state comprehensive secondary schools stretching able pupils - opinions?

[PastSellByDate]

Hi all

DD1 is happily selted into her secondary comprehensive which is rated 'GOOD' by OFSTED.

In Year 7 all classes are mixed ability. Gradually from Year 8 they start to stream - most classes in Year 9 are by ability.

So far I've had some niggles (little or no maths homework coming home - everyone giving the same worksheet and the homework is for pupils to finish the worksheet, but DD1 finishes in class 95% of the time. DD1 scored Nc L6 at KS2 SATs). We have raised this with the teacher and our solution has been to do more at home.

Last week there were a slew of reports in the press about secondary schools failing to stretch their most able: www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22873257 - based on the second OFSTED repoert into progress of pupils achieving NC L5+ at KS2 SATs in English or Maths in secondary (www.gov.uk/government/news/schools-not-doing-enough-to-support-most-able-students).

It's quite clear that if you are in a miniority of bright pupils at a state comprehensive your chances of going on to achieve an A/A* at GCSE are much lower (ca. 28% in Math if

(were more rigorously marked...)

Pish. Every Child Matters is always interpreted as helping the more needy.

Eh?

Um. What more expansion do you need?

senua I think each parent's moral course of action, is variable. Possibly individual.

For me, I am blessed (or perhaps cursed) with my own personal set of circumstances; a lot of experience of schools/education, current knowledge of how tertiary education operates, able children (one particularly so), lots of choice of school available to me, and wealth.

Also, I feel a very acute responsibility to give my DC the most appropriate education (no doubt fuelled by my own experiences in education). Over riding that responsibility for other factors would be immoral for me.

For me, I am blessed (or perhaps cursed) with my own personal set of circumstances

Ain't we all? I think that's one of the hardest things - trying not to bring our own history and baggage into the equation. I was trepidatious at first - epecially after growing up with the contrast between 1970s private v comp - but we were lucky to fall in the age of Tony Education Education Education Blair. Our decisions seem to have panned out OK so far.

Hello again.

First off thank you for posting link to STEP information - hadn't heard of it (DD1 only year 7 so may be early days - but noted for future ref).

Second - and this is really to Hakluyt - I raised this question simply because DD1 did achieve NC L6 at KS2 SATs and is in Birmingham, having failed to get into a reasonably commutable state funded grammar school we've opted for our local secondary (non-selective comprehesive which does not set for Maths through entirety of KS3).

According to the school's own data

I think I still have an acute overriding sense of responsibility to ensure everyone has a decent education, not some people more than others. I have been far too principled about this and it's got me nowhere.

I agree that the Blair government did a huge amount to bring equaity into education, particularly through the national curriculum which ensures that all children learn the basics, no child leaves primary school without learning about the Romans, the Victorians and the life cycle of plants.

I'm still confused as to whether you child heading for a bunch of A* grades in academic subjects is deemed to be sufficient evidence of acceptable teaching and ability?... How can a parent tell the difference between a dull-witted perfectionist, a true genius and a clever child who has been turned into an exam-obsessed perfectionist (who will fail at university and in life) by their god-awful school? The last one being especially relevant, as it's supposed to be the one we can do something about.

There are comps and comps.
There are Grammar schools and Grammar schools.
There are private schools and private schools.

TBH what state comprehensive schools really need is to share best practice
and best practice should be based on empirical evidence
not on the personal whim of idiot politicians who come and Gove.

I know Word does not like our local comps because they send kids to other than Oxbridge
BUT
we have a range of 6th form colleges that meet pretty much every academic range for 16-18 year olds
from the one that gets 25% of its cohort into RG Universities
to the one that does not teach a single A level but has exceptionally high employment rates.

Kick the politicians out of the decision making
use evidence based policy
and things will improve across the board.

I have a child who is a bit of an outlier in his school too- although that is because of the nature of the school rather than because he is super bright. As and A*s are pretty few and far between. But I am assuming he will get them- he has reasonable teaching at school and me cracking the whip at home! I have always taken it that the bright children who do not do as well as they should in a comprehensive school-assuming that the school is reasonably up to the job- are those that do not have supportive homes. What happens at home is key- and at selective schools by definition there will be a higher % of supportive aware parents who understand the system.

OP you have to be careful with Maths. It is so easy to get carried away and get ahead of yourself. You then have the situation where you are thumb-twiddling because you have run out of curriculum. Or in a Ruth Lawrence situation.
Go wider, not faster.

Hakluyt - there are other reasons than feckless parents why teens do not achieve their potential. Sometimes it can even be because of too much parental pressure.

rabbit I think an A* can reflect any number of possibilities.

If DD were to get an A* in maths ( and that's possible based on her mock results) it absolutely will not reflect superior knowledge or ability in the subject, nor interest in it.

That A* will reflect excellent teaching and dogged determination on her part.

But on paper there will be nothing to distinguish her ability in maths from the subjects that I believe she does display a superior amount of knowledge and ability.

I suppose what I'm saying is that GCSEs are only a very crude reflection of child's ability. A starting point.

Which is one of the reasons I'm uncomfortable with the disappearance of AS.

TheWordFactory - that doesn't help the parent wanting to know whether their child's school is "good enough," does it?...

