Is Maths Teaching in Prep Schools purely driven by 11+?

[TrojaninTroy]

After a year of unsuccessfully trying to get DC's Head of School (an all-through indie) to address the maths needs of our very numerate child, I think the penny has finally dropped. The maths teaching in this independent prep-school is aimed at getting children through their 11+, preferably to its own senior school. This is the unspoken agenda. Therefore it is taught to the middle ability/borderline kids and not to the more able, who can do it all anyway.

As an ex-State primary school teacher, this is not how I expected the maths teaching in a well thought of independent school to be for my child. I thought everything would be in place for DC to have the best teaching that could be delivered by a school with small classes, supported full time by a TA and the most needy/disrupted children selected out. Was I hopelessly naive to believe all the Tatler bullshit about this school? Are all independents like this or have we just been unlucky?

Although some Mumsnetters may perceive this to be another private school bashing thread, it is more a question about what we should actually expect from an independent. We don't have any doubt as to DC's ability to pass the 11+, so that wasn't why we chose this particular school. More to do with the things that cash-strapped state schools just can't provide these days.

No. We're not in a grammar area though and most move to senior schools at 13.

You would have hoped not but it’s fairly common at all through independent schools. They are in the business of keeping you there until 18 so there is no incentive for them to ensure children are at the required level to pass entrance exams for super selectives, say. In fact, people choose all through schools to avoid all that stress and, in the whole, those children still achieve excellent GCSE and A level results.

I think l, however, you are right to expect work to be differentiated and for tasks to be set that allows study in greater depth. If your child is bored or consistently finding things too easy then the school should be addressing that.

No, it depends on the school. My daughter’s prep school which is part of a through school teachers year 2 maths to the most advanced students in reception and sets math from year 4. It definitely doesn’t teach to the middle.

When you have a bright child, you surely look at the destinations of dc that leave the prep. At the very best preps, that’s 13 and plenty will go to very academic selective schools. The fact that you chose a through school would have indicated to me that no one was going to push the brightest dc for scholarships and excellence elsewhere. You are a captive audience and, in effect, you are first in the queue for their senior school. Where I live, that’s what the parents at the through school want. They are not expecting their DDs to go to the highly academic boarding school a few miles away that’s regularly top (ish) of league tables. There are academic prep schools who succeed or “fail” by their destinations and scholarship lists. Through schools rarely compete at this table. They exist for a totally different reason.

Therefore I’m not remotely surprised by what you have found. You might have shiny facilities but you haven’t got quality first teaching. I have 2 friends with a DD and 2x DS’s - all 3 were state from 4-18 and all went to Cambridge for maths. High quality teaching is available in the state system. It’s also available at academic preps that have a reputation to uphold.

Tatler isn’t judging teaching. It’s judging snob value.

No. Experience of W London girls prep (v academic reputation) and it is the opposite.
V much teaching the joy of maths, investigating, deeply understanding number and being able to explain concepts. They do both fluency to get to grips with the concept and reasoning to be able to use it in lots of situations and explain it. Lots of really fun, creative methods of exploring each topic. The school talk about high ceiling low threshold activities (I think that was the term) which is basically the idea all pupils can access it but then take it as far as they are able/guided to. So all of them benefit but no one feels lost as all can achieve something. I was really impressed with the idea and in home learning have been amazed at how much more interesting maths is!
Year 5 and up switches to more 11+ prep but with lots of deeper activities mixed in as they have done the basics so solidly throughout the school they aren't in a panic. All the rich activities only help with 11+ as they don't just know methods but truly understand it all.
The main issue they have is parents trying to cram methods at home and thinking the maths isn't 'done properly' because it doesn't look like the old fashioned boring pages of sums they did at school.

This is in a generally high ability school though with little pupil movement so it worked. Girls who struggled were given specific support and boosts.

I would say you have not chosen an independent that is the correct fit for your child if they are not providing extension work that suits the ability of your child , especially for maths. Thus it is a specific school issue rather than a sector issue.

Thank you everyone for sharing your experiences and viewpoints.

@PresentingPercy this sounds very much the case with our child's school.

@SeasonFinale we have had this out with school. They deny that there is an issue with their teaching of maths to able children. Well they would, wouldn't they?

