Is the GIFED & TALENTED system in schools a good thing or not??????

[drosophila]

DS's school is about to introduce it next year. I got to wondering is it a good thing to label kids so young? DS has been earmarked to be on it but I am not sure what it means. What I did like the sound of was that his hatred of writing will be addressed in a positive way and alternative ways of getting him to express himself will be explored. DS will love that cos he sure hates writing.

A child can enjoy any books they like without having a G & T label, just by going to the library, or if they have some money, the bookshop.

Those stretched at 7 are those who have good successful lives fulfilling their true potential and they are happier too as they're not bored in class. It's why I paid at 5 so they could be put on that very pleasant intellectual stretching rack.

They need to be stretched or they get bored and depressed.

I have no idea how the UK system works, but neglecting intellectually gifted children is just as reprehensible as neglecting children with intellectual disabilities. Really. This is not (or at least shouldn't be) about patting competitive parents on the back.

Don't get me started on this as I will rant for hours.

I do think it's a good thing for the top few percent in a school to be given extra work/ stretched and challenged.

But I'm not always comfortable with the way the G&T system seems to work. in our school, which has been told by Ofsted to do more on the G&T front, we got a letter recently asking us to nominate our children if we thought they were G&T. That maybe isn't a great way of doing it.

FpjiM - my initial reaction was that your school's approach was odd - but it might not be since gifted children often (i) present as disruptive and possibly even mentally backward in a classroom environment, and (ii)depending on their environment may figure out early in the piece that being perceived as smart is not going to do much for their social standing and could well result in their being bullied. It may be that what the teachers see in the classroom is quite different from what the parents are aware of iyswim.

Having said that, I have visions of bunches of pushy middle class parents writing G&T CVs for their beloved offspring (I know, I know, gross generalisation).

I do wonder whether the school was inundated with hordes of letters from parents, or totally underwhelmed by parents who are modest about their children. And what will they do about the parents' expectations which don't match their ideas? It could be interesting.

It offends my sense of the proper use of English too that label. It just means a bit clever. Gifted children are child genuius who go to Oxford at 14 or are musicl geniuses at Chetham's music school. It gives these top 10% a sense they are much better than they are. If they were at any academic private school they'd be at the bottom or middle of the class most of them. BUT I agree with the principle of helping the clever children. I suggest the bette help is pluck them out of the school and pay for them to go to good schools though as a better remedy which is what the assisted places scheme did.

But Xenia, isn't the best idea to try to raise the level of schools for all children, not 'pluck' a select few and send them to schools where they may or may not do better?

I have some reservations about the whole G&T thing, but I do agree with the underlying aim of boosting achievement and expectations throughout the school, not just for 'clever' children. A culture of effort and achievement and it being OK or even 'cool' to be clever and to work hard is good for any school. And I don't actually agree that 'gifted' equates to 'genius', not that I'd want any genius children myself. I don't think the G&T scheme gives children any ideas of being better than they are, it is so low-key and just means a few more opportunities in different areas. It is not setting them out in any way as an elite apart from their peers. Although to be honest, many state schools are already stretching their gifted children, just as they are helping those in the middle and those at the lower end ability-wise. It has made almost no difference to my children, because their school was already teaching gifted children very well. The only real difference I can think of off the top of my head is that some are now offered forms to apply for NAGTY membership - which of course is for the top 5% of young people nationally, not the top 5 or even 10% of any one school.

I've worked with some NAGTY kids (i've aranged workshops) I've also worked with local G and T kids.

While they were undoubtibly bright (and the vast majority very nice and great fun to work with) I wouldn't have said they would fit into the gifted catagory.

I've not seen a child (with one exception) who's education needs couldn't have been catered for inside a classroom. The kids that I've met on these scemes are clever and quirky and bright and fun, but they are not so far advanced that they have SEN.

And I agree with enid, broadening out experience is better for them than constant advancement. Oh and making them think beyond the superficial.

My oldest is entering high school and he is in GATE. His school is large enough that there are several kids in his classes. Quite frankly, there are to many academic levels to expect one level to meet all the needs. Why should a child who has already learned a subject, repeat the subject because some of his peers haven't learned it yet?

Hmm - hadn't appreciated it was as high as 10%.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but if schools are providing extra activities in some areas for the top 10% - isn't that a lot like the old fashioned "streaming" for some subjects, that we had back in the days when I was at school?

I don't really know enough about the UK school system to tell (do they have streaming in the UK system)?

Streaming is when the children are in the same ability groupings for all subjects. So everyone is in say the top set for everything, someone else in middle for everyone. No secondary schools in my local area stream.

Setting is where it is done for each, or many, individual subjects, allowing you to be say top set for English, lower set for maths and perhaps in the middle for languages. Setting works best because it recognises children may have strengths in some areas but not in all.

