Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Gifted and talented

Talk to other parents about parenting a gifted child on this forum.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Is dd g&t or just bright?

32 replies

CocktailQueen · 03/12/2013 21:28

Dd is year 5, and she has just been assessed as level 5c in English, maths and science. She was in a g&t programme at lower school. Is she g&t if just bright? Am finding it hard to get my head round the levels...
Thanks.

OP posts:

Original poster

CocktailQueen · 03/12/2013 21:28

Or just bright, not if just bright!!

OP posts:

sittinginthesun · 03/12/2013 22:06

I think that G & T is just a lable, really. It doesn't actually mean anytime.

lottieandmia · 03/12/2013 22:08

My dd is 5c too in year 5. I wouldn't say she was G&T.

But tbh NC levels probably don't mean much in terms of who is G&T. Have her teachers mentioned it?

Hassled · 03/12/2013 22:10

I'd say she's very bright. She may also be G&T, but really - does it help her if you know? One of my DCs is apparently G&T - it just means he's in a certain % of the pupils in his school for now - he may not be next year. And it's made no tangible difference to his school experience.

Abitannoyedatthis · 03/12/2013 22:13

If you have not noticed any particular talent in other areas I would say she is "just" very bright rather than being gifted. I think G & T label is misused. My daughter goes to a well known super selective. Most of the girls would probably be labelled G & T if they went to a local comp, but few are at the really exceptional, genius level. It is just a school where everyone is very clever.

sittinginthesun · 03/12/2013 22:14

agree - my ds (year 5) is somewhere in the 5s but is bright and competitive. His friend is the same level, and is arguably gifted but lazy. She
could probably be working at a far higher level if she wanted.

nc levels are not a clear guide.

Chippingnortonset123 · 03/12/2013 22:16

My Dc are g and t. It doesn't mean anything. I would describe them as good all rounders; not Oxbridge material. It meant that they get some fun experiences.

HumphreyCobbler · 03/12/2013 22:18

gifted and talented is a meaningless label really as gifted means something different to talented. It is the label used by schools to identify the top five percent of children in the class and target them for help.

So it is safe to say your daughter is very bright, which is lovely.

LeBearPolar · 03/12/2013 22:18

Does it matter? I mean, what distinction are you making between 'gifted and talented' and 'bright'? What will the one bring her which the other doesn't, iyswim?

DS predicted to be on level 6s or close to at the end of Year 6 but I don't think it makes any difference to his day-to-day schooling

Original poster

CocktailQueen · 03/12/2013 23:28

No idea! Just asking!

OP posts:

Acinonyx · 04/12/2013 09:14

It depends how you define g & t if you are using the term. Schools tend to take the top 10% (which is vastly different in different schools) or CAT scores over about 125-128 (which is usually less in a non-selective school). Nothing to do with nc levels though.

Bear in mind that only 1-2% get a level 6 in yr 6 (although you would think it was common reading these boards!). So that might give you some idea - a level 6 from a common and garden state primary is pretty dam good. So if that's your dd next year - she'd be doing very well indeed whatever other label you put on it (which I think is what you are really asking here).

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 04/12/2013 09:17

She'll be on the g&t programme if those levels put her in the top few in her class. Objectively obviously they are pretty good levels, as I'm sure you know, but if you mean 'should she be on the g&T programme', that will depend on the rest of her class. If you mean 'is she a gifted child', that's different.

tinselkitty · 04/12/2013 09:27

Personally (as a primary school teacher) all this top % being G&T is a bit misleading and rubbish.

True G&T is when I child is very gifted or talented in one specific area that they then need to be supported in for them to reach their potential. This could be music, art, drama etc.

In all my career I'd say I've only taught one truly gifted child, he was Y1 and went to Y4 for his maths lessons. He was also very gifted in science but that could be supported in class. He was also ASD so could have been part or his 'disorder'.

I have also come across one other, although I didn't teach her, who was extremely gifted in art.

These are the true G&T children. Not just the ones that are slightly above national average NC levels!

Pancakeflipper · 04/12/2013 09:35

Have a look at the Potential Plus UK website that another MNetter posted details about.

I haven't looked at it properly but I am sure I read on there that they don't like the the G&T name ( neither do I, I keep wondering why all these children are having a gin and tonic) but call it high learning potential.

LeBearPolar · 04/12/2013 17:39

I agree with tinselkitty about the definition: certainly 'gifted' suggests truly outstanding and well beyond the ordinary in a particular area.

lljkk · 04/12/2013 20:27

You decide what you want the phrase G&T means and you decide if your DD meets the bill. It's all a matter of opinion.

OutragedFromLeeds · 04/12/2013 20:40

I think if she was gifted you'd know tbh.

If someone is 'gifted' they are so above normal levels that it is clearly obvious imo.

If you have to ask, they're probably not 'gifted'.

elliegoulding · 04/12/2013 20:47

my yr5 DD is a level 5 something in Literacy and numeracy too, never any mention of her being G&T ... she's average afaik.

richmal · 04/12/2013 22:43

I find all this terminology annoying.

High learning potential is the latest ill defined nonsense, ambiguous enough to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. How can it be determined that one child has the potential to learn except by trying to teach them? At which point their future potential will then be altered.

richmal · 04/12/2013 22:46

If your two year old reads my last statement, having taught themselves to read and then comments about it being similar to Heisenberg, it will grant you they are naturally gifted.

tiredbutnotweary · 04/12/2013 23:04

I WISH MNHQ would create a 101 on giftedness in conjunction with Potential Plus as the ignorance and misinformation that abounds on this board never fails to astound me.

CocktailQueen (& ellie) please see here. As you can see, despite the typo in this doc, level 5a+ (at the END of year 5) is top 1% and a 5b top 10 %, a 5c top 15%. None of these is average, nor even close to average.

Tinselkitty - sorry to choose you but your post typifies the MN gifted view of bright or genius as the only two options. In my opinion you have only taught one profoundly gifted child and known of one other profoundly gifted child. Giftedness has a scale, the scale does not go:

Average IQ 100
Bright IQ 120
Genius IQ 145+

Profoundly gifted children (say working a minimum of 4/5 years ahead of their peers) are rare. However the children working 2 or 3 years ahead of their peers are also gifted, perhaps moderately or highly gifted, just not at a profound or genius level of giftedness.

Please, please can everyone check out Potential Plus for some facts (they have info on the levels of giftedness on their site) before so quickly dismissing new posters (not just this one) to this board - otherwise surely it should be renamed the Profoundly Gifted Only board, and new boards set up for Bright, Moderately Gifted and Highly Gifted DC so that everyone can ensure that they are in the right place to avoid being told their DCs are 'just' bright, or average or whatever other erroneous label that posters seem to prefer. Not all posters, but far too many.

Acinonyx · 05/12/2013 08:47

for tiredbutnotweary

tiredbutnotweary · 05/12/2013 10:02

Thanks Acinonyx - I really do wish MNHQ were listening though - the number of OPs on this board that disappear off their own threads about half way through because of the MN gifted myths being banded about is depressing.

PiqueABoo · 05/12/2013 18:21

@richmal: "How can it be determined that one child has the potential to learn except by trying to teach them?"

In practice high potential simply appears to be code for "has performed well in the past".

"Full potential" is my bete noir, as in: "They only have one lifetime, so which one"?

lljkk · 05/12/2013 19:26

Maybe MN really does need to rename this board something like "high ability". I think it's the term "Gifted" that gets people's backs up & derails too many threads.

Flip

1 2