Son very gifted at maths - state vs private academic school

[Peaches212]

Hi,

We are SW London based. Son is 6 years old, in Y1 and attends a state primary school. His maths tutor (who we brought in recently to help keep him sane) has assessed him as being 6 years ahead in maths. He is also a good few years ahead in reading (e.g. his favourite books to read are Harry Potter).

The kid is incredible at maths - he is a voracious learner who can do amazing mental maths and pattern recognition work. He also has a great memory. Maths excites him more than anything else. He is likely to be able to do GCSE maths within the next few years.

He is generally bored at school. The school try to help by giving him workbooks and 1 hour a week's lesson with the maths teacher but they are overstretched as it is. We are wondering if a private academic school like St Pauls would be better for him? It would be murderous financially so I guess it's about the value add. I'm trying to work out whether a place like that would really be able to accommodate and nurture his love of maths much more than leaving him in a state school to teach himself soon using materials like NRICH? We are not interested in having him in an "elite" school for the sake of it. We are just trying to find him a place where he can be challenged, happy and thrive on his own terms.

We are having a meeting with his current school soon to discuss what the limits of their offer to him look like.

Thanks in advance for your advice!

The school I am talking about is extremely selective. I'm not suggesting that there is one in every year group in every school, sorry if it sounded like that.

@BonjourCrisette

still those "one in a million" are not flying to the same school. Most likely they are 2-3 years ahead at max

I don't think you can pass A Level maths or even be working at that level before you get to secondary school unless you are ahead by much further than 2-3 years. Even if it's literally just the two I know of personally, that's still 2 in a school of 800ish pupils which is obviously a lot more than the norm. I don't know but I would guess a fairly hefty percentage of them are working 2 years ahead of age-related expectations/curriculum, definitely more than 3 in 100.

Anyway, this is irrelevant. My original point was that some schools can accommodate this type of unusual aptitude, have encountered it before and have experience of working with these children successfully.

Private has its benefits if you are in the position to provide the schooling and the lifestyle. I went to a private school on a scholarship however got bullied because I wasn't from a wealthy family and couldn't keep up with all the fashion and trends.
Be careful not to send him to an all-boys school. There are many studies on how the negatives of single sex schooling on boys.
X

Also, very important to not label him as gifted until he hits secondary school. Many children slow down by secondary school. My brother and I were both the gifted kids, we were given additional work, given special reading books and even taken into separate classes to study advanced work for our ages. By secondary school, we both evened out. We were still considered smart, but not 'gifted.'

By the end of primary the "normal range" of attainment broadens to about 7 years i.e. 3.5 years above and below chronological age. There are kids in every year group of every comprehensive who start Year 7 three years ahead, and they're just bright, not gifted. A lot of these kids were the ones getting Level 6 in KS2 SATS when that was still a thing. The gifted ones are > 3.5 years ahead.
6 years ahead by age 11 implies an age-ratio IQ of about 155. Age ratio IQ's had/have a standard deviation of 16. 155 is 3.4 standard deviations above the mean. If normally distributed (it's not exactly, but it's close) this would occur with a frequency of about 1 in 3000 (not 1 in a million). You could expect about one per year group if you were selecting mainly from the top 5% of the population and had a year group size of 150.
But 6 years ahead at 11 and 6 years ahead at 6 are very different because the gap broadens with time.

"very important to not label him as gifted until he hits secondary school."
Some children are gifted whether you "label" them as such or not. Labels are useful and necessary when they serve as identifiers for appropriate provision. And start of secondary is far too late, for both identification, and appropriate provision. Parentally hothoused kids even out. Gifted kids don't.

You could expect about one per year group if you were selecting mainly from the top 5% of the population and had a year group size of 150.

That sounds very close to the numbers for the school I am talking about which has a slightly smaller year group but is probably a little bit more selective.

@EctopicSpleen

>155 is 3.4 standard deviations above the mean. If normally distributed (it's not exactly, but it's close) this would occur with a frequency of about 1 in 3000 (not 1 in a million).

You made an odd assumption that gifted immediately means high IQ. With gifted kids it doesn't necessarily work like that. The gifted aspect can be only one subject and they are absolutely average at other e.g. prodigy at maths and average at English. It is a cerebral, neurological function that can be visible only e.g in maths or music etc.I know a member of MENSA with huge IQ who is not good at math at all and got a PhD in ...philosophy.
Also, as mentioned above with some the pace slows down later. They start like a rocket but then they are not continuing at this speed all live. They are not turning into geniuses as Einstein who btw at a Primary School level wasn't a genius at all. Many of them are just smart as many other people are.

EctopicSpleen has it.
This has been massively unfashionable for about the last 40 years, since 1970's closure of most grammar schools and the " growth mind set". But it has been proven that ability to learn is largely genetically coded. Most people who fall into the " gifted" category (top 5%) have the ability to excell in most areas. The mathematical genius who struggles with English is largely a fiction, it's all about processing speed, reasoning and memory- which are transferable skills.

It does not "even out", the gap widens over time unless it is artificially closed by focusing a disproportionate amount of resource on those with lower potential and holding the students with faster processing back. This is IMO what happens in the majority of mixed ability settings.

