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 think its also what about what parents can do

Many children have never been to he theatre, swimming or even have books in their home

Very sad it can just be up to the school

Also many parents don't do simple things like read to or with their children then moan because their children are behind

and both warn us of the danger of following their example

www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6039807
www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6064846
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7846599/Swedish-free-schools-fail-to-improve-results.html

"Interestingly other countries are envious of our methods and the nice gentle start children have to education"

My DD was born within a few days of a friends DS in germany so was easy to compare. DD being a September baby started here at 5, whereas he didn't start until 7. He was gettting very upset about going to school because he had gone from playing all day to a very regimented situation. It was a nasty shock for him whereas DD had a nice gentle start to education. She was desperate to actually start school long before she was 5 and was standing at the top of the stairs before shouting "I want to school NOW"

About the childcare - the kids will go to a free nursery as they do in Finland.

"it would be bad for the economy"

• you know what IndigoBell I've suspected for a while the reason behind not changing anything is that the culture here is not very child centric, and your

response just proved it for me yet another time. So what if a year after year, decade after decade thousands of children become unhappy and have their self-esteem lowered to the floor, for no good reason at all, besides it being convenient for the adults, right?

Olympus - school isn't compulsory in the UK. Nobody has to send their child to school at 4 or any other age.

If you don't like the school starting age - don't send your child to school till they're ready.

Well, right now we are not talking about me - other people do send their children to school at 4, whether the kids are ready or not "because they couldn't afford childcare".

yes some people see all education as free child care that's why they moan when school is closed for any reason.

Children in a theatre? What age children are we talking about? They've normally all been in the school play. I was mad about acting as a kid. Was in the National Youth Theatre for quite a while. But I don't think I went into a proper theatre until I was thirteen.

Maybe going to theatres and reading books doesn't fit in with the kinds of things expected in your neighbourhood. If you and your family don't know anyone who's been to a theatre and the best thing in your road is a two-and-a-half metre plasma TV screen, then coming home which an armful of books maybe isn't such a smart move after all.

I have nephews and nieces at school in France and find it amazing that people bang on quite so much about other European countries starting formal education later. They still have nursery schools there, which the majority of children appear to attend from the age of 3 or 4. The main difference between the two systems appears to be that at 6, French children are suddenly expected to sit in rows and learn a lot by rote and have their work marked in red and green pens, and a lot of them HATE the sudden and brutal transition to "formal education." Prior to that, I frankly don't see much difference between the learning through play that goes on in early years teaching in English primary schools and the learning through play that goes on in French nurseries. The main difference appears to be that English children carry on playing for much longer and do much less sitting in rows at their desks - ie English primary teaching lacks French formality right the way through to age 11.

sending children at 4 is not only because people can't afford the alternative it is also because if you decide to hold a child back a year and start them at 5 they don't then go and do the foundation/reception year but are put straight into year 1 therefore missing a whole year of teaching and socialising and simply being added to a class a year late who all already know each other and have had a years training in phonetics, are reading and writing (to varying degrees) and have made the transition from learning through play to a slightly more formal classroom experience.

that's not much of a choice for a caring parent really you know?

can i ask people's opinions here on the way that we place children in their year groups by age rather than ability? re: compared to other systems where children have to learn what is needed to be learnt in that year before progressing onto the next year group?

Santa - one of the best things about th UK system is that instead of holding kids back we differentiate and try and teach all the kids in the class at the right level for every subject.

I really wanted DD to repeat reception, and of course she couldn't.

Now she's in Y4 I'm so glad I didn't keep her back. She's still bottom on the class. Still very happy and loves school. Still being taught at her level and still got friends.

If she had been kept back she'd still be bottom of the class but would probably find the other kids in her class immature and have self esteem issues about being kept back and still not being able to keep up.

I can't think of any good reasons to keep children back who have 'failed' a year.

See that's why the school system here is so good. Nobody fails.

I really don't understand what your problem with reception is. I don't think it's all that different from nursery in most other countries. Kids certainly don't have to write. My DS never wrote at all. I got his literacy book home at the end of the year and it had something written on one page. I wasn't aware that he was meant to have been writing. He was happy.

He didn't like Y1 when he had to write. But he was 6, so not young. Thing is it turned out the reason he didn't like writing was nothing to do with immaturity it was to do with SN. Doesn't matter how old he was when he started school. He was going to hate writing.

And equally loads of kids don't learn to read in reception. They learn to sing phonics song, same as they learn wheels on the bus and twinkle twinkle. But some of them don't learn to read and it's not a problem.

And if you're worried about them missing out socially - well that is the main point of school. That is why kids go to school. So that is why you should send your 4 year old.

I really don't know why you don't want your 4 year old playing with other 4 year olds. In the vast, vast majority of cases they love it and progress well.

And of the tiny minority who don't like it, not all of them would have been ready for school at any age.

Some of them will struggle due to undiagnosed SN, and if they'd started school when older their SN would have stayed undiagnosed ( and unsupported) for longer.

Some of them will just struggle because they're lacking the social skills to survive at school. And even at 7 or 8 they'd still have poor social skills and struggle.

