Would you consider Level 5 at end of Year 5 to be G and T?

[clutteredup]

I know a lot of schools teach to a high level as they are going for 11+ or independent school entrance exams, but some schools don't seem to provide 'extra' or extension beyond the main teaching within the year group.
If your DC is in a mainstream middle of the road school would you expect G and T status / provision with Level 5s at end of Year 5?

Level 5 in year 5 is bright, but nothing out of the normal-lots of DCs will be there.

Level 5 in year 3 would be considered g and t in any school I've ever heard of. As I suspect the parent of any child whose child got levels like that would know.

Level 5 at the end of year 5 is excellent and in may schools would alos class as g and t. My ds goes to a very socially diverse school with more than its share of proble,s. There are currenly 7 children at level 5 for maths, 5 for reading and 3 for writing in a year 5 of 60 children. (Interestingly, not all the same children - only 1 has a level 5 for all three things)

I'd say it depends on whether you mean the jargon "G&T" (top X%), in which case, quite possibly yes.

But if you're looking for the exceptionally bright child, then I'd say you'd be looking for level 5 across the board plus an indication that s/he's probably much higher in at least one, but the school is not confident in indicating levels above that.

So would IQ testing - NVR- be a better measure and if so how would you identify children to be tested?
I accept there are children who stand out from the rest early on - in the top 2% and gifted in an exceptional kind of way.
But what about those who are in the top 10% (of population , not school) who don't participate at school due to boredom, or whatever, who if identified and provided for might be achieving another level higher than they are at the moment.
For example, not a real person, Joe is Level 5 so is considered 'bright' but puts little effort into class and therefore is not challeneged beyond getting the 'top set' work. Joe at home plays on computer games all the time, but actually if someone scratched the surface , this is how he extends , stimulates himself as the games he plays require intuitive problem solving etc.
In a different school Joe might be introduced to topics such as current affirs and problem soving discussions that might bring out this capacity, but at a mainstream middle of the road average achieving school there a few like minded children who mostly are interested in football. Joe is conscious he is a bit different and will therefore do anything not to stand out. How would you identify and provide for this child who doesn't demonstrate their full capacity? And, do you really need to? Discuss?

I am supposed to be writing my MEd disseratation in Maths at the moment so am using my time unproductively to explore other issues in education as avoidance tactics!!

Apparently the VR battery on an IQ test is the best predictor of academic success - though of course that's not the same thing as 'giftedness'.

The more I learn about different types of testing/scoring/rating intelligence or performance, the more I doubt that any of it's meaningful.

In things like maths, coming back to the OP, I do think there's a difference depending on whether children have been taught things; I've no doubt DS2, now in Y5, could do all the Level 5 maths topics and lots of Level 6 topics, but he'd need explicit instruction - he wouldn't just 'intuit' things, but once he was taught them, he'd get them. He was apparently (according to a tutor who assessed him for an entrance exam) working generally at a 5c at the start of Y5, though was about 4a for geometry ( I believe they call it shape and measure now).

So if a child gets a Level 5 without having been taught it, it's more impressive.

VR? Really - I thought it was NVR (not just because I have a dyslexic child and rather hope it would be that way round!)

clutter, in our borough, all Y5's were tested on VR and NVR in order to pick up any that were not showing their ability in school

I presume that was a typo singersgirl and you meant NVR?

VR is often a test of literacy and vocabulary rather than intelligence.

Am I being gullible to think the top 5% thing was to make sure none got missed, no matter how 'challenged' the school, nor how sharp the paents' elbows? Any teachers with views?

No, I've been told by an educational psychologist recently that the VR battery on the WISC IV (in particular the Verbal Abstract Reasoning subtest) is the best indicator of 'academic potential' - which is not the same as 'intelligence', of course. In fact I have this assertion in writing in a report.

Interestingly, too, all the selective independent schools round our way (London) use 3 tests to select candidates for interview: maths, English (comprehension and creative writing) and a verbal reasoning test, with a very few NVR questions thrown in.

But, you see, this is where I get confused by the whole idea of 'intelligence' as some definable and measurable thing that is separate from lots of other things. Anything that involves the brains's ability to process and use information is at type of intelligence, surely?

