look, stone me now, but WHY do g+t kids need recognition/ diagnosis etc?

[fillyjonk]

is it just about getting them a bit ahead in the race of life?

Why not just let them fininsh the work faster and then go to the library, or run around the playground? Or sit on the computer. or whatever. But once they've done the required work-why feel the need to "stretch" them more?

what they really need is self motivation, learning skills etc. And you can't really teach thise!

discuss

dp was at oxford, also doing maths, at same time as her

he has some stories

I think the term gifted and talented covers a broad spectrum of ablility, so all it is is a rough label. IMO not all gifted and talented children are exceptional, just a small proportion.

I say this because my son, who passed his 11+ and is at a grammar school is bright but not at genius level. A lot of marks separate those who scrap through, those who pass comfortably and those with a very high score.

ds is with 220 other children in his year group. All are considered 'bright' but many of them are at approx the same level as my ds. Only a small proportion of the children I guess will be really 'gifted'. Ds is not in any gifted and talented group at school and IMO does not need to be as he is stretched enough already.

Now, if my ds had gone to our nearest comprehensive in the next borough where there is no 11+, he would be at a school that has a very low score on the academic league tables. I talked to teachers at the school (when we were choosing secondary schools in year 6) who said he would very probably be in their 'gifted and talented' group and have extra support.

I think the existance of a G&T scheme at school is about raising the aspirations of bright children if they are in danger of hiding their ability to fit in with their school friends.

I think the term is more meaningless when it's seen by people/parents as an accurate way of measuring a child's ability.

Of course some children are exceptional, and that's a whole different issue. As I don't have personal experience the problems this causes I can't say what support is needed.

I think I agree with you really but the sport analogy kind of works, It goes like this. Buddy (nice name for sport enthusiast I think) is great at running, he has a talent for running. BUT school says no, you must start later to give the others a chance, and no you don't need to go and try out for county trials because you're a kid and all you need to do is take a brisk jog about the playground like all the other nice children.
Not quite fair on Buddy is it?

so a class of 30 are given a piece of work. child 1 finishes in 5 miutes, is allowed to go out and play in playground. child 30 still hasnt finished an hour later. 'why cant i go and play?' 'sorry' says teacher 'those kids are all cleverer than you so they are allowed to play, you are too thick'

much better to have numeracy/literacy hour, child 1 does 10 sheets of work, child 30 only does the one but they are all learning for that hour and are not bored.

i couldnt care less if ds1 gets ahead by doing extra work. i am just glad he is not vandalising the school and attacking his classmates anymore. ds2 is not g&t. why should he have to work longer hours than ds1?

its how it used to work, tbh

you finished your work early, you counted paperclips

which was something that was actually useful to the school community

But it's always like that.

When children are set work they do complete it at different times and with different kinds of intervention from teachers.

You wouldn't have them all stop when the first child is done just to make the work hours even out?

Although it might well be perceived as if the faster children get the "reward".

oh dear its complex, isn't it

i propose that ALL children have to meet certain goals

by age 7 they should be able to read, buy themselves a mars bar without being ripped off, and cook a variety of basic meals. obviously they shoudl be able to use a washing machine sucessfully

by age 12 they should be able to read newspapers and gernerally function literely in society, they should be able to do a weekly shop and work out what is good value and what isn't, and should generally be able to support themselves.

and what they do the rest of the time is up to them

literally?

I meant, literately

By definition, G&T are a minority. Many are isolated by their gifts. At best, no-one understands them; at worst, they are bullied. I know that the kids themselves say that one of the main benefits of 'recognition/diagnosis' is that they get to meet other G&T. They realise that they are not the only one like this and find peers.
The G&T programme is not just about academia but also about improving their social skills. (Take a look at some of the courses: they may be described as something geeky like 'Robotics' but you will find that they sneakily include a lot of stuff like having to work within a team, which is difficult for many perfectionist, I-know-best G&T)

"At best, no-one understands them; at worst, they are bullied"

But this is NOT a g+t problem

it is a problem with the school

it is a problem with the peer group

either the bullies need sorting

or the kid needs some assertiveness training

or both

I'm with tigermoth- I'm all for G&T in schools where to be clever is a magnet for bullying. In my city there are areas with very great social deprivation and the G&T scheme (in terms of finances) is aimed at this group - running extra out of school activities etc, which allows pupils to meet from different schools. I personally think this is a good use of funds and makes far more sense that separating out the G&T group from the local grammer school.

