like cod

[cod]

arf at this section

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

Neither of my kids is 'G&T'. I have no problem with the topic heading though - likewise I have no problem with SNs or Single Parents, even though I don't 'fit' those categories either. I find this whole thread profoundly depressing. OK, some people will post with facile 'problems' - "OMG, little Johnny's Esperanto lessons clash with nuclear physics.." but , you know, so what - ignore if you think it's ridiculous. Some people will benefit from having a place like this to post - and unlike some, I do think being genuinely far advanced of your peers is a problem and I'm glad neither of mine is a child genius.

Jeez, whatever happened to live and let live?

I'm not cross about this subject (as one poster suggested that some people were) - just a little sardonic and mocking; which I suppose makes me as objectionable as the parents who think they have gifted and talented children

We had a child removed from Pre-School recently because his mother felt that he uncommonly bright and not sufficiently stretched. We nearly wet ourselves because our perception was that he was a little lacking in social skills, unpopular with his peers and prone to bullying

Ok so now I've read marthamoo's post and feel a tad bigotted and judgemental....

Boy, am I glad that I send my kids to independent schools where it is OK to do well and achievement is celebrated and rewarded.

Thank you, mumsnetters, for validating my decision

Boy, am I glad that I send my kids to independent schools where it is OK to do well and achievement is celebrated and rewarded.

Thank you, mumsnetters, for validating my decision

jimjams, I really like your posts here, especially about concentrating resources in areas with lots of underprivileged children.

Can I just say something about my own (limited) experience of the label gifted and talented?

My oldest son (12) is on the bright side - he passed the 11+ and is coping ok with work at grammar school. From the time he first went to pre school his teachers said he was very able - despite problem behaviour and never trying hard. As a toddler he was very articulate and active. He is better behaved now, but still coasts whenever he can.

He went to three different primary schools. If you take the top 10% of a class as gifted and talented, he would have been in that group at the first two primary schools. Then he moved to another primary school where children were made to work harder and he was classed as an average pupil with some catching up to do in year 3. Gradually over the next few years he was moved to all the top groups. However there were a couple of outstanding children in his class whose natural ability was definitely above his. Of the class of 22 year 6 pupils, 8 passed their 11+ - compared to other primary schools round here, that is a very high percentage. He is now doing moderately well at grammar school, but has been pulled up a lot about his lack of organisation, so as ever he is coasting.

From year 3 onwards my son has certainly not been in the top 10% of his class, before that, he probably was. It would have been very easy for me to assume from what his nursery, preschool and infant class teachers were saying to me, that my son was exceptional - a bit of a troubled genius. If I'd known about the G and T program then, I might well have said that my son was G and T. But the schools he went to after year 3 showed my son in a different light.

The label G and T did come up again last year when we were looking at secondary schools. When I talked to teachers from comprehensive schools, explaining my son's projected grades, they said it was likely he would be on the school' G and T programme. But at grammar school, he is certainly nowhere near the top 10% and it would be silly and downright inaccurate to label him as gifted and talented there.

So in my experience, the label is absolutely meaningless for someone of my son's ability. He is simply not so able that he would be G and T at whatever school he attended.

And it is more than meaningless now I come to think of it. If my son saw himself as gifted and talented, I can guarantee that he would work even less hard - it would be a perfect excuse! And, as a parent of this so called G and T child I fear I would start getting a bit too complacent, I know I would (not saying anyone else here is like me btw). I know I might not be so concerned if he didn't do all the hard graft. I might start assuming he was disorganised and distracted because after all he is gifted so what can you expect?

I don't like the government's label - gifted and talented. I don't like the labeling of children. It would certainly be a bad idea for my son. Like jimjams and others, I do think there should be some extra support for able children whose background may prevent them getting the GCSEs they should achieve.

As I don't like the G and T label, I personally do not like having a topic on mumsnet called Gifted and Talented - but hey, feel free to ignore me :) If the majority view is different, of course mumsnet needs to go with that.

