...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...

Iwas that's a really good description. I've often wondered if I was asd due to some social difficulties but I don't meet ither criteria it is simply planning every possible outcome and being convinced I'd get it wrong. I was an anxious child and never quite understood how to fit in with the other children. I was streets ahead academically and dreamed of a school for clever Kids! I was hungry to learn.

Anyway despite Cambridge degree I fell through the cracks in life. I needed more support with the social side of school. I'm being v careful with my children who seem bright but not off the scale bright as I was. I personally would have loved to privately ed them but we have no money.

Anyway I still think at infant school there's so much variation it's far too young to pronounce one way or the other. Some just get there faster than others and some of it evens out.

It sounds purely an Ofsted box ticking exercise that I'd refuse to take part in.

Iwasjustabouttosaythat

Can I see some research backing that up? As far as I am aware, 'gifted' is a subjective term, there is not a scientifically agreed-upon definition for it.

The protocol is to select the top 10% of pupils in that school. Some schools obviously have more able children than others, due to catchment etc. So the same child may by 'gifted and talented' in one school but not in another.

It's just a rough and ready assessment to try to ensure that the more able are taught at their level in a small group in a way that isn't possible in a whole class situation. You can't properly address their needs by handing out higher level worksheets. The emphasis needs to be on ideas, problem solving, and lots of discussion. The alternative to playtime is before or after school which would be much more difficult for families.

I know a gifted child who used to take a book to parties 'in case I get bored'.

Thymeout

If we are talking about the top 10%, there is definitely no merit in the argument that that entire group are going to be isolated and highly sensitive. They are just a bit brighter than the average, really.

Put your foot down op...they care not for your child,but only how it looks good for the school...do not let them put extra pressure on your child

The expectation is that you can challenge all pupils in your class at a level and understanding that meets their needs. It shouldn't need to take place at break or lunchtime. There may be other steer hung work that might be offered outside of the normal curriculum and this may take place beyond normal learning times.
So many people undervalue the social and cultural learning along with emotional, negotiating, organisational skills,nurture and physical skills that are all developed through free play within the playground mixing with all ability peers. Free play is very different from structured play with a specific outcome. If we want creative learners we need to allow children to develop these skills, most will struggle to do so just within a classroom no matter how great the lessons.

I would agree with you, the teachers should be able to provide extension worksheets to push your child within her class learning timetable, and not your DD losing outside play with friends.

FWIW I have 2 children in primary still, my year 4 child so he is 8 years but his maths he working at 11 1/2 year level. They give him extensions worksheets to push him with his maths. On the other hand he getting intervention for his hand writing as he has hyper mobility so needs extra help but neither of these are carried out out side learning time so he does lose any out side time.

My other child is in year 5, and is above average in all subjects, but to my mind her birthday is right at the beginning of September and if she had been born on her due date and would be in year 6 so whether or not she would not she be as advanced then I don't know.

I'm waiting until they are at high school and then we will see whether or not they are still 'most and more able' as to whether we do anything then.

She is only 4, still very young, needs that playtime. I think she is too young to make that decision herself, I would decline.

Here you go, Pengggwyn: eric.ed.gov/?id=ED448382

I’m afraid I don’t have time to read that particular paper to assess its scientific value (bedtime here) but a quick google will turn up about a million more. The issues it raises are the sort of thing teachers really need to be aware of. Giftedness is not something a teacher can just decide on. It takes a lot of psychological testing to have a decision made. The term is thrown around a lot but true giftedness is actually usually very hard for the kids and their parents to deal with.

Liquorice, that makes complete sense and you will probably be interested in the above paper too. DS’s preschool teachers have decided he must have ASD too, however he’s been assessed and does not meet the criteria. His paediatrician laughed out loud at his teacher’s assessment. She said teachers don’t know what to do with very intelligent children and see them as a problem. She said she gets a letter every other week from a teacher who has decided a kid has to be autistic to be brainy and introverted. It’s really sad.

As the lessons are taking place out of normal teaching hours, surely this is contravening 'equal opportunity'?

It's interesting that some people are saying that there are many bright kids who would prefer these extra classes instead of play. I think that that would depend more on the nature of the child than on their IQ.

Supposedly I have a higher IQ than my brother, but I could imagine my brother loving extra classes in a subject he enjoyed much more than I would have.

