Fed up with our school being preferential to the clever kids!

[minko]

My DD is in Yr 6. She came home last Friday really demoralised by school. She has issues with dyselxia and struggles with school, though she always works hard and does her best. A few of her friends keep being repeatedly selected to go on seminars and other one day/ weekend events that they have been chosen for as they are the 'brainy kids'. It is really starting to get my goat. I complained to the teacher today and she said that the organisers ask for certain 'profiles' of the type of kids they want. Now that's all well and good for the kids chosen but it's not very inclusive! I think if opportunites are going to be offered they should pick the names out a hat and that be that. You wonder sometimes if the kids are benefitting or the profile of the school. Am I wrong to get upset about this??

diplodocus I have no problem with extra input for those struggling. All my life when it's been possible I've void for higher taxes precisely because I think the state needs more money for education (sadly whenever it gets more money it tends to divert it elsewhere). I do however resent the fact that my daughter, who has a statement and is entitled to SEN support is seeing that support diverted to other children on the grounds that she is doing fine anyway. Yes she is, but support now will help her have fewer difficulties in the future. We have first hand experience of this, because we saw it with DD1 as well.

Believe you me I worry far less about my children who go on these G&T courses than my dd stuck in the middle with zero expectations,zero confidence as a result and zero work ethic having had it ground into her that she isn't clever/ vocal enough to go on courses,to be pushed or to work out of her comfort zone.

There is limited money to go round,if she's G&T she'll be getting extra albeit in courses/ extension work.

Other children won't be getting enough SEN time or for those in the middle extension/ small group work.

"All children have gifts and are talented in their own way"

Sad to say that is bollox. Sadly some children are completely useless at everything and have no talents whatsoever. Prehaps such children are the children need our country's resouces the most.

However I agree with you that the way that "gifted and talented" is handled in many UK schools is unfair and incredibly arbitary. Opportunites should be given to ANY child who might benefit from them. Prehaps all children who are level 5 at the start of year 6 should be invited to a more able maths workshop. This would be similar to county saying that you need to have passed grade 1 to attend a county guitar day.

It would be interesting to know what proportion of children on an enrichment day are entitled to free school meals.

Well Really having been a teacher I can hand on heart say I've never met a child completely useless and with zero talents what so ever.That is an awful thing to say.

Re fsm. Where we are the money parents pay fund fsm parents to get the courses free.A lot of parents I know in the middle couldn't afford said courses at £30 £50 a pop.

Don't agree with the levels being a criteria as kids mature at different rates and really why should a child who has been pushed since rec get a place over a child stuck in the middle who never has.

I just think they need to get rid of the term G&T and the courses.They're an unnecessary luxury many parents can't afford anyway.

Retropear I agree they should just call them good at maths, good at english, good at science courses. But they are not allowed to. They don't do music G&T where I live which is a huge blow to DD2 because that is her real talent but there you go. The maths course DD2 is going on tomorrow is for kids working comfortably at L6 and ready to extend into L7. There are only 2 kids in her year at her school capable of going on that course. Are you seriously suggesting that someone who is hoping tone L5 by May should go on tomorrow's course? I agree that they could run courses focussing on L4/5 - but that's what all in-school maths seems to be aimed at anyway.

DD2 is going on a creative writing course on Friday - it's a shame they don't have those in your area. What we found with DD1 is that if you can find a G&T course in an adjacent area that suits your child, and the organisers and your school G&T coordinator signs off on it, then your child can go. DD1 went on a residential creative writing course for 15-16 Y/Os when she was 10 as a result of this (she was invited after participating in one for her own age) and had a fabulous time. If the tutor on the first course hadn't told us she could go on the other one, we'd never have known though cos the G&T co-ordinator at the primary school was very bad at her job. :(

Retropear did you not read my earlier post? She gets no suitable extension work at school, she isn't being pushed at all, and this term there have been a grand total of 3 G7T courses at her level - 2 in maths 1 in English. And all of them in a 9 day window. She has been snoozing since September and will be snoozing again till Xmas, probably.

Indians 2 of mine go on G&T writing courses but one doesn't although just as able.Her year obviously is a brighter year and if she was pushed her literacy would be just as good as my other two imvho.I tear my hair out th lack of expectations regarding her reading and writing.Having a foot in both camps is very intereting.It's creative writing courses for any kid I want,a real gap in the market imvho.

Re the maths one of mine goes on maths courses but re levels I think a lot is down to teaching and content.You may have a very able mathematician who simply hasn't accessed level 6 content.

But Indians the courses won't help that.

