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.

[gfrnn]

@cantkeepawayforever
You have made an error by failing to distinguish the annual intake of a school from its total population. A 7-year secondary school with 1000 students representative of the general population such as you are considering would have an annual intake of 143. They would admit a 1 in 10,000 student on average once every 70 years, not once every 10 as you stated. Similarly they would admit a 1 in 1000 student on average once every 7 years. These little factors of 7 here and there make a difference.

I have been clear from my very first post on this thread that it is necessary to distinguish between levels of giftedness. I stated there that research had shown that moderate acceleration of 1-2 years benefited students in the top 2% of ability whereas more radical acceleration of 3 or more years was required only for the top 0.1% - again a statement that is supported by research.

The position I've set out is regarded as evidence-based best practice in numerous other countries and is exactly what Singapore (which our government is keen on importing educational ideas from) does. Our own government seriously considered rolling something fairly similar out just a few years ago.

As for "normal differentiation is absolutely sufficient" for students in the top 1% of ability - well, again the actual research from all over the world shows just the opposite. Do you suppose foreign governments fund gifted programmes for exactly this population just because they're feeling charitable, or do you think they're determined to make best use of a critical national resource?

[gfrnn]

@NobleGiraffe

Re: "Are you suggesting that under 18s who aren’t gifted are making applications to Cambridge in large enough numbers as to drag down the acceptance rate? Why do you suppose that the pool of under 18s applying to Cambridge is less likely to be gifted than the normal pool of applicants?
Anyway, if you’re so insistent that the acceptance rate of under-18s at Cambridge is down to them being from overseas, that’s again not very helpful to British parents working in the British education system"

The statement "thousands of teenagers each year make successful use of early entrance procedures at British Universities, including the most elite ones" is supported by the data.
As far as I am concerned that is a helpful statement to highly gifted teenagers and their parents because it indicates another option that is open to them that they might not have considered without that knowledge.
Suggestions and suppositions which can't be substantiated from the data do not interest me.


Re: Dual enrolment the Open University's admission policy for under 18's states:

"Applying through your school or college
4.1 If you have reached the age of 16, are in full-time education and reside in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, you may register for a standalone module through your school or college. In this way you will receive in-school support."

i.e. it specifically makes allowance for dual enrolment. Therefore both dual enrolment and early entry are options which are available to every British student.

[BertrandRussell]

And again, no thought given to other subjects and to the social side of things.

[titchy]

I don't think anyone on here is talking about accelerating 6 formers by dual enrolling at uni are we? A sixth former being a year or two ahead isn't that remarkable. We were talking about much younger children and the ridiculous notion that they should start uni at age 12.

The debate on age at start of uni - lots of Scottish kids start at 17, and a fair few English 17 year olds who have been put into the year above. So I wouldn't try and draw any substantial conclusions from that. Again accelerating by a year or so isn't really what the thread is about.

[BertrandRussell]

And actually, , as someone who went to a Scottish University from England I can say categorically that many of the Scottish students were at a distinct disadvantage in many ways compared to the ones who came from England. A year makes a big difference at that age.

[user789653241]

I think my ds is a child who could have coped well being accelerated. But I don't think it worked for him in the long run.
He used to stand out from the children so much, because his interests were so skewed, and didn't know how to socialise with his peer group.
I don't think he would have had happier life if he went to Uni early. I think he will enjoy more if he did at the right age.
Child's life is not just about academics. I am so glad that I realised that early in primary, and was able to help him enjoy school, rather than just pushing him forward.

[cantkeepawayforever]

gfrnn,

I was referring to the probability of a child BEING PRESENT IN A SCHOOL (and thus the school having to provide for them), not the probability of admission in any one year. Admitting a child isn't the issue - it is catering for them when present in the school, hence my choosing a 'present in the school' probability, not an 'admission' probability.

It is interesting in primary, as an aside, that the government has focused very much on a 'year group based mastery' curriculum recently (based on Shanghai-type models), whereas historically it was much more common, indeed absolutely daily practice, to differentiate quite widely across a class, using material from different 'levels' [my favourite Y3 class ever had children from P6, all the way through P7 P8, all of Level 1, 2 and 3, to a child working at level 4, the expected level for Y6].

It will be interesting to see whether the much more 'fixed' year group-type curriculum gives rise, eventually, to a demand for acceleration.

Do you also favour 'deceleration / repeating years' for those with SEN or who learn much more slowly than their more average peers?

[noblegiraffe]

it specifically makes allowance for dual enrolment.

That’s not really dual enrolment is it? That’s studying for a standalone module with the OU while continuing with your school studies. It’s not a university course of study.

And when you rock up at Oxbridge with your OU module, they’ll probably expect to teach that stuff to you again.

