Help me prove/disprove my theory please!

[pugsandseals]

If you have a G&T registered child, when is their birthday? I have a theory that the younger ones are less likely to be picked as they have to prove they are 2 years (not 1) ahead of their peers to be considered?
Thoughts please!

[pugsandseals]

Sorry- didn't explain properly:-
'Concentrate on her social skills' because as an August born, they are behind the September borns. When probed, teacher agreed with us that her social skills are no worse than any of the other summer born pupils so I don't see how this needs to be 'worked upon' any more than normal development!
DD will always be at an advantage adacemically, which leaves her wanting to spend time with older children. If she is also bored, the chances are her frustrations will be evident in social situations. All we want is a calm child & to get that she must be stretched, it is what children are designed to do!

[DadAtLarge]

to get that she must be stretched, it is what children are designed to do!
LOL, that's a red flag to teachers! You can't go stretching kids, they'll go all out of shape and would look odd in the uniform. You pushy parents, you!

About social skills: It's strange how pupils in other countries manage without social skills being the #1 item on the agenda for several years of their early schooling.

If it's any consolation, teachers say that to all parents. DS was badly behind on social skills and to be fair, he benefited a great deal from the attention paid to it in Reception. DD1 however, has always been socially way ahead of her peers. They gave us exactly the same line about her at the first parents' evening and used that as an excuse to not "stretch her". As she's way ahead of the rest of the class in both Literacy and Numeracy she's just going to have to wait for them to catch up and keep practising her social skills till they do. Unlike her brother though it doesn't get her down and depressed to sit painting a picture or reading a book while the rest of the class is learning. So we haven't made it an issue with the school. Yet.

[franklymydear]

">>I am shocked that you know several children who are at a Year 7 (secondary school entrance year level) at age 6 (year 2/3)
That's an unusual interpretation seemingly contrived to disparage my credibility. No, they are not all 6 yrs old at L5. It would be shocking if I knew 30 six year olds all ready for secondary school maths. My experience within our friend and family circle of maybe 50-100 kids: An ex-colleague of mine has a 9 nine old boy who a few years ago knocked five quid off me for tearing through some maths puzzles that most 12 year olds would struggle with. DS has an eight yr old cousin who's far quicker with maths than DS ever was. I know a 10 yr old girl whose written English far surpasses the quality I've come to expect on CVs of 16 yr olds with As in GCSE English. The list goes on. snorkle seems to know a few too. "

It absolutely wasn't contrived to disparage your credibility. I was genuinenly shocked at you knowing a number of 6 year olds at that level and seemingly you don't as there are huge differences between a 6 and an 8 - 9 year old.

My 8 year old is level 4B at Maths leaving year 3 - I agree this is not unduly unusal. He's bright but he's by no means gifted or talented in fact this one is not even on the G&T register

You were talking about a 6 year old - big big difference - that is truly gifted if a 6 year old acheives a level 5 and you said you know a number of children like this.

[seeker]

But you said that you knew a number of other 6 year olds that are at level , DAL. How is it disparaging your credibility to comment on this and say that in my experience it it very unusual indeed to have a child at this level at this age.

[franklymydear]

[MitchyInge]

one mid-August, one end July, one May

[pugsandseals]

Isn't the point that they are not assessed therefore not noticed?

[DadAtLarge]

seeker, that there are other advanced kids doesn't mean they are all advanced in the same subject, are in the same class or have the same first name. See the examples I provided of children I know. That's just a small sample of the more advanced ones.

there are huge differences between a 6 and an 8 - 9 year old.
No kidding!

If there's a 10 year old girl who's capable of an A in GCSE English you'd say she's not advanced? DS's cousin was even more able at Maths than DS. Had he been measured when he was six he would have been an L5. Guess where he is now at 8/9years old? He's still an L5 and has lost all interest in Maths.

In any case my points are about children in the top double digit percentage - tens of thousands of them: The failure of proper G&T implementation is affecting a lot of intelligent children. To follow from pugsandseals's post above, teachers don't even know the ability of many of these children.

Teachers here have been joined by people like seeker actively arguing that the selection of G&T is unfair. Those stats showing distribution through the calendar year have been wheeled out before to "prove" this point. More Sept born on the list = unfair system = G&T should be scrapped. QED.

