ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Is dd g&t or just bright?(33 Posts)
Dd is year 5, and she has just been assessed as level 5c in English, maths and science. She was in a g&t programme at lower school. Is she g&t if just bright? Am finding it hard to get my head round the levels...
This board is called Gifted and Talented. This MUST correlate to the government 'Gifted and Talented' programme. It's not a coincidence of the name, surely???
Now, I am real sceptic about the G&T thing, because to say that '10% of the children in a year are G&T' is so flawed as to be ridiculous - it means a child could be G&T, move schools and suddenly not be, despite having the same needs.
But, under the definitions of the G&T programme, and therefore this board, the OP's child may or may not be 'gifted', depending on who else is in the class.
And those who say 'gifted children are those doing GCSEs at 9' or whatever - I would echo what an earlier poster said , and say that those children are the 'profoundly gifted', and it is crazy to dismiss all other children as 'average'.
The reason I am so against this whole programme though is that it totally fails to recognise that children develop at different rates, and a child who is ahead at age 5 may be broadly average by 11. Likewise, a child (like my ds2) who could barely speak when he started reception (due to hearing loss during his toddler years), then forged ahead and got all L3s in KS1 SATs, and is reading and writing about 4 years ahead. But I'm not all 'oh my child is a genius', because it may just be a developmental surge that may then plateau iyswim. However in creative arts he is showing real signs of talent - ie a depth to his work that is not just 'ability beyond his age' but signs of expression in art and music that can't be taught iyswim, and that is where I think his real 'talent' is.
'Gifted' to my mind means doing GCSEs at age 9 and stuff. So no, just bright. My DD is like yours - she is expected to be borderline L6 in everything at the end of Yr6, but she's no little Einstein.
As long as she ends up in an appropriate set at secondary in the way my DD1 has done, I'm not bothered. DD1's set are all aiming for A* in the new style GCSEs (a big ask, I know) and RG universities after A levels. They are bright, hard working and well behaved children and are utterly lovely as people. The school has recognised their potential and is supporting it. That is what matters.
I would say bright. DS was level 5 in maths in year 5 and level 6 in English.
Oh, thank you tiredbutnotweary - have saved that PDF now so I have it for future reference!
Ah well, we have parents eve in Jan so will speak to dd's teachers about their G&T programme and if she would benefit from extended learning. Though the school is pretty good at differentiating work already, from what dd says and from her homework (which shows what kids at each level should be aiming for).
Am pretty chuffed for her, tbh
Well G&T is deprecated in DfE land so that's probably wise, but the trouble with "high [anything]" is that they also defined "high ability" as the top ~33% prior to Ofsted managing to increase that to the top ~%50.
Meanwhile, I think I'd quite like a 'sticky' pointing out that all schools are not like "your" school e.g. DD's does NOT put a fixed percentage on the G&T register, in fact they don't appear to put any children on for academic "gifts" and only rarely for "talents". Even the latter may well have stopped now that they don't have to report this stuff in the school census.
Finally 6.5%, 1.6% and 0.4% got L6 Maths, SPaG and Reading respectively in 2013 so it's time to find a newer chart that also differentiates between subjects. Well except NC levels are also deprecated in DfE land now so you might also need something that also converts between old NC levels and Acme Attainment Points or whatever any given school might use if they choose to exercise their new found "freedom". Will be fun in fretful parent land should some schools with ambitious wannabe-celebrity HTs magic up the resources to move to a new system.
That's a good idea - only trouble is any other term will have it's problems. But 'gifted' is rather loaded.
I think that's a really good idea, actually. Certainly, I've never heard the phrase "gifted" mentioned in any context at dcs' school. The brightest and most advanced are always referred to as "HA".
Maybe MN really does need to rename this board something like "high ability". I think it's the term "Gifted" that gets people's backs up & derails too many threads.
@richmal: "How can it be determined that one child has the potential to learn except by trying to teach them?"
In practice high potential simply appears to be code for "has performed well in the past".
"Full potential" is my bete noir, as in: "They only have one lifetime, so *which one*"?
Thanks Acinonyx - I really do wish MNHQ were listening though - the number of OPs on this board that disappear off their own threads about half way through because of the MN gifted myths being banded about is depressing.