That OU page about doing OU modules under 18 is also not encouraging. It pretty much says ‘are you sure you wouldn’t be better off doing something else with your time, these courses are for adults’.

[noblegiraffe]

It will be interesting to see whether the much more 'fixed' year group-type curriculum gives rise, eventually, to a demand for acceleration.

I’ve been wondering about this, whether in other countries ‘acceleration out of age group’ is simply what we do by setting. A kid working at a grade 9 level in maths is technically working 4+ years in advance of ‘age related expectations’, but we’ don’t call it that. I don’t know if qualifications in other countries have grades covering quite such a range of ability levels.

[cantkeepawayforever]

Noble, I agree.

I would therefore suggest that studies of 'age acceleration' which are not UK based should, at the very least, be treated with caution unless the full context is understood and compared with standard teaching practice here.

Having been through the transition to 'teaching for mastery' in primary, including some direct training in / exposure to 'Shanghai'-type methods and teachers, I can see that the whole culture around differentiation / age group based teaching can be ENTIRELY different in different countries / cultures, meaning that studies in 1 education system cannot be straightforwardly applied elsewhere.

I have also learned that simplistic 'they do it well in country X, let's copy what they do in country X' has unexpected pitfalls - especially when it is based around an expectation of all teachers having significant non-contact time to be available for additional teaching / catch up in the afternoons, and virtually all pupils having significant hours of additional after-school coaching daily to keep up with the class!

[farangatang]

There's a lot to be said for keeping children in similar age-range for social/emotional/personal skill development, despite outstanding ability in a particular area (or areas) of academic study.

I've taught several (genuinely) gifted children who all benefited from having their academic needs met through serious extension (in and outside the school curriculum) but would have missed out on some very important age-appropriate experiences had they been well outside of their age-group for much/some of the school day.

For example, the most academically able child in a current Year 1 class is significantly delayed in his emotional resilience and social skills. I"m sure if he was radically accelerated into a class of Y5/6 children (which is where his intellect puts him!) they would show little tolerance for his 'babyish' behaviour and also put him into contact with personal situations he would not and should not be facing at his age. (and what of physical skills? Super important to develop a positive and lifelong relationship with exercise and physical health).

Arguably, it is social/emotional/personal skills which ultimately affect the quality of a person's life far more than their cognitive abilities.

I'm the first to criticise 'tall poppy syndrome' and failure to celebrate and encourage outstanding academic abilities, but children are more than a brain.

[gfrnn]

@BertrandRussell "And again, no thought given to other subjects and to the social side of things."
I've already covered both.

Re: other subjects, See my post above of Mon 28-May-18 02:14:52 where this was discussed. As I've already said there, the point of dual enrolment is it allows students to continue with other subjects. and the point of acceleration in general is it allows children to make effective use of their time - the time saved can then be reinvested in a greater breadth of study.

Re: social and emotional issues, this was covered extensively in my post on this thread of Fri 18-May-18 08:34:31. Here it is one last time. I linked three different studies and reviews which found:

1. "The results showed minimal differences in the social-emotional characteristics of accelerated and non-accelerated gifted students. The few differences we found favoured the accelerated students. We also found that multiple grade skipping does not have negative effects on social-emotional characteristics, and that long-term effects of acceleration tend to be positive"
   
2. "Accelerants equal or surpass non-accelerants in self-concept, self-esteem, self-confidence, social relationships, participation in extracurricular activities, and life satisfaction"
   
3. "The considerable majority of young people who have been radically accelerated, or who accelerated by 2 years, report high degrees of life satisfaction, have taken research degrees at leading universities, have professional careers, and report facilitative social and love relationships. Young people of equal abilities who accelerated by only 1 year or who have not been permitted acceleration have tended to enter less academically rigorous college courses, report lower levels of life satisfaction, and in many cases, experience significant difficulties with socialisation. Several did not graduate from college or high school"
   
   Lastly, re: "do you see no issues at all socially or psychologically with going to university well outside your age group"
   The choice should be made depending on the individual circumstances and considering pros and cons of each option. It is, however, wrong to assume that keeping gifted students in their chronological year group is risk free. Failure to accelerate when it is needed can be extremely harmful and can result in social maladjustment and depression.

[noblegiraffe]

Young people of equal abilities who accelerated by only 1 year or who have not been permitted acceleration have tended to enter less academically rigorous college courses, report lower levels of life satisfaction, and in many cases, experience significant difficulties with socialisation. Several did not graduate from college or high school"


..... in the US.

