G&T - Should all Schools have a Policy?

[SaveWaterDrinkWine]

My DS's Teacher told us almost 2 years ago (then aged 6) that she considered him G&T. Since then, I have instigated discussions with his teachers and the head about what G&T means in terms of his education but no one seems to know. They seem unwilling to discuss this with me.

Our School is 'fully inclusive' and accepts children that, frankly, other schools won't take. They do fantastic work with under-achievers and those with social and personal issues - these are all brilliant aspects of the school (and reasons why I send my DCs there). However, as an inclusive school I expect them to recognise that the children that excel need to be nurtured as well.

I had a meeting with the Head recently who stated that they were looking at developing a G&T Policy as a new teacher to the school has experience in this area.

Can anyone recommend anything else I can do? I completely understand that if my DS isn't G&T then I won't pursue it further but he is consistently top of the class and first in tests. I just want to do the best for my DS.

Many thanks in advance.

[cory]

All schools should have a policy of trying to cater for the needs of all the children they teach, whether you call that a G&T policy or not.

But what you haven't mentioned is whether your ds' needs are being catered for or not. Is he under-stimulated? Does he appear bored? Is he working well below capacity at school? You don't mention these things, but they are what matters.

The kind of child that would be classed as G&T and in need of special measures to avoid under-stimulation in one school might be below average in another school, and top of the school but sufficiently stimulated in a third. Coming top in tests might not be a problem as long as there is plenty of stimulating work. Don't look at the labels- look at your ds. Is school a good experience for him?

[Snowfire]

All schools should have a policy in place for G&T, they sould have a register for the children which can vary from school to school. One way it can be done is to have an inclusive register (works best in a small school) which lists all of the children and details their strengths and talents including music, sport and art as well as academics.
However they work it, it is only the top 5% of the whole school who would be on the register.

[Snowfire]

Sorry, meant to say only the top 5% would be on the official register for the LEA.
In our area there has been cuts to G&T provision so most of the extra provision has now gone anyway :(

[SaveWaterDrinkWine]

Hi thank you for your replies. Cory - I appreciate your comments and you're right, my DS may be considered bright in his class but average elsewhere. He isn't bored or (I believe) under-stimulated which, I guess, means he is being stretched where necessary.

I suppose I just wanted it clarifying given the comments originally made by his Teacher, otherwise I wouldn't have given too much thought to it.

[DadAtLarge]

It wasn't a fixed 5% or even the often bandied about 10%. It was left up to individual schools. But it was a legal requirement on them to maintain the G&T register and put the highest ability children on it. Few schools followed the law on this as, unlike with SEN, there was/is no penalty.

I've studied G&T extensively and if you search my previous posts on MN I've commented in great detail on the nuts and bolts of G&T, schools flouting the rules, clueless LAs and the large majority of teachers being anti "gits" (in private that's what some of them call your G&T children). Many teachers replied only to demonstrate their stupendous ignorance about the programme and their responsibilities under it. Till today if you pose these questions to teachers 90% most won't be able to answer even one (though they'll swear blind they do a brilliant job for gifted children in their care):

1. What is your school's criteria for putting children on the G&T register?
   
2. What responsibilities does the program impose on you as a teacher?
   
3. What resources from the G&T programme are used in your school?
   

Despite having no training in teaching gifted children, not knowing anything about the G&T programme and never even having read a book on teaching gifted children our teachers feel they're doing a brilliant job.

The last time I commented on G&T was in this thread to cover the change from G&T to "National Challenge G&T" - still overseen by National Strategies - and as you'll notice the link I provided now leads to a dead site. Bye bye National Strategies. It was scrapped and all staff were made redundant.

After many years and a great deal of experience with G&T (as a parent, a governor, an LA consultant and a general all round expert on the subject) I've come to the conclusion that the state sector is no place for gifted children and that the best thing you can do for a gifted DC is to get them the hell out. I did...and I don't think my children are particularly gifted, they're just a bit on the intelligent side.

But what you haven't mentioned is whether your ds' needs are being catered for or not.
cory, I respect your posts and we've debated G&T in several threads, but I now realise that state schools don't and can't provide these children what they need, they can only give the impression that they are (and some don't even bother with that).

[eyeofhorus]

Found dadatlarge's comments really conclusive and seem to mirror my experiences as well. DS is in reception and school have no policy as they describe in their words for 'children who are really gifted, not the G&T lot we usually get'. Have been banging my head against a rather hard brick wall since sept... and i too have a teaching background, LA consultant experience etc. Just need to scrape those pennies together to pay for private though..... my advice is to keep at them, this is an issue that can't be pushed to one side.

