OK< I'll admit the G&T term just riles me

[Twiglett]

and I accept that there are children who are immensely talented or gifted

and I accept that my children are very bright but probably not geniuses (genii?)

and I also accept that parents of children who show exceptional ability need just as much help and advice as children who have SEN .. in fact I also accept that superlatively bright children do have SEN

so why does the G&T term get to me?

hmm?

ANd if children with pmld and/or pd are nurtured and their needs are met perhaps they could achieve a basic quality of life most people take for granted. Once this country makes a little bit of headway in meeting the needs of such children then I could see the point of money being put into g and t.

Actually I dont have an issue with money being spent on g and t but I do with saying that their needs are equal.

Cancer is not one disease, it is many, and cures for various types are being found all the time.
Achievement is not strongly correlated with intelligence. It is driven by passion, motivation, the ability to come back from disappointments, perseverance, courage. Schools can't teach those qualities.

I disagree ALoha. At my school the children are encouraged to achieve in all those areas you've listed and given opportunities that their parents are unable to always give them for various reasons. It's a special school btw.

I think (If I remember correctly) Einstein was dyslexic.

G&T + SEN

Einstein also failed his 11+, which just shows you never can tell!!!!

i think children can learn things other than academic stuff at school.

but i also think that aloha is right, there are needs which are measurably greater than others.

Referring to an individual child as G&T seems greedy to me. Of course they may be both, but it seems usually to just mean that the child is bright.

The programme was originally designed to nurture not only the academically bright, but those with a real talent in any area. How many children on the G&T register for their sporting prowess? Or musical talent, or talent in art? IME, the T of G&T rather falls by the wayside in schools. Would like to hear that I am wrong though .

I think those qualities can and should be encouraged in schools, but I also think they are hard to fit in the curriculum - and not much to do with cleverness. I would guess I would definitely have been G&T at school - but it would not have changed my life.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with saying any child is intrinsically more important than other!
When I say a person who has lost both legs in an accident has greater needs than a person who has a broken foot, that is clearly not imply that the person with the broken foot is worth less as an individual, is it?
Cleverness is not a disability.

can't remember exactly who i'm replying to ( identified as gifted at school but left to coast so no sticking power to go back and actually check )but:
differentiation in lesson planning/classrooms - yes, agree totally, it's horribly hard, whcih is why you need more resources/money/less insistence on "inclusion for all" [hard hat emoticon] where it's not appropriate.
cut-off at top 5% - yes, it's hard on the ones who just miss out (DD1 only just scraped in on the particular assessments they used, but her "giftedness" is more the connections she makes mentally rather than with actual achievements, so she's asked along to the english enrichment stuff because of her "original thoughts" (quote from last year's English report) despite her inability to spell or construct an argument on paper at the same level as she can speak it) but there have to be cut-offs - it's just as hard on someone who fails an exam by a few marks, does that mean we should lower the pass rates for everyone? (don't answer that one ). And the 31st August birthday child who is almost a whole year younger than his classmate with a 1st September birthday? Where do you draw the line? DD1s school has different groupings for different subjects, so the brightests at Science do scienc-ey enrichment stuff, likewise for Maths, likewise for English.
And, [hard hat emoticon again] all SENS are different - giftedness is as much a SEN as ASD or Downs Syndrome or CP or being quardripegic (sp?), but some need more resources than others, and all have different outcomes as targets. None are "more worthy" than any other IMO. That's a bit like me sayig that becasue I have PCOS, then a huge chunk of the NHS budget should be thrown at finding a cure for that, becasue PCOS does have major long-term implications. However, I realise that people with chest infections need to use some resources, as do people with cancer. That doesn't make any of those conditions "more desrving" of funds than any other.

and although G&T is used, the NAGTY/Govt. definition is that the G is academic, the T is things like sport, music and art. And because the T part can usually be sourced outwith school, the G&T "programme" is focusing on the academic side.

Can you always make that 'physical' vs 'intellectual' distinction?

probably not, but then if you're say fantastically musical, then your mind works in the sort of way that probably makes you pretty good at maths. However you also have the David Beckhams who are brilliant at what they do, but that doesn't necessarily translate into something academic (have i covered myself from flaming from parents of academically brilliant sporting children

Intellectual needs - children who have a learning difficulty have needs that take far more resources to meet than a child who is intelligent above the norm and more resources should be put into meeting those needs. THat has nothing to do with the worth of an individual.

WRT individual talents, our local secondary school certainly includes less academic ares of the curriculum within it's G&T groups.
The star football player or the talented musiicians are on the G&T programme, as are the matjs whizz and oter academic focussess.

My sd is on the g7t programme in her school and this hads enable dher to have th eopportunity ot study diiferent areas of the curriculum, eg at summer school.
But by the same token, those who were seen as under acheiving, for whatever eason, were able to attend extra sessions too, to help catch up.

Good

I do not buy for one single second the notion of cleverness as a disability. I was clever, my ds is clever - it's a gift and a pleasure. Nobody ever wished their child was less intelligent.
Of course ideally schools would be able to engage all children, but let's face it, if you are clever and curious you can educate yourself with the aid of a library ticket. Children with learning difficulties do not have that option.

Kerry .. if caught early enough many cancers can now be cured .. particularly childhood cancers also breast cancer

i think anyone with the drive to cure the ills of the world will not be taught that at school. That will come from a far greater drive and is most definitely not a thing that can be taught.

Agree with hercules.

I watched a video of a severely autistic man in his 40's who had no way of communicating at all. No way for his entire life. Nothing zilch. Unsurprisingly he had severe challenging behaviours and zero control over his life. IN the course of the video he was taught to exchange a card to get Pringles (or popcorn or something). Watching his first proper request in his entire life was incredibly moving. When you can start to express choices you can live. And yes I think tackling that and giving people dignity is more important that developing schemes for the top 10%. As hercules says once the needs of the SLD/PMLD population are met, and everyone is receiving a basic education then lets add the bells and whistles.

If a child can read they can educate themselves if they have the drive. The truly - cut above the rest- massivley bright I met at Oxford had got there themselves, they were not taught- they had something extra- there were very few of them (& I certainly wasn't one of them). And for that group it had very little to do with social background or education they had receieved. I don't think that group will ever be stretched at school because exams aim to distinguish between the average, and schools teach to exam syllabuses. They can easily be stretched outside school though (and in a good school there'll be things like computer clubs or orchestra's/drama groups. photography clubs etc where they can develop a different side).

Meanwhile to teach a child with SLD's and no speech how to communicate at a very basic level (Do you want water or orange? I want water) you need time, patience, people and money. But what a difference being able to ask for a glass of water can make to a persons dignity.