I hear you re the snoozing,2 of mine do in some things but get a bit in other things.The child in the middle snoozes the most.

I hate the term G&T, too, despite both my DC being on the list through Primary and Secondary school.

I can understand why certain DC get picked, but I can also understand why it upsets other DC. As my DC went through secondary school they got picked more and more, because these enrichment days turned into competitions and the school wanted to win.

One of the trips DS2 went on was an Easter Science school at Cambridge university, so it made perfect sense that they had to excel at Science to go.

I think if the children are G&T the school have to become involved with things like this as they get funding for these dc.
However, it does seem unfair.
I agree that all children should be supported more, but that's the system unfortunately.

Ime primary schools are pretty crap and celebrating anything but sport

Never noticed any 'extras' or ever heard any mention of g and t at any of our very high achieving schools

Sport is very frequently rewarded and overtly rewarded ...

I'm with Cory - very well put

I think a more able child needs high quality work every day rather than just a work shop. As a country we let down our more able chldren, particularly in key stage 2. In the past many school saw there job as being done once a child had reached a comfortable level 4/5.

I would like to use more use of internet schools to teaching the more able on a national level. Gifted children need suitable lessons everyday if they are going to reach their potential. I believe that online video conferencing would make more able children and their teachers feel less isolated.

Retro I too have a foot in both camps. DS (Y9) while also very bright (dyslexic, therefore has had a battery of tests etc which identify how bright he is (at least as bright as his sisters, possibly more so) bt also the huge gap between his brightness and his attainment even though he is 'in the middle' rather than struggling' by levels - such a rubbish instrument for evaluating a child's educational experience :( ) is resolutely 'middling' as far as attainment goes, maybe because of his dyslexia and possibly his AS issues too (although I think it's a bit simplistic to lay his performance at the foot of his AS and dyslexia issues because I know many kids with similar issues who excel academically). Except in Maths - he's great at maths, but because he so patently lacks confidence his school has decided (and he, and we concur) that it is better for him to be the top one in group 2 rather than in the middle in group 1 (groups 1 and 2 purposely overlap and cover the same material to allow for movement if necessary).

But even having seen the struggles that DS has had, especially at primary school when he also had an extended period of deafness, I still don't think that removing any opportunity to teach the ones at the top of the scale at an appropriate level is the right thing to do. Many kids have their feelings hurt by PE lessons, sports teams etc - but nobody is about to ban them.

I'm one of the people who believe that everyone has something that is 'their thing'. But it might not be something that is studied at all, or studied at primary school. It might be something that kids find outside school. It's completely right to recognise that everyone has different talents and while some talents are more remunerative than others, and some talents are perhaps more useful than others (e.g. the ones that lead a person to dentistry) that doesn't mean they are intrinsically 'better'. However. It is not right to refuse to recognise a child's talents because other children don't have the same talent set. My dyspraxic DDs don't enjoy being humiliated in PE but I tell them they just have to suck it up (or find a way to avoid or avert disaster as I did). Kids who are sporty but not academic (and I know many are both and many are neither) at least aren't humiliated by not being sent on a brainy maths course. They should be grateful for that.

Retro - the courses are sometimes fab for the 7 hours or 2 days or whatever that they last. And sometimes they are not. But, as I said above, they are all essentially cosmetic sticking plaster on the real problem. However I don't see anyone here suggesting the real problem of stretching the brightest should be addressed - I see people saying that we should be stretching the middle so all can have prizes.

No I don't see that.

Tbh I think some are saying said courses are a bit of luxury(sticking plaster whatever),have negs and that all children deserve to be stretched not just a few at the top and bottom.

Personally I think out of school enrichment should happen for all or none.All could benefit from courses that embrace strengths. As you say said courses don't stop your dc from snoozing on a daily basis.

The education in primary schools is almost entirely focussed on the middle. If the top end are to be stretched every day, with no additional resources, it's the middle who will lose out. If that's what you want then, well, fair enough. But it isn't what you want. What you want is for the top end to be left to stagnate while the middle are pushed to approach the top end slightly more closely. Which actually doesn't help anyone - some kids would be pushed faster than they need to be (nobody needs to leave primary school at L6, but those kids who enter Y6 at L6 deserve to be educated for that final year rather than left to rot as happens now) jut because of playground envy. It seems nuts. People so obsessed with the idea that someone else's child has something that their child doesn't have so it must be unfair.....but not minding at all when their child is in sports teams and gets all the positive reinforcement that that brings.