[cory]

"I now realise that state schools don't and can't provide these children what they need"

That depends on who you define by "these children", DadAtLarge. The OP has not yet showed us whether her ds does belong in the category of children who cannot be catered for under the system he is in. All she has said is that he is top of the class and first in tests: this could mean anything from outstanding genius to simply rather bright.

I fully appreciate that your own ds is of a kind who needs really special help. But I am not prepared to accept that every child who just happens to be working a couple of years above his level is going to be like him.

In my family we tend to be bright in the sense of working above our level, of reading adult books in our pre-teens, of teaching ourselves languages at home- but not gifted in any sense that means we get terribly frustrated or unhappy if we are bored, or that we get bored easily. Which may mean that we are less gifted than your ds- but not necessarily that we are not like the OPs ds.

It would help perhaps if the OP gave more details about how her ds fits into his class and whether he is happy.

[DadAtLarge]

That depends on who you define by "these children", DadAtLarge.
Gifted children. And G&T children (top 10%) and others.

According to the OP, the school is now "...looking at developing a G&T Policy". Huh? They're still looking? For how many years have they been breaking the law by not fulfilling their legal obligations on G&T? Clowns!

[cory]

I quite agree that with you DAL that this particular school seems sloppy and I would not be happy either.

But I still do not agree that all children in the top 10% are failed by state schools, or are easily bored, or find it difficult to extend themselves, or need special measures, or that simply because someone is getting all As you can assume that they will face similar problems to your ds.

I still think you are talking about two different categories here:

a) the ones that genuinely are quite unusual and need special support because they are way beyond what the school can teach and/or are the type who find it difficult to cope with lesser minds.

b) the ones who are bright, in the top 10%, likely to get As and A*s (and perhaps later a First at university). Of this latter category, some will also fall into category A, but not all. Others may be a little ahead of their group, without necessarily being miles ahead. Or have their talents/interests focused in areas where it is easier to find your own level (e.g. English).

[DadAtLarge]

cory, I get your point about my DS who's several years ahead of his peers in maths and at least a couple of years ahead in English. Where we differ is whether he's an exception. I don't believe he is. DD1 has never had DS's very keen interest in maths (perhaps because I had less time to spend with her when she was pre-school) but she's now 7 (Y2 age) and she'd score at least an L4 if tested. DD2 is headed the same way. I've taught other kids and I know my DCs aren't that brilliant.

If they can do it any half-intelligent kid can do it. I think the problem is the low level of expectation we as a society have been conditioned to accept as normal for our schools. The minimums of 2b for Y2 and 4b for Y6 are jokes as is the "max" of L3 and L5 for KS1 and KS2 that figure in school stats.

The top 10% can achieve 4b in maths at year two and we're telling schools to target getting them to 4b by the end of year six!

As we've seen from the OP, schools aren't that excited about catering properly for intelligent children when there are other "priorities".

[AlmightyCitrus]

My DD1's school seems to have no idea what to do with a G&T child. There are all manner of nurture groups, special teachers and help for those who are struggling with their education, which I support, but I'd also like a bit more support for those who are above the average too.

I've been lucky as my DD1 had an amazing teacher who recognised her abilities when she went into year 3, and her subsequent teachers have all taken it upon themselves to find her work appropriate to her level, while in-keeping with the topics the rest of the class is covering. DD1 is also very self motivated to learn and actively seeks extra work. Each teacher has voiced frustration that the school has no actual policy regarding such children.

She's got into a high school which has a dedicated G&T program. The top 10% of the year are taught separately and have a much more varied curriculum.

[cory]

Yes, but what you say does not prove that all other half-intelligent children feel they are wasting their school time or being failed by the school.

Dd has always seen school as more of a springboard, to give her ideas of what she wants to read and learn more in depth. I was very much like this too, and so (I believe) were both my parents. Dd has several like-minded friends who are in top set and predicted As at GCSEs (presumably a sign of half intelligence) and who still manage to seem quite excited by their studies and keen to talk about books and future studies among themselves, so definitely haven't lost heart as far as education is concerned. But at the same time I do not get the impression that they expect the school to provide all the stimulation or motivation they need.

Of course this could be explained by saying that dd and her friends are simply not even half-intelligent, and if the measure of intelligence is your ds (whom you have described elsewhere), then I'd probably be quite happy to concede that. But if I understand you rightly, you also seem to be saying that this half-intelligent and understimulated category will include anyone who is top of the class/getting good results/in the top 10% of the nation for intelligence. So what's wrong with these children who are getting good grades, but also seem motivated and stimulated by their studies? Shouldn't be happening according to you. But definitely is as far as I can see.

This does not mean that schools are not failing some pupils or that they shouldn't be doing more. But I'd hate anyone to put the idea into dd's head that she has any reason to stop pushing herself or become frustrated.

