a bit sad re parents evening and "levels"

[severnofnine]

a bit of an AIBU but I'm not brave enough to post there.

So DS1 I think is bright ( but so is everyone dc i guess). WE saw the teacher and he is " gaining levels as expected" and isnt it great that he achieving " what he should be" and "average".

I found the whole thing so sad. Lots of positives- always enthusiastic and works well independently. and lots of emphasis of - "isnt it great that he is gaining levels as expected".

He says school is "ok"- lots of spelling tests which he hates. he is quite quiet and very "well behaved" ( unlike his brothers), which is I think his teachers are finding him enthusiastic as he wouldnt dream of actually showing he was bored at school.

I'm not a pushy parent at all and am quite relaxed.
But even so I found the whole emphasis on average and gaining levels as we would hope etc kind of depressing.

and dont suggest private school as we really cant afford it :(

Rosemary, yes all good until yr 5 when the new teacher has to break it to the parents that for the first time their dc is struggling as they can "do" but don't really fully understand so can't apply. But then again at least they have sound basics, so can't really object to parents wanting to help, just as long as they understand and believe teacher.

learnandsay why would the school be glad your child couldn't divide fractions at age 6? That's in a few years time surely?

My son is 6 so I'm trying to imagine your scenario. Dividing fractions isn't that difficult really when you know how, just multiplication in fact. It's the concept of the fractions that is more difficult, not the division or the way of "doing" it. My DS knows his 2 times table so he could in theory divide a half by a half if I told him to turn the second upside down and multiply. He probably wouldn't know why though or how to apply it and that is what toobusy is getting at I think. I would rather he learnt that in class where all sorts of practical examples would lead up to and follow that lesson, rather than tell the teacher they know how to do it when they can just "do" it and not actually "apply" it.

Yes, not sure where this dividing fractions obsession has one from, but if you were to ask me honestly, I would rather a child had not been taught how to do this at age 6 simply because of what jalapeño said. This is not to say I don't appreciate reinforcement and support from parents.

I just picked something at random from KS2 maths. But I wanted something that a child would be unlikely to have learned by accident. So when the parent pretended to have no idea how the child learned it it would look odd. My three year old understands fractions up to sixths, (pieces of pizza) I wouldn't be surprised if she grasps the concept of division by fractions to some extent before she's six. There's a difference between dividing by a fraction and dividing fractions by each other. I'm not sure why a six year old would find the latter useful. But sharing pizza is useful no matter how old you are.

Yes, you're right. They would definitely be busted if they tried to pretend they hadn't taught that. Good example.

There isn't really a difference in dividing by a fraction and dividing fractions actually because a whole number can be expressed as a whole number. 3 divided by 1/2 is the same as saying 3/1 divided by 1/2 which is 3/1 x 2/1 therefore 6/1 or 6.

Dividing by 6 to get 1/6 of a pizza is dividing a whole number by another whole number. Is that what you meant?

So your DD understands dividing 1 by 6 to get a fraction, not dividing by a fraction or indeed dividing fractions in the example given.

Oops a whole number can be expressed as a fraction!

I have been delighted with the average label, and "on target" statements. DS1: it just meant that he was treading water nicely when he still had plenty of time to develop (family of late bloomers). Otherwise, at least he wasn't screwed up (plenty of screw ups in my family, too). Happy with DS2 being "on target" because he has various attributes that would tend to be put him in the below average group, but he's not. So he's doing better than I would have expected. I'm overjoyed about that.

And I never describe DC as "bright". Even if others do. I still don't know what that word is supposed to mean.

Always one weirdo, eh?

Op - I wanted to know the levels so I could gauge how my DD was doing.
I know she is making progress but I'm not sure what she should be able to do by this age as I'm not surrounded by other 6 year olds so I'm just not sure what is expected from this age group.

I'd be quite happy not to be given levels if they could say explicitly how they were doing so I came away from parents evening knowing if she was achieving above, just right or below in each of the main subjects. I also wanted to know if she was happy, played nicely with friends and was generally well behaved at school. Knowing the levels is just one way to find this out.

In the parent's evening this week, I came away feeling very informed and thought the teacher got it spot on with the information she gave.

Um, Jalapeno. I suppose it depends on the fraction. She knows that a half is two quarters. And she would be able to divide by sixths. But she doesn't know that two sixths is one third, in fact she doesn't know what a third is (because her toy pizza is already divided into six pieces.) But if you gave her another toy pizza and nine dolls and asked her to give each doll two sixths, she'd very soon run out of pieces and complain. I suppose not knowing how to apply dividing by fractions depends on what you're asking the child to do.

