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.

LOL. Literally.

"Teaching all the kids at the same level works throughout most of Europe."

Indeed. And while no grouping system is perfect, it seems to me that putting children in ability at a very young age rather tends to accentuate the differences between them, making it increasingly difficult to do whole class teaching as they progress.

I haven't noticed the OP crowing about her ability to pay. She was making a factual analysis of her own observations of the quality of the schools she visited.

Thank you Bonsoir! I was just wondering that in the same country there are two completely different styles of teaching. In my own country I went to both private and state schools and the only difference was the size of the class.

I suspect you will find there are many different levels of teaching - across the state and private sectors. And some suit some kids and not others, and some suit no children at all!

"Teaching all the kids at the same level works throughout most of Europe."

No it doesn't. I am from one of those European countries who recognised that years ago and teaches children at different levels.

So the logic is that, in state schools where there is a diversity of ability, it is wrong and unfair to let children work at different levels (well, it is if your child is on the middle table, anyway . This is unjust because it gives some children an advantage, through being taught at the level they are at when others aren't at that level.

However, the egalitarian and fair thing to do is to segregate much larger swathes according to income and/or ability, and then once you have a rather narrower range in one school, and one class, you teach them all at the same level.

Something doesn't seem quite right there.

Speaking as a parent who could certainly not afford private I am happy to say:

a) that I do not recognise the situation the OP describes in state schools

b) that whatever the state of the school and the number of recycled robots produced, at the end of the day it is my dcs who are responsible for what they make of their life

c) that imho a good balance between academic/cultural/sporting activities and leisure time- including mooching around and doing nothing- is healthy and of educational value

good thing that my children are average then :o

Teaching all the kids at the same level works throughout most of Europe. I would be very surprised if it 'worked' - how do you define 'works' anyway?

But they do this (at least in France) by failing kids at a very young age and keeping them back a year - or keeping them back multiple years. A bit worse than being 'on the bottom table' IMO.

(Unless of course it doesn't happen to your kid. Then it seems like a great system)

The best thing about the UK system is that they don't fail kids and keep them back a year.

crunchbag Fri 18-Mar-11 09:41:48
"Teaching all the kids at the same level works throughout most of Europe."

What I have found in Sweden is that it actually makes the children who really can't cope (mild SEN) more segregated as they have to attend "special class", often in a different building, and there is far more of a stigma attached to that than to being on the bottom table in a British classroom. So for ds' sake I am very glad that he is in this more fluid system and we don't have to make the agonising decision of putting him in "special class".

Well, that is great for you Cory, your school sounds great. But I am not sure how the kids from the bottom table are going to progress over the years? They will struggle in the secondary school, because by the time they'll have to sit GCSEs they'll be miles behind...

sorry crunchbag, did I take your name in vain?

You did cory :o

She made an analysis of the schools she looked at. And then extrapolated that experience across the whole country.......

According to the research, there are a lot of kids "left behind" due to a poor assessment, and I think it is a shame. If all kids had access to the same information and got same amount of teaching (and more help if they struggle), there will be more kids achieving their potential.

My youngest is on the 'bottom table'. And as a result he gets extra one-to-one help for maths and literacy. I suspect that is how he will improve and do OK at secondary school.

The OP sounds very panicked about her child's education. She also seems to be overly enamoured of the idea that a child will learn all their life and academic skills by sitting at a desk, listening to the teacher and then regurgitating what they are told - if her comments about everyone sitting at desks facing the whiteboard, listening to the teacher and not working in groups are to be taken at face value. I also hope she doesn't really mean that all children should be taught to exactly the same level in a school where the intake of children ranges across the whole spectrum of abilities. I think what she is dreaming of is the exclusion of the extremes so that those across the middle ranges of ability can get more attention, which obviously would suit her child well. Ironically, she then wants to get her child into a secondary school which is supposed to cater for those of higher than the mid-range of ability.

because by the time they'll have to sit GCSEs they'll be miles behind Ummm no. There is no correlation between being on the bottom table at Y1 and failing GCSEs. ( For starters far more kids fail GCSEs than are on the bottom table. )

In the UK we actually aim to teach all children. Not just the average ones. I think it's a very different system from the one you are used to.

Kids are taught to their ability and tables are fluid. You can start the year on the bottom table and end on the top table.

So the answer to your question is good teachers teach all children and all children are expected to make adequate progress in the UK. It is not like this in some other countries, where SEN kids aren't even expected to make adequate progress.

If kids don't make adequate progress than the teacher has to answer why not. They are not allowed to say 'because the kids has SN'.

Teaching children all at the same level (presumably mediocre) will disadvantage those at the two far ends of the spectrum. Bright children are bored, non-academic ones have their confidence destroyed.

No she didn't extrapolate that, pagwatch. You and others accused her, wrongly, of doing so.

" But I am not sure how the kids from the bottom table are going to progress over the years?"

LOL! Because they are being given work that they can do and helped to improve with teaching appropriate to their level of understanding! How on earth do you imagine they will improve if they are given work they haven't a hope in hell of achieving?

Thank you Fabi76! Please dont listen to people going on and on about "excellent" state schools.

What does that mean then?

HI all,
I too was fed up with my local school. with a background in education, (teacher by prof and MA in edu) i saw the root problems not only in theory and its effect on my eldest son. entered reception at the age of 4 and half, did well, but behaviour was horrendous. also the stigma from teachers even at this young age. "he is bright" "he needs more support with X" "he is behind with Y" "He is doing very well with z" and the thing is that everything is recorded in their files and is carried for the rest of his life in schools. my youngest should have started school last september at the age at just 4 and one month. I thought it would be torture to make him read and write and sit still at the table, when all what interests him is exploring, running, cycling!
I have been homeeducating my 2 boys now for the last year and half, and they are doing fine and at their own pace. when comparing with their peers I even found that they excelled some of their peers. and that has come from own interest, not from me pushing or me telling them. it is me just guiding their own interest. curriculum is so tight in UK, every second is planned by government.
about private schools: good is you can afford them, but those who can afford them already have education at home set as a high standard so the children are already more academic able than children in mainstream. unfortunately many children in mainstream are neglected, and are not encouraged at home to do well. i think we are a minority, those in mainstream concerned with our kids education.

IndigoBell, my friend's daughter came here from abroad (Europe) when she was in year 5. She was on a bottom table, because English was not her first language. Her daughter also tried to pass a grammar entrance exam the same year and was 20 points short, so her academic level was much higher than the "bottom table"'s one. By the time she got to secondary school, her mum found out that she is not expected to sit GCSEs to a A level, maximum a C. Only after a lot of school meetings, begging and threatening they did let her go to a more able group and she is finishing now with excellent results. So yes, being on a bottom table in primary DOES affect your secondary experience...