All primary pupils should be enriched not just G&T?
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Re: All primary pupils should be enriched not just G&T?
You're right of course Scarlett re: studying. I also admire your methods and think you are very courageous. My children are doing well at school (touch wood) but I am keen they see that they can soar and there are no arbitrary limits placed upon them by me, school or anyone else. One sees themselves as 'middle ability' (or in their words not as clever as X in group X etc), this means certain things it seems. 'Difficult' books etc, are almost permanently off limits for one thing as they see it. I will be there to intervene and tell them otherwise 
. I try to model things I find difficult, show my struggles etc, how I am able to overcome them and like everyone else have my good and bad days. I hope this works in some small way.
. I try to model things I find difficult, show my struggles etc, how I am able to overcome them and like everyone else have my good and bad days. I hope this works in some small way.Re: All primary pupils should be enriched not just G&T?
It will help and that will be down to you, Cranleigh...you are their most important constant. I have always told my children that nothing is impossible and was really pleased to see recently on a school board " little words of wisdom " and both my DC had theirs up...DD saying " Try, try and try again " and DS saying " If you Believe You Can Achieve " So, it all sinks in !
Re: All primary pupils should be enriched not just G&T?
Firsttimer and Cranleigh - snap on the current school experiences re. groupings and differentiated work. Scarlett you are right the answer always boils down in the end to do some extra at home; however that is a pain for the parents and the children, and a shame for any other children in a similar situation whose parents can't do that.
It is heartening though Scarlett that you say your school has always responded helpfully to your concerns about groups etc. Hopefully your experience is typical and ours is atypical. I did ultimately resolve the incorrect grouping of DC1 through a mixed bag of tactics, and hopefully now have reserved a permanent place in the "top group" for the remainder of primary school; the situation has been good for a whole academic year now. However I am now part way through a similar challenge for DC2. I think that at our school part of the current year 1 grouping fiasco is influenced by some pretty dodgy Early Years Profile point scores. Relegation to average of DC1 slightly higher up the school was I think just down to the inability of a now departed teacher to separate out the difference between accuracy and understanding of concepts i.e. they assumed misunderstanding rather than careless slips. I think teachers are very busy, and it takes time to work through the errors a child makes and analyse which would be the most beneficial group for the child. These decisions are made hastily by some teachers, but it is hard to get through the "my professional judgement is correct" position that some teachers adopt.
The thing that always puzzles me is this: how do teachers make a direct connection between the group they have placed a child in and the work that they hand out, pared down for the middle group and still more so for the bottom group. Even if the groupings are right, the work assigned may not fit the groups. There has to be a better way than that; some teachers seem to feel that this is what they need to do to tick the "differentiation" box on their lesson plan. It seems to me to create some unnecessary gaps in some schools right from reception onwards. It doesn't have to be done as crudely as that. Hopefully most schools do not do it like that.
I don't think my children would ever rise through groups of their own accord, whichever one they were put in. If they were in the bottom group and the top group was told to write a page, and the middle group a paragraph, and the bottom group a sentence they would not question this. They would just do one sentence. I once received one of those ready made lesson plans off the internet (Hamilton something or other?) on the back of a child's picture. It scared me witless. The HA group were to write a poem, the middle group to write a few sentences about a relative, and the bottom group a sentence. This was a year 3/4 lesson plan. I would have thought that all the groups could have had a bash at writing a poem of sorts, even in reception.
It is heartening though Scarlett that you say your school has always responded helpfully to your concerns about groups etc. Hopefully your experience is typical and ours is atypical. I did ultimately resolve the incorrect grouping of DC1 through a mixed bag of tactics, and hopefully now have reserved a permanent place in the "top group" for the remainder of primary school; the situation has been good for a whole academic year now. However I am now part way through a similar challenge for DC2. I think that at our school part of the current year 1 grouping fiasco is influenced by some pretty dodgy Early Years Profile point scores. Relegation to average of DC1 slightly higher up the school was I think just down to the inability of a now departed teacher to separate out the difference between accuracy and understanding of concepts i.e. they assumed misunderstanding rather than careless slips. I think teachers are very busy, and it takes time to work through the errors a child makes and analyse which would be the most beneficial group for the child. These decisions are made hastily by some teachers, but it is hard to get through the "my professional judgement is correct" position that some teachers adopt.
The thing that always puzzles me is this: how do teachers make a direct connection between the group they have placed a child in and the work that they hand out, pared down for the middle group and still more so for the bottom group. Even if the groupings are right, the work assigned may not fit the groups. There has to be a better way than that; some teachers seem to feel that this is what they need to do to tick the "differentiation" box on their lesson plan. It seems to me to create some unnecessary gaps in some schools right from reception onwards. It doesn't have to be done as crudely as that. Hopefully most schools do not do it like that.
