Maths GCSE in Primary

[winterisstillcoming]

Hey everybody, I was wondering if you could help clear something up for me.

I was speaking to my SIL yesterday who told me her Y5 son is revising for his maths GCSE. He is at independent school. I said be careful only the first attempt counts. As a trustee of an Academy trust that has recently decided not to put students forward early for this reason, I thought I knew what I was talking about. Apparently not according to my SIL.

So was she correct, and is it an independent school thing that students are allowed to resit? Which puts my Trust's students at a disadvantage??

She was so bloody patronising too. And she got my nephews GCSE text books out at a family wedding.

Say, for example, an outstanding young ballet dancer wanted to go on pointe, before she was old and physically developed enough.

Some (ignorant) parents might push for it 'Oh, DD is so brilliant at ballet; she should go on pointe because she is so good and she wants to do it. It would show how much better she is than other girls her age.'

Other (informed) parents and any good dance teacher would veto it absolutely, as being completely against a young dancer's best interests and long term dance development, however much they may want it at that particular moment.

I was accelerated and missed out some key fundamental understanding as a result. I was very good at copying methods without a deep understanding of what I was doing. That proved problematic further down the line.

You see the same thing in music, sometimes, as well - a child pushed through exam grade after exam grade, never actually playing or experiencing any music other than the set pieces, and thus missing out on the development of musicality and overall musical awareness, whatever their technical facility.

You are so right on that can't. It's very impressive to get grade 8 and the pieces are awesome but that's 3 very technical pieces and there's a wealth of repetoire out there.
I was always grateful my teacher used to do some lessons on drills, some on exam pieces and some playing a range of material for fun. The breadth was what made it enjoyable. I think i'd have stopped if it was simply grade after grade because that's what you do.

Rubia, so you are talking about imaginary child that doesn't exist?
I may have agreed with your thinking years ago, my child with hyperlexia, selective mutism and various asd traits, seemed like only thing he was interested was maths back then.

I am really glad I had a lot of advice from MN teachers when he was in yr2. If I didn't, I might have followed what you think is a good way.
Now maths is only a part of his interest, he still does, and gets even some concepts from GCSE or higher. But he spends far more time painting, playing piano, or doing martial arts.

@cantkeepawayforever
"But I do not 'get' - based on my experience of knowing some exceptionally able (1 in 10,000+ level) mathematical children (not my own) - that the ONLY solution is to march rigidly down the 'KS2 / KS3 / GCSE / A-level route"
"education for the genuinely highly able is restricted, rather than improved, by standard exams and their curricula."

Unfortunately your ideas are contradicted by the actual research on the subject in which a large cohort of (1 in 10,000+ level) kids were identified and tracked for many years.
Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth after 45 years
Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth after 35 years
"The SMPY data supported the idea of accelerating fast learners by allowing them to skip school grades. In a comparison of children who bypassed a grade with a control group of similarly smart children who didn't, the grade-skippers were 60% more likely to earn doctorates or patents and more than twice as likely to get a PhD in a STEM field. Acceleration is common in SMPY's elite 1-in-10,000 cohort, whose intellectual diversity and rapid pace of learning make them among the most challenging to educate. Advancing these students costs little or nothing, and in some cases may save schools money, says Lubinski. “These kids often don't need anything innovative or novel,” he says, “they just need earlier access to what's already available to older kids.”

"Lies, damned lies and statistics. "

"A genuinely able [rather than 'held up by their parent to be able'] mathematician would have more intellectual curiousity than that"

Ah - now I see where you're coming from. If someone disagrees with you, then either they're lying or they're deluded and their children aren't "genuinely" gifted. You know children who are much brighter than that. You don't need to look at "research" because you have the one true creed.

gfmn- how does it benefit the child to do exams early?

gfrnn
What other posters are saying (I'm sure they'll correct me if I've misunderstood) is that the context of much of the research you cite is world's apart from the UK state system, so you can't generalise and draw conclusions about what is best in the UK state system (which is a different set up). Despite this, yet another link has just been shared about a US study (which is a fundamentally different education system).

Now you're on about likelihood of getting PhDs (in an American system) but people havr repeatedly pointed out that quite a few UK universities do not like a gap in study between a level maths and university.

People aren't disputing that accelerated exams can work for some, in some contexts.
They are questioning whether it is the best way of developing able students in the UK system
Instead of engaging with that, you keep posting more and more links to 'prove' exams are the best. Whereas other posters seem to say 'it can work but actually there are all these other ways that can work better in our system', you are just replying back with 'but exams... look at another link that isn't a comparable context'.

gfrnn, I have seen your posts, and it's very insightful and helpful. But does that really apply to the children attending state schools?
I know my ds isn't just slightly advanced, he was capable of going forward, as in even skipping ks2 entirely for maths ability alone. But I did listen to others, and ds has gained so much from it. He enjoys more thinking process, rather than just be able to do something harder. Maybe it may work for some, especially if they can cater for it, but I am not sure it will help a child to become part of the world, they will always be someone who are good at maths etc, but lacks over all understanding of people around them, and the social world?

