Lower ability pupils can't catch up

[learnandsay]

Doesn't it depend on what you mean by catch up? I'm not familiar with Levels and SATs scores. But isn't the point that some schools don't seem to have a strategy for getting all pupils to reach the top level (Level 5) in 3Rs?

Surely some schools start with children who can't even speak English. Presumably those children are harder to teach than the ones who can already read, write to-some-extent and multiply by the time they start Reception.

I also notice that some initially well performing children leave primary school performing poorly. (I'm pretty sure this is a parental-inclusion problem) ie it's the parents and the school's fault not the child's.

Schools performances

Sorry the link didn't work

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16186158

Satirical site News Thump has a view (link) and to an extent I agree with them, there will be children whose potential best result is lower than average, that it just the way averages work, and those children are more likely to start school with lower abilities.

Yes, the satirical link is very funny. But it's only half true. Just because the child is behind it doesn't mean the child is stupid. It's possible that English isn't that child's first language. Or that the child comes from a less literate background.

The joke website misses the point about high achieving children leaving school as low achievers. So, while it's good to laugh once in a while we can't laugh so hard we get the wrong end of the stick.

The headline is totally misleading.

All children are expected to make 2 levels of progress in KS2.

What the stats are telling you is that 25% of kids who weren't doing well at 7 made more than 2 levels of progress in KS2 (which seems pretty good to me)

And that 39% of pupils who are doing well at 7 don't make 2 levels of progress.

So, sounds like schools are, in general, doing fairly well by 'lower ability' pupils and less well by 'higher ability' pupils.

Maybe that's because reading before you start reception is no indicator of being bright?

The real problem is our antiquated education system, and poor quality Teacher Training Standards.
Formal education should not begin until after the age of maturation, 7-8 years of age when children stop growing out of developmental issues, and have time to develop alternative cognitive skills and abilities to compensate for their weaknesses, deficits, and disabilities. This happens in the more advance and better informed countries.
The problem with teacher training goes back to 1984 when the government of the day decided to take SEN out of the Teacher Training Curricullum, so we now have generations of teachers who have no idea about how to help those who ma have some initial or long term learning issues. This step was taken to save government spending and to help enable tax cuts. Very short sighted as it has created even more long term benefit needs.
The education system is now so out of step with the current neurological understanding of how we learn, and the nature of the issues which can cause learning problems, that only a radical reform of the whole system to be advised by say an Educational Research Council (similar to the Medical Research Council)
to repair the damage done by the political and marketing lobbyist of the last few decades.

dolfrog, I'm no expert, but what do you then do with a child who IS ready for formal learning at 5?

I'm quite shocked at dolfrogs comment - primary teachers I have come across in last ten years have been amazing - truly amazing. My children have done far more interesting things than I did at primary school hundreds of years ago.

All children are expected to make that progress except those with additional needs, for whom teachers follow guidance from 'progress guidance for children with sen.'

OFSTED expect SEN children to make as much progress as those without SEN, albeit perhaps from a different starting point. Indeed, one of the reasons we were assessed recently as a very good school, (despite the fact that the levels our children reach are distinctly average!) was that our SEN children made MORE progress than the rest. In fact, we have no statistical difference in the progress made by any of the "target groups ( EAL, boys, FSM, SEN) in comparison with "normal" children. So some lower ability children can catch up, some will still have a way to go when they leave Primary and, unfortunately, some will never catch up.

According to the dfe advice in the document I quoted, they don't, particularly for those leaving ks1 at p levels. We've had lots of recent discussions about this with our advisors and will continue to 'aim high' but realistically so for all children.

I would be very grateful if dolfrog would give us the benefit of his wide research and knowledge and tell us exactly what is the current neurological understanding of how we learn. In his own words, not directing us to a 'collection' of research papers, most of which cost about £20 each to download the full paper.

Bramble - Googled for a document with that name and can't find it - could you link to it?

I'm assuming bramble means
www.teachfind.com/national-strategies/guidance-monitoring-progress-assessing-attainment-and-planning-next-steps-young-

but my LA interpretation of this is that the majority of children with SEN should still make 2 levels progress
so "The national expectation is that all learners will make at least two National Curriculum levels of progress over each key stage. A target has been set for 90 per cent of Key Stage 2 learners to make two levels of
progress, in English, over the key stage by 2011. The majority of learners with SEN, including those who are working below age-related expectations, should be able to achieve this rate of progress. To reach this target, at least half the learners currently identified as having special educational needs would need to achieve the two levels of progress."

