Primary school classroom stars

and getting chosen for the the special stuff

That's the issue here: why are the same children being selected repeatedly and why does it appear, to you at least, that it seems tied to their academic performance?

I'd expect the best performers to be selected for lead roles, the best athletes to be selected for athletic competition, the most responsible to be selected for positions of leadership, etc. But I'd be very surprised if those ended up working out to be the same kids.

When I think of the hours I have spent in the last 14 years trying to teach DD2 times tables. She gets them for a bit if we put loads of effort in, then they drop out again if not practiced. Repeat for everything

But that's the exact evidence in cognitive science that shows intelligence isn't fixed. If knowledge isn't recalled at intervals then the neural pathways that have been used to establish that knowledge in the first place will begin to decay. Or are you suggesting that other children don't need to practise or review things regularly and that their neural pathways don't decay?

The kids who need extra time in exams aren't just impacted in the actual exam. They need extra time for revision, and for homework, and actually for every single lesson they attend. They just don't get it.

Which is exactly why schools aren't supposed to apply for extra time for exams unless that child is also receiving extra time as part of their normal classroom practice. It must be there in both to ensure they are properly supported.

But that isn't how our schools are set up - there is a clear curriculum that all the children have to study

There are schools that do a variation on this (which is what I'm referring to with the extra time in class comments above) but unfortunately only for high need cases. For example, one of my former students from last year (now Y7) doesn't study music nor P.E. This gives him an additional 3 hours which is used as "extra time" in which he can get support in other supports, complete work, review knowledge in order to improve its encoding, etc.

even if going at half speed and covering half content would be better. (Except in maths which recognises this.)

The most common way this is done, however, is the early identification of higher / foundation paper that I referenced earlier but you said a good secondary shouldn't do that.

You missed the obvious one - their brains are better suited to academic work (ie they are cleverer).

I didn't miss it: I deliberately didn't put it. It relies entirely on the preconceived notion that academic intelligence is fixed and I don't believe that to be true. There is certainly a benefit in having a working memory that can contain more items, or item strings, at any given time but having a more limited one doesn't have to hold someone back.

Personally I think that's a bit idealistic. When I think of the hours I have spent in the last 14 years trying to teach DD2 times tables. She gets them for a bit if we put loads of effort in, then they drop out again if not practiced. Repeat for everything. There just isn't time at secondary school for someone with poor working memory / slow processing to do everything that is expected of them.

The kids who need extra time in exams aren't just impacted in the actual exam. They need extra time for revision, and for homework, and actually for every single lesson they attend. They just don't get it.

I don't think by saying some people's brains are better suited for academic work is saying academic intelligence is fixed. But some people find things easier to grasp and to remember which makes their lives so much easier at school. Others however hard they try are always running just to keep up. My DD2 was always so tired after school from the sheer effort of trying her best in lessons she didn't have anything left out of school.

In a different system, or out of school, maybe people aren't so limited if it is something they are massively keen to achieve. But that isn't how our schools are set up - there is a clear curriculum that all the children have to study, even if going at half speed and covering half content would be better. (Except in maths which recognises this.)

DD1 was not a primary school star, she is now at secondary and excelling. She has to work hard and put in a lot of effort. She's young for her year. She's always thrilled if she gets what she considers good results in tests. Over 75%. She has friends who were the stars and who've struggled a bit at secondary as they are no longer being feted and praised like they were in primary and do not have the same work ethic DD1 has.

It's all so dependent on the kid themselves, what support they have at home, and whether school suits them. Some of the brightest most able people I know didn't do what would be considered well at school.

I didn't miss it: I deliberately didn't put it. It relies entirely on the preconceived notion that academic intelligence is fixed and I don't believe that to be true. There is certainly a benefit in having a working memory that can contain more items, or item strings, at any given time but having a more limited one doesn't have to hold someone back.

I agree that in a perfect world all children should be able to progress and attain at the highest level regardless of their starting points and targets.

But the reality is very different: our education system isn't set up to facilitate that. We all know that, for example, some sets are simply never exposed to the knowledge they need for higher papers and that can began way down in Y7. We know that children who are "off flight plan / off track" according to where they need to be for progress 8 are prioritised for intervention, boosters and additional support even though they might not be the ones who would benefit most. We know that there's a bigger push to move a child from a 3 to a 4 / 5 then there ever would be to move a child from a 1 to a 2 (and possibly in the higher ranges too, depending on the context of the school).

Children should be able to turn it around after underperforming at primary or make up ground when they've lacked support from home. We all desperately want that to be the truth. But, in practice, not many do. For most, the gap widens.

Depends on the secondary school, the kid, the parents. The kid has to be (brought up to be) self-motivated; the parents have to continue praise effort not outcome and know when to back off and let the child flounder and struggle (typically that is a good idea in term 1 and 2 on Y7). The secondary school has to be well-matched to the child's temperament. eg creative, free-thinking, academic, driven etc.

Kids who are top of the heap at a small primary often land in a selective secondary school and are shocked to find real competition. I found a school report from my Y8 in which my head of year wrote "it is tough at the top, but keep striving and it is possible to stay there." Work ethic sometimes fades in teenage years as life gets more interesting and it really is down to your adolescent offspring to decide where they want to put the effort in.

Meanwhile kids who are middle of the pack may find a new passion at secondary school simply because subjects become more specialised. It's unlikely they'll become excellent across the board but likely they can find confidence and success in at least one area.

I had a friend who was very average academically, did well enough to get a reasonably good degree. Behind the scenes though - heaps of extra reading, loads of volunteering, building contacts and credibility. Has a fab career now in her chosen specialism (environmental science). She is fantastic, just not in the ways we were measured at school.

@Iamnotthe1
You missed the obvious one - their brains are better suited to academic work (ie they are cleverer).

Any school which decides in y7 which tier for maths/Science/MFL is a bit rubbish imo. Obviously they can probably tell for maths & science who is more more likely to be higher or foundation tier (and a bunch in the middle), but teaching should enable moving of sets and therefore target tier.

Bright children who have had a poor primary / home support should still be able to excel in secondary.

The higher you achieve at primary, the more likely you are to achieve highly at GCSE. There are multiple possible reasons for this:

• a stronger foundation of skills and knowledge,
• potentially more self-motivated and self-starting in terms of education,
• a better understanding of metacognition,
• more confident in their ability to learn,
• higher targets so the secondary need to get them to higher grades in order to have a neutral or positive progress 8 score,
• some schools identify who will sit which tier of paper all the way at the start of Y7 (attainment at primary will affect this).

In my experience, many of those who have been labelled ‘clever’ in primary school arrive in secondary with two difficult traits: a reluctance to accept that they don’t know everything, and an unhealthy thirst for attention and praise. Theirs is always the first hand up, they are always first to finish a task. The quieter ‘sloggers’ come into their own, because they work harder without making a fuss about it, take care over the work, and are much better at learning from their mistakes. If two kids make the same error, the ‘clever’ one sulks because they got it wrong and didn’t get praise, and the ‘slogger’ takes constructive criticism in their stride and learns how to get it right next time.

By the end of Y7, most of the differences between them are ironed out as the ‘clever’ ones learn to work hard instead of just showing off, and the ‘sloggers’ gain well-deserved confidence. There’s usually the odd one or two who try to blag their way right through to GCSE, and then get mediocre or worse grades.

My DD was happier in secondary once set for things like maths as she no longer had people calling out the answer before she had finished reading the question.