Primary school classroom stars

[KathBelle]

I have 3 dc in school years 6, 5, 3.

Eldest is high achieving, driven and working beyond in all topics. She is September born and extremely confident, wins all races, competitions, gets chosen for the lead roles and is seen as very talented and capable by her teachers.

Her younger sister (in year 5) is well rounded, and gets a mix of working beyond and age related. She never excels in anything while others in her class do. She is bright and interested but not as confident as her older sibling. Youngest is too soon to know but more like middle sister.

I am curious how this tends to play out in secondary. Do the dc who are the 'classroom stars' in primary (cringe word but to mean excelling at everything, very confident) stay on track? Do the middle of the road, yet capable kids ever catch up or is it always a certain kind of child you gets all the accolades?

Dc1's confidence is growing as she is doing so well whereas dc2' confidence is taking knock after knock as the same girls in her class are excelling in all areas.

Not sure I have explained this well but if you can make sense of these early morning ramblings, how did your dc change in secondary academically and in terms of confidence compared to in primary? Or did they just follow the same trajectory?

My DD was happier in secondary once set for things like maths as she no longer had people calling out the answer before she had finished reading the question.

That's a good point, I also think the right set helps with attainment. I'm glad your dd is happier in secondary school. Wondering how well dd will do next year when she will be a small fish in a big pond, I hope she continues to shine.

I don't know what to think of our primary school, it works perfectly for dd1 and not very well for dd2. They seem to focus on the high and low achievers, the middle of the road kids don't seem get so much out of it.

Do the clever primary school kids remain high achieving in KS3 or are different (study) skills needed in secondary to continue doing well?

In my experience, many of those who have been labelled ‘clever’ in primary school arrive in secondary with two difficult traits: a reluctance to accept that they don’t know everything, and an unhealthy thirst for attention and praise. Theirs is always the first hand up, they are always first to finish a task. The quieter ‘sloggers’ come into their own, because they work harder without making a fuss about it, take care over the work, and are much better at learning from their mistakes. If two kids make the same error, the ‘clever’ one sulks because they got it wrong and didn’t get praise, and the ‘slogger’ takes constructive criticism in their stride and learns how to get it right next time.

By the end of Y7, most of the differences between them are ironed out as the ‘clever’ ones learn to work hard instead of just showing off, and the ‘sloggers’ gain well-deserved confidence. There’s usually the odd one or two who try to blag their way right through to GCSE, and then get mediocre or worse grades.

The higher you achieve at primary, the more likely you are to achieve highly at GCSE. There are multiple possible reasons for this:

• a stronger foundation of skills and knowledge,
• potentially more self-motivated and self-starting in terms of education,
• a better understanding of metacognition,
• more confident in their ability to learn,
• higher targets so the secondary need to get them to higher grades in order to have a neutral or positive progress 8 score,
• some schools identify who will sit which tier of paper all the way at the start of Y7 (attainment at primary will affect this).

@Iamnotthe1
You missed the obvious one - their brains are better suited to academic work (ie they are cleverer).

Any school which decides in y7 which tier for maths/Science/MFL is a bit rubbish imo. Obviously they can probably tell for maths & science who is more more likely to be higher or foundation tier (and a bunch in the middle), but teaching should enable moving of sets and therefore target tier.

Bright children who have had a poor primary / home support should still be able to excel in secondary.

Depends on the secondary school, the kid, the parents. The kid has to be (brought up to be) self-motivated; the parents have to continue praise effort not outcome and know when to back off and let the child flounder and struggle (typically that is a good idea in term 1 and 2 on Y7). The secondary school has to be well-matched to the child's temperament. eg creative, free-thinking, academic, driven etc.

Kids who are top of the heap at a small primary often land in a selective secondary school and are shocked to find real competition. I found a school report from my Y8 in which my head of year wrote "it is tough at the top, but keep striving and it is possible to stay there." Work ethic sometimes fades in teenage years as life gets more interesting and it really is down to your adolescent offspring to decide where they want to put the effort in.

Meanwhile kids who are middle of the pack may find a new passion at secondary school simply because subjects become more specialised. It's unlikely they'll become excellent across the board but likely they can find confidence and success in at least one area.