I'd guess that the emphasis on levels comes from on high, Senior Management. Being an NQT has nothing to do with it.

ultimately your child's education is your responsibility. schools only exist to keep the offspring of the workforce off the streets for most of the day (i studied 'history and structure of british education' - very enlightening).

so, assess him yourself, plan your own scheme of work, and go for it. whilst you won't need to refer to 'levels' at all, they do provide a useful outline for progression if you think you need a guide.

One of the reasons why some parents may chose to not tell they teach at home is because sadly not all teachers are comfortable with this and it will make the teacher/parent relationship difficult.

I live in Kent and I have a son in year 5 obviously we are now discussing the 11+ a huge amount. 3 parents are putting their child up for this test even though they deep down know they will not likely pass one girl have said she doesnt want to but her parents have said she is doing it anyway.

Natural ability WILL begin to show around this time. For me it is sad that some parents are not willing to try to be objective about their childs abilities. dd1 would likely have passed the Kent test but we felt her suitability for a grammar school would be bad (She gets super stressed when she is under pressure) the primary backed us up on this decision she is now in year 9 and thriving in a non grammar school, doing very well. However when they fast tracked her in French feeling she had the ability she crashed completely. Leaving me with the firm belief we did right in not trying to send her to a grammar school. dd2 took the test but didnt pass (very dyslexic so we knew the chances were low but supported her wish to do so) ds will take it he is grammar school potential and is wanting the super selective. So far he is on track for that. with dd3 due to her reading ability we will likely not even attempt it.

It is so important your willing to step back emotionally and just see your child and what is best for them. A super selective is not going to be the right choice for all who have the abillity for example. with dd2 I was overjoyed when she managed average end of year 6 in all subject bar 1 (where she was 1 below) the work for her to get there was huge. with ds he is in year 5 and has already by passed his older sister in this. I have given them the same support at home. They simply are different people.

Wow lovebunny, I would say my DS's school is far more than a caring service for the local workforce. Care to qualify that remark?

Fascinating feed all.

Interesting we're still back on inherent natural ability will out.

I'm still left wondering why there isn't the scope for 'nurture' to result in achievement?

Our school isn't awful, but they clearly aren't that ambitious. It's not shouted from the rooftops, but over the years it has become obvious that the children that do well are actively supported at home.

My feeling is the school doesn't openly say to parents - your DC is a bit behind, other parents have done x to great success - because that would remove the mystique/ kudos of the high achievers being down to the work of the school.

I'm open about it because I strongly object to a school spending more time in Y1 teaching and ensuring all children know the Lord's prayer than they do on subtractions using numbers 1 - 20. God love them, but I think their priorities are crazy sometimes.

Yes it does seem a shame that schools are less open but otherwise its a pretty well established fact that children that do well are actively supported at home.

As for nature vs nurture, like most things its both. I do think natural ability is still a big factor but nurture makes a vast difference. I've seen very naturally bright kids fail because they are lazy arses and others that were struggling in younger years, achieve A grades at GCSE level due to hard work.

Few seem to believe the intellect can significantly grow through 'nurture' IMO.

Primary teachers generally see the class in terms of high, middle & low ability Just read practically any post on TES to see how these ideas are entrenched. Of course things may change/be more flexible in practice but a bright child rarely has this judgement/label rescinded. A 'slow' child early on who exceeds expectations is likely seen as being supported at home or a hard worker. A 'slow' child can't become 'bright' in the eyes of the majority.

Someone made a brave point up thread about doing work at home so your child is thought 'bright' at school which will likely gain psychological advantage. IMO plenty do this, natural talent is often 'hidden practice'.

Many won't agree but give me an ordinary child with an average intellect (whatever that means) and I believe they could fairly easily with time & lots of input & practise read Roald Dahl & understand it by the time they were just 6 years old. The school would assume the child was able & possibly G&T. Like it or not they'll be seen as intellectually superior (at least in reading) & probably subconsciously more broadly than a peer without much support or exposure to the written word. Will this give them an advantage? I think so for lots of reasons.

I believe the intellect can develop through hard work but here in the UK we generally seem not to I've found.

