If your DC are "clever" - was it obvious from the start?

[SpaceOP]

I'm not talking gifted and talented/prodigy type clever, just more general, day-to-day academic "clever" as in as they then went through school they did well academically, didn't find school difficult etc. if they went to grammar school or other selective type schools, when did you figure out that they probably would be able to do this?

To be clear, I'm fully aware that intelligence can be measured in many different ways. DS, who is, I think, quite intelligent, has never really performed at school. His intelligence is far more about emotional intelligence and street smarts - both of which are regularly commented on by teachers/other parents - but his understanding of academic subjects is relatively low.

DD appears to be quite traditionally clever - she reads very well, seems to do okay with numbers, comes home and tells me about things she's learning and is able to apply this knowledge etc etc. In our area, high schools for girls are a little limited, so in time, we'll consider grammar school or see if she can get a scholarship for a private school but obviously, at 6, she's a bit young to really assess that. But I'm trying to figure out if this sort of academic smarts is obvious from the start or not? Entirely for my own interest as clearly there is nothing we can or will do right now besides continue to send her to school!

It’s not so much the academic stuff (dd1 could read very early but struggled with the fine motor control for writing in YR) but their attitude. Are they curious, do they remember stuff and ask you about it, do they make links between things they know, are they a knowledge sponge (not necessarily academic knowledge)?IME, it’s those things that correlate with later academic ability.

Yes, both of my children were in the top reading groups from the beginning of school. They were typically in the 2nd top maths groups but neither have gone on to do stem subjects and both have arts degrees now.

I put their success down to the fact that reading books was a part of their life from a very young age. My husband spent about an hour every evening reading stories to them and with them and they got through many, many series of books.

I work with children in schools and, in my experience, the children who come from households who encourage daily reading are the children who rise to the top academically.

My dd started school unable to read but could read any picture book in the library by the end of her first term. She has top grades at GCSE and predicted top grades at A-level. She is very self motivated - I think the last time I had to remind her to do her homework was y2 ish when she did it in her own time.

Her brother couldn't give a stuff about academic learning and always did the bare minimum of studying but managed to get the grades to go to a good uni despite barely going to school in y12/13. I'd say he was naturally smarter than dd but had no interest in school learning. He decided to work rather than go to uni but LOVES training in a work environment. He's always on time, last to leave and has happily volunteered to do loads of extra training and a model employee according to his manager.

The big unknowns are how much will others catch up and how puberty will affect your dd. I've seen kids who were lovely and sweet in y6 go down the dark road of drugs and underage sex in secondary as well as kids who were academically missing in primary find their strengths in secondary because they study more subjects than in primary.

I mean middling not missing.

From knowing 3 of my nephews well from babyhood and got firsts in their degrees.

One was always good with building things and then started playing instruments around 6/7. He didn't really excel at school until doing A levels.

The other was always good academically at school and was always in the highest sets at secondary in all subjects.

The third you could have conversations with him by the time he was two, he was potty trained a few months afterwards - I would take him out and he would ask for the toilet - and he could read before he went to school. However he was lazy at school until he started his GCSEs and then knuckled down.

They all went to comprehensive schools.

I do have a nephew who went to a selective secondary school and it caused his parents so much stress, as he didn't knuckle down until the school threatened to chuck him out.

There's more to it than 'academic', they need to want to use it too.

It is more about attitudes and characteristics for learning, interest, motivation, focus, ambition.

My DC's were all 'clever' at various things and not so at others. Always top sets, level 5's, 10 plus GCSE's (mainly A) A levels (all A/A*) The one who hated reading at age 6 became the bookworm. He loved potions and mixing, he loved to bake and sing and dance, but flighty, last minute, no forward thinking, relaxed. Grammar education.
He now has a biochemistry degree but isn't really motivated to do anything with it.
One of my other DC's also grammar educated, very practical, very entrepreneurial, focused, a bit of a risk taker, no degree but he will achieve the most.

Depends on more than being clever.

Thanks all. Very interesting and it sounds like I'm not being unreasonable to think that DD is at least on the path to potential academic success. She's reading at the top of her class and is currently being held back simply because the teacher and I want to be 100% sure that the comprehension of the stories she's reading are there. She's okay at numbers but suspect not the top of her class. She's very motivated - loves doing homework etc etc. And she absolutely does seem to have the ability to apply learning - she was telling me about herbivores, omnivores and carnivores the other day and then was getting me to "test" her by saying an animal and she'd tell me which it was it got boring very very quickly for me.

Agree that there are a million things that can happen between now and high school but this does make me feel like at least considering selective schools for her is not a crazy idea. We have one good state high school she could go to but it's one of those marmite schools - if it's right for her it will be brilliant but it definitely isn't right for everyone.

And the poster who commented on reading - I know this is the general view and broadly, I agree. But we have always read to both kids. DS couldn't have cared less from day 1 and by the time he started school he was doing his official reading but we'd largely stopped trying to force him to read with us. Age 9, he's becoming a bookworm. DD has always loved being read to although I do remember thinking it was odd that for a child who was always very verbal and clearly had excellent communication skills, she kept at a very low level of kids book for a long time. Those picture books with one word per page were literally worn out in this house by the time she was finally willing to move on!

I think the Early Years Foundation stage, characteristics of effective learning are the key for us all, whether 3 or 93!

www.earlyyearsresources.co.uk/blog/2018/09/characteristics-of-effective-learning/

From my friends kids who made it to grammar school, they were very bright from the beginning and all were very much into reading from a young age.

