We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Angry, upset and annoyed or over reacting rant
Comments
-
Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »As the curriculum is written with the 'average' child in mind and most children are 'average', the kids in the middle are getting the appropriate level of teaching/help for them to meet the level appropriate for them.
The kids on either end of that range need greater differentiation. And that's where the greatest level of improvement in attainment is seen; both ends are likely to have kids with varying preferred learning styles, a lot of lower attainment kids are likely to learn more effectively with visual and kinaesthetic activities, for example. But that hasn't formed a huge part of a lot of schools' or teachers' teaching methodologies until recent years.
To put it bluntly, an average kid with average attainment isn't suddenly going to become gifted and talented with another couple of hours' tuition. They are what they are; average. They're getting what they need in class already.
The kids either side have additional needs that they do not have. If those needs are not met, both attainment and behaviour suffer.
Fair is ensuring that the kids with additional needs get additional help. Not ensuring that those who do need it aren't allowed it because of a belief that everybody should be treated the same.
yes, but, our objective should be that all children are above average.
0 -
To be honest, it strikes more as a mother who wishes her child was more advanced and is disappointed that he is not given more chances to be so by the school.
I don't understand as you can't see that gifted children have more needs than the average child academically.
The gifted and talented have their own separate lessons in school, they are streamed and given work according to their level. If they are that gifted and talented they should reach the GCSE without being coached. They should not be given extra tuition time to tutor them to reach a GCSE in addition to these separate lessons they get at school. The resources are taken away from others.
Why should the middle children be forgotten. They all have potential to succeed 'Gifted' or not.
I will not be commenting on this again.
Agree to differ0 -
Counting_Pennies wrote: »The gifted and talented have their own separate lessons in school, they are streamed and given work according to their level. If they are that gifted and talented they should reach the GCSE without being coached. They should not be given extra tuition time to tutor them to reach a GCSE in addition to these separate lessons they get at school. The resources are taken away from others.
Why should the middle children be forgotten. They all have potential to succeed 'Gifted' or not.
I will not be commenting on this again.
Agree to differ
Middle children aren't forgotten. They are the ones who the system caters for the best. The ones who get the education most suited to them.0 -
Read up on the Finish education system, time and again ranked as one of the very best in the world.They deem him their worst enemy who tells them the truth. -- Plato0
-
Gosh, that sounds terrible! :eek: I work in an outstanding school that gets some of the best results in the country and we don't enter anyone for any exams early; certainly not in core subjects. The only exception is sometimes languages if a student is bilingual already and it would be really easy for them to get a top grade in the language GCSE, they will enter them in Y8 or Y9 just so they get another A* under their belt. The idea of entering students early for exams that they are only going to get a D or C or B in is just mental!
As others have said with the changes to the GCSE this won't be able to happen anymore, but that doesn't solve your problem right now. If you feel really unhappy about your son doing this exam early I would stand your ground. Good luck.
I agree, doing gcses in year 9 and getting a low grade what a waste of time!
I went to a very good secondary school and everyone did their gcses in May/June in year 11. This entering kids early stuff is just bizarre to me.0 -
Simple answer - grammar schools!
I would have hated grammar school.
My interests and motivation were (and still are) music and art. With a side order of mechanical/technical subjects.
Now, had they kept techs (but let girls in) and art schools, then I would have been happier. Especially as I would have gone to the one in my town, that spewed out a lot of musicians and artists in the seventies.I could dream to wide extremes, I could do or die: I could yawn and be withdrawn and watch the world go by.Yup you are officially Rock n Roll
0 -
Middle children aren't forgotten. They are the ones who the system caters for the best. The ones who get the education most suited to them.
Not at my children's secondary school.
The clever ones were given extra help etc. and so were the ones struggling ,the ones in the middle doing 'ok' were just left to get on with it.0 -
POPPYOSCAR wrote: »Not at my children's secondary school.
The clever ones were given extra help etc. and so were the ones struggling ,the ones in the middle doing 'ok' were just left to get on with it.
Because they were already getting what they needed.I could dream to wide extremes, I could do or die: I could yawn and be withdrawn and watch the world go by.Yup you are officially Rock n Roll0 -
Why can't the middle achievers who are also streamed into a class of their own get additional teaching hours to get them up to the next SATS level.
because as it's been said over and over, it's not about SATS. It's about providing to some pupils something they are not fortunate, like the others to be receiving in their every day lessons.
It would like putting a handful of middle pupils with a full class of slower learner, and then get cross if they get a few extra lessons because those slower don't get this additional support, even though the lessons are geared towards their needs, hence slower.
In my school, children are streamed too in three levels. They had to make the ratio about equal for the sake of teaching. This means that even amongst the highest level, there is disparity between abilities. So out of this group, about 1/2 get 1 extra lesson. They also offer extra lessons for the 1/2 reminder AND about 1/3 of the middle more able children who could reach level 5 with some additional help.
Additionally, on some occasions, they offer after school activities for gifted and talented, that is bout 5 to 6 pupils out of 100. These activities are NOT lessons, not geared to get higher result, but geared to explore different way of challenging their intellect.
Not that many left about unfortunately, and none closer than 50 miles from us, no go unfortunately.Simple answer - grammar schools!0 -
POPPYOSCAR wrote: »Not at my children's secondary school.
The clever ones were given extra help etc. and so were the ones struggling ,the ones in the middle doing 'ok' were just left to get on with it.
Yep, that's exactly my point.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards