Mumsnet members get a 10% discount from Boden (including free returns and free delivery), The White Company, sweaty Betty, Luxury Family Hotels, JoJo Maman Bebe, Siblu, Blooming Marvellous, GLTC, Bump to 3 (the official online shop for Grobags) and more. Click here for more info Join mumsnet here.
This is not the first time I have heard of someone like Gracemargaret's daughter. It's not hallucinating, or a mental illness, it is a form of hypersensitivity that some people have and can learn to live with. And it does often go with artistic or intellectual creativity. I am sure you will do a great job of helping her to make sense of the world, GM, and it seems like she might need some help.
ra29 - we did see GP and referral to CAMHS as we were obviously very worried and thinking the worst when it first happened - It is only when she is very upset (usually over something very minor) and she sees coloured shapes and sometimes faces. She does know these are not real though and does not seem to be frightened by them. We were told not to worry but to come back if changes/worsens and that it is probably linked with her synaethesia/hypersensitivity.
Cory - I agree about the resource side of things -Whilst any parent would want their child to be supported and catered for at school, I do hope it goes without saying that priority for SEN resources should go to children such as your dd - wishing her the very best of luck in her SATS
Grace margaret, if your child is really hallucinating then you need to get her seen by a dr asap. Gifted or not that IS worrying. Cory, I found your post about your daughter very moving and think I agree with trying not to make your child a victim. I think often it is hard to realise what you're doing when you're doing it and think peerhaps some children use their intelligence as a way of avoiding other areas in their lives that they find difficult and sometimes become more and more academically (or whatever) able at the cost of other emotional development. I think these are the kids at most risk of other difficulties. Alsi kids who are used to doing very well may find it really hard to cope with failure and may not develop as much resilience in this area as other kids. I'm generalising here and ofcourse all kids are different whatever label you try and give them. It goes without saying that any bullying is cruel and should be dealt with.
Yes social problems can occur with all children and likewise plenty of very gifted people will be socially adept. I do still think that for some "gifted" children the difficulties they experience are tied in with their high ability (as opposed to anything else).
For example I am sure that the fact my dd does not and never has understood play (unless very structured) IS linked to the fact she seems to have a compulsion to understand/find out facts about things and if allowed would devote all her time to doing this. The fact she will hallucinate when she is upset and associates certain tastes/vivid imagery for words and names is imo linked to her fascination with language/poetry/metaphor. The fact she will throw herself on the bed sometimes and say that she doesn't deserve to be alive and that she is spoiling the world and that she wants to "turn her thoughts off" IS because she is so introspective and analytical. What that does NOT give her though is an excuse for bad behaviour - but it has helped us explain to her why she feels the way she does sometimes/and why she might find some things harder that say her sister does.
Obviously any child with SEN should receive the support they need and no type of bullying should be tolerated -
I do agree with Cory that giving a gifted kid extension literacy work is not going to reduce the likelihood of bullying (it might even increase it) whereas support to address social difficulties and encourage effort and achievements in this area probably will.
A boy we have known since he was little and has been in my ds's class all the way through primary and now in year 7 with my ds, was always in trouble in primary, the excuse he was bored. During yR6 he was going home telling his mum how he was being bullied by another boy, but it was the other boy's parents who finally came into the school to complain that he was bullying their son. He then started on someone else, who was my ds's best friend for many years, a very popular,completely unacademic mischief maker but not malicious. Again he was going home complaining he was being bullied by this ds's bf. This year he has now started on my ds, playing silly tricks on him then complaining at home that ds as done this or that, but ds has only retaliated under lots of provocation. He goes home complains people call him "geek" but he is very arrogant and domoneering.
His mum sees him as her little boy who is bullied because he is very academic and very bright , everyone else see's him as an arrogant bully. He doesn't have the excuse for misbehaving now as the school does stretch them. He does behave at school now, but is still a little sod everywhere else.
Can I just add, the above anecdote had no reference to Gracemargaret who seems to be taking a very sensible and balanced approach to her daughter's situation. It was more a general thing.
