Primary easy, middle ok, secondary ?

[sherl0ck]

Have tried to search and answer my question but haven’t had much joy, so I am hoping someone can point me in the right direction.

A child finds Primary very easy, completes work quickly and well, is a free reader and receives very positive feedback etc. Then in middle school the work is still easy for them and they do well but other children start to do better so they move from being top of the class to set 2. Finally in secondary it becomes a complete mix bag of sets and ability over the different subjects taught.

Why would this be? Is it down to active parental influence in the formative years and that they were never particularly clever but being supported and taught things earlier than other children in the class meant they were ahead the learning curve? Or is it something else?

Yes, that would make sense. Some children are taught to read before they start school, so they would be ahead of other children initially, but then brighter kids may overtake them further down the line.

As a child gets older their natural ability and drive becomes more apparent, parental influence is still important but not as big a factor as when small.

Also, if they were old in the year, they'd have an advantage over just turned 4 year olds, but the gap would start to close as they moved up the school.

You also have children like my ds who was a fantastic reader in primary and when tested has exceptional ability but he struggles massively with organisation of thought and the type of skills requuired more in secondary (depending on the subject)

I would think

• involved parents gave a good head-start which has slowly unwound

and/or

• a SpLD which only becomes more apparent as the work demands increase

and/or

• a less good attitude to school than peers

(Or a reading issue where they weren't taught phonics properly, got away with whole word reading which then has fallen apart as language demands have increased and they can't decode new words).

I think there are a variety of reasons. My DD was well behind on joining primary as her nursery did no formal 3Rs type learning at all. Other kids had the advantage because their nursery or parents has taught them to read early. By the age of 8 or 9 she was easily at the top of the class.

I think this was her natural intelligence rather than anything we specifically did. She was more interested in problem solving games than say soft toys from a young age or creating complex imaginary scenarios (say compared to DD2 who is not terribly academic) but it was led by her interest, not something we foisted on her.

She is now 23. I still know many of the families from nursery. I don't think early success is a predictor of outstanding success in uni or jobs, but most kids we know from supportive homes do well enough in the sense they seem to complete uni and get an ok job.

I think when they are younger, parents involvement makes big difference. Also the work isn't hard. After being in this situation, there are different outcomes. Some children find it fun to learn, so keep progressing. Some children feels there's no need to work hard, so they start to fall behind of children who has natural ability.
I think when children are younger, parents who are involved should focus on love of learning, rather than keeping their children ahead, if the want to help, and their children aren't struggling.

I think home involvement and support gives a massive leg up in the early years and through primary so it's really noticeable.

By secondary, puberty hits at different points, attitude changes, parental engagement and involvement isnt as high on the whole or is on the whole a bit more hands off).

Equally some students who've found primary easier can coast at secondary because they think that they're smart enough to just get by.

I think it has more to do with innate ability for different skills and speed of maturity. Some children develop quicker and reach their potential quicker than others, but others develop slower but have a greater potential than other quick developers. It's similar to physical growth: the tallest child in year 1 is not necessarily the tallest adult. Then it is also about different skills. Fluent reading and numeracy are different skills from analytical and systematic thinking. It might also relate to the skills of the parents. Some parents might be really good at teaching phonics (primary school teacher parents) but struggle with Further Math, A level physics or GCSE coding while others are able to actively support their DC at that higher level.

Ds has an spld and her was the opposite of Op. Primary is very much about reading and writing and he struggled because of dyslexia but once he went to secondary where subjects are separate he actually thrived and skills like analysis , logic and comprehension became more important, he was in top sets

It can be a case of the hare and the tortoise. Some children race ahead then decide to take it a bit easy. Others persevere and work really hard and eventually overtake the quick starters.

I think the majority of the work done in primary school is relatively easy, so the kids with parental encouragement could do really really well in most things - whereas in secondary everything gets a bit more difficult and specialised, not to mention having to juggle lots of individual subjects with homework for each.

So a natural aptitude might not be enough, and success past primary school level will also require organisation, motivation and a good work ethic - which not all pre-teens/teens have, and some never develop it at all!

I think sometimes kids look really bright when in fact they were just early developers. Other children catch them up later on as they mature. And they have better study habits/ work harder.

Something like ADD could have this effect I’d have thought. A naturally bright child with ADD (or perhaps dyspraxia?) might do very well with primary level work but couldn’t handle senior school work which requires longer periods of focus and self discipline and organisation.

Also could be a child who has for some reason lost interest in schoolwork, has lost motivation, is unhappy at school or outside school.

Also could be a child who was coached early on but not naturally super able.

Also could be a child who is good at learning and applying information but struggles with the more analytical and conceptual work that kicks in some senior school subjects.

I agree with Nell the skills are very different.
My dc found reading very easy and currently good at comprehension, but really no reason that will continue. Arithmetic vs gcse or alevel maths very different.

I think like PP that if the child is winter born they could drop back as work gets harder.