I would be very concerned about a school that didn't set for maths for the entirety of KS3. It is very difficult to teach maths to a mixed ability class without both the top and bottom end losing out. I certainly couldn't do it. It would take a very skilled maths teacher and extensive resources designed for mixed-ability teaching, both of which are in short supply. Or you end up in a situation where kids work through SMP booklets and kids have to teach themselves.

Here's my attitude: if I have to ask, is the school good enough? Maybe it's not. Therefore, I'll watch what's happening closely, and, if I am not convinced, I will step into the breach. An individual child gets one chance. By the time you are sure the results are sub-optimal, it's too late.

Scottishprof and Word are giving useful advice about securing a place at an academic uni, and the foundation needed to thrive once there. Ideological comments are interesting, and I am fascinated by this thread, but they won't be much practical help to your DD PSBD.

I really don't think you can put all comprehensive schools in the same box
indeed!!
I am a supply teacher so get to see lots of schools and the different ways they set/stretch/support.
This week I have been in an outstanding comp, inner city London, mixed population, some kids from leafy expensive streets and also high percentage from estates, on FSM/PP.
This school sets in core subjects from Y7, and in addition to top sets, have an 'accelerated' group in Maths - this week they were doing their assessment - it was a GCSE maths paper. It was challenging, but they thrice on challenge.
The DC did not seem stressed by it, they enjoyed it - they are working very hard but get intrinsic satisfaction from the work.

My DC are at a very academic indie, where they were doing also doing this this in Y7, and I am delighted this exists in schools other than indie and grammar.

noble
I would be very concerned about a school that didn't set for maths for the entirety of KS3
Again, that depends on the school.
THe daftly high performing one up the road from me does not set
BUT
its effectively a grammar so all the kids are upper sets
and all of the less bright ones have home tutoring

roehampton
Its not unusual.
DCs school and those of their friends do it too.

senua
Go wider, not faster.
Absolutely. Richard Feynmann had very strong views about accelerated educatoin. Unprintable actually.

Scottishprof and Word are giving useful advice about securing a place at an academic uni, and the foundation needed to thrive once there. Ideological comments are interesting, and I am fascinated by this thread, but they won't be much practical help to your DD PSBD.

I wonder, does the child actually get any say in this plan? Is there any room for children to grow during ks3? Maybe find a new passion? Perhaps, shock horror, follow a non-academic path. To actually enjoy their learning and not just buy into the current doctrine that, without a place at a RG Uni, their education has been in vain.

Of course not! Silly me being all ideological there Spring!

A yes, Talkin, I would be concerned by a non-selective comp that didn't set. A grammar school isn't true mixed ability teaching! I'm thinking of my bottom set in Y7 where some kids don't achieve a level at KS2 versus top set where some breeze a level 6. Having those kids together in a class of 30 means that neither will thrive.

Accelerated learning in maths is an issue, especially when it is done as a rule and children are accelerated inappropriately through the curriculum never fully grasping concepts and building on shaky foundations.

However, the OP has a bright child who may not be challenged appropriately in her peer group. Bright maths students at my school would be entered for both maths and further maths GCSE in Y11 in order to adequately prepare for A-level. A bright student at a school where this (or similar) is not offered because of a lack of sufficiently large numbers to make provision feasible is being short-changed compared to the kids at my school. They will start A-level in a weaker position and be more likely to struggle to manage the jump. If they take further maths, they'll likely be alongside mathematicians who have had extra provision and this could dent their confidence. For an aspiring engineer, especially a female one, this could be a major issue.

My dd is at a non-selective state school. Each year the top set maths group take gcse early and they all get A* and As. They then continue with their maths whether they then take a further qualification or not.

80-85% get A* - C in maths.

Based on the evidence of one state school (!) it is possible to stretch able kids and I am sure lots are doing so.

not my DC are 15, year 11.

I can assure that they grew aplenty in KS3. That they did and still do all manner of non academic things from choir, to drama ( DD took 6 months off school effectively to take part in a west end show), to sports, to eating crisps and yapping with their mates.

And they were challenged rigorously in their academic lives.

For high ability children, it's perfectly possible to do both. For some, it's necessary.

not, the OP has said her DD is keen on science, is very able, and aspires to be an engineer. There is nothing wrong with that, and I am willing to believe the OP. The OP is trying to support what her DD wants.

Of course very able people choose to follow vocational career paths because that is where their passion lies, but this isn't the case for the
OP's DD.

The point if this thread is to help the OP's DD achieve her dreams.

The daftly high performing one up the road from me does not set.

Thornden sets for maths from year 8, doesn't it? It is also around 50% high achievers so I wouldn't call it effectively a grammar school. Around 40% of pupils got A or A in maths GCSE last year, although 90% got A-C in maths. They don't do Maths Olympiads, they don't do further maths GCSE so it's hard to evaluate how they are stretching the 5-10% of kids who came in with level 6 maths.

Each year the top set maths group take gcse early and they all get A and As. They then continue with their maths whether they then take a further qualification or not.*

Taking maths GCSE early isn't the optimal route for stretching able kids. Check out what Cambridge and other universities have to say about this.