[gfrnn]

@cantkeepawayforever "1 in 10,000 and above - (so 1 per 10 years in a decent-sized secondary)"
The statement "1 per 10 years" expresses a rate. It has dimensions time(-1). Probabilities, on the other hand, are dimensionless. The relevant rate in the problem is the Poisson arrival rate, which is 1 per 70 years , i.e. 0.0143 year (-1). Your "1 per 10 years" statement is a rate - the wrong rate by a factor of 7. It cannot be a probability (as you subsequently claimed) because it is not dimensionless.
Re: for the distinction you are drawing between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 10000, the tests of both general and mathematical ability in general use in this country (Wechsler, BAS, keymath), are only reliable to 3 standard deviations or 99.9th percentile, for the very good reason that they are standardised on sets of 2000 to 5000 children as it would be too expensive to standardise on tens of thousands. Beyond this all that can generally be seen is the ceiling of the test. Two children respectively at the 1 in 1000 and 1 in 10000 levels will generate similar scores which can not be used to differentiate reliably between them. For the same reason it is not practical for schools to try to distinguish between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 10000 (they'll never have the test results to make such a distinction reliable), nor do they need to - a child who is 1 in 1000 is already an extreme outlier in their year group and will need bespoke provision.
Re "One format [...] is for a child based in their own school year for everything except their own subject of strength, while accessing [..] appropriate resources and teaching from world-class experts at the correct level in their subject of strength."
That is a solution for those lucky enough to benefit from it, but:

1. it's restricted to those with the deep pockets and/or personal connections to facilitate it (in which case the kid would quite likely be at a private school to start with). Most kids won't be so lucky. Nor would there be a sufficient number of available experts willing to donate their time to roll it out on a larger scale. It's a solution for a tiny privileged minority.
   
2. it presupposes a single area of strength. It's not a complete solution if they're "omnibus gifted" - gifted in multiple or all areas.
   
3. What happens during normal maths classes? The world-class experts can't be physically present in the classroom. Do they work through the (completely irrelevant) age-based curriculum with the rest of their class? They should be doing the advanced work instead of, not as well as, the normal work. They should be making effective use of their time in school, not spending multiple hours a week outside school to make up for time that was wasted in school.

[noblegiraffe]

We don’t have an age-based curriculum in maths in the UK in secondary school. We have an age-based exam system, but kids follow a different curriculum dependent on their ability. It’s called setting.

[gfrnn]

@NobelGiraffe "That’s not really dual enrolment is it? That’s studying for a standalone module with the OU while continuing with your school studies. It’s not a university course of study"

1. They are enrolled at school. They are simultaneously enrolled at a university. That is dual enrolment.
   
2. The OU, like many others, offers modular degrees - when you've completed the prerequisite number and level of modules you are awarded a degree. It is a university course of study.
   
   If you contend that it is not dual enrolment and not a university course of study then you are in denial of reality.

[noblegiraffe]

“Standalone modules
Good for you if ...
... you want to complete a self-contained unit of study without committing to a qualification.”

Says the OU website. Students studying a standalone module are not enrolled in a course of study leading to a qualification.

[cantkeepawayforever]

What happens during normal maths classes? The world-class experts can't be physically present in the classroom.

Have you never heard of the internet? Videoed lectures, online interactive work, virtual classrooms, online conferencing, problems set by e-mail with the solutions photographed and returned for annotation and discussion?

[cantkeepawayforever]

I linked three different studies and reviews which found:

Are ALL of these UK based, or including a large number of UK students in their studies? The studies I recall tend to be American or Antipodean, and as I stated earlier, the education systems and curricula are sufficiently different to make applying such studies to the UK education landscape invalid without significant extra work and qualification of conclusions.

[gfrnn]

@NobleGiraffe "in the US"

Actually that one is from a 20-year study in Australia, which would have been obvious if you'd bothered to read even the first few lines of the study. The first quote from that post is from a study in the Netherlands - the European studies find the same results as the American ones.
But thanks for demonstrating so succinctly that you're rejecting the evidence without even bothering to read it because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions.

[noblegiraffe]

You didn’t link to the study. However, it was obvious from its references to college courses that it was not a UK based study.

[cantkeepawayforever]

gfrnn

Please could you link to some UK-based studies, just to avoid this type of confusion? Whether Antipodean, American or European, education systems are so different that it is only if a study has a strong UK component that its conclusions could be validly applied here, simply because the UK educational process has had differentiation so much at its core for so many years.

[MaisyPops]

cant
People have repeatedly pointed this out to them.
Contextual factors are irrelevant to gfrnn as they seem to only be interested in justifying rapid acceleration.

[cantkeepawayforever]

Maisy,

I am well aware of that. However, as gfrnn is very keen to repeatedly make the same points, I just thought I might join in.....

[gfrnn]

As I said "this was covered extensively in my post on this thread of Fri 18-May-18 08:34:31. Here it is one last time. I linked three different studies"

Scroll up the thread. the link is there.