This is what OFSTED were looking at in their recent visit to us!

I think there are different expectations for kids working at p levels at KS2 (or above). I thought they're meant to go up two p levels or something like that.

So, mainly the differing expectations refers to kids in special schools.

the ofsted report for ds's primary stresses that whilst it's a good school it is not doing enough for higher ability pupils. i had the impression this was a bit of a trend going on where there are such targets for the basics that many struggle to reach that more able pupils are being left to cruise basically.

i know they do 'table' work but i do think there's merit in the idea of splitting them further than that for some lessons. there are two classes in each year group at our school so that there is the capacity to split them into higher and lower ability for some things like literacy so that whole class teaching can be more targeted to the level being worked with. i suppose there's also the facility for one classroom to take those who need the extra support in basics for a session whilst the other classroom does some extension or added learning with those who've covered those basics.

i was trained in and worked in mixed ability teaching (secondary though) and it has a lot of merit however i think it needs to be more flexible and include some spitting off to make sure that all abiities get tailored opportunities to extend and improve their attainment.

www.leics.gov.uk/sips_sen/sen_team_guidance/sips-sen-progression-guidance.htm

Here's the Leicestershire link for it. The main dfe document has been taken down! It's 'progression guidance for childre with sen', the original document is bursting with tracking tables. - The above link contains a table which was recently used by ofsted in training to our advisors about expectations.

The differing expectations refer to many of our children in mainstream in addition to special schools. We have a significant cohort who are all performing very well and included extremely successfully.

www.devon.gov.uk/sc-jan1101010a.pdf

Original document.

I think looking at progress of SEN children as a group is quite misleading. having SEN does not mean that they are not academically bright. In fact some SEN children are very able indeed.

yep, SEN is a very broad umbrella.

just an example one child on the SEN register's only requirement was for me to prepare any written work (worksheets, things i might put on the board etc) beforehand in a larger font. he was no less able than anyone he just had sight issues.

putting him in with the SEN and how they're achieving results would give an impression that was misleading. SEN doesn't mean low ability.

though it was massively time consuming tbh and had he had a support assistant who coordinated with his teachers ahead of time i'm sure he'd have had a much better education. i think i was one of the few who bothered to prepare things for him and even then there would be things i forgot or that came up off the cuff in the lesson. i think often there is a misunderstanding of what sen support is needed - it's not all needing someone to sit next to you and hold your hand (and we had some vastly inappropriate lsa's at my last school). it can be coordination, administration, educating and informing classroom teachers of issues etc.

i wish in fact that secondary school did what primary school does and assigned one teaching assistant to each teacher whose job it was to know which sen students would be being taught, what their needs were, what needed preparing beforehand etc and who could cooperate with the teacher to make the most out of lessons for everyone.

sorry - this is all a bit of a random detour.

"Formal education should not begin until after the age of maturation, 7-8 years of age when children stop growing out of developmental issues, and have time to develop alternative cognitive skills and abilities to compensate for their weaknesses, deficits, and disabilities. This happens in the more advance and better informed countries."

And what countries would those be, dolfrog?

dolfrog, if you are thinking of the Scandinavian countries, Norway and Sweden usually start at 6 these days, Denmark and Finland at 7. But they do have high quality nursery education which almost all children attend. I don't know where children start at 8; it's not in Scandinavia anyway.

it's tosh you know because most children are ready to start at 4/5 and they're hardly nailed to table and chairs with a pen in their hand at that age - it's mostly learning through play and the vast majority seem to really enjoy it.

frankly if you don't like kids starting at 4 or the way we educate them then educate them yourself. our 'education otherwise' clause allows you to do this in this country. exercise your right if you want to.

btw i used to kind of believe in this don't start till 7, only kinetic learning till 7 etc etc until i had a child. i would have happily kept ds home for longer because i also believed the stuff about boys not being ready at 4 etc. trouble was reality proved me wrong - he was ready and he loves it and i'd have been holding him back and making him miserable if i'd stopped him going.