I have been thinking about this Gifted and Talented thing.....

[seeker]

...and I was wondering if anyone else worries about the "politics" of it. I am with the people who think that saying that 10% or 5% or whatever of children are G&T is meaningless, and that labelling them is more likely to be damaging than not. I think there are G&T children in the world, but certainly not 5%! But I also wonder whether there is any correlation between that 5% of children and the most articulate, middle class parents? ANd if so, does calling their children G&T (as opposed to just very clever and motivated) cause the parents to shut up and stop pushing the school and the government to improve things for the 90%? Of am I too cynical for a Sunday morning? Is there any way of finding out, for example, how many children on the G&T register also get free school meals?

And that is the problem with a lot of the tests that are used atm to select G and T kids, they would miss out on children like your son.

and that is the problems with the G and T scemes as it stands

Actually, perhaps G&T would not be needed at all if all schools went back to streaming in all subjects. There is absolutely no doubt that the type of teaching required for bottom sets is different than for top sets.

We could then remove the G&T label. ..and isn't it ironic that the political parties say they hate grammar schools because they teach the brightest seperately...but then have to create a nonsensense G&T set because they realise that the bright ones DO have different needs.

Bloody politicians..keep yer nose out!!

I can see the point in identifying the bottom and top sets of pupils in any one class. To ensure that the needs of these kids are taken care of. Also could provide a way of monitoring that schools are doing what they're meant to be - teaching all the pupils! Not letting those who are struggling in some respects fall behind. Not letting those who finding some aspects easy coast along.

My son goes to a school were there are 2 years in each class and the school gets excellent SAT scores. So c'mon it can't be hard for any teacher to provide appropriate work for a very wide range of ability on a day to day basis?

The term Gifted and Talented makes me , something like Advanced Skills Pupils sounds much better. It's less loaded, especially at primary school level! It makes no sense to me to get a group of kids who probably clicked with reading or maths earlier then send them on special enrichment classes. Or single them out as being something different. I always think of LOST and The Others

I grew up in an 11+ area and am not stupid enough to believe that all those that got highscores and a place (2 different things) were always brighter than the ones who didn't. So why on earth would anyone think the top 10% performing pupils are always the brightest and need something different.

Enrichment sessions sounds like placating a parent, your child is gifted but hey arn't we great for doing this. Whilst the day to day classroom situation doesn't change. What about the girl who doesn't get on so well with maths who would adore to the same activity?

Again they manage it at my sons school. He's not an outstanding reader and his maths is a bit wobbly but he loves knowing about the world and has a pretty good general knowledge. School saw this and when they have had certain science history days or activities he's been muddled up with the older kids. There's no need to start labelling to cater in most cases.

Better stop rambling. Some children certainly do have exceptional gifts and talents far far beyond the rest of us. They have a much right as anyone to get an appropriate education. Schools do seem to need a system to make sure all ability levels are catered for in the more normal range. A way of identifying children who may have areas of strength can only be good. Not just maths but maybe geopgraphy? After all many children who go on to be amazing at something stand out from the crowd. Term Gifted and Talented to describe top 5 or 10 percent is nuts. What about the child who was in the 11 percent? What are they

That was meant to read after all many children who go on to be amazing at something DON'T stand out from the crowd.

Lil I agree. At secondary school level streaming over many subjects would be good.

Another thing. Round here there are oodles and oodles of clubs and activities on Saturday mornings for children who are sporty, musical, or enjoy dance/drama.

Now at age, say 5-6, these are very much 'open to all'. But once the children get to age 7+ they really have to show some aptitude/talent for the subject otherwise they cease to feel welcome. My boys have no talent for sport or dance, and no interest in drama, and ds1 is utterly unmusical.

Part of the "G&T programme" at their cluster of primary schools is running a Saturday morning club - once a fortnight, which the boys have adored going to. Now, it is absolutely not what you might expect - it's not academic/cerebral/serious. But it gives them an opportunity to explore different ideas with other children, rather than just with their parents. They have done things as varied as writing song lyrics, designing rockets, gardening, orienteering, flower-arranging, poetry, circus-skills, etc.

The problems with widespread streaming though is that set 7 of 8 is usually a huge challenge behaviourally, and tends to get worse the more time each week that the group spends together. And no-one wants to teach them.

Setting is better than streaming, I think, ie kids are 'judged' on their abilities in each subject, and put in an approriate group. Streaming is when you have general streamns that put yo in top sets for everything etc regardless of your ability in that particular subject IYSWIM....so I was streamed into 'top sets' because on average is i was very good. I was crap at maths, but was still in the top group because U school I went to streamed, and didn't set.

'Bottom sets' Ah well, that is a difficult issue.

One big problem is that the kids come in, knowing that they are in the 'bottom set' (however the school dresses it up to hide the fact), and feel that they are sure to fail. So the first thing that you have to do is to build up their confidence.

Hoever it is totaly unrealistic to take children who are woking towards a level 3 (average end of year 2) and have them working with kids who are on level 7s (top end results of year 9) and expect the lesson to work and satisfy all needs.