I don't think my children would ever rise through groups of their own accord, whichever one they were put in. If they were in the bottom group and the top group was told to write a page, and the middle group a paragraph, and the bottom group a sentence they would not question this. They would just do one sentence. I once received one of those ready made lesson plans off the internet (Hamilton something or other?) on the back of a child's picture. It scared me witless. The HA group were to write a poem, the middle group to write a few sentences about a relative, and the bottom group a sentence. This was a year 3/4 lesson plan. I would have thought that all the groups could have had a bash at writing a poem of sorts, even in reception.
Re: All primary pupils should be enriched not just G&T?
it seems a weird lesson plan. I f the objective was to write a poem then all children should be doing that , in fact some 'lower ability' children are better at writing poems than praise. Not so much waffle in between , with punctuation and stuff! With writing frames to help organise their ideas everyone should be able to have a bash.
A colleague of mine uses post it notes, the children look at a painting or picture, write thoughts on post it notes and then physically rearrange the notes until they like the structure and the "frisk it" as Michael Rosen says to check for "lumpy bits"
and bits that shouldn't be there. Very effective and gets over the fear of a blank page.
Differentiation should vary according to the task.
I know I always say this , but please don't tar us all with the same brush
. I've been on the other side of the table and know there are weak teachers, but there are also some very good ones. With a good leadership team monitoring and modifying regularly then teaching should improve. Primary teachers teach all the subjects and are bound to be weaker at some than others. The system of subject co-ordinators who monitor and advise on those areas is invaluable.
I have to admit PE is not my strong point - however I do know of every excuse in the world to get out of it, having used most of them myself, so it is not easy to fool me, dear pupils.
A colleague of mine uses post it notes, the children look at a painting or picture, write thoughts on post it notes and then physically rearrange the notes until they like the structure and the "frisk it" as Michael Rosen says to check for "lumpy bits"
and bits that shouldn't be there. Very effective and gets over the fear of a blank page.
Differentiation should vary according to the task.
I know I always say this , but please don't tar us all with the same brush
. I've been on the other side of the table and know there are weak teachers, but there are also some very good ones. With a good leadership team monitoring and modifying regularly then teaching should improve. Primary teachers teach all the subjects and are bound to be weaker at some than others. The system of subject co-ordinators who monitor and advise on those areas is invaluable. I have to admit PE is not my strong point - however I do know of every excuse in the world to get out of it, having used most of them myself, so it is not easy to fool me, dear pupils.
-
First-timer
- Posts: 698
- Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:47 pm
- Location: Essex
Re: All primary pupils should be enriched not just G&T?
Oh Yoyo123, I'm sorry if it came across that I have a downer on PS teachers. I know that most are dedicated and hard-working. It is a very put-upon profession and the constant changes from on high are frustrating. Just as children work out the pecking order in a class, so too do the teachers in a staffroom. There always seems to be one teacher who everyone knows to be weak. When the new classes are announced, no-one wants to inherit their class as the first term will have to be spent sorting them out.
The problem in DD's school is that there are a lot of weak teachers. I would say DD has had two good years of education so far. She is in Y5. DS was luckier with the teachers he had (in the same school) and only had two unproductive years.
The problem in DD's school is that there are a lot of weak teachers. I would say DD has had two good years of education so far. She is in Y5. DS was luckier with the teachers he had (in the same school) and only had two unproductive years.
Re: All primary pupils should be enriched not just G&T?
We have gone a bit off topic.
The current focus for G&T is 'challenge for all' with the thinking that if you aim at the top then all pupils will be challenged.
I admire EYFS and KS1 teachers - they have to wear many more 'hats' than I do ....
The current focus for G&T is 'challenge for all' with the thinking that if you aim at the top then all pupils will be challenged.
I admire EYFS and KS1 teachers - they have to wear many more 'hats' than I do ....
Re: All primary pupils should be enriched not just G&T?
Yes it does seem like a very strange lesson plan. I just assumed that it was being used as scrap paper because it wasn't a very good one and then put it to the back of my mind. Then various little telltale clues built up and built up from reception onwards about how tight the little ability groups were, and how their work (both schoolwork and homework) was "differentiated" in tight little boxes in such a way that it would make it hard to exercise any fluidity between the groups.
Yes ideally differentiation should be done task by task, child by child. I'm sure however it is terribly difficult to do it properly, so maybe in a school where the head is wanting quick and easy signs of differentiation in the lesson plans and the observed lessons it is much easier to go: LO: instructions HA will write some instructions and follow them to make a sandwich, MA will write down the ingredients for a sandwich and butter the bread, LA will look at some pictures of groceries and say which ones are needed to make a sandwich.
