At what age does being gifted matter?

[wildcoffeeandbeans]

I realise it's kind of a silly question – kids need to have their needs met whatever their age. But pertaining specifically to primary age, when (if at all) should we think about having DS formally identified? Is there any point in doing so? Would it make a difference in what he's offered at school before secondary age? DH and I both went to school in the US, so we're not really familiar with what state primaries provide for GT students (DD wasn't identified as gifted until year 7, but she also has ADHD which was clouding her abilities).

DS is almost 4, and in the nursery at the school where he'll start reception in September. They currently send him home with a new ORT book daily, but I don't think even that is necessary at this age, and I worry about pressuring him to perform. Eventually, though, if he does need stretching, then I'd like to have an idea of whether the school would be reasonably expected to provide support, and what that would look like.

Any guidance would be appreciated!

From what I've read on here there's huge differences in UK and USA approaches to teaching. (Although I'm sure it varies state to state etc). A friend in America said everyone in a class does exactly the same thing in her child's case, and if they don't pass the year they repeat it.

Here teachers are required to differentiate in class so children struggling will be helped and children exceeding given extension work.

That's over simplified it a bit but there's less need to label a g and t child I think. In our reception there's children at the beginning stages of reading and those reading well, children focusing on writing numbers to 20 and those practicing early times tables for example. Those writing their name and those writing little stories.

As they get older (just let them play at 4/5!) then I'd extend in other ways, instruments, learning about interesting places near you etc!

I know because his reception teacher mentioned it at parents' evening - no one has mentioned it since, but I assume he still is.

not necessarily

It is quite often the top 10% of a cohort, and obviously, children develop at different rates, and someone in the top 10% one year is not necessarily in the top 10% another year.

You also have to keep in mind that what the label means is extra monitoring by staff, so extra paper work and time.

It doesn't mean extra education, as you can give stretch and challenge tasks to anyone at all, at any time, they do not have to be on any formal list.

Quite often, the criteria for such lists are odd, for example, free school meals, pp, or uneducated parents, or less educated parents. One school I worked in the list was entirely self referred. In another school, every single child was registered on the government list as soon as they reached 16, as it made A level resources cheaper.

Also, any child could be added by any teacher, at any time, for anything, but this did last 3 years, and cross all subjects, so cause unnecessary paper work, and difficult monitoring for other teachers too, for example a friend of mine who was a maths teacher used to be pulling his hair out with students listed as "gifted" for cookery or dance, because they would show up on his register as gifted too, and had to be monitored separately.

By the age of 18 it no longer has any meaning, anyway

"It is quite often the top 10% of a cohort, "

I don't think school need to identify top 10 % as gifted anymore, so the statement seems untrue. It could be top 10 % if the school is still using this system. But it could mean something totally different as well. You can't just say as you stated, imo, without knowing the child.

We picked academically selective private schools for the top say 20% of children from age 4 or 5 and that worked pretty well. Even then you get a range of abilities within that top 20% but as it's UK not US the teacher then makes sure the work is appropriate to that particular child.

It could be top 10 % if the school is still using this system

but if a school or authority has a policy of not removing someone from the register, then it will stay the original top 10% of the original cohort for some years yet.

You can't just say as you stated, imo, without knowing the child.

It is a statistical exercise, there is no requirement to know individual children

Ime it doesn't matter. A good teacher/school will notice anyway and if both are willing to try and meet their needs as much as possible, then they'll try their best regardless of whether the dc is labeled or described as gifted. If on the other hand the school and teacher aren't willing, dc could have as many labels and proven evidence they are gifted, and the school will still make no effort.

Hi,

I was just reading this thread as my daughter was just given the label 'gifted' at school (I'm in Canada) and wanted to know the British standpoint on gifted as my husband is from Scotland and seems very confused with the term. :-) thought I might have a north american stand point. She had an IQ test done age 8 and she was above the 98th percentile and therefore she was named gifted. We had no idea, we just knew she was bright.

I think it has added some understanding for us as a family. Everything comes easily to her so at school she needs to work at a faster pace or be given projects to work on while other kids are doing repetition. The test results have given us leverage so we can sit down with the teacher every so often to see how she can be challenged. It seems the same as in Britain that there are no extras for her so we have to come up with them ourselves. However schooling is very casual here so maybe easier to bend to how we want it.

Gifted isn't achievement- it's innate ability. My daughters marks are all over the board :-) I don't really care because I know she knows her stuff and she loves learning.

robot, also some children are very good at some things and not others too so it is not necessarily inherently good at everything - eg you will get people good at maths but not great at English. Keeping that love of learning going is the great thing if you can.

I listened to a sad phone in programme on the radio yesterday in the car about a UK survey - why are the poor not doing well at school. One lady came on who had had chidlren in fee paying scholls in the Middle East. They were now back in the UK and in a very poor area and had been doing very badly financially so suddenly she was moved from private school parent presumably will loads of ex pat perks etc etc to a dreadful time in the UK, children with free school meals. She said the teachers treated the 3 children differently.She was not anti teacher but she felt the attitude to the children changed - kind of written off. They had a lot of callers who said all the poorest children were simply put into bottom sets with low expectations and also the worst behaviour came from that too. That is appalling. My mother taught classes of 40 children without a teaching assistance after the second world war in one of the worst areas of NE England and she tried to do her best equally to them all. A good few had parents in prison and that kind of thing.

The callers kept mentioning extras. It reminded me of my parents. My mother had had tap lessons as a little girl although they were very poor but it was only when she was at residential teacher training college for 2 years that she could sing (she has perfect pitch and a lovely voice into her 50s and even in her 50s a 140 IQ actually which is very high). I suspect her own mother who went out to India to work as a servant to a British family in the 1920s got a glimpse of a different richer kind of English life and perhaps encouraged her , the only child as her father died at work when my mother was 9 months old, to get more education and move on a bit. So my parents made sure we had piano lessons etc.

I was still surprised the callers thought the extra curricular stuff mattered so much and school trips. One person said he could not do GCSE course work very well as his family could not afford the fee to travel to the geography field trip. Another mentioned revision guides which all my children have bought on line and I think make a massive difference to GCSEs although should not be essential. He could not afford £10 x 10 of those for his 10 subjects.

"I was very lucky to live in a place where the GT kids were pulled out daily for special (read: amazing!) classes where we got to focus on various topics in much more depth than we could have done in our regular, slow-paced class of 30"

Yeah, you were lucky.
My G&T experience (California in 1970s) was twice a week we did something for an hour like typing or calligraphy. It didn't add anything to my life, tbh. I was badly bullied in that school because "it's very common for bright children to have poor social skills."

My niece (said to be a genius) was bullied at the exact same school 20 years later, this was not bullying but "a rite of passage." Funny enough, I was only bullied in the school with the special Gifted Kids programme. Never in the Poor ghetto schools I went to otherwise.

The MN definition of Gifted is not like North American concepts... MNers think Gifted = 1 in a million kids level of outstanding ability. Keep this in mind when you ask advice.

Mn also seems to miss the asynchronous part of gifted too.