School wants to test DD age 5 for ‘high potential’

[Linguaphile]

Disclaimer that we live in Europe, so schools are maybe different here, but I thought I’d ask here for some wisdom. DD’s teacher has requested that we allow her to be tested for what she called ‘high potential’ (which I assume is the version of G&T?) and has recommended that, provided her results come back as she expects they will, we move her forward. She’s a very confident little girl, probably because she is our youngest and has spent most of her life keeping up with her older sisters, so I think socially she would be fine. It’s more the long term impact of moving forward at a young age that I am wondering about.

The teacher has specifically flagged linguistic ability as an area they’ve noticed. She is speaking 4 languages at the moment, and whilst this is actually quite normal and even expected where we are (it is a multilingual country with a very international polyglot population), it’s the speed at which she is acquiring them that they have said is unusual.

Generally she does love school, and her teacher says she is working well above her age group in mathematics. The limiting reactant for her generally seems to be how much she is taught/exposed to rather than how much she can understand, if that makes sense. At the beginning of the year, the teacher had flagged that she was ahead of her peers, but made a strong case for keeping her with her class and just adapting the curriculum to keep her challenged. However, it seems the school has decided to revisit their previous recommendation and are now saying she would probably be best served by moving forward.

I will say that whilst it’s obvious at home that she is bright, I doubt that she is ‘rain man’ special. She soaks up and retains information like a sponge, but she is otherwise a very normal and socially confident little girl and is emotionally right where her peers are, I think. She does not seem like the type who goes to university at 14, if that makes sense.

I was also tested for G&T as a child. At one point it came back that my IQ was in the mid-140s, which is high I suppose but not extraordinary. For me, the label was ultimately detrimental and an excuse to coast. I tended to avoid things that I didn’t immediately excel at. I eventually skipped a year, but otherwise was bored most of the time in school. In some ways, I think if I hadn’t been labeled as gifted, I would have developed a better work ethic and may have achieved more in life. On the other hand, perhaps if I’d been moved forward early on instead of just remaining in a cohort where I could be the best without having to put in any actual work, I would have more grit and ambition. Perhaps I wouldn’t have developed the laziness that comes from a lifetime of finding things too easy.

Anyway, I suppose I am looking for the pros/cons as a parent of allowing the testing to go forward and also the wisdom of moving her up a year. She has friends with whom she would remain if she were to move up, so I am not worried about her feeling socially isolated. I would be interested to hear how parents who have moved their children up have found it, and if they think it was the right call.

I was pretty similar as a kid and would vote strongly against acceleration.

It made it very difficult to make and keep friends in school - ironically things got much better after I fell apart at the start of secondary school and was held back a year.

There are a LOT of ways to stop bright kids from being bored in school - starting from letting them read in class.

I think there are huge disadvantages with skipping a year at school. Social life really suffers - especially around the 13 - 16 mark when that year really matters.
Also it just means that you finish school a year earlier and then you have to fill a gap year as most universities do not want under 18 s.
Sport is also an issue in UK schools as you end up having to play with your original age group. Probably less so if sport is club based.

I'm personally a supporter of up to 2 years acceleration. The school years are kind of arbitrary in my opinion especially at the start. There's little flexibility and in the U.K. and it's normal for September born children to be 1 whole year older than August born children because of the annual cutoffs.

My dd benefitted from being the youngest in her cohort because she started school at the right time for her ability. She was started in the bubble/group for the youngest children but moved up through the groups and is now with the oldest group after 2 terms. So effectively she's been informally accelerated 1 year and it worked for her and us.

If she was born 1 week later she would still be in nursery and keeping her engaged and challenged would already be a concern for us.

As you mentioned it may well be that your child was naturally accelerated before school by having a good learning relationship with her older siblings.

That said popular and best strategy is to diversify your dd learning, so it could be better to find something extracurricular she enjoys and can plough her extra potential into. I agree with pp that accelerating dc has its problems with being out of sync with social milestones but for me it is a trade off and can be managed.

I want my own dd to take travel and work as a teenager so there's plenty she can do with her spare years imo.

It is definitely worht having the assessment so that you have information about your daughter's profile. You can then make the best decisions to support her.

Regarding acceleration, if that is what she needs to access challenge you should consider it. As with your own experience, if she isn't challenged in her learning she won't have the opportunity to develop learning skills and resilience. Yes, it may cause some issues around adolescence but the alternative is her either not developing skills or accessing challenge in her learning in some other way.

I'm talking as a mum of a now-grown-up son who was accelerated by two years. He got along fine with older children. There were some issues but these were resolved and on balance I think it was the best move because the alternative was him becoming disengaged with his learning. He's now studying his Masters.

Where is she in the year age wise - is she currently one of the older ones or one of the youngest. If she's one of the younger ones so there would be a big age gap between her and the next youngest in the class above, I'd think carefully because of the social consequences. If she's one of the oldest, I'd be less worried about it. From experience, I'd agree with PP that the problems with being a lot younger than your class mates really kick in in secondary school not primary school so what are your secondary options?

Sorry, have only just seen these responses! Thanks everyone.

Her birthday is just two weeks after school starts, so she is right at the beginning of the year in terms of birthdays. She is the oldest in her cohort this year. Where we live they do two years of reception, and the reception years K1&K2 are mixed together in the classrooms (again, not in the UK). This means that next year, half of her class (the K2 group) will move up to primary whilst her cohort will become the ‘big kids’ in the class and there will be a new group of K1 children coming in. Her teacher said that if acceleration is necessary, they usually try to have children skip the second reception year because 1) some children just don’t need it, and 2) doing it this way means that they will move up with half of their class, so it minimizes the transition socially. In her case, she has been doing the ‘big kid’ work all year anyway, so from her and her classmates’ perspective she is already part of the older group.

I get the issues she might have as she gets older, though, and it is good to hear perspectives on that!

As shes only 2 weeks into the school year, I would say go for it. Not a huge difference in age at all. Just means she'll be the youngest in the class instead of the oldest. It might well prevent coasting, as she'll be more challenged in school at this early age.

@Stevenage689 Yes this was my thought process. If she were a summer baby and already the youngest, it would probably be a different story!

For those who asked about secondary, we have some good choices available to us (both private and state), so I’m not as concerned about that being a problem.

I have a gifted child who is old in the year and we were told to consider acceleration during primary years. But after speaking to many friends who are teachers decided against it. Whilst she could have easily coped with school work up to 3 years ahead she was quite sensitive and not necessarily emotionally mature. So she was extended extra curricularly music, chess, sports etc If selective secondary school is an option it gets intense so quickly it turned out better for her to be old in the year, confident and not lagging behind socially. No regrets whatsoever. She still is super efficient and does multiple activities etc. but confident, happy, well rounded.

I too was labelled gifted at an early age and found it to my detriment. It's only since I've been an adult that I've fully comprehended how much pressure there was on me to do 'great things' as a result. Great by other people's definitions, not my own, I hasten to add.