Grr. Why are all "bored" DSs allegedly unrecognised G&T? Teachers must tear their hair out!

[teslagirl]

Why is it that seemingly every 8 and 9 y.o. DS who announces he's "bored at school" is automatically regarded by his mother as being "very intelligent but under stimulated" by the school? Sometimes I feel I'm surrounded by it! I had 2 parents helping at the school disco who said this, separately. The DSs are both Y3- and as luck would have it, both in my DS1s class (he's Y4 in a Y3/4 combo) and HE said, when obliquely questioned that both DSs are in Maths 4 and Literacy 4- out of 5. As "very intelligent" Y3s they should surely be in 3 or EVEN 2 if they're REALLY G&T (bearing in mind group 1 is full of the brightest Y4s)!

I heard this also in the wash-up after Y4 parents evening- a few mums who told the teacher DS needed more work as he'd said he was "Bored", proof indeed that the school was evidently failing them... Surely it's cool for junior school boys to claim EVERYTHING is 'Boring'?- it's in the nature of being 8-11 esp whilst emulating the studied ennui of the older boys! It doesn't necessarily mean they ARE bored OR, if they genuinely are, let's not go assuming it's because our DS is an unrecognised G&T thus are under stimulated/failed by the school, but maybe entertain the possibility that DS can't be bothered/hasn't got the maturity to understand the value of engaging with his education! I know the DSs concerned and I don't see any glimmer of genius lurking within!

One further point- and I know this is thin ice: It also strikes me how many of the mothers concerned haven't got an O level to rub together. Perfectly nice people, all, but women who will admit they spent secondary snogging behind the bike shed but suddenly spout authoritatively on the nature of Education Theory and The Undiagnosed Genius.

LOL Martianbishop. I've noticed that whenever teachers are about to point out dd's failings, they always start off with 'I can see she's a very bright child, as she talks so well (read, won't shut up in class) and she's so good at reading (read, would spend all her time reading fairystories given half a chance).
They're always far too nice to suggest that she might not be finishing her writing because she's easily distracted, hates getting things wrong, and finds spelling hard!
Of course, on the other side of the fence, perhaps I shouldn't be pointing out to DD that her father and grandmother can't spell for toffee either, and both of them have had perfectly successful and happy lives

Hmm. Maybe I have my head in the clouds too much about this (read too much Emerson), but I don't think it's a life-necessity to get used to being bored.

By that I don't people have a right to be constantly entertained - in fact the total opposite - in my ideal universe you'd learn, as a child, the skills to make interest, under your own steam, out of anything you come across. And it would be a sort of expected norm to put those skills to use.

Agree with you totaly. I also find that some of the G and T kids that I have worked with are often satisfied with a very superficial grasp of a subject. They think that they understand it all, when in fact they have only just begun to scratch at the surface.

While being 'bored' they would be better advised to get a deeper understanding rather than to simply race ahead getting a little understanding along the way

i always tell my children (my own and those who have been in my class) that only boring people get bored.....

mb you are spot on my eldest ds whose partcular niche is military history was feeling a bit disinterested in history in school i bought him a book about the russian revolution a subject he thought he knew a lot about .........turns out after 6 months of toiling thru this book there was a lot he didnt know ......

I hate to say this to the OP, but my DS really is bored and understimulated at school and has been unrecognised hitherto.

They don't use the G&T label at his school but it is a highly academically selective school, which professes to select only from the top 40% of boys (it is seriously oversubscribed). My DS really is very bright as evidenced by coming top of his year in maths.

Any other subject and he switches off and has a quiet snooze in class, plodding along, or poddling along somewhere in the middle of the second quartile. I'd love to see him engaged with more than one subject, really I would. I am at my wits end with this.

I coness..we're not fond of the word bored in our house, but it has to be said that there are lots of boring things out there in life and it's all part of the mix.

It's just like you said...none of us are going to be entertained 24/7 and if you were it would be too much.

I'd will anyone in the world to find interest in their tax return for example!!!!

Quattro, aren't you annoyed to be shelling out all that money and still they can't get it right?

I must confess that 'You must entertain them' attitude to guidance on lesson plans sets my teeth on edge.

Now, don't get me wrong, I like my lessons to be fun whenever they can be. In some ways for a very selfish reason, I like to be happy in the lesson myself.

But now we are driven to make everything fun and games, to pander to ever decreasing attention spans. So you can't have a spelling test any more, you have to have a crossword puzzle. You can't just teach punctuation, you have to make it 'Kung Fu' punctuation.

FFS, some things are just a little dull, and you suck it in and bloody well get on with life

and if they are badly behaved the cry goes up, 'But you have to engage them'

Well it's not like we are rich so I'd like to believe the money is being well-spent. I do think things might be considerably worse though.

The school has recognised (unacceptably late IMO) that he is underperforming quite seriously in most of the other subjects now. Their aim is to get children to achieve their potential or even beyond it. They explained that they'd just done something called CAT testing. Apparently this is nothing to do with pussies but to do with measuring what the boys are capable of achieving, and then working out an individual plan to get them there.

All I can say is that I'm really glad he's not in a mixed school. Girls apparently learn differently from boys. All the teachers get special training in how to motivate and engage boys.

I do think this is a universal problem, and I don't believe that many schools even begin to deal with it adequately.

Could it be that a lot of parents feel their children may be G&T because they don't take into account how much academic standards in schools have slipped since they were at school?

ie, they would not be bored if standards were at a higher level.

Oh and to Squiffy.

