Why do so many seem to assume that early difficulties equal a permanent struggle?

[Cortina]

My son got a 2A in maths, he was born on 29th August so very young in the year. He's done well this year and his teacher is good but it's interesting to talk to those that know him in the school & his main class teacher and they say, 'gosh maths is a struggle isn't it' 'not his strongest point' 'a weaker area' 'So tricky for him but he's plodded on and done well through hard work'. They are not being negative but it's as if the decision has been made that come next year this will indeed be his weak area. His genes have clearly made him less strong in this area according to them. He's not got the natural ability that's so highly regarded in their opinion so will only get there through a steady plod, if he gets there at all.

I don't see why come next year he might excel? I fear it's not likely to happen because those around him subconsciously (at best) believe otherwise. He'll be working with other 'strugglers' etc. I'd still think he could excel in time if he'd got a 2B or less and actually that would be a respectable level.

This is why SATS worry me, IMO they barcode children young. I've been reading about those 'low ability' children that go on to do unexpectedly well in SAT tests and it's not thought possible. I know that continuous assessment helps to make things fair but even so parents and teachers seem to accept very early on that their child is quick or slow, bright or dim and so the die is cast.

My DC are end of summer babies and were very average in reception (arrived unable to read, write or hold much of a sustainable conversation)and very tiny to boot.

Over the years they have more than caught up. Both play sports to a very high standard and both academically well above average (DS just one a scholarship to a highly academic school)

SuntanLotion - The EP report saying my child was in the top 2% didn't change schools expectations or support at all. They were unable to teach her before the EP report and they were still unable to teach her after the report.

They do not expect her to ever catch up with her peers just because the EP has said she is bright. Knowing she is clever does not make her able to learn.

They really do have the same formal expectations for each child. So yes, they don't expect kids will catch up if they're behind - but they still hope they will. ie they are targeted 2 sub levels, and are thrilled if they make more than that.

Cortina - IMO the current system with it's incremental levels means those that start ahead often stay ahead. - But obv some of those kids that start ahead will stay ahead because they should, they're clever, or able, or whatever the correct term is . Some will turn out later to be more average, some will start off average and later improve......

I don't know what you're basing your stats on. I don't know how you know what your teacher expects of your kid. There are good teachers and bad teachers everywhere.

All the stats show that some kids who do well in the infants do well at GCSE's, and some don't. And vice a versa.

I don't even know how you know how much your child has learnt because they have been taught it by their teacher, and how much they have learnt through other sources.........

Cortina in all seriousness a 2a is absolutely the best level your child can get in terms of school expectations.

The school will do absolutely everything they can to get the 2a kids to a level 5 by Y6, because that really boosts their CVA and makes them look great.

If your child was already a level 3, they would still only be aiming for them to get a level 5. And if they were a level 2b they would be aiming for a level 4.

So you really can rest assured that your budding mathematician will be allow to bud.

I think school has changed a lot since you were so badly let down - many years ago.

Indigo - sorry to hear that school are not able to help your child. I am not sure that the support will help my son either but their whole reaction has totally changed since the IQ report and that is what has shocked me so much. He hides his work so that it is not displayed on the wall with everyone elses because he is so embarrassed about it and is reluctant to go to school because he hates writing. School had no concerns and said he was progressing well until they got the IQ report and then told me they had huge concerns and he was far behind which is what I find unacceptable.

Tis unacceptable.

Schools will never admit concerns to parents unless your child has serious behaviour problems or you become the PITA mum from hell.

Tis the way of our education system.

Does not mean they don't have concerns - just means they won't admit them to you. (Because if they do, you will start to demand they act on their concerns.)

Indigo my point is not how much my son has learnt or hasn't learnt but how early and unwittingly judgements are perhaps made about areas of strength and weakness. Teachers talk almost universally about high, middle and low ability pupils etc. My son lacks confidence in maths, his teachers lack confidence about his ability in maths.

As far as the 'system' goes yes some children fail to live up to early promise etc but the difference between these and 'low ability' children is that 'bright' eleven year olds are expected to get top grades in GCSEs. In fact a fairly recent report said secondary school heads should be held accountable and taken to task if these bright eleven year olds (level 5 KS2) weren't getting A stars.

As far as those that start ahead staying ahead goes can cite reading as an example although I appreciate anecdote does not equal data.

