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.

And in the UK, children have gone to Oxford at 13.

And others have gone at 18.

Is it better to go at 13? Long term?

KM, the 13 yo working on his PhD at MIT, if it's the same one I know of (there can't be more than one surely?) was home educated and in his mothers words 'unschooled' As far as I can make out he was given lots of access to books and did the rest himself. Which does rather support MB's opinion.

Sorry.

It is a perjorative expression I know, and I shouldn't have used it. But you are suggesting a pretty radical intervention programme, and I am asking whether that has actually been demonstrated to have a long term beneficial effect.

What do you want for this hypothetical 7 year old or 13 year old?

To work in science resaerch you need to understand your subject first

You need to understand this to degree level (at a minumum) more probably to PhD level.

If a child wants this, and they are good enough, they can actually go to university at a very young age. So what more do you want for the child?

Once at university, they learn the basics and then can go onto research.

But no matter how cleveer they are, they need the grounding.

And if they want that, they can get it.

personallyI'm with tellmemater on this. I think they would be better off learning masses anout masses of different things before they go. And then go at an age when they can enjoy all the aspects ofuniversity, social and accademic.

The adults working in the field now were actually once children...

No, really?

It must be bloody miserable being at university aged 13, compared to being at uni aged 16, 17 or 18.

and not that long ago from your looks, dearie!

Kerrymum, do you really think that if there was more funding for the 10% G and T, we'd suddenly see more of them going to uni at the age of 13? Serious question

Ruth Lawrence (starred first in maths at 13)used to get cycled round oxford by her father on a tandem.

Now, I'm sure she enjoed the maths, but I don't think she actually enjoyed the social life.

and just out of interet, she was home educated, not G and Td

What do you want to see Kerrymum - in schools - that could perform the same function as MIT?

The universities are there already. If you want your child to go early you can apply.

How can schools provide an equivalent experience?

and also why? why duplicate what is already somewhere else.

the thing is though, km, that the vast majority of G and T children are not like the child in MIT.

they are just normal, clever children. They have no great 'need' that schools are leaving unfilled. 10% of children in UK schools are not gagging to go to Oxford at 13.

For that matter, most of the people in Oxford where not gagging to go there at the age of 13.

I've worked with lots of 'G and T' children, and so far I've seen 1.

But I've seen a lot more who learn nothing in school for the simple reason that they can't read and write. and they need the help more.

You can throw the money after bright kids in the hope that they will do well, but the vast majority of them will do well anyway. and who knows, they may pick up other interest and ife skills along the way.

FWIW, I love teaching the very bright. I've done it a lot, both in school, via NAGTY and at a number of universities. And guess what? most of those kids are quite normal. And their gifts don't give them Special Needs. They give them joy.

fair enough KM. I certainly don't think you don't know what you're talking about, but I think the issue about what to do with kids that bright isn't easily answered. They are so rare in any case it's not really something that's appropriately addressed by a national G&T scheme.

But bad teaching affects all children.

Actually, I think the effect of bad teaching would decrease with increasing intelligence.
But I have no empirical evidence for that

[grin at the lack of evidence.

On an anecdotal level I feel that I have to work least hard as a teacher with the bright kids. Mostly it is simple facilitation.

With kids who struggle, you need to find 3 different ways to explain somethings, and then another 3 and then 5 ways to get the information to 'stick'. (can you tell I'm teaching set 7/8 in year 10 genetics tomorrow??? and have a degree of desparation in my typing)

Ruth Lawrence went to my old college.

Her father had to be banned from the library and JCR meetings. She taught some of my friends (as a postgrad or fellow not sure which) but it was not easy for her. The last article I read about her said that she'd turned her back on being an academic superstar in order to concentrate on being a mother. I vaguely remember she was estranged from her father as well although could have that wrong.

I wouldn't wish her childhood on anyone.

...Because the bright children already have the ability to conceptualise.......

IIRC she went to Israel

I remember her father being 'banned' from the JCR. Didn't they have to ban all fathers from attending meetings, or some such silliness?

How many 13 year olds want to be seen in public with their father? Let alone on a tandem