Do teachers cater for Children who are advanced learners?ced

[Timetoeat]

Hi,
MY Child is starting School in September and is advanced in some learning areas, including being able to read Chapter books (not taught,just can).
We have been told that the School will try to provide some work that will challenge but I'm looking to hear of first hand experience from parents or teachers of Children who are advanced.
Was your Child's learning needs met or were they bored silly?
Do they realise that they are ahead and pretend that they actually don't know how to read etc to fit in with the class?
Any Advice welcome . Thank you.

Sorry but I respectly disagree. I have taken children all the way from EYFS up to KS2. Most simply arrive like that and don't have any resilience. And you work on it and work on it. Many children are very bright but just aren't intellectually curious. Some are naturally risk adverse. Some are dauntless and will try anything never worrying for one moment whether they will succeed or not. And it is those ultimately whom go the farthest. Some have poor learning behaviours. Some have amazing learning behaviours.

Some are extremely able but are lazy because they see no intrinsic value to their education.

The.only thing from EYFS that predicts later success is teacher reported characteristics of effective learning.

What is the point of Education? To my mind it is to create well rounded, tolerant, self regulated, emotionally resilient, emotionally mature and questioning adults who may just do better than we did.

To some education is to be on a continuous vertical trajectory.

But my belief is that Education should be based on best practice within child development.

The British Education system.stsrts young. They do a lot young. There is no pay off and it means nothing in the long run.

And very few children are gifted. It's a serious educational need. They are just very able.

I new of one genuinely in my brothers class over 30 years ago. And the school were always in a pickle about what to do with him but parents refused to move him up prioritising emotional development. He always did well at education . But has no better a career then my brother and all his other friends whom also all ended up doing well. There is no stratosphere. Intelligence isn't really quantifiable or even qualifiable.

You don't build resilience by failure. You build it with community, coregulation, praising effort and no success. Focusing on the journey.

A good childhood is one that sends you into.adulthood believing you can bounce from life's knocks.

That is not to say of course that you aren't mindful of boredom in some children and continue tomworkmon their areas of development. But that comes down to knowing your children and what they can do and what they can't do and how far they can be pulled.

I agree with you that it's an educational need - though it's never formally acknowledged as such.

And I agree about how you build resilience (though if all the work is easy, there's no effort to praise and if there's limited scope for exploration and curiosity in amongst the endless worksheets, the journey quickly gets dull).

And I agree with your description of the point of education. Who doesn't think it's about those things?

And (if that's what you're saying) I agree the formal education system starts pointlessly young. FWIW I sent mine to a fully outdoor forest nursery because the traditional nurseries and preschools seemed so schoolified, so young.

I'm really depressed by the implicit judgment and assumptions, that parents like me wrong-headedly see education as a vertical trajectory to accelerate our bright sparks through... or often don't prioritise emotional development in the way the parents of your brother's friend did... or don't understand the value of a "good childhood". Most of us just want our children to be well rounded, resilient and happy, and for them to be appropriately supported in reaching that place.

I don't personally like the word gifted. I think it's unhelpful terminology that glosses over the downsides, sets up straw man arguments about elitism and superiority ("stratosphere" - really??), and creates pressure to achieve "success" and great things in adult working life. (What's wrong with your brother's friend having an ordinary career like his classmates, and how do you measure success and personal fulfilment anyway?) The language of giftedness also seems to have a way of setting folk down a path of pulling other people down, of looking to disprove or discount their whatever-we-call-it-ness. But whatever we do call it, and however imperfect the available quantitative or qualitative measures are, it is a fact that there are a small number of children in whom particular cognitive abilities develop out of sync with age norms, to an unusual and very marked degree. People can argue till the cows come home about what percentage of children we're talking about (1%, 0.5%, 0.1%, 0.001%, whatever) but there definitely are children whose asynchronicity is going to create problems if their needs aren't being met.