My point is that bullying should be dealt with as bullying. To me, there is no difference between bullying somebody because they're gifted or bullying somebody because they've got red hair. Every school should have a robust anti-bullying policy and clamp down firmly on any bullying for any reason.
But for some reason, in the G&T threads, the bullying problem seems to get mixed up with the problem of schools failing to stretch gifted pupils. Almost as if we believed that if only our children were suitable stretched, the bullying problems would go away. I think we should treat them as totally separate issues.
And though I am aware that many gifted children have social problems as you describe, Gracemargaret, my experience is that such problems are equally present in the non-gifted section of the population- only these children's problems don't feature in the G&T threads. And it is unlikely that their parents will be in complaining to the teacher that their children are not being stretched.
Thinking over the current Yr 6 in dd's junior school (mostly local children whom I know), the 3% or so who are clearly very bright also seem to be without social problems and be generally popular.
On the other hand, there are a couple of children who display the type of behaviour that you describe, but they are not among the most academically capable; in fact, the child who most closely matches the description of your dd is also pretty well bottom of her year academically.
Not suggesting for a moment that your dd is not exceptionally gifted; I am just wondering if it's a case of different combinations of unrelated traits rather than a direct link. Like my dd is very bright but also happens to have a joint disorder- nothing to do with her being bright.
I have spent a lot of time in the company of high-ranking academics, and while it is true that some of them were socially very awkward and did seem a bit odd, yet others (whose writings were equally brilliant) were very socially adept. And a lot of them were just socially normal, not remarkable either way.
And I have seen similar social-problem traits in people whose thought processes did not seem match their clever/geekish image at all. I remember being fooled by this in my first year at uni, thinking an older student must be a genius because he looked and spoke and behaved in every way like your typical awkward genius. And he had clearly been told that that's what he was. Quite a shock when I saw his first seminar paper. The man couldn't string two coherent thoughts together. But I reckon he must have been bullied as a geek throughout his schooldays; he ticked all the boxes! (this was long before schools had anti-bullying policies). It was quite tragic: he had clearly been buoying himself up over the years with the thought that he had special powers and he didn't. Not sure what the moral of this story is, except I wouldn't go too far along the road of comforting any child with the thought that they've got special powers. It can be very hard to judge of those at such an early stage.
I agree about the giftednes SEN thing to a point however I do think there can be an overlap sometimes between high intelligence and social/emotional problems which do need to be understood and sometimes catered for by school. I was not bullied at school so am not transferring anything onto my dd but knowing her as well as I do I can see that there is a strong possibility of her being bullied/becoming very unhappy at somepoint during her school years. She is very bright but also socially awkward, can suffer from very low self esteem, is hypersensitive, can come across as unintentionally rude/aloof and has motor tics - all of which I think is linked with her intelligence (is not AS as doesn't tick all the boxes). This is why I think the term "gifted" for children who are just very able at literacy/in the top 5-1% (like my other dd), is very unuseful - meeting the SEN of gifted kids I don't think should be about extra academic stretching anyway (although my dd does get one 1:1 session a week but think this is just to give class teacher a break tbh!) I think it is much more valuable to teach childen like this to "fit in" as well as they can - not by fundementally denying or devaluing "who they are", but by helping them see their actions in the context of how they may be perceived by others. Also agree school is such a small influence in the scheme of things and imo is not nearly as much of a determinant of future sucess as family life and emotional intelligence.
Sorry to resurrect this thread that probably deserves to die a quiet death.
But one thing that keeps coming up on these threads is the assumption that if a child is not stretched according to their specific abilities in school, they will get bored and depressed and never learn to work hard. In other words, it is assumed that what goes on in school is the strongest, or even the only, determinant of how they see themselves. I don't get this.
School is only 6 hours a day, 5 hours a week. Surely, (even allowing for the fact that children need to eat, sleep, do sports, play and socialise) that would leave quite a few hours a week to develop a work ethic out of school. Particularly as a gifted child is likely to need much less time doing their homework.
