Putting a child a year ahead of themselves

[chocices]

Just wondered what people's thoughts are on the following situation:

There is a girl I know who is due to start reception this September. However, due to being "highly intelligent", she has 'started' this term.

She is only doing part time at the moment, as although she has the ability, she finds it too much to do 5 days 9-3pm and therefore her parents only want her to go part time.

I am perplexed by this whole scenario, as if a child was so bright they should be a year ahead of themselves should they not be there full time as all the other children are so that they are included by the children?

Can teachers really tell the difference between a normal child and one who is intelligent in all areas so much more than her peer group to be put a year ahead?

What's people thoughts? I can understand this happening later on in school life, just never heard of it happening at this early stage.

My brother was put ahead in primary school when he was 7 due to class size issues - he hated it because he lost his friends in the move and then he had to "re-sit" the year, rejoining his original peers, who weren't his friends any more, and was so bored he basically spent the year sharpening pencils.

One other person was also put ahead in his class, she coped fine but then it was a problem at secondary level so she went to a private school instead of continuing on to the same state secondary school as everyone else, she rejoined her original peers in 6th form though and again was an outsider really (although she was my friend as I had known her all along as she lived near us and our parents were friends).

From these 2 experiences I would think it was not particularly desirable, but I can imagine it could work for some children.

I understand what you are saying butadream. And it confirms my thoughts really:
being a year ahead at reception if you are going to be for whatever reason, then you should be doing what the rest of the class are doing and be one of them, not be treated differently for being younger.

I know the other kids in the class, are not rude or anything to this girl, but she's just not part of any groups. As she is not there for so much.

There is more to school than academic stuff - eg socialising, having fun, blah blah blah. This child will not be able to fit in properly if she is not a full part of the group dynamic.

Have heard of it a secondary (indi school ) not at this age. I hope the parents look back and think that it was worth it.

Will the girl be remaining with this class year and going full time into Y1 next year?

The plan appears to be that Hulababy. I.e. they seem to want her to gradually build up her time, until she is full time for starting in September Yr1.

The class sizes are very small (10) so therefore, I am not sure what the benefit is to her being a year ahead, if not emotionally mature enough to cope with the days.

And not just be in kindergarten for this year, where the majority of the other children are part time as well. Then start reception with them, and do harder work as necessary.

Sounds strange.

My DS was put up from the nursery class to reception at the school's suggestion - but he would have been full time in nursery and had been doing full time nursery for years so was more than ready from that perspective (and from every other one - he is still a year ahead and it works for him, although we constantly review it to make sure). If the child is not ready for full-time school I cannot see the point, TBH - as you say, it only works if they fit with the year group socially and physically as well as academically. With such small classes they should be able to manage an academically exceptional child within her own year group, IMHO.

It doesn't sound quite the right thing for her if she isn't doing well in all areas - ie socially and personally.

My DS is starting reception in Sept and he is currently at a school nursery. He has an ASD, but he is still making friends, getting party and playdate invites - particularly as the parent of an autistic child, I think this is critical.

Hopefully someone will befriend this little girl when she is full time in year 1.

Sometimes a teacher can see when a child is very intelligent as opposed to just a quick developer. This girl probably is really intelligent, but it's a shame to separate her from other children her own age so young.

I found it even more odd, when I discovered that before this January when she started this part time arrangement, that she has had no (for lack of better term) educational setting. I.e. she's never been to playgroup, nursery or any where in a social environment, interacting with other children, without her parents.

As has previously been mentioned I agree that I've always thought of as reception being so much more than the academia, and in a sense that is even the secondary aspect of reception, and pre-schools.

I think it's not odd not to have been in a setting up until now. The govt fund it from 3+ because it's proven to be beneficial from then - before then, people are split as to whether it's beneficial/not beneficial/neutral for the child to be in a setting

is the child related to you? do you have influence? does the mother not mind about the child not going to parties/playdates? (she could invite kids herself)

No the child is not related, no influence, indiscreet teacher was telling me how wonderful this child was, i.e. most bright child they had ever seen, but due to never being away from her parents, was struggling with the hours and structure of other children, but the parents wouldn't put her into kindergarten, and the kid was so bright it was important that she was accommodated.

i know other children in the child's class, and am aware of the dynamics in the class.

I just came away thinking, that's great she's so bright, and that should be encouraged, but is that really the most beneficial situation for the child. I wasn't aware of a child so young being up a year, and wondered whether this although not the norm, was certainly common.

