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.

"currently in yr6 I have 15 children who are at level 2a and only meet to have 3b at end of year."

Sorry, what did you mean there?

Teacher401, does that mean that if a child was genuinely G&T, nothing extra would be done for them at your school, because the school is too busy coping with those with severe needs at the other end of the spectrum, or that you haven't actually encountered any children who are genuinely G&T at your school, because the parents of those sorts of children actively opt out of sending them there? Or that you are only talking about a tiny proportion of children who are, in fact, catered for perfectly well at your school without the need for a list?

So Teachers you were involved in 3 CAFs and you informed the parents? so you do inform parents of CP ?

My school is an outstanding school and children from all needs are catered for. However due to the area we are in and the catchement, we very rarely actually have a child who is 'gifted'. I said earlier I've only ever met on reception child that was truly gifted. More able children generally aren't present in our school due to the catchement we are in, recognised in our ofsted report.

No msz the police/social worker informed the parents and got them involved. We kept records of evidence before this that the parents weren't aware of at the time but obviously later were told of the evidence.

Outstanding?

Teachers hate to tell you but if the police and SS are called in then you don't do a CAF

Actually in my authority the social worker leads the caf and we have one as part of our cluster appointed to lead the caf's. May work differently where you work but I wouldn't patronise or be rude to you because of it and yes it's an outstanding school!

Actually in any county if the child is in danger of significant harm there isn't a CAF

Strange I attended one last week, called by a social worker, due to a child who was neglected by his mother and will be attending a follow up in a few weeks time. Caf's in my authority, are actually called 'TAC meetings' due to a loss of funding for CAF. Obviously I'm assuming that you have experience of working in every single authority due to the knowledge you seem to have of how they all work?

Neglect doesn't necessarily constitute "significant harm" and the lead professional should be the agency who identifies the concern.

I don't understand how information can be withheld. I regularly receive requests under the Data Protection Act and have to provide all information relating to a named individual-even e-mails which do no more than arrange a meeting or routine announcements sent to an entire group of which they were a part. LAs must have better lawyers than my university if they can get around hiding something like this without (as in Child Protection seemingly) specific exemptions in other legislation.

On the other hand, I really don't see the point of ranking pupils or of lists. Being told your child is unusually good/bad at x, y or z is one thing, but trying to work out who is 'bright' is quite another. I work mostly with individual primary school kids on a volunteer basis, and get asked by teachers sometimes about G&T. Sometimes I manage to see a pupil who is genuinely very talented (good critical thinking skills, information holding and manipulation, problem solving as a consequence) but isn't showing this in school work, and further assessment helps that young person fulfill their potential. But there is no way, especially with parental involvement, they are going to make it onto a list of G&T children 'ahead' of those who are outperforming them by 'objective' measures (so much talk here of SATs), and no way those objective measures accurately show enormous talent or predisposition to develop it. And,. if the list is just of those who are doing well in the system anyway, what is the particular pedagogic advantage of identifying them?

Seems a damn fool thing for teachers to be doing, basically, and would be a damn fool thing for parents to set any store by but, if they want to know and the information is there, can't see how it can (legally or morally) be withheld.

""currently in yr6 I have 15 children who are at level 2a and only meet to have 3b at end of year."

I still don't know what this bit means?

Oddly enough the CAF was updated in July or August

Do they stay ahead? It is an interesting question, I really have no idea. Could imagine that an inherent natural ability would remain but perhaps if application, a quiet place to do homework, a secure home life, parental expectation and encouragement lacked, a child would seem to drop behind other pupils whose living/learning conditions are more conduicive to making continual steady progress.

