School - children skipping years query

shirlgirl2004

Spendless wrote: »

It *can be* an indicator. I have wondered about my DS's 'oddities' for years. About 3 weeks ago on this very board I stumbled on the reason why. And the people who say 'it doesn't go away' are right. Believe me, I sometimes wish there was an off button.

.

I agree it can be an indicator. However there are so many people on MSE that have gifted children the rest must have children with real problems because the average is just that. My DD could read at 3 and had a reading age of 8 before she was 4 but is she gifted? No. Academically advanced? Yes. Part of the problem is the gifted and talented programme. If their children are on it people think they must be gifted. The guidance says 10% will be on the G&T register in anyone school. To me that isn't gifted it's above average. There's a big difference. It's all about the Government dumbing down though.

milliebear00001

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

I agree it can be an indicator. However there are so many people on MSE that have gifted children the rest must have children with real problems because the average is just that. My DD could read at 3 and had a reading age of 8 before she was 4 but is she gifted? No. Academically advanced? Yes. Part of the problem is the gifted and talented programme. If their children are on it people think they must be gifted. The guidance says 10% will be on the G&T register in anyone school. To me that isn't gifted it's above average. There's a big difference. It's all about the Government dumbing down though.

I would absolutely agree with this. It totally sums up my experience of the G&T programme initiated by the last government.

Dustykitten

I remember 2 children in my youngest's class who I used to hear read. One was a very fluent reader, reading books much more difficult than the other children but when you asked them a question had no real views on the story and could not expand or question points. The other child was reading much more basic books but was completely involved in the story questioning why characters were doing things or commenting on the vocab. Which is the better reader? Which child is more advanced? I know which had the higher reading age but to me that isn't the whole story.

shirlgirl2004

Dustykitten wrote: »

I remember 2 children in my youngest's class who I used to hear read. One was a very fluent reader, reading books much more difficult than the other children but when you asked them a question had no real views on the story and could not expand or question points. The other child was reading much more basic books but was completely involved in the story questioning why characters were doing things or commenting on the vocab. Which is the better reader? Which child is more advanced? I know which had the higher reading age but to me that isn't the whole story.

No of course it isn't but it is the part of reading that is easiest to quantify. OK would you like me to tell you about the books she reads and how she discusses what's happened and extrapolates the story? No probably not because it poves nothing. I'm telling you she isn't gifted take my word for it.;)

Dustykitten

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

No of course it isn't but it is the part of reading that is easiest to quantify. OK would you like me to tell you about the books she reads and how she discusses what's happened and extrapolates the story? No probably not because it poves nothing. I'm telling you she isn't gifted take my word for it.;)

I wasn't having a dig at your or doubting you:D

Spendless

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

I agree it can be an indicator. However there are so many people on MSE that have gifted children the rest must have children with real problems because the average is just that. My DD could read at 3 and had a reading age of 8 before she was 4 but is she gifted? No. Academically advanced? Yes. Part of the problem is the gifted and talented programme. If their children are on it people think they must be gifted. The guidance says 10% will be on the G&T register in anyone school. To me that isn't gifted it's above average. There's a big difference. It's all about the Government dumbing down though.

I'm only at the beginning of finding out about my son, but it's not his 'cleverness' that leads me to believe this. It's everything else, the 'ever present' stuff.

I've got a daughter too, I won't be surprised if she ends up on the g & t list for literacy, but she doesn't 'act' the way my son does. I would put her as academically advanced.

Gingham_R

Spendless wrote: »

I'm only at the beginning of finding out about my son, but it's not his 'cleverness' that leads me to believe this. It's everything else, the 'ever present' stuff.

You know what gifted means. And you know it's not a 'gift'. The problem is the word itself makes some people hostile towards it in my opinion. They don't see the 'ever present' stuff or the huge difference between a 'clever' child and a 'gifted' child. It's every bit of a challenge that any other special need is.

southoftheriver

I remember being in a split class and being the younger year group but doing the same work as the older ones. I was also sent upstairs to the year above to get their work but always did the work in the same room as my same aged peers. At secondary school I was on the gifted and talented list but unfortunately it didn't give me any advantages, the school was swamped with bad behaviour and we were left by the wayside.

Having now finished university and reflecting back I think my environment had a big part in my education. We didn't have a tv at home from 4-13 so my reading age and comprehension of things was very high. I was an only child until I was almost 8 so was used to talking to adults and felt comfortable discussing quite advanced topics. However i'm definitely not gifted. My enthusiasm had to be nurtured otherwise it was wasted, which is what happened at secondary school.

Being in a split class was the best of both worlds. I'm still very close to my primary school teacher and its interesting because she pushed for me to be in the company of older children but still be with my same age peers. It's because of teachers like her that i've gone on to do so well now.

Allegra

I went to school in a different country, and the schooling system is slightly different there - for instance, a child does not get moved on through the years automatically, they actually have to pass all their subjects before being allowed to move on to the next grade. This has always been the case, yet there was no provision for children who were way ahead of their peers academically - not until 1983, when a teacher with a vision started lobbying for a gifted child in her care to be allowed to move a year up. The poor child went through the wringer (looking back at it, at the time she really enjoyed all the attention and being able to "show off" what she can do !) for best part of six months, being examined by every educational psychologist in the country, or so it seemed, plus numerous other people. She was also made to attend Year 1 lessons in the morning and Year 2 lessons in the afternoon to prove that she was up to it, and oh, all sorts of carp, it was long ago, I do not remember it all any longer (mercifully !) The family were accused of all sorts by the people who were against the concept, but in the end the common sense won, and a new law was passed, and the girl was moved to Year 2 about halfway through the year.

When it came to moving on to next stage of schooling (happens at 10 back in my country, so the girl would have been 9), she moved on with the rest of her classmates, and then, faced with a new set of teachers who were not used to her, the ruddy thing happened all over again Another six months of hell, another law passed, another move up. It was said at the timme though that, no matter what this girl or anyone else who might come along in the future did or proved themselves capable of, no more than two moves up would be ever allowed, as more than two years would have been considered too much of a difference for successful peer interaction.

In terms of the said peer interaction, it really turned out to be no different than the interaction of any of the kids that started school at the same time as her, but were left behind. She was friends with some people in her class, a few kids bullied her (and a bunch of other kids), some were proud to have the "wunderkind" in their year, some did not understand what all the fuss was about. Pretty normal, I'd say.

Best part of 30 years on, and on reflection, this was probably the best thing that happened to this kid in her childhood - the war started in my country when she was 14, and by the age of 16, everything was all over the place. Some people died, a lot of kids felt there was no ruddy point to their education when all the horror was going on around them, went off the rails a bit. And as she had already graduated high school by then, it did not really matter for her Many of her peers ended up leaving school with no qualifications, and back in my country, that pretty much spells the end - well, did at the time, we are now slowly catching up with the rest of the world and have quit writing people off before they had a chance to even have a stab and giving life a go.

Or, to cut long story short, moving some kids ahead can be a very, very good thing. Identifying which one will thrive in the new environment, and which one will struggle - that will probably always remain a problem.

gratefulforhelp_2

This is only my experience,but I missed out what is now year 6, and started secondary at 10.

This was fine up to and including GCSEs....BUT

I was not mature enough for A levels,or starting a degree at 17.

Think into the future, where do the "spare" years go/get used for?