The middle kids are stretched, but their parents don't notice because they spend all their time looking through narrowed eyes at the kids on the top table and muttering that the only reason their kids aren't there is they aren't being stretched enough. Being the mother of both types of kids, I can see this happening on almost a daily basis. Knowing the amount of teacher effort that goes into both types of kids, I can see who is getting the raw deal. And it isn't the middle kids who in the main get the best possible deal of all the deals available because they are the easiest to cater to.

Nope that isn't what I want and I disagree.

I have 2 in top groups and most certainly don't want them to stagnate but I don't want my middle child to either.I want all stretched and I've said that 3 times now.

I couldn't give a stuff re groups(I have no idea as never helped out)but I do give a stuff re my dd reading books in GR she read at home in reception,producing shit writing way below her capabilities because she said her teacher doesn't care about spelling/punctuation,homework that doesn't challenge,her teacher saying she can achieve 4s with zero effort etc,etc

The fact is my 2 in nice little booster groups are going to be noticed,are going to be pushed,are going to have more expected of them(like those in the bottom) because of group size and the fact they are priority groups.Those quiet kids who easily get 4s with zero effort and don't hit the top 10% are overlooked and I can see why.

OFTED come in and they want 4s for everybody so Bingo that is one sector where resources will need to go,then there is SEN,then there are the G&Ts who they have to be seen to be stretched,then there are the naughty kids.The quiet kids not in any of those groups are stuffed if they want to be pushed or noticed.You may not be happy with what your G&T kid gets but believe you me there are a lot worse off unless you believe only the top 10% should get pushed.

And getting bak to the op it doesn't alter the fact that enrichment courses are a nice luxury(for those that can afford it) and nothing else.

Just a quick point on stretching all children - what has been made very very clear to us by Osfed is that they are concerned primarily with progress, not attainment. So, whilst our attainment levels are fine, they are not happy that we are not making "above expected levels of progress".

The reality of this is that every single child, whether high achieving, low achieving, SEN, Pupil Premium or the mid achieving, quiet well behaved child in the middle, has to make at lease 12 to 13 points of progress in key stage 2.

In our case they wanted 14 points (ie 7 sub levels), so over 2 National Curriculum levels. Every single child has to be pushed - what we find and were pulled up on was that the mid group were actually doing this. The high achievers, and the SEN children were not.

Our year 5 class of 30 children has 3 children already working at a comfortable level 5 in maths and literacy - who will hit year 6 at a level 6. We still have to show progress, and keep them enthused, hence the fact we've been looking into external stuff for them.

Sitting exactly. But some people resent this. :( the one thing I would challenge you on though us talking about SEN and high achievement as if they were mutually exclusive. They aren't.

But doesn't that mean those who didn't get above average grades at year 2 Sats on paper can be under stretched ie so long as they hit the progress expected from the year 2 Sat starting point nobody will care.

It's fine if you were fully matured at year 2,Autumn birth,hit top groups in year 1 and were pushed accordingly or had a great year 2 teacher but those not so fortunate who will mostly fall in the middle are going to be at a disadvantage.

The sad fact is the longer you're out of the top groups the less likely you'll ever reach them as you won't cover the work,be used to being stretched etc.Fluidity just doesn't exist. As the view on here(not my experience)is the middle is tailor made for those in it extension work etc doesn't happen.

Our school isn't that great on this so except other schools may be far better.

Sitting by all means reassure me on this,I could do with it.It makes your blood boil having an under challenged child subjected to very low expectations whatever group they're in.

Having kids in both I think the top get some protection from the extent to which this happens as they're more visible.

@sittinginthesun, "In our case they wanted 14 points"

Why? I'm no expert but understood the 12-13 fell out of last year's average being 13 points and 14 was still 'good'. Are they invoking 'similar schools' (demographics) for that 14 points?

Retro - having kids in both it is clear to me that the kids at the top get no protection at all from this, they are the main victims. They are under challenged because to challenge them would be challenging for the teacher/the schools and would require new resources. If your top table in Y6 is full of comfortable L5s then they have somewhere to go. If that table also has two L6s (who were working at L6 in Y5) then there is nowhere for them to go and they are left just twiddling their thumbs.

As I noted before - some people don't seem to grasp that not every child can be in the top groups unless the top groups are purposely held back. Bringing in the autumn/summer birth thing is another red herring but if you want to insist it's relevant then that is an even bigger argument for August born kids like my DD2 to get extra provision because for them to be where they are is apparently so much more of an achievement than if they had been born in September ( I don't believe this, myself, but it seems to be heresy on MN to say so).