It does seem odd. Due to class sizes my DS was "offered" the chance to move up a class but we did not agree and he did not (year 1 to year 2). A girl has moved up - I don't know if she will stay in this class or the time or whether in year 3 will come back "down" again.

Well, the ultimate goal for anyone, bright or not is to be happy. Perhaps the teacher should bring that to the attention of the parents.

In a class of 10 pupils there really should be no reason for the child to be out of her school year is there? There should be plenty of opportunities for her to be given additional help, and work with the above year for speciic lessons, as and when required too.

the little girl doesn;t sound emotionally ready to be with the oldr children yet.

I think they'd be better keeping her in reception for another year for her social and emotional ell being to develop, but with the option of having her placed a year ahead again int he future if the need becomes more apparaent.

Not a good idea. A friend's child was put up a year because very bright. In her mid-teens she tried to get into the 'cool crowd' and, being rather less mature than them, ended up getting very depressed. In general, I just don't see the point. Okay, a bright child might be a little bored at first but surely it's better to provide eg extra reading and so forth. The boys' private school opposite mine used to operate a 'flyers' scheme whereby brighter boys skipped Year 9 (in modern speak) and went straight into O level work a year earlier and hence (so the school hoped) proceeded to Oxbridge. One was just 18 when he went up despite a year out. He had a breakdown. Again - why?

agree with hula. In a class of 10 the teacher should be well able to differentiate for each child's needs anyway.

Ds was moved from Reception into Year 2. Without any consultation with me. And being an August-born, he was far smaller and socially more immature than the other Year 2 children.

It was completely bizarre as he had no friends in the class. But the school maintained that he was too far ahead of his age group to be in Year 1.

We were going to move anyway, but we moved school straightaway and he was fine in his own year group.

I was moved a year ahead at primary school, but was with two friends. I did have to repeat the last year though which was a waste of time. I was also one of the eldest which I think makes a difference.

Message withdrawn

Is she really a whole year ahead? If her birthday is autumn, then arguably she only missed out on being in that year by a month or two and could fit in with either year group. I know some independent schools do allow that, even right from the beginning sometimes. Starting part time is a nice way to ease into a new routine often and I can see why her parents might want to do that. Whether or not it it will work out well for her in the end is something you can never really know, since you never know what would have happened if the other choice had been made. Some children really do stand out at that age, & they do usually stay at the brighter end of the spectrum, though some of the others do catch up of course. I think it's quite likely she will thrive in the older class.

'advancing' a child by a year wasn't too uncommon when I was at school. It rarely seemed to work well - maturity is as important as intelligence, as most other posters on this thread have indicated.

However, if this girl is very bright and has - it sounds - somewhat pushy parents, better at least she's in school than being hothoused at home alone like some of the prodigies one hears of.

Message withdrawn

Found out last night at parent' eve, ds is ahead of his class, by upto 2 levels in maths and literacy, & according to his teacher and would cope well in the next class up. Even socially he would fit in. (They won't be saying that next year about dd!)

But most studies concerning pupils put forward a year show that difference is not maintained at secondary, or that other pupils catch up, so they aren't the only one at that level.

It helps terrifically if the school are good at differentiating pupils' work so their needs are met - and ds is in a class of 30 not 10 - e.g. ds works with year 2 and 3s for literacy.

I was a year up when I started - and I was doing maths a year ahead of that. We then moved, and when I changed schools they insisted that I repeat a year (last but one of primary) which meant doing all the things I'd already done slightly differently, and being put back further on the literacy scheme than I had been. Didn't fit in with that year group, and, unfortunately went with many of them to senior school. So its not necessarily a great idea.

Sounds odd - I got moved up a year when I was 6, so did a term in one class then two terms in the next, and stayed there for the rest of my schooling. It worked well for me as with a Nov birthday I wasn't too young and I was socially just fine. Helped that there was a lot of flux in kids so changing mid-year wasn't considered odd.

It was only a problem when we were abroad for a year so for Y6 I turned 10 shortly after we started, but all the other expat brats were a bit behind so were 11-13 that year. Social disaster! But then secondary school was just fine. I do know two guys who went to Cambridge 2 years early and in both cases it was a disaster - there were other factors but having even less emotional maturity to deal with stress than the average student really didn't help. I had a gap year first which I think was essential.

Don't see why it would be a problem if she's only reception year and the plan is for her to end up full time (actually wouldn't see the problem if she was going to flexi-school forever either).

I don't get the idea that the best thing for children is to be in a class of children that just happen to have been born in a certain time period though, so I may have a different perspective on it from the start.