Dd was a very slow starter advised to apply to Oxbridge

[asdx2]

Dd struggled academically until year five. Year 2 SATs were level 1 (not high 1s either) only managed an average reading ability age 9 and after that she thrived.
It was still a surprise to her and us that head of sixth form thinks she is a possible Oxbridge candidate.
I am wondering whether there is any research to suggest that late starters do sometimes "make good" as it is interesting that her peers who were "G&T" haven't been advised to apply and weren't invited to "the" chat.

I can only comment from my personal experience.

I was a very late starter. I couldn't read at all until I was 7, nearly 8, by which time the school had sent various educational psychologists etc etc, and I had done badly with all of them.

I don't have a very clear recollection of this, but I do remember people coming and asking me daft questions: "In the picture, which car is the biggest?", and me thinking they must be trick questions so giving weird answers... I also remember learning all the songs for a school concert off by heart so that I could pretend to be reading the words like everyone else.

For me, things suddenly clicked. I don't remember it happening, but one morning I coudl read. After that, I was average, and then suddenly aged about 13/14, I became aware that I was above average and won a scholarship to a private school.

I went to Oxford for my undergraduate degree, then did a Masters at Cambridge. I'm now about 6 weeks off submitting my PhD, although I still can't shake the feeling that it's going to fail....! Old habits die hard!

None of this demonstrates anything, other than to prove that your daughter is not alone. I think things were probably easier for me as I wasn't really aware of anything at the time and it is only looking back that I can see how different things could have been.

Really good luck to her! - and I would encourage anybody to apply to Oxbridge, as they really do take all types and you won't know unless you try.

What an interesting question. Einstein would have been classed as a late starter under today's terms.

cornsilk your comment is interesting as Einstein was supposedly autistic and dd has two siblings with autism so it's in the genes I suppos.

oxcat similar happened with dd she struggled to read and then overnight it clicked and in the three months between assessments her reading ability moved two years.
Teacher asked what programme or tutor we were using but nothing had altered we listened to her read daily and she was struggling less, it was as though for dd a light had gone on.
I'll tell her your experience, thanks

Another personal experience here - I was a late reader, appalling writer, bumbled along in the middle/bottom of the class for all primary, then to everyone's surprise I passed the 11+ to the local grammar school. Ended up not going there but to a boarding school, where I rose up through the sets til I was top of the class for pretty much everything. Straight A*s GCSEs and straight As at A level. Went to Oxford and came out with a 2:1 (could have done better but was lazy/distracted in second year!).

My birthday is late August which might have something to do with it. Also had v unpushy parents.

For your DD, I'd say go for it, consider all options, set her sights high and support her all the way.

late starters can do unexpectedly well later on. I was average before year 6 & then picked up somewhat and again in the sixth form. For others the transition is later. It's one of the reasons I'm against selection at 11.

I don't know of any research, but would be interested to read it if anyone else does.

DH also a slow starter (undiagnosed dyslexia) but got to Oxford (wth exhibition) despite not very wonderful O Levels.
MOre recently, friend's daughter also a slow starter - at start of Sixth Form she was hoping to do a degree in Education, but by the U6 got a place at Oxford (to do something completely different).

I am wondering whether there is any research to suggest that late starters do sometimes "make good"
It's accepted that children develop at different speeds at different times. That's why the G&T program allows for children to move in and out of the program. In fact, the top 10% of children in a particular subject at GCSE may be a completely different set to the top 10% at KS1.

This article looks at how children move in and out of the high attainment group (the 'high attainment' group is top 10% of achievent at end of each key stage and is distinct from G&T group which includes under-achievers & talented children who may not be academicly top 10%) and how that group compares with the G&T group between KS2,3 & 4.

It finds only 3% of pupils stay in the top 10% acroos all 3 KS results, so obviously plenty of movement in and out.

Yes there is such a thing as late bloomers, my family is full of them .

Eg: My dad and his twin were among the very youngest in their year group. They spoke their own language when they started school (not English). They had divorced parents (big deal in the 1940s), and needed speech therapy. About age 7, they were nearly held back a year they made such terrible progress at learning to read. My dad (nervously) laughs about a checklist that he once read, of risk factors for youths likely to become criminal and socially dysfunctional adults. He could personally check off almost every risk factor.

Dad + twin left school with good enough marks to get into University. They both went onto law school, did terrifically well there and later excelled in their chosen careers (now retired).

First of all, well done DD! And yes she must apply at the very least.

No idea about any research, but I work in HE, and the thing is it makes no difference whether someone was a slow starter or G&T from age 2. Obviously, A-levels matter because the whole system of admissions is based around them, but once you're sitting in the first year they stop mattering. Tutors don't know what a-level results their students have.

snokie, I'm suspicious of stats released by this government. Take all their figures with a large pinch of salt.

In G&T, for example, a pupil who is at the very top in KS1 (L3) is considered to be underperforming not if they don't achieve L5 in KS2 but if they don't achieve L4 at KS2. Bear in mind that they could have already been L4 at KS1 and were just not tested for it. In other words, a child can make zero progress over four years - or go backwards from an L4a to an L4c - and not be considered underperforming!

4% of pupils stay in the high achieving group through school according to "the stats" (p25). A lot more early achievers, both G&T pupils and non G&T pupils, would continue to be high achievers if schools didn't do such a dedicated job of evening them out / boring the sh*t out of them till them lost all interest.

That said, well done to asdx2's DD, I fully support any system where hard work is rewarded. Excellent stuff!

"till them"? Sorry

Could even be a good thing maybe - you do see quite a lot of undergraduates struggle because they've been so conditioned to think of themselves as right at the top all the way through school and it's a major knock to their confidence to be suddenly in the middle of the ability range (or even below that). It's so integral to their sense of who they are that it can be hard to adjust, whereas if you haven't thought of yourself as super-bright since you were 4 then you have probably developed other sources of self-esteem.

And people do just "peak" at different points too - plenty of very efficient well-trained sixth-formers who do very well at A-levels but struggle to excel at the next stage. So could actually be a good thing to be, as it were, still in the relatively early stages of an upward curve that started a bit later!