Very bright child "bored" at school

[2ndSopranosRule]

I know this will be seen as one massive stealth boast so apologies in advance!

Dd1 is nearing the end of Y3 and has had a miserable year. She's been bullied which is one thing, but she's desperately unhappy with the 'work' side of things because she says she's bored.

She's more or less top of the class across the board and way ahead of her peers in some areas. Gifted (or whatever it's called now!) in a couple. She does music as an extra curricular activity and it's becoming apparent she has real talent on one instrument. Dd will practice rather than play/go on the laptop.

Her Y2 teacher was very good at differentiation and dd flourished as a result. The Y3 teacher less so. In fact one of the things put in place to resolve the bullying was to move dd onto a lower ability table so she'd be wirh friends rather than the bully.

I am starting to become concerned that dd may become so sufficiently bored at school she'll switch off. What can I do to help as she gets into y4? My ideal would be to move her to private but we can't afford that.

[user789653241]

whiteDragon, we use memrise too! I found duolingo and memrise at the same time, and ds is using it to learn my native language.

[whiteDragon]

irvineoneohone - thank you for pointing out duolingo.

We've been using memorise for French - children seem to like it and figure it can't hurt. But could find nothing like it for welsh - we've moved here so have catching up to do. The big welsh challenge was best we could find - and they haven't liked the welsh language cd I bought.

We found spelling list the bane of our lives - but have had some success with programs that include a lot of written repetition but also patterns - little and often and lots of going over stuff.

In fact moving to a school with less homework meant it been easier to find the time to do the stuff that has helped them and the things they are interested in.

OP like other I think the bullying is probably playing a big part of the unhappiness - my children are ahead in some area but generally don't moan to much about that times they have moan about school it's been because of social issues and them being unhappy because of them.

I did fine one year with one teacher writing a letter meant it was all taken more seriously another child another year and we asked they be separated - 2 form entry - which meant a huge improvement the next year.

[bojorojo]

I do think a certain amount of rote learning is a necessity but spellings, out of context, is a big bore and chore for some children. If a school had children who only get 4-5 wrong out of 40 then clearly no SEN children darkened their doors. Nuns were oftennot the most innovative teachers either! In times gone by, lots of us learned spelling lists and lots of schools do it now, and some children thrive on the competition and can shine. Others find it more difficult and other methods suit them. However, it is important that children can spell reasonably well and that incorrect spellings are picked up by teachers and the child is asked to practice the correct spelling.

I think chidren who are happy to learn by rote, and are good at spelling and punctuation, find MFLs easier because they are willing to put the effort in to learn the words and rules of the new language. Also, we all have to do things we are not so good at, practice, and get better. It is definitely a skill that many people need in the future whether at university or work.

[Loopy22]

Why wasn't the bully removed? Sorry but any nastiness needs to be punished, as a results it should have been Joffa who suffered, If it's not going to be nice to others. Would love to explain to his flimsy patents why there little darling got moved down a set.

[BoboChic]

I agree, cory. At university I was far better at history exams (on a MFL degree) than my peers because I had years of training at learning history by heart, a la francaise.

[BoboChic]

My DD learned to read and write simultaneously in two languages, French and English. She is much better at spelling in English than in French, despite having French as her majority language. That is because she was much better taught to spell in English than in French. "Just good at spelling" is a myth.

[user789653241]

My ds had no interest in French few weeks ago, and I was a bit worried.
Then I found duolingo, and my ds loved it. He writes down new words etc. in his note books, mumbling things like "je suis", "tu es", "vous etes".
He didn't remember anything he learned at school, but now he seems to be on track for learning it properly. He said he learned so much more in 2 weeks since he started this site, than what he learned at school since September.

[corythatwas]

Not saying that learning to spell from lists is an effective way of learning to spell, but what I would say as a university lecturer is that never having had to learn anything by heart is a massive disadvantage to students later on: they just don't realise how much you can store in your brain and have instantly accessible. Particularly important for language learning, but useful in all sorts of areas. I don't really suppose it matters what you learn by heart- the times tables, psalm verses, nursery rhymes- it's the faculty that matters, using that muscle as it were.