My (rather bright) nephew spends part of his leisure time composing duets and is hoping eventually to work up to something more complicated. He also writes stories. (and does sports, goes on walking holidays with his family, is an excellent swimmer and has a good social life out of school).
Obviously, this is not something that you can expect the school to provide. Very likely he is bored at school from time to time. But he's not got much reason to be depressed, since he is clearly achieving in subjects that can never be easy- composing is as difficult as you make it. And no doubt he is learning an excellent work ethic, I am sure it takes commitment and dedication to compose harmonies.
There are hundred of skills that can equally be taken as far as you like. Maths, poetry, musical instruments, languages, oil painting...
And school does not have to be the only influence on you. I think I'm a much stronger influence on dd than any teacher she's ever going to meet. I know my parents were much more important in determining how I looked at work and learning than were my (often clueless) school teachers.
The one thing you do not want to do is to encourage a victim mentality. I think this is particularly important for those of us who were bullied at school for our own geekish/nerdishness. It's so easy to transfer those feelings to our children.
Yes, I hated it! Yes, I cried! But fgs it's 30 years ago!!! I don't have to meet those people ever again and what they said then is of no interest to me now. On the other hand, my parents who taught me to love reading are still around- and still sending me books.
I have also got to accept that dd is not me. Just because my geekishness led to me being bullied, it does not mean that she gets to live my life. She manifestly doesn't. My experiences are not hers. She's a different person.
Perhaps there is also a part of me that feels annoyed at the giftedness = SEN thing. As some of you will know, my dd is both "G&T" and disabled with a chronic (and extremely painful) joint disorder. Having seen her bumshuffle painfully along the floor to her wheelchair, both hands hanging uselessly, on her way in to do her SATS yesterday, I'm afraid the idea of viewing her talent for literacy as some sort of disability seems plainly laughable. For goodness sake, it's the one part of her that's actually working, don't tell me that's wrong!
And the Special Needs provision has been so patchy that she missed out on about 50% of her maths teaching last year because of accessibility problems. So resources for extra stretching comes a long way down the list of my priorities- we have only now reached a level playing field after 4 years of nagging at the school.
BANG MY HEAD AGAINST THE BRICK WALL. THE WAY g &t is measured at school is totally in accurate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some kids have brill opportunities etc, etc, etc, money etc great parents etc. Different learning styles, different personalities. these kids excell as they prefer the style school has time to teach. It doesn't touch kids that are from deprived areas. The competition isn't there because values are different, opportunities unequal and are at a total disadvantage. because your child is classed as g& t does not mean that other kids are less intelligent. G & T are just achieving well on paper.
My dd got a text message yesterday from a "friend" calling her a "lesbo freak" because she was seen in town in her Scout uniform. She texted back before I could stop her that at least she wasn't hanging round on the Rec like a slag.
My point being that being a Scout isn't a disease either - and neither is hanging round on the Rec. This stuff happens to kids-other kids find something to pick on them for, and the important thing is to learn how to deal with it. I don't think I would have advocated my dd's way. But it worked - and hey, who am I to say she was wrong.
And actually, one thing I have really tried to do when my kids have been picked on is not to get angry on their behalf, but to let them see that the person doing it is pretty pathetic and not worth bothering about.
I agree completely with MB and Aquasea and others about the "whole person" thing.
At ds1's recent parent's evening his teacher apologised because she felt she and the school have not been able to "stretch" ds1 (10) very much. I completely disagreed. Ds1 has had a ball at that school, he's learned to be self-confident, to be polite, to make friends. He is very popular, despite being a definite geek. There are plenty of opportunities for 'extension' out of school, and I can see no earthly benefit for him had they - for example - put him on an accellerated course to do GCSE Maths this year.
He will happily sit and talk to anyone who will listen about various aspects of Quantum Theory But he has learned that to communicate with his peers he needs to develop different kinds of interests, and to listen to what they are interested in.
DS1 did not 'pick up' social skills automatically, and needed to be explicitly taught all sorts of things about social interaction and politeness. But for us - when he was 6 or 7 - we realised that was a priority for him to be content and successful.
