...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'm with you OP. I work with 4-5 yr olds in a primary school. I can't imagine trying to choose three or four 'gifted' children. I imagine it's the top set in their regular assessments. Totally unnecessary. We just provide activities in class that suitably challenge them.

This gifted programme sounds like a clumsy box ticking exercise for the inspectorate.

That said I would let her decide and if she wanted to go I'd let her go. A bit of a nonsense and altogether unnecessary but harmless.

I bet there's some parents who will get carried away with the notion of having a 'gifted' child and lap this up. You sound sensible. Maybe let her try it. She'll either love it or decide play time a sacrifice too far.

Another with a sillily high IQ here - I've come to the conclusion that the important things for success (apart from the family you're born into) are 1) single minded focus on your aims 2) the ability to interact with other people, to bring them along with your ideas, and to learn from their experience.

I had no problem with exams - but I would have achieved so much more in life, and contributed so much more to society, had I had help with 2)

This makes me serious anxious about my daughter starting school in September the poor thing will be so behind and I worry about the constant school competition will mean she will fall even further behind.

I agree with your let the child play.

Iwasjustabouttosaythat

The existence of a paper doesn't mean I can't carry on using a word in its time-honoured sense! I'll have a look at it, but unless it sets out a widely agreed definition, it is just one view. The word continues to carry its original meaning.

I love your DS LadyLapsang! Did he actually thank her for an interesting lesson? That reminds me of Paddington Bear! 😂

We said no to something similar. My 4 year old is in the nursery school attached to the primary he hopefully will be attending. His teacher wanted to put him in reception three times a week to do reading, when he should be doing ‘independent play’ because he can already read and comprehend books aimed at 6 year olds.

The reason I said no is that he can read with us, I want him to be able to mix with his peers and form friendships at school.

Iwasjustabouttosaythat
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.

I think the mad scientist is quite a harmful stereotype. I also wonder if that definition overlaps with characteristics from the Myers Briggs personality models (maybe INTJ?).

I wonder too if there are some specific cultural assumptions about what 'giftedness' might look like or how a 'gifted' child might behave. The idea of an elite set apart from others tends to crop up in British conversations about giftedness.

I don't see the point of distinguishing between 'gifted' and 'very bright' anyway.

'Giftedness' actually manifests in a variety of ways. What matters in the academic sphere in the long run is resilience, willingness to try, curiosity, and perseverance. Above all, resilience.

I missed Unweavedrainbow's post on definitions, but I agree with Pengggwn's response and disagree with the definition.

I don't think it's true that nobody knows what happened when a 0.01 percenter crashes and burns. The dynamics can usually be identified and they include early and public labeling, parental/family focus on a very limited set of traits in the child with other traits neglected (social and emotional development).

Ugh, typed a whole message then deleted it by accident. Basically, Pengggwyn, math, it’s not my definition. A bit of independent research is necessary if you truly want to understand the issues involved. You can use whatever terms you like to describe anyone you like, but it will just cloud the issue. Read the MANY, MANY, MANY papers online, government websites and psychologists recommendations and you’ll get your widely agreed definition.

Iwasjustabouttosaythat

I don't think so, but you can keep believing you have the right of it.

Ok Peng, if you don’t “believe” so. No need to do any research, eh?

If anyone’s wondering why their kids aren’t being supported by teachers, Pengggwyn’s response says it all.

Iwasjustabouttosaythat

No, Iwasjustabouttosaythat. I am simply pointing out that there is a general meaning to the word, and it is that meaning, rather than your very specific meaning, that I am employing here. There is no need for any strong disagreement.