The next step ??

[Thebiasedmum]

We just had parents evening last week

The school reconise the child as gifted and talented in all areas - however ultimately they are unable to provide enough support for the level the child is at. And the child is not happy

We are now at the stage where we’re looking at the next step ( which the school can’t provide )

Question really is -

Do we leave him where he is and hope for the best ?

Try Home schooling them ?

Move school ?

What are your personal experiences

Indeed Irvine, I agree it needs to be addressed, but a different course of action is required for (a) a child who is academically 2-3 years ahead and socially mature but isolated, versus (b) a child who is ahead academically but struggling socially because of deficits in social communication or social immaturity.
Two relevant articles:
Highly gifted children and peer relationships
Socialization and the Highly Gifted Child

then functioning at the expected level for a 7.5 year old at the age of 5.5 indicates an age-ratio IQ of (7.5/5.5)100 = 136 which is in the top 1%.*

Except of course the "expected" level in the year 2 SATS is not equivalent to your 100 IQ, over 70% reach expected, so even if your methodology is reasonable, that brings it down to ~8%. In any case, SATS don't actually test for intelligence, they test for knowledge of basic skills required by that school year - learn the skills early regardless of actual intelligence and you can get expected in the test.

SirFred - If you really think that 8% of reception kids could pass end of Y2 SATs in all areas then by all means continue to believe that - there's a [[https://theflatearthsociety.org/
club that needs people like you.]]

extra, I can see what you are saying, but being 2-3 years ahead at reception is not too uncommon imo. At that age, some are genuinely ahead, but some are just pushed, and expectation of yr2 isn't so difficult.
They will start to show true ability when they are older, imo.

extra No I don't, but it was your methodology - based on your premise then functioning at the expected level for a 7.5 year old at the age of 5.5 indicates an age-ratio IQ of (7.5/5.5)*100 = 136 which is in the top 1%

The expected standard is not equivalent to 100 IQ, that your methodology to get the 1% relies on.

The main reason I don't believe that 8% of reception kids couldn't though is not because they don't have the intelligence to, it's because they don't have the interest or system to push for them to.

OP, I think you are hesitant as to whether or nor home education would be right for your child. When faced with this decision, it does seem like a very big step to take.

Teaching 1to1 in home education will mean they progress much quicker than at school. In the end, dd returned to secondary where the curriculum has much more breadth in many more subjects. Having done GCSE maths, she went on to A level maths in year 7.

Also with home education they will mix with all different ages. In the end I was most happy with home education not because it gave dd the opportunity to play with older children, but it gave her the empathy to play with younger ones.

Try posting on the home education section or get in touch with your LEA to contact a home education group and go along to see if it is for you. I wish dd had left earlier, but every child is different and there is no right or wrong answer.

Irvine, re: "being 2-3 years ahead at reception is not too uncommon imo."
a) have you seen any hard data? ( I am genuinely curious).
b) do you mean 2-3 years ahead in one area or 2-3 years ahead in all areas? The latter is what has been discussed above. In my experience its "not that uncommon" for a kid to be 2-3 years ahead in a single area, .e. g decoding or arithmetic, but it's significantly rarer to be that far ahead in both numeracy and literacy. Also, comprehension and inference tend to lag behind decoding, and abstract numerical reasoning tends to lag behind arithmetic. There is an enormous difference between all and any in this context.

More generally the two questions that seem to be relevant are:

1. what is upper limit of normal range for a given age?
2. more specifically what can be deduced from a child being 2-3 years ahead at a given age, specifically age 5?

FWIW the relevant data I've seen are:

1. The statistical distribution of reading ability in a population of a given age is ‘roughly normal’. The expectation is that the range of reading achievement is likely to be two-thirds of the median chronological age of the group. ie. in a mixed-ability class of 12-year-olds, the reading ages would vary from 8 to 16. - Bullock Report [Department of Education and Science, A Language for Life (HMSO, 1975) p. 26
   This implies that the range scales linearly with age.

2. Marjoram referred to the "7 year gap" at the end of primary, whereby skills expected of an 11 year old might be acquired by some at age 7 but by others not until 14.

3. L6 SAT tests given at end of KS2 showed less than 1% of students were 3 years ahead in both maths and reading at age 11. though nearly 10% would have been above in maths or reading. c.f. my point above about any vs all.

