SATs Expectations and Progress

[drsimonlee]

My bright daughter (IQ 140-50) received a 3a for reading, 3b for Maths and a 3C for Science at the end of Year 2. That was a little disappointing, especially the Reading side of things, given she can already cope well with the Lord of the Rings etc. However, I've been told the SATs test involves reading aloud, so she's working on that this year. Nevermind.

She improved from an assessment of 1b in Maths to 3c (5 sub-levels) from Year 1 to Year 2. This was good news. Her Science improved by a similar extent.

I have a meeting with the Head/class teacher next week to discuss expectations and progress (a meeting I initiated) and I wonder what I will ask them to achieve with my daughter this year? If the average child is improving two sub-levels a year on average (from what others say on this site) then is a whole level of progress a reasonable expectation? Obviously more would be desirable and I'm already thinking that 4 sub-levels would be great. It's pretty obvious that children will improve more in the early years so academic progress isn't linear (I understand this a former Uni. lecturer) but I'd still like to see progress commensurate with her general intelligence level.

What's that got to do with them both having an equal right to state education? I'm not for a minute saying that in terms of teacher/ lesson time equal means both your children should get the exact same. However it's not remotely necessary to sacrifice the needs of one child in order to provide for the needs of the second. Good schools and good teaching/ leadership manage to allow both to progress at the rate suited to each individual. However their is no recourse to object if bad schools/ teaching/ leadership decide they can't be bothered/ cope with teaching both, and therefore decide they'll hold back/ ignore the needs of the more able for the child that struggles.
Dd was part of a small group of best friends at primary, all in the same year, with one class per year group. One of whom has sn that effects her both socially and academically. Dd is years ahead of her academically, in maths especially there is probably something like 6/7 years between them in terms of the level they worked at. Dd did have some maths lessons where she wasn't with the class, but then again so did her friend. For the majority of maths lessons they sat next to each other, doing work appropriate for them. Great for both of them. Neither had to sacrifice their own needs either for each other, or the needs of the rest of the class. If a council estate primary that is nothing special on paper can manage that with two kids so far apart, then there's no reason they all can't. And yet it's apparently ok for my catchment comprehensive to ignore my childs needs, when practically it should be easier for them. And there was no recourse to make them.
Again even your second child has a lot going for them because they've got parental support and involvement. What about the child who has nothing whatsoever going for them except raw academic ability? Why does the educational system itself turn a blind eye to schools willingly deciding that able child should sacrifice their only advantage in life for other kids benefit? When actually it isn't the only practical choice, it's pure laziness.

A good few schools near me have lots in place for lower achievers. Vocational subjects in school, arrangements with outside sources, other establishments etc and lots of encouragement to do them, aspiration, future careers etc. Fuck all in place if your able child wants to do something not offered by the school, like separate science or more than one maths gcse. Let alone stuff like classics or Latin. And of course with not offering them, they certainly aren't going to open them up to the possibility of taking them, or developing an interest. So they can fob people off by saying there aren't sufficient numbers to make it viable as a shared venture with other schools like the vocational stuff.

No child should be expected to sacrifice their education for another anyway, but even more so when it isn't even necessary.

.

Shame some schools interpret that picture as meaning you should chop the legs off the tallest to make them all even.

i dont think schools interpret the picture full stop

Lurkedforever1 What's that got to do with them both having an equal right to state education?

I made no reference to their right to a state education what so ever in that post so why do you think that was the point behind it?

To reiterate the point I was making:

if you understood things from my perspective you would see why some parents feel this way: I would be very interested in knowing why you connected this sentence with me making a point about them having a right to a state education.

What's more your point about academically able children not being pushed/challenged enough has nothing to do with their right to an education either. They're in school and getting an education. The point you appear to have an issue with is the quality of the education.

You are aware that there is a difference between having a right to a state education and having a right to the very best state education or even having the right to reach full academic potential (I would be very interested in knowing how you have actually ascertained what this actually is for your DC).