Vocabulary and verbal ability are a form of intelligence (though I understand that they're highly influenced by background, education, native language etc.) Presumably that's why IQ tests include a number of different types of test, as 'intelligence' is not one thing. I know a brilliant lawyer who never passed his O level maths. But surely he's intelligent? I knew a fantastic writer at school who was average at best at all visual-spatial puzzles. But surely she was intelligent?

Which is slightly off the original topic...

Verbal reasoning is also a good way to select children from "bookish" homes - thereby ensuring a more middle class cohort.

Selecting on NVR might actually let in some bright children who haven't had the advantage of a library card!

I agree that you could look at it like that. Or you could also say that there is no overall theory of intelligence that really holds water.

People who are only good at NVR also have a limited sphere of intelligence; it may be more 'background neutral' (though I'm not sure, frankly, having lived the tutoring mother experience).

But there are plenty of brilliant actors, musicians, poets, even lawyers and teachers who I'm sure are not exceptional at NVR. And not all of them came from middle-class homes.

It comes back to my general (and honest) query - what is intelligence and can we really measure or define it or compare it? If undergraduate A (for example) scores less highly on an NVR test than B but still gets the highest 1st in his year, wins all the university prizes and goes on to be the most successful graduate in his cohort in his firm, whereas B does OK on the degree but never really succeeds in any job, is B actually more intelligent than A? And does it matter?

I honestly don't believe that NVR is a definition of intelligence any more than NVR. It's just a measure of how good someone is at a particular form of test.

Verbal reasoning is a better indicator of academic success, because schools and universities communicate mainly through the spoken word and writing, particularly the more academic ones... non-verbal learners are generally at an unfair disadvantage in most schools, although advances have been made in widening the learning experience so as to cater for the needs of people with a different learning style (particularly in primary schools). Verbal IQ in any event, is not just a measure of vocabulary - I think numerical abilities (eg mental arithmetic) are included in this and aural memory, both highly prized skills in schools and both something that plenty of people find difficult, however well heeled and bookish their background. When you think about it, visual-spatial skills are not frequently called upon in most academic secondary schools, even if they should or could be, so why pretend to prize them most highly in the entrance exams?

I also think it's a lot of rubbish that non-verbal reasoning tests are a markedly more fair test of "innate ability" than VR tests. I've seen NVR tests and they require an awful lot of experience to have been had by the child in question in order quickly to understand all the pictures and interpret them - experience more likely to have been had by a child from a privileged background. NVR tests for young children tend to start with pictures of things an underprivileged child may never have seen and therefore cannnot always fairly interpret (often just pictures of the words that would have been used in the verbal reasoning tests...), and later tests hugely advantage children who have been given puzzles to play with and encouraged to explore the world around them in a particular way (and prepped for such tests...). I can therefore see them being better for privileged children whose first language isn't English, or privileged children who are dyslexic, but I don't see them being hugely beneficial for children who haven't been stimulated through words, puzzles and pictures, introductions to a huge range of objects and situations, or through physical play from infancy, and I don't see them being great for children who are not primarily visual learners, particularly given they don't really need to be visual learners to get on well in an academic school. In other words, I don't see them as a superior test of "innate ability."

Basically, I agree with singersgirl that there is no overall theory of intelligence that holds water.

singersgirl I don't think 'intelligence' is 'off the topic' or at least as I understand it - what is giftedness? Is it intelligence or is it something else ( I'm thinking academic subjects gere rather than musical talents etc.)
Can you measure it as intelligence or do you measure it as something else.
Well actually looking at OP it is off the topic but I've sort of extended it.

here - I myself not gifted and wined up tonight

I dunno... What is intelligence, and what use is it? I have a tested IQ of 155 so could join Mensa if I wasn't so busy necking and MN-ing. But when my toilet is seriously blocked, I need a plumber and not someone who can quote existential philosophy and nuclear physics. I would probably be considered gifted, but really I'm not - I just muddle through like everyone else. This is good, it is what I should be allowed to do. So should my clever DDs, they don't need labels.

Sorry, OP. Can we start a 'glad-not-to-be-gifted' self help group? Membership comes with free .