I WISH MNHQ would create a 101 on giftedness in conjunction with Potential Plus as the ignorance and misinformation that abounds on this board never fails to astound me.
CocktailQueen (& ellie) please see here. As you can see, despite the typo in this doc, level 5a+ (at the END of year 5) is top 1% and a 5b top 10 %, a 5c top 15%. None of these is average, nor even close to average.
Tinselkitty - sorry to choose you but your post typifies the MN gifted view of bright or genius as the only two options. In my opinion you have only taught one profoundly gifted child and known of one other profoundly gifted child. Giftedness has a scale, the scale does not go:
Average IQ 100
Bright IQ 120
Genius IQ 145+
Profoundly gifted children (say working a minimum of 4/5 years ahead of their peers) are rare. However the children working 2 or 3 years ahead of their peers are also gifted, perhaps moderately or highly gifted, just not at a profound or genius level of giftedness.
Please, please can everyone check out Potential Plus for some facts (they have info on the levels of giftedness on their site) before so quickly dismissing new posters (not just this one) to this board - otherwise surely it should be renamed the Profoundly Gifted Only board, and new boards set up for Bright, Moderately Gifted and Highly Gifted DC so that everyone can ensure that they are in the right place to avoid being told their DCs are 'just' bright, or average or whatever other erroneous label that posters seem to prefer. Not all posters, but far too many.
If your two year old reads my last statement, having taught themselves to read and then comments about it being similar to Heisenberg, it will grant you they are naturally gifted.
I find all this terminology annoying.
High learning potential is the latest ill defined nonsense, ambiguous enough to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. How can it be determined that one child has the potential to learn except by trying to teach them? At which point their future potential will then be altered.
my yr5 DD is a level 5 something in Literacy and numeracy too, never any mention of her being G&T ... she's average afaik.
I think if she was gifted you'd know tbh.
If someone is 'gifted' they are so above normal levels that it is clearly obvious imo.
If you have to ask, they're probably not 'gifted'.
You decide what you want the phrase G&T means and you decide if your DD meets the bill. It's all a matter of opinion.
I agree with tinselkitty about the definition: certainly 'gifted' suggests truly outstanding and well beyond the ordinary in a particular area.
Have a look at the Potential Plus UK website that another MNetter posted details about.
I haven't looked at it properly but I am sure I read on there that they don't like the the G&T name ( neither do I, I keep wondering why all these children are having a gin and tonic) but call it high learning potential.
Personally (as a primary school teacher) all this top % being G&T is a bit misleading and rubbish.
True G&T is when I child is very gifted or talented in one specific area that they then need to be supported in for them to reach their potential. This could be music, art, drama etc.
In all my career I'd say I've only taught one truly gifted child, he was Y1 and went to Y4 for his maths lessons. He was also very gifted in science but that could be supported in class. He was also ASD so could have been part or his 'disorder'.
I have also come across one other, although I didn't teach her, who was extremely gifted in art.
These are the true G&T children. Not just the ones that are slightly above national average NC levels!
She'll be on the g&t programme if those levels put her in the top few in her class. Objectively obviously they are pretty good levels, as I'm sure you know, but if you mean 'should she be on the g&T programme', that will depend on the rest of her class. If you mean 'is she a gifted child', that's different.
It depends how you define g & t if you are using the term. Schools tend to take the top 10% (which is vastly different in different schools) or CAT scores over about 125-128 (which is usually less in a non-selective school). Nothing to do with nc levels though.
Bear in mind that only 1-2% get a level 6 in yr 6 (although you would think it was common reading these boards!). So that might give you some idea - a level 6 from a common and garden state primary is pretty dam good. So if that's your dd next year - she'd be doing very well indeed whatever other label you put on it (which I think is what you are really asking here).
Does it matter? I mean, what distinction are you making between 'gifted and talented' and 'bright'? What will the one bring her which the other doesn't, iyswim?
DS predicted to be on level 6s or close to at the end of Year 6 but I don't think it makes any difference to his day-to-day schooling
gifted and talented is a meaningless label really as gifted means something different to talented. It is the label used by schools to identify the top five percent of children in the class and target them for help.
So it is safe to say your daughter is very bright, which is lovely.
Join the discussion
Please login first.