Misuse of the word 'gifted' in school report?

[Ginmummy1]

DD is finishing Y1. In her end-of-year report it stated that DD is a ‘gifted mathematician’. At the 'open' parents' evening yesterday I mentioned to DD’s teachers that we were surprised at this comment, as we’d have said language/literacy was her strong suit. One of the teachers said “to be honest, she’s gifted at everything”.

I think they’re misusing the word ‘gifted’. They are experienced teachers in a ‘good’, ordinary, one-form-entry primary. DD is bright and finds it easy to concentrate – she is a good ‘fit’ for school. She’s also an only child, with parents who were (fairly) high achievers and who encourage learning in all directions (fussy about vocab etc!)

My question (or conversation starter) is how easy is it to distinguish, early on in primary, between a child that has been brought up in an active home learning environment, and true giftedness?

I stress that I’m not looking for people to ‘reassure’ me that DD is ‘gifted’. I truly think she’s very able and an all-rounder (like I was), but not ‘gifted’ (or, at least, not demonstrably so at this stage).

So you don't think she has abilities that put in the top 10% of her class?

Or are you using a different meaning of "gifted"?

This drives me mad

It became apparent to my DH that half the governing body at our dc's school were unaware that 'gifted and talented' just meant the top five percent of the class in any subject. They were thinking that it was a complete, discrete assessment of children.

This woolly use of language helps no one.

I’m pretty sure she’s in the top 10% of her class. However, each class is different. She could be in the bottom 10% of an exceptional class down the road. Top 10% is no indicator of her actual ability.

This, if I understand it correctly, was the main problem with the (now scrapped if I understand correctly) Gifted and Talented register that required teachers to identify 10% of children as G&T: it caused lots of pressure to be piled on children that were not actually gifted/talented.

I don’t think there is any evidence to suggest that DD has ‘exceptional talent’. She is certainly ‘able’, but not ‘gifted’ or ‘talented’.

"Gifted mathematician" has been used in my ds's report, but I thought nothing of it. I thought they are just praising his good points, as they praise other children for being gifted musician, artist etc, or have great personality,etc.
"Gifted mathematician" is more like a phrase to me than actually saying your child is "gifted", imo.

My DS is coming to the end of year 1 and in his report the teacher says the term 'gifted mathematician'.

My DD is coming to the end of year 5 and her report describes her as a gifted reader and writer, but crucially describes her ability in maths as exceptional.

Knowing my children's abilities, and from conversations at parents' evening, I would say that the school use the term 'gifted' to define the upper end of the cohort, but they use the term 'exceptional' to describe abilities that are out of the ordinary.

My question (or conversation starter) is how easy is it to distinguish, early on in primary, between a child that has been brought up in an active home learning environment, and true giftedness?

At present I would say your DD is akin to my DS; both are very able and achieving highly within their cohort. However, I know my DD has an exceptional ability when it comes to maths; she has extraordinary skills in number and manipulating data, and I can see the teachers recognise that by their change in terminology.

You're over-thinking this. Teachers do not give kids special tests to determine whether they get a gifted badge or not. At no point in her school career will this happen. There is no special test for this.

They just mean that she's really very good at some areas of the curriculum compared to her classmates.

My question (or conversation starter) is how easy is it to distinguish, early on in primary, between a child that has been brought up in an active home learning environment, and true giftedness?

If, as a teacher, you have a child who is good at maths, all you see is a child who is good at maths. How is it ever possible to distinguish that part which is due to genes and that part which is due to education. If a child knows something in maths, I would assume it is because someone has told them, rather than them having worked out what it has taken humanity thousands of years to work out, within their first decade of life.
Just teaching a child maths may well affect their ability to learn maths more easily.

Gifted is not a protected term, the teachers usage seems entirely fine, your complaint sounds pretty bonkers and relies on other people sharing your definition of a word.

As irvineoneohone suggests, the words used are just words, they're a way of saying positive things. Your DD is not a gifted mathematician, she's not about to resolve the P / NP problem. She is however I'm sure very talented and able to understand and apply the Y1 concepts.

It just means "very good at" as will be many on the top table in her class.

