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?

Teaching social skills isn't about hiding lights under bushels at all, it's about expanding interests (in my book).

Children who are gifted shouldn't only be measured in terms on academic ability- or just focus on that - their sporty/and or/ creative side should be developed (as it should for all children)- which was why I agreed with kathy re the school clubs. Doing something new can be fun and challenging - and there is loads of choice out there. I read it an weep and wish there was one extra curricular activity that ds1 could access. Exams suck for the extra bright and the non bright but extra curricular activities can provide an opportunity for all.

i have two children who appear to be on opposite ends of a 'normal' educational scale.

dd1 is struggling, she is on IEP, sees SENCo daily, and fortuntly her school is providing her with the help she needs, and she has a lot of support in the classroom. socially she has no problems, and is a popular child.

dd2 is steaming ahead of her peers already and is due to start reception in sept. she is already at a year 1 level, so my wories for her are completly different to those for dd1. dd2 has a lack of social skills, despite this other kids adore her, and she will either thrive in the school or withdraw into herself again which is what happened at her pre-school, or maybe she will get bored.

i feel i may have let her down in some ways as i havent pushed much this last year to find out why she is different (clumsey, twirly, rowdy etc,) and she is going into school with no real support. I am playing a waiting game with dd2 to see how she goes in the school, and how the school cope with her. again fortunatly she is known already to the school as dd1 yr 1 teacher is takign reception, and the nursery has sent over reports already.

i dont know if 'g&t' label with be applied to dd2, i dont really know what that entails, but i do know that the needs of the child should be met. but i know in reality this doesnt always happen.

surely thoguh, identifying those children who are particularly bright, and who as a group would tend to struggle socially (if you're academic ability is a couple of years ahead of your classmates, they're going to think you're weird, and in the nature of children, being weird causes problems), and doing stuff with them to help that situation - in our case by using NAGTY, and enrichment days at school to stretch sideways within an academic and social peer group, rather than acceleration - is going to benefit those children. And if you haven't identified them, how can you help them?
And with any scheme of identification, some will miss out, and some will be included who shouldn't. I don't like the G&T label, but there's not an awful lot of alternatives.

The G&T label of identifying the top 10% is a bit daft though isn't it? Streaming children in subjects could achieve the same results (i.e. stretching) without adding a whole layer of paperwork & identification etc.

Been thinking more about this thread overnight . If a child is truly exceptional to the point where they have SEN then the exact same system exists for their needs to be met as exists for children with complex SN. i.e. statementing and the SEN tribunal. Many thousands of parents of children with SN go to tribunal (3513 tribunals in 2005 for example, this is up by about 800 from 2001- oh the joys of inclusion- the vast majority of tribunals are won by parents incidentally). Those tribunals are of parents fighting for a suitable education for their child- so join them. You have access to exactly the same system as children with parents of SN. There's no SN/G&T competition- the legal argument is about a suitable education. That applies across the board.

I know 2 people locally who have just won at SEN tribunal. They both won funding for full time home programmes to cater for the complex SN of their children.

To get this they had to:

1. get a whole load of baseline assessments before starting the home programme (£££)
2. Run a home programme for a year (at a cost of about 20 grand + - their families clubbed together to pay)
3. Get a whole load of other assessments to demonstrate that the programme had achieved an education
4. Employ lawyers
5. Prove to the tribunal that there was no provision locally that could provide a suitable education for their children (not the best, they had to prove that the LEA could not provide a suitable education).

Many many parents go through that sort of thing every day. There are people on here who've been through that (not me- I couldn't face it- we 'top up' the bits that school can't tackle).

Don't for one minute think that children with SN get an easy ride and get their needs met just like that. If you still feel your child has SEN because of their abilities then hop on the same system and prove it. If you can prove it you will get extra funding for a tailor made education for your child. If your child's needs cannot be met in local provision then the law is on your side.

They had to run the programme for a year btw so they could prove it worked- you really won't win a tribunal without doing that.

seems like dd1 has been lucky in getting support for her learning problems. which says more about the school i guess. which is also why i amrelaxed a bit about dd2 going there. dd1 old school was usless, didnt identify any problems, and she didnt have help.

Interesting thread.

From what I read:

The needs of children with learning difficulties are not currently being met by the system and if so, only at a minimum level and after much grafting by parents. If Ruth Kelly takes her child out of the state system for something that is not even at that profound a level of disability as dyslexia (rather than reform SN provision), then you bet the state is not focused on the needs of SN. The experience described by aloha, gess etc is mirrored by my friends in RL.