Honestly, school in each country means different things. Make sure you really understand reception before you slag it off.

And quite often it's the parent who struggles with sending their baby to school - not the child at all. It's the parent who doesn't want their child to grow up and do all the things a 4 year old should do.

My youngest is 7. I'm just looking at him now and can't think at all why anyone would want to take away the 3 years of education he's had. He's had a brilliant time and enjoyed every moment of it. But he's also learnt so much.

Social skills, self care, independence, behaviour, managing emotions.

And to read, write and add up. And science and history and geography and art and music and RE and PE.

He's learnt things he could never have learnt at home. And I really don't understand why it matters if you call the place he enjoys going to every day nursery or school.

UK schools are really informal. And almost all kids love evey minute of them.

i don't have a problem with reception. ds is loving it and thriving. i was talking about what happens if a parent skips reception in response to what another person said about people only send kids who aren't ready because they can't afford childcare - i was saying there are bigger reasons than that.

my concern about being pushed on year after year comes from being a secondary school teacher and seeing kids who haven't gotten to grips with basic literacy being pushed through geography, re, history, english etc etc without the tools to really access the content and constantly feeling and being out of their depth.

i've said elsewhere that i do believe in mixed ability teaching - i was trained in it and compared to many i'd say i was pretty good at differentiating but that there are limits to it and sometimes i question whether it wouldn't be better at some point to take kids out of some of the mainstream lessons to allow time for intensive help with literacy that would mean they could actually gain more from their broader education.

i know in theory 'no kids fail' but in reality it isn't really true. i certainly doubt that it feels like that for kids who stumble from one lesson to the next at secondary still unable to read or write effectively. i just question whether it would be fairer to give the intensive extra help needed for a year or for part of the timetable to help them bridge the gap. just being pushed on and on with the machine when you haven't got the basics can be pretty soul destroying.

obviously everyone is different. i had a friend i did a post grad course with who was held back a year at primary and said it was the best thing that ever happened to her. others would experience it differently i'm sure.

i was just asking for opinions really - don't have any set in stone myself but did find that mixed ability teaching as it is practised currently sadly fails a lot of students and i wish we could do more for them.

Good secondaries do take kids out of other lessons to try and teach them the basics. At my local school they miss first period every day to learn to read. Other schools have other ways of handling it. Nurture groups are very common.

And most secondaries use streaming, so they can pitch history etc at the right level.

There is no reason to think that holding kids back a year would have helped. If they couldn't learn the basics in 7 years, there's no reason to think they would have leant them in 8 years. (or 9 or 10? How many years do you want to keep them back?)

Yes, secondaries have to cope with children who can't read and write. That has always been true, but previously the teacher was happy if they sat at the back of the class and were quiet - because the teacher was not held responsible for them reaching a certain grade. The kids were failed worse than they are today.

Your friend who was kept back went through effectively a different schooling system. Schools today are unrecognisable compared to what they were like when your friend was 5.

i don't want to hold kids back for whole years but i would perhaps like to see specialist programmes lasting perhaps a term for children who reach secondary school and particularly the end of ks3 still having significant literacy programmes. specialised teaching staff, proper tailored support, the best research has to offer in overcoming these problems.

with the best will in the world that can't be done by 12 different teachers teaching hundreds of different students.

my friend was 10 when she was kept back btw - and as i say i was using her as a general example.

some good secondary schools do provide decent support but it is far from uniform. where's the harm in saying you know what this kid deserves 5 weeks intensive, tailored training from a specialised teaching team to give them the best shot possible of competing on a levelish playing field when it comes to ks4.

the vast majority of differentiation in secondary school is by outcome. by expecting less of some and more of others. that doesn't bridge gaps.

i just think kids who've come through primary without learning the basic skills they'll need to get by in todays world deserve a term of intense support from the best trained professionals possible to bridge the gap and build their confidence.

i wasn't using her as a general example that meant to say

it's a shame these threads always seem to end up so argumentative and territorial when surely we all want what is best for kids and that's the focus?

Loads of school offer what you're talking about. More and more every year. The whole of year 7 is done as a nurture group in one classroom by one teacher.

If your child can't read and write by year 7, you do need to choose your school carefully.

If my DD doesn't learn to read and write I won't send her to secondary school. There is absolutely no reason to think someone in Y7 will be able to teach her when everyone else has failed. She won't be able to access the curriculum. So I will keep her home.

There are many reasons why kids reach year 7 illiterate. Only a few of those reasons can be solved in y7. The most notable one being bad teaching in primary.

SantaIsAnAnagramOfSatan, would you rather children who don't get a level 4/3/2 (take your pick, but there would need to be an agreed level I would have thought at which children would HAVE to be kept down if parents don't agree with the idea) in their final year SATs stay an extra year at the same primary school, or that these children get better provision made for them at secondary school? Or that compulsory summer schools be provided for anyone failing to meet the appropriate level in reading, writing and maths prior to starting secondary school? Or that entirely new facilities be set up for children not meeting the required levels for secondary education, to spend a year doing nothing but practising reading, writing and maths? And what will happen to the children who still fail to meet the required level to fully access the secondary curriculum, even after intensive tuition? Should they be kept back until they are 16 or 18 and then allowed to leave education altogether? Or kept at school until they finish it, even if they are 25 by then? Or be educated in special schools with entirely different expectations? As you are a secondary teacher, I expect you have a better idea of what sort of competency level some of these children are arriving at secondary school with than I do - at the moment I don't think I understand what the scale and degree of the problem actually is.

