

OK, so not 'yours' since you didn't define it, but you do use it, so you are splitting hairs.

I'm not disputing that 'it' isn't the correct definition either - I know you know a lot about these matters & are unlikely to be wrong on that.

BUT. Many many people, teachers included, use different definitions of 'gifted'; 'acceleration'; 'enrichment' & 'wider activities'. Just because some government documents have some standardisation, doesn't mean everyone will adopt it overnight. Plenty of people still use lbs & oz today decades after metrification. Like it or not some of the 'other' definitions are common enough and likely to remain so for sometime that it's always wise to be clear exactly what it is that everyone is talking about before decreeing what's right, wrong &/or a waste of time, especially as if people are talking about different things it can lead to big misunderstandings.

You are right in that teachers do use the terms more fluidly. DS's teacher - when we had our big meeting about doing his IEP - kept mentioning just "extension" and "enrichment" and her fuzzy idea of enrichment did, I concede, have some elements of acceleration in it.

There may be different definitions of gifted. In fact, no two experts can agree on what it is. But, for the G&T program there's only one meaning. Similarly for SEN and all the other terms used in UK state education. Individual teachers have, even here in MN, sometimes coined their own definitions for terms like G&T and SEN. That's not acceptable. It is not a pounds vs kgs issue.

Wow, great stuff. Thanks for the responses. My daughter is already working in combined Y5/6 class (current school approach)for numeracy and literacy. But her Y5/6 teacher is maternity cover and I think favours enrichment over curriculum accleration. Having said that she has suggested assessing her at L6/7 - to what end I do not know.

Outside of school, she is an able musician, is in a brass band, is working on G4 and is doing music theory. She is in a swimming club as part of the squad although she is still a year too young to compete. She plays football too.

She makes model boats with her dad. She does puzzles with me. She reads voraciously. She plays chess with her brother - but I haven't gone down the competitive route.

My concern is what are they doing in school to make learning a challenge? They do have the lion's share of her after all.

how large is the school ie 1, 2 or 3 classes per year?

our school is a 3-class one, which does make life esier, as we can have serious gat groups from each year for maths and other gat work - it's important to distinguish between gat enrichment and extension work, which you'd give to a keen but averagly-abled child who wanted to take her topic work further or whatever. enrichment should be aimed at the brighter children, and isn't and my gat enrichment work is not the extension or even of-topic work that i would gibve to an averagly-able child 2 years older; it's problem solving, open-ended work and stuff outside the standard curriculum but deliberately aimed at brighter thinkers

whilst i do cover some above-year topics (algebra for example, to make sure they're taught it rigorously)it's much more fun to go into the weird and the wonderful, to encourage thinking skills, research skills, creative thinking, intellectual risk-taking and just plain curiosity. yes - all schools should do this, but it an be easier said than done.

oh - and i don't think it hurts for them sometimes to be bored (hey - they should try work) and sometimes to help out the less able (we want our kids to be menshes as well as geniuses, right?)

on acceleration, last time i checked (erm - which was a few years back ), there hadn't been a formal study on this, but tony gardner's reading of the anecdotal evidence was the most likely way to stop a child from becoming a mathematician, unless you're going to do the ruth laurence thing, is to accelerate them thro maths, as then they've been there, done that, and move onto soemthing else

sorry - missed a line out - in class, wherever possible, there should be enrichment work for the bright, extension work for the keen, and whilst these overlap, they are different

The school has 2 years per class. Each class around 30. So very small.

Should say that year 4 amounts to about 10 children.

goodness - why so small?

It's a rural primary. Our PAN is 15. Some years there are insufficient numbers in the village.

The problem with acceleration is that you end up having to pull off the motorway and going to a service station while everyone else catches up.

There were a group of four in my DD's year who did a lot of extension work and accelerated work. So they moved along and on the curriculum. Now they are all in year 7 - quite a few newbies in the school - and they are marking time and bored stiff because they've completed the year 7 and year 8 curriculum and a chunk out of year 9. There's not enough of them to make a class to do the GCSE early and in any event, what would happen to them after that?

It's a real problem. Think they should just confine to enrichment rather than acceleration ...

It sounds to me like you are doing more than enough. It doesn't have to be a problem when a child finds primary school easy and it doesn't necessarily need complicated solutions from the school.

Our view, when DD2's teacher suggested she go to secondary a year early, was that it was unlikely to make her happier in the long run than if she stayed where she was. She does hours of activities outside school, reads voraciously, and her teacher gives her work beyond the primary curriculum so although she isn't particularly stretched academically, she isn't bored, which was our main concern.

She knows that at secondary school she will meet more challenges and will learn to put in more effort to get good results. But in the meantime we are happy that she's happy.

The problem with acceleration is that you end up having to pull off the motorway and going to a service station while everyone else catches up.

The problem with not accelerating is that you're puncturing a car that's doing 70 mph just to force it to the hard shoulder to change tyres while the other cars catch up. There is no reason why the usual G&T mathematician should ever have to come to a complete stop for others to catch up. In an ideal world children would be allowed to progress at a rate determined by their ability and their interest, not one dictated to by the limitations of their teacher.

on acceleration, last time i checked (erm - which was a few years back blush ), there hadn't been a formal study on this
There've been several formal studies on this - some going back many, many years - and the conclusions are very clear. But the results of those studies don't appear in (UK) teacher training.

