'Bright' students - would you agree with this?

[Cortina]

Do you agree that it's rare for a 'bright' child to be recategorised on the basis of a run of poor results as it is for a weak student to be 'upgraded' if they go on to do well? Apparently a bright child will often be seen as 'not fulfilling their potential' while an 'over achieving' weak student will probably be credited with lots of effort rather than an increase in 'ability'?

Have been doing a lot of reading recently about spurts and dips in school performance being the rule rather than the exception.

It's true that a 'bright' 11 year old is expected to do well at GCSE and beyond. Less than half of the children who came in the top 5% in national tests at 11 go on to remain in the top 5% at GCSE. Could this be because other, previously weaker students, have begun to do better rather than they as a group are being 'failed'?

The Times Educational Supplement reported in 2006 that the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT) have drafted a plan with the DfES to encourage universities to establish links with these pre-teen students who excel in year 6 tests. The Trust's chairman is convinced 'bright' 11 year olds should achieve 3 As at A level and wanted secondary school heads 'held accountable' if those students don't make it. The SSAT went on to build up a 'gifted and talented' list of students so they are not 'let down' by secondary schools.

This may all be out of date now as this was 2006 (?)

I have no personal experience of this, but common sense dictates that if a child has a natural abililty in a certain discipline/subject, this should remain fairly consistent throughout their lives. Whether they keep working at it or not, that's an entirely different matter though!

I think if it's 2006 it is probably very out of date now as the policy on G&T has undergone pretty much a U-turn.

I also disagree. The govt categorises 'the bright' 11 yr-olds as those with L5 SATs. Actually L5 in SATs is not particularly spectacular, especially if you go to a SATs-factory school. It certainly isn't necessarily an indicator of the kind of ability that will 'inevitably' result in AAA at A Level.

A girl one of my classes (set 3 of 9) is on our G&T register, and I have to document the provision I make for her. The trouble is, she isn't gifted in my subject. She is on course for a grade C GCSE, and it isn't down to underachievement. She just isn't particularly good at it. I find the situation very odd.

I was once told that the biggest factor in a child's achievement is what the teacher expects from them, so OP may well be right in some respects.
However, this is one thing in favour of testing. If a child does surprisingly well in the tests, then the teacher must eventually notice. Though I do suspect some children languish at the middle level, coasting along, when they could achieve much more. I don't actually mean they should be made to WORK harder, but if they had some harder work, they could do it without any trouble.

agree with choccyp1g about the benefit of testing. It provides an impartial record of a student's capability, which can help to counteract any unintended subconscious bias that a teacher may have towards a student