And I respectfully disagree that if those children become disaffected at school or hit problems with their motivation or "learning behaviours", we should just attribute it all to innate hardwired laziness/lack of curiosity/lack of bravery on their part. It's pretty shit being bored a lot of the time for years doing unstimulating work at a painfully slow pace, and it's pretty shit not getting to explore issues and questions you're curious about in school. (And they already and inevitably have to cope with the general shit-ness of their brains grasping ideas and complexities that their age-normal emotions totally aren't ready for. And quite possibly also with some degree of unpleasantness or even bullying from certain other children, if they're getting good marks all the time or making geeky or "know-all" contributions in class or group work.) I don't think it's surprising that some children develop anxiety, or stop asking questions, or come to regard their education as pointless, or deliberately underachieve, but I think a lot of that could be mitigated by better meeting their educational need for interest, complexity and appropriate challenge in the first place.

I'd agree with everything that @Cockerdileteeth has said. As a parent of one or more gifted children, you get to follow them longitudinally - you see them every day, both before they ever start school and as they progress through several years of schooling. You see them start school, eager and intellectually curious. And you see that natural curiosity gradually eroded, the spark dimmed or extinguished, by a school system that ignores their needs. You point out to their teachers many times over several years that the work doesn't meet their preexisting attainment or their needs. The teachers either ignore you or wring their hands hand say there's nothing they can do. You watch the gap between where they are and age-related expectations grow, as they become bored, frustrated and disengaged. As a parent you get a long-term view of the developmental process.
As a teacher you have a far more limited timeframe. You see the kid 5 days a week for 9 or 10 months, as one of a group of 25-30. By the time you first meet them they may already have spent several years in a system that has not been meeting their needs. On day 1, they may already be somewhat bored and disengaged, because they've learned in previous years that their needs will not be met. 9 months later they are probably slightly more bored and disengaged. But as 9 months is not that long a time, the difference is probably not that great - you can ascribe it to the intrinisic tendencies of the child ("this child has a poor attitude to learning" rather than "this child has been bored rigid all year because I haven't done my job"). As a teacher, you have a dilemma - do you acknowledge the cumulative damage that you, your colleagues, and the system you are a part of have done, or do you find someone or something else to blame? The latter is more comfortable for you, and the easiest thing is to blame the child. So you invent terms like "brittle bright" which are ultimately deflections serving to absolve the teacher from responsibility and direct blame onto the child.

@EctopicSpleen well said.

Totally agree @EctopicSpleen

No one blames children and no one sees anything as static, that is the point of a growth mindset. And I certainly don’t presume to know what anyone things. But everyone is different and yes from where I am standing learning behaviours are the most important thing.

fsilure comes after a solid basis in resilience. You can’t experience it without first having that resilience.

I’ve never had what I would call a seriously able child switch off from learning, at least the areas of learning they are most interested in. I’ve never thought a gifted child. There have never been any in my schools. There have been several extremely bright ones and the same thing comes up again and again. Amazing at 7 and definitely more able at 11 but the gap has shrunk because these things inevitably have a ceiling effect. Also heard several professional conversations about how these children are not progressing as they one did. Which makes me feel a bit sick really because they don’t have the life experience yet to progress from beyond where they are in things like writing ditto reading, the humanities. Maths and science are themselves ceiling effects.

Nothing wrong with my brothers friend and his career. It’s great. The point was you may be very able young but inevitably the gap closes and people develop at different stages. And that too brings up issues of identity. Who am I if I am not the best? Who am I if I don’t get this right? Who am I without this one thing about myself? Sorry of grammar schools, Oxbridge, Olympians etc everywhere. That’s where brittle bright comes from.

Then some children haven’t a clue until they are hitting double digits and then boom.

Only within ability levels. They usually have different standards on different tables, i.e. have "top" tables for the higher achievers in the class, but those "tables" will have the same level of work for all pupils sat on them. There'll be nothing extra for the "top" pupils of the "top" tables, so a high achieving child will be doing some extension work that most of the class won't be doing, but they'll still be working around the same level as the other "higher achievers" in the class.

