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.

It depends what you mean by 'ahead' does't it? I mean, if you have a child who enters primary school and who is able to think in a way that his or her peers simply can't - thinking about the child upthread multiplying four digit numbers with ease or another child I knew who was writing things that were really honestly poetry and incredibly mature and thoughtful for any primary school child, even a ten year old - then yes. That child, given encouragement and appropriate work, will probably stay ahead.

But if you're just talking about a child who happens to have learnt to read or write a little earlier than most, then it's a lottery. Maybe that child is really bright, maybe he or she isn't. They did really well and it's a nice thing to be able to do, but it isn't necessarily indicative of any great academic ability.

I think the whole top 10% G&T thing did parents a bit of a disservice in a way. I mean, it's obviously good to try and stretch a child who's working ahead of his or her peers. But calling them gifted or talented is a bit nuts unless you're really talking about exceptional ability. The top 10% is not exceptional.

It was ridiculous - teachers should have high expectations for all children. I realise that some don't, but the artificialness (word? ) of the G and T list meant that it didn't solve the problem at all.

I would also add that there should be no ceiling on any child's learning, and that writing children off in Y6 because they are a 2a and only expected to achieve a 3b is disgraceful (but can only surmise what Teacher meant by that, since she has declined to elaborate).

What I meant by that feenie was that you asked me' how low attaining the children in the catchement area, so I was telling you they are currently level 2 and worked towards a 3 this year. Hence working 4 years below where they should be. How is this writing them off? I would love for these children to a level 5 by the end of the year and will work my hardest with any child, but this doesn't mean they will achieve beyond a 3, as unfortunately due to issues beyond my control, such as home-life and what they are being exposed to, the children will only make progress at this sort of rate.

I resent the implication that I would write them off and that I don't have high expectations. Believe me' I do! I want all children in my class to achieve the best they can.

Just to add Horton I think your response is brilliant and I completely agree that is what I was trying to get at. The gnt 10% list was exactly that a lottery. Depending on the catchment of the school the child attends. I visited a school a couple of years ago, where all children in yr6 were working at level 5b or above. However only 2 children, working into level 5a, were on the gnt list. If any of those 5b children had been at my school then hey would have been have definitely been classed as gnt. I do really believe in supporting parents and liasing with them, maybe this hasn't come across in my earlier posts, but I personally believe that telling a parent a child is able/ahead of it's peers is wrong as can often cause issues. I think it should be about the individual Childs potential and not about being ahead/behind of their peers.

Well, that's why I asked you twice for clarification, Teacher - however, maybe it would be best for you not to mention children working at a 2a and towards a 3b in the same sentence, if you don't want anyone to think you have low expectations!

Are they the only children in your Y6? Is that a typical cohort? I am still struggling to understand how you can never have any children achieving level 3 at the end of KS1 and level 5 at the end of KS2? As I say, I work in a deprived area, where, in general, our children enter Reception significantly below average and leave above national expectations - very rarely would I have said any of our 10% were truly G and T, but in most cohorts they achieved 'great' results, as you put it, and so they should have.

Feenie - in the school where I volunteer, only a handful get a 3 at KS1 in literacy. Perhaps one or two out of over thirty.

At KS2 almost no-one gets a five.

What is classed as a deprived area?

(Or should I say, where?!)

My school is classed as being in one of the most socially and economically deprived areas (bottom 15%) in the country and yet we are disappointed if less than 90% of our pupils achieve level 4.

50 most deprived areas in England
1 Liverpool
2 Manchester
3 Knowsley
4 Tower Hamlets
5 Hackney
6 Islington
7 Nottingham
8 Easington
9 Kingston upon Hull
10 Middlesbrough
11 Newham
12 Salford
13 Haringey
14 Hartlepool
15 Birmingham
16 Sandwell
17 Southwark
18 Stoke-on-Trent
19 Camden
20 Newcastle upon Tyne
21 Halton
22 Sunderland
23 Lambeth
24 Blackpool
25 Rochdale
26 Gateshead
27 South Tyneside
28 Barnsley
29 Barrow-in-Furness
30 Bradford
31 Leicester
32 Wear Valley
33 Mansfield
34 Blackburn with Darwen
35 Wolverhampton
36 St. Helens
37 Burnley
38 Hastings
39 Westminster
40 Doncaster
41 Greenwich
42 Barking and Dagenham
43 Oldham
44 Redcar and Cleveland
45 Wansbeck
46 Bolsover
47 Waltham Forest
48 Wirral
49 Tameside
50 Bolton

But, Litchick, that's what I mean. 10% had to go on the G and T register. That's 3 out of 30. Even a school in a deprived area would reasonably expect 3 out of 30 children (mostly - there are differing cohorts) to achieve level 3. Teacher said that they didn't inform parents that their child was G and T because it could cause problems if they didn't get great results later on. But those children at the very least should get great results - and parents and teachers ought to be concerned if they don't.