Oh KM... "Should you remove your brain to have a "happier" life? Have a lobotomy maybe?"... now it's my turn to bang my head against the wall! You didn't take in a thing I said. I never even insinuated that anyone would be happier being less intelligent (nor indeed that anyone would be happier being more intelligent). I don't know where you got that from. My point is that intelligence (or the perceived wisdom of what that means) is one part of a person. It isn't the be all and end all and just because you are "intelligent" and are good, maybe even brilliant, at certain things doesn't mean that these things will necessarily enhance your life. Outside of school and university where these things are measured constantly, it just doesn't matter. How could I have been supported better at school? Gone up and up and up grades until eventually I wouldn't have been able to do the exams, would have failed and then been distraught and people would have said I'd been pushed too hard. There isn't really an answer. All I was saying was to celebrate the whole person and try not to put too much emphasis on the "gifted" bit.
Can I join you? Hello MB. I think bright children can fit into the busy school.I was called a geek at school, I still am a geek. Nothing to do with cleverness though-I am just a geek.
I didn't insinuate that you did km, I said that I didn't. You are reading things that are simply not there.
Neither did I say that 'all gifted children can fit in if they want to' I think that more gifted chldren will fit in if they are taught stratgies for dealing with different people, and are allowed to build their own cobfidence.....just like every other child on the planet.
soapy this isn't about my ds specifically. this is about general attitudes towards giftedness.
cornsilk - I do see a lot of the issues raised by other posters in ds1. the pressure they feel is NOT from parents (mostly) or teachers but from themselves. A lot of these kids are perfectionists. ds1 wants to be the best at the things he does and what worries me is his attitude when he isn't the best (because there's plenty of things he isn't best at). I find him retreating a lot and becoming more solitary and I don't like this in the least bit. I think it is erroneous on mb's part to assume that all gifted kids can just fit in if they really want to. I don't look at my kids and see their intellect only (and that's a rather insulting insinuation) I have always told my children that I don't care how smart they are it is more important in life to be kind and good and decent and tried to show them how to be. And yet all these things pale in the face of the jungle that is school.
and yes these things go round and round. but that's because there's a lot of posts on this thread.
All children should be stretched in school. All my children seem quite bright. I wouldn't however call any gifted. None so far has got 11 A* at GCSE for example nor are any years ahead of other children. Some of them have been pretty advanced in music at various times, but that is because of genetics on both sides of the family and help at home rather than they are geniuses and ought to be at Chetham's music school so I haven't ever really had to deal with a gifted child. Occasionally we had contact with a few and I am sure a few at the types of schools my children have gone to have been gifted. Some schools will let them do A levels early. Some children will work under their own steam. I was reasonably clever at school and at a school where most people weren't. I put myself in for some public exams myself when I was 15 and 16 for fun and I was a year young at school but NOT gifted in the sense you know when you see a child who is.
Some gifted children are not geeky at all and some are. It's hard to generalise but if they're in a school where most children go to Oxbridge or the best universities and most get As a A level then I suspect the gifted are bound to fit in better to that sort of school than others.
KerryMum - as is the case on many of these threads you end up going round and round in circles - so much so, that it is often very unclear about what you want for your child.
You said earlier on in this thread, that your DS does have friends and that he does fit in, and that with the exception of the comments made by the older boys last week the school are very much on top of any 'geeky' type comments.
You also said that the school are largely doing all that they can to meet his academic needs.
Your child is gifted he has his needs largely met by school and is socially well adapted. What exactly is it that you want?
I just cannot for the life of me understand what is going round and round and round and round in your head on this topic.
If they are more grounded, they will not feel like freaks.
I teach highly able children who are very happy. I teach others who are unhappy. It isn't their ability that is making them unhappy but how they, and those around them perceive it.
