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?

INcidentally ds1 can read a few words- there are adults- who were/are very like him (ie uncontrollable, unable to be left alone at all, need 24 hour care) who have been taught to use letterboards/type and actually have quite a lot going on in there (enough to earn degrees/write books). We have a limited family budget and that is spent on ds1 and on trying to teach him to spell out words (not sure how much he can read yet so it's interesting- but given a number board and asked 'how old are you' he pointed straight to 8 which knocked me to the floor). Well we don;'t just do spelling (in fact we do hardly any) but the money goes on him - the idea being if he is capable of that then I want to give him the opportunity - incredibly difficult and expensive though it might be to get there. Not because I want him to get a degree - but because I would love for him to be able to tell his social worker what he wants when we're dead and gone.

Meanwhile bright ds2 and ds3 have 1001 extra activities they can access for free. They can be whatever they want when they grow up. And they will get all the encouragement from us, but ultimately they themselves will decide what they want to do, and if they want irt badly enough then they'll get there.

DS1's needs are far greater. So be it.

you can't teach that sort of drive at school, but you can identify and develop and encourage it at school - why should the gifted be bored for 7 hours a day, and only be allowed to follow their interests/needs after 4pm?

Because KM if he's a superbright as you think then there isn't an exam syllabus in the land that will stretch him. And schools have to teach to an exam syllabus. Here's the curriculum, that's what they have to teach.

If he needs stretching it can be easily (and cheaply) done outside school.

Ds1's school don't have the resources to put in the hours of literacy work and specialist teaching that he would need to get to the stage of being able to type. Which is why we try to do it at home. They support us, we suppor them with what they teach at school (very useful activities such as shopping and waiting and sensory experiences, and swimming and cooking).

Because schools cater to a group of children. DS1's SLD/PMLD school has children with a huge range of needs. They cannot cater to his particular need for literacy work because it is so individual and so specialist and so difficult. They can't do it with 5 other children in the class (and 4 adults). It's not possible. I've been in the school and seen its not possible, and they do wonderful other stuff with him instead.

We've taken on board the literacy.

If you have a gifted child- let the school teach them to pass exams and you do the fun stuff.

I think the point that many are tryign ot make though gess is that all your DSs shoudl be having their needs met, and just because your elder two have less obvious (and less expensive!) needs doesn't make them less of a valid need ifswim?

sorry gess got your DSs the wrong way round - I meant younger two.

do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a decent basic education for a child with SN? Rather than moaning do what the mothers of children with SN have to do and take on the LEA. Nothing is handed on a plate. DS1 is incredibly lucky to now have his wonderful school place (which still doesn't teach him everything he needs because it can't) but he got it because I fought for it (and there happened to be a place come available). There is ONE school locally that is suitable for him and we learned last week that its due to merge/close in 2010. There is nowhere else for him so if the new school does not suit then he's stuffed.

DS2 and DS3 have loads of choice of schools. It is far easier to get them a decent education. And far easier to do the top up as well if they needed it.

I have 4 good friends locally with children with SN- all 4 have or are having to instruct lawyers to get a 'suitable education' (which incidentally is all an LEA is obliged to provide to any child- not the best- a suitable one) for their children.

In the wider realm of friends and aquantances I know very few who haven't had to do battle at some time.

Also, it's not as simple as saying if they're bright they can just go to the library and stretch themselves.

If you're educated yourselves it's easy to support them to do this - if not it may not be. There has to actually be a library they can get to and use (and they're closing down quite a few these days - when my MIL was a child she didn't have access to one and it looks like this is going to be the case again for many ). Opportunities to form a peer group of other bright children can be hugely valuable, too.

I would just like it all to be achievable without that silly label. (Why can't a school run a Latin club and make that open to everyone who wants to do it, for instance, instead of just laying on Latin for those on the G&T register?)

I'm with gess and aloha. It's not about a need being less valid per se, it's about the difference the meeting of that need can make to the person's (quality of) life. Bright children do find their own ways of stretching themselves outside the education system, or it is easy for their parents to help them stretch themselves in all sorts of contexts. I've always been pretty verbally and linguistically gifted, and did my writing, reading in foreign languages etc. outside of school - it was fine. dh was a sporting talent at one time and did his athletics and so on extra to school (then the GDR collapsed so it went nowhere in his particular case). ds is bright, not sure about a particular gift or talent, but if he does turn out to have one we'll cope and find him ways of expanding his horizons - there are, and will be, much more urgent needs than his, those of his little friend with DS, for example.

Agree Kathy- and way back I did say that I thought identifying G&T in areas of social deprivation (where G&T meant capable of 5 GCSE's) was very worthwhile indeed.

Agree about clubs as well- a way to encourage an interest and extend beyond school work (which is always going to be about learning a curriculum to pass an exam).

x-posts with Kathy - fair points.

I was sent 2 'look forward to the summer' magazines in the last few weeks of term. Flicking through there was activity after activity that ds2 could do (ds3 still a little young). There was nothing that ds1 could access. There is nothing in our city of 250 000 people that he can access outside school.