I had a friend who was very average academically, did well enough to get a reasonably good degree. Behind the scenes though - heaps of extra reading, loads of volunteering, building contacts and credibility. Has a fab career now in her chosen specialism (environmental science). She is fantastic, just not in the ways we were measured at school.

I didn't miss it: I deliberately didn't put it. It relies entirely on the preconceived notion that academic intelligence is fixed and I don't believe that to be true. There is certainly a benefit in having a working memory that can contain more items, or item strings, at any given time but having a more limited one doesn't have to hold someone back.

I agree that in a perfect world all children should be able to progress and attain at the highest level regardless of their starting points and targets.

But the reality is very different: our education system isn't set up to facilitate that. We all know that, for example, some sets are simply never exposed to the knowledge they need for higher papers and that can began way down in Y7. We know that children who are "off flight plan / off track" according to where they need to be for progress 8 are prioritised for intervention, boosters and additional support even though they might not be the ones who would benefit most. We know that there's a bigger push to move a child from a 3 to a 4 / 5 then there ever would be to move a child from a 1 to a 2 (and possibly in the higher ranges too, depending on the context of the school).

Children should be able to turn it around after underperforming at primary or make up ground when they've lacked support from home. We all desperately want that to be the truth. But, in practice, not many do. For most, the gap widens.

DD1 was not a primary school star, she is now at secondary and excelling. She has to work hard and put in a lot of effort. She's young for her year. She's always thrilled if she gets what she considers good results in tests. Over 75%. She has friends who were the stars and who've struggled a bit at secondary as they are no longer being feted and praised like they were in primary and do not have the same work ethic DD1 has.

It's all so dependent on the kid themselves, what support they have at home, and whether school suits them. Some of the brightest most able people I know didn't do what would be considered well at school.

You missed the obvious one - their brains are better suited to academic work (ie they are cleverer).

I didn't miss it: I deliberately didn't put it. It relies entirely on the preconceived notion that academic intelligence is fixed and I don't believe that to be true. There is certainly a benefit in having a working memory that can contain more items, or item strings, at any given time but having a more limited one doesn't have to hold someone back.

Personally I think that's a bit idealistic. When I think of the hours I have spent in the last 14 years trying to teach DD2 times tables. She gets them for a bit if we put loads of effort in, then they drop out again if not practiced. Repeat for everything. There just isn't time at secondary school for someone with poor working memory / slow processing to do everything that is expected of them.

The kids who need extra time in exams aren't just impacted in the actual exam. They need extra time for revision, and for homework, and actually for every single lesson they attend. They just don't get it.

I don't think by saying some people's brains are better suited for academic work is saying academic intelligence is fixed. But some people find things easier to grasp and to remember which makes their lives so much easier at school. Others however hard they try are always running just to keep up. My DD2 was always so tired after school from the sheer effort of trying her best in lessons she didn't have anything left out of school.

In a different system, or out of school, maybe people aren't so limited if it is something they are massively keen to achieve. But that isn't how our schools are set up - there is a clear curriculum that all the children have to study, even if going at half speed and covering half content would be better. (Except in maths which recognises this.)

@BadGranny I can see how the primary school stars might struggle initially at secondary and might come in with less grit /a bigger ego. However, maybe the fact that they were high achieving at primary means that they have more academic brains as has been suggested above and that will carry them through KS3. I hope dd2 will be a successful slogger and dd1 will find her feet at secondary after a couple of terms.

It's interesting to hear from posters whose dc are in the middle or near the end of KS3 and how their experience at secondary compares with primary. I find it sad and a bit wrong that primary (at least ours) fetes the clever talented kids as it leaves those who also do well and have lots of potential with self doubt from about year 3/4. I wonder if the private system is better in this respect. I feel quite frustrated with the system it doesn't help the majority children achieve their best, just some. The worst part is the divide in 'inflated confidence' / 'lack of confidence' at the end of KS2.

When I think of the hours I have spent in the last 14 years trying to teach DD2 times tables. She gets them for a bit if we put loads of effort in, then they drop out again if not practiced. Repeat for everything

But that's the exact evidence in cognitive science that shows intelligence isn't fixed. If knowledge isn't recalled at intervals then the neural pathways that have been used to establish that knowledge in the first place will begin to decay. Or are you suggesting that other children don't need to practise or review things regularly and that their neural pathways don't decay?

The kids who need extra time in exams aren't just impacted in the actual exam. They need extra time for revision, and for homework, and actually for every single lesson they attend. They just don't get it.