Now that I've shown the fault for the stats distribution lies not with the G&T programme but with teachers' shortcomings, those teachers have suddenly gone very silent on the calendar year distribution issue. ;)

[seeker]

"people like seeker actively arguing that the selection of G&T is unfair. "

Where did I say this?

You can produce anecdotal evidence that intelligent children are being failed by the state system - and no doubt some of them are - there are crap teachers in all sectors.

But I can produce ancedotal evidence that lots of intelligent children, including my own ds, are not being failed by the system. Stalemate, I'm afraid.

But I repeat that it is not reasonable to expect a normal year 1 teacher or indeed primary school, to be able to manage the one or two level 5s at aged 6 they might meet in a career. You cannot extrapolate from your son's needs in maths not being met to the needs of all bright children not being met. You child is obviously a special case, and it is ingenuous of you to pretend that he is just a bit bright!

[DadAtLarge]

A quick Google search gives me

"I think there are G&T children in the world, but certainly not 5%! But I also wonder whether there is any correlation between that 5% of children and the most articulate, middle class parents?"

"But the trouble is that the top 5% or 10% in any primary class are likely to be the children of articulate middle class parents! I don't like that or think it's right but that's just how it is. Look at the high ability table in your child's school and tell me I'm wrong"
etc

But, like I said, if teachers are choosing on achievement rather than ability then teachers need some retraining. And while we're about it we should insert some specific assessment of how they are catering for the more intelligent. It's not a stalemate, it's a disgusting discrimination that wouldn't be allowed to happen at the other end of the scale. I wish the national stats showed your rosy picture of 50-50. That's not the case. Most intelligent children are being failed in state schools and those reviews aren't extrapolating from DS's experience.

"But I repeat that it is not reasonable to expect a normal year 1 teacher ..."
It's reasonable to expect him/her to know their job, to know what SEN and G&T are and what the school's policies are on both. It's reasonable to expect him/her to follow them.

[DadAtLarge]

Look, if it makes you any happier, consider DS a one in a lifetime case. The school seem to think so. That's why I'm working with them and spending so much of my time helping them in this matter. I'm not just expecting every teacher he encounters to have specialist training in dealing with him.

But it was originally because of DS that I got involved in the research, got talking to lots of people, read up a lot, collected resources. I now know more about G&T than most G&T coordinators in the country. The truth is that teachers are, overall, pathetic at catering for the top 10%/5% (though many think they're great at it). This is partly because the focus is A-C in GCSEs/SATs. And the attention therefore is on bringing the slow ones up. The school is judged on that, teachers are judged on that. That's what they've spent most of their time on over the years. That's what they're best at.

No rule makes anyone cater properly for the top 5/10/20% ...except G&T. And that's "optional".

[thedolly]

DAL your DD appears to have the social skills to work within the system without needing it to be specifically tailored to her needs.

People who pay thousands of pounds a term for their DC's education cannot have a curriculum designed around their DC's strengths and weaknesses. It is just not feasible on any level.

Teach your son the skills necessary to stay happy at school. Indulge his interest in maths outside of school to ensure it doesn't wane. Set him code writing/breaking challenges etc. that he can work at during 'flat' moments in lessons. Stop piling it all on the shoulders of people who on the whole want to help children reach their potential in life. Don't be such an old cynic .

Only boring people get bored.

[AramintaCane]

I really like the google search link as I am not gifted or talented enough to know how to do that.

Seeker come back you have saved me so many sleepless nights in the past. Pleeeeease i need you to answer.

[thedolly]

x posts DAL.

[thedolly]

DAL the teachers that have to get the %A-C up are the same teachers that are expected to get A's from the same cohort at A level. It is not in their interest to allow the bright ones to coast along.

[Jux]

DD's b-day is mid-August, top groups in every subject, top overall in the school for literacy. Has just finished Y5.

[pugsandseals]

'Only boring people get bored'?
Don't you mean only those not taught how to get the most out of their education? And by that I mean that schools would rather spoonfeed than teach the children how to learn!
And yes you could argue that parents could do this instead, but in the small amount of time we have with our children it is something only the luckiest of us have a chance to do in the holidays.
Just by giving pupils more independence of thought, our children could be learning so much more- but most would prefer not to 'because it may disrupt the less gifted in the class' (teachers words not mine!)