4. PISA tests of 15 year olds showed a roughly normal distribution in both maths and literacy with an 8 year gap between the 10th and 90th percentiles, implying a standard deviation of 3 years.

All of the above are broadly consistent with each other and imply a distribution which broadens linearly with time such that the standard deviation is roughly 1 year at age 5; 2 years at age 10; 3 years at age 15.
If one considers being within 2 standard deviations of the mean as "normal range" (which includes 95%) then a child who is functioning more than 2 years above in age at 5 is above normal range and in the top 2.5% in each such area.

Another interesting source of data is Gross's book which includes a table of the kids' advancement relative to chronological age.
Around a quarter of the kids (all of age-ratio IQ 160+) were 2-3 years above age in all areas. Some were further ahead. others were less even, e.g. 1 year ahead in 1 area, 4 years ahead in another.

So the data I've seen indicate that functioning 2-3 years above age in multiple areas in early primary is a strong indicator of giftedness and it would be wrong and dangerous to dismiss it as not exceptional or not uncommon.

Lastly it might be worth saying that giving a reception child a Y2 test is an example of above level testing. This has had a long history of use for gifted identification in the US, and is considered reliable and good practice, see e.g this

I have no clue.
I said 2-3 years ahead in reception. Not later years. Children who can read quite fluently in reception is generally good at maths and other areas, speaking, listening, etc, maybe except for PE and physical development.

I agree with PP in that toHE you really ideally need to have a certain level of English and Maths otherwise they would do better at school where the teachers have to have passed the basic tests at least.

I think the Yr2 SATs are for as young as 6.9yo to pass. So for some almost 5.11yo at end of reception to be able to pass them is not exceptional at all.
I think dd could have answered enough to pass the reading at 5.0yo but she couldnt write very well then.
Maths with some effort could have passed at end of yr R.

If one considers being within 2 standard deviations of the mean as "normal range" (which includes 95%) then a child who is functioning more than 2 years above in age at 5 is above normal range and in the top 2.5% in each such area.

Even if we accept your calculations, and I'm not sure that I do, a child in the top 2.5% is still not truly exceptional. In an average two-form entry primary school, you'd expect 1/2 children to fall into that category in each year group, so schools should be well equipped to deal with these children. Also, as you yourself have acknowledged, there will be even more children working 2 or 3 years ahead in specific subject areas, so again, teachers should be used to differentiating for these children.

When I said that 2-3 years ahead was still within the range of normal, what I meant was that most schools would have previous experience of dealing with such children, if not in every cohort at least across the school as a whole. I would find it very concerning if a school was unable to deal with this level of ability.

Two standard deviations above the mean or equivalently top 2 to 2.5% (standard scores above 130 on a test with mean 100 SD 15) is what is taken internationally as the definition of gifted, and it was also taken as the definition of "exceptionally able" by the UK Department of Education, or DCSF as it was then, in their 2008 guidance on the subject.
Top ~2% is widely used as a threshold to indicate a need for individual provision, for reasons including that there will usually only be one such child in a mainstream all-ability classroom, thus they have no peers of comparable ability and the differentiated work intended for the top 10-20% (where any even exists) is insufficient to meet their needs.

Re: "schools should be well equipped to deal with these children"

the key phrase is "should be" - indeed they should be, but they generally aren't, because:
(1) UK teachers are poorly trained, or not trained at all, in gifted education.
(2) G&T provision is simply not a priority in most schools. Schools are focused on (a) delivery of a common curriculum to all pupils. (b) getting borderline pupils over the relevant bars to improve their stats (c) diverting any remaining crumbs in their budgets to satisfying their SEN obligations.
(3) to the extent that the "more able" are recognised at all, the top ~10-20% or so are generally treated as a homogeneous group. The fact that kids in the top ~2% or - worse - the top fraction of a percent have distinct needs is not acknowledged. In short, if you can't deliver it to a whole set, from the school's point of view it's not worth doing.

Teachers frequently "deal with these children" either by denying the child is unusually able or by acknowledging the child is "quite able" but deliberately downplaying to argue that provision made for the top set/table is enough and deny a need for more advanced provision.