We are also disappointed if we don't get over 90% level 4s - and we are likely to get 50%+ level 5 readers most years. We have free school meals figures, well over the national average, over 50% EAL children and higher than average SEN children

Surely in any area there are pockets of people who are abusive, neglectful and uncaring parents who have no interest whatsoever in their children's education (or lives in general), and pockets of people who are actually happy for help to enable their children to do better than they did and who therefore support their school's aims (or at the very least, passively accept them)? Do some areas and schools have a higher proportion of the former type of parent to deal with than the latter (which would probably also mean a higher proportion of disruptive, difficult, permanently low-achieving children)? And is this because the teaching and community outreach in such a school is poor to begin with, or because once you've started getting a larger number of the former type of parent at the school, it becomes very difficult,unless you are a truly outstanding school, to avoid a gradual drift of the more involved parents away from the school in question? And if you have a school full of children from miserable, damaged backgrounds, how much can you achieve as an individual teacher?

A hell of a lot! Good teaching is the single factor that makes the most difference to a child's education. Of course there are other things which help - supportive parents who feed their children before they send them to school, or parents who make sure their children attend in the first place, or that they're punctual, or even dressed properly, all of these would help massively. But it is possible to achieve a lot even when all of these things are not in place - as long as you have excellent, committed staff. And we aren't outstanding yet - on our way there (good with lots of outstanding features).

I'm glad you said that, Feenie.

When they first brought out the G&T programme it was just for secondary schools to track children who showed potential to achieve, not necessarily working in the top 5%, but should be able to.

These were the children idenfied on a list who that were capable of getting 3 A grade A levels, with good teaching and encouragement. I thought it was a good idea at the time.

They then extended it to make it more inclusive and applied it to nursery school upwards which was a bit daft hence all the angst and critisism.

I still think it's worth testing at 11 to catch able students who might not even realise they have the ability to get to the top of the education tree. After all these are our potential leaders/academics whether they are a product of 2 lawyer parents or an unemployed alcoholic.

Hi Witcheseve, your DD and my DS do sound similar Good t hear your DD has done so well. My DD is now yr 10 and just started his GCSEs. He got level 7 for english at end of KS3 and now targeted an A for english. I never thought that would happen. Hhe has always had good comprehension but struggled with writing and still does a bit. He is supposed to writing a page on David Hockney at this moment, but getting nowhere fast.

Feenie obviously we need you to come and sort out our school as you seem to have it sorted in yours. I don't agree that 'good' teaching is the single factor in turning children's education around, it is actually 'good learning' that is considered to be of greater impact. However, how do you expect a child who watched his Mum be assaulted by his father the night before or who was up till 4am with his mates playing in the park, to be able to learn in my classroom? This is the type of estate my school is on. It is renowned for police calls at 4/5am and the school has been broken into more times than I can recall. We do our best but unfortunately when you are faced with a child, who is so worried about how Mum is at home, or when he will next get to eat, that whether he knows his times tables doesn't really come into it. I probably do end up being more of councillor some days than a teacher, however, the provision we offer is considered 'outstanding' due to what we offer our pupils. Possibly in the future we may not be concidered outstanding anymore due to the massive shift with the move away from ECM and move towards data driven inspections.

I disagree Teacher those are exactly the children who need good teachers who can make school a safe haven where they can learn.
I work with many children such as you describe everyday.One such child walked two miles in a blizzard last winter to get to school where he knew he would be safe and cared for, where there would be warmth and hot food ... and you know what in the summer he got a good level 4 to boot.

Never said they don't need good teachers Mrz, just that sometimes the teaching comes second as they need the pastoral side first. Our Ed Psych says exactly the same. Maybe we should all become completely data driven, as long as those children get 4's who cares what else they are going through.

We certainly aren't target driven Teacher and no one could accuse us of not putting children's care at the heart of the school but imagine you are a 10 year old child abused at home told you will haven't got a hope of success because of your home life...
The level 4s aren't going to change our lives but they might just help that child change theirs in the future.

and as for not caring what children are going through I spent May half term in a Crown Court witness waiting room with two young boys who had to give evidence against their father. I was there at the request of their mum who believed only the school offered her any support and she knew she could trust us with her boys.

You must be tough as old boots, mrz, it would break my heart to daily face children with problems like that.

It breaks my heart too and I often come home needing a hug and a good cry.