Children slightly more ahead starting school are actually more disadvantaged.

[Disguise101]

I’ve had a discussion with some school mums tonight and there is a huge difference of opinion, therefore, I thought I’d put it to the masses…

A child starts school and can write their alphabet and numbers, albeit not very well or neatly.

A child starts school and can’t write any letters or numbers. They receive catch up classes to teach them how to write their letters and numbers properly. They can now write neater than the child who knew how to write a bit and hasn’t had catch up classes.

Has the child who started school slightly ahead been disadvantaged in anyway?

YABU - they didn’t need the help, who cares that they’re not at the level of children that had catch up classes

YANBU - it’s fair that children who needed catch up lessons have had extra support and are now on a higher level than those who didn’t need them.

I am not comparing children with SEN needs (diagnosed or undiagnosed) but children who are on a level playing field.

I’m interested to see some articulate answers because in my situation I am a
(slightly drunk) mum defending my previously gifted child who is no longer on the same level as the majority of her peers.

Children achieve at different rates and in bursts. I noticed that often children can be late starters or early starters, you had an early stater.

its like the ones that learn to walk at 9 months are at the same sports ability as the ones who took longer to walk by the time they get to reception.
You can help your DC at home by colouring together or doing at to improve dexterity. Out buying one of the many work books available for young children. But make it feel like fun and not a chore.

Your child was "previously gifted" and has just started school? And isn't "gifted" any more. .. Who was making the "gifted" judgement?

Your 2 options seem the same

Perhaps the child who had been taught to write letters and numbers hadn't spent time on the important age appropriate things like developing social skills, thinking for themselves and following their interests...?

At preschool age a rounded start to learning needs to include lots of child led opportunities to learn, I'd think that if those are missing then learning to write isn't going to make them smart.

I do however think that children who receive good support in school and realise that they have to work hard can sometimes develop a work ethic that other children who haven't had the struggle might not have.
The children who don't struggle might become lazy whereas the kids with a stronger work ethic do better in the long run. This happened for sure with DC1 and her friend who really struggled at school, ended up with some amazing GCSE results.

I think in some situations this may be true but not in the example you describe. The example just sounds a bit petty tbh.

I was thinking along the lines of a child starts school who can almost read and write words already but have been taught in a different way to how the school teaches things. I think there is a risk of those children becoming bored or demotivated especially if they need to try and unlearn what they’ve been taught previously in order to progress.

If a child can be quickly overtaken by peers receiving a little extra help then they were never 'gifted', sorry OP!

Hopefully they are a quick learner though and this will benefit them throughout their life.

The competitive 'my child is gifted' stuff has always annoyed me a bit tbh. Some kids are pretty incredible, there was a thread about some kid doing advanced maths age 5, but most of it just feels like parental posturing.

DS could count to 100 at age 3 but I am pretty sure he's not gifted just bright

But your example doesn't happen though?They won't be given extra classes if they can't write when they start school because that isn't the expectation, children will all be given the same lessons when they first start school as there is no expectations they can read or write (though it's nice if they can!).

Your options for YABU and YANBU are the same so can't vote.

Was your child assessed as gifted?
Maybe she could get some support now too if she's fallen behind?
I'd discuss it with her teacher to start with.

My daughter entered school being able to read and write to quite a high level. She was also very good with numbers. She was just naturally really interested in learning these things.

Ds was the opposite. Wasn’t interested at all.

Both progressed at school. Dd didn’t stagnate while others caught up, she continued to improve and develop her reading, writing and numeracy. Ds wasn’t left behind either. Dd continued to improve slightly ahead of her peers. Ds continued to learn and improve in line with expectations.

School can’t make a gifted child not gifted.

More likely your child was simply in front of their peers then their peers caught up and your child is either normal in regards to academics (or just above average). Or you massively over estimated their skill level. Your child may have been able to read, write and do some simple maths. However, they weren’t doing it to the skill level of an adult. It takes years and years to get there.

Many People believe their kids are gifted when they are actually simply further in front in certain areas and it often evens out later on.

Take reading as an example. Schools will give different children different level of books, depending on their level of competency. If your child was truly gifted they would get increasing difficult books and continue being ahead of their peers. There’s no reason, if the child was actually gifted, that they’re reading doesn’t continue to improve.

It’s the same with writing. As the children are learning your child, knowing the basics, will be simply moving through work quicker and continue to learn.

Dd is now 19, still ahead (slightly) than her peers and studying at University. Ds is 13 and also slightly ahead (exceeds expectations) in most areas. Neither are gifted.

Were you expecting your dc to always be ahead because they learned to read and write first? Do you expect the earlier walkers to be the best athletes too? The purpose of school is to teach the dc things they don’t know yet. It sounds like it’s working if the non-readers are reading already.