However it's not remotely necessary to sacrifice the needs of one child in order to provide for the needs of the second. Can you explain why you think I have sacrificed the needs of one DC over the needs of the other?

Good schools and good teaching/leadership manage to allow both to progress at the rate suited to each individual. Given that many of the tools used to determine which are the good schools are fundamentally flawed (OFSTED), it is very hard to determine which actually are the good schools or even if they are achieving this. Perhaps you can name a school that is enabling children across the board to achieve their full academic potential.

Again even your second child has a lot going for them because they've got parental support and involvement. What about the child who has nothing whatsoever going for them except raw academic ability? You do realise that average achievers with SEN may also have disinterested parents too? What's more their "raw academic ability" is hidden by their SEN so they go through their entire life without even knowing that their academic potential was far higher than they ever achieved.

Fuck all in place if your able child wants to do something not offered by the school, like separate science or more than one maths gcse. So not only do you think that schools should be offering 1-2-1 tuition, which is pretty much the only thing that will result in every child in every class room around the country reaching their full academic potential, but you also think schools should teach every subject under the sun to cater for the individual interests of those children. Perhaps you have your own idea of how this can actually be achieved given that not a single country in the world can lay claim to this achievement? You might like to also explain where you think the funding and resources will come from to achieve this?

I have no idea how you are leaping to any of those conclusions from my posts. However I don't buy into the idea it's ok for any parent to think their dc has more right to an appropriate quality of education than somebody elses. Just because one parents valid official complaints about their dcs education aren't resulting in change, does not mean they should be in favour of another group not even having any official route to complain.

You appear to think quality education for different ability groups needs to be either/or. We aren't limited to choosing between a 1950's 11+ education system where all but the able are screwed over. And neither are we limited to the ethos of some comprehensives where the most able are screwed over.

If a bunch of local schools can all offer hairdressing etc based at a shared venue, why can't they do the same with academic subjects? If schools can offer appropriate differentiation between middle and low ability groups, why can't they do it for the most able? Because again some do manage it.

I also really don't understand why if you think able provision is adequate, you have opted for 11+ for your ds. Because even if it's a full 11+ opt out area, nobody forces you to cover level 6 for the exam, or even turn up for it. And that's ignoring the fact you might have done more prep than that. You appear to think able provision isn't good enough for your ds in the alternative state schools, and you don't wish to sacrifice his potential for the less able. But it's perfectly adequate for other people's dc and they shouldn't mind their childs potential being sacrificed. Double standards.
My dd may well be at an independent, which we all including me accept gives an unfair advantage, but at least I'm not of the opinion that the crap able provision in some local comprehensives is ok for everyone elses able kids. Or maybe you just don't get that for some of us, our realistic comprehensive choices are more like the stereotype of a secondary modern.

Lurkedforever1 I have no idea how you are leaping to any of those conclusions from my posts. Even with the bold highlighted comments preceding them? That's odd.

one parents valid official complaints about their dcs education aren't resulting in change. Your comments have all been broad brushed statements about all comprehensives failing all academically able children not just about your child being failed by one school.

However I don't buy into the idea it's OK for any parent to think their dc has more right to an appropriate quality of education than somebody elses. And yet that is exactly how you have come across. You appear to think that the children at the very top of "the bell curve" (what ever it is you think that might be, what top 0.2% or top 10% maybe) are the ones being most disadvantaged. I disagree, I think there are others who are being equally disadvantaged.

If a bunch of local schools can all offer hairdressing etc based at a shared venue, why can't they do the same with academic subjects? Some of my local schools do though. They are part of a well established consortium. A number of the ranked schools work with the non ranked schools.

