Getting an assessment to help schools decision for bright kids?

[GretaGarbled]

Hi - has anyone had their children take an educational assessment to help them decide on schools? Thinking Potential Plus, but I guess there are private Ed Psychs that could do the same thing. But will it be worth it, and help us decide?

By way of background... We are trying (and failing) to decide on which route will suit our children best at Yr7 - local comp, selective private, super-selective private. They are bright, but we don't know at what level, i.e. happily top of the class, or potential to get bored, etc.

No help from the current (state primary) school, they don't Set for anything, and no g&t provision/support. All I know is that they are top of their classes (in top 3 probably) and their teachers always say how bright/'up there' they are. Which is great, but not that helpful So I'm going pretty much on gut feeling at the moment, which is no way to make such an important decision!

That was kind of what I meant though. If you know your kids are bright, but you are unaware of any actual issues with their education, it is unlikely that, well, they will have any issues. Mine easily pass the notional 'bright' markers and according to the earlier poster who said 115 was really the benchmark for grammar/ requiring more, two of them (including the 142 kid who is pretty weird) are thriving in state, and one would find private school terrifying. The third, who I think is the 137 kid, is also pretty odd, but odd of a nature that he would totally thrive in a nerdtastic specialist environment. They are all all-rounders, but he is the one that has a frankly weird affinity to numbers, to the extent that it has been noticeable since he was a toddler. Plus some social concerns which no one can decide are linked to his maths you weirdness or ASD (like no-one, including the clinical psychs who test him). If your kids are y4 and you are not thinking 'bloody hell this is a disaster' or 'holy fuck, this kid is nuts' then all decisions on testing and school places are purely for personal taste/ aesthetics/ amusement. There is no necessity to test. But it's an ok thing to do for an interesting notionally scores based glimpse in comparison with a zillion other middle class white kids.
Unless your child is struggling, WISC testing is largely vanity, lol. (I have a healthy acceptance of vanity though - it can be fun. In those circs, IQ testing is fun.) By struggling, I mean struggling at both ends of the spectrum. Some bright kids will easily manage to extend themselves (like dd1 and her extra-curriculars) whereas others do need the school to do it for them. Largely once they get to 12 they are routinely extending themselves in any case (project research-wise). Having got through most of the education system with gifted teens, I can warrant that my earlier concerns that schools had to be capable of setting extension work are largely unfounded. It's only really a concern in primary school, where access to the right level of reading matter can be problematic (at one point my 5yo was in an infant only school but needed secondary resources). Once kids are in secondary, they will set their own levels in research, essays etc. It stands to reason that a kid who won't self-extend will need the school to direct, but that's a personality issue, not an IQ/ academic ability issue. Unless you are Carol Dweck. Or whatever her name is.

Chopchop, I had a state school tell me not to send my kids there too. Ultimately, that's usually to do with very specific schools and the demographic - and usually because their current focus is somewhere else for very good reason. In our case, the state school half a mile down the road had absolutely no problem taking them. It was the right decision, because the school that turned them down had a recent leadership change and their strategic direction was clearly taking them in a different direction. (They were actually concerned about peer/social relationships for bright kids, rather than them being bright and not being able to give them work). Frankly any school can provide work at the right level for any kid. Even yours. At that point they may just have not wanted to, because their ethos was pulling them in another direction (technical excellence, sports, building their SEN base, whatever). Any school can categorically deal with any bright kid. They just might not want to bother (and so a school that tells you that should be listened to, because it isn't going to be a harmonious relationship). It happened that the school they went to implemented fab additional groups for gifted kids in the second year we were there (sideways rather than extension) and it was grand.
As an aside, our kids change schools every two or three years due to our family circs, and we have never had any issues with them being able to offer appropriate level work (2-7 years ahead). The issues have been due to ethos and other random stuff. Not academics. Any school is capable of catering for academics. It's whether they actually do. Visit the schools, talk to them. See if you can see your child thriving there.
The only real benefit to a selective or super selective is that all the kids are fairly cookie cutter in ability, which leads to less chance of your poor lonely kid wandering in the playground alone because they are bored rigid by pointless Barbie shit and have zero in common with anyone else. (Kind of the reason why the school near us suggested it really wasn't the right setting - their demographic clearly showed a very high value added score, because of the low scores on intake). I avoid schools with a high value added score.
But again, if your child is not showing that peer relationships are a problem - there is not a problem. Dd2 had two years of compulsory school counselling because she didn't have anything in common with her peers and they were concerned about her ability to bond socially. (She loved it, because she got to hang out with an adult who was more on her level). But ultimately, the counsellor said, well, yeah, there's nothing wrong with her. She's just got nothing in common with her peers. They were all quite happy - just different. And she loved the school - they gave her the most fantastic assignments to do, essentially a completely different curriculum to her peers. Still a state school. A state school that arranged contact with a publisher and how to pitch. All schools are capable of doing it. But you won't know until you ask. And you won't know by getting a WISC test done.