If 'bottom sets' are small, and children have some SEN support, then they can make real progress. The real issue comes when children who are disruptive end up in the bottom sets. Often these are actually quite able, but have decided that school is not for them, so their behaviour deteriorate. And then you end up with a situation where the least able children are put in a class with the least well behaved. And then the situation develops where no-one learns anything.

Best way to sort this is to take the disruptive children out of the class .....we do this by placing them with work in a sixth form lesson. Its amazing how well they can work when there is no appreciative audience to play towards.

There are numerous issues in secondary education. Children at the bottom end of the attaiment ladder get a really rough deal. Children at the top end may sometimes be bored, but IME the two things are not comprable.

the G and T scheme (and I've done a fair bit of work in the area) is flawed from the outset. It makes mistakes in correct identificatio, the 10% issue is farcical, it is badly funded and the money goes on one off trips , which while they might be fun, do nothing really conreauctive for most able children. It is a sop to the middle classes who are thwarted in their wishes for grammer schools.

If we want an education system that values all children equally (and I think that everyone would agree with that), the simplest and most cost effective things would be to take the millstone of paperwork and 'standardisation' from teachers necks, and let them use their professional ability and understanding of their students to best effect.

Bright kids don't need trips to the local museum (for the most part), they need teachers who, on seeing that they have covered the work for year 4, are free to send them to the library to have some intelectual fun, rather than having to give them more farking worksheets, this time from the year 5 sylabus.

But when would the government ever bother to ask the teachers eh? After all what would we know about it?

But Roisin - why should that Saturday club only be open to the G&T? Sounds like something ALL children would benefit from!

Absolutely agree re. streaming. It's very divisive, and often has odd consequences - my dh had this, and was told he had to sit Latin O level because he was "A" stream, when he wanted to do IT. In fact he had to drop to the "B" set in order to take it (turned out to be a good move, as he is now a programmer). When I changes schools at 6th form I went from setting to streaming, and children at the new school only seemed to have friends from within their streams. Crazy. I was in the top set for maths (which once upon a time I was good at, but alas no more) and the bottom for French, where we did CSE because we were all rubbish, and the CSE was way easier than the O level. Interestingly the teacher for the bottom set was fantastic, and I think it was the only time I actually managed to learn any French. If I had been forced into the top set then I would certainly have failed the O level. The poorest teacher was the one who took the middle set, but a lot of that was because they were a very disruptive group (can't learn won't learn approach).

I agree with KerryMum on this one. It can be very difficult to "celebrate" your geekiness, and such children can feel very isolated. My dn (not G&T as far as I am aware, but like my son very bright, and dyslexic) struggled so much at secondary school that his parents moved him to a private school just so he could mix with a few other geeks, feel happy about himself, and enjoy his intelligence again rather than feeling it as some sort of social handicap. He is much happier.

Ok - I am prepared to be proved wrong, but I seriously doubt that there are enough genuinely gifted or talented children in the average town to make a viable club. Yes of course there are enough very bright childrn - but very bright is not, in my opinion, G&T.

And I REALLY don't see why the top 10% of the class should get a special club to learn circus skills. I really don't. It But seems to me that it would be much more beneficial to everyone - and by that I mean wider society - if the bottom 10% get the special club. But there are no votes in that, are there? I can't help thinking back to my OP - that the G&T programme is a 'sop' to the "little Jocasta is so bright and the school just isn't challenging enough for her" brigade. I KNOW there are genuinely G&T children - but I bet there are significantly less than one in every primary school. If there's one in every town I'd be surprised.

I think it sounds like a lovely club and can understand that different personalities need different types of places to be themselves. My son is a geek and so were most of my brothers. However I don't get why only the children who've been identifed and labelled G&T get to go. My son would love to do those sorts of things.

I'm looking for a club atm for him, sadly Beavers clashes with a class he does. It's be nice to find a club that does a wide range of activities.

Sage 1-the herb, 2-a philosopher and
3-wise

I think some clubs can be self-selecting based on what you call them. My dc's school has a programming club that's open to all, but only the geeky ones go. If you badge a maths club as an 'opportunity to try some challenging sums' I doubt anyone who found maths hard would go (at least not more than once). This might not work in all subject areas, but shows that sometimes you can easily have clubs aimed at the top 10% without making them exclusive.

Sue, The point I was making was that you could make a more elite maths club by giving it a title that would put the others off. I think one MNetter mentioned their school had a maths olympiad club once, so I imagine you wouldn't have kids going to that who wanted basic arithmatic practise (I don't know if it was open to all or not, but if it was the kids would know if they were at that level or not themselves and so self select). Of course there should be other clubs for other abilities in maths too, and those are the ones that need to sound more appealing - I think there's an excellent scheme run by Jaguar cars which works around setting up and racing cars on different tracks - very appealing to boys at least and the maths is practically applied.

Very Gifted children are often isolated by their intelligence: they have no peers and thus can find it difficult to fit in.
Saturday morning Clubs with "writing song lyrics, designing rockets, gardening, orienteering, flower-arranging, poetry, circus-skills" are not necessarily about teaching them educational subjects but can be about teaching them the 'soft skills' that they are lacking e.g. learning to work in a team or overcoming perfectionism.

Very gifted children are also very rare,. I'm also not convinced that putting a bunch of very clever children together is going to be the best was to help them to socialise with