Firstly in response to the posts which have said that the studies are from the US and do not generalise to the UK.
I provided multiple studies from outside the US and a review of international research. A review of European research can be found here (p209). The author notes "findings from European studies seem to parallel the outcomes of earlier studies in the United States; they indicate that acceleration does not harm gifted students, even in the case of multiple grade skips". That review finds acceleration is widely used in Switzerland, Netherlands, Austria and Germany - all of which outperformed the UK in the PISA 2015 tests for high attainers in mathematics. A long term study in Australia by Gross reached the same conclusions as the American and European studies.
I provided two English studies conducted in English schools by English researchers which were both positive about acceleration. Potential Plus and PEGY - both UK organisations supporting highly able children - support acceleration in statements similar to the US NAGC statement which I quoted above. The PEGY position also reflects the position of its patron, Professor John Geake, who conducted research on the neurobiology of giftedness in a British University. Acceleration is discussed and viewed favourably in this book written by British teachers. Is that English/British enough or do I have to paint it red, white and blue?
DCSF guidance on the exceptionally able (top 2%) issued 2008 recognized acceleration as a valid appropriate approach. British government policy and guidance does not preclude acceleration, despite widespread misinterpretation that this is the case. Decisions are devolved to individual schools. Some do implement acceleration successfully. As an example, for many years Colyton (State) grammar let all pupils sit all GCSE's in Year 10 and remained at the top of national league tables. This allowed a 3-year 6th form with a much wider breadth of A level study.

Secondly regarding exams, as I've said before they are for the most part incidental/irrelevant. What matters is the curriculum and how that curriculum will be delivered. Resourcing issues arise regardless of whether you teach them the standard curriculum or a completely different one. The needs of the hghly gifted are so different from their chronological peers that there is almost no common ground - their zones of proximal development do not overlap. So either you ignore their needs and teach them next to nothing for several years, or you acknowledge the need and commit the resources. One of the key arguments for acceleration is that it is a cost-effective intervention that makes use of existing resources. It is less labour intensive to teach existing curriculum and materials than to embark on an off-piste curriculum unrelated to the school's usual one. Furthermore, as was noted above, most UKMT resources are designed to work "alongside the curriculum, using maths in a different way". Alongside : as well as, not instead of. That seems to be a key point of confusion here. Teaching someone the GCSE curricuum at a young age does not mean you can't extend significantly beyond it at the same time.
Exceptions where exams may be useful are to end a dispute with a school over ability and need (as has been noted by others above), or to enable access to higher level material (e.g. if a child wants to do AS level at a local college but the college requires GCSE to enroll). The issue in both cases is inflexibility or poor judgement on the part of local teachers or administrators, not the value of the exam itself.

Lastly regarding running out of secondary material and early university entry:
We do have early entry in this country - it's just not widely known. Universities are obliged by the Equality Act 2010 to consider applications from candidates of all ages who meet advertised academic entry requirements. See for example the policies from Kings and Imperial for admitting children under 18 (and indeed under 16). If there are issues with running out of secondary material then distance learning via open university modules or via international gifted programmes like Johns-Hopkins CTY (which are open to international students) are also options. Early university entry is discussed further here . Lastly although elimination of A level additional further maths and A level statistics hasn't helped the situation, the materials are still available and familiar to teachers, and as far as further maths options go, the situation with some exam boards is still that students can still sit both the stats and mechanics options and the best results from their options will contribute to their final grade. Again there is a distinction between learning the subject for its own sake and sitting an exam.

In many situations accelerating a child through the standard curriculum is the most feasible option for a school with limited resources and few subject specialists to implement. It is a very good option - not a damaging one. The alternative - leaving a child to stagnate for several years on the hypothetical risk that they might "run out of maths" before Y13 is indefensible. As Denise Yates of Potential plus put it on the occasion of the closing of NAGTY and the removal of G&T funding: As with any child, if you don't engage them by the age of 14, you've lost them.

Of course you can resist GCSEs. Any 16-18 who doesn’t get at least a 4 in their maths and English has to resit them as part of an apprenticeship or college study programme.

I don’t understand why anyone would push a year 5 child to sit GCSEs.

No one has suggested leaving a child to stagnate for several years as being a good option.

And Oxbridge don’t like students being taught uni maths early.

And the idea that additional further maths and stats A-levels are ‘familiar’ to maths teachers when this country is incredibly short of teachers who can even teach bog standard A-level maths is just bonkers.

Potential Plus and PEGY - both UK organisations supporting highly able children - support acceleration in statements similar to the US NAGC statement which I quoted above.

So I looked at the PEGY website and for a UK organisation, it, like you, talks a lot about the US. It’s odd that on a UK website they don’t have lots of advice about UK universities, British case studies.

grfnn-what do you actually want to happen? You're very passionate-but I'm not quite sure what about.

gfrnn

I think you are confused about my point.

