Average at primary thrive at secondary

[PropsPropel]

AIBU to think that some children who are 'middle of the road' as they go through primary e.g. not among the top or bottom 10 in the class, who are curious and like reading but are not high flying, mega academic can still come round and do very well at secondary school? If I'm not unreasonable, why is it that some dc thrive at secondary but just do alright when they're younger.

My ds1 is like this. Not very academic at primary but is set for solid GCSE grades (hopefully). He's late August born and I figure it's probably taken him that long to catch up with his peers.

I did this when I was younger. Was just a self confidence thing. Average/low SATS results at primary then went to secondary and suddenly started moving up into higher sets. Became much more confident and made more friends.

Got As at GCSE and went on to Uni.

It's entirely possible. I've known the brightest primary aged children average out at secondary. My DS is like this, my DD is like me.

Definitely! My dd was like that. She always did ok at primary - she didn’t struggle - but she wasn’t one of the “stars”. Her reports were also really variable from year to year, depending on how teachers received her.

At secondary school her confidence has soared and she is doing really, really well.

I did this.

Average at primary, probably lower average. Then at secondary something clicked and I was in the top set for everything and got perfect grades. Discussions about Oxbridge etc.

Think I just didn't really like the way primary was taught, can't really think of another explanation

I was one of those.

Lower expecations - has same teachers 2 then 3 years on trot and think they has me in a box. Mum always thought they relied to much on what older siblings been like and not enough on what I could do. First few weeks at secondary were all tests and I test well so I think there were fewer preconceived ideas about my abilities.

I also think it was partly as it turned out I was dyslexia - not found till univeristy so it probably took till secondary for me to have coping solid strategies in place.

Also secondary had a broader range of subjects and expericence teachers - we didn't really do science or history primary was pre national curriculum and many areas seem not be be covered in my primary.

With my youngest she's competitive but also a bit lazy I think theres been more people to work against and more teachers to impresss rather than sit back near middle and be okay with that.

I think some students just do better at subjects which require a more developed perspective, humanities for example benefit from being able to think in an integrated way, to see patterns and think more abstractly. Most children eventually get there with maths and English to a level where they can read enough to access the curriculum so those who steamed ahead as young children are not as much at an advantage.

There also seems to be more focus on adaptations- hand writing slow/messy - use a laptop rather than hours of handwriting practice. I accept that good handwriting is desirable but for some children it isn't achievable. I think it is just a different focus which suits some children more. The fixed timetable also suits some more, so you get 4 hours of maths a week, there is no cancelling art because you didn't finish maths before break. This helps to focus both child and teacher.

Definitely.
I taught in a primary and was often very surprised to hear of children doing really well in secondary whose attainment was decidedly middle of the road with us.
I can think of a couple of doctors, solicitors and an actress who have done brilliantly as well as very good teachers who did not show any signs at the age of 9!

Obviously depends on the secondary school though - I went to a totally shit one and could have done so much better elsewhere.

Yes, I agree that lots of 'late starters' go on to thrive at secondary.

I expect there are lots of reasons - maturity, confidence, finding a supportive friendship group, preferring KS3/4 teaching styles and expectations, being exposed to new topics and subjects that interest them.

If they're intelligent, curious, resilient and hard-working then they have the tools they need to thrive at secondary.

That sounds encouraging. I was a very, very late starter and only got the hang of school and applying myself to push beyond what I found easy to learn when I was 14 and did relatively well after that. Maybe they cater for a broader range of learning styles at secondary? I suppose the teenage years, hormones, peer group and maturing at different rates might be contributing factors to things levelling out at secondary?

My dd has flown since year 9ish. Diagnosing a visual perceptual problem seemed to help, even though she doesn't particularly use any of the strategies.

Primary can really stifle some children I think, and also because they start so early in this country, the maturity gap between September borns and August borns can be vast. But the gap obviously gets relatively smaller as they age.

DS was slightly under average at primary, did OK in GCSE's and then diagnosed with dyslexia just before 6th form college. He's about start university with 1 A and predicted another 3As at A level

I was average in primary. Well, top set for maths and french (the only setted things) but needing extra support in English (was private school, in a state I would have probably been just good enough to get no help but definitely not to shine). My parents were told I may not get into the school I wanted for year 7 so I held off to year 9. In those two years I started to catch up, got into the school no worries and then became a straight A student. It does happen!

I am a summer birthday and dyslexic so I guess those may have been factors.

Definitely think so especially for children young in their year. 6 months younger at 5 makes a bigger difference than 6 months younger at 15.

My dd has a March birthday, always working as expected but rarely exceeding. She loves being at school and the social side of it and is interested in learning, just not a high flier. I encourage her to do her best and persevere but I don't 'push' her. Just wondered if the working hard part might come when she's older.