Does a child that starts ahead generally stay ahead?

[NorhamGardens]

Looking at some of the other recent threads has got me thinking.

Looking at my brood the ones that started reception or Y1 in the top group etc tended to stay there going forward.

It's rare in our school for someone to move dramatically 'up' in the scheme of things. Sure a few do but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Increasingly I think that if a child is perceived as being more capable than average early on this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy going forward.

I'd say mine are all broadly similar in intelligence but some have been 'believed' in very early on which has given their confidence and subsequent progress an enormous boost.

My Ds was top set all along and stayed that way and got his place at Uni.

DD was middle set, however caught up at A level and did just as well

No it isn't usual camaleon

I'd be interested to see how this interplays with age. A child who has its 5th birthday in the first week of reception is going to be quite different from a child who only stopped being 3 a fortnight before.

Haven't some commentators linked this age effect with footballing success (disproportionate number of premier league footballers have Sept-Dec birthdays)? The theory there being that the early physical size/co-ordination advantage leads to early success, which fosters interest/rewards/effort/etc in a vilrtuous circle, all leading to .continuing success.

Of the two who really stood out when they started Reception with DS1, one has got a full scholarship to a very academic public school, the other's parents have been called in to the local high school twice because of his poor attitude to work.

I don't know what this says about early high-achievers.

I'm always curious, when people say about children who are academically ahead, 'oh it all levels out by the end of primary' - doesn't that mean that the brighter child has been failed by the system, that if s/he were better taught s/he would still be ahead? Is there a hidden agenda with some people, including some teachers, believing that if a teacher has done their job properly then everyone should end up nice and neatly at the same level?

Thank you mrz

(On a tangent) success in life isn't determined by IQ, but rather by EQ. There are plenty of highly intelligent adults who have not done well because they don't have determination, self-motivation, inter-personal skills, inner resources, etc.

No flimflammery it simply means that four is too young to predict if your child is going to be the next Einstein. Many children are still developing and can "take off" others "peak early" and fade learning isn't a linear progression.

Recent research indicates a young child's attitude is a better indicator of future success than the ability to read and count before school.

Of course not flimflammery! There will be a huge range by the end of primary school-it just means that you can't say that the brightest in reception will be the brightest at the end of year6. Attitude and application has a lot to do with it. I have just tutored some year 6 DC on a one to one basis in school. The boy who should have done best did worst-this was because he didn't want to be there and didn't make any effort. Two that were very weak really appreciated the extra help and asked questions and wanted to achieve-and they did (and they deserved to).
I just don't think that it is in the DCs best interest to have a parent who needs them to be top and best, they need a relaxed parent who supports and encourages but isn't obsessed with moving up the ORT reading scheme. As mentioned early-what is the point in a 3 yr old belonging to Mensa?! All I can see is that the parent can boast to other parents! Lots of DCs are very bright-some work at it and some are lucky and it comes naturally but either way it isn't set in stone at 5 yrs.(I know one who messed around and suddenly reached his potential at 25yrs!)

piciesmoon I wholeheartedly agree with you. My DS just wasn't ready for the child-led learning in yr R - he couldn't give a toss unless trains were involved. Took all of year 1 for him to internalise the want to learn and now he's finally getting there and suddenly doing very well in comparison to his peers. He's by no means top of the class but is comfortably as able as many and tries his best.

With the ORT thing tho - I was that parent last yr DS was doing read write inc but bringing home ORT level 3/4 books and reading and comphrehending them easily. He was saying they were boring and school just ignored my requests for a harder one. He was bringing home stage 4/5 at end of yr 1. Since starting year 2 he brings home 4 books a week (no longer R/W inc). They started him off on level 6 ORT and he has already progressed to level 9. Not because he's a genius reader and certainly not because I'm pushy but I do think sometimes a school presumes your pushy when you ask for harder material.

His teacher this year at parents evening was lovely and said I'll talk to you like a fellow educator (Im an LSA whos doing deg to teach) and at the end she commented how I obviously knew DS abilities in all areas (inc his poor social ability).

Mindyou she was a bit when she said DS could probably now get a 2B in lietacy for SATS and I said I would be happy with a level 2 (its a very weak point for him). I expect she's so use to parents being I want average or above!!

I would agree. I was bright through school and when I did O'Levels and the girls did much better then the boys overtook us with A Levels. A lot of the girls really struggled with A levels.

My DS was weak in KS1 but is doing really well in KS2 because he is much more interested. Again did not really learn to read until 6.5, now a complete bookworm at 10.

I do think a lot of the scheme books for early readers are not that interesting for boys and then when they get to a level 2 reader they seem to become more boy orientated and not so much fun for girls. At my school we are desperatly seeking a scheme that is either more balanced or very non gender specific.