I agree with alot of Scummy's points and Rhubarbs.

However.....i still very much believe that a child who is way ahead of his/her peers, no matter how much they are stimulated outside of school, (and in fact, this may only prove to emphasise certain aspects of the childs school day) WILL be bored.

When you consider that a child spends a large part of their average day IN school, to find most areas of school "unchallenging" IMO, can have detrimental consequences.

I don't mock the kids and parents

I know plenty of brainy kids and in fact, shock, was one

but none of them are bored/I was never bored which seems to be the defining characteristic here

but think the creation of g and t is a laod of bolleaux (govt not mnet)

perhaps G and T should be retitled Bored Kids

I think you are right Enid

We nearly wet ourselves because our perception was that he was a little lacking in social skills, unpopular with his peers and prone to bullying

you could be describing my son there :(

i think the label is clearly a bad thing. if grown women find it so difficult to come to terms with it then its no surprise other kids cant resist picking on the brighter kids.

i dont see why they need any extra money spending on them tbh, unless it is to fund clubs at break times as that would benefit my son hugely. my perception of the problems ds encounters at school is that there are a huge amount of plodders who everyone is more concerned about (hmm, sure i have heard that before), and he is always an afterthought. i have offered to get work done at home so he could do something he is interested in at school but apparently that is not allowed.

i dont know how my son will progress. the school he is at has very low sats scores so i think that could be the problem. if i move him to another school with higher scores he may do far better. at the moment he sees no point in doing the easy work he is given so he just doesnt do it. i have no idea how to get through to the school so it looks like we are just going to have to put up with it.

but i am so happy about it i cant resist coming on here to brag

Some of the comments on here do reek of indignation that some children are identified as far, far brighter than their own precious sprogs. So much easier to be understanding about kids who are thicker or less able than ones own.

good points, t'moth. I suspect your ds1 is quite similar in character to the twin I was talking about earlier.:)

Wait a minute, though, people. Where has anyone said anything about condoning disgusting bullying such as that described by Jenk1 or not valuing excellence and achievement, or wanting very bright children to sit bored rigid and dejected in school? I would be utterly horrified at any of these outcomes for any child, personally. A school that endorsed, allowed or, God forbid, encouraged such attitudes would in my opinion be an absolutely unhappy and unsafe place, not to mention completely educationally ineffective. No child should have to attend and endure such a school and I am sure no one who has argued against the labelling of some children as gifted and talented was suggesting for one second that bullying or entrenched and prolonged boredom or an anti-learning culture are acceptable. They are, all three, totally unacceptable.

I do not believe that introducing a gifted and talented programme into a school where bullying, boredom and anti-excellence (sounds like rum, sodomy and the lash!) are the norm would make one whit of positive difference though. Such a move could even, as I suspect may have happened with Jenk1’s little boy, exacerbate an already awful situation.

I object to G & T programmes not because they aim to celebrate excellence and enrich learning but because they aim to do this for only a tiny proportion of children, many of whom who are likely to hail from more advantaged backgrounds anyway. I honestly think that a programme that proceeds on the assumption that the normal school curriculum is dull and bereft of opportunity and that bright children must therefore have opportunities added is suspect. Bright kids are not usually a different species, imo. In the main they need the very same things from the curriculum as other children, though they might be expected to explore further, and delve deeper and should receive encouragement to do so. G & T programmes draw resources and opportunities away from the creating a full and fantastic curriculum for everyone, whilst doing the children so identified no favours at all in terms of their self-image and popularity, imo. I think this is because G & T is incompatible with the two things that make for a great school:

1. Giving every child equal access to a wide range of very good quality educational experiences
2. Valuing every child as a unique individual and celebrating their achievements