So many children I know who exceed expectations in various areas have all got there through a combination of parental support, good teaching at school & an awful lot of 'hidden practice' which most would take for 'natural talent'. I know what teachers took for natural flair in my later school career was all as a result of my own hobby & interest & as a result the hundreds of hours I'd put in by then.

OP, fwiw, I am with you on the whole levels thing being a bit depressing.

Interestingly, the emphasis on levels has increased at the dds' school in recent years, in line with parental demand for more information on exactly that

Luckily for me, dd's Y3 teacher did the levels bit but also talked about what she thought dd needed to do to achieve more, how sensible dd was in the midst of all the Y3 girly fall-outs that had gone on this term, how happy dd seemed to be, and her creativity. So I didn't leave feeling too empty.

If it had been levels only, I would have done.

Much of the work on study skills done in secondary school is focused on getting the kids to understand that intellect can develop through hard work. Just last week I sat through an assembly whilst a teacher described the brain like a muscle (but not a muscle obviously) and the more you use it the better it gets and it crops up in the year 11 science course as well, so I would say the theory that nurture has a significant effect is well established.

However at A level I do teach some students who despite working very hard seemed to have reached a ceiling. Not all students could become brain surgeons, some just haven't got it.

The psychological influence of thinking you are bright cannot be underestimated and the phrase ' if I think I can do it, I probably can' is very true.

It may be taught but it's not widely believed intellect can significantly develop as your post demonstrates, whathaveif...

Ability doesn't have a ceiling IMO - most can continue to develop their intellect.

I take your point not all are cut out to be rocket scientists but think unless there are serious impairments all can continue to grow in intellect, ability & understanding.

Cortina, that is so interesting!

My DS2 loves maths, and always wants to do his older brother's homework. He taught himself all the times tables at 6 as his older brother was learning them.

So now, he is supposedly "gifted" at maths, but I have told the teacher it is through hard work (he is not brighter than other kids, IMO, but he has more determination to learn things than an average child IYSWIM). But the teacher tells me he is " a genius" and treats him accordingly, ie he gets lots of extra challenges and in other subjects he is weaker at (literacy) he still is at the top table, as she is sure he can do better than he is doing as he is "bright".

The effect this has is that DS is doing better than we expect, but oddly I feel we are frauds!

But the positive effect of your child being treated as a capable and bright child is enormous. It is interesting really.

I think a hard working attitude is undervalued in the UK, and natural "brightness" seen as worth more, which is odd really when you think about it.

Chandon, I've seen this in reverse - children at the top table in maths - when actually the weakest - as they are believed to be G&T in literacy. We seem to believe in universal 'brightness' in the UK - you either have it or you don't.

Teachers often unconsciously continue to behave in ways that facilitate and encourage that 'brightness' to flourish ahead of others deemed to have a ordinary intellect.

There's a post on Education at the moment (I think) where teachers agree you can 'always spot the bright ones' early on. It's the elephant in the room I think and why some 'support'/hot house children.

I said before I believe a child with a perfectly 'average' intellect (whatever that means) could be a level 3C in reading before they were 6 - if they'd been continuously supported from a young age. A child at this sort of level at this age is hugely advantaged from what I've seen and will nearly always seen to be very bright.

Couldn't agree more with this statement.

'I said before I believe a child with a perfectly 'average' intellect (whatever that means) could be a level 3C in reading before they were 6 - if they'd been continuously supported from a young age. A child at this sort of level at this age is hugely advantaged from what I've seen and will nearly always seen to be very bright.'

The very reasons I am supporting my DD to stay somewhere near the top of the class. Sad but very true. I don't think its just the teachers that do so, but the child themselves particularly in areas like maths.

In secondary school all students are expected to know their own expected levels/grades, which if fine for those predicted high grades.

Imo going on what happens in our school the teachers decide whom they think the 'bright' dc are,which are generally the very verbal,conformist,teacher pleasing children and then this becomes a self fulfiling prophecy,these children are treated as being bright and therefore gain in confidence and behave as bright children.
On the other hand my highly gifted,quirky,non teacher pleasing daughter is treated as slightly above average and no more and behaves accordingly.
Bitter? me?

I said before I believe a child with a perfectly 'average' intellect (whatever that means) could be a level 3C in reading before they were 6 - if they'd been continuously supported from a young age.

I don't. I believe in having extremely high expectations and never pigeon holing any child, like most decent teachers - but I also know exactly what being a 3c reader entails.