Private schools, wow what a difference! (Year 4)

[FedUpWithSchools]

Got very disillusioned with DS?s ?outstanding? primary. First alarm bells started to ring in year 3, when every single day he?ll bring a drawing or a robot made of cardboard or a car made of boxes, you get the picture while he hardly got any homework. I tried talking to his teacher about it, but she was always very reassuring and said he is doing fine. I am a foreigner, so was not so familiar with a UK education system and thought the teacher knows what she is doing. Then in year 4 I found out about sets. Apparently my son is in a middle set for everything. According to teacher, he got an ability to be in a top set in a different class, but because his class is overall ?exceptionally bright?, the top set is working at a level of year 5, or even sometimes year 6. My son complains that on days that they got math (and they don?t do math every day), bottom set gets to ?play? on PCs ? they do educational games, middle set gets work to do on their own, and the teacher sits with the top set (5 kids out of a class of 35) and teaches them. If my son or anybody else gets ?stuck? on their work, the teacher with just get very stressed and will tell him in a raised voice just to get on with his work or read a book or draw something if he is finished. Bottom set gets a ?special? teacher to work with them a few times a week during literacy and math lessons. Children never move between sets. Sometimes my son finishes his work quickly and asks to listen or join with the top set, but teacher always gets annoyed and sends him back to his table.

I had a parents meeting with the teacher a few weeks ago, and raised all my concerns. I am very worried about the amount of stuff he is learning at school, as the 11+ is looming and only the top 5 kids are getting sufficient tutoring to pass the exam. The teacher agreed with me, and hinted that it will benefit my son to get a tutor or even better a private school. So off we went to look for a private. And all I can say is wow! We visited 4 schools in total. Class sizes vary from 16 to 22; 2 schools were selective, another 2 are not. But all 4 of the schools had a grammar pass rate between 90% and 85%. My son?s school sends around 6 kids out of 70 each year, so 3 kids per class. In all private schools that we visited all kids are taught by the same teacher at the same level. They also sit on their own desks facing the teacher, not in groups. Children get books for each subject, so the parent knows exactly what is covered at school on each given day, and will be able to go over it at home if needed. There is also an hour of homework every day and in year 5 schools run ?summer schools? to coach for 11+ exams. Some schools also had longer days in year 5 to cover the material quicker and start preparing for 11+ earlier in the year.

To be honest, the difference of standards and attainment really shocked me. How do they manage to teach every single kid in a classroom to the same level when a state school claims its impossible? Why state school cant just teach all kids at the same level, with kids all sitting and listening to the teacher instead of sitting in groups around round tables, sometimes with their backs to the blackboard? I really don?t get it. We are moving our son next week to a new school, wish I knew about the differences earlier, feeling guilty now for denying him a proper education for so many years.

Quite Bonsoir, what is 'intelligence' anyway? I read something about extra pathways being laid down in the brain etc re: languages that came in handy in other ways.

We have children, a few v young for Y2, working at 3A currently in my son's year. IMO 'extra skills' as you describe them play a big part in this. These are not necessarily any brighter than a child currently working at a 2C but you'll be hard pushed to find many who agree with me, teachers too. Labels stick, early opinions matter and can determine later outcomes. If you have chid X aged 6 who can play the piano and violin, is bi-lingual, can write fluently and do whizzy things in maths they are going to be seen by the majority as rather clever.

I do think, however, that some children who have the opportunity (mostly because of parental investment) to learn a host of "extra skills" do reach their ceiling at some point and other children, who hadn't had as many opportunities when young and were not therefore as visible, blossom and flourish when school work becomes harder. Providing, of course, that they have received the right foundations early on. Advantage tends to be rather across-the-board...

Not sure I agree, ability doesn't have a ceiling for anyone, we can all go on getting better. Others may overtake in time, agree there, but the danger may be the 'late developer' doesn't believe in themselves enough when they begin to flourish. You need confidence and self belief to go on and do well, if you've traditionally been bottom set material you may have low reserves. Schools don't like late developers much, they're rather awkward, some even believe they are largely a myth.