I also don't get why you seem to suggest that schools target the top 10% to get 4 b by the end of Year 6: surely, 4 b is the mark expected from average children, not the mark expected from the top 10% in most schools. What school expects all children to get the same mark?

[snorkie]

DaL, I remember Ruth Lawrence's father saying anyone could achieve what she had with the right encouragement, but to be honest I've never really believed him and I think you may be in denial over your children's abilities too. It's quite easy to think your children can't be that extraordinary, because I think to parents they always seem normal. On the other hand there was that family that set out to make their children chess prodigies and succeeded so maybe there is something in it.

[DadAtLarge]

but what you say does not prove that all other half-intelligent children feel they are wasting their school time or being failed by the school.
Of course they don't feel it. The problem isn't achieving the target, the problem is the target.

4 b is the mark expected from average children, not the mark expected from the top 10% in most schools
The state makes no distinction, schools don't have different targets for more intelligent children. They should. If they take a very intelligent kid (L4/5 at Y2) and waste four years taking her to L5 at Y6, they aren't considered to have failed her! Do teachers get sacked, does money get clawed back, does anyone get taken to the school field and shot? Do you have any idea what the minimum progress is that they need to show for these children from Y2 to Y6? I do! It's a laugh. It's no different to what they need to show for the "struggling" children.

snorkie, wouldn't some achievements require a combination of the right encouragement and a little genetic advantage? My kids ain't no Ruth Lawrence.

[snorkie]

DaL, I can never make up my mind about the nature/nurture thing, conventional wisdom is that both are important. Not saying your dcs are at RL level, but I still maintain they are extraordinary and probably beyond the level achievable by the majority even given the right encouragement.

I have a theory that the right encouragement needs to happen at the right time and this is most likely quite young - say toddler age (actually encouragement at any age is good, but probably much more effective with younger children). For eg: I suspect my ds's maths ability stems from his fascination with numbers as a toddler (makes sense to me that playing with numbers at a young age when the brain is developing leads to a brain 'wired' for maths later). But, I also suspect that the vast majority of toddlers simply aren't receptive to this encouragement at that age even if they were exposed to it. My dd for eg took no interest at all in any of the number games that ds had amused himself with and I suspect this is typical toddler behaviour.

[snorkie]

squidgy, RL's father was a fruitloop by all accounts and they were estranged for a while as I recall (but so are many children with batty parents who haven't pushed them). She didn't end up hating maths - she has a career as a maths professor. She did say she wouldn't accelerate her children as radically as she had been (but not that she wouldn't accelerate them at all).

I kind of agree with what you say, but for extremely able children with a thirst for knowledge it doesn't always work. Acceleration actually does work well for some, but can be a disaster for others. I don't think there's a universal solution for everyone.

[DadAtLarge]

Not saying your dcs are at RL level, but I still maintain they are extraordinary
I know several children who are far more intelligent than my own. Either I move in a circle of genuines or we are underestimating the rest of the world because of what the state has told us is children are capable of.

squidgy, DCs weren't unhappy. I was (and DW). Not with the school per se, they did their best and hats off to (some of) the teachers our DCs had. I became disillusioned with the whole system.

You've raised good questions. If I answered 1-5 in a school context the immediate reaction that would provoke is how the hell can schools deliver that. They can't. Parents can.

Exams don't exist to help children. They exist to measure what the system has managed to cram into our DCs, what work teachers and schools have done. They measure purely academic skill, not how brilliant someone is with a football, where their moral compass is pointing or whether they have life skills like confidence, ability to self-teach, compassion. The curriculum is structured to impart only that which can be delivered in bulk and measured with exams. There is no soul.

In an ideal situation each child would get the environment that caters for them as individuals and which allows them to develop and flourish i.e. kind of like what parents and teachers think ECM is all about. (ECM itself is a soundbite to distract us from the fact that every child doesn't matter ao much as the institution, the state, the spreading of resources to suit the goals and limitations of institutions and the targets and political expedience of their masters). Schools don't care about children, they are institutions. A teacher doesn't care about my children (outside of that one academic year). The only consistent caring influences in a child's life are outside of the institution.

[snorkie]

squidgy, I think RL has turned out very normal and seems (from what we know) to manage a well balanced life (work, family etc) - probably she should be held up as an example of where acceleration did work out well. She's often rather unfairly portrayed as having been badly psychologically messed up but actually she doesn't seem any more scarred than many children are over their upbringing (no one has perfect parents after all). So she chooses to raise he children differently - that's hardly unusual. She has also not been critical of her own parents - I found this quote:

"There will not be any forcing, no attempt to try and push Yehuda faster than he wants to go. I, though, was always eager to learn more. I want Yehuda (her first child) to develop in a natural way," she adds. "My husband and I will not do exactly as everybody else does when they bring up a child. But I don't want Yehuda to be 'different'. I want my child to be able to develop in a natural way. I suppose I might have liked my childhood to be different in some ways, but I do not want to judge my parents. And I do not envy them. I was not in their shoes. I very much appreciate the effort my father put in. I am enormously grateful for what he did for me. I can see now that being a parent is very difficult."

