Why aren't there schools for G and T children?

[DiracGirl]

After being told that our my nephew's abilities out stripped those of his class mates my sister began to panic.
There was no way she could afford the fees of an independent school and we don't live in the kind of place that offers a choice in state school.
Many, and there are many, of the independent schools in the area offer little in the way of help and none of them provide grants to 5 year olds.
This angers me.
Why isn't there...something!
These children are our future scientists, doctors, inventors and, well, anything they want really.
It's about time the government realised, these children have special needs too. They deserve a right to a standard of education comparable with their intelligence.
If you put a child with the classic idea of special needs in a class of "ordinary" children and ignored them there would be outrage. So why is it acceptable to waste the talents of the gifted?
Should a child with intelligence greater than that of his or her peers be left to rot in a dull stupor whilst the rest catch up??
I've spent hours trawling the Internet. ISC, Mensa, direct gov, the lot. All I can find is a poor child gets a nod of appreciation for making the government stats look good at exam time and not much else.
I know there are those of you who scoff and say "a bright child will do well anywhere!" but is that the best we can offer...do well???
How about getting the best from them? Or helping them grow to THEIR full potential? Challanging them?
Is it so much to ask?
Enrichment classes? A few hours to feel segregated? To be labelled a swat, geek or freak?
I say give them an a place they can be given the education they need, with like minded children and well trained staff that can cope.
There are a few gifted children in my family and I'm sure I'll be having the same rant in a 2 years when DS is in the same position, although I have planned for this contingency and have looked into independent schooling (13 years on value baked beans) but I only have one child, my sister has three. I don't need to show you the maths to explain a lottery win is in order.

I wonder what happens/will happen to all these ex NAGTY candidates, and if they are all in top uni's now.

Chocbiscuits, someone always quips up with that one on these threads.

ROFL

oh I so want to pull that OP apart line by line

but I am laughing too hard to do so

you're barkin'

I've not read the whole thread, but just wanted to suggest talking to your local prep schools. It's rare but if the child really is like in the top 1% or something, they may well find a scholarship!

Yes, my friends DS was offered a free place irrespective of his family's income which whilst not tiny, certainly wouldn't have run to private school.

You can't tell accurately at 5 which children are and will continue to be gifted. Not all gifted children will go on to become future scientists, doctors inventors etc. and not all scientists, doctors & inventors began life as gifted children. So it's not a good idea to segregate children at that age. Better to improve schools so that all children at them can thrive regardless of ability levels.

Woah! That's was an impressive response in just 24 hours.
Clearly I have ruffled a few emotions.
I didn't mean to cause any offence.

Firstly I got the term G and T from Mumsnet. I have always thought of him as the most engaging, intelligent and insightful child I have met. His talents are that which are quantifiable... Problem solving. I have never seen a 2 year old have the patience or inclination to sit and do a 30 piece jigsaw and do it in a shorter time than I could. The fact that his mathematical and literary skills are now, at 5, closer to that of secondary school age are hard to miss but I'm not under any allusions to think that it couldn't level out. His school said they couldn't teach him, is it fair to put him in a class of much older children?
We do, as a family, provide him with education.

My point however ineloquent and blinded with despair is this... And please don't get offended.

Children are like plants... Well seeds and bulbs really.
Some children are acorns, plant them anywhere and you'll get a big, strong tree over time as long as their basic needs are met.

Some are like orchids, they need special care, a perfect environment and one day, if you have the perseverance you get the most beautiful flower of them all.

And some kids are like tomatoes, yeah they can occasionally grow outside, on a good day if the weather's alright but the very best, the biggest, fullest fruit come from those who have had the best environment to grow. This is how a feel about children of above average intelligence (I won't ever use the term g&t or bright or just intelligent ever again unless I really, really mean it). They have great promise to bear the fruits of their ideas, if nurtured correctly. A great part of life is spent at school. So what if it amounts to nothing, at least they'd have a good shot!

There are so many different types of children, all with different needs and different gifts. Like plants. The world would be dull if all we had were roses.

In closing;
Winston Churchill's mother saw greatness in him from and early age, apparently. She did everything in her power for him to attain that greatness. Was she a fool? If she posted on mumsnet would you all critique her worries with the same damning comments?? Or is it that my concerns are so pitiful that they demand that response. We all want what's best for our children.

screams

toddlers do jigsaws horribly well- that is normal IME - some jump and run fast others do jigsaws and puzzles

this 5 year old does secondary level maths - that is amazingly impressive (and unbelievable actually) he's doing algebra already? can multiply and divide fractions, understands vectors and 3d shapes etc? - who has taught him this, has he taught himself?

although if true it proves that a truly gifted child does not need an education system because there is no way to physically stop them learning

Winston Churchill's mother may have seen greatness, but his schools despaired of him. Eg. he said he only wrote his name on his entrance paper for his senior school (although with a name like Churchill that was enough). At 5 he would have been struggling with the work!

