like cod

[cod]

arf at this section

parp parp parp
where the " my kid is thick " section

Piffle, I have to agree with you on this. I haven't bothered posting on here actually because of the mocking attitude of others. I too have found that people I know are brilliant at this, so why bother coming onto MN? I have found that over the years, I have never even been allowed to discuss my dds abilities/problems because of the attitude of others that I know. Pity that MN is the same.

I wouldn't laugh about children who have difficulties at school, I suppose I am just fair game.

(Actually, Dino is nearly grey - the blonde is just camouflage - and the camouflage is getting less successful by the day!)

I don't think the govts g & t scheme can be blamed for some people objecting to a m/net topic on the subject.

shouldn't you be called 'scaredycat'?
say it under your usual name.

pmsl why would she be scared:o

you got me pinky but as far as I can see she's made 2 posts both to bollock cod

My thoughts exactly JT.

Mind you, i think if said under her usual name she might show herself as having been lurking...........

Jimjams, by extra effort and tiem I do not mean special schooling, but as you say appropriate to their levels, the same as any other child would expect. I am well aware of the failings of the school system throughout all abilities. I do not demand extra for my ds, I did move 250 miles to get him into a school that would provide the opportunities though.
I'm not entirely sure that I agree with the need for a G+T scheme, when ds was at primary it was called extremely able and exceptional. I'm not sure what the purpose of identifying the children at this level of ability is either. With ds it comes down to a gcse or two a year or so early, thats it.
It is common sense that any child given extra attention at school and tailored schooling would also make smashing improvements, but is it the schools responsibility to offer 31 different schooling plans for each class? I figure not. I am not purporting that it is fair or worth it.
All I am saying is that I am a parent with a son who has had this ignominious title festtoned upon him and now what exactly am I supposed to feel about this? Let alone what do I do about it?
AFAI am concerned, the school labelled him, it is their responsilbilty thus to cater for him, why else pick them out for this scheme?

VVV

Hi Joolstoo - would be interested to know who you think I am. This is my name. I would also take care with the wordplay on names, Rhubarb recently showed herself up rather badly by doing that.

JT....

Cam, not sure if you were talking to me.

I have no objections at all to this section. Asking questions and sharing good practice about teaching and supporting children who are academically able and/or talented in another area seems eminently sensible to me.

My post was just a comment really. I DO think the term "G&T" is pretty useless at the moment, as it is used with no definition. It would be like giving a child a statement that just says "SEN" on it. That is no help at all to the teacher. I support a G&T scheme in theory, but in practice in schools it isn't working. I'm pretty sure that when it was introduced, there wasn't just a blanket "gifted and talented" label for bright children. There was a distinction between the two, as I said in my earlier post, and it was more inclusive of children with special talents in, for example, sports.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that without some explicit defintion, these labels mean nothing more in the classroom than a few extra worksheets. This is not the way it should be.

Not referring to you becky

Any more questions about me? This was getting interesting up to 4.21, when people started to drift away very suddenly, I wonder why. Looks like a few are drifting back now. By the way was that a good wink, I find them quite difficult?

I don't like the label, but that's what the schools call it. What I do find disturbing is the fact that a teacher has started this thread. What happens with the brighter kids in her class? Do they receive an appropriate education, or are they deliberately kept down with the masses to make life easier for the teacher?

And surely, instead of pooh poohing this thread, as a teacher, she should try and change the system from within, if she doesn't like it? (Yes, I know that is probably quite naive...)

Mrs s I am not a teahcer.w hat have you that idea
ayway ratehr htan just using htis as a way to have a go at me why not look att he toher peopel who have espressed hteir" interest" at this thread/topic .issue

Why do you have to feel anything about it though piffle. If your son is bright and being sufficiently stretched then surely that is enough.

I have met one truly gifted person in my time (ex boyf). He got the top 1st in his year at Oxford, he is naturally gifted (spent the last week before finals going for walks relaxing when the likes of me were up at 5am cramming).

He got there from one of tony's "bog standard" comprehensives, his best friend from school is a plumber or something. He was/is slight saocially awkward in groups, although I think that has moere to do with him not mixing with other kids until he was 5- his mother didn't let him go to playschool because his village one had too much reading and writing and she wanted him to play not learn to read.

So point of all this is I don't really see why you have to do anything about g and t kids. If they're bullied yes do something about that, if they're bored stiff then look at switching achools to one with streaming or the IB or something, if they hav socxial problems encourage out of school stuff, but I don't see how any of that relates soley to g and t. Bullying is horrible, if ds2 is bullied it won't make much difference to me whether its because he's gifted or because he has a very weird brother. If he's bright then fine, if he's not then fine. I've only known one kid labelled gifted (american of course) and he got al the extra stuff and was off the rails by 16 and is now a drop out. I have a feeling that doing something about a gifted child (other than providing th same sort of encouragement that you would provide your plodders with) really achieves anything.

bleurgh got my words mixed up in the last sentence- you know what I mean.

I do know what you mean, jj. And agree wholeheartedly.

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreadsm, just wanted to say that for every one of your friends who got through normal comp school to go to Oxford, there are probably a hundred who left school at 16 to work as a secretary or shop assistant.

but how on earth is a g and t system going to help with that (and what's so bad about being a secretary anyway). Sure get the comps to wise up (my friend's school well and truly messed up her Oxford application- and she was told "people don't go to Oxford from schools like this"- by her teacher- she went to a different university and did very well (earns far more than me), but that doesn't need a g and t scheme-the oxford access scheme would cover that sort of thing very well, it already does.

As I said earlier I can see the point in identifying the top 10% in very disadvantaged areas as they do locally- but in those cases the money is going towards encouraging people to be secretaries (rather than prostitues not to put to fine a point on it).

Otherwise in decent areas with halfway decent schools, sort out the curriculum rather that fuss about who the top 10% are (I always feel sorry for mr 11%)

And what is wrong with that, Uglysister? Do you think everyone should go to Oxbridge? I for one had neither the inclination nor the talent.

I think the true fault is drawing lines hither an thither which seems to be funding related..wherever they fall there is always someone just on the other side...and no child however they fall on the scale is on that scale for everything..I still think that the uniformity of the curriculum has proved to be more of a strait jacket than a liberation