[DadAtLarge]

Yes, that line comes up a lot around here. It's short for if your DD is bored witless with the most unimaginative work, it's her own fault. Because rule 1 is that teachers can't do wrong - clearly demonstrated by the fact that overall they want to help children. I mean, what can be wrong about wanting to help children? Further, since good intentions are all that's needed, we can even do away with OFSTED and half the DCSF. That'll save a few quid.

thedolly, I'm not sure I understand your last two posts.

[bruffin]

There is so much to learn in infants other than the 3rs. Are you telling me that your children are bored of learning about Botswana, the Crimean War and Florence Nightingale, WW1 learning all about babies, how toys have changed, friction which are all part of the ks1 curriculum which I can remember

[Jux]

When I sent my dd to nursery she had the most fantastic teacher. By the time she went into reception she could read a bit, write a bit, count/add up a bit. The most important thing, from my point of view, was that she loved it. She would spend all day 'reading', 'writing' and adding up.

By the time she had been in reception for a term she hated all of it. Her teacher had seen her work books from nursery and set her to writing her numbers 1 to 5, a page or so of each. She wasn't allowed to write words until she learnt cursive (she'd learnt to print) and reading was discouraged until the second term.

She has still not really recovered that joy and delight she had in learning for its own sake which had developed before, though a couple of good teachers since then have gone a long way.

She is bright. I always thought it wouldn't matter what school I sent her to as she would learn anyway - too bright not to. I hadn't bargained on her being given piecework to keep her quiet, and resources being wholly allocated to the less able pupils. This is equally wrong.

[seeker]

Bored with their weather diaries? Their projects about Romans? Their research into pirates or world gardens?

Actual maths lessons and literacy lessons take up quite a small part of the day in the average KS1 class in a state school - 2 hours at the most.

[thedolly]

What's to understand - your argument is flawed.

"The truth is that teachers are, overall, pathetic at catering for the top 10%/5% (though many think they're great at it). This is partly because the focus is A-C in GCSEs/SATs. And the attention therefore is on bringing the slow ones up. The school is judged on that, teachers are judged on that. That's what they've spent most of their time on over the years. That's what they're best at. "

Teachers cannot focus on the least able to the detriment of the most able as the most able are likely to be their A level candidates that will subsequently be required to produce worthwhile A level grades for the same league tables.

The boring and being bored thing was said to me by my A level Chemistry teacher and I happen to think she had a point.

[thedolly]

'SonatLarge, Maths is your talent. It is not everyones talent. At school the Maths that is taught will seem easy to you. You should listen while your teacher speaks to the class as a whole. When she has finished speaking she will give you some work that should be challenging for you and that you will enjoy'

This is one way to handle the situation. What is so terribly wrong with it?

[DadAtLarge]

Teachers cannot focus on the least able to the detriment of the most able as the most able are likely to be their A level candidates that will subsequently be required to produce worthwhile A level grades ...
I've still no idea what you're talking about. If a child is an L3 at any time during Y2 it's in the teacher's interest to ignore her in favour of the children who are at L1 but could possibly make L2 with a lot of attention. I fail to see the flaw in the argument.

My A level Chemistry teacher said...
We're talking closer to 8 year olds than 18 year olds.

[DadAtLarge]

When she has finished speaking she will give you some work that should be challenging for you....What is so terribly wrong with it?
LOL, you have no idea.

He's always been a quiet, shy type of chap. He sits patiently for the "more challenging" work. It rarely ever arrives. He doesn't protest, he just sits there unhappy and fills in his 2 times tables. Day after day after day. That's a story that's repeated at thousands of schools with children who are, like him, several years ahead, and children who are just a year or two ahead. DS wasn't even put on the G&T Register in three years i.e. they didn't recognise that he was several years ahead of his peers till we met with the Head and she gave him a KS2 SATs! If you don't know where a child is ... how can you even set work that he'll find challenging?

OK, we've got that all in hand now but thousands of other children don't. That's what my posts are about: Not DS, but all the other intelligent children we are failing and teachers who have no reason to cater adequately for them.

Teachers don't have incentive to push a child beyond the "max ratings" for the year and, in fact, have a disincentive in the form of future year teachers who'd prefer less of an ability range (it's easier to teach).