@EctopicSpleen

I agree with everything you've said - very well explained indeed. Far more eloquent than I could have written.

It happened with our son - Primary school and their "teaching" bored him rigid and he started to decline in terms of ability and enthusiasm for it as everything was too easy. We kept asking for harder homework and more advanced reading books, and successive teachers said they'd try, but it just never happened. They'd hand out reading books to be read "that week", but he'd finish them on the first evening as they were so short and simple - no challenges at all. Luckily we had a good library in the village, so I'd go in there every couple of days to borrow books for him, and they were also active with book reading "challenges", etc., collecting stickers for each book read, getting free books for writing so many reviews which he handed in to the library staff, etc. - they were far more proactive to encourage reading and advancement than the school/teachers were!

Successive teachers were told no by the powers that be at that individual school.
But to be honest I see going to the library as an absolute must. Government guidelines just got stricter too with only one early reading scheme allowed in schools. And the one we have is deadly dull.

Trust me ainwould hand out plenty of books to children but computer days no literally.

Take it up with the government, governors etc.

Teachers do as directed. It would be foolish to think otherwise. Doesn't matter what they themselves would do.

You may get one who suggests other riding if they can't progress in school but rheybsrent going to get it for you.

And the amount of times I have had to tell a parent I can't give them more hooks because we simply don't have them but I would suggest you do x, y and z.

The comments here are fantastically naive about the education system and actually borderline insulting in places.

It is a cash strapped system with a declining workforce who are over stretched and run by people who know nothing about education.

Of course they do! However, there is much more to it. Google 'hyperlexia' and find out if your dc has any of the other behaviours associated. Reading is much more than mechanical decoding, great that your dc has something she loves and wants to do more of but can she also engage in critical thinking around what she's read etc. It's common for hyperlexic children to be extremely good (for age) at anything involving patterns & rules eg reading/spelling/maths but maybe be less good at making inferences, forging friendships, listening, being imaginative. It will be helpful to make sure you have prepared her across the board. Can she play boardgames, use writing tools, take turns, tie laces, put on and off jacket buttons or zip, use cutlery, understand when to use loud/quiet voice, use scissors, play small world, be in quietness, catch & throw, self regulate, enjoy nature. Your dc will love it!

Oh my god!! Wow, this is not the case in Scotland where I can say the educational requirements, training course & curriculum are really different. It's not perfect but it sounds awful in England. I hope the teachers continue to strike and the terms & conditions along with requirements improve. Awful demoralising government schemes getting below par graduates to teach as a starter occupation has scarred the profession as a whole.

Primary maths isn't hard. Amd certainly nowhere nearer the GCSE level. Level 6 papers have been gone a long time now. And anyone who would have serious reservations with teaching UKS would concentrate on teaching the lower years.

Parents do understand that schools and teachers are under huge pressures and resources are constrained; we'd love things to improve for your profession and we want to be supportive. Most parents would welcome honest and straightforward conversations about the art of the possible, and we would put our shoulders to the wheel to try to help identify low-cost, low time investment easy wins that could help our kids without consuming an unfair share of time resource. But to have those conversations you have to acknowledge there are particular needs, not manage the problem away by claiming it doesn't exist or is unicorn rare or is our children's fault for not being the right stuff.

You may have come across Stephanie Tolan's article "Is it still a cheetah?" before and I imagine you disagree fundamentally, but I think the zoo chow metaphor is spot on, myself. https://www.stephanietolan.com/is_it_a_cheetah.htm

I don't disagree with the idea you need to identify a child's star and support them in their interests.

But the very fact remains that very few children are gifted.

Also this is America who are wedded to their gifted and telented programs for kids we would consider academic but hardly anything abnormal. Just the top sets.

