Okay folks - I am aware that I may be opening a can of worms here but why does this topic piss so many people off?

[Theclosetpagan]

I mean if someone has deemed a child G+T (or is it G or T) why is it that they seem to be flamed when they post about any difficulties here?

If the label has come from outside the family and the family struggle why can't they post here saying "Help" without people leaping in to say "your child sounds normal to me"

For what it's worth I don't have a child labelled as G+T but am glad I don't given the response some posters get to this topic.

Surely it's okay for some children to be extra bright. Or is it that there is distrust of this label?

Just interested really.

But the thing is Kerry whenever I have ased questions I ahve been ignored (not bothered for ages now) so gave up asking.
Always seemed very exclusive.

I do think there should be provision ins chools for G&T- but can't see how thats ever going to be enough, there simply won't ever be enough resources. And yes OK, I do feel very grrrrr when i'm trying to secure something very basic for ds3 (eg a statement clause that says he can have nappies changed in the school) and the Mums are complaining, as they do, about why do the SN kids everything 'on a plate.' really, some people DO think that- yet its a FT job just doing the admin for a Sn kid!

I do think a lot of G&T needs can be met within a good school- for example we have a good netwrok of afterschool clubs, and music, which are free of charge. groups such as guiding are also Ideal as the badge scheme (I was aGuider) gives a certain level of guided autonomy that G&T kids tend to thrive with. So tehre are ways of meeting needs outside the classroom that might not be available to some SN kids (DS1 does like the clubs, esp. art and board games- great for turn taking skills)

IO don't know what different regions offer- my home area seemed good for G&T but that may well be because my college lecturer was a bigwig for the G&T peeps (don't know the name) so probably organised things, can't say about elsewhere.

But what are they dong spending all their time doing biochemistry?

Why aren't they doing other stuff too?

Why can't they just get a broad education?

What happened to the Maths geniuses who went to Oxford at 13? Did any of them win the Field's medal?

An dKrry- the point si they DO deserve the smae potential! EXACTLY the same! Nonetheless when resources are limited- which of course they shoudln't be- then i think priority SHOULD go to the child that may learn to (I don't know, with ds1) read. Its a horrible decision to have to make, but resources in schools as everywher are limiteed, and the right of any child to become independent in society, I think that comes before any childs more aspirational needs. BUT a skilled teacher (such as MB- suck up alert!) can work with both sn and G&T kids, that's the point of a good teacher, that one group isn't excluded.

I think that the possibility that a child of 7 could comprehend chemistry to post degree level is as near impossible as mokes very little difference.

You are talking about a child of 7 understanding science at the level of someone of around the age of 23/4.

For those of us who have actually worked in scientific research, I would also like to point out that such research is normally carried out by a team of people, whole departmentnts in fact. One will be looking at efficacy, one looking at stability, one looking at toxicology.

the thought that a child of 7, however gifted could do all this on his/her own if only provided with a good enough G and T scheme is frankly, laughable.

The G and T children I have worked with (via nagty) would be incapable of this at the ahe of 14.

remember Even eintein didn't do his great work at the age of 7 for goodness sake

I think what I'm saying is - there are opportunities for bright children to reach their potential. Universities are not bad at that. You don't have to win your Nobel prize before you reach adolescence. And it might be healthier for your long term development if you don't try to.

Why do very young children eg. aged 7, have to learn everything overnight kerry?

The point is they will be able to learn and they have plenty of time.

My dd is in her school's "stretching class" but I make damn sure she thinks of herself as a normal child who happens to be able to be quite good at schoolwork.

Think Ruth Lawrence (she was at uni the same time as me)

How many nobel prize winning 7 year olds are we talking about here? Not the 10% G and T band, that is for sure. Not the 5% Nagty figure either.

To make a real break though in science you have to understand the thoery first.

you dont just doodle a few fugures on paper and mic up a few chemicals. you have to understand things like the Lock and Key hypothesis, and how synapses function, etc etc etc

One of the youngest Nobel prize winners was james Watson, and even he had reached the grand old age of his 20s, and he was generally considered to be a bit of a wunder kid at the time.

Completely agree with all TellUsMater's points too. There was a documentary a while ago about an 8 year old boy who was convinced he'd found the cure for cancer, and his parents believed him. The specialists he met treated him with great kindness, but of course he hadn't the first idea. The very top of their game people have been studying the field for 20-30 years, and brightness (of any magnitiude) is just nowhere near enough; you need huge amounts of background knowledge.

Peachy is right too- there are limited resources available, so of course they must go towards giving children some basic tools for life as things stand.

(and I'll post this, because Tamum is far to nice to do so, She and her dh are the people who actually do this sort of amazing, blow your socks off reserch because they are both very, very, very clever. And they know that it is also bloody hard work)

Ps tamum, I got the chocs by subterfuge....dh's scan showed NO GROWTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

but thanks.