Which is exactly why schools aren't supposed to apply for extra time for exams unless that child is also receiving extra time as part of their normal classroom practice. It must be there in both to ensure they are properly supported.

But that isn't how our schools are set up - there is a clear curriculum that all the children have to study

There are schools that do a variation on this (which is what I'm referring to with the extra time in class comments above) but unfortunately only for high need cases. For example, one of my former students from last year (now Y7) doesn't study music nor P.E. This gives him an additional 3 hours which is used as "extra time" in which he can get support in other supports, complete work, review knowledge in order to improve its encoding, etc.

even if going at half speed and covering half content would be better. (Except in maths which recognises this.)

The most common way this is done, however, is the early identification of higher / foundation paper that I referenced earlier but you said a good secondary shouldn't do that.

That's a really encouraging post and nice to hear your dd is doing well. DD1 gets so surprised and irrate when she gets something wrong, it's like she can't believe it. DD2 is feeling increasingly deflated as the 3 super star girls in her class are excelling with everything and getting chosen for the the special stuff. Not sure how to best support her.

and getting chosen for the the special stuff

That's the issue here: why are the same children being selected repeatedly and why does it appear, to you at least, that it seems tied to their academic performance?

I'd expect the best performers to be selected for lead roles, the best athletes to be selected for athletic competition, the most responsible to be selected for positions of leadership, etc. But I'd be very surprised if those ended up working out to be the same kids.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but your responses do awfully read like you think DC like mine just don't try hard enough.

re Sets. Yes you need different speeds, but that doesn't mean they need to be set in stone from the start of y7. My DD1 moved up in maths from set 7 in y7 to set 3 by y11.

Of course you have to review things regularly but at some point you'd hope the basics get embedded wouldn't you? My DDs both needed way more repeat visits to things and longer to do each repeat than children of friends. We had to make choices about which subjects / issues to concentrate on as we couldn't do all the things needed.

How do you get 'extra time as part of normal classroom practice' for teaching unless schools provide 25% more lessons in Maths, Science, English, History, Geography etc? Dropping French & Music doesn't provide enough extra time and then you still need the lessons themselves to go slower, not a fast paced lesson where they get lost after 15 minutes then a catch up.

Hard work, having a mind set you can improve etc are all of course incredibly important for success at secondary. But to suggest that there isn't also some difference in brains which impacts success is, I think, disingenuous.

I think secondary will suit dd2 better. We found that at secondary with English for example they do four hours (or so) a week. If they haven't finished everything in the lesson the teachers can't say 'right let's do some more English after break' because they are on to the History lesson. Although the 'stars' might be good at everything, more likely they will be very good at some things and fairly good at others.

Having sets sometimes helps with confidence too because they might be top of the middle set and so within their class they are the ones with the hands up.

Also having different teachers helps. In primary I think there is more favouritism, this is not a dig at primary teachers, but when you spend 20+ hours a week with someone you will naturally connect with some people more than others. In secondary the most you are likely to have one teacher is 4 hours a week, so partly there is less time to form an opinion and secondly even if your geography teacher loves you, the Biology teacher might find you annoying.

Finally I think some just develop later. One of mine was struggling around age 6/7, fairly solid by age 10/11 and now predicted 3A* for A levels. Once they found their passion (science) they really took off despite being effectively written off at primary by some teachers.

@Iamnotthe1 ironically dd1 is strong in almost all of the areas you mention same as are the high achieving children in dd2's class, they are all doing brilliantly and deserve the opportunities and good feedback they're getting but they are also chosen for the leadership position and special classroom 'jobs', probably because they are competent, mature and confident. It leaves those who don't shine quite so brightly but who'd benefit from a boost and an opportunity feeling they are a bit incompetent and the decreasing confidence leads to a vicious circle. It's unhelpful that the school highlights the top kids in such an obvious way, it's not exactly motivating for the other 25 children.

It leaves those who don't shine quite so brightly but who'd benefit from a boost and an opportunity feeling they are a bit incompetent and the decreasing confidence leads to a vicious circle.

Our secondary was very good at giving less recognised children a boost. e.g. getting them to be tour guides or otherwise help at open evenings, and the 'credit' system which wasn't just academics but also being helpful etc.

