To think that identifying children as gifted in a state primary school is pointless

[ReallyTired]

The idea of identifying the top 5 to 10% of children as gifted is just too broad. Children's intelligence develops at different rates and frankly it is extremely rare to have a gifted child in a school. I feel that labelling a child as gifted can cause under achievement. It can undermine the confidence of a child who has always been told they are clever to be faced with something difficult.

I feel that the gifted and talented label should be reserved for children who are truely unique. Ie, a child who does grade 7 piano at seven years old, or is capable of A-level maths at nine years old or a child who plays sport at national level. These are children who needs cannot be met by normal differentiation in the classroom. They are very different to hot housed children as they think on a higher plane.

Surely it would be better to concentrate resources on the top 0.1% nationally and provide proper funding.

The last Government abolished the %age quota in schools, didn't it, when it abolished the National Academy for Gifted andTalented Youth and funded instead access programmes to universities for children from poorer families.

Most children on a gifted and talented register can be catered through normal differentiation. They don't need additional workshops.

A few months back there was a programme about Cameron Thompson

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15482101

He was seriously let down by the british education system. I remember his father posting on mumsnet after the programme. His son didn't have a statement.

Purely anecdotally, I think YABU.

I was an extremely bright child, to the point that teachers in primary school became completely infuriated with me and would actively avoid teaching me ("Oh, you've finished that worksheet? For goodness sake hazle just sit down and read a book or something and stop distracting everyone else!").

This was fine in primary where I coasted through my SATs, again in secondary and sixth form where I coasted through again with all As. Then I got to university and hit a brick wall. I didn't know how to learn things, just how to read them and remember them because no one had ever challenged me. It took two attempts of the first year before I cobbled together these skills.

So, like I said, purely anecdotal but a child with a higher level of intelligence really should be stretched and taught to learn from an early age.

my dd's current teacher doesn't 'believe in' gifted and talented but has had to admit that two or three of her pupils, inc dd, need extra stimulus so has reluctantly 'allowed' some extra coaching for them. Why not just admit that some children do want more stimulus and provide it instead of this trendy mixed ability nonsense? Mind you this teacher also nearly had a heart attack when we said we may be taking dd out of the school next year - not because she likes dd -she admitted that dd's SATS scores would make the school look better so could we just keep her there until then - which is a bit irritating

Hazel but that isn't G&T. Your experience is pretty similar to a lot of bright kids and imvho giving 1 or 2 a G&T label(who seem to just get sent on the odd course) and ignoring the bright kids below doesn't help any of them.

A lot of bright kids get this complacent attitude and I think the G&T label chucked at the odd child to tick a box makes it worse.

Surely two or three children is enough to differentiate for. I don't see why it requires resources outside the classroom. Surely its a matter of having a top table as is done in virtually all primary schools in the country.

butisthismyname with all respect I don't think its likely that your dd class has two to three gifted children.

It does sound as if the teacher is lazy.

Whoops, I see now I didn't conclude my point! Basically, if they call it G&T or A&T or whatever label they feel is best, it doesn't really matter as long as the children get the assistance they require.

The thing is, they may not know if a child is truly gifted or "just" bright until they expose them to some kind of advanced program of learning.

Agree with Really-True G&T kids are very rare.Every class has 2 or 3(maybe more)very bright kids.I've not had a class without such a group.I just think they need to push such a group(actually the middle too)out of their comfort zone more and have higher expectations,let them fail,stretch and not except complacency.

fundamentally all kids should be stretched appropriately at all points in their school career.

I think the current system at least forces schools to think about what they are doing to stretch the more able students. I don't imagine that the current G&T label hangs to heavily around kids necks simply because it is so very wide. Again I think that is a good thing.

There will still be the truly gifted who probably get served as well in mainstream schools as those with severe SEN at the other end of the scale. Mainstream isn't for everyone although it certainly should be for the vast majority.

It's a crude way of reminding schools to look out for higher ability children and make sure their needs are met. And, like many mechanisms of top down governmental management of schools, rather patronising.

In our primary they had enrichment groups and children were put in them depending on specific ability in each subject. We have never been informed of the children identified (for gvt purposes) as G&T.

Probably most good primaries just get on with educating different ability groups in the way that supports and challenges them best.