What kind of school is this doing 'catch up' classes? My Ds could just about write his name when he started YR but by Jan he was writing simple sentences alone. He didn't have any catch up class. He is a very fast learner and has a photographic memory. His twin sister has been consistently behind him, but works hard. Now they are in Y10 she is starting to overtake certain subjects and is equal on most others. She reads a lot and this makes a huge difference to every subject.

Children develop very differently. I don't know how old your child is but I wouldn't worry. Hard work, a good attitude to learning and a love of reading - and they'll do well later on. It's a long haul!

Ps. Also you sound very competitive. This could be very damaging to your child, and their self confidence. Please think hard about this because even if you don't mean to communicate something, and don't actually say anything, your child will be picking up that a) being gifted means a lot to mummy b) I'm not as gifted as I used to be.

Tread very very carefully OP.

Has your child been assessed as gifted by a psych or similar evaluator? Or they just bright? True giftedness doesn’t necessarily mean academic achievement, and can be uneven. However a child assessed as gifted wouldn’t fall behind only because peers were being coached.

School only started a few weeks ago. If it's just a few catch up lessons it will even out eventually especially if a child is "gifted".

I could read to a decent level by the time I went to school. I come from a family of avid readers, so it was always going to happen as I was left with my Gran while my mum went back to work.

School was a bit flummoxed by me, to be honest ( this was the mid '70s). I distinctly remember putting my hand up in one of our first lessons ( learning the alphabet) and saying 'umm, I already know this.'

I was just given harder reading books and put in a class a few years ahead so I essentially spent three years in year 6. Which wasn't the most fun.

I wasn't gifted, just bright.

Sorry, just to continue! My 3 children all have very neat handwriting. Ds1 couldn't write his name going into Y1! But I swear the neatness is because we played with sooo much play dough and did hours of art and colouring per day. These are the foundations of nice writing not doing letters from the age of 2.

The class will slow down to accommodate the least able child.

It will never speed up to accommodate the most able (how could it?) they will have to wait. And get bored, and sometimes end up switching off.

Unfair imo on the brightest child, but that's the reality.

My dd(9) is summer born and I notice that the ones who turned 5 in September (almost a whole year earlier) and had parents who had given them full on schooling 4-5 are further ahead and treated better by the school. They think these children are gifted but it's because they had all that early prep that made them look gifted when they're quite ordinary!

Throughtout school there is far more incentive to get children to perform to the required standard pr move them closer to it then there is for them to push children who will reach the required standard with little input to actually reach their full potential, which might be far higher than that standard level. Yeah they want some 8s and 9s at GCSE, say. But it a child is capable of reaching hypothetical standard 12 or 14 or 13 they have no interest of incentive to push them to that. So much time is wasted. Right from Reception is mostly about crowd control and maybe 1-1.5 hours of learning per day is all bright children will receive. It's no good at all for anyone with a disability either.

The system is a joke. It doesn't cater for truly academic children, or those with specific talents in say art or music, or those who have more practical talents. It's mainly all focused on moving D-E grade students up to a C, in old speak. 75% of the time at least is wasted for anyone with a high IQ, so endure this hellish environment for years for nothing,and lots then (understandably) refuse to go at all.

The whole system needs rebuilding from the ground up so each child can reach their potential in their own skills.

Nope. It's the teachers' job to stretch every child woth appropriate work for their level.

I agree with your post in that the entire class having to slow down to the rate of the slowest pupils is what happens. But it shouldn't, legally or morally. Much better to set pupils early on also so everyone has work pitched at a level they need and engages them. Nobody is asking the "slowest" pupils to speed up, but there's not reason more able ones shouldn't have their needs met, too. In fact by law, they have to. Not that schools care about that. 🙄

This is not how it’s supposed to happen and doesn’t in many schools. ‘Keep up, not catch up’ is the mantra in most decent schools and the slowest attaining pupils are absolutely expected to make accelerated progress.

That's it in a nutshell. And for that reason it actually benefits the more advanced kids as well if the slower ones are getting more support, because then everyone can progress faster.

Who decided on the ‘gifted’ label. Writing letters and numbers before starting school is not uncommon.

But entire classes don't slow down and DCs who can't read and write when they start school don't get catch-up classes. Posters are writing hypotheticals as though they've never had DCs start school.

If a 5-yr-old can write but not well, they will learn how to write at school. If their writing isn't neat because they're holding their pencil incorrectly or forming the letters incorrectly then they will need to relearn how to write. But as a PP said, it's only a few months into the school year - P1/Reception DCs have years of perfecting handwriting ahead of them.

This feels like someone who has never been in a school creating a hypothetical dilemma to prompt a discussion.