Finally I think some just develop later. One of mine was struggling around age 6/7, fairly solid by age 10/11 and now predicted 3A for A levels.*

@Unexpecteddrivinginstructor it makes me cross to read that your ds was 'written off' at such a young age but it's great that he's excelling in his area now and proving his teachers wrong. When you say he was solid around age 10/11, what exactly do you mean by that?

often the same kids are good at everything (or almost everything). Thinking of my top 4 in my maths class last year - they were also very good at English and science. 3 of them were great at sport. 3 of them were very confident generally, talking to adults, being school tour guides etc. 2 were outstanding at drama, got lead roles in the end of year play, the other 2 were ok at drama - reasonable size roles. They were the ‘primary stars’ the OP is talking about. In my experience these kids do go on to do well in secondary too. Not to say other kids won’t, but this type do.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but your responses do awfully read like you think DC like mine just don't try hard enough. Hmm

That's not what I'm saying at all and I'm sorry if it's coming across as that. But I'm also not agreeing with the idea that some children are just naturally bright and don't have to put effort in either as that's not right.

But to suggest that there isn't also some difference in brains which impacts success is, I think, disingenuous.

I talked about the impact of having a working memory that can hold and use more items at a time than one that can hold less. But there's more to it than just saying that's it and accepting that someone with a more restricted working memory or lower processing speeds can't do well. They need better support and a strong understanding of metacognition (which I mentioned) in order to build routines and practices that help them address the impact of their working memory. That's one of the reasons why the teaching of metacognition in schools is so important and has been shown, in studies, to have a huge impact on progress and attainment.

How do you get 'extra time as part of normal classroom practice' for teaching unless schools provide 25% more lessons in Maths, Science, English, History, Geography etc? Dropping French & Music doesn't provide enough extra time and then you still need the lessons themselves to go slower, not a fast paced lesson where they get lost after 15 minutes then a catch up.

That's one of the reasons most schools set. The lower sets move at a slower pace and review the content more frequently (therefore providing extra time compared to the rest of the cohort). But it's a flawed system and one that doesn't allow for a lot of upward movement. The setting system in itself is part of the reason why it's unlikely that lower attainers (and even sometimes middle attainers) will go on to be higher attainers.

Which is exactly why schools aren't supposed to apply for extra time for exams unless that child is also receiving extra time as part of their normal classroom practice. It must be there in both to ensure they are properly supported.

whenever I see this recommendation (as a teacher) my heart sinks. I just don’t know to make it work. If I set a task in class and give the class 20 minutes to do it, how do I find 5 extra minutes for someone to finish off? That 5 minutes is either going to be break time (and no doubt said child won’t want to stay in and why should they?) or I’ll be moving on to the next bit of the lesson and they’ll miss the teaching. I can’t magic more time from nowhere! It’s more manageable in assessments as you can feasibly do 5-10 mins of quiet reading after while the extra time kids finish off, but it doesn’t work for every task in every single lesson.

That's one of the reasons why the teaching of metacognition in schools is so important and has been shown, in studies, to have a huge impact on progress and attainment.

That's interesting @Iamnotthe1 do you know how schools teach metacognition and how parents can support this at home? I assume praying for efforts rather than output and constructive criticism but what other methods can be used?

But I'm also not agreeing with the idea that some children are just naturally bright and don't have to put effort in either as that's not right.

Oh I'm definitely not saying that

To do well you absolutely have to put the effort in. No one is going to get the 7/8/9 grades without effort.

*praising, not praying

It is really difficult and you definitely don't have to do it all the time for every task. I can only speak for my classroom, and I definitely don't get it right all the time, but I'll do things like extend the writing time on a piece over more lessons so that those who require more time for processing can still finish to a standard they are happy with. Others will look more heavily at the editing process or do other useful small sessions like writing from a reversed perspective or a shifted audience. In Maths, it could be that some children need more time within fluency-based teaching and learning and so time can be devoted to that while others can look at a wider range of non-routine problem solving. I can always give them time from assemblies and small snippets from other lessons too. But I'm aware that is a primary luxury that secondaries cannot replicate.

But there is an issue with schools applying for access arrangements that don't reflect classroom practice. Firstly, it's against the access arrangements guidance so those schools could be found to be technically "cheating" but it also creates an acceptance that we don't have to give those children those arrangements in class, which is leaving them under-supported.