Really? Oh I must have misheard.

My DD has a statement because of her G&T. No amount of hot housing will get a 7 month old to have a conversation she is just freakishly bright. She has a 1-1 teaching assistant because she has completed most of the work in her school and the school have to show as part of the statement how they are meeting her needs. Saying the top % should do the same work as everyone else is like expecting the bottom % to keep up with everyone else. It's not fair and its not helpful

I think the current system is crude and doesn't necessarily meet needs. I don't think we have it in Scotland, I think everything comes under the label of Additional Support Needs - which I is spot on IMO. A G&T child does have additional needs, in the same way as my son does (SN). No reason why there has to be two separate schemes with two separate names and would love to see someone telling Pushy Mum her kid has special needs, bahahahah.

YANBU - I absolutely agree.

My friends DS was told he was G&T going into Y1 but by Y2 he was just in the top set and then not included in the G&T activities.

In infant school they are just finding their feet and like others say they progress at different levels.

At DSs infant school they do not use the G&T title but of course the parents know the levels the children are working at etc and the children that are more able are given appropriate work as are all the other children. I am not sure I agree with the whole concept of G&T register TBH.

Schools/teachers should be differenciating anyway which mean children should not be getting bored at all! DS is working 2 years ahead in some areas and they are still managing to challenge him all the time.

There are 5 children in DSs year group of 32 who would definitely be considered G&T in many schools (working at level 2a/3c in Y1) but not necessarily all of them as the level of the top 5-10% varies depending on the cohort.

There was a thread a while ago where the OPs DD was on white band books going into Y2 and the teacher wasn't differenciating well as she was the only one that high. There was more than 1 child on white band going into Y1 let alone Y2 at DSs school so obviously a completely different cohort of children so the other child would not have been G&T in a different school.

G&T should be for truly gifted children as the OP says. A high ability table should be fine for a few children in order to challenge them properly.

Yabu. The optimal age to identify (test) for giftedness is between 5 and 8 years. After that, some kids (especially girls) will dumb down their giftedness in order to fit in. Kids not challenged appropriately will start to disengage from school from primary age. Gagne's model of giftedness identifies gifted kids as being in the top 10 per cent and is what many states base their definitions on in Australia. Where I live,there is no state policy on giftedness so many kids are going unidentified. A parliamentary inquiry report released in June this year estimates there are between 23,000 and 85,000 gifted kids in our state and that many of them are let down by a system which fails to cater for their needs. There is no provision whatsoever for primary gifted kids and only a limited acceleration for secondary students in the state sector.Many of these kids will leave school early if they are unidentified/not engaged at the level they need it. The stories from the report are so heartbreaking that I thank my lucky stars my own child is not gifted. I speak as a trainee teacher who is just researching giftedness and finding out that learning disabled kids are actually better catered for. Not that it is a competition. But the inadequacies of our system have a huge impact on the mental health of these kids, who just want to be accepted for who they are. Sorry to bang on, but it is something I feel passionately about. Nothing is going to change unless public attitudes to giftedness do. It is not elitist. It is about catering for the needs of children, just like we would expect to if they were disabled or had SN.

HoneyMurcott, there is plenty of evidence that would disagree with you. I read book nutureshock which suggests that any testing before 8 is likely to be inaccurate. Many children are late developers.

Under the system you advocate Einstein would not have been identified as gifted because of poor speech.

British schools do differentiate in primary class room by having different tables. Children on the top table are accelerated and this works well for most of the top 10 to 20%. The majority of children in the top 20% have no difficulty socially. Many of these children are pretty self moviated.

I feel that substantial funding is best concentrated on children with extreme giftedness. These children have the type of children who risk developing mental health problems if they do not have adequate support in the classroom. If you spread gifted funding too freely then you can afford to fund future olympicans, gifted musicans and the costs of a nine year old doing a degree.

ReallyTired, you are assuming that tests will not be able to identify giftedness because of poor speech, which is incorrect. Tests are reliable. I agree that those supremely gifted children need acceleration - within separate programs and their needs probably cannot be catered for by differentiating within mainstream classroom. However, does this mean that all differentiation for the rest of gifted children should stop, just because they are not super gifted?