I must admit as a non parent I was very impressed when sil told me that according to his teacher dn was 'gifted at maths'..... I thought he'd been hiding his light under a bushel, as whilst he's a very able student he's certainly not one of those kids who will be sitting in A level maths classes aged twelve or can solve a rubik's cube in thirty seconds or something...

Turns out he's just very good at maths. Which is great.

Tbh isn't it a bit pigeon-holing potentially? Especially when so young. I was top of the top set all through primary in maths. Year nine on I was distinctly average. I'd have been quite sad to think that I was once a gifted and talented mathematician who had failed to achieve potential - when in reality I was just a bit of an early bloomer with a limit when it came to understanding harder maths.

I think nowadays it is generally used to say they are one of the top in thier class, and that they have a natural ability in that area. The new buzz word now for the truly 'gifted' seems to be exceptional. This seems to be used to describe kids that are rarely seen. DS1 seems to be described as exceptional quite a lot recently whereas a few years ago they would use the word gifted.

I would say there is no point in labelling a child as gifted at infants age as it's hard to tell whether they are just quick at picking up reading and maths and although may always be clever this tends to even out about as they get older and thier peers catch up with them or whether they are truly exceptional and can grasp complex ideas and apply them to everyday learning.

In our family who are very big readers and quite geeky both DS1 and DD are exceeding at school, DD is a clever little thing but 'normal' clever, when she just turned ,8 her spelling was assessed as 10.5 years, which is good of course but when you look at DS1 who was writing stories in year 1 that people thought had been written by an adult due to the language and tone of writing used (not adult in a X rated way, just the way he wrote was full of dry humour and very well described) along with being able to hard maths sums in his head (he often got told off for not showing his working out as he just knew X+Z was Y without seeing the individual steps in his head iyswim?

Totally overthinking it. It's just school talk, it'll all be fine. And don't start arguing with teachers about "true giftedness" because it sounds very silly.

I think people often use 'gifted mathematician' to describe those who have a natural instinct for maths, rather than an unusual level of achievement.

In Dutch schools gifted has a very precise definition. IQ above 130, accompanied by imagination and motivation. They don't use the word until age 7 either, kids before that are just described as advanced. That makes it much easier to define who is gifted!

Slightly off topic, but I am a teacher I would never use "gifted" or "exceptional" to describe abilities. In our school the reports are written from a growth mindset, which is about emphasising the skills that they have and where they need to focus to go further. In fact abilities are generally not commented on.

I agree with the idea that when report writing and giving feedback, it is the effort and the obtained skills rather than inherent ability that should be commented on. Telling a student that they are exceptional at a subject limits risk taking and natural exploration of the subject. They don't want to lose the recognition and it can limit their progress.

Google "praise for effort not intelligence".

An interesting video about how praising a child can affect their learning.

I agree that the teacher meant it as a generally positive thing rather than saying anything really exceptional.

JustRichmal – that’s exactly what I was wondering about. How can a teacher distinguish, early on, between a child that has been tutored at home above the curriculum, and one that just ‘gets it’ very quickly? Agree with your comment!

SirFred and Seeking – I didn’t have a complaint or an argument with the teachers: I was simply using a recent experience to provoke a discussion on this board on the use of the word ‘gifted’.

BrieAndChilli – I agree that labelling so early would be unhealthy, but of course it was done until a few years ago, with the G&T register. My DD sounds like your DD rather than your DS1!

ZZZ – I don’t think my child is exceptional, and I’m pretty happy with the school so far.

I don't know why they use these terms. Why don't they just say 'very good' or 'doing very well' or 'in the top three''? To me gifted means something truly outstanding and special. I think (mis)using these words creates false expectations for parents and children and helps no one. What if next year they slip out of that 10%? Have they lost their gift?

Postagestamp – this perhaps deserves a separate thread! (feel free to start one – I’ve caused enough trouble by starting this one )

I don’t think DD’s school is good at promoting a growth mindset. Words such as ‘clever’ are overused. When we’ve asked what DD finds challenging and they say ‘nothing’ and we suggest that that is a problem, we get baffled looks from the teachers.

ilovesushi – totally agree.

This is why I think it's a mistake when people appropriate a common term or word and give it a different, jargonistic meaning. Why not invent a new term if you are going to give it a precise meaning ?

