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

I read that report the other way around; 25% of children who start out as low achievers end up as medium or high achievers. That is higher than I would have expected, if we thought that low achievement was strongly tied to native (inherent ability).

Also, 40% of pupils who are high to start with end as low-medium; that about makes sense, if their high start is to do with different development rates or social advantages in their backgrounds. Especially when you consider how many of those with advantaged social backgrounds get creamed off into the private sector by y6.

Obviously I'm not an educator... but I read it as a success story for many and logical that there should be that much variation over time.

In some parts I agree with dolfrog. I was very worried about sending DS to school aged 4. We couldn't keep him out for another year as he would have missed reception. The research is there to suggest 4 is too early to start formal education, even though it is all learning through play - but if they are not interested to read and do maths through play or otherwise they will not learn much. Mine refused.

DS and many others as I can see are struggling and are not ready/interested to read/write and do maths. Some primary teachers confirmed that - and they have a hell of a job trying to teach those little ones!

Now in Y2, DS is very dreamy and often doesn't listen in maths and literacy, and therefore not achieving his potential. At the moment I am teaching him Y2 maths as I am worried if I leave him to work at Y1 level at school (he is happy working at that level because he can do well but is not supported or moved on) he might never catch up - I would love to just leave him to grow up and mature a bit.

olguis - your post seems to be referring to a bad school that has also got stuck in a 1970s/80s timewarp. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to my experience, as a parent, of modern primary education. I think you must be extremely unlucky with your school.

Gabid - you misunderstood dolfrog.

We don't know if your child is going to 'grow out' of his problems, or eventually be diagnosed with something.

Dolfrog would rather we ignore little ones like yours who are struggling until age 8 when they are so far behind we can conclusively label them.

As opposed to supporting them from when they're 4 and trying to close the gap and help them when they are young and the help is most effective.

They might still get a label at age 8, but they will be better off having had 4 years of help then 4 years of saying 'oh, bless. He's only young'

Indigobell - I think what dolfrog means (he didn't say it) is a nursery style education up to age 7 (it is 6 in most European countries). It wouldn't mean that they would be left to their own devices, but they had time to learn all other things that are so important and the things they are interested in (this morning DS (6) spent 2 hours building a Knex robot with wheels and engine that moves and turns his head! So he can concentrate on things he enjoys. And you could teach him a lot about maths and even literacy.

DP was a June birthday, he is dyslexic, thought he was stupid throughout his primary years which left him with very low self-esteem. Eventually, he caught up, went to university and ended up in a professional job - but still, he is not over it.

No, dolfrog does not believe in any early intervention at all. We have had this discussion over many threads, and his views are absolutely unbelievable.

The style of education you are describing is pretty much what does happen in the UK in nursery, reception and often the first term of year 1. So in the uk kids are 5 1/2 before they are expected to do much formal work.

My DDs severely dyslexic. And I'm very pleased that school noticed her problems at 4. I can't see how finding out she had problems when she was older would have been any benefit to her at all.

Now shes 9 I have almost cured all her problems. If I hadn't known she had problems till she was 8, it would have still taken me 5 years to unravel it all and help her. Except it would have been no use to her learning to read at 13. Schools almost over by then.

Wales has the nursery style education till 7. Noone holds them up as an example of how to get it right.

Indigell - but little ones wouldn't be identified as struggling at age 4 because no-one would dream of trying to teach them to read and write at that age. When they are 6 or 7 they may be ready and just get on with it.

For example, my friend's DS in Germany knew his letters at age 5 but my friend (mum) couldn't get him to blend them. When he started school at 6 he learned to read like anyone else. The downside, now he is 10, in Y4 and they are awaiting recommendation from the school if he is suited to go to grammar school or not (her DS is very bright and will go I am sure), but I find it quite a brutal system.

But Sweden do it well, I thought.

School didn't tell me they thought DS had problems. It was a hard conversation they didn't want to have. So he was 9 before I realised what was wrong.

I can't tell you how much he has lost out because of that. If I had found out when school realised (aged 4) he would be in a much, much better position now.

Dolfrogs theory about waiting till kids are 8 to acknowledge they have problems is very, very damaging.

Gabid - DDs dyslexia was obvious before she even started nursery. She couldn't learn anything. Colours, letters, numbers, words. It wasn't teaching her to read which alerted school to her having problems.

If you can learn to read and write fine at 6 or 7 then you don't have dyslexia.

Why do you want to stop kids like mine getting help as early as possible?

Olgius - move school. You have either misunderstood what happens there OR it's a bad school, as it is so untypical of the (many) schools I have been in...

Indigobell - you said it yourself, you noticed yourself that something was wrong and that your DD needed support.

I am not talking about DC with dyslexia or any other SN. Many are helped and supported at age 4 and 5 but all that is amiss is that they are not developmentally ready. But you don't know, whether there is more to it.