[quote ForthPlace]I think the Early Years Foundation stage, characteristics of effective learning are the key for us all, whether 3 or 93!

www.earlyyearsresources.co.uk/blog/2018/09/characteristics-of-effective-learning/[/quote]
Interesting. I'd say DD naturally ticks all these boxes except she's not always brilliant at perseverance. We encourage her loads and she's actually much better than she was. [it's also true that we may have a jaded view of what constitutes perseverance and determination as these are characteristics that DS has in spades, so possibly hers are normal but we just don't fully realise that]

I teach in a prep school where we regularly have half the class sit the 11+ for grammar schools. I’d say the teachers generally can tell by y2/3 who is likely to pass. I’ve been at this school 3 years and have only underestimated one girl (who got bang on the pass mark, was a May birthday which means she would need fewer marks to pass anyway and her mum was in 2 minds about whether she’d cope in grammar - in my opinion she’d have been better off in a comp/not so selective private). There’s been a couple more where I’ve thought ‘maybe, on a good day...’ and they haven’t passed, always very borderline though.

I agree that reading is a massive predictor.

Also of course some children come in to their own later on, at secondary school - I can’t really comment on this as I don’t see them after y6! But for the purposes of grammar school it’s usually obvious fairly early on in primary IMO.

My DD is traditionally all round 'clever' - talking in sentences well before 2, reading confidently at 3, always been in top groups for everything throughout primary. Plays instruments, very sporty, often the lead in school plays, super confident, curious, motivated and hard working. She tells me she is going to study law at Oxford, become a successful human rights lawyer, travel the world then retire in her 40s and start her own dance school. But shes only 11 so plenty of time for it to all go wrong yet!

I don’t think I ‘knew’ until they were at primary school and teachers mentioned how they were getting on. They’ve both forged dif paths and interests to me so it would hard to assess their ability from my own references iyswim.

Yes I'd say it was obvious from pretty early. He always got 100% on spelling tests, was reading books from classes a couple of years up, was on the mental arithmetic book for the year above, stuff like that, since year 3 or 4 of primary school. He read a LOT but was always really good at maths too.

DD is doing very well at her grammar school and I always knew she was clever (I was a secondary teacher and recognised the way of thinking that gets you an A).

However, she didn't shine at nursery or reception. It wasn't until KS2 that it became clear she was clever.

I think it's because she is a quiet girl and early year's success is more apparent with outgoing children.

My DS is academically extremely able and I'd say it was fairly obvious from 2/3 - he was constantly asking what the letters were when being read to and was a fluent reader when entering Reception, could read numbers to over 100 at age 2 and pestered me to death asking "What is that?" as a toddler!

I teach in a prep school where we regularly have half the class sit the 11+ for grammar schools. I’d say the teachers generally can tell by y2/3 who is likely to pass.

This is exactly the kind of info I was after - so DD is Year 1 but realistically, it's another year or two before I can say that she's likely to make it or not even if she does have some "markers" for potential academic success? Thank you.

Also interested re your comment about the child passing but not going - I feel very very strongly about this. I'll send DD to grammar if she is genuinely academic enough but I am not sending her if even just getting in means excessive additional work and an element of luck because I suspect that just sets the child up for failure later. Similarly, if she is smart enough to get a scholarship (we could afford some fees, but not the full whack), that's only worth it if we are confident she can maintain it.

My younger DD is clever. Even from a very young age I could see she had a very logical way of thinking.

When she was very young and only just starting to talk she wanted a tangerine for her lunch. She didn't know the correct word so pointed and said "juice ball". I thought then that she had the ability to problem solve and use her initiative. She's 9 now and becoming very academic.

Well yes and know. Dd1 super clever but asd so non verbal until infants school, mental health issues kept her out of school a lot but got decent grades.

Dd2 very behind right through to year 8, then improved to decent levels in GCSEs, then by a levels soared. Every child is different

I don’t necessarily think reading early is the benchpost . Our ds appeared to be able to read from about 3 as he could recite any book once it had been read to him twice , including turning the pages at the appropriate moment . It was like a party trick , he didn’t actually read fluently until he was about 6 . However his general intelligence and photographic memory meant that school was fairly much a breeze with good results easily obtained with minimal effort .

With my eldest yes definitely but she's almost genius like. She was a naughty toddler that knew lots and picked up everything very quickly. On the other hand tho my youngest has always seemed pretty average and she's quite laid back but only just realised she's very very clever when the teacher has said she's already passing mock sats at the beginning of y6 in greater depth. That was a complete surprise.

I noticed early on in primary that my DS learnt all his key words really quickly, he has always seemed to have a good memory.

Then he discovered football, and never wanted to do his homework as he wanted to be out playing...

Finally at about 14 he knuckled down and started putting the effort in as he was working towards GCSEs, and gradually he started achieving higher marks. It wasn't until the results came out (5 A star and 4 A) that his teachers seemed to suddenly realise how bright he actually was. He hadn't been put into any of the "good university prospects" groups, or invited on any of the open day trips, and suddenly they all started taking an interest!

He carried on achieving very high marks and is in his final year of a masters degree.

One yes the other no. One in particular was a very late reader and very young for her age wish I could have deferred her

My other 2 aren't academic.

Interested about the reading ability. DD1 (Y6) strong academically, top groups throughout school. My dd2 (Y4) has been middle box consistently except for reading where she is top and has the highest reading level in her class. Do you think that means she will suddenly surprise us all? She's mid year child (April) while dd1 is Autumn.

Nope.

My DS 1 would never have been described as clever at that age.. He was slow to walk, talk, read, everything. He was way behind his clever peers.

He is now in secondary school, and while not super bright he is in the 1st or second set for everything. He is a very hard worker