I could imagine the child's happiness at school, personality clashes with pupils and teachers and many other factors could influence it too. From my personal experience, really couldn't say.

surely the things that make kids start of well, will make them finish well (in general, though there will be exceptions)

ie 1) home where learning is valued
2) 'natural' ability
3) personality traits (confidence, etc)

although all these things can change.

things like age gap, classroom skills, etc may lose their effect in time (though i think there is still a big difference between 15 and 16, so it isn't merely the pepetuation of confidence, but of a real advantage given by that near-full year extra some kids have over their youngest classates.

perpetuation

I would add to that a school where every child is valued and has high expectations regardless of the starting point EAP

Coming back to the telling parents about G&T identification point, I don't think any school would try to withhold the information if they were asked the question directly, but they might choose not to volunteer the information.

I'm not a teacher, but governor of an outstanding primary school which is very high attaining and has a large number of able and very able children in each cohort, including the occasional genuinely gifted one. Discussions with the parents of the genuinely gifted children are different - everyone can see that the child has particular needs.

I have (fortunately) not seen a child who seemed really far ahead drop drastically. But I have seen them lose the top position in the class to other children, who were probably equally bright from the start but who were slightly younger/late developers/not interested in reading until later.

And I have certainly seen children who appeared very bright simply because they found it easy to learn what they were told, but who really struggled at university level, where you have to do so much more than that.

So has G&T gone then, is anything replacing it .Will the word gifted in terms of education now disappear, please?

Now we have "most able" which is more realistic if we have to label children

Much better. We will in future be seeing posts asking 'is my 2 year old most able' or the argument that what is most able in one school isn't in another. Do schools still have to have a list and will they actually do anything with it. Our school didn't do alot with the G&T list.

the quality of school has had no chance to affect the ability of kids at the comencement of schooling mrz, though indeed tis necessary for them not to fall by the wayside by the end...

though this thread reminds me of my brother sarting school able to read well, and write a few words badly. His writing was no better at the end of first year. The teacher crowed over my Mum (no doubt they had her down as a 'pushy' parent) saying sth along the lines of 'well some people have to be bin men' ....no doubt the teacher felt that entering school knowing how to read and write was no advantage as 'they all even out'. DBRO had Dyspraxia - the pre-school advantage was one he really needed. Further home support kept him up with his class (as to be fair, 1:30th of a teacher wasn't going to be enough)....

i think the point is that help outside of school can be necessary, and give a child an advantage they need (rather than one which is all about parental competitiveness)

My oldest will be the youngest in her year. The more she goes into school knowing, the better for her - otherwise she would be at a greter disadvantage due to age.

EAP: surely the school mrz wrote of would have recognised your brother's particular needs? The school he went to clearly didn't really meet the description.

I know it's off thread, but this has developed that way, but can someone tell me (as a parent or a teacher or both) what the point of such a list is, whether described as 'gifted' or 'most able'?

The question is partly pedagogical- I teach Oxford undergrads in a system designed for the most able but reckon only 40% of them get anything from it, and see many primary school kids who are undoubtedly 'able' but really have no special educational needs as a result. But it's also parental-I have a 3yr old DS assessed on a SOGS test as very good cognitively and at problem solving, but with fairly severe verbal dyspraxia (certainly will need SaLT well into schooling). Don't really see how putting him in a list (if the SOGS test reflects his later abilities) alongside a pupil who is simply very good at reading and maths helps anyone respond to either of their needs.

So far as I can tell, lists are just a necessary evil for schools in order to help provide some kind of statistical analysis (to satisfy external organisations like OFSTED) of the quality of their teaching and progress of the children within the school. Statistics don't work too well if you insist on treating every child as an individual. However, if a school makes the same blanket provision for all the children on one of the lists it keeps, then it's not doing a very good job - of course a child's specific needs should be catered for individually where at all possible. Well adjusted, happy, clever, self-motivated children who are already performing well at school are the easiest to deal with and cater for, that's all. If a school is lumping into that group a child who does not fit that profile because something is interfering with his ability to perform within the school environment, or he thinks at a completely different level to everyone else, it is failing the child in question, but statistically, the child has to go on one list or another (or several), or be specifically identified as being inappropriate to include in the statistics.