Not in my experience. DS was in the bottom sets in Recep/Year 1 and now, in Year 4, he is at the top. DD1 who started at the top is now somewhere in the middle in Year 2. I expect her to go up again though - she's just not a particularly interested academically or competitive 6 year old.

Depends how you are measuring "success" surely? Academic brilliance? In what area? All areas? Sport? Music? Literacy? Generally Being A Nice Person?(my fave subject for my 2 DC!)
All I would say is to echo Mrz-learning is neither linear nor a race...as I have said before, DS and I are not charging up the academic motorway (with a diagnosis of ASD and dyspraxia its a bit hard- our engine just wont go in the right direction...)we are going to meander round the lanes seeing what we can find that may be of interest & admire the sunsets...

A lot of the children (especially boys) who were in the middle groups in reception/Y1/Y2 passed the 11+ in DS1's year.

I'm not sure what to make of that. Most of them hadn't come from what I would consider pushy homes, so had they not been pushed when young, but given a load of 11+ papers? I've no idea.

Speaking from the very other end of the scale (university undergrads) 'brilliance' entering university is rarely an indication of final ability. Very good first years who have simply been pushed or have been well taught and stretched are often outstripped by their peers, and indeed seem to struggle significantly simply because they now have to cope on their own. Attitude is what really matters-whether they have a passion for following an interest through and a drive to study it, not whether they are 'skilled'. My academic colleagues came from a variety of backgrounds (I was in remedial class for 2 years) but all had that basic desire fostered somewhere.

And, although I can't be sure because it will take 13 years, I can see the same in Yr1 students I work with-some read remarkably well because they have been taught flashcards from 18 months, others not so well but respond to a 'castles' theme by getting books about castles from family, and asking them to visit them, and it's the second group I think I know which ones I'd rather be teaching in 12 years time. Best thing you can do, especially for a child, whenever they become able, is to let them follow and develop a passion and discover it-not be too worried about where the skills they are developing at different rates place them.

Camaleon, it is actually very normal practice in the 3 local authorities I've worked in. I don't believe in hiding things from parents, but what I do believe is that the gifted and talented system is stupid. Generally the rule is that every school MUST have a 10% gifted and talented list. In my whole time teaching I have met 1 gifted child who in reception was able to multiply 4 digit numbers accurately. He always stayed way ahead. From that same class there were 3/4 other children on the list who were working above their peers but not significantly. If I then told their parents 'your child is on the gnt list' they would be comparing him/her to this truly gifted boy.

Therefore in actual fact I know the g n t system is rubbish. A child working in year 6 at say level 5 in one school will be classed as gifted. However in another school where attainment is lower, a year 6 class could have an average of say a level 2, yet one child at level 3. He would also be on the gnt list for that school. Stupid system!

Teachers you do know G&T was scrapped at the beginning of the year?

While I always found the idea of the top 10% in every class being considered G&T I can't believe one never mind three LAs had a policy to lie to parents sorry.

Form my experience as a parent I have seen that : in reception and year 1 - the most advanced pupils tended to be those with educated parents but also an older sibling ( 1- 2 years older) at the school. They seemed to have an advantage in reading as they were familiar with how the school taught reading and had picked up some of the basics at home as their siblings brought ORT books home.
However by Year 2 many other children had caught up or even overtaken these children.

My child's school does not do G&T for academic study as they have many children who are late developers.

Surely not telling parents something is different from lying to them. Schools don't routinely tell parents their child's position in the class (though this was the norm some years ago), but that's not lying. Not all schools give out the results of standardised tests or raw scores or reading age tests; that's not lying.

In my experience, some children stay ahead and some don't. Some stay at the top but don't stand out as much as when they were small. Some start out slow and gather speed...

DS1 (August born) was quick to learn to read but certainly didn't stand out as one of the most able till about Y5/Y6. DS2 has always been one of the top performers but his early reading and numeracy skills stood out in Reception whereas they don't now because they can all read and count to 100. He is still noticeably able though.

I really wouldn't want information being held about my child that I didn't have access to. Sounds as tho scrapping G and T was a good decision, mrz

My dd is in Year 2. The top reading groups are still predominately made up of kids who are oldest in the year group.

Still waiting for this to even out! (Although I know that statistically it won't have even by GCSE.)

singergirl it's lying by omission IMHO and I would be very uncomfortable if my LA had such a policy.

Teacher401 - I agree that the G&T system is stupid. But parents are not. We are able to process a simple piece of information like: 'Your child is on the G&T list, which simply means that he/she is in the top 10% of ability in his/her year group.'

I hate the way some educational professionals assume that parents are all precious, pushy or a bit dim.