From what I've seen in a couple of counties, the G&T stuff is more about laying on extra-curricular activities than about what goes in the classroom. So a child might bring a letter home offering them a day's course on creative writing or a weekend course on philosophy or whatever. Or for example last term those deemed to be gifted in history in Year 9 had a day out to a local museum where special workshops were laid on for them.

In my experience, the children don't feel different or labelled, they just think they're good at say maths and that's why they keep being offered different maths activities. And it's really such a small part of school life that most other children don't even notice, it's not done in any obvious or explicit way.

I still think the most important thing is to be catering for the needs of all groups of children. I think the blanket 10% might help in schools where the brighter children are coasting or perhaps left to their own devices because they are reaching minimum standards for league tables etc. If that 10% is helped reach their potential, even if it's not as 'gifted' a 10% as another school might have, then surely that will help lift standards and expectations throughout the school.

Only time will tell...

Most comprehensive schools have some setting. Even the schools in the private system my children went to where probably the children are the top 10% have setting in maths and may be a few other areas. It makes sense.

Whether we should remove very clever children from bad state schools and educate them with others of teh same mental ilk (which was the old grammar school system and is what some parents pay for in the private sector) is another issue. I think that clearly benefits those children.

In DD's primary school, the G&T activities are so low key as to be almost invisible. The children are certainly not aware that they have been specially selected to do different work, but a classroom assistant takes them aside for an hour or two a week to work on special projects.

In DS's grammar school, they also have G&T, by subject. The G&T-in-English boys recently took 2 days out of normal lessons to produce the school magazine. The Maths G&T do the UK Maths Challenge. They also have setting in some subjects (Maths, English, languages) from year 9.

Our secondary school sets for maths, English, science, languages and humanities from various points in Year 7. Thus everyone is working at about the right level for them.
The top 3-4 maths sets do the maths challenge every year, not just those designated G&T.

portonovo, all the boys do the Junior Maths Challenge (JMC). The top few get in
to the Junior Olympiad. tbh I was being lazy, equating the Olympiad level with G&T, but Olympiad entry depends on your score in the JMC, not any G&T categorization.

I know what you mean, I was just being picky about the maths challenge/G&T equation! Interesting one that, because some children do really really well in the challenge despite not being particularly 'good' at maths, I think it's a different way of thinking.

this has confused me too. My dss has just been labelled as such and to be honest i don't think she is anything more than 'bright' and don't like the label. her school announced about 45 names and has now halved them because they could n't afford to treat so many specially. she is still in the group. she has herself complained and says that she thinks its unfair that not everyone can get the special chances and it offends her sense of justice. i think her school isn't very good and they are trying to get their stats up.

Of all the children on our G and T regester I can only think of one or two who are anything more than simply clever children. And the needs of the vast majority of these kids can be met within a normal classroom.

I can extend clever children. There are very, very few who's ability is so outside the normal range of attainment that they have actual SEN.

As I said earlier, and of these children need to be helped to understand topics in depth and to be able to draw links between different subjects, not simply be accelerated though the curriculum.

MB - out of interest (because I had this discussion with my SIL who is a primary teacher and worked in the UK system for a number of years) - do you think that the G&T scheme might be an opportunity for teachers to introduce a bit more flexibility into the curriculum for everyone?

Or, you might think the curriculum is flexible enough already - but I know she found it straitjacket-like compared to Oz.

At DS's school, there is one boy in his year whose Maths is exceptional (147/150 in Year 9 SATs - They all take these SATS in year 8 - and Olympiad gold medallist). He has a private tutor outside school to keep him interested/stretched. The rest are just very clever.

btw MB, is a mark of 137 in the Science SAT unusual?

I'd love to have more flexibility. I do teach outreach to primary G and T. I love it because I can do whatever I want with the kids, which is fab.

Plus they tend to be nice little kids

Shame I can't do the same with other kids.

I don't really feel that I have needed to do this because a child in my class was left unchallenged. I can find plently of challenge inside the NC, but it is nice to be let off the leash on times

Depends on age tbh
in primary school a programme is less important for all but the most exceptional kids but in secondary school it is important that talents are identified and focussed upon.
My ds1 is a maths star by all accounts. Very high maths scores, however by extending him by putting him up a yr or tutoring outside of school would make his schooling impossible and maturity wise he is only just to start yr9

So he works in an extended maths set and does extra handouts for depth of knowledge rather than forging ahead with concepts ahead of the class.

I also asked that he not sit his maths SAT early as well - he also got Golds in the Maths Challenges last 2 yrs running. Funnily enough he does not relaly like maths, just finds he can do it

So all in all for us in the G+T scene - access to very expensive weekend/summer courses that are miles away from us...
so nothing to shout out about really!

re the sats result IIRC the threashold mark for level 6 last year was about 130ish

A level six at the end of year 9 is good, but not exceptional

Not sure what the boundary mark was this year, soory!

ignore me! that was in the 3-5 level. (which was the class I was teaching last year)

did the child take the higher or lower paper?

Lower level paper result of 130is is a level 6

Higher paper result of that level would be very, very bright