I agree that bright children should learn to cope with boredom but I don't agree that they should have boredom forced upon them just to slow them down. Or to save money on TAs. Or so the teacher can remove an advantage she feels they have as a result of how much their father earns.

Parents and pupils are usually the ones who are happy for progress at a natural pace. It's generally teachers who object to acceleration and that's despite the evidence and DCSF guidelines. I do admit it's easier to teach a class of thirty where everyone's at the same level. The lower the range the easier it is to cater.

"The problem with not accelerating is that you're puncturing a car that's doing 70 mph just to force it to the hard shoulder to change tyres while the other cars catch up. There is no reason why the usual G&T mathematician should ever have to come to a complete stop for others to catch up."

I most usually lurk on this board and even roll my eyes at the odd comment you make, but totally agree with you on this one. DS1 is in year 1 and has just this week tested at level 3C, teacher assessed at 3B in maths. He is autistic and maths is his big chill out tool. I can't work out how we could not accelerate him, since he's the sort of kid who, age 4, learnt that there were times tables, learnt his times tables and went beyond 12x. Before he knew of their existence, he'd blissfully count in 4s, 7s or whatever interval amused him at the time. He's been able to tell the time with an analogue clock and work out time intervals from one since he was 3. Now, if he's bouncing off the walls, we bring out some maths or do some measuring or whatever it takes to centre him again. There is no way on earth we're going to say sorry DS, but you're too good at maths, so hang on 3 years while the rest of your class catches up with you.

No, it's not the teachers objecting to acceleration in DD's case. They foster it as far as they reasonably can. It's the examination system, I think that puts an artificial brake on things.

"It's the examination system, I think that puts an artificial brake on things"

absolutely! DaL you've said in the past I think that you don't want to go down the early GCSE etc route with your ds - what on earth will you do instead?

"She knows that at secondary school she will meet more challenges and will learn to put in more effort to get good results"

I wouldn't count on it.

snorkie - we have talked a lot about what to expect at secondary with DD2, and knowing her she will up the ante when necessary.

She is competitive and a bit of a perfectionist where schoolwork is concerned and won't like not being top dog (which she isn't likelty to be anyway, she is destined for a big scary school).

On a different note, here in France some schools (generally in bigger cities) have sections or classes for the exceptionally gifted. They keep them more or less within their peer groups but they do much more in-depth study.

Do such things exist in the UK?

"It's the examination system, I think that puts an artificial brake on things"
The exam system measures whether you have certain knowledge/skills. It is not concerned with what you know above that. I don't see where the brakes come in. Do they fail you if you know too much?

mathsmum says that you can stop a child from becoming a mathematician by accelerating them through maths to the point where "they've been there, done that, and move onto soemthing else"

I don't believe that even my DS is capable of learning all there is to learn in the maths universe by the time he's 16 (in the next 9 years).

snorkie, the route we charted out with the school - in collaboration with a maths specialist from a local secondary - was some acceleration within the curriculum and a lot of acceleration outside of the curriculum (most teachers who do accelerate don't look outside the curriculum because they don't know how to/it's harder to do).

I want him to keep learning but when he is 11 I am hoping/planning that he'll be no higher than an the equivalent of an A at GCSE. That's an absolute max I will accept from the school. When he is in secondary, he'll be older and more able to self-teach himself and a good school would support that by providing him A level maths or higher work. His interests may even move in other directions and he may not be so keen on Maths. And I'm fine with that too.

But while he's keen on it, able in the subject and wants to learn more I believe it should be made a criminal charge to tie him down and deny him that exploration/ learning / enjoymnent.

castille, the G&T program is supposed to do that but a lot of teachers are very against it and most do not implement it properly.

dadatlarge - i may have expressed myself badly, because i agree with a lot of that. however - the children, as far as i am aware, who do not become mathematicians are the ones accelerated thro the curriculum and end up doing gcse at 11 and a levels at 13/14, maybe because that wider world isn?t offered to them post a-level - and that's what i do not think there are quantative studies on. (nothing to do with teacher training btw - i'm not a teacher) if there are such, please point me to them, as i would be fascinated to look.

Of course there is a world of extra-curricular stuff out there, not just in maths, but to me that makes it a shame to accelerate thro the curriculum except to learn basic techniques you need to access the other stuff - none of the kids who have passed thro my classes would be anywhere near ready for gcse at 11, but they would have studied many weird and wonderful topics and have had their thinking strategies challenged and honed

ouryve ? to speak to your situation ? where do you want your ds to go next ? he could be introduced to work and concepts from ks2, going up through y4,5, 6 work and so ?accelerated? ? sorry , as I mean the word, I can?t think of another one, or be introduced to number and other puzzles that will allow him to use that amazing facility with numbers to extend his thinking skills and ways of looking at things (and I do appreciate this is seriously harder with a child who is autistic)

also - Numerous studies, including the latest EPPI review conducted by the DCSF, show that these (top 10%) children make best progress - and are happiest - when they are working in groups of ability peers. I can see that any child can do with someone to discuss stuff with, not to mention to compete with ? but i've just had a quick look at the EPPI - it says, for example, that GAT students work well in mixed-ability classes as long as the atmosphere is positive. it says that gat children are not best placed working alone - who is? Your summary seems to suggests that an 11yo would be happier working with 16yo?s if there are no equally bright 11yo?s around ? is that what you mean, or have I misunderstood? does the eppi review support this and I?ve missed it?

sorry - to add dal - thanks for the pointer to the eppi study - i will read it more thoroughly at the weekend