It seems to me also that many of the horrible experiences posted about here have arisen because the schools concerned have not consistently done either of these things and so children have found to their cost that to wanting to learn at their own level is frowned upon as unusual and viewed as an irritating quirk that they and their parents should shut up about. Appalling. But the solution is not to say “this child is too bright for this system- they need more”, imo. It is rather to say “this system is not good enough or flexible enough for ANY child. Change it.” A bright child, like any child, will not be bored in a rich learning environment with many opportunities to explore different topics and interests. In a place where ALL learning is celebrated and admired an academic child is less likely to feel embarrassed about their achievements. In a school where ALL children’s strengths and efforts are noticed and praised, academic high fliers are less likely to be bullied. And, frankly, shame on those schools which fail in these areas because they are failing ALL their children. Adding the bolleaux (great word, Enid!) of a G & T programme will not change that one whit. Imo.

"many of whom who are likely to hail from more advantaged backgrounds anyway"

I disagree with that comment scummy - a truly "gifted" child cannot be coached to that status - they either are or they aren't (imho).

Apart from the comment Jools highlighted, I agree with you scummymummy.

Also agree with Enid re being bored.

all this angst over the board and its title and the programme etc seems to suggest that there is plenty to discuss

I do think you're right that geniuses and those on the cusp of genius are born not made, joolstoo. But that again is a big problem with the G & T scheme, imo, because it's very rarely about identifying true genius afaik. In some ways I'd have fewer problems with it if it was honestly about identifying and supporting the fewer than 1% of kids who are totally off the scale in academic ability terms. But in practice it does seem to be more about giving opportunities to the ordinarily able that should be a routine part of the curriculum anyway (and doing nothing for their characters in the process.)

Yes, scummy, as is often the case, a bad label has been bastardised so that schools can be seen to be doing something about the "G&T" initiative.

The top 10% used to (and in some areas still are) go off to grammar schools.

I did, but there was no way I was a G&T "candidate".

The reality is that the current curriculum, the time constraints and resources doesn't allow for the more able to be stretched in secondary school. Grammar school is a different story obviously. The 'one size fits all' curriculum doesn't do any such thing. Individual schools' G&T programmes try to address this.

Just to clarify - not all kids in G&T in school are recognised by the NAGTY.

I do agree with scummy and that was an interesting post tigermoth.

\link{http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk?topicid=1373&threadid=175289\I know the thread's not about this} but we did get onto savants earlier and yoyo might be interested} I think the film is far more represetative of reality than the odd savant here and there. YOu can see why ds1's perfect pitch means bugger all. Follow the link from davros' 1st post on this thread for a short film about autism.

In a way it is relevant if GandT resources (money?) are being given to the top 10% (rather than as scummy suggests it should be, the top 1% country wide) because the film goes some way to explaining how badly the SN sector is being let down currently. Sure stretch the true geniuses and put money in there, but sort out the other end first of all, they need the money and resources more

Been pondering this a bit more and its relevance to gandt. DS1 is very like a cross between the boy in the tie die shirt (daniel) and the one with short blond hair who the mum tries to do a jugsaw with (less bouncy and hyper but reacts int he same way when you try and direct him, even if it's something that he would like). And he was in mainstream for 4 terms (not at our request we were told it was our only option).So a mainstream teacher is on the one hand having to deal with children like him, with no training (and you can therefore imagine how effective his education ), and at the same time identify gandt and giev a differentiated curriculum. It's - in a word- a hopeless situation, that benefits no-one. G and T, in my mind is just a silly little govt dreamed up label that can not translate into anything useful whilst the situation in mainstream schools is as I described above. If it did translate into stretching the able, fine, but I think that's rare- there are too many other problems in our schools.

If I was in charge :o chilldren like ds1 would be in special school taught by specialist teachers with a lot of 1:1 and that special school would integrate appropriately with mainstream schools (actually this is exactly what happens now he has moved school- ), all children would be stretched to their maximum ability- which would need smaller classes for starters, and exams would be made truly challenging for the able, whilst the less academically able would be able to tak sensibe respected alternative qualifications.