Also, not all children are getting education even at the basic level as per curriculum. Sink schools.

To then start this category of G&T is meaningless, because it just creates the illusion that the government is meeting the needs of this G&T category, when in reality, it is meeting the needs of NONE.

We have testimony of no doubt brilliant mnetters who say being bright is nothing special, nothing that parents cannot develop outside of school. As dedicated mnetters, this would surely be easy.

I am all for resources being thrown at learning difficulties and improving schools overall, BEFORE money is thrown at G&T.

In any case, I have great cynicism about G&T being identified in primary school children. When they start doing things that even in an adult would be remarkable, would I start sitting up. But doing things EARLY, is not particularly special in itself. Thinking of all my "bright" friends in primary school who did not shine in secondary school and got overtaken.

And if G&T children have difficulties in school, it is likely linked to the social problems created by the isolation from their peers brought on by their brilliance. That is not the school's problem, that is for parents to teach the child coping strategies. And find like-minded friends. I dare say all will be sorted at a grammar or selective secondary.

"Think of it as 'how to hide your light under a bushel' and then think how that makes kids feel about their abilities. They're something socially unacceptable, and to be hidden at all cost. Unless people are very careful, that's the message that comes across."

Spot on, legalalien.
My DD was gifted when she entered senior school but it seems that all she has learnt there is how to tick boxes and coast along. The school and its community do not value academic excellence and consequently neither does she.
Is that what everybody wants: for bright kids to think that applying a bit of effort is a waste of time and they can get by on being lazy slackers instead?

blueshoes - I agree with most of what you said with a few reservations:

(a) I don't think it's true for all families that the parents can cope with having a gifted child (and I'm talking about a small number of children here, not the 10% figure that the govt is talking about). It might be fine where the parents are bright / interested / to some extent educated and have time to invest. That's not true for a lot of families, particularly with parents working or with a number of children. I'm not convinced that mumsnet is entirely representative of the population at large.

(b) it's true that parents can assist their children with "coping strategies", but the fact remains that education is often terribly "formal", and because of the numbers of people in classes, teachers have to adopt a "one size fits all" approach, meaning that for the gifted child much of their childhood education has a lot in common with being locked in a waiting room with no magazines to read, for long periods of time. This may not seem like a big deal, but I don't think it's a very positive thing from a mental health perspective.

(c) Unless you're in a city and mixing in certain crowds, finding "like minded friends" is not necessarily that easy. And if you're in the UK, a grammar or selective school is increasingly unlikely (blueshoes - are you in Oz?)

So I think that for a small number of children, some degree of government assistance is warranted. There are some good combination charity / subsidised / corporate sponsored schemes being set up in NZ, which I think is a good idea, and some of you might find interesting.
see
www.giftedkids.co.nz/index.htm

Like the OP, the term G&T annoys me. Having a child who is in the top 5% at a particular school does not make him or her gifted. There are thousands of such children in each year group. Most will probably do well in public exams, go on to university and take up professional jobs. Does this mean that most solicitors, doctors or even (!) teachers are gifted? And to all the posters who tell us how gifted their three year old child is, my response is that I had one. He is now at a decent university doing a difficult course, as are thousands of others. If he had been composing sonatas at three like Mozart, then I would agree he was gifted and talented. Such people are very rare.

I don't think I agree with that 100%. I have taught some very, very bright children. Some were socially isolated, some weren't. It didn't depend on their intelligence. It was all about extracurricular stuff. You were in with the in crowd or you weren't. And if you were no-one really cared about how clever you were.

I wasn't in with the in crowd at school, and although I was academically successful, that wasn't the reason. That would be an easy hook on which to hang it, but it wouldn't be true.

Lilymaid, why do you(and others) wilfully ignore the definition of Gifted? It means the most academically able, who (as you say) may become the next generation's doctors, lawyers etc. (Unless they all decide that its not cool to be clever- see Unquiet Dad's thread)
It does not mean once-in-a-generation, one-in-a-million.

sorry, fembear, can you elaborate your point? I am clearly not gifted!

I'm not sure that the current school system serves the bog standard joe average particularly well either.

If a child is truly sit up gifted to the point of having SEN then the system is already in place to demand that they get whatever help they need.

I was a 'gifted' child at five. A 'gifted' child at ten.