Really, her parents probably were between a rock and a hard place - they had a very bright child who 'was always eager to learn more' so they did what they thought was best and in fact she turned out just fine. There's no knowing how she would have turned out had she had a different upbringing, but it may well not have been without its issues either, and could quite possibly have been worse.

Sufiah Yusof is another matter entirely. Things definitely went badly wrong for her - a much better example of the disadvantages of acceleration/pushing.

[cory]

DadAtLarge Thu 28-Apr-11 09:33:46
"but what you say does not prove that all other half-intelligent children feel they are wasting their school time or being failed by the school.
Of course they don't feel it. The problem isn't achieving the target, the problem is the target."

I don't get this. The point I am trying to make is that not all half intelligent children stop reading books/taking an interest in current affairs/trying to get better at writing stories/working at problem solving just because they have reached some target. I don't recollect dd ever caring about targets: she wanted to learn because her teachers made learning seem fun. If you have enjoyed something you learnt at school, why would you not try to learn more about it just because you have hit the target?

"4 b is the mark expected from average children, not the mark expected from the top 10% in most schools
The state makes no distinction, schools don't have different targets for more intelligent children."

Yes, they do, unless the school is badly run. The target is for a child to advance at the rate of at least two sublevels a year. Level 4 b is what is expected of "average" children; ideally the target that all children should have reached at the end of Year 6, not the target that noone must go beyond. All the state schools around here set for literacy, maths and science- why would they do that if they expected the same results from their top as from their bottom set? (dd's maths set were doing Yr 8 maths in Yr 6). If noone was allowed to learn any more than the bare minimum, how would the secondaries ever be able to do their setting? Ofsted inspections check for rate of progress of pupils: it would look very odd if they all stopped once they got to a 4 b.

[PiousPrat]

IME schools knowledge, and implementation of, G&T varies widely. I do agree that it may well be down to there being no penalty for not implementing it in the same way as there is for SEN kids. For example, DS2 is a proper little brainiac when it comes to maths, he just has a natural ability for it and is also a bit of a competitive show off, so likes to be able to say he is top of the class/X years ahead etc and all of his teachers (he is in Yr 5 now, so 6 of them) have said he is gifted at maths, however he isn't in the Junior schools G&T programme because 'he doesn't excel enough in English'. The school that we are moving him to (because of relocation, not due to this) have said they will put him on their G&T list because he is so far ahead in Maths that he obviously needs more challenging work. Two schools (in different LEAs, I don't know if that makes a difference) with two totally different ideas of what is required for inclusion on the G&T register, same kid with the same ability ending up with two different educational outcomes depending on where he goes to school.

That wouldn't happen with a child with SEN. They have a statement, their needs are met. The exact methods may vary between schools, but the individual targets for that child and their inclusion on the programme won't because it is standardised and enforced.

I am not saying by any means that my child is a prodigy or a future Stephen Hawking, but it should be fairly obvious that a child who has come up from Infants being able to do simultaneous equations probably isn't going to be challenged by a number line up to 100 If Every Child Matters, then doesn't that mean that Every Child should be pushed to the best of their ability and if a programme exists that could push them and keep their interest, then it should? In every school, not just ones lucky enough to have a Head who can be arsed to implement it, or who actually understands it?

IMHO it is utterly pointless having a system such as G&T if it isn't clearly defined and acted upon. Then it makes education even more of a postcode lottery than it already is and risks letting very bright, able children down.

[DadAtLarge]

The point isn't that children lose interest when they reach a target but that schools do. It pays the school to switch more resources to those children who haven't reached the target at the expense of those who have.

The target is for a child to advance at the rate of at least two sublevels a year.
It's a target set for the convenience of the system. If there was genuine interest in ensuring intelligent children were catered for adequately there would be a target for progress that took into account the child's ability and the speed with which they were capable of progressing.

it would look very odd if they all stopped once they got to a 4 b.
That's why they aren't marked as a 4b in Y2, 4B (and above) pupils are routinely marked as 3As in Y2 (yeah, yeah, teachers will say it doesn't happen in their school). ;) This allows the school to show progress over the next year even if that kid has done no work the whole year!

When my DS took his Y2 SATS he was marked as a 3A. It made not a jot of difference to him or us - it's SATS after all - but it made things very convenient for the school. As he was really a 5A they could have gotten away with doing no work with him for four whole years, tested him to a 5A in Y6 ... and they'd have been "on target".