If schools can offer appropriate differentiation between middle and low ability groups, why can't they do it for the most able?: Here's a few reasons:

Time
Money
Intake mix
Geographical location
Support from parents
Competency of individual teachers
Competency of the management team
Competency of the governors
Fear of job security
Impending OFSTED visits
Ticking boxes to meet the demands placed on them
Political agendas

I also really don't understand why if you think able provision is adequate, you have opted for 11+ for your ds. I have 7 11 plus schools and three non ranked schools that my DS can apply to. I live in a heavily oversubscribed area. Due to distance cut offs my DS could only realistically expect to gain a place at one of the non ranked schools but as allocation is done by distance there is a possibility he won't get a place. In short I didn't think it wise to discount the possibility of 7 out of the 10 schools in one shot by not sitting the test.

And that's ignoring the fact you might have done more prep than that. Yes I certainly did as the benefits are multi-fold. It got my DS used to the ramped up work load that he would be expected to do if he got into any of the 11 plus schools. It also meant that he will have earned the place through effort. He will also sit a technology test and a music aptitude test but has not done any preparation for those tests.

You appear to think able provision isn't good enough for your ds in the alternative state schools Really, perhaps you can show me what I have posted that has lead you to this conclusion?

One of our school options will be our nearest non ranked school. I looked around it last year and I am happy that he will perform well there. They have a Grammar stream as do the other two non ranked schools. They have had a huge amount invested in them recently and their facilities appear to be excellent.

I've no idea why but you are entirely misinterpreting most of what I say. Crap comprehensives aren't just a problem in my area alone. It's widely acknowledged that the most able are often failed. And that's what we're discussing. Not whether Sen provision is adequate, or whether able provision is ok because you have good choices. Its beyond me why you persist in saying I want the able prioritised. I don't. I want a system that firstly has at least something in place for them, and the right to object when it's not followed. Why should my able child, or anyone elses able child go to a school that is acknowledged to fail the most able? And yet there is no right to complain it's not good enough because hey, the dc will pass exams anyway so who gives a stuff about anything else. And schools like that are not either unique or rare. However nowhere have I said its all comprehensives either.
Your lea are obliged to offer you a school place, so no you didn't have to enter him for the 11+. And you certainly didn't have to prep him so he'd gain a place over equally able but less prepared dc. I'm not criticising you for that btw, in your shoes I'd have done the same. But essentially by doing that you are saying that for you, the needs of your dc are a priority over other kids. I'm not saying my dds needs are the priority, just that she, and every other dc, including the most able, have an equal right to suitable education.
Basically you have schools that meet your able childs needs, and therefore you're offering a list of excuses as to why it's ok for plenty of other schools in numerous areas not to meet the needs of other able kids. So your dc can go to a suitable school, but you object to others wanting the same access.

As for Sen and fsm, the most disadvantaged in life etc, who do you think needs to be in powerful positions in the UK to change that? People from poor or average backgrounds and state comps, or yet more of the ex private pupils, and those from top state grammars? And yet the brutal truth is that the only state comprehensive kids in with a chance of doing that are the most able. Except the state system on the whole doesn't even pretend it's got any interest in supporting them. (Not to say individual schools or teachers etc don't do, but there's no right to expect it).

Lurkedforever1 Out of interest, how did the class teacher, HoY, HM, school governors and OFSTED respond when you submitted your complaint?

My school is part of a "soft" federation of schools sharing resources, expertise and training. Our able children have access to KS3 teachers who support our staff so that we see the KS3 curriculum in action. In return their staff ave a clearer picture of what is covered in primary so that pupils aren't taking a backward step in Y7,
Our FSM and PP pupils make good progress as do our SEN pupils - according to Ofsted all groups of children achieve well because they are eager to learn and want to succeed. ..

We've strayed a long way from the OPs post.

Passing the 11+ is no guarantee of intelligence. I went to a good grammar in Kent along with girls who though Austria was a part of Australia (literally that was where they pointed on the world map), couldn't grasp the concept of a satellite being anything other than a man made object and after six weeks of talking about evolution theory managed the statement "so when you are in your mummy's tummy you are a monkey and when you are born you are a person, right?"
These were people who scored higher than I did, who finished with higher GCSE's than I did and enacted a complete and total campaign of verbal abuse and physical violence because I liked to read and knew all the answers.
Having a high IQ and being considered G&T does not protect you from idiots OP, and learning how to cope with others, especially those who don't respect your intelligence, will get you much further in life.