But I was saved from the horrors of success by a completely indifferent school system! Hoorah for them!

They taught me that all I ever had to do was turn up, put pen to paper, and nobody would shout at me - because that was all the happened no matter HOW much effort I put in. I recently reread an essay I wrote aged about 12 - and it was (sorry) brilliant. But I recall the teacher never even asked for the homework back in to mark it, I never found out how well I did.

By 15 I was doing the bare minimum to avoid the wrath of the teachers, I had become apathetic and lazy. I was capable of doing much much more than I did.

We need to recognise that the intelligent amongst us are very prone to laziness, and this needs to be avoided!

blueshoes - I think the issue is that (i) "Gifted" for the purposes of the UK educational system means the top 10% academically; and (ii) some of the discussions being had in relation to special needs of gifted children relate to a much smaller group of people - this is confusing the discussion a little bit.

So technically the top ten percent is "Gifted", although I wouldn't regard them all as gifted.

As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the G&T label is given to the top 5% in ANY class. DD1 was labelled G&T, I knew nothing about it and TBH wasn't interested, really can't see what the fuss is about. Shortly afterwards, DD2 was also given this label. Now there is no way she has the academic ability of DD1, but she was in a much smaller class with 4 SEN children and therefore found herself to be one of the ones who struggled least. However, DD1 has just finished her first year at secondary school (selective) and now finds herself to be very average indeed and certainly not anywhere near the top of the class. In fact, it has been a bit of a shock to her to find that she's not half as clever as she thought.
A reasonably intelligent child will make his or her own way in the world, with or without help, albeit perhaps not achieving its maximum potential for one reason or another, but a child with special needs surely needs the extra help in order to get a basic education so that he or she can survive in the big wide world. And education isn't just about reading and writing, it should also be about learning to socialise and look after yourself.
I'm not expressing myself very well - not that bright, sorry! But I hope you know what I'm trying to say.

There was a boy in ds1's class who was about average for the class left earlier this year to go to another school. At the new school he has been labelled gifted and talented and moved up a year to keep him interested but had he stayed with ds's class he would not have that label.

legalalien, you said: "I don't think it's true for all families that the parents can cope with having a gifted child (and I'm talking about a small number of children here, not the 10% figure that the govt is talking about)". Do you mean Mozart or Einstein or something in between them and 5-10%? My feeling is that if you are talking about very tiny percentages, the level of "gift" is so specialised anyway that ANY system would struggle to cater for it. Sure, some parents can't or are unwilling to invest the time to nurture it, but that's life, as with anything that is out of the ordinary. I only but skimmed the NZ link - I suspect any supportive programs would really only suit "bright" children (ie the 5-10%) to work, not the truly gifted.

I like your analogy of being in a locked room in school. But the schoolday ends at 3 pm - leaving ample opportuities to extend learning or just plain socialising. For younger children, that could mean taking them to a library on weekends (sorry, the library example) or museums. For older children, they can seek it out. I am none too impressed with a child who just sits there like a lump expecting to be stretched (do those children exist?). My mother did not know what I was reading, but I always look back fondly to when she left me in the public library for hours whilst she did her weekly shop.

I am not from Oz, just UK . But I grew up in Singapore, possibly the first country to introduce the G&T program (outside my time). When I said grammars or selective secondaries, I should also have mentioned that there is always the option of going for scholarships to independent schools. The most academic ones would welcome these children.

Exactly what I'm getting at, Suki. The label seems to be attached to the top 5% of each class, rather than where they really are nationally.
Not that I really give a monkeys, to be honest. As far as I'm concerned, I just feel lucky 'cos my kids have no special needs.

BS my mum used to do that! I would sit there until my EYES ached!

I agree with you GGG

If my Ds had made the same move he would be G & T but since he has stayed in the same class he isn't. He is about half way in ability terms.

The class teacher did comment at parents evening as part of an open discussion that ds's class were an exceptional class and they needed to be worked like that. There are no SEN pupils in the class

Escapefrom, your experience is horrendous. I would say that that is the fault of the school (and for resources to go to improving the teaching at that school). It is linked to "hiding your light under a bushel" thing - if a child EVER feels the need to do that, it would mean that academic excellence is, for whatever reason, not valued at that school. That's sink. It is not related to how bright a child is. Even an average child would not seek to better himself in that atmosphere.

As a parent, I would fight for my child to switch schools.

Escapefrom, just read your comment about aching eyes . I used to hide when my mum came to collect me.