I wouldn't have thought there would any point in assessing their IQ.Iq tests are pretty flawed and there are so many other ways of measuring intelligence.Often people with high IQ's do not do well in life.Its the bright allrounders who often succeed.
If your children are top of their class then they will get into a selective school.My daughter was in that position and won a Academic Scholarship.We did about 5. Sessions at our local tutor beforehand for Verbal and non-verbal reasoning .A reliable tutor will recommend the best schools for your children and be capable of assessing how able they are.
Some state Schools are brilliant at dealing with bright pupils.Our local private schools did very badly at Oxbridge this year.Some state schools down South got loads in.We live in a Rural county where the standard of schooling is much lower than say major conurbations.

There is also the issue that high IQ test results doesn't forcibly mean high GCSEs/A level result.

DD teachers have always pointed out how DD was extremely clever, however, this hasn't so much shown in exams. She does well, but not as well as would be expected. She has spent time with her A levels teachers to understand why and the reasons identified is that DD's intelligence is linked with a much higher than average ability to understand concepts quickly, and then a much higher than average memory that means she retains it all. The area where she fails though is expressing her knowledge, probably because 1/the moment she's got it, she gets bored and wants to move on and 2/ she is not the type to expand on anything, emotions or knowledge. She struggles to put herself in the shoes of the marker who doesn't know her and need the tick box evidence that she has grasped the concept. Her comments from her teachers are always the same 'I know you know it all, but you need to demonstrate it by expanding your answers more'. She therefore excels in smaller marked questions and of course Maths.

She's never done an IQ test, but my gut feeling is that she would mark high, but that doesn't mean that she doesn't have to overcome the weaknesses with her intelligence to do well in exams.

To answer OP's original question.

Yes.

We had DS2 assessed by an ed psych, to guide us in whether it was worth putting him in for 11+ grammar and independent school exams.

Most ed psychs in private practice will do this - British Psychological Society has a list somewhere on their website.

The only real benefit to a selective or super selective is that all the kids are fairly cookie cutter in ability, which leads to less chance of your poor lonely kid wandering in the playground alone because they are bored rigid by pointless Barbie shit and have zero in common with anyone else.

This from littleoldladywho is the most insightful thing i've read on these educational boards for a LONG time. 2 years in to secondary and DD1 is happy, because of this, not the work. This is why i couldn't send her to our local amazing all girls comprehensive. It's not about getting 11 A*s, it's the journey you want them to have and the person you want them to be when they come out the other end.

Amidawsh How do you ensure that your dd will be able to cope in the real world after she leaves the rarified atmosphere of a selective school and uni?

This is exactly what is creating an overeducated 5% of the population estranged from the rest of the population.

by working very hard on her social skills. our family is very socially diverse i can tell you, as are our family friends.

the fact is she is different socially to most girls who want to play "mums and dads and popstars" as she said in primary, and in secondary are into make up and hairbraiding.

in her school she is different to most of them but at least has some chance of meeting more like her. which she has. also we didn't do an all girls school for this very reason.

