Is dd g&t or just bright?

[CocktailQueen]

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.

I think that's a really good idea, actually. Certainly, I've never heard the phrase "gifted" mentioned in any context at dcs' school. The brightest and most advanced are always referred to as "HA".

That's a good idea - only trouble is any other term will have it's problems. But 'gifted' is rather loaded.

Well G&T is deprecated in DfE land so that's probably wise, but the trouble with "high [anything]" is that they also defined "high ability" as the top ~33% prior to Ofsted managing to increase that to the top ~%50.

Meanwhile, I think I'd quite like a 'sticky' pointing out that all schools are not like "your" school e.g. DD's does NOT put a fixed percentage on the G&T register, in fact they don't appear to put any children on for academic "gifts" and only rarely for "talents". Even the latter may well have stopped now that they don't have to report this stuff in the school census.

Finally 6.5%, 1.6% and 0.4% got L6 Maths, SPaG and Reading respectively in 2013 so it's time to find a newer chart that also differentiates between subjects. Well except NC levels are also deprecated in DfE land now so you might also need something that also converts between old NC levels and Acme Attainment Points or whatever any given school might use if they choose to exercise their new found "freedom". Will be fun in fretful parent land should some schools with ambitious wannabe-celebrity HTs magic up the resources to move to a new system.

Oh, thank you tiredbutnotweary - have saved that PDF now so I have it for future reference!

Ah well, we have parents eve in Jan so will speak to dd's teachers about their G&T programme and if she would benefit from extended learning. Though the school is pretty good at differentiating work already, from what dd says and from her homework (which shows what kids at each level should be aiming for).

Am pretty chuffed for her, tbh :)

I would say bright. DS was level 5 in maths in year 5 and level 6 in English.

'Gifted' to my mind means doing GCSEs at age 9 and stuff. So no, just bright. My DD is like yours - she is expected to be borderline L6 in everything at the end of Yr6, but she's no little Einstein.

As long as she ends up in an appropriate set at secondary in the way my DD1 has done, I'm not bothered. DD1's set are all aiming for A* in the new style GCSEs (a big ask, I know) and RG universities after A levels. They are bright, hard working and well behaved children and are utterly lovely as people. The school has recognised their potential and is supporting it. That is what matters.

This board is called Gifted and Talented. This MUST correlate to the government 'Gifted and Talented' programme. It's not a coincidence of the name, surely???

Now, I am real sceptic about the G&T thing, because to say that '10% of the children in a year are G&T' is so flawed as to be ridiculous - it means a child could be G&T, move schools and suddenly not be, despite having the same needs.

But, under the definitions of the G&T programme, and therefore this board, the OP's child may or may not be 'gifted', depending on who else is in the class.

And those who say 'gifted children are those doing GCSEs at 9' or whatever - I would echo what an earlier poster said , and say that those children are the 'profoundly gifted', and it is crazy to dismiss all other children as 'average'.

The reason I am so against this whole programme though is that it totally fails to recognise that children develop at different rates, and a child who is ahead at age 5 may be broadly average by 11. Likewise, a child (like my ds2) who could barely speak when he started reception (due to hearing loss during his toddler years), then forged ahead and got all L3s in KS1 SATs, and is reading and writing about 4 years ahead. But I'm not all 'oh my child is a genius', because it may just be a developmental surge that may then plateau iyswim. However in creative arts he is showing real signs of talent - ie a depth to his work that is not just 'ability beyond his age' but signs of expression in art and music that can't be taught iyswim, and that is where I think his real 'talent' is.