Maths homework: LO: adding multiples of ten HA add 10, 20 and 30 to a three digit number, MA add 10 and 20 to a two digit number LA add 10 to a one digit number
OK I'm exaggerating but at times it's a dangerous path that is being trodden in some classrooms at some points in time.
Yes ideally differentiation should be done task by task, child by child. I'm sure however it is terribly difficult to do it properly, so maybe in a school where the head is wanting quick and easy signs of differentiation in the lesson plans and the observed lessons it is much easier to go: LO: instructions HA will write some instructions and follow them to make a sandwich, MA will write down the ingredients for a sandwich and butter the bread, LA will look at some pictures of groceries and say which ones are needed to make a sandwich.
Maths homework: LO: adding multiples of ten HA add 10, 20 and 30 to a three digit number, MA add 10 and 20 to a two digit number LA add 10 to a one digit number
OK I'm exaggerating but at times it's a dangerous path that is being trodden in some classrooms at some points in time.
Re: All primary pupils should be enriched not just G&T?
Can't let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh Mystery !Although I have had to put up with a few dodgy teachers ( We know you are the loveliest teacher anyone could hope for , Yoyo ! ) I really can't imagine if a child is capable of writing out a recipe they will be given flash cards with a cabbage on instead.
Surely all children are enriched at school ? I can only go on my own experiences, but my children have made from the bottom to the top and from what I can glean is that it's because they will finish their work quickly, get it all correct and then are given extra work from the next group to try. I suppose if this becomes a pattern, then they are moved up. This must happen elsewhere 
Re: All primary pupils should be enriched not just G&T?
Cabbage sandwiches -yum!! Apologies for my facetious illustration but I have seen some plans differentiated along similar but not identical lines at secondary level!!
Yes the theory is fine that a child who is the "wrong" group will finish the work quickly and move on to the next lot of stuff available, this will be noted by the teacher, and eventually the child will be moved up .......... if that is how the teacher operates and there isn't some other underlying reason why the child is in the middle rather than the top group. I have also experienced this system working well at one point in time. But let's say for example it was a young child and the reason for having been placed in a middle maths group was because they were slower writing things down than some in the top group - not due to any lack of maths ability as such for example - then the theory that they will finish the middle group work and move on to the top group work is unlikely to work out in practice. Also, if they have to do the middle group work before they move on to the top group work they are not ever going to get as far through the top group work as the top group ........... unless they have Scarlett at home!!
So it is possible that at some time in some places groupings and differentiated work of the wrong type could have an unintended consequence, particularly for those children who won't have parents who can "top up" at home. I think this is one of the thing that Cranleigh worries about too, as well as the notion of apparently just "stretching" the very top of the class being unfair.
I think that it is impossible for a class teacher to teach every child to the best of their ability. However, some of the wrinkles can be ironed out with good dialogue with the parents, which is what you seem on balance to have had Scarlett. Good school!! Has Ofsted shown up yet?
Cranleigh how is the imaginary school going?
Yes the theory is fine that a child who is the "wrong" group will finish the work quickly and move on to the next lot of stuff available, this will be noted by the teacher, and eventually the child will be moved up .......... if that is how the teacher operates and there isn't some other underlying reason why the child is in the middle rather than the top group. I have also experienced this system working well at one point in time. But let's say for example it was a young child and the reason for having been placed in a middle maths group was because they were slower writing things down than some in the top group - not due to any lack of maths ability as such for example - then the theory that they will finish the middle group work and move on to the top group work is unlikely to work out in practice. Also, if they have to do the middle group work before they move on to the top group work they are not ever going to get as far through the top group work as the top group ........... unless they have Scarlett at home!!
So it is possible that at some time in some places groupings and differentiated work of the wrong type could have an unintended consequence, particularly for those children who won't have parents who can "top up" at home. I think this is one of the thing that Cranleigh worries about too, as well as the notion of apparently just "stretching" the very top of the class being unfair.
I think that it is impossible for a class teacher to teach every child to the best of their ability. However, some of the wrinkles can be ironed out with good dialogue with the parents, which is what you seem on balance to have had Scarlett. Good school!! Has Ofsted shown up yet?
Cranleigh how is the imaginary school going?
Re: All primary pupils should be enriched not just G&T?
I couldn't open those pesky minutes , could I Mystery ?! but I think it's looming. When DH is back on speaking terms with everyone then I'll be able to find out 
If the school Cranleigh is thinking of stretches the most able children, ( with more challenging work I presume ? ) then why do they not stretch the next group down with more challenging work i.e the higher groups work sheets ? It sounds quite simple
If the school Cranleigh is thinking of stretches the most able children, ( with more challenging work I presume ? ) then why do they not stretch the next group down with more challenging work i.e the higher groups work sheets ? It sounds quite simple