[Cleo1303]

Just for the record, everyone in my class (about 15-20 of us I think) learned their 40 words a week and the most anyone ever got wrong in the weekly tests was about 4 or 5. It was a pretty strict convent school and the nuns would not have been at all happy if anyone had done worse than that. We all learned to spell using this method. We accepted it, we did it, and no-one made a fuss about doing it. When we wrote our compositions our spellings were correct.

Despite being what today would be considered to be a strict school it was also an incredibly happy school and we all enjoyed ourselves immensely.

[HopeClearwater]

You didn't learn to spell from those lists, Cleo. You were just good at spelling. What worked for you probably doesn't work for a large proportion of children.

[teacherwith2kids]

Cleo, the thing is, because 'spelling tests of lists of words' are so commonplace, they are frequently equated with 'learning to spell'.

Learning to spell can be achieved- indeed achieved much better - via methods other than this. Very few teachers would argue that spelling tests are important. However, I know of none who would say that the proper teaching of spelling is unimportant

[mrz]

No Cleo I don't think learning to spell is a waste of time, far from it, but I do know that lists of words to memorise for a test isn't an effective way to learn and that the children who score 10/10 week after week are the same children who regularly spell the same words incorrectly in their written work.

[teacherwith2kids]

Cleo,

I am trying to remember my grandfather's exact birthday, but he would have been at primary school at the beginning of the period that you describe, or a little before..

He learned to read at night school, in his teens, in order to join the police - not because he was not bright' - he was fiercely intelligent and was the only family member who kept up with my PhD - but because he was appallingly badly taught. (And hungry, and the main carer for a family of 6 + invalid mother)

[Feenie]

In fact working class children in the 1920s-1950s were better educated in English grammar than they are today

That's not a fact.

[Feenie]

It's an established fact that spelling tests in isolation are a very ineffective way of learning to spell. It certainly isn't teaching spelling. Unfortunately, many schools think it is, my ds's included.

[user789653241]

Sorry mrz, I wasn't trying to be rude to you.

[Cleo1303]

Oh spare me the sarcasm, do.

For every educational researcher saying one thing there will be another saying the opposite.

I expect some of them think times tables are a waste of time too.

When I was at school I had to learn eight words a night from the age of seven and we were expected to get them right the following morning. I only ever got one wrong. Not a boast, a fact. I have since that time always been very good at spelling. DD had to learn only 15 a week and she is pretty good too.

I expect you think learning to spell is now a waste of time because of spellcheck.

Learning by rote was a very effective method for millions of children for years. In fact working class children in the 1920s-1950s were better educated in English grammar than they are today. That is obvious from the countless letters we all receive nowadays from all kinds of organisations where the writer has problems composing the most basic of sentences.

[user789653241]

That can actually read as "moderate" amount of home work is not so bad?

[mrz]

International studies

[mrz]

My reply was to Cleo

[user789653241]

No, I don't know better than educational researcher, but I just stated my experience that homework was effective for me.

[mrz]

You obviously know more than educational researchers who incidentally also found learning lists of words for spelling tests to be a very ineffective method.

[Cleo1303]

Okay, it's a "maths workbook" which is full of maths questions. Happy now?

I think homework is very effective. It gets the children to revise what they have learned in class.

When they are younger they learn spellings for a weekly test and their times tables also for tests. They also read every night to improve their reading.

Learning how to put a project together is interesting and informative and can be a lot of fun.

When they are preparing for 11+ or Common Entrance it is certainly essential and effective for most children.

[user789653241]

Mrz, I do understand what you are saying, but is the research comparing children only in English schools or includes other countries?

My ds's school's homework seems pointless to be honest, but homework I had as a child was definitely better than doing nothing. Revising what you learned on the day may put that knowledge in your long term memory. Not doing anything just makes you forget most of things you learned. Take French for example, he learns some words, he doesn't remember it next week. What's the point of having lesson?

[mrz]

There is also plenty of research that demonstrates the effectiveness of homework. It rather depends on the task that is set.

It's true that the quality of the task is more important than the quantity of work but it still shòws that at primary age the difference between children who have homework and those who don't is insignificant.