Question for teachers reading the forum....

[new mother]

I am interested to hear your views on children's development through the primary school. Do you find that he ones who are top stay top throughout - as was the case in my school more or less- or is the much mentioned "late developer" a reality?

I don't have any reason for asking save that my husband and I disagree on it(!) so your views will be fascinating and very welcome either way.

[muppet]

Sometimes there are late developers, particularly boys who are young in their year, but kids that are bright and academically able at the beginning do tend to stay at or near the top.

[new mother]

Thanks. That makes perfect sense as clearly a 4.9 year old child could be quite different from one who has just turned four and could well catch up over time.

My husband insists there were pupils at his school who suddenly managed a mega developmental phase aged about 15 and did fabulously in eg A levels when their previous exam results - O levels in our day! - had been fairly hopeless. I wonderif he just remembers it this way.

Otoh, there were girls at school who had been very bright who dropped out of the picture and reverse developed if you like. It was put down to previous parental involvement tailing off and the playing field getting a bit flatter.

[womanofdulwich]

i think there is some truth is what your husband says- but it is more likely that they were boys who did quite well to begin with, fell behind and then picked up later.

[cuppa tea]

There are bound to be 'late developers' when we start children in school at the ridiculously early age of 4.

I wonder if they are then condemned to stay as 'late developers' because they made to feel by teachers/parents that they are behind in some way and so need more special help and teaching, which then probably aggravates the problem and makes them feel like failures...when really they are just teaching academics to some children too soon. To have successes in the system you have to have the failures, or the whole fascade crumbles and the success means nothing. Schools know this and factor it in.

[sillywoman]

not a teacher - well not the 'proper' sort anyway, but this is quite interesting as i have a case study going on in my house at the moment. Biggest boy in our house is an August baby & hated school & nursery from the outset. In infants & juniors he was pretty much bottom set for everything except maths (top middle). He didn't read at all until he was about 8 or 9, then struggled with reading & writing until he was about 12, being diagnosed with dyslexia & dyspraxia. Now he's 14, & seems to be doing - well, OK actually. Academically he's in the top or top middle groups at school, and I can forsee that once he can specialise a bit (A levels) he'll probably do very well ac academically - all other things being equal. I still fret over the fact that he'll be taking all his GCSE's etc at 15 & A levels at 17, but there's little I can do about it.

I think that there are boys like this in most schools - boys that do so much better once they can study only the subjects that interest them. I think you're husband could be right New Mother (but I won't tell him if you won't) ;-).

[cuppa tea]

We all do better in the subjects that we are interested in. That's how learning really works. I mean, what can we all really remember from school? I have certainly learnt more since I left! Ironically I think some children (probably the ones who are supported by loving families) who don't do so well at school tend to do better in life. They have found other skills to compensate for academic ability...which let's face it is mostly remembering random facts and figures and how good you are at spewing it over a page in exam conditions. Having a 2 boys myself I can really see that my son (who stared reception this September) is not ready or interested in reading/writing. That is all the school are interested in though...not the amazing things he can build out of Lego, or how he can run, jump, headstand and balance on a bike.

SW - can you son take GCSE's a year or 2 later instead? Someone even told me yesterday that you don't need GCSE's to do A-levels, which I thought was interesting.

[sillywoman]

Hmm, it's something we haven't explored really cuppa tea, but I guess the answer would be 'yes', but not within the standard school system so it would involve him leaving his established friendship group to go to a further Ed college. At the moment I think that kind of upheaval isn't something he'd want to consider. He'd rather face the early GCSE's with his group of mates & I think taking into account the kind of boy he is that's probably the lesser of two evils for him.

I guess you don't always need GCSE's, or even A levels to go onto further or Higher Ed? My neighbour home Ed's her two boys & I seem to recall her telling me that Home Ed-ers just need to be able to show/prove that they have the depth of knowledge and capacity for study that Higher academia needs - a portfolio of work for example. I suppose that with the Education system - like all big systems & institutions - there are always ways around the 'rules & regulations' because not everyone works within it, so there must be ways of enabling those people to join 'the system' should they want to?

[Yak]

The plural of anecdotes isn't data, but for what it's worth my August born brother was a classic late developer - middleish through most of primary school, terrible yr 9 results, ok GCSEs, good A levels, a first class degree at Uni and is now a research fellow at Oxford.

[toast]

Yak Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The plural of anecdotes isn't data, but for what

> it's worth my August born brother was a classic

> late developer - middleish through most of primary

> school, terrible yr 9 results, ok GCSEs, good A

> levels, a first class degree at Uni and is now a

> research fellow at Oxford.

Thanks, you just made my day!:)) (mother of a late developer)

[Coach Beth]

My story is that I entered school more academically 'advanced' i.e. I could read and in the 70's they thought it was a good idea for advanced kids to skip a grade! Worse thing ever - I was then a whole year younger than classmates, very insecure, found it hard to settle. Although I was quite bright according to all those standarised tests, I was never at the top in my class ever - and luckily I had parents who weren't stressed out by this.. I went on to an American University that had a focus on experiential, creative education and did very well and then onto to a Masters degree and have had a pretty successful career/life. Anyway, do watch the trailer to this film 'Race to Nowhere' all about the pressures on school children to be academically successful as opposed to become life-long creative learners.

Also Ken Robinson has some important points to make about our education system.

[Jessie]

I was the typical late developer - bottom set streamed throughout primary school and most of comprehensive. Which if nothing else had dire consequences on my self-esteem, and still does. I then went on to get three As for A Level, a v good BA and then an MA. Now my son is at primary school and seems to be reliving somewhat my past - he's been streamed and is towards the bottom and is convinced he's stupid, though he palpably isn't (he's had cognitive intelligence tests done and scored on the 97th percentile for his age!). But...his intelligence isn't conventional, nor was mine, and as I have found, independence of thought doesn't get you very far at least till BA/higher education level.

[Curmudgeon]

suppose it depends what you call 'early'

I think judging children on an ability to read early is pointless as reading is a trick, rather like jumping, you get it when you get it

I think possibly year 3 or 4 primary is a better indicator of 'early development'

However a child with an enquiring mind or an ability to just work will probably remain so

and of course the peer group a teen falls into is important too

[cuppa tea]

Curmudgeon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> suppose it depends what you call 'early'

>

> I think judging children on an ability to read

> early is pointless as reading is a trick, rather

> like jumping, you get it when you get it

>

> I think possibly year 3 or 4 primary is a better

> indicator of 'early development'

>

> However a child with an enquiring mind or an

> ability to just work will probably remain so

>

> and of course the peer group a teen falls into is

> important too

Every child has an enquiring mind before they start school. A non-curious pre-schooler doesn't exist. That's how they learned to walk and talk. Unfortunately, school does a brilliant job of knocking the curiosity out of children through forcing them to learn in a very boring and repetitive way. The ability to work is a different thing. Some children are fine at working towards the teachers goals rather than their own and are happy enough with a sticker/grade or whatever other carrot they use. Yes, I think reading could be a good trick...it's a tool, not knowledge or learning itself. It's a way to find out information. Just one way and not the only way either. Hmmm, feeling rather cynical this morning!

[new mother]

How very interesting. Thank you for all your posts. J am starting to wonder if it is all about how some children learn and that, if that is in a non conventional way, they are more likely to lag behind and come through later on. That would fit with the boy thing as boys are less prepared to sit and concentrate on books indoors early on, ime.

Of course it begs the massive question - how do you measure intelligence- which is another issue entirely!