Oh, and I also have an IQ well above average and am dyslexic and dyspraxic. I had parents who wanted me to be my best the whole time and I burnt out within months at secondary, I couldn't cope with the bullying or the low levels of academic ability in my class so I gave up.

mum my dd isn't at the school as I said. Ofsted were already aware, one more complaint doesn't make any difference. Trust me I researched every possibility for getting some provision made when there was still a possibility dd might have ended up there. As for the staff themselves, I got mutterings about timetabling difficulties in response to what they'd provide if a child turned up with the gcse. Another school that does ok by lower and middle ability kids had a couple of individual teachers who really impressed me as they were clearly still trying to fight a losing battle to provide something for higher ability kids, despite the fact the school leadership were unsupportive.
My whole point is there isn't anything you can do to make a school provide for a child who is already surpassing nc targets. The schools that do provide for able kids do it of their own choice, not because there is any comeuppance if they don't.

I researched every possibility for getting some provision made when there was still a possibility dd might have ended up there.

I'm a bit confused now. Did your DC not actually go to the school that you have highlighted as failing academically able children or did they go but you pulled them out and put them into another school (presumably an indie/private as you have placed a heavy emphasis on state schools being unable to cater for the needs of academically able children)? I ask this purely in light of you using the words ??when there was still a possibility dd might have?? rather than ??when my dd did??.

Firstly I know the local schools as we have friends at them. Secondly although my dd has gone to independent, it hinged on whether she got full fee reduction, so the local catchment shithole school was a very real possibility. The realistic second choice was the one that is ok for middle or low achievers as they have plenty of provision. Both these schools, and all the state schools locally I've done plenty of research into over the last few years. I also come across a large and varied range of opinions, good and bad and not specific to able provision on local schools due to my job, which isn't in education.
Again you twist my words. I didn't say state schools can't cater to able children. I said the state system itself does not have any provision, so whilst there are state schools that do, or even individual teachers, if your school doesn't, there are no specific grounds to ask or expect more.

I'm confused as to what your point is. Is it that because you have a choice of state schools that have able provision, you don't believe its not the same for everyone? Or does it come down to the fact you don't think anyone else has a right to complain about not having the same access to suitable state schools as you appear to do?

Lurkedforever1 Firstly I know the local schools as we have friends at them.

Given that you evidently have no first hand experience to back the claims you have made, I think I will bow out of the discussion.

BTW, complaining to OFSTED about a school your DC does not and never has attended is unlikely to prompt action.

Well of course not, they don't act on complaints from parents of actual pupils, or indeed on the findings of their own ofsted inspectors.

Yes, probably best to bow out, as I notice you are unable to explain why other able children shouldn't have the same quality of education as your able child.

Lurkedforever1 Yes, probably best to bow out, as I notice you are unable to explain why other able children shouldn't have the same quality of education as your able child.

Actually I did explain why I thought this to be the case, admittedly not so much addressing the "why they shouldn't" (as I think in an utopian world, which unfortunately we don't live, every child would) but more the "why they don't":

Time
Money
Intake mix
Geographical location
Support from parents
Competency of individual teachers
Competency of the management team
Competency of the governors
Fear of job security
Impending OFSTED visits
Ticking boxes to meet the demands placed on them
Political agendas

However, I am sure you have the answer to how every child can receive the same quality of education, both state and indie/private. Please do feel free to share.

Yes we could start by asking people to realise their good local schools aren't representative of all areas.

I don't believe further discussion is constructive, you appear to be of the opinion 'I can access grammar schools and good comprehensives, therefore the state system has adequate able provision'. Or past your dc you don't think other able children have a right to the same. Either way I'm not likely to be persuaded by your viewpoint. And if you don't believe any of the numerous findings on inadequate able provision you aren't going to believe me either.