Say you have 3 who children start the year on 3C (year 2) and one on 3B. They were expected to make progress which they did. Two ended on 3A and one on 3B. These children are seen as able, they have interested parents. One of the reasons they've begun the year at this level is the parents have pushed for acceleration through the book bands etc. There is no way these parents will be satisfied if there is not at least a sub levels progress in a whole year. These are very bright able children after all.

Contrast this to two children who started year 2 on 2C. The 2Cs ended on 3C but were capable of a 3A. The difference being they had more ground to cover/weren't exposed to same curriculum (lower guided reading groups) and didn't have parents who let the teacher know they could do more. The teacher is delighted the 2Cs have become 3Cs but that's not the point. The teacher tells these parents it's only an 'exceptional' child who gets a 3b or 3a at the end of Y2. Now it may be that come Y3 this group will catch the first BUT there isn't the same mythology and belief in innate ability attached to these children, they were only 2Cs to begin with and unremarkable.

Still don't buy it.

To go from a 2c to a 3a in one year is a very big ask. Not because of whether or child is bright or not. But because that is an awful, awful lot of ground to cover in one year.

The first kids didn't make a 3a because the teacher believed they could, they made a 3a because that was 2 sub levels which is the amount the teacher could reasonably teach them in one year.

Teachers talk about high, middle and low ability groups - because they have to differentiate. I've never ever heard them talk about high, middle and low ability pupils.

The alternative is not to differentiate and give all children the same work..... Give everyone level 2 work and let the level 1 children fail and the level 3 children be bored.......

BTW all 3 of my kids have made way more than 2 sub levels progress this year.

It was nothing to do with teachers expectations or teaching.

It was due to them being able to learn more this year than they were previously.

But Indigo my point is the child that started as a 2C might be more able/just as able but the way the system is constructed has meant he couldn't demonstrate it - as you say too much official ground to cover.

If a similarly able child/child with same potential starts way behind are they not penalised by the system?

Out of interest would you expect the children in the second group to have caught up with the first/reached same level by end of KS2?

As for high/middle/low ability children have you read the TES site? :)

Really pleased to hear about the progress your children have made by the way :).

The alternative could be to roll the curriculum out to each child individually as they do in the Prep near us with great success. Alas unworkable in our school and large class I think

They don't have to go through every level. They can demonstrate that they have jumped multiple levels.

If a child can't read one day, and can read the next. They jump multiple levels at a time. My DD went from a 1B in reading to a 2B in half a term. She learnt to read.

DS also jumped up a whole level in all subjects in a term (he learnt to stay in the class room. )

I really, really don't see how they are penalised by the system.

But you are right about staying away from the TES site. That is a scary place

Out of interest would you expect the children in the second group to have caught up with the first/reached same level by end of KS2? - I would expect that the level a kid gets at the end of KS2 corresponds to many complicated factors, like how much work they do, how much they care, their ability, their home life, their parents, their parents education, their parents finances, their parents language, their school, their teachers, their maturity, their emotional intellegince, their peer group.....

The alternative could be to roll the curriculum out to each child individually - how is this different from differentiation that currently occurs?

It's wildly different in a positive way, trust me. Unfortunately for me I have personal experience. 16 in a class with a teacher and full time TA also helps hugely.

How is it different? (Genuine question)

Every piece of work my child does is marked with something along the lines of Well done, great work. To make it even better next time do X. So every child in the class has their own personal targets.

If it takes them 1 lesson to learn to use capital letters than in their next piece of work they will be given a new target - if it takes them 3 years months to learn capital letters then that will remain their focus until they master it.

I know what you're saying OP.

My DS1 (8) has always been bottom set, and has been for 4 years, partly due to the fact English wasn't his first language until he was 5 and we moved to the UK.

It seems set in stone now.

I was too shy to challenge it. Then DS2(7, year below) was going to be in the same literacy group as DS1, and the school decided to put DS1 in a higher level, so they wouldn't be together.

Surprisingly, he was very capable of doing the level above. with no noticable extra effort.

But he would never have been put on a higher table, if it wouldn't have been for his brother.

At parent evening teacher says she is surprised about DS doing so well.

He had clearly already been written off as "bottom set for life". She did say that she had never thought he could do it

I think sets can be damaging for boys especially, as they "click" later.

Only way to sort it is to become a PITA pushy parent and challenge the "sets". I think we should all be pushy for our children's sake.