Again I urge you to contact your local MP, social governors, MATS, LEA whatever and make your case. Teachers teach as directed. I of course would be delighted for enrichment groups, more books, cultural capital opportunities for children, maths tutors from secondary schools, writing workshops. Whatever.it would certainly be marvellous.

And I believe the question was about EYFS.

Your child will be fine. Social, self regulation and sensory development is huge at this age.

My august born was reading chapter books mid way through reception (so under 4.5) and had read all of the harry potter books by the start of year 2 (aged just 6, in retrospect the later ones probably were not that appropriate).

I don't think differing ability matters in infants school. Your child will just write more etc. and will accelerate through the reading levels and presumably get 10/10 in spelling every week.

Infant school is massively about social skills and having fun though. Don't always think about them needing to be stretched. Just because they are ahead on reading for example they might be behind on motor skills for example.

My dd is 15 now and hoping for all 9's in her GCSE's. Also diagnosed ADHD and has had a very up and down time socially (currently up but there have been some difficult moments).

My experiences in Scotland can be in one class of 25 four/five year olds there can be children working well to finish Early level, some may not be anywhere near Early level (ASN) and others may be starting First level. So 3 broad levels with loads of variation, different methodology and tons of differentiation. If teaching doesn't involve differentiation I would see it as v poor quality and wonder what is happening on the teacher training courses, what qualifications & skills are required..... It sounds v different and I know many who have moved here from England and gone through the accreditation process to teach in Scotland. Teachers need to keep striking in England & Wales, this government is wrecking education.

"If teaching doesn't involve differentiation I would see it as v poor quality and wonder what is happening on the teacher training courses"

Why yes, it IS very poor quality and you are right to wonder what is happening on the teacher training courses. As I understand it, teacher training is being heavily influenced by NCETM and EEF - quangos which are on record as being against differentiation on ideological grounds. See for example:

https://www.ncetm.org.uk/features/no-need-to-differentiate-in-primary-school-maths-lessons

https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/news/moving-from-differentiation-to-adaptive-teaching

What's worse, they've been key players in drafting the early career framework standards for teachers in England and so a whole generation of teachers will go into schools grotesquely misinformed. The inmates are running the asylum.

If a child is struggling with the basics, they would hopefully be supported to gain those skills, why not support a child who is able to do the basics and more? If there are 25 children in a class, all 25 should be supported to meet all their needs , Emotional,social and intellectual needs,why not a child who is advanced?

Because schools are understaffed and underfunded, whilst having to manage increasing numbers of children who would benefit from a non-mainstream setting, so whilst all teachers would like to make sure all 30 children in a class received an education to meet their individual needs, it's never going to happen.

I've already pointed out everyone gets less than a minute of teacher time. The middles need support too. It's a ridiculous task when you think about it.

The real issue is the way education is determined by age. Whether the child is ready or not, they have to go up a year. Likewise an advanced child is stuck with their year group. That just causes extra work for teachers as they're trying to teach too broad a range of abilities.

There should be more flexibility with the advanced learners being able to move up a year group and the struggling ones kept back with younger children. I.e. move to a system where you move up through "years" according to ability, not age. That would mean each class was at a more similar level, a narrower range of ability.

It's exactly what happens at some schools who have more, or less, than say 30 pupils in each year. At my son's primary, they had 10 classes, roughly 1.5 classes per age year. That meant pupils had to "jump" classes, i.e. go from class 1 to class 3 and from class 6 to class 9. When you "jumped" didn't depend on your age, it depended on your ability, and throughout the school life, everyone would be, at some stage, in a class with pupils a year older and/or a year younger, and is come cases, it was a 2 year difference, i.e. if you jumped two classes as you could have been at the older end of the earlier class and the younger end of the next class. It worked fine. Often, the struggling ones just need a "year out" to consolidate what they've learned and make up the gaps, and then move on again, rather than being forced up to a higher level when they've not mastered earlier skills.