I was badly bullied as a child for being 'different'. My first aim in raising my own children was making sure that they are happy and confident in themselves. I don't feel that focusing on their intellect to the execlusion of other things was going to significantly help them. I don't look at them and see their ability, I just see my kids (and that goes for my kids in school too)
of course that should be a part of it. I have never suggested that gifted education should only be about scores but to dumb these kids down so they fit in will do just as much damage. they DO have extraordinary intellectual needs that SHOULD be met. Why shouldn't they? But they should also be helped NOT to feel like freaks and outsiders and be proud of ALL PARTS of themselves.
and an even larger part of these children isn't their intellect.
And this is the bit that we may need to nurture and develop so that they can be happy with their intellect.
I'm not talking about hiding their abilities but about teaching them that failure is a normal part of life and the learning process. that dealing with other people is a life skill every bit as important and being able to to maths fast, or play a musical instrument.
The happiest very clever people that I have met are the ones who have the most rounded personalities who see their intellect as only part of 'them' (and yes I am talking about the people you would categorize are Highly gifted).
Maybe we should be spending part of the G and T budget on developing social skills in these kids, so that they know how to use the withering put down to the bullies. It would make them more confident and happier people. And probably more successful in the long run
and aqua - you are smart regardless of your current circumstances. that is PART of who you are. Should you remove your brain to have a "happier" life? Have a lobotomy maybe?
OR
should you have been supported both intellectually and emotionally in school by teachers experienced in gifted education who could have helped you with the very issues you described?
It's not an issue in schools where chidlren are the top 10% by IQ though because most of them are clever. Yes you may get a few in there who are very very gifted, doing A level maths at 12 etc but at least the whole mass of them are pretty bright. Sadly in the UK you only get those schools in areas which kept grammar schools (very few of them) or because you pay fees. And of course they don't all level out later. We are all born very unequal, some very clever, some very pretty, some very stable, some with propensity to depression and all kinds of things. Life doesn't make us a clean slate. It is inherently unfair what the good fairly doles out at our birth.
What you want is to ensure they are loved and stable and also achieve their potential whatever that might be. Their internal psyche is always more important than what hoops they can jump through at what age.
I have just read through most of this and wanted to share my thoughts. I have a similar story to Hecate. I was...whatever, gifted, whatever you want to call it. IQ of 178, Mensa was chasing me for years (I didn't get why I would want to be a member of a club for people with high IQs...still don't actually!) I found everything extremely easy and aced every exam I ever took (excluding art and sport - couldn't do either of them to save my life!) This left me with two things, laziness and a chronic fear of failure. I never worked hard to do well and I was expected to get the highest scores in everything so I was terrified of what would happen if I failed. This was all fine throughout my school and university life... but life isn't about what scores you can get in exams. My brother struggled his whole academic life. A 'C' was a brilliant result for him. Now, with school and university way behind us, my brother is an overachiever. At 33 he is a vice CEO of a global company. He works his butt off and earns an absolute fortune. I am so proud of him. I am currently a SAHM and have never really achieved anything of great note (apart from giving birth to my son!) My point really is, these labels, or even being exceptionally bright ultimately mean nothing. Noone would know my IQ apart from myself and my DH who joke about it occasionally when I do something stupid. Celebrate kids for who they are, not what scores they can achieve. <<takes bow, end of sermon>>
18 months and can eat with a knife and fork properly!!! I know some adults that havent mastered this.
That's the point of identifying kids as being highly able (forget the gifted term). Regardless of background etc. The cognitive testing and other factors considered they can convey the message to these pupils that they have the ability to achieve, when many may not have realised this before. What they choose to do with it is their perogative, but hopefully with some encouragement they may just take a different path into higher education.
That really is the intention. OK everyone hates the term but if we can stop thinking of gifted=genius which it doesnt then maybe the actual word will be less controversial and everyone can get over it.
abouteve income doesn't = intelligence but it does = better opportunities. Kids from socially deprived areas don't go to university because they again don't get the opportunity or encouragement. My ds age 18 months eats brilliantly with a knife and fork!!!!!!! Is he G & T then or is it's measure purely academic?
MB thats' really interesting. What do you think of Ravens Matrices and the British Picture Vocabulary Scale in relation to this issue? (Just to refer back to a point made on the last page, it is a myth that dyslexic children tend to be bright.)