"You made an odd assumption that gifted immediately means high IQ."
No, there are several ways to be gifted - even in the 1970s the Marland report's definition listed 6. But the converse is true, i.e. sufficiently high IQ (or academic attainment) does mean gifted.

"The gifted aspect can be only one subject and they are absolutely average at other"
Asymmetry between maths and verbal ability is referred to by some researchers as "tilt". There is often some degree of tilt, but prodigy at one and average at (an)other is unusual due to the existence of g and the positive manifold. People who are exceptional in one cognitive or academic domain tend to be at least above average in others as they all have a g-loading so all are positively correlated.

"with some the pace slows down later. They start like a rocket but then they are not continuing at this speed"
If instruction doesn't keep pace with development, then progress can be held back. The fact that most kids acquire basic skills leads to the old myth that "it all levels out by third grade". i.e. if you look at a group of 4 year olds, and only one is able to read, add and subtract then they stand out. By 6 or 7, they are all able to read, add and subtract and it's no longer so obvious. They may even all appear to be "working" at the same level (because work/curriculum is set by chronological age). But that's a failure of provision in a one-size-fits-all model. The distribution in both academic attainment and mental age continues to broaden throughout childhood and adolescence. Maths and English attainment have a similar width to mental age. the PISA studies show that by around age 15, the spread across the middle 90% of a cohort is about 8 years, i.e. those at the 95th percentile are about 8 years ahead of those at 5th percentile. This again fits the pattern that the normal range of attainment is +/- one-third of age.

"They are not turning into geniuses as Einstein who btw at a Primary School level wasn't a genius at all."
(1) nobody said they were (2) Myths abound about Einstein's early life. They tend to be misused by the growth mindset brigade (3) There is a huge difference between "wasn't a genius at all" and "wasn't recognised as a genius at all".

The fact that most kids acquire basic skills leads to the old myth that "it all levels out by third grade". i.e. if you look at a group of 4 year olds, and only one is able to read, add and subtract then they stand out

There are countless gifted kids that are counted as smart but not gifted by A levels. One person like that has even wrote above.
I happened to spent many years in various physics institutes and companies and talk over lunch to people there about childhood etc. I have met few " gifted kids" that were just as any other workers there. Like most of people there they had one or two master degrees or PhD but they weren't in any case standing out from other specialists.

Most of gifted kids turn out to be just smart at the university level or after.
Few and far between make something unbelievably outstanding.

Also, the term gifted doesn't apply only to gifted at maths. Andre Agassi waa also gifted...up to a certain time and many musicians that we never heard of.There is this movie about gifted chess player (Joshua Waitzkin) who completely dropped chess and become karate player. There is even a concept " gifted child burnout).

Seriously, no matter how much you use the word " myth" ,m ost of the academically gifted kids are slowing down and are called labelled smart in the end.

I was an example of a kid that reading fluently at 4. Nobody in that time and in my country of origin would call it "gifted" thank god.

Trust me, it Ievels up in most cases.

Trust me, it Ievels up in most cases.

Trust me, it doesn't. Not if you are working at 1.5 X your chronological age at 6 or 9 or 12. You are very likely to remain in the top 5% throughout your lifespan. No one with a pHD in physics can be said to average, by any reasonable standard.

oh, if you are comparing with the average of the total population then of course those academically* gifted kids turning adults will have above average IQ. I have not said that they slow down to the level of average intelligence or below. Of course not

But already in their postgraduate studies or during their professional life they are not necessarily standing out from peers at work who were not gifted children and just recognised as smart in their childhood. The higher, the fewer.
I went to the middle ( something between secondary and six forms) school in another country where there were kids who won maths, physics, native language literature competitions at the country level. Truly gifted kids. Most of them are are today in their 50ties with academic careers as university teachers, and school teachers. They did not get Noble prizes though. They did not excel beyond what other PhDs or MA achieved in the same field. They have professions as many other mortal people.

• gifted defines not only academic abilities as we all know. It can be music, chess, art. dance etc For those kids drop out levels are even higher

"most of the academically gifted kids are slowing down and are called labelled smart in the end."
intellectual abilities plateau in adulthood, but at very different levels for different individuals. Given they are on a certain centile at a certain age, children broadly continue to track close to that centile, in the same way that children track along growth curves for height and weight, and concerns would be raised if they started to fall significantly relative to their earlier centiles. Correlations between ages are high though not perfect.

"Most of gifted kids turn out to be just smart at the university level or after"
A child in the 98th or 99th percentile in an all-ability primary school is likely to be the only one at their level, and therefore potentially bored and isolated, whereas the same child at a leading university is likely to be surrounded by peers of similar or greater ability. Giftedness as educational need is relative - you only need something extra if you're already attaining beyond the provision planned for your cohort - this was recognised in the G&T programme running in British schools until 2011.