My dd2 has an academic scholarship and could hair braid from 7 ,loves make up and pretty colours, is very good at Art and Maths and at 12 - utterly ruthless, charming and popular.She also goes to an all girls school .Like dd1 who has always been very tom boyish and Science orientated.They have all found friends similar to them in state and private.They also have an ethnically diverse background.
I would be very careful Amidawsh that your prejudice's don't rub off on your children.They will have to learn to get on with everyone .

ok am bowing out now

nowhere did i say all kids were the same. flipping eck, good bye.

I have known some highly gifted children, and adults, who had absolutely no difficulty in also enjoying popular culture. Their giftedness manifested in the things they could do, not in the things they couldn't.

I have also known some children/adults who believed they were more gifted than they actually were because they felt their inability to enjoy other than the most rarified pursuits set them apart from other children.

Personally, I don't see why playing with barbies shouldn't be a great opportunity for a gifted child: it could involve devising alternative universes, script writing, stage setting and all sorts of other educational activities, just through the natural way that bright children play.

If there is one thing I regret about my own childhood, it is that I believed/was encouraged to believe that my undoubted ability to learn the verb systems of ancient languages with a minimum of support meant that I could not also enjoy popular music or popular television. It's not that I regret anything I did learn, more that I feel my life could have been even richer and more multi-facetted than it was and that I might have been less up myself One thing I am very happy about is that I was at least encouraged to learn practical skills like cooking and baking and very basic DIY. It enriched my life. A little more popular culture might well have had the same effect.

My own dd has been far more the normal preteen/teen than I was, into clothes and makeup and nights out and the same music as her peers. I don't find it detracts from her understanding of Shakespeare at all. I think the person who has come out of her journey is a great one

I agree that to really thrive a child benefits from having an "intellectual peer group". I didn't really master social skills till I was at university because I always stuck out as very different and interested in different things, so at school I learnt only that I was different and struggled to fit in. After a bit of time at uni I discovered that I was a people person after all and eventually reached a point where I was confident in my ability to relate to anyone at all and get along with them. Had I had more contact with other children with comparable abilities younger (say age 8-14 probably the most influential age range), I might have developed that side of myself much earlier.

Grass that's my experience in a nutshell too. I loved all manner of popular things and bunked off school to see Duran Duran, but no one else wanted to talk about Philip Glass. The two things can co-exist in the one person.

I'm not going to say what DD likes because it would out me in a second if anyone knew us, but it co-exists with a love of Jacqueline Wilson and small fluffy animals. That's the essence of giftedness/difference and it's why it really helps to have a peer group earlier rather than later. (FWIW there is research that shows this - there's actually tonnes of US and Australian research on the subject, but for some reason no one in this country believes in it).

In some ways I agree with amid. Yes you can still have good social skills, enjoy popular culture and music but giftness does set you apart and I think it's hard to really fit in for quite a while.

I know I didn't fit in until University (and I was in a peer group consisting of the tope what 15~20% of my peers). Dc1 does quite fit either and is really struggling, much more than me actually.
I suspect the reason is that he is a state secondary where high achievement is not seen as good.

Even now, I found that people I am really confortable with are actually still people who are on this high achieving scale.

In DDs year at college were some mind numbingly bright kids who had been in the Comp system right through and seemed to cope just fine

parents could not afford private
no selectives anywhere near

their schools stretched them in all directions
as that is what schools do

DD went to a comprehensive school with many girls as described above, however, that doesn't meant that ALL girls were like that. Yes, DD was labelled the 'clever' one very early on, but she was able to show that being clever didn't preclude her from enjoying similar things to others.

She did find the have more in common with boys (she follows the Premiership and knows more about it than most), but she also made friends with a number of girls, not those who cared more about make up than homework, but others who didn't fit the mold.

DD said it herself, what she likes is to get to know people deep inside and she likes spending time with very different people. She is now as comfortable enjoying discussing protons with the biggest nerd, as she is talking football with the sport mad as she is discussing theatre with one girlfriend but also giggling about boys or just being silly.

their schools stretched them in all directions
as that is what schools do

Nope this is what SOME schools do.
My dcs school doesn't and is paying lip service to it.
It'S also a quite well known fact where we live but we didn't have the choice to take dc1 anywhere else

Kids are in school for 1/6 of their time across the year.
Its the job of parents to step up to the plate in that case.
Read a biography of Richard Feynmann to see how to do it well.

