The History Boys has been the hit of the season at the National Theatre, and not just because of the fine acting. It has also resonated powerfully with the middle-class audiences that keep playwrights such as Alan Bennett in royalties. Here was a portrayal of highly intelligent and motivated teenagers at an old-fashioned northern grammar school, questing for that extra spark of brilliance that might impress Oxbridge admissions dons — and, thanks largely to their own esprit de corps, eventually finding it.

That the play struck a chord should not be a surprise, but now there are statistics that confirm the intuition of thousands of parents and demand a policy response. According to analysis by Professor David Jesson of the Department for Education and Skills’ own data, bright children have one overwhelming need if they are to fulfil their potential in secondary education: other bright children. Those youngsters identified at age 11 as in the nation’s top 5 per cent in national curriculum tests of English and maths went on to achieve seven grade As or better at GCSE if studying in “clusters” of at least twenty similarly gifted pupils. If isolated among less able pupils, they achieved barely half as many As.

Such clusters exist in the state system, in grammar schools (real as well as those remembered by Bennett) and in the best comprehensives. They stimulate academic achievers and offer some defence against the corrosive peer pressure that leads some to mask their abilities for fear of teasing. But there are not enough such clusters. Nearly 60 per cent of the brightest 11-year-olds have slipped in tests to the point where they are no longer being tracked for their potential by age 14.

There are two categories of pupil with special needs, and the one comprising the most talented is the least well served by the current system. At a time when the focus of those seeking to reform secondary education is on the 14-19 age range — in particular, on the high cost of city academies and the state sector’s failure to win enough top university places on merit — it is clear that neither problem would be as acute if the most able children were properly supported from age 11 to 14.

The Government has at least acknowledged the problem. To the extent that doing so represents a victory over old Labour prejudice against paying special attention to the gifted, it deserves credit for this, even though action has come too late. That action, so far, consists of a programme to identify gifted and talented secondary school pupils, and the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth in Warwick from which 40,000 teenagers have benefited. During the election campaign, Ruth Kelly, the Education Secretary, also promised fresh efforts to identify the most (and least) able pupils at primary school level.

It is not clear, however, that being labelled as unusually bright and then segregated is in the best interests of a child or its parents. Case studies consistently point to an ideal solution in which gifted youngsters stay with their year group at school for non-academic activities but receive special teaching in their best subjects. Within reason, parents must be able to choose whichever schools are able to offer such teaching, and those schools must be able to expand as necessary. It is right to provide support for struggling students, but it is also right to provide stimulation for those who are thriving.