I have posted on your thread demanding the chocs back saying how pleased I am

too late, they were magnificent, dh had some, which was great as his appitite hasn't been so good of late.

Thanks again!!

Have I wandered onto a chemistry thread?

You make lots of sense mb and tamum.

And at a more advanced age too. When they know more stuff. And a broader range of stuff. The people doing the good stuff now may well have been gifted children themselves. Do you think they haven't reached their potential?

I think there's a reason why we treat children, even the clever ones, differently to adults.

Umm- how do the parts of that post fit together? You threw it out at random but you still don't agree? Alright, I am wasting my time, clearly. No 7 year old could do that, but you are not going to listen to people who are in a position to judge.

And me Kerrymum, and me

But the thing is , most teachers work really hard to give the kids in their classes the best education that they possible can.

Not all of us are fantastic all the time, but we try our very best.

Money in education is tight, and now you seem to want to spend money on schemes to help children when you know little or nothing about the real skills such chlidren would need.

I would also say that you seem to have very little understand just how tough it is for children with SEN who are forced into main stream schools with little or no support. I see that you have not commented on my post when I raised this issue.

I teach children in MS school. I teach the very bright, and I teach those with SEN, and I'm telling you which need my help me, the kids with SEN. But you ignore me, over, and over again.

There is limited money, and you seriously telling me that we should set up endless facilities for bright children, who are capable of making progress on their own, when we have children in MN who cannot interact, cannot read and write, and cannot count.

Are you telling me that bright kids need more help than one child I taught who at the age* of 11 could not right or recognise his own name, read, write, spell or regonise a triangle from a circle? Beacsue if you do then we have very different ideas of what constitues a need

Break down any RL situation into the skilsl required to do the job (Dh does this sort of a thing as a living bt is involved in Highly techinical stuff atm do best not ask..)

in true skills, how much of the total knowledge required is actual theory?

How much is accrued knowledge about thinsg such as processes, etc?

And how much (I would suggest a lare percentage) is made up of skilsl that can only be gained trhrough RL experience- teamwork, the ability to use poelpes skills efectively, management, skills such as how to deal with failure (a HUGE area of skill ime!), self knowledge?

Now, any child with a book may be able get the theory, and even a certain amount of now;edge about the rpocesses and tools involved- but the rest takes time and individual experiences.

OK, I'm no biologist (long time since my a-levels LOL)- take my fioeld, which is abit more accessible I think (ie dunces like me can do it).

Say I wanted to do a dissertation on cotemporary Hindu practices.

I can start with the Bhagavad Gita- wonderful place to get the fundamental ideas about how things evolved etc. Then when i've done with the literature (several lifetimes later) I can look at artefactrs etc and compare how these things ahve evolved since the Indus valley civilisation origins of Hinduism (probably- its not that precise).

Then i'm full of knowledge and brimming with ideas- and completelynwrong about Hinduism.

becasue Hinduism is about how people live. The only way I can learn what hinduism really is now si tog o and live it, be with the poele who live it- everything from village communities with their own deitiy systems to the established Brahmanical areas and the modern Hinduism of areas such as Mumbai. now the books are going to help- but not half as much as a good dose of epole skills, life skills, personal survival strategies would.

Now I have wandered I know- but does that make sense? That in RL, it takes mroe than just one set of abilities to accomplish anything, and a huge eprcentage of thsoe skills can only be developed throug RL experiences.

If it doesn't make sense then-

Well, I think it's pretty healthy for a child to play with a ball. Probably healthier than a child spending their entire time boning up on rational drug design.

I still don't see why they have to accomplish al this stuff as a child. I can't see that it is healthy developmentally. And I honestly don't see that potential is being thwarted by not having research labs in schools. Just fulfilled later.

quite.

But even if they do, there are children who do their GCSEs , A levels early and go to university early. I wouldn't encourage mine to do that, but that would be my choice.

When I was at university Ruth Lawrence arrived and did amazingly well at Maths (and did a degree in Physics at the same time IIRC) I'm not convinced that she had a child hood that I would want for me, or mine, but there you go, horses for courses.

TThe numbers of children of 7 who could make earth shattering discovereies in science would be astonishingly small. Or at 9, 10, or12.

because as well as being clevel, you have to understand the science underpinning the subjecst.

yo only get the Eureka moment, becayse you put in the hours of work first. And a child of 7, 10, 12, still needs to put in that work

ime those who at school may have shown the G and T "type" signs and achievements are just as likely to end up doing something socially worthwhile as attempting to crack the DNA code. Noone can anticipate which direction their dc's lives will ultimately take. Just because they excel in some way atm does n't mean that that is what ultimately satisfies them. In fact maybe if it comes too easily (either by natural talent or a culture of external support) it loses its edge completely ?