I think it's vital that in any class situation the work is differentiated so that the pupils who are doing better are stretched more. Otherwise they might as well not be there, they might as well be at home. Take my subject, music. In any class you're going to have some pupils who are good at music, some who have lessons and some who have never seen a keyboard in their lives. At age 11, quite a common exercise is to do some keyboard work, ending with a composition. For some children, this will be a five finger exercise starting on middle C. So this might be your starting point in class - play C D E F G. Some children will take the whole lesson to get this. At age 11 I was doing grade 7 piano. So the argument that I shouldn't have then been given a further task - perhaps writing a composition using certain notes, harmonising it, writing it down and recording it (given that the teacher wouldn't give extra help or time) - I should have been tidying the music cupboard is mad - it is the very subject I ended up doing at university and becoming a professional musician - how sad if I had been put off by a 'you mustn't stretch the more able children' rule.

no thats not really what i'm saying, tortoisshell

i am saying that after you had done your set work (or if it was judged that you didn't need to do it) then it would have been up to you to decide what do do next

possibly with some guidance from the teacher

but that once you had done your work-you should be free to do what you wanted.

and that goes for all kids

If having the G&T label and gifted and talented as part of the school culture helps change the perceptions

(of teachers and children) and prevent bullying then it will count for something, won't it?

I personally think that as much as possible each child should be working to their level. This happens in ds2's school where each child gets their own spelling list for example. I don't see why that means that a whole bunch of children have to be recognised. If it's impossible for teachers to effectively teach a whole class at an appropriate level then surely that should be looked at.

But filly, how many of those kids are going to chose to count paperclips? You're not really saying they should chose in school time. You're saying that they should do the work and sit nicely and dream time away mentally rearranging the art cupboard. Which is a decent argument.
Anyway just because they've been given extra maths, it doesn't mean that at 12 they won't be dead helpful at the supermarket. Infact they'll be most helpful. 'No, NO duh brain mother, buy those 2 for1s and make a killing.'

Not mutually exclusive at all.

I really can see what you're saying, filly, and that it is something that is relevant to all schools and children.

The kind of education you are talking about is maybe something akin to the sort provided by AS Neill at Summerhill--en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._S._Neill.

A hands-off approach is very expensive, not to say, exclusive, it seems.

Hi agree with all of those who say its important for a child to work at the level they are capable of. Its not about piling more work on to the G&T kids its about giving them work at a level appropriate for their skills. I spent a lot of time at school bored because I was more able than most of the other children in my year. I was sworn by other pupils at for getting the best test results & answers right, told off by teachers for bringing reading books that I wouldn't understand (Pride & Prejudice at aged 11 FGS - I brought in Alastair Maclean's Where Eagles Dare to really piss her off the next week). I think I gained most from the Maths teacher who did give extension work and stretched me and others to the point where we couldn't always do the work. This taught me that not everything is easy and you have to knuckle down and graft sometimes. No matter how academically able you might be you still need to work hard to make a success of your life. Not challenging G&T kids to their limits deprives them of learning the skills they need to reach their potential i.e. hard work, self-confidence, resiliance and a sense of proportion. I think if you have it too easy at school you can come out with the attitude that life should be handed to you on a plate.

I think it's about challenging every child at the appropriate level for them.

Children really do IMO forget the skills of learning, of trying hard, of persevering when it gets a bit difficult. This is an important skill.

I agree completely fillyjonk that self motivation is an important skill, but within a standard-driven curriculum where is the opportunity to develop it?

I do think entrepreneurs and future leaders of business and politics have all sorts of skills, many of which may not be those of a G&T child.

If you want your children to be rich, I'm not sure being G&T is a great advantage. But if you want a system which has the capability of producing people who are capable of researching and experimenting on the outer boundaries of current human knowledge, then you need to be challenging your G&T kids. Maybe not when they are 5 and 6, but definitely when they are 11+.

Erwellllllll I was probably G&T and all, social misfit yada yada yada, bored, etc BUT ffs I have actually done rather well out of it, have couple of degrees and nice job and all, so frankly would rather the energies had gone into the rest of the class.

Which is a longwinded way of saying yes, broadly I agree.

And have many Interesting Neuroses which are essential to get ahead in our busy 21st century society, too.

I think that there is a difference between gifted and gifted and talented kids.

G and T kids wouldn't neccessarily be g and T at another. It's all relative.

Ah, so you only count as G&T if you're bored and playing up and Your Needs Are Not Met?