To miss playtime in Reception class at the age of 4 to me shows a worrying lack of understanding of the needs of young children.
If the school are anyway serious about gifted and talented pupils;the enrichment activities should be undertaken in normal class time.
At 4 your DD is too young to be asked if she wants to stay in at lunchtime!

@Coyoacan

Anecdotal (approaching 4 decades), but of the 4 G&T children I've known, all would have preferred the extra work to 'enforced' play with others.

The very important but is that young children rarely know what's best for them. 3 of the 4 needed help relating to their peers but when they got the help, they all enjoyed unstructured play and found it rewarding. Of the 4, only half of them showed outstanding academic ability in EYFS. One of them (now PhD from Harvard) was fairly unremarkable until Y2.

IQ is a flawed measure of ability, aptitude or likelihood of success in life. In my experience, those with high IQs put very little faith in it.

Absolutely. I had silly high is but no parental support. Mensa etc but "failed" at life after uni. It really isnt all about the iq and extra work. Iq is just a measure of iq tests. Real life requires so much more.

I doubt most people who meet me now (obese, no career) would have a clue at my super high iq and uni grades in the past! I know iq is supposed to be static but I doubt I'd score as high now.

Good post moreDetails.

IQ is a flawed measure of ability, aptitude or likelihood of success in life

I totally agree. I only used IQ as shorthand and because that was the measurement used back in the day. My school trained us for IQ tests.

I only included myself and my family in this post, because it turns out that schools are calling children in the top 10% of their class "gifted".

Having belonged to a generation where we were all graded 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc in school, I know I would have fallen into that not very exclusive group while my brother might have just fallen short of it.

"My school trained us for IQ tests."

Really? Where and when? I guess that it wasn't the UK.

My school trains children for their IB (A Levels) and GCSEs. The difference between this and IQ tests is that our children get in to top universities and no one realises the benefit of their schooling until it's too late or until it's immaterial.

From the relatively little I know of IQ tests, it's eminently teachable and if it had value to our school, most pupils would excel.

" it turns out that schools are calling children in the top 10% of their class "gifted"."

What do you base this on? Most assessments are levelled according to National averages.

My 6yoDd was identified as 'gifted' by the school last year.

I think it's pretty ridiculous and have stubbornly rejected all their attempts to put her in extra lessons and have told them not to mention anything about it to DD.

But they do give her extra reading and maths homework, because she asks for it and enjoys it. Maybe try something like that instead?

Yes, moreDetails we were trained in IQ tests all year before sitting the 11-plus. That was in the early 60s and I didn't really question it until many years later when my dd sat an IQ test with absolutely no preparation.

As for the 10% comment, I am taking my information from Thymeout.

Weird, because I think your points are very well made and am not arguing with anything you have to say.

YANBU

1. Playing IS learning. Particularly at EYFS. Less playing = less learning. Taking away play time to focus on academics deprives them of the chance to develop social and communication skills. It will be counterproductive in the long run.

2. Taking away play time = punishment for being bright. It incentives children to be (or act) less bright to avoid further punishment.

3. Challenging work should occur instead of, rather than as well as, undifferentiated work. This naturally means it should in regular class time. Failure to realise this suggests the approach of the school to teaching bright children is "more of the same, piled higher".

I was born in 61.

Education is thankfully barely recognisable compared to those who were born a little after WWII.

Your daughter took an IQ test in the mid 80s? Really?

moredetails why would someone not sit an IQ test in the mid 80s?

In my extensive experience, it's unlikely they did.

Of course they may have.

I had my IQ tested in both my schools, state and private, in the mid 80s so while I lack breadth of experience, my personal experience was it was quite a big thing! Not class-wide, but initially as ed psych assessment.

My memory of the 11+ verbal reasoning paper was it was an awful lot like the IQ tests I'd done previously. Which is not to say it was an IQ test. But my impression was IQ was much more of a thing in the 80s than it is now.

Where the school has gone wrong is calling it 'gifted' time and the reaction is the reason why my kids' primary school never gave it such a name. So much that it's not until Year 5 that I realised that's what it was. Selected kids were first asked if they were interested, outside of the classroom so away from the other kids and if the child said yes, they'd bring back a letter to the parents saying 'you child has expressed an interest in...'

It never raised such concerns that such classes that my kids really enjoyed could be deemed as punishment.

At my dgs school the ‘gifted and talented’ group are taught in a small group in Literacy and Numeracy.