That's how the old 11+ worked when it was introduced. Biased questions for the middle classes to get there kids into grammar schools. It was later altered to be across the board and the middle classes didnt like this as there kids were in danger of not passing.
The tests at DD's school were CAT's. I dont think they are biased.
yurt I don't have time to read entire article as have to make dinner but the conundrum is that I've come across other research (which I will dig up later) which states that the reason why gifted kids don't have (or lose) the drive and determination is BECAUSE everything comes too easy to them and they don't learn a good work ethic (this is one of my worries with ds1). How do you learn to work hard at something when everything comes very easily?
Again, I don't talk to ds about his intelligence other than to exclaim how he can be so smart and yet not know how to eat with a fork (or some such). But when he receives the highest marks (always) in his class and understands materal far more sophisticated that what he is being taught in the classroom he is smart enough to figure it out for himself.
on a side note mb - can you get veruccas on your fingers?
I would agree with that. Children who come from socially disadvantaged backgrounds are badly under represented at University level. Not because they are not bright enoug, but because they don't think that it is right for them.
Yes popsycal is right- locally a lot of the money for G&T goes to the area with very high social deprivation (top 10 in europe apparently). The aim is to encourage students capable of getting C's at GCSE to stay on for 6th form + They do this by taking children from several schools and doing extra actiivities on a Saturday- I suppose to show them its OK to get grade C's at GCSE and you can still have friends etc
Not the same aim as in other areas at all. And actually, I think, quite a good use of the funding.
Not G & T no, abouteve. Gifted and talented are different surely? A child may be both gifted and talented, like KM's DS1, but they don't necessarily go together.
The trouble with the term gifted is that it refers to something that is continuous. Like being tall. We know when someone is tall, without having an IQ/centile cutoff point. It's the fairly arbitrary use of the label that causes confusion. IMO.
abouteve - i have no problem with deprived areas - I come from one myself and have a 1st class honours degree. I have specific schools in mind which i have taught in. sorry for not making that clear
and on a personal note - i wad overjoyed on friday when ds1 came home with a headteacher sticker for working really hard all week trying his best to write a story ( he haaaaaaaaaaates writing - the ohysical process of it, that is) than when he got an 'exceptional reader certificate (which he can do standing on his head, in his sleep, etc)
The system in America is different to the UK though (don't know about Ireland) so you have to be careful how you interpret them
This nfer article reviews recent research UK and American on gifted education and cautions that much of it is evidence based (anecdotal) rather than empirically rigorous.
Also on Acceleration specifically it notes the differences between UK and USA curricula have a bearing on gifted education. See below:
"The literature gave evidence that perceptions of the success of acceleration of gifted and talented pupils are influenced by the structure of any national curriculum in place and the possibilities afforded by the particular educational system. Therefore, in the UK, which has a National Curriculum with in-built flexibility so that it can be appropriate for a range of abilities, acceleration in terms of advancing a pupil a chronological year is rarer than in countries where there are more fixed ‘end of year/grade’ tests which are necessary for advancement."
Mind you: I'm not entirely sure what definition of gifted they are talking about.
Very interesting article. I must say that many of the G and T kids I work with often lack persistence at more challenging tasks.
I see some of my main goals with them as encouraging the ability to work in a group, and take on other people's ideas, and cope with 'failure' in a positive way, ie taking it as an opportunity to learn, rather than simply get discouraged
Popsycal one of your earlier posts refers to the top 10% in a deprived area would not be the top 10% 6 miles down the road in and lesser deprived area. How do you know this. Since when did income=intelligence.
Also with the British G&T system many of the kids on the register meet the criteria to be in the top 5% nationally. Are we allowed to call them G&T.
There are under achievers who may be brighter but never have the opportunity, or the money or the support. They have different learning styles that are not identified or assisted with. So luckily will not be labelled G & T. Lots of bright children are failed and are probably far more gifted than those identified. It is not an accurate reading. So many children in this country are failed by the system etc. Many kids are twice gifted i agree because they are thriving with the input from opportunity. They are pushed a hell of a lot too, time put in and all that pushy parents syndrome. This sections is full of it.
