[proudmama1]

Would you agree with the title statement?

Just interested in other people's thoughts...

Asking this question following a conversation with another parent at the school my son attends. She is of the belief that the kids who are doing well in Grade 2 will only be average by the end of Grade 3. I personally think that whilst this may be the case in some instances there are other variables that affect this e.g. giftedness, learning disabilities etc. She was adamant that the children that "appeared gifted" now would not have "an advantage" in Grade 3. I feel that this is a rather black and white view.

Thoughts?

[Guest_holy_j_*]

Silly statement. No. My son was ahead of the other kids in prep and the distinction is only got wider since then. (now in grade 3)

ETA: also the distinction the other way has become more apparent for those kids with learning difficulties.

This post has been edited by holy_j: 10/08/2012, 09:45 AM

[amoral lemur]

I think in some ways this is true. For example some arrive at their first day of school already able to read while others can hardly recognise their name. By grade two most can read quite well.

HOWEVER some children take some time to settle in, doing fine for the first couple of years, and then suddenly they take off in spectacular fashion!

So it can be hard to judge from preps how they will perform in grade 3 but they won't all even out.

[JustBeige]

She is taking a broad generalised statement and forcing it into the 'fact box'.

Of course there will be exceptions to every 'rule' and of course you take those kids that fit into SNs or GAT out of this 'rule', thats only common sense.

Just smile and nod when she spouts this. Its not hurting anyone and she is entitled to her beliefs.

If you have concerns about your childs progress always talk to their teacher and/or school

This post has been edited by JustBeige: 10/08/2012, 01:45 PM

[Jemstar]

No, I don't agree with that statement.

If that we true there would be no issue with students reaching benchmarks beyond year 3, and I can assure you there are, likewise, there would be no children achieving ahead of their year level. I would also never see a child in year 8, 9 or 10 and beyond who cannot read or write.

A simplistic statement that suggests to me the person who said it has very little ability to look outside their own circumstances, and even less experience in the education sector.

ETA - stupid iPad!

This post has been edited by Jemstar: 10/08/2012, 09:59 AM

[november lily]

There was some research published a while ago that she may be talking about. It said that kids who had been to preschool were more advanced at the beginning of school but it evens out by grade three.

I think she may have read that and completely taken the info out of context. This doesn't mean that all children will suddenly become the same, it just means that average of equal intelligence will be at the same level of learning by this point.

[Brattacino]

I agree with pp.

If this was the case then they would be no need for OC classes or all that other G and T stuff beyond year
3 and there certainly is! It is probably a misunderstanding as there has been research done into the effect on age when starting school. Initially kids who are older have the advantage but this starts to level out at around year 3 when there is very little difference using AGE as the criteria between students in the same grade.

If anything the gap probably gets wider as those struggling often don't get the help they really need and they become aware of the problem which affects their self esteem... (think downwards spiral).

[Bam1]

It is a broad statement I think to do with just the difference in children when they start school due to the huge differences in ages and pre school learning, not really including the actual childs ability.

I do think that most differences due to the different start for each child will even out but there will still be children ahead and behind because of their own ability.

[Crombek]

Sounds like she has misunderstood the statistical concepts here. What actually happens is that by around middle childhood the huge range of what consists of 'normal development' that we see in young children generally narrows, and the majority of kids start to cluster around (not in) the mean (50th percentile, or 'average') on assessment measures. Which is exactly what we would expect to occur in any 'normal' population. What also occurs is that a child's abilities generally begin to stabilise over time and setting, and their performances become more reliable.

However, there will always be people ahead and behind of the curve. So at around this age it becomes easier to identify the kids that are struggling, and those that need to be extended.

** lots of '', generally and normally's in this post is because of course in any population there are those who follow different developmental trajectories, but stats tends to focus on the majority who do not.

[justcait2]

In my experience it has actually been year 3 when the difference has really been noticed in my kids and as the year progressed the gap widened. So I would not agree with that statement. One of my kids was a young one and already reading before school started had only just turned 5 when school started. Second child was 5 and a half when school started and was not reading, both by the start of year 3 had a transformation over the Christmas holidays and it was very noticeable this year as my daughter had the same teacher as last year and she commented on the difference from last year.

Both of my kids had issues with year 3 with it being to easy and not challenging enough.