...to not want 4 y/o to be in ‘gifted’ programme if it means less playtime?

[abiveve]

I’m turning to Mumsnet in exasperation as Dh and I have been arguing about this for the whole school Easter holidays.

Dd is in reception at a state primary. At the end of last term, we were asked to go into school to meet with her teacher and the school’s ‘Head of Learning’. They told us that dd had been identified as ‘gifted’ and they wanted to put her in the gifted and talented programme. When I asked what this would entail, they said that two days a week, instead of playing outside after lunch, dd and 3-4 other reception children would do extra learning activities to stretch them.

Dh is thrilled by this. I am not. think that it would be fine if they were stretching her more in lesson time, but I don’t want her to have to lose out on playtime twice a week. She’s 4 ffs - I want her to have fun and play outside with her friends, not do extra maths in a stuffy classroom. Especially with summer coming.

FWIW, the school’s Ofsted report last year marked them down for failing to stretch the brightest children, so I worry that they’re taking it to the opposite extreme and dd is going to pay the price. I also think that Dh’s head is swelling rather at the thought of having a ‘gifted’ (hate that word) child - he was straight in on the phone to his parents to tell them after the meeting...

I think School has this wrong. Those sessions should be during other lessons; preferably the lit and num sessions as those will be the lessons not stretching them.

She should have playtime.

But in reality, not in reception. Ks2 is more appropriate.

Many bright kids would choose enrichment activities over playtime, so I wouldn't have a problem with a programme being run like a lunchtime club, as long as there was still plenty of outside play time, a child had chosen to attend, and it involved working with peers.

I would still expect appropriate work to be given at the child's level in class time, different work where needed, not extra work after too easy work has been done.

I agree with the OP - a 4 year old should have her playtime. It's ridiculous to put them in academically 'stretching programmes' at this age. I'd tell the school no, please treat her like everyone else.

But I do think people have very unrealistic expectations about differentiation. It's a great concept and it can be used to good effect, but teachers can't make separate lessons entirely for children of all different abilities. There simply isn't time. Challenge will be added through extension activities and higher expectations for accuracy, development of writing, more difficult versions of the same basic lesson plan. There are limits to what is achievable when you teach 30 children.

‘Many bright kids would choose enrichment activities over playtime’

This really is not my experience!

OP, I agree. As a teacher, and the parent of a gifted child, one of the trickiest things is to keep them balanced and connected to the real world and other people. They are proposing that she misses out on key free socialising time. In reception, where developing social skills are creating the foundation for good learning skills later. Let them find time to run those activities in class, as small group work.

Oh, and in 30+ years of teaching, I’ve met half a dozen gifted children. Hundreds of very intelligent and clever ones, very few gifted.

Skatingfastonthinice

I've met two.

Experienced reception teacher here.

The teacher should be providing differentiated learning during the lesson hours. If you're daughter has to miss part of her only outside playtime to do 'extra' learning (albeit as fun games) then what is she doing the rest of the time when the class are learning? Is the teaching at an appropriate level for all or is she only catered for during these extra sessions?

I've had very bright reception pupils. I ensured there was an appropriate level of challenge in what we were doing, eg. more advanced reading books or reading comprehension, addition and subtraction of two digits from two digits, or more advanced vocabulary near the writing corner.

Exactly Pengggwn. Not the sanest of individuals either! I wouldn’t wish truly gifted on anyone tbh.

Skatingfastonthinice

The ones I have met are the loveliest young people. Genuinely, very smart, sensitive and social! It takes all sorts.

If they find the right niche, supportive school and friendship group, life is easier. Yes lovely, but often out of step with the world and others can be unforgiving of that.
OP’s child should be catered for within the classroom. In the olden day’s, SEN included gifted children that needed ILP type support.

Random iPad apostrophe horror. Apologies!

At 4, my DS' favourite activity was to match sticker numbers to the numbers on the sticker book, finding the right page, with numbers going up to 1000. It wasn't the stickers he cared about (and indeed, I once found a brilliant book abroad about a character he'd never heard of and loved it just the same). This is an activity that many kids his age would have thought incredibly boring but he didn't. He's always loved numbers. He did enjoy playing outside with his friends, but no more than the first activity.

He is now 15 and although he is a typical lazy teenager, one thing that I never ever had to moan about is him doing his homework. He would pick doing 3 hours of maths/history over 1/2 hour cleaning his room!

Let your DD decide what she wants to do rather than what you and your oh think she should enjoy most.

Pengggwn "truly gifted" (say the top 0.01% of the population) is not the same as "very smart". To be truly gifted is horrifically isolating and often very distressing. Someone is the top 0.01% essentially has the same special needs (in terms of attention and support needed) as someone in the bottom 0.01% but usually doesn't get them met until they have a breakdown and crash and burn-and then no one can work out what went wrong. I speak from experience. The thing is, society as a whole has no interest in supporting the truly gifted (it's generally seen as type of intellectual snobbery or middle class privilege) and, even if it did, true giftedness is so rare (low level thousands in countries of 10s/100s of millions) that differentiation is left to individual schools to sort out-and, in general, they're not very good at it. In an ideal world, truly gifted children would have statements like children with intellectual disabilities in order to make sure that needs are met but, in practice, there is neither the will nor the money for that.

unweavedrainbow

I'm not going to start debating your definition of 'truly gifted'. In my experience, the students I would consider truly gifted have not had any apparent social difficulty. I'm sure there are others who do. I am not making any generalising statement.

No problem with stretching gifted kids but to make it into a punishment, where they miss playtime, is just wrong! And the quickest way to put them off being bright!

Scheduling it during playtime will make it seem like a punishment to kids, because no playtime is often a punishment for smaller kids.

I'm really shocked they do gifted and talented programs so young here. Where I went to school they only started becoming available at age 11.

YANBU. Even at 10, DD wouldn't want to be stuck indoors while her friends were playing. Their school just sets her more advanced work in the area the class is working on.

Leigha that would've been too late for DD. She would've switched off from school totally by then.

There are lots of lists of traits of truly gifted children online if anyone does want a more firm definition. As unweaved said, they really do often have problems relating to normal children. They are incredibly sensitive because their brains are working overtime mapping out all the possible scenarios of every social (or other) situation. If kids just happily fall in with everyone else and don’t think too deeply about relationships and conversations then chances are they’re not gifted. Possibly very bright but I think it’s that intensity and sense of purpose that sets gifted kids apart.

As a teacher of young children I would also question why she's needing to miss playtime. Given that she doesn't have access to the outside other than at playtime I would be even more concerned.

I think the posters suggesting this is a knee jerk reaction to criticism of their teaching of the "more able" by Ofsted are right.

I would ask for more information about the tasks she's going to be doing. Then I think I would (if you're happy with the activities) agree that she can do them but not at the expense of her playtime.

As a parent of young children I also get concerned about labelling children as gifted and what exactly "stretching" means. My young son has already told me he's stopped finishing his (easy to him) maths activities because he realised he just got given lots more work to do! I also once got a letter saying my dd had been identified as "gifted" and would I like to pay £50 and provide the transport for her to attend a day's creative writing course about 20 miles away!

Teachers and senior management are often governed by data these days and the impact of that is not always good. I hope someday this focus changes, to enable all sorts of different skills and strengths to be fostered and drawn out, rather than emphasising on English and maths to the detriment of other more creative or physical areas for example. And I say that as a parent whose children's strengths are maths and English.