Tracking very bright children

[Judy1234]

women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article3688461.ece
Sunday Times article

TV programme next week.

"Another family on the programme, the Napier-Smiths, deal with the challenge of how to educate their son Adam by sending him, aged eight, to a private boarding school 200 miles away that prepares children for Eton.

After moving house to try to find a suitable school five times in as many years, his mother, Emma, who was brought up on a council estate, thinks they have found the answer. Adam, now in his eighth month of boarding, is, Emma says, ?really happy? and sufficiently stimulated at last.

One thing she notices is that Adam seems to be becoming just another little boy, enjoying toffee apples instead of endlessly reading. She admits she was dazzled by his gift. ?We always looked for a school to cater for his academic needs. But then we became more relaxed about his abilities. I felt he should be somewhere he could enjoy himself,? she says.

?I have seen children who?ve never grown out of that geek, boffin stage. It is cute when someone is six doing very difficult maths and speaking in a small voice, but society doesn?t look kindly on teenagers or adults like that. It?s fine having a brain but if you can?t mix in society there?s no point.? "

[snorkle]

Kerry there's an argument that says very bright children will do well at any school with the right ethos. I suspect it's not always true, but dependent on the childs personality and other stuff. Sometimes you have to look at what else the school has to offer and not just how intellectually exclusive it is.

In the context of really, really bright 'out on a limb' children, no school will provide peers at the same intellectual level and sometimes the highly selective schools are less likely to bother with differentiated work as they are used to all the kids being at the same ('normal' bright) level. That only applies to truely exceptional kids, but I still think that bright kids can do well in schools where there are some (but not necessarily all) others like themselves.

[Remotew]

I agree with Xenia that the influence of a peer group does matters. All my DD's friends are eager to achieve, if any one of them had got in with a group with lower expectations then they would have gone that way too.

Just for instance the D of E award (nothing to do with academics, I know but still an achievement). I've encouraged DD to got for it and all her friends want to do it too. One has decided to drop out at its oversubscribed and she thought that others were more eager than her initially, bless.

[Niecie]

I agree with Piffle. It is all very well having a massive IQ but if you don't have emotional intelligence (EQ) it will hold you back.

I read something recently that said that those who were successful in life, with good careers, happy marriages and relationships IQ only accounted for a something like 10 - 20% of this. The rest was down to personality or EQ.

[snorkle]

KM, No I don't believe having 100% of the children around you being at or near to your own academic ability is necessary for achieving your own potential. I think having supportive and encouraging teachers prepared to 'go the extra mile' is far more important.

[snorkle]

Complete mixed ability is tough for a teacher, but probably OK in some subjects. But you don't need an intellectually exclusive school in order to avoid that scenario - use setting or banding.

[duchesse]

Many sec schools do not set until yr 9 at the earliest, and not in all subjects. Streaming as far as I'm aware is not used in mainstream state education any more.

[Judy1234]

Most comprehensives stream at least for some subject, by ability. I don't see why it should be any different at primary level but in the UK you have to pay to get that. If everyone has at least an IQ of 120 which is the old grammar school level and university entrance level I think then you have a core class with everyone at or above that and it tends to work better. It's may be one reason state grammars and selective private schools do better than comprehensives and clever children have an easier time in them. What might be a very clever child in an medicore state primary (or private mediocre primary) may just be a normal reasonably bright one in a selective primary where most children work a year or two ahead of the equivalent state schools.

[nkf]

Ruth Lawrence did very well for herself once she ditched that appalling father. She has a good job as an academic at an Israeli university. She could have got a similar job by going to university at the usual time. But then hothousing very clever children doesn't seem to affect their futures, only their childhoods.

[Blandmum]

Her father was banned from attending common room meetings with her. (To be pednatic 'Fathers' were banned from attending JCR meeting, be he was the only one attending at the time)

[duchesse]

That's setting rather than streaming, Xenia. Streaming was what there was just after the switch to the comprehensive system- the former grammar school pupils were kept in a "bright" stream where were taught to the upper end of the ability range regardless of the ability in the subject. With setting, at least in theory, you can be in set 1 for one and set 5 for something you're less good at. Timetabling considerations may temper this somewhat, coupled with the fact that many bottom sets are using as holding pens for the badly behaved.

[Judy1234]

At one school my daughters were at (Hab) where just about all the girls go to good universities they set in a few subjects (as they did in my private school in maths). She was in set 5 of 5 (and still got an A).