Ummmmm. I really don't get your hang up on this whole IQ thing.

My DD is doing as badly as you can at school. Yet the EP report says her 'cognitive abilities' are in the 98th percentile. Means absolutely nothing if you can't read or write. It doesn't matter how people perceive her - she can't do the work.

My DS2 is doing very well academically. I don't think anyone thinks of him as clever. I think they think of him as a cheeky monkey who lacks social skills.....

Wheras people do think DS1 is exceptionally clever - but again it means absolutely nothing because he hits kids and is hardly ever in class.

Some people are more clever than others. So what. Doesn't mean they are happier or have better jobs or are richer or anything else that is important.

But by and large it doesn't matter how clever you are, what your IQ is, it matters how you are. Are you happy, kind, loving, confident, adventurous....

I agree with you about personal happiness, it's what most of us want more than anything in the world for our children that and their health. I also agree it matters 'how you are,' whether you are a decent human being or not.

I get annoyed when I see injustice I suppose and when people who are perfectly capable grow up to believe they just 'can't' because that's the message they've been sent, consciously or subconsciously, throughout their school career. I get upset about a culture of low expectations. I get upset when I see alleged grammar school teachers on this thread suggesting that 'middle ability' children are going to struggle at selective schools and this can be pre-determined early on. I am also v interested in mindsets, ability, intelligence as subjects in themselves.

Yes, I am always amazed by the academic elitism here on MN. The idea that only the very brightest in society are capable of achieving the highest grades.

I wouldn't call myself that clever, yet I've been able to achieve all sorts of things. Hard graft and chutzpah have seen me through, not a high IQ.

DD's secondary school is not very selective at all, yet their results challenge the most selective in the country.

The school's view is that in the right environment all the girls can achieve. And they do. It is absurdly impressive.
The idea that someone couldn't keep up, is anathama. It just means that pupil needs more support.

Cortina - I do believe that most children don't get as many opportunities to develop their potential skills as they could use. But I do believe that some children are just born with more potential than others. I have two very amenable French DSSs, both of whom do very well at school, can swim, ski, play tennis, speak English. They have always attended the same schools and their childhood has been as identical as it could possibly be, given 2.4 years between them.

DSS2 has always been brighter/quicker on the uptake than DSS1; always that bit better at school, with that bit more glowing reports. At 13 he is now overtaking DSS1, who is nearly 16, in many fields. Obviously there is a skills gap at school because DSS2 just hasn't covered the ground that DSS1 has. But DSS2 is more mature in almost every way. He is just cleverer!

Well, if you don't want your child given all these subconcious or conciuos messages about their ability - you will be best home educating.

It is a very valid and common reason to choose that route....

I agree that some children may have more potential than others but the point is many have far more ability and capability than they may know or ever realise. Even if a test at some point in time says you don't have the potential, an excellent education, hard graft, self discipline and belief can take you far. What one person can learn most can learn. I've seen the teaching at first hand in our local prep, a child with 'average' ability would get incrementally 'better' over the years and IMO find that they could cope fairly easily & confidently with a selective school at 11. Small class sizes and no discipline problems mean lessons are enjoyable and inspiring. Our state primary is pretty good really but can't be compared for lots of reasons, it's not unusual.

As I said earlier, I do believe that most children could develop more fully given the opportunity. But opportunities (education) cost money. Parents who purchase private education for their children often have as a prime motivator the breadth of the curriculum and the on-site extras. No developed country is in the position to offer the kind of opportunities that the richest children get to the whole population from state funds...

Agree with Indigo about 'how you are' being what matters. Oh how I wish more people felt the same way (though I am lucky, at dds' school many do).

I grew up with academic elitism. I was considered 'very bright'. I had opportunities, though less so at secondary school (in terms of emotional support either there or at home), and became a spectacular underachiever: not least because of the sort of pressure I hear voiced so often - rebellion!

...the sad part being that many parents have no idea their beliefs are pressuring their children, because they would never say 'clever is good' or 'I would love you to be top of the class'. My father never did either.