Intelligence dies not preclude a love of make up , clothes and other pretty things.Brains and beauty are a stunningly attractive combination.
I believe there are just as many bright children at comprehensives as private.Not all Comprehensives do their best by the children.This is why we sent ours to a private school eventually .However some Comprehensives do a Brilliant job and get much better results than our local private school.

I'm really not sure I understand the massive generalisations and assumptions on this thread.Very few children are true genius's but there seems to be many on Mn for some reason.

Thanks Ta1king how did I not think about that

It might be just a short period in the day but it's an essential one for children and teenagers.
The difference between a situation like this being well handled or not is massive for the child. You can't just say it's not an issue because said child has things lined up for them at the end of the school day

I think it's reasonable to say it's a massive issue for some children, not for all. Some children- particularly the ones who are gifted in the humanities rather than just in maths and science, may find ways of stretching themselves during ordinary lessons: by writing a more complex essay or doing a more thoughtful analysis of a poem or thinking more deeply about the causes behind historical events. With humanities subjects there aren't really any limits as to how much thought you can put into your writing.

Again, some children may get very upset if school does not always cater for their needs, while others, provided that their intellectual needs are catered for elsewhere, will be more philosophical about it. Personality, as well as circumstances, account for a lot.

I can't say I remember ever feeling bored at school- but then I don't get bored waiting at bus stops either. There are too many interesting things to think about.

there's a lot of pent up angst on this thread!

DD was at state primary and then state secondary comp. She was fine until about yr5 at primary when the girls became difficult. She was always a bit of an outlier, got on better with the boys than the girls but had enough girl friends.

At secondary the "alpha" girls had no problem with her, they were confident, pretty, clever, sporty. They respected her for who she was and i think liked her. However the less clever / less confident / less going for them girls (the majority) were bloody nightmares. Some of the boys too - teasing her, sneering at her. If she got good marks in a test she was a "keeno". She stopped putting her hand up in class etc. and became withdrawn.

We moved her to a selective independent at the 13+ yr9. She's never looked back surrounded by intelligent confident kids.

Those of you with socially "cool" clever girls, i can't honestly see why you wouldn't go to a comp, your kids would thrive there and get all the opportunities you can imagine! Academically DD was well served, emotionally she was being destroyed.

And yes, she will have to mix with all sorts of people and abilities in the real world, but hopefully by then she will have full confidence in herself and not care / be affected. Not easy for a teenage girl.

Wow, lots of replies here! Thank you all for your experiences.

I can honestly say that 95% of the replies and opinions are ones that have gone through our heads already, which is why making the choice is so difficult.

The school 'experience' depends so much on the individual child, the individual school (and even the particular teachers and friends within that school), that there is no right answer, unless you have a crystal ball. And even if a particular route has worked for you, it won't have worked for someone else in a similar position - which I guess is why these threads always become a little 'heated'. We are all trying to do the best to help our children stay happy and confident though, and the world would be a better place if we can repect that a different choice is not necessarily a less valid choice

If we had an outstanding local comp that provided appropriately differentiated work for the more able children, it would be a no-brainer. But we don't, so the choice is more nuanced. I am pleased that some of you do have fantastic local schools, and I do strongly believe that comps should be better resourced so they can provide a truly comprehensive education for all. But they aren't, and it isn't looking like the situation is going to improve in the short term. So there you go.

We also have two children with very different personalities, but are trying to find one school to suit them both, which again is a choice some might disagree with. All I was thinking about, with the original post, was trying to get a (yes, heavily caveated) handle on how 'different' from the other kids mine might be academically (which is already having a small impact on both of them), and so how much of an issue the academic side of a school might be. Just one tiny piece of information in the enormous web of factors to take into account, not the defining test that some PP have assumed.

Maisypops- I agree completely.

my ds secured a place in top London grammar (which he doesn't want 🙄)and is at an average state primary. He is smart- but by no means genius. No need for me to have him tested at all. Simply did what I needed at home to support my ds.