"They did not get Noble prizes though. They did not excel beyond what other PhDs or MA achieved in the same field. They have professions as many other mortal people."
You are confusing "big G" giftedness (adult creativity) with "little g" giftedness (high learning potential leading to different educational needs). If a child who was identified as (little-g) gifted receives an education that meets their needs, goes on to be a hospital consultant, university lecturer or other specialist, feels fulfilled, and makes a contribution to society then that should seen as a successful outcome. What we should not do as a society is fail to put in place educational provision matching need and prior attainment for the brightest learners because of an unsubstantiated belief that it all levels out, or that they're not going to win a Nobel prize.
If you talk to people in a physics institute, your sample is skewed by survivorship bias. You're talking to the ones who made it. You're not talking to the ones who committed suicide, got depressed, dropped out or self-medicated because they couldn't cope with the boredom, or those who coasted through school but came off the rails at uni because they were never challenged and never learned to study. See e.g. the work of Tracy Cross, or Betts and Neihart, or Miraca Gross (https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ746290.pdf).
There is a relevant discussion by Hattie and Wardman in Ch24 of the "Sage handbook of gifted and talented education" which concludes: "in answer to our original question asking why many gifted children do not become gifted adults, it could be concluded that given the mismatch of provisions and efficacy it's a wonder that any gifted children become gifted adults." In other words: some kids start off gifted, but a rigid, unresponsive, ineffective education system gradually wears them down and beats it out of them.

@merryhouse - haha, he might actually love that!

@NotSoFastMyDear I think it doesn't really matter if you call it giftedness or not - it is a fact that there are some children in the world who through no choice of their own are able to assimilate and process information in a way that other children can't and never will. Maybe some gifted kids will plateau in time, but this doesn't mean that these children's needs shouldn't be met in the here and now.

A professor in giftedness education (Gross) made an interesting point in one of her studies. What if we took a child of average intelligence and placed them in school with children who have learning disabilities (and gave them no adjustments?) I think we'd say that wasn't acceptable. So why should it be different for another child who is working at a different level?

We should strive to meet the needs of all of our children. For those who have learning difficulties we have the SEN programme. For "average" and "above average" children we have "regular" schools and for those well above average we have.... well, very little it seems.

You are absolutely right and nowhere I stated otherwise. If fact there is whole range of psychological issues they can develop from burn out through all sorts of emotional problems to bullying. All that caused by asynchronicity.

But unfortunately the government believes otherwise and cancelled in 2011 the programme dedicated to gifted kids

We should strive to meet the needs of all of our children. For those who have learning difficulties we have the SEN programme. For "average" and "above average" children we have "regular" schools and for those well above average we have.... well, very little it seems.

Everyone’s needs should be met. But, it is far too simplistic to think pupils other than those who are well above average are having their needs met. They aren’t. There are many, many DC with SEN (of all abilities, from those with learning disabilities to those who are also gifted, and everything in between) who are in mainstream despite it not meeting their needs or out of school altogether. There are many DC well below ARE who are in mainstream.

“We are wondering if a private academic school like St Pauls would be better for him? It would be murderous financially so I guess it's about the value add. “

Even if he goes to somewhere like St Paul’s he is likely to be streets ahead in Maths compared to most of his peers.

I think it will be far cheaper to have a Maths and e.g. Physics tutor for him, take him to museums, the library all the time and get him into a in depth hobby (try Cello, violin, Chess etc and a Sport like Fencing further down the line). Most gifted kids are encouraged in this way in private schools too. If they are that clever might as well make them good at lots of different things. Also try things like Mandarin, Latin etc.

@Relaxinghammock It's a fair point. There's a lot of failure all round. I guess I'm upset that profoundly gifted kids a) aren't formally recognised; b) don't have any funding to help them and c) don't have the benefit of teachers knowing how best to direct them. It shouldn't be a lottery whether your child is educated properly and it's also not fair on teachers. Maybe that's the same in the SEN community too, I don't know. I assume there is more knowledge, funding and expertise there but I might be wrong.

My child was assessed as being 8 years ahead in maths. In my experience, they have this ability wherever they are. They went to a small private school where the teachers thought it was important to focus on the kids who were just going to manage to scrape a pass, not those who were naturally capable. They gave them higher level work, but gave most personal attention to the students who were struggling. This is completely reasonable to me.

Your child, as mine, WILL be educated properly because they have the natural capacity. In my experience with my own children who were profoundly gifted, the academics took care of themselves. Providing opportunities to exercise their ability in workshops, helping enhance weaker areas, ensuring good social connection and ensuring strong mental health are the areas it's more important to focus on with these kids.

So you paid a lot of money in order that your child's exceptional needs would be ignored and the teachers could focus on the other kids when you could have got the same provision for free in any state school. You've actually paid twice for your child's needs to be ignored: once through taxation so that their needs could be ignored in the state school place you didn't take, and again voluntarily so that they could be ignored in the small private school you paid fees for.
I am a Nigerian prince. I just need you to send me a few thousand so that I can retrieve my multimillion inheritance and I'll give you a cut. Interested?

"take him to museums, the library all the time and get him into a in depth hobby (try Cello, violin, Chess etc and a Sport"
These are things that all kids would benefit from and all kids should ideally be given opportunities to do. But they are not a curriculum for gifted learners. They don't solve the problem of crushing boredom and disengagement if a highly gifted child is retained and made to work on material years below their preexisting attainment.