To think everyone's children can't be "very bright"

[DrinkFromMyFountain]

Because a good 80% or posters/people in RL seem to refer to their kids as "very bright", surely 80% of kids can't be above average?

As the proud mother of a three month old I'm not fussed if my DS is "bright" or not, if he isn't academic I'm sure he will have other talents!

I hereby declare I shan't constantly boast about how bright he is unless he is a full in genius . As my mother always said, there is nothing wrong with being average.

PMSL Drink I am SO glad you posted this - I was thinking of doing the very same thing myself the other day - it's hilariously predictable isn't it?

Oh yes, I agree that unless you have a child that is struggling in some way, iq testing is completely unnecessary.
Vanity testing is a nonsense.
But I do see a use for testing at both ends of the spectrum, if the child is struggling for some reason. Iq testing alone doesn't cut it, but it fills in a part of the puzzle. Each child is an individual, and if they are struggling, I'm passionate about identifying why, and putting in measures to support.

It really (as ever) all boils down to funding. They aren't prepared to (pay to) test fully, so LEAs do the minimum testing possible and attempt to use those results. Of course it doesn't work - they don't have a full picture.

I think low is below 80? I could be wrong.
And so agree that noone should ever be written off.
Though I concede that I assume that it is done by some. And used against them.

Alis. They are construed in some way, dont know how, to take into account all sorts of things, not just maths.

I particularly like it when their brightness is misunderstood for naughtiness or rudeness at school. That's always a good 'un.

Havea0

I just meant any maths section would seriously affect any result. I can live without knowing to be honest. I've achieved what I've achieved not knowing. Oddly, despite being appalling at maths (no Mrs Smith Alis was not underconfident, she couldn't bloody well do it!) I am good with money. V odd.

Sure subliminal , but y'know, there really are exceptions where kids are bored rigid because they are sitting through a learning to read exercise and mastered that skill (and comprehension to equivalent) many years before.

There's no excuse for bad behaviour, but equally, there's no excuse for teachers not meeting the needs of their students. There's only so far that 'learning patience and how to sit quietly whilst waiting for everyone else to catch up' will go for a 4 or 5 yo.

Bad behaviour should always be dealt with. But students individual educational needs should also be met. At both ends of the spectrum.

MrsDevere - according to the general consensus MN and rll, anything under 120 is dim! so 100 is bordering on retarded (i know its a horrible word).

I also dont get how they come up with these tests, you have to be exposed to certain environments to understand a lot of them. They are supposed to test inate ability but it doesnt look like that to me. You also have to be good at maths.

Silly bitching about academically able children is a real popular skill on mn.

Warms the cockles, it sure does.

I'm all for silly bitching about daft parents who have unrealistic views about their pfbs, but I can't abide this sniping about clever kids. It shows the whole site in a really bad light.

And agin, bad behaviour should always be dealt with.

But ALL students needs should be met.

the thing is, so many posters come on with a problem concerning their child that is often TOTALLY unrelated to their level of intelligence, and they always manage to shoehorn in the statement, 'the trouble is DS is very bright and I wonder if it's affecting this situation?'

And it turns out they won't eat vegetables, or stay in their own bed at night, or they kicked a boy at school or swore at the dinner lady.

That goes without saying prissy.

My year at school were the "guinea pig" year from the very start. The only streamed lessons were maths and science, even then not until starting GCSE's. All other subjects - you'd have a class mix of children sitting higher,mid and foundation tier papers. The teacher were not able to cater for everybody. The bright but quiet were ignored. The less able but quiet were ignored. The bright/less able who acted out and were disruptive got all the attention. I think a fair few in my year suffered for that.

The school never ran that system again.

I just took the BBC Test the Nation IQ test and scored 83. I notched up a grand total of zero in the 'reasoning' section.

I am just not very good at remembering what order a bunch of coloured straws were put into a box.

I can't do the memory tests or the 'what number is next in this sequence' Nancy.

the only ones I can really do are the language ones.

food is to mouth as car is to garage, that sort of thing.

Sub, then that's fair enough. And I'm pretty sure the responses are all 'I don't think that's related to his eating vegetables/ swearing at the dinner lady'. But there seems to be a bit of a thing on mn that if anyone mentions their kid is above average academically, or appears noticeably quicker than their peer group, it's a free for all and everyone automatically dismisses the consideration that sometimes, there is an effect, and they are not being given the support they need.

Socially, for example. Was dd2 ostracised by her peer group because she drooled and looked like a drunk? Or because she had nothing in common with them in a classroom situation? Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Exactly, Alis. I remember sitting in French and German lessons and being unable to learn a single thing. Not because I was in any way learning disabled, but because there were a small number of children in the classroom whose sole aim for the lesson was to make the teacher cry. Which usually happened within the first twenty minutes, causing them to flee the room, and us to all to sigh, and sit and wait for whichever deputy was sent along to give us all a bollocking.

An entire year group where every single student's ability to learn was compromised and their needs not met. And yet, most of the kids were too well behaved (even the brainy ones) to throw their toys well out of the cot and cause a fuss. We sat and sucked it up. And got piss poor exam results as a result. If, however, a child with a high iq lost it and started yelling and shouting, and was really rude to the ht, as they had finally lost their patience with a system where their needs (and the rest of the class) were not being met, and their sense of the injustice had finally overtaken them, I bet the usual crew on mn would just see the 'bright' comment by the op, and dismiss the context.

Gunz..it is a horrible word...so why use it

Especially when you clearly aren't and it's an average score

Fanjo - im simply discussing what i have heard, this is the actual word that was used, you can report something without necessarily agreeing with it.

..and your second line "especially when you clerarly aren't and its an average score' please read my post again, i was referring to another poster, and quite surprised as i thought 100 was supposed to be the average score.

why the face?

IMO IQ tests test people who are good at IQ tests.

That word tends to make my face go

Gunz, I agree with Fanjo do think that use of the "r" word was rather insensitive, particularly in this context, where some MNetters' experience of IQ tests will have been for looking at a child's learning difficulties.

It rattles my cage also but i dont know how you refer to that word without actually saying it, how does anyone know what you are on about about? Maybe we can have a glossary of pseudonyms to replace nasty words, but that will just become the new nasty word, Anyone here with an IQ of 150 to help us out?

Thelight- Im sure the mners you refer to can see the context in which it was used, it wasnt used to insult anybody but rather to show how unkind and dismissive people have been be in real life and on here, it has been said to me and by the way i am one of those mners you refer to.

I'm always amazed by children (not just mine) and how their minds work. I love the. Way they work things out and question the things that don't make sense...

I know you weren't setting out to offend gunz, but it's still an upsetting word for many. I suppose in the MN context,you could substitute "doomed to a life of academic underachievement"?