I’m pretty sure she’s in the top 10% of her class. However, each class is different. She could be in the bottom 10% of an exceptional class down the road. Top 10% is no indicator of her actual ability

gifted means in the top 10% of HER class, not the class down the road. It is not a judgement made against any sort of national or even local standard, its just which children the school differentiates for,

In a school for children with learning difficulties, the top 10% are still the gifted cohort.

How can a teacher distinguish, early on, between a child that has been tutored at home above the curriculum, and one that just ‘gets it’ very quickly?

In practice, it doesn't matter.

I don’t think DD’s school is good at promoting a growth mindset

good, because this damaging quackery is now obsolete, as it should be, and consigned to history with other rubbishy educational fads such as learning styles, etc.

good, because this damaging quackery is now obsolete, as it should be, and consigned to history with other rubbishy educational fads such as learning styles, etc.

That's right. Teach every child the same and only tell them if they are "excellent", "satisfactory" or "rubbish". That'll really help kids learn.

Surely you can understand that it is more helpful to praise an average child for working hard and perhaps damaging to praise a lazy, but clever child just because they are intelligent. (Not that I am saying the OP's daughter is lazy.)

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I couldn't let that pass. The growth mind set isn't the answer to everything, but it is a valid approach in some respects.

The growth mind set isn't the answer to everything, but it is a valid approach in some respects.

no it isn't, and you have no idea what "growth mindset" actually is. It is totally fascist. The cruelest and most insane educational systems I have ever come across, and I have been in education nearly 30 years.

take a task, any arbitrarily chosen random measure of success, anything at all - lets just say singing the hallelujah chorus to GCSE grade A standard, but it could be anything, give it to an arbitrarily chosen class, say year 8, give the teacher a time frame to do it, say a 2 weeks. Of course this is doable, I'm only choosing something because it is within the realms of possible.

But it is not possible for ALL the children in the class. Some don't have the memory, the voice range, the pitch, the confidence etc.

But what ever you do, don't differentiate at all, everybody has to perform a difficult part individually and be assessed singing solo.

Say 75% of the class pass.

So what do you do with the rest?

You blame them, harangue them and castigate them for not having shown "growth mindset" and you make the m do it again, and again and again, with blame and anger growing each time they again fail to show "growth mindset"

o, and you sack the teacher.

This is what growth mindset id.

I could introduce you to my friend who lost her job at the height of the growth mindset shite, when she started sneaking a laptop in to her English classroom for a student with cerebral palsy who could hardly write.

She was failing to show growth mindset by not making him understand that he COULD write if he only showed "growth mindset" and the strange idea he had that he had less control over his hands than someone without CP, was an illusion he had developed because of his "fixed mindset" and the "disability" he had was all in his mind, and the physical problems he lived with all day every day were entirely the fault of himself and his parents, for "believing in limitations"

(To be fair, it wasn't just the laptop that got her sacked, it was the use of several choice swear words to the head)

This is only the tip of the iceberg though, and the clearest illustration of what growth mindset actually is.

Below that example are millions upon millions of children who suffered under this form of facism, being told that they were responsible for anything they failed at, for thinking about it wrong, and any teacher at all, who failed to get her class to any arbitrarily chosen standard in any arbitarily chosen area was failing to install growth mindset.

the "statistics" around growth mindset may sound amazing, it was portrayed as causing huge improvements in progress and results, but take a closer look.

In tests, classes that showed good progress and results were classified as having done "growth mindset" right, and classes with poorer progress and results were classified as having done "growth mindset" wrong.

Then results were published, showing that teachers and classes that had done "growth mindset" right were getting better progress and results.

And the other classes and teachers were blamed and chastised for not doing it right.

overall, if you look at the results of ALL classes and teachers involved in these trials, attempting to impose "growth mindset" leads to a significant DECLINE in progress, and decline in confidence in children.

That's right. Teach every child the same and only tell them if they are "excellent", "satisfactory" or "rubbish"

This may be an attempt at sarcasm, but you have neatly summed up exactly what growth mindset is here. Any child who succeeds is excellent at growth mindset, and any who doesn't is rubbish at it.

Surely you can understand that it is more helpful to praise an average child for working hard

this is normal teaching, nothing to do with "growth mindset" at all.