Gess- yes, I agree with your earlier post about the particular value of G&T programmes in areas of social deprivation. The label there might be quite useful in self-esteem terms as well.

I take your points about schools teaching children to pass exams, but surely a proper system should build in flexibility so they can take exams at a time which suits their ability level more? Alternatively, an exam system which really does stretch the bright ones would be nice....
I was in the first year of GCSE and already our lessons in some subjects were spent teaching us 'down' to the exam - ie being told 'don't mention x,y and z because you won't get marks for it' and apparently that has got a lot worse. God knows what it's like now.

Of course there should be resources and support for children with SNs of whatever scope. But you can't leave bright kids without support for their needs, either, even if those needs are less dramatic than those of a child with PMLD. It's not as easy as 'they will find a way'. A very bright child who is left to coast, or worse is bored out of their skull for seven hours a day, may well do very badly indeed.

I've taught to exams kathy (in a retake college so it was telephone directory teaching) and that is true. I do think the old O levels and A levels were better at stretching bright kids and because there was more essay writing was less about that problem you identify. I think there are huge problems with exam teaching, but you're talking a radical overhaul of the entire education system (which I'd be all for tbh) but that's not the system that's in place at the moment so is theoretical iyswim.

TBH edam that's the same point. - A bright child will be bored because GCSE's and A levels do nt stretch bright children. Some schools introduced the Bac for that reason.

But the legal requirement for any child is a suitable education. An education that teaches you to pass an exam will be suitable. The law will never change to 'the best' education for an individual child.

If I thought any child of mine was not receiving a suitable education I would take on the LEA (indeed did exactly that for ds1) or would teach them at home. If ds1's new school (grrr) is not suitable for him then I won't sit on here moaning about it I'll employ a lawyer.

Hmm coming to this late but this is my tuppenceworth!

In an ideal world where resources were not limited then all needs of an individual child would be met educationally, across the whole spectrum. In the real world where we have competing needs for resources then clearly there should be a priority put on fulfilling those individual educational needs.

It is at this point that those children who have severe learning disabilities take precedence over those who are 'clever'. Most clever children or those with a particular gift for sport or music or art will with quite minimal input from school or home have the opportunity to take advantage of their individual skills. Those with severe learning disabilities will not be able to access even the most basic of skills without considerable educational and other input. There is no question at all in my mind as to which should take priority - none whatsoever.

I think there are a small number of children who perhaps have a touch of 'genius' about them for whom life socially will always be difficult unless they are taught social skills in some way or other.

Most other clever children will come to no harm from learning to cope with a world that doesn't always change to suit their needs. I certainly have acquired many skills around being bored out of my mind at school at times, including finding ways to fill lulls in what can be at times a manic work environment - AKA mumsnet

I think clever children should be stretched from time to time so that they know what that feels like - but making them even more socially estranged from their class mates by treating them differently in a conspicious way is the last thing these children need IMO.

Well KM then if his needs cannot be met in the school system then you should employ a lawyer and arrange a suitable home programme. I know countless people who have done that (and won) to secure an education for a child with SN - many on here - the system is the same for any complex need. If you're not near the average and you don't think the average education is suitable then prove it and the LEA will have to pay up.

Agree with soapbox.

I think my biggest objection to this thread is this strange idea that the needs of children with SN are met- just like that- with the LEA falling backwards to provide what is needed and with that child's best interests at heart.

Utter bollocks. If and when the needs of child with SN are met its usually because of a lot of time, effort, heartache and all too frequently money has been spent by the parents. And they continue to have to fight and battle all the time. Repeatedly year after year. I thought we had ds1 sorted until he was 19 until I receieved the letter saying his school is to merge/close. Roll the sleeves up again, it's time to ensure he gets a suitable education. The only thing I can guarantee is that the LEA will be interested in budget, not him.

Of course there are cures for cancer. People get cured of cancer every day. They get treated, and as a result of that treatment, get better. That's what a cure is. Chemotherapy is a cure for lots of people, for example. Surgery can also cure cancer. Other treatments can prevent cancer - eg vaccination.

Gess, there seems to be some mad idea that children with special needs have some kind of luxury level of intervention. The reality is of course, that parents fight and fight and fight for the most basic level of provision. I think a child of eight, say, who cannot read a word DOES need more help that a child of the same age who is racing through books and can read whatever they like at home. It is ludicrous to suggest this implies the second child has less worth than the first. Blimey, the idea that society values children with SN more than clever NT kids really does make me laugh.

I totally agree that the term appears to exude superiority, which often places children who are already mocked for their intelligence further outside their peer group. And define children who are not collected up by the G+T tests as less than able - which as G+T supposedly collects those in the top 5% (at least that's what ds2's school purports) that means that another 30-40% are performing just fine ta very much.

What has it done for ds2(13), outside of school? sweet FA in the whole scheme of things... Although I think within the school he is quite well extended although not stretched IYSWIM but at worst not bored which is what he was for the previous 8 yrs...

I had a tested IQ of 153 or something mad like that. It's not a big deal.