If everyone just started to read and write aged 6 a lot of time, energy and worry could be saved. There are always those who want to learn earlier and that should be supported as well. But a lot of that early pressure would be off many.

gabid child are identified long before they start school if they attend a pre school/nursery setting ... there are interventions for 2 year olds. This government as did the previous one plan to educate the most "disadvantaged" children from the age of TWO
As Indigo says it is often very easy to identify those children who will struggle from the moment they enter nursery and surely it makes sense to identify problems early before children fall so far behind the gap is a huge chasm.

I am not talking about DC with dyslexia or any other SN. - but that is exactly what this conversation is about. Dolfrog doesn't want dyslexia or any other SN identified before a child is 8.

He'd rather a child sat in the corner banging their head for 8 years before they were give a diagnosis of ASD. (He has been very clear about this on other horrible threads)

He'd rather kids like my DS and DD were unsupported till they were 8, just in case they don't have problems.

He'd rather your dyslexic DS was given no support till he was 8.

(Although I'm not at all clear with what would be wrong with giving a child extra support who was going to grow out of it anyway. Where's the harm in that?)

You can't both believe in 'early intervention' and in Dolfrog's theory of waiting till kids are 8 to see who grows out of what.

And I can't think of any reasonable arguments against early intervention.

If everyone just started to read and write aged 6 a lot of time, energy and worry could be saved. - but our goal isn't to save time, energy and worry. Our goal is to educate as many children as possible. This is mutually exclusive with saving time, energy and worry.

Our goal is to educate as many children as possible. This is mutually exclusive with saving time, energy and worry.

Is mutually exclusive? Why do so many countries who start later do better?

My view is that they do better because they have better spelling systems which allow all children to learn to read and write much faster.

But irrespective of that, we know that children develop at different rates. How good is it to push the slower developers into learning to read and write before they are ready?

And is it really so harmful to let the fast ones just enjoy their childhood?
Perhaps they could be given the chance to develop their creative skills instead?

I hadn't looked at a single book before age 7.

Our results would look much better if we followed Sweden's example ... by not reporting the results of children with dyslexia and other SEN

Mashabell Sat 17-Dec-11 11:00:13 I hadn't looked at a single book before age 7.
I was reading Nicholas Monsarrat and Jack London for pleasure before the age of seven

Masha - could you please tell me which English speaking country teaches the most children to read? (And how you know that)

Then we could actually look at what they do and compare it to what the UK does (unless, it is indeed the UK that does the best)

Like I keep saying, it's not the fast ones who will be let down, it's the one's with problems. Not the ones who are 'slow developers'. The ones with problems. Which won't be detected or helped in this fantasy play world you'd like them to inhabit.

ftp.iza.org/dp1186.pdf

My DS is not dyslexic, he is just not interested in reading, writing or maths. His reading is average, but he doesn't read anything apart from reading books. His maths in school is below average, he is Y2 and working in a class with 3/4 Y1s, he is happy there as its easy for him. The Y2 class is 'full' and there is not enough support. I now teach him at home (2 short sessions each day and its coming on) - I thought my role was to support him, not teach him though.

Socially he gets on better with younger children and I feel he would have been happier and less pressurised starting R a year later - but that wasn't possible in England.

So in our case I think its just too much too early.

NZ and Australia do better, but they have had literacy tests for immigrants for a long time. Canada does too, but it's not totally Anglophone.

I asked Canadian friends for an explanation and received this reply:

I know here in BC (and maybe Alberta or the whole Canada), they have pushed for guided reading (centered around sight words) and the memorization of sight words as well as metacognitive strategies to solve reading issues. This might account for the success of the students here.

In essence, they are recognizing that one important way to learn spelling in English is through memorization. There is a phonetic component too. Students are told that there is a system (even though it is admitted that it is hardly a reliable one!)

What MRZ's link very clearly shows is:

• There is no correlation at all between ease of language and % of kids who learn to read

• There is no correlation at all between school starting age and % of kids who learn to read

• All countries fail a significant proportion of kids

• Canada is the best English speaking country

• US is the worst

(Figure 3) Percentage of pupils unable to solve basic reading tasks (PISA reading)

• Korea - 5%
• Finland - 6%
• Canada - 9%
• Japan - 10%
• Ireland - 10%
• Australia - 12%
• Sweeden - 12%
• UK - 12%
• NZ - 13%
• France - 15%
• USA - 17%
• Norway - 17%
• Denmark 17%
• Italy - 18%
• Germany - 24%
• Greece - 25%
• Portugal - 26%

Italian is a totally phonetic language and it is significantly worse at teaching kids to read than the UK.

Again, from MRZ's link:

The surveys show the English-speaking countries to have achievement levels that are typically around the average when compared to other OECD countries

So the question is what makes Korea and Finland so good and inclusive?