You are equating 'grade skipping' with 'taking exams early' with 'receiving curriculum content appropriate to them' - and those are 3 very different things.

I believe that very able children can, and should, be exposed to a hugely wide Maths curriculum which includes both material from 'later' years and also material which is not normally included in the exam syllabus. That is receiving curriculum content appropriate to them, and can be done without grade skipping, and without taking exams early.

If the child is equally able in all areas (not just in 1) then acceleration by a year (no more) is sometimes successful, though it does depend how 'socially young' the child is. It is not appropriate - indeed makes things worse - where an child is hugely advanced in a singe area, and normal in all others, particularly because it is not enough acceleration in the 'strength' subject while causing a problem in the 'weaker' subjects.

For a child capable of advanced Maths at 10, so 7 or 8 years ahead, how is grade skipping helpful? They cannot be in their 'right' academic peer group for their actual ability in this subject without creating terrible gaps in other subjects, and even worse social problems.

We agree, I think, given you last post, that taking exams for such children is an irrelevance, taking them early particularly so.

I

Universities are obliged by the Equality Act 2010 to consider applications from candidates of all ages who meet advertised academic entry requirements. See for example the policies from Kings and Imperial for admitting children under 18 (and indeed under 16).

Have you actually read those policies? They are the least enthusiastic things ever. It’s basically saying ‘under the equalities act we have to consider this, we reserve the right to refuse, and if they do enter, you have to sign to say you’re in charge of them and won’t let them buy alcohol and you can’t complain if they come into contact with stuff unsuitable for a child.’

Which is a bit different to the US which has entire programs set up to identify and get underage kids to college en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_entrance_to_college

Can you not see the difference?

gfrnn the entire focus of what you have provided is on Maths. How does a DC cover a wide breadth of subjects (e.g. music, art, drama, English, Geography, History, Science, MFL etc.) if they are accelerated onto a maths degree course at University at the age of 12/13/14 etc.? Does the University also provide GCSE/A Level tuition in all these other subject areas?

"the entire focus of what you have provided is on Maths."

a) That was the original topic of the thread. sorry for staying on topic.
b) Read them again. Only the SMPY studies are specific to maths. Acceleration works for all subjects.

"How does a DC cover a wide breadth of subjects if they are accelerated onto a maths degree course at University"

a) Dual enrolment. Already discussed on this thread.
b) Have a look at Miraca Gross's book. She describes children who skipped three or more grades, re-invested one of them to study twice the normal number of subjects at A-level equivalent, and still managed to start university at 16.

"No one has suggested leaving a child to stagnate for several years as being a good option"

You have advised others not to do GCSE in primary because even though their children are bored rigid you think this will make them even more bored at secondary. You have also acknowledged that your own child is extremely bored in maths classes. How is that not stagnation?

"Have you actually read those policies"

Yes I have read them. Your posts suggest that early university entrance is not an option. There is a big difference between non-existent and rare.

"You are equating 'grade skipping' with 'taking exams early' with 'receiving curriculum content appropriate to them"

Erm, no - you are. I've lost count of the number of times I've stated the need to distinguish between the curriculum and the exam.

"acceleration by a year (no more) is sometimes successful"

The radically accelerated Nobel laureates I listed further up the thread mustn't have got the memo.

Your posts suggest that early university entrance is not an option.

That’s your reading of them, not my actual opinion.

I have not said that children should not do GCSE in primary but be left to stagnate instead.

Seriously, you’re arguing against straw men of your own devising.

Can you point to examples of students within the British system for whom radical acceleration has worked well, both in terms of their educational outcomes in all subjects and their all round contentment later in life?

Miraca Gross - whose book I have read, and whose general principles - in terms of acceleration and broadening of the curriculum for tiny numbers of exceptionally able students (I like her logarithmic scale of giftedness) in their gifted subject through differentiated provision, but not across the board, I have seen work well in practice- is not working within, and does not touch upon, the British system. The British system does much more differentiation, and much less grade acceleration / deceleration than others worldwide.

(Sorry, I should clarify that I have not read the book for some years, and it is possible that she does tangentially talk about the British system - however, it is not her 'home' one and her 'home' system is very different and is the one her examples (AFAIR) are drawn from)

Have you got examples of British school children dual enrolled at uni and school?

I do know a child registered in school linked with a uni tutor to guide their wider mathematical education (and to observe / take part in some university lectures via video link / podcast), as part of differentiated provision while keeping them in their near-normal age group for all other non-gifted subjects. I have never encountered it the other way round. This is a child who took 'end of phase' school maths exams at the same time as all pupils of their age group, but just had a broad, stretching [accelerated, if you like] and wide-ranging mathematical education in the meantime.

How does going to University before you are old enough to do anything except the work benefit the child at all??????

I’ve also heard of some university mentoring going on, but not actual enrolment at uni while still being enrolled at school.