INteresting last 2 paragraphs: Teaching children such information is not just a ploy to get them to study. People do differ in intelligence, talent and ability. And yet research is converging on the conclusion that great accomplishment, and even what we call genius, is typically the result of years of passion and dedication and not something that flows naturally from a gift. Mozart, Edison, Curie, Darwin and Cézanne were not simply born with talent; they cultivated it through tremendous and sustained effort. Similarly, hard work and discipline contribute much more to school achievement than IQ does.
Such lessons apply to almost every human endeavor. For instance, many young athletes value talent more than hard work and have consequently become unteachable. Similarly, many people accomplish little in their jobs without constant praise and encouragement to maintain their motivation. If we foster a growth mind-set in our homes and schools, however, we will give our children the tools to succeed in their pursuits and to become responsible employees and citizens.
I remember research on this recently (it might have been this one). Kids in the States identified as gifted, did worse than their peers (matched for IQ) who were not labeled.
regardless of G&T scheme in UK there DO exist HG+ kids in the world and their needs ARE greatly different from other children of the same age but different intellect. They should be identified and assisted appropriately.
And yes dyslexic children ARE generally very bright. Many gifted kids are what is called Twice exceptional, they are gifted but also have a learning disability of some sort. They also need identifying and appropriate supports.
It is again down to opportunity and finance. There will be plenty of very bright disadvantaged children who will never have the opportunity or financal backing. So not a true measure. Dyslexic children also are far superior in intelligence but very unlikely to be classed as gifted and talented. The measure of G & T in schools is very inaccurate. It seems to be a very unfair disease G & T and should be abolished to a fair system. I don't believe in it. The spectrum is too vast. Development and maturity etc etc. Hair & Tortoise thingy.
But as MB says - what is the under achievement? If you are labelled as a genius when only clever, then you are always going to 'under achieve'. I know it is different in Ireland though, but the words you use sound like you have labelled him as verging on genius - and i just think it's a dangerous road, because there is nothing objective about the term.
friday these are mostly academics writing these articles and american.
not disastrous to under-achieve but non-acknowledgement and meeting of "different" needs of hg+ kids can result in under-achievement, depression and behavioral issues. have you read these articles?
hoagies is a well respected site in the U.S. they do not make money
I have sympathy for parents and the confusion in the UK.
Parents are told their children are on the Gifted and talented reg.
In UK English 'Gifted' if often seen as a synonym for 'Genius'
Which the vast majority of these children are not. they are 'just' clever.
The parents think that as a 'genius' child they needs support, which doesn't happen, and when the child turns out to be 'just' clever, they feel that their child has been failed by the educational establishment and has failed to reach their potential. Which is cobblers since they were only ever 'just' bright.
And they are not going to be helped understand the situation better unless people who do understand the system are honest about it.
Never said it was the label that makes the child gifted. Just that some of the problems you are describing may come from the fact you have decided to label your child as different and he therefore believes he should behave in a certain way, doesn't matter whether you have explicity said this to your child or not.
I would just be so cautious of the types of articles you are reading about this subject - these are people who make a living out of the 'gifted' industry, they have a vested interest in these classifications. The fact you think it would be disastrous if gifted children under achieve/ coast is really telling, and I would like to ask you why that would be disastrous and what under achieving actually means for you?
And to add, I have taught for 11 years, teach at least 4 different classes each year (quick maths - around 120ish pupils per year mulitplied by 11 so 1230 ish pupils) and I have only ever taught one pupil who was 'gifted' academically in the true sense of the word. I can think of about 10 other very talented children.
Yet 123 (ish) woul dhave been labelled g'gifted and talented'.