DC actually had a very good time in EYFS at this school, both years of it. The inconsistency seems to be because individual teachers are actually allowed to teach how they like, hence some wonderful teachers who I would guess came from the State sector, and some who have been in independent for years and years with no desire to change. And then no ongoing training in maths for any of them.

@TrojaninTroy

Thank you everyone for sharing your experiences and viewpoints.

@PresentingPercy this sounds very much the case with our child's school.

@SeasonFinale we have had this out with school. They deny that there is an issue with their teaching of maths to able children. Well they would, wouldn't they?

DC actually had a very good time in EYFS at this school, both years of it. The inconsistency seems to be because individual teachers are actually allowed to teach how they like, hence some wonderful teachers who I would guess came from the State sector, and some who have been in independent for years and years with no desire to change. And then no ongoing training in maths for any of them.

I wouldn't say that was the case either but I see as an exState school teacher yourself you may have a clouded view of teachers who have only been in the indie sector. Again I would say that was teacher specific. At the all through school I work in (which has intakes at various) ages there would be an expectation for the years that were not taught in sets for Maths for work to be differentiated by ability.

Is the school in the EN postcode, OP? If so, They've a rep for being shite.

To be very honest, it’s poor leadership and management. It’s all too easy to sit back and think teaching is good enough because attainment is good enough overall. If they had Ofsted coming to visit they might need to have a very different attitude. The best state schools simply don’t have teachers who do what they want in the classroom. The progress of DC is monitored. Heads sit in on lessons. Teachers marking is cross referenced with other teachers. Setting can help but teachers must recognise when DC need extreme ion work and provide it. I would wonder if there was effective assessment let alone quality teaching. Your SLT is resting on their collective laurels because they can. What proof do they give to you to back up assessments and progress? Is there any?

If there is no subject development - you know this is not acceptable. Do they have a curriculum document for parents? What info are you given about what’s being taught? This lies with SLT who feel they don’t need to bother and probably find it too difficult. I would try and get DS into a prep that had to compete to get DC to the best schools. What, exactly, are you paying for?

I don't think its a state school vs indie school issue. There are plenty of state schools that don't progress children well in math (and plenty that also do brilliantly). Each school and teacher should be judged on their merit rather than by sector.

I have huge sympathy OP. My DC went to a school which ran to CE, and those who wanted to take the 11plus for local Grammar and year 7 entry to other indies needed to get tutored for the Maths element.
They got lots of scholarships at 13 plus though.
We moved DC early as the bullying was something else.

I really appreciate everyone's views. TBH, we never gave that much thought to secondary, or 11+. It seemed so far in the future, and the senior school looked good. (And, from what we hear, it is.) We just thought, with all the other facilities that this beautiful school had to offer, that excellent teaching of the core subjects would be a given. We didn't look too hard into other local prep schools because on the face of it they had very small classes (say 10-12 per class) or we could see straight away from the brochures that maths workbooks featured heavily. These things may have suited some families, but not us. So if our son had not got a Reception place at this school, we would have chosen a local state school for him anyway.

@PresentingPercy, the first sentence of your last post sums it up for us and this is the conclusion that all our questioning of school over the last year has led to. I've no doubt our son will do well in maths whichever school he attends, because he has the kind of mind that generates - and seeks answers to - real maths situations all the time at home. So it's as much a matter of whether we can put up with the kind of leadership that our enquiries have laid bare, or whether we have to make our son unhappy for a while if we move him. And us too to a certain extent, as I think a move for this reason would mean distancing ourselves from the friends we have made there so as not to unsettle them. Probably to a state school, which has to be properly accountable and where I think I'd feel more comfortable now.

You can, at least, check the Sats statistics at a state school, progress DC make and, hopefully, a recent Ofsted report. Obviously not all state schools are good but I would look for a clear Maths curriculum policy, how progress is assessed and, importantly, are they setting extension work. Good luck.

Which year is your DC in, OP? Does the school set for Maths at all?

Setting doesn’t help at all if the school puts an artificial ceiling on ambition. Teaching must always stretch every child. Setting won’t overcome poor teaching and not assessing each child and giving them appropriate work.

