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.

Look, I've not been rude to you. Please don't be snide to me. And as you say, you don't like it when bright people are given stick.

the thing that you don't answer is this. A defining characteristic of very very able chilren (people for that matter) is that they can largly 'get on with it'. Yes, they need encouragement, and yes they need to know that it is OK to be clever. They also need to be free of bullying. And all children need to know these things.

there is simply no way that the top 10% of the school I teach in need the same assistance as the bottom 10%, it simply isn't true. And you seem to refuse to accept this.

If I have a child on for an A at A level, I can guide them towards interststing and mind expanding sites.

If I'm teaching a teenager of 16 who cannot read and write (and trust me this happens), that child needs a lot more time and attention and help. How could it possibly be any different?

I'll have a shot at this - even though I am not a teacher:

To some children, teaching is unnecessary. They just want to be left alone to get on with their thing. So to realise their potential, just give them a few pointers and let them fly.

Some children need a lot more than that.

What I think is happening in this discussion is that Kerrymum is confusing equality of treatment (giving both sets of children the same care and attention) with equality of opportunity.

and maybee, just maybee, those kids are just plain old clever.

So are you really going to throw money after a possibility (and it really isn't a possibility that they will come up with it on their own because it isn't how science works nowerdays) and leave children with no help to learn how to read and write?

Seriously?

I think that is crazy.

The average drug costs £1000,000,000 to get to market (and I typed the 0s with great care!). The documantation that allows a drug to be marketed runs to hundrads of thousands of pages. they have to run clinical trials, safety monitering, toxicology etc etc. no one person does this sort of stuff any more, it is all far to complex.

and in essence what you are asking for already exists, children do their exams early, and go to university early.

But you still dot get 10 year olds winning nobel prizes, because they simply haven't read enough at that age. they don't know enough/ And if they want too, they can with a book.

Broadening you mind is all well and good, but it helps if you have facts to fill it

Does hothousing work?
By increasing adult attainment I mean.

What's the evidence?

(Genuinely interested)

I have no problem with hem going to the library, and said as much, on this or some other thread, eaons ago.

But what they don't need, to the same degree, is my time. Or a TAs time.

the children who need that are the poor devils who cannot function, because they cannot read and write.

you keep posting that the needs are the same. they are not

I find impossible to believe that schooltime can be boring for a g and t child the whole time. Come on, are you telling me that their knowledge at 9 covers the whole human knowledge? perhaps they might find new interests? write a drama? read poetry? does it always need to be science? (sorry mb )

I'm slightly uneasy about the thought that really brilliant kids should be expected to achieve something mindblowing. This is at any age, be it 7,9,12 or adult. I don't think it's right to expect it. I also wonder if it isn't the bright grafters rather than the super-bright that are more likely to make news grabbing achievements in any case. As for drug development at 7, as said it's nigh on impossible and definitely an activity best left to post-grads, but I also see KMs point that it was an off the cuff example and after all Mozart was composing good stuff at 5, so not impossible for a 7 yo to do something worthwhile in some fields. That thought leads me think that the best way to go to stretch brilliant youngsters is sideways (music, chess, sport etc) which KM is doing, so good for her.

Yes, it always needs to be Science

No, I agree. Get them interested in everything.

Oh that's right, if only we encourage all these G+T kids properly then we will be able to cure SN in one fell swoop becuase the adults who are doing research into it are all too dim. FFS. And yes, now I am being snide- mb is not, but you are being extremely agressive to her.

re science

Well, you must be meeting a brighter class of gifted and talented kids than I have . And I've met mine via NAGTY. they were not way beyond ordinary school. They were (one the whole) very nice, pleasent bright kids.

None of them were in 'need' of going to university at 14

Stretching them sideways. Hurrah!

actually I'm with tellusmater. We should get them interested in everything. To my mind great intellegence in children is often highlighted by their ability to see links between subjects, not simple acceleration of learning. because real advances happen when people put disparate pieces of the puzzle together

Sideways is best. Put the buggers to read in a nice, big library. they'll have a blast.

Wow, I actually think MB et al have been very helpful and patient.

But why brigh up examples if you don't understand how the example works.

There are 60,000,000 things out there that I *don't understand. But I do understand how they develop medicines. Because it used to be my job. i never discovered the cure for cancer, or heart disease, but I did my little bit,

If we are discussing soemthing, and you say something that is factually wrong, I would expect to be able to correct you.

It simply isn't possible for a child to single handedly cure cancer, out of the blue, without understanding the background scince. It isn't possble.

It would be like expecting a brilliant child to be able to go to Italy, and converse fluently , never having studied the subject.

these able kids can pick up the science quickly, quicker than the norm. Who knows, they might cure cancer one day? But only when they understand the subject, and that will involve books and the internet. Which is why your arguemnt was flawed.

these childred don't need a lab. they need a library.

I've told you, tamum's told you and so has tellusmater. yo can ignore us. But we've done this sort of work.

Saying that isn't bragging, it is just factual

Give over woman. No-one is saying you're stupid.

What we're saying, well, what I'm saying anyway, is that children can be positively encouraged in their intelligence without hothousing them, while leaving their options open, while encouraging them in their enjoyment of their childhood as well as their intelligence, while helping them to become happy and well-rounded adults. Who can then go an and do great things in their chosen field.

It was a genuine question about hothousing and evidence BTW. Is there evidence that gifted children perform less well as adults if they have not had intensive intervention in their childhood?