Do you see what I mean about the confusion of terms?
same reason mine can't tie laces or eat with a fork elastic! It's a big mystery to me.
i think a lot of confusion is due to this G&T scheme you have in UK. Nothing like that exists in Ireland. So when I talk about gifted kids I mean something completely different than that 10% of any school
that last sentence sounds like I am refering to socio-economic 'class' - I am not. What I mean is, 'gifted' to me, know what the 'g&t' scheme in schools refers to, may be totally different to someone else's interpretation of what schools mean by 'gifted'. The confusion, and some of the disagreement in my opinion, is all down to semantics.
The 'label' G&T in schools is merely the top 10% of a year group. So for example, 6 miles east of me, there are children in a deprived area. 10% of them will be on the school's g&t register. 6 miles east of me, those g&t pupils, if transported from the more 'deprived' school, may not even make te middle set.
I think depending on your background (eg mine in education) 'gifted' means very different things.
there is significant research that leaving a highly gifted child to his own devices with no support (emotional or educational) is a recipe for disaster for the child. Resulting in under-achievement, coasting, behavioral problems, etc.
Here is an article on the social and emotional issues of gifted children here
I do wonder whether the emotional problems described by many G+T children - not necessarily those on here - are the product of only being defined as G+T.
I think social interaction contributes to the development of self-perceptions of ability, and that self-perceptions of ability influence 'gifted' childrens' decisions about appropriate achievement-related behaviour. This then is a cyclic process: gifted childrens' interpretations of significant others' beliefs about giftedness influenced their self-estimates of ability and classroom behaviours.
So IMO - label a child gifted, and you will create a persona for them which they must fulfil at all times, and this will ultimately effect their behaviour (sparking comments like, he doesn't fit in, is different etc) and for me there is just no need. Children can have totally 'different' abilities in certain areas, but they can still all be treated the same, valued as much and slicing off a whole chunk of people as gifted just creates the cycle above, which imo is not necessary.
I would drop the label you have for him right away - you are the one treating it like a disease.
like I said I've no idea whatsoever if christie is a good teacher or not, my issue was with the presumption that just because she's been teaching for over 25 years that means she's a good teacher.
but in all fairness mb you cannot say just because someone has qualified as a teacher means they are a good teacher. We all know there are crap teachers out there.
Well, we have had some training for a start, before we qualify. We have training once we have qualified. Many of us read a lot about it. many of us work with kids like this on a regual basis.
So I guess that some of us know a fair bit about the subject.
there is this assumption here on mn that just because someone is a teacher it means they are all great and powerful about education. THAT is my point. I have no idea whether or not Christie is a good teacher or a bad teacher.
I think I will withdraw from this thread as it seems to be turning into a slanging match where my comments are being misinterpreted.
Every child is unique and special. There are unique and special children like KM's DS and unique and special young people like "L" who functions at the level of a six month old, who I have tought since she was 4 and who has now, against all medical predictions just celebrated her 19th birthday.
Neither of these, nor any child in between should be hidden, brushed under the carpet or "not spoken of" and anyone who knows me, on MN or in RL will tell you that I would never, ever suggest that they should be.
I am not ashamed that my ds is gifted. It's not something that needs to be hidden or brushed under the carpet or heaven forbid, "not spoken of". that is NOT the only thing I mentioned about my ds or his brother for that matter and yet you are painting it as though it is.
And I suggest that just because you have been teaching for over 25 years does NOT necessarily mean that you are a GOOD teacher or that you have any knowledge whatsoever of how to deal with gifted kids.
You didn't take in a thing I said. I never even insinuated that anyone would be happier being less intelligent (nor indeed that anyone would be happier being more intelligent). I don't know where you got that from. My point is that intelligence (or the perceived wisdom of what that means) is one part of a person. It isn't the be all and end all and just because you are "intelligent" and are good, maybe even brilliant, at certain things doesn't mean that these things will necessarily enhance your life. Outside of school and university where these things are measured constantly, it just doesn't matter. How could I have been supported better at school? Gone up and up and up grades until eventually I wouldn't have been able to do the exams, would have failed and then been distraught and people would have said I'd been pushed too hard. There isn't really an answer. All I was saying was to celebrate the whole person and try not to put too much emphasis on the "gifted" bit. 
