Litchick- you may be right. I know we are v lucky in this particular school. It has a really excellent headteacher and a warm, nurturing environment as barrel said. I am not against streaming at secondary level but I don't think it should be done in a formal way in a primary school. So much of the learning at primary school is not purely academic. I also think it is wrong to set such young children in an obvious fashion as it can certainly affect their confidence and self esteem.

I might be going against the grain here but tbh I don't think the be all and end all is in the teaching and selection.

Personally speaking and in the case of my dc, if they are interested they/we go into a subject in greater depth by reading independently, going to museums, Googling it etc, talking about it.

I did not need my parents forking out a fortune for a private education for academic purposes, I was more than capable of getting a text book and learning what I needed from it and getting straight As. As far as I'm concerned, my dc do not need it either. I'd rather send money via direct debit to the NSPCC than spend it on my dc.

I was in my element at college where I was able to sit in the library being able to peruse 40 books (all the books on the reading list!)per tutorial. It was hard at first because I had to look up many of the words in the dictionary as my own family were far from being intellectual and we were not allowed boks at home.

Luckily, my own dc do not have that obstacle to learning.

Lots of little state primaries provide a warm, nurturing environment to learning, with mixed ages and streamed according to ability as far as which table they are sitting at.

I think you will find they are fabulous places to develop a love of learning.

they might be in your school Louby - but there are lots of threads on MN where posters say their children are not properly setted at secondary school, nver mind at primary.

Xenia- of course the state sector splits pupils into ability groups when appropriate. They may not be officially 'streamed' but they are certainly given different work related to their ability. My own daughter who is on the cusp of two school years but should be the oldest in the class is actually taught with the year above (and has always been) because the school feel that this is where she fits in best.

Xenia what is your IQ? Mine is about the 130 mark Dps around the 145 mark. The way you write it sounds as if yours is off the planet. I've worked with people who's IQ is 70 or 80 (I know because tey'e been tested) and they are not boring, they do have good ideas and they are concerned by real life issues. Yes it can take some effort to draw things out of them but its worth it.

My baby sister had down's but that doesn't mean I believe in mixed ability teaching. It's the selective schools which do best for children at all ages and levels. Surely the fun of a class for a clever child is the bouncing ideas off each other just as most of us with an IQ over X probably would find a dinner very dull with someone with an IQ of 90 just as people with IQcs of 100 would probably find what I'm interested in as dull as ditchwater. I sit sometimes and I'm not that bright waiting for people's words to flow, ideas to move and I just get utterly bored and so do bright children. The state system seems to think they should be segregated by IQ and streamed at 11 but not before. Why is that? Why is the private system on the whole so far ahead because of selection and streaming. I write this as a parent who has had children in various streams at schools and it is great for the slower learners to be with those who are at the same level as they are. Much easier to each chidlren who all work at the same pace too. this is self evidence the world over except in the socialist republic of fairyland which is state education in the UK.

You're on a hiding to nothing here barrelofloves, especially with the mention of Down's syndrome. I'd give up now

There are children in my dc's class at primary school who have Down syndrome and another who is autistic and these are popular children. Other children in the class help them and my own dc have not suffered having such children in their class, achieving SATS level 5 is testamount to that.

After all, the brain doesn't just need to be stretched academically to help a child become a well rounded individual. Being able to 'get along' with others I would say is far more important.

There are very thick people who are kind and those who are dreadful. It's the same if people are clever. There are fat people who are lovely and fat ones who are awful. You can't generalise although those who are fat or stupid or unsuccessful usually comfort themselves by saying those richer or prettier or thinner or higher IQ than I am are dreadful people.

People with a really high IQ may not necessarily be attracted to making a lot of money anyway. Again you can't generalise. Best of all to have a very clever but very helpful child who is a success and lovely to have around. Why not go for all the talents the good fairy hands out at birth?

I would rate emotional intelligence higher than standard IQs where a child who is kind, helpful and compassionate would rate highly. Too many people with a high IQ have a selfish trait with it otherwise they would not be so motivated by greed and self interest only. I would be devastated if my dc had such traits.