[Peapodlovescuddles]

Maybe I'm missing the point but I think that with one to one tuition and hours of practise and work most reasonably intelligent kids could get an A or an A* at say, GCSE Maths at 10 or 11. The thing is most parents want their kids to be kids.
My DD1 is 14, she is very clever, I'm not being boastful, she has got at least 90% on every school test she's taken at secondary school (her end of term ones anyway) I only know this because her form tutor wrote it in her report just before easter btw - Im not some neurotic mum who has every test score memorised!
At 3 or 4 she didn't co-operate so well with other children her own age, instead of having her skip reception and move straight into yr1 as we were offered we wanted her to stay with her age group and learn socialisation skills, it worked, by 6 she was the girl who showed the new kids round, and a 'peer buddy' this made me prouder than any of her test scores or her huge great reading books with 8 syllable words in.
She is now breezing through secondary school, about to take some GCSEs early with her top set classes and in her spare time instead of doing complex maths she swims, runs, does D of E, and goes shopping and to the cinema with her friends - that in itself is something I doubt many of the children on the TV programme will be able to do... (then again they probably are MUCH cleverer than her - but my point still stands!)

[duchesse]

Yes, setting is the only way to ensure a narrower ability band, and hence a more targeted approach to teaching that delivers en efficient end result. If I had my way in modern languages I'd set not by academic ability but by preferred learning style (ie aural, kinetic, written/ reading etc) regardless of actual achievement.

Most decent schools private and state set from the start. Many do not set until yr 9 in any subject, which I feel is very detrimental to all pupils.

[Piffle]

peapod agree entirely. We resisted putting ds1 up a year as well. He is also top student of year group in almost every class he does. He is also sitting 3 gcses a yr early too and taking quite academic gcses imo.
but at his age it is also good that he plays a bit of sport-not easy as he only like tennis. He goes to town with friends, stays in after school running IT workshops and doing art award work. He cooks bakes and plays guitar.
The trick is not to be driven by their academic ability- that will always be there. A happy childhood with friendships and play will not.
and in later life it comes down to employability! People skills matter! Being able to relate to all ability levels is a vital life skill.

[Judy1234]

I was a year young and it had no impact except I was the smallest in the class but I do think children need to be normalised to an extent and a lot of these children seem to have parents who are pushing them ahead, putting them up for the IT CGSE at 7 in out of school classes or whatever and the parent can almost be trying to live their life through the child. I remember my daughter's friend suddenly giving up gymnastics at about 14 or 13. She was brilliant at it but she just got sick of all the training.

It's a difficult balance between getting the child challenged at school which for some of us we find we have to pay to get that, and wanting them not to be some weird nutter who no one will get on well with - although those children are across the ability range and not necessarily just those who are very bright. It's probably genetic why some are like that and some aren't. I certainly agree that personality and extra curricular stuff is as important as exams when it comes to jobs - will be interesting to chart my oldest three as they leave university.

[Peapodlovescuddles]

Oh I agree that for some children moving up a year is absolutely appropriate, we just figured that DD was already a bit, cocky and moving her up a year probably wouldn't have helped her make any friends with her oh, so delightful comments along the lines of, "I'm supposed to be in the year below but i'm too clever for it", or "haha I got 20/20 in spellings and I'm a year younger than you" thankfully staying in the correct year gave her time to work on this attitude and she lost it quite quickly, she's still the smallest in the class though Xenia has inherited my sister's midget genes I think!

[SenoraPostrophe]

sorry, I didn't mean an IQ of 170 was not unusual, I meant it's not a big deal. It simply means she's ahead of average ability for her age- I think for children it's worked out as mental age / real age * 100 isn't it? for a two year old that means she's a little over a year ahead. her peers will undoubtedly catch up.

and as someone else said, who the hell tests a 2/3 year old for IQ anyway?

[Piffle]

oh yes agree going up a year is appropriate sometimes. Infact I was put up a year but went back after changing schools and travelling abroad taking 3 mths off!!! I was put up at age 7 back with year age 10.
I meant agree with peapod as in my son would have not been suited emotionally, socially or egotistically for putting up.
He is at good state grammar and several teachers say he could waltz into a level classes and slot in ( he is yr 9)
sod that we cannot afford him going to uni early!!!!

[snorkle]

Senora, that ratio method of calculating IQs is rather out of date - they are usually properly normalised these days so that you're not supposed to get higher scores when you are younger any more. That said, I can't imagine any IQ test for a 2 year old is likely to be very accurate and completely agree it seems rather nutty to be trying to measure it.