Or would you rather that more help was given at primary school so that less children left it illiterate?

i worked and trained in 5 different schools - only one had reasonably good provision. only one even managed to print class lists with accurate sen info on them within the first half term of a school year.

my expertise is obviously secondary. i'd like to see a combo of mixed ability teaching but extra help in a devoted unit/set of rooms led by extremely high skilled staff with excellent facilities and resources. it could be done by dedicating a number of hours a week to that for a struggling child or through an intensive half term or something. i don't have specifics and i'm not advocating streaming or special schools. i guess what i'm advocating is that if mixed ability comprehensive education is to work then it has to have the resources and staff and facilities to truly deal with all levels. in the same way it needs specialised staff, facilities and time for dealing with ebd.

my experience of schools is that all too often it's just a case of shoving them all in together and seeing who sinks and who swims. of so called 'sink groups' at gcse level with kids with behaviour problems and kids with learning problems shoved in together and written off

i used to happily take these groups and get their grades up way higher than was 'expected' - they were definitely capable of higher than expected and some of us were good at working with those groups and seeing their potential - though mixing low ability with anti social behaviour is a big mistake and very unfair on the lower ability kids who find themselves stuck in a lesson with some kids who don't want to learn, who bully the hell out of the more vulnerable etc.

comprehensive secondary school education CAN work but it needs on site all the facilities and resources that a grammar school and a special school would have once had separately. it needs flexibility and fluidity within the curriculum so that children can move in and out of special support as and when it's needed without stigma.

the other thing is then that that specialised unit and staff can communicate with teachers who are not expert in every single sen out there and hand them a file of info of what works and doesn't work for that child. it means they are a resource that that teacher can go to and say ok i'm having difficulty with student x in way y what do you recommend?

I think what you are talking about is the same with primary schools.

There are very good primary / secondary schools out there that teach all pupils. A lot of less good schools, and a few dreadful schools.

Pretty much all of what you suggest does happen in the best schools, and the less good schools need to learn from the best.

The SENCO should be able to direct a teacher to where to get the information. The LEA has ASD teams, vision impairment teams, hearing impairment teams, SALTs, Ed Psychs. The information is (by and large) available to schools.

Nurture groups are possible and often done very well.

If we pumped more money into schools and changed teacher training and reduced the teachers workload and changed attitudes we would educate more kids.

Once again I think you're better to concentrate on the concrete and specific (ie your child and your school) rather than lament generalisations.

In the end I've done very well by my 3 (ASD, dyslexia and dyspraxia) but only when I stopped following best practice and instead looked at a vast array of alternative therapies.

Noone in the education sector could teach my DD to read, because they kept on looking at the problem as an educational problem when it wasn't.

So what I'm saying is your pipe dream is flawed because the experts you are thinking of don't actually know how to help the kids they should. The EP who is the specialist in dyslexia gave us terrible advice.

But the alternative therapists who do know what they're talking about will never be funded by the NHS or welcomed into schools.

The more my school followed 'best practice' for ASD and dyslexia - the worse my kids did.

You seem to think that there are experts out there who have the answers. When in reality normally there aren't. Each child is different. Just because they have the same label does not mean the same thing will work for them.

The biggest expert on the child is the parent. If a teacher is struggling thy should talk to the parent for ideas.

i'm not talking about experts with all the answers and good professionals are reflexive and always learning anyway. and i'm not talking about one person but a team. i don't think it's a pipe dream to say that schools that wish to be truly inclusive need to have lots of different staff including counsellors, play therapists, sen specialists, art therapists etc etc etc. and of course this should be done in collusion with the parent and their expertise.

i talk generally because my experience is general - i trained and worked as a secondary school teacher and as a counsellor. of course parents need best to focus on their child but we need to look at the big picture too.

the fact that a few 'best' schools do some of this is no good to the rest of people who don't go to these good schools. and the idea that parents have 'choice' as to what school their kids go to is a fallacy for most of us.

i'm sorry if i've somehow offended.

what i see is that we've switched over to inclusive/comprehensive education without really changing the infrastructure and staff to make that meaningful.

one of the things i would love to teach in schools in basic mental health stuff - what is self esteem, what is anxiety, what do we need in our lives to be mentally healthy etc. when i left teaching i had the ambition of wanting to set up workshops for year groups or classes on this stuff and go into schools and do half day workshops with kids that would cover a whole load of stuff from the pshe/phase/pse curriculum without teachers who feel out of their depth teaching this stuff having to do it. i was told by the charity MIND that they couldn't even get schools to allow them to come in and do it for free.

anyway - i'm getting random sorry.

i think we can do lots more for kids and it's not all about how we teach literacy.