I have known a boy take his GCSE Maths at 8 at a local state primary. Maybe you nephew's state school isn't so good with the super-bright, but the one down the road (possibly with slightly poorer SATs scores) may be much better at dealing with individuals. I know of several cases where children have been very happy having been moved to less "good" schools.

Some children are really incredibly bright, but it doesn't always correlate with great success in life. I've seen a few documentaries where they have looked at children who were originally featured in their early teens and then followed them up 10+ years later and very few of them were doing extraordinary things (these were children who had been accelerated/had lots of extra support). On the other hand many people who do do extraordinary things were fairly unremarkable as children, indeed some really struggled.

I've read some research on the gifted school/program selection in the US and it shows that there is very little correlation between advanced intelligence (as measured by IQ tests etc) at a very young age and achievement a few years later. You get much better correlation later on - 11+ was not totally unreasonable.

I have a dyslexic/gifted child and a high achieving/hard working child. I suspect that the later will do better, both academically and probably career wise too, unless ds finds a real passion, in which case he might be extraordinary. I agree that children need nurturing, but using your analogy they are all tomatoes really, and all deserve the best environment (and actually the ones who really really need it are the ones who struggle - ds needs help for his dyslexia at least as much if not more than encouragement of his interests).

dirac I completely agree that children need different things...however, in reality the state cannot provide a tailor made service.

How can it?

It does what it can with the resources it has.

Some schools and teachers do a better job than others. It might be said that the teacher who identifies true giftedness and accepts it is not within his or her remit, is the better teacher than the one who declares he can teach anyone and everyone...but I digress.

Some highly academic private schools may be able to accommodate a trully gifted child ( my friend's child is receiving an unusual education at such a school in that he has a lot of time away from the school in university), but many end up home educated, access universities at young ages with their parents' help.

And is it worth the state spending tax payers cash on specially devised programmes and schools?

Well as Nooka pointed out, the correlation between true giftedness and achievement is actually pretty low.

So in pure fiscal terms, its not worth it.

However, the question does remain whether bright, as opposed to gifted children, ought to be better catered for than currently.

The demise of grammar schools, some would say, was a nail in that coffin.

Others argue that the comprhensive system adequately accommodates bright pupils.

The state has a legal requirement to provide a 'suitable' education for all chikdren, not the best, a suitable. So to get extra support/specialist placements you have to show why mainstream education isn't suitable. Plenty of parents of kids with SN take on that battle so there's nothing to stop the parent of a gifted child doing the same.

I think iirc research shows that emotional intelligence correlates more closely ro future success than IQ. So maybe we should ne nurturing that.

I really woukdn't want an identified gifted child as my doctor btw - I'd rather have someone able to listen (who may or may not be gifed).

My son aged 2 knew all his letters and numbers could idenity things like equal signs. He could sing perfectly in tune. He's 12 now and can remember very clearly places he went to when he was 2 (and has never been back). He can show me every lamppost in our city that has changed since google maps was made in 2006. He can navigate on map mode to places on google that he has been to once and that are in the middle of
nowhere that I wouldn't be able to find without a name search. He can see you drive up once and two years later pick your car out at a car park. He also has
severe learning disabilities and can't talk at all.

Intelligence is a funny thing. Often overrated.

Winston Churchill had dyslexia and would have found school very difficult
quite from xtraordinary people website:
'I was, on the whole, considerably discouraged by my school days. It was not pleasant to feel oneself so completely outclassed and left behind at the beginning of the race.'
So polar opposite of Op's son.

quote from xtraordinary people

I think it is at secondary school that there needs to be more provision for differences. It's often at that point that children with SEN really can't cope, and where children who are 'nerds, geeks' etc struggle to fit in and decide to under perform. Also much harder for most parents to supplement education because children become more resistant and parents worry about their own skill levels in providing support.

Apparently EQ is an even worse predictor of future success than IQ, and in small children EQ tends to be more of a sign of verbal ability. Of course the book I was reading (NutureShock) might have been cherry picking research, but I think all it was really saying is that children's develomentp isn't steady, but comes in fits and starts, so any snap shot is unlikely to be a very useful predictor of future success.

Oh how I'd love to be in your position, my DD has SN and cannot speak, is due to go to school and may well be put into mainstream without having her needs met, which I feel physically ill about.

So that was an insensitive example to include, IMO.

Fanjo - it really does depned on the mainstream school. I have seen really wonderful examples of SN children in mainstream, of course there are also awful cases. I also think there is a huge difference between Primary and Secondary, puberty is a real dividing line a lot of the time.

My dd is in a wonderful mainstream preschool, it just hasn't been right for her.

Really nooka? Everything I've seen says it's a far better predictor (although thinking about it the studies may have measured iq versus eq in adults which could give different results). It's a rather wooly concept IMO anyway.

I'm never quite sure what the obsession is with predictions of future success anyway. I hope my children will be happy as adults, that's all really.

so "jam tomorrow" is the greatest indicator of success

plans cruel experiments with only children

How old are the children when the biscuit test is carried out. Thinking about all the fun I can have with my great neices and nephews, when they are born .