In most peoples' minds, intelligence is the ability to do well in at least one academic subject at school, preferably without much apparent effort. It is not to be confused with business acumen; decisiveness; charisma; creativity; personability; physical prowess; practicality; common sense; charm; dexterity; or attractiveness. However, where combined with any of the above, it can be most useful and make the "intelligent" person seem more impressive, because most people believe the intelligence somehow enhances the other characteristics.

...or that the other characteristics somehow enhance the value of the intelligence... (in world leaders, it is generally thought that too much intelligence can be detrimental to decisiveness - sometimes you either have to be able to switch off from your tendency to see the validity of the other side of the argument, or be incapable of seeing the other side of the argument in the first place...).

Glad to join your group pointy I'l bring some more , I think one glass is surely not enough

So back to the not so original question (as in not in my OP but later on) 'Joe' should therefore be left to get on with it as he'll be happier and probably do well at whatever he does anyway but if he is found to be 'gifted' and treated as such it might actually be detrimental? Do we think?

Disclaimer : I know there are children who are exceptionally gifted and have specific needs as a result- they aren't included in this discussion. I'm talking relatively 'normal' I suppose exceptionally bright - I suppose I just answered the question - there is a difference between 'gifted' and 'exceptionally bright' - not sure the schools definition makes this distinction though.

I am rambling but given the time of day I would like to point out this isn't just me as 'normal'.

At DC school (extremely average intake and output) Level 5 at end of Yr5 would definitely get somebody on the G+T list.

how would you rate a DC who gets Level 5 in Year 5 when the school isn't teaching to that level

I would think that reflects badly on the school, says maybe a little less about the pupil.

if a child sits back and 'does well /above average' without much effort where would you rate them then?

I would rate them as lazy, they could probably achieve so much more if they wanted.

re your example of Joe the bright but not interested in Footie so underachieving to fit in: why does Footie come into it? At DC school, the y6 boy said to be the most fantastically clever lad at maths is popular, plays for school football team.

I personally suspect that "Joe" should be allowed to bumble in primary school if those are his comfort boundaries, but increasingly pushed to achieve more in secondary, appropriate to maturity & age. His happiness levels come first, though, always, nobody achieves well if they're miserable.

I think it entirely depends on the child, but there is a school of thought that if the child is not learning to learn and just learning to coast it can form bad study habits in later life.

I can only talk from my own personal experience, which is a pretty negative one, I guess. Both my children find coasting in class and not learning/being stretched quite demotivating, but I think this is to do also with the way it's all handled, ie the "being ignored" side.

I got a little fooled into believing that my children were just "levelling out" as they reported little progress this year, but then when I spent some time with them going through a few things, I realised how eager/desperate to learn they were and how quickly they grasped concepts and how let down they have been by their current school.

I can honestly say that in a whole year they learned very very little indeed and so they have not made progress because they have not been taught at their level. I don't know how typical this is of children, maybe it's just mine who will not learn new things if they are not explicitly taught them!

You could argue that I shoudn't worry because long term they might be ok, but what I do worry about is that they form bad study habits, ie they just believe they are G&T or very capable on the sole basis they have not really been stretched!

Is it important to form good study habits at primary school age?

I thought that it was important to form good study habits before the teenage years, that is really 10-11-12 depending on the child, so that KS2 isn't it?

And by that I don't mean doing loads of homework, on the contrary, I mean realising that you need to concentrate and work hard in school rather than daydreaming.

Sorry I didn't realise this thread was in G&T

LoveHarp I had a similiar experience to you with ds, I was looking at some GCSE maths revision questions online to refresh my memory and ds knew some of the answers, it felt weird. He is 10 and not being stretched in school either. He is definitely coasting.

I agree that it's not a good idea to let them coast - not so much for 'study habits' at PS but more that they get used to doing well without any effort. So back to 'Joe' - we should challenge him then, he needs to learn how to work towards things. And also I suppose he needs to learn to fail. That's something a lot of G and T have a problem with.

Actually Joe was made up but thinking about it he could be my DB, not about computers he just behave badly at school, did very well all the way through school and top university with very little work and had a confidence crash when came up to professional exams he didn't just sial through, and actually failed, he's only just got over it some 20 years later.