I struggle not to buy into the whole competitive thing - so easy to get pulled in, with my family background not helping - but honestly believe that there is NO 'better' and 'worse' in terms of abilities, just 'different'.

So again, to come back to OP: I would be careful in looking for a school that nurtures the whole child, whatever their abilities. Regardless of my DC's abilities, really. None do 100%, but YKWIM.

'rebellion' being mine, to the messages about achieving. Sorry, got distracted

Elibean - that's interesting. You say that your father never praised your achievements or encouraged you to do even better; but there was an unspoken, subconscious assumption that you should achieve and that you should compete?

We tell our children quite explicitly that we think they are very clever, that they do very well and, on occasion, that they really could do even better. I don't think they feel pressured at all - certainly my DD tells me very cheerfully about both her good marks and her less than perfect ones, and seems remarkably sanguine about it all. When I said to her, teasingly, on the eve of her first day in primary school that I wanted her to be a Perfect Child from now on, she looked at me sideways and said "Maybe not."

Bonsoir - Mindset discusses in great details the problems with telling your child you think they are clever.

(Also Nurtureshock covers it, I think)

I think children don't feel academic expectation as pressure if they are secure in themselves and their innate worth.

Both my DC think they're pretty cool, whatever their grades at school.

They know DH and I think they're clever, attractive and funny. We point out their attributes be it having a good memory, or speaking beautifully, or smelling nice.

I thought the problem was telling your DCs they were clever when (a) there were no tangible grounds for doing so (b) you didn't immediately set the next objective, thereby encouraging them to rest on their laurels.

I'm a great believer in a can-do approach, and believing you have the intelligence (if not necessarily yet the skills) to achieve underpins the self-confidence of anyone to get where they want to.

I think telling a child they are clever, and clearly valuing that above all else would lead to trouble.

But if you accept that people are the sum of many different attributes, then it is only one of many you will be pointing out.

Be it that they have bright eyes and a cute nose, or a great sense of direction, or patience, or they always give of their best.

I think one of the saddest things of working with children in care is how no-one had ever told them the positive things about them.

Bonsoir - not according to those books I mentioned.

The problem is telling them they are clever.

Because then they will get into this fixed mindset Cortina is continually ranting against. Because they will believe that being clever is an intrinsic quality of them - and so therefore not something they should have to work at.

So the first time something is hard, they will believe they can't do it, not that if they worked hard they would learn to do it.

Bonsoir I have the same approach and simply assume I can do things with enough effort and resource.

I therefore assume the same for my DC.

Oh but you don't tell them they are clever before doing any work - you tell them they are clever before a concrete achievement. That would be like telling children they are upper middle class, or something - no they aren't, their parents are, and if they want to be upper middle class they are going to have to achieve a lot for themselves. Anyway, our children are often told they are clever and they work very hard and achieve well, so it seems to have worked well so far. Admittedly we're in France where school never praises children and mostly only finds fault, so what we do at home could be counterbalancing.

after a concrete achievement

Well, the research says you should praise effort instead of telling them they are clever.

They didn't do well on the test because they are clever, they did well on the test because they worked hard..... A very important distinction.

See, I don't agree with just praising effort. Life beyond school doesn't reward effort, it rewards achievement. I have seen incredibly hard-working children fail dreadfully at the first hurdles of working life because they thought that they would be rewarded for effort.

If a child has never found anything in life a challenge, then the parents are doing a very poor job.

I would find it astonishing if any child were naturally brilliant at everything. To me it would smack of the breadth of their experience being tiny.

My DN thinks she is terrific at everything. Her Mother told me everything she touches is 'gold'. I had to smile. This is a child who has not tried many sports, hasn't learned any MFL...I could go on.

wordfactory - that is very sad, but it is just as I described - your DN's "cleverness" is not attached to anything in particular. My DD thinks she's very clever at ski-ing and at being bilingual and that she's the fastest runner in her class. And she is! But she doesn't claim to be any good at ballet or tennis, which she's only just started. Self-confidence and self-esteem derive from concrete skills acquisition.