I don't find doing my tax return interesting in the slightest. In fact it is a royal PITA. It does not, however, prevent me from doing it diligently and to the best of my ability and delivering it on time to avoid penalties. I don't find boring much of an acceptable excuse tbh

nfk - it isn't as simple as that. I think it's a common misconception that paying for a private education is going to be a panacea; that it will ensure that your child is stimulated, happy and more likely to succeed. Buying into private is more likely to provide certain conditions... smaller classes, middle class parents, none of the 'below average' pupils. But it doesn't guarantee that the teaching will be more dynamic, or that the other pupils will be interesting. It certainly doesnt legislate against children being bored. My ds was at a selective private school; he chose to move to state, and although neither is perfect (what school is?) he is on balance getting a better deal in state I believe. Like Quattro's ds, he is very bright, but in some ways I think the private school system worked against that, because he found the intake of the school narrow. It was very middle class, all the pupils above average ability (but not necesarily super bright)... my ds felt the school was too 'narrow' in ethos and outlook. He is now in a school with a broader ability range, (from lower to higher than he came across in private) and which to him feels more 'real world' (for want of a better phrase!).
Like a lot of bright boys, he doesnt always work hard, he can be lazy and slapdash, and yes, this worries me sometimes. But there are no easy answers - I really do know from experience that a private school is not going to prevent boredom; neither is it going to prevent children from underachieving or even over achieving - which can be equally bad, if it leads to a child getting results which don't reflect their true ability.
I give all my children fairly short shrift if they moan about being bored. I don't think this boredom thing is confined to schools anyway - I think it's symptomatic of this generation. I think all we can do as parents is try to be realistic about our children's abilities, not over or under estimate them, and then try to encourage them to take responsibility for their own learning - to not see education as something which is done 'to' them at school, but as a lifelong experience which they should have ownership of.

You will think I'm sort of sad, squilly - but I do get a bit of satisfaction out of doing my tax return ... I quite like the insight into how these things really have to work - the formulae and so on. And I like getting to the bottom of it & coming up with my own answers: it's only because I did my own calculation that I was able to challenge a £500 bill I was sent.

"Can you explain where the £500 comes in?" I said to the IR demands person. "As it doesn't make sense according to my calculations, which are [runs through figures]."

"Ah." [pause] "You know, I think perhaps that amount was added to the total by accident - perhaps from another file," she said.

Made me wonder how often that "happens" - and where the excess goes ...

Part of the problem is the expecting to be entertained rather than pupils finding their own enjoyment in something. I found this out myself the otherday when I happened to see an old episode of Dr Who and I was getting impatient, it progressed sooo slowly, but then recalled this had me gripped as a child.

As I find I continually post (so sorry if you've heard it before), private does not always mean better teaching.

When looking at schools for ds we chose our local primary because the teaching was dynamic and the children engaged. At the private school the grounds were lovely, the children well spoken but boy were a lot of the lessons dull. Maybe that's what private produces though...stoic endurance!

Bink, I don't think you're sad at all. I just wish you could do mine for me :0

I end up weeping and sweeping all my papers into a pile in December so I can be sure to hit the submission date in January!!!

I'm hoping my child will be able to do mine when she's older. (Is that classed as living through my children? If so, guilty as charged!).

There are good, mediocre and bad in both sectors, heated. For me, the key thing (and I've said this before too!) is that with private, you need to be clear about what you are paying for - ie: smaller classes, no (or fewer) below average kids, more homework etc. It doesn't mean the calibre of teaching is better (I know several outstanding teachers who have never applied for jobs in the private sector). One downside of private school IMO is actually that mediocre teaching, and failure to extend the really bright kids is tolerated more than it is in the state sector, because generally speaking there can be an attitude of passive compliance in private. One thing that annoyed the hell out of my ds was the unquestioning attitude of many of the kids - they just lapped up whatever they were told and did whatever tasks they were set without question. It is also very easy to fall into the trap of thinking that if you are paying for something then it 'must' be better. It's very hard to justify the tens of thousands you spend if you admit that actually, your child would have done just as well without you spending it!! So the whole thing becomes self justifying, as is seen on so many threads.
I think there have been some really interesting points about the boredom factor on this thread - and one thing comes across loud and clear - it is a huge issue for this generation of young people. I think popular culture has a lot to do with it.

I am loving this thread.

Actually I slightly perversely end up bristling at the implication that my fizzy little girls, who aren't bored at school and behave really quite well, must be thick and sheep-like.

I hasten to add that my DS is in no way disruptive (now having read the thread in its entirety). He has been described as lovely and wanting to please by his teachers. My issue is that he is so obviously just trundling along very happily but not especially receptively.

What I'd really like to know from the teachers on the thread is how much acknowledgement there is in your schools about the difficulty of engaging boys and what is done about it.

agree, motherinferior. Extraordinary how one has to listen to people droning on about their "terribly academic" dcs who are "bored to tears" at school. Hmmmmph.

the dcs are not allowed to say the word bored. I've told them it's my worst swear word. That said, they never are bored. That naturally means they're thick as two short planks.

Motherinferior, I too must have a sheep like, thick girl too. I'd be offended as well, but I don't think I got enough o-levels to qualify myself for that!

IME G and T girls are far less likely to be a PITA than boys. I'm burning my lifetime membership of the women's press as I type this. But IME this is what I have seen.

So shoot me

I don't know where the equation bored = thick comes in at all. Perhaps oversensitivity? My DD isn't bored or suffering from lack of engagement ... I think girls do get more interested in primary school things generally.

IME most girls quickly clock on to the fact that if they crack on and get the work done, they will get a few minutes at the end of the activity when they can chat without the Cowbag at the front of the class giving them grief.

Bright boys almost never cotton on to this.

Girls seem to be more prepared to just get on with it than boys.

Which doesn't explain why I have not 'got on with sorting the laundry'

I suppose that this must mean that I am super G and T and that sorting laundry doesn't 'stretch me' enough!

Hay ho!