My experience of 2 through schools, plus one my niece is at is that if they have a senior school they don’t tend to take the maths past general KS2 levels, even in the more selective schools. Certainly in my youngest prep the “spicy” work, which is the harder work is no more challenging than my top table state primary eldest had. There is no incentive. They don’t want to lose them to other schools at 11 and they’d rather concentrate on the wider curriculum than push the English and maths more than they need to. Eldest still ended up with an 8 in maths so don’t think it held him back

@Atrixie
Eldest still ended up with an 8 in maths so don't think it held him back.
I could take this view with my son. He's so clever and keen on maths outside school that I don't believe his school's glass ceiling will hold him back either, even though his Head has already said in so many words that maths in the pre-prep doesn't really matter. What my child is learning right now does matter. It's not just about passing exams to get into the best university in the future. A good education at all ages and stages is important, surely.

Might have held him back if he should have got a 9! That’s the issue. 8 is good but for some DC it should be a 9. Without accurate assessment and high quality teaching, grades are reduced.

I cannot see any reason why a school would ever say it doesn’t matter in pre prep. There should be a curriculum and they should be able to set extension work based on the curriculum. You don’t have to work way beyond the curriculum if you are good at maths because the teacher should set more and more challenging work within the topic. Extending the breadth of thinking and exploration of maths. It’s lazy not to!

A couple of the gifted mathematicians I know joined a class above for maths. To stop them getting bored. Other Cambridge bound dc learnt normally and Warwick bound mathematician too. It’s all about high quality teaching.

I have experience with both a very highly regarded prep whose reputation is based on their students' senior school destinations as well as the junior school of a very highly regarded all-through whose reputation is based on the exam and university results of the senior school. Both schools are in London north of the river.

My observation is that the prep moved the class faster, i.e., they covered a given topic earlier than the junior school of the all-through. The prep was probably finished with the KS2 math syllabus very early in Year 5. They then spent the next year reviewing and preparing for the independent school 11+ math exams. The junior school didn't finish the KS2 math syllabus until late in Year 5 or very early in Year 6 but, at the end of it, both schools covered similar material in similar depth. The prep really did spend a lot of time preparing for the exams, doing many past papers under exam conditions to get used to the formats, timing and types of questions.

The prep did a lot more differentiation than the junior school because they acknowledged that different children had different targets for senior school. That said, the best performing students, both in terms of their knowledge and their senior school destinations, were pretty much the same ones who did the most work outside of school, whether with their parents or with tutors.

The junior school seemed to set its curriculum with the primary goal of making sure that nearly all of its students would be acceptable to the attached senior school. As the senior school is very sought-after, that's not a low bar, but it was pretty commonly accepted that the bar for students applying from the junior school was lower than the bar for students applying from outside. Which, of course, was one of the bigger reasons parents made such an effort to gain places in this junior school at 4+.

As such, the junior school was focused on making sure that all of the students had a secure foundation, a very solid understanding of the basics. Students who had already grasped a topic were occasionally given extension work with a TA, but most of the resources were aimed at the marginal students and the few who were further behind. What extension work there was targeted greater depth; learning new topics ahead of the schedule and of the main body of the class was not facilitated or encouraged. As with the prep, the best performing students where pretty much the same ones who did the most work outside of school.

We have had a similar experience.. moved dd1 to an all through school in yr 3. Yrs 3 and 4 maths went well and was differentiated. Yr 5&6 maths has been pedestrian at best. Same maths teacher both years. All kids doing the same work. Maths homework took less than 5 minutes. I emailed and discussed for 18 months. Spoke to the head. Nothing changed. Another parents also complained. Pathetic. So we have moved both children to a prep school who are better incentivised to push them.

@MrPickles73 Did you ever considering taking it to the school trustees?

To be perfectly honest, no child necessarily needs to finish with the KS2 curriculum in y5. The very best teachers set more in depth work for each topic. You don’t just cover the hard elements, you set the hardest to really get dc thinking. The topics allow for a lot of sideways topics and exploration. It’s not always the case that more topics in less depth is better for most DC. It requires less imaginative teaching to teach the curriculum you see before you. The very best teachers expand it. That takes more work than whizzing through.

I do find prep school heads struggle with actually knowing what quality teaching actually looks like. If teachers don’t assess progress and teach in depth as a result, they need help to do a better job. Heads need to recognise this but they don’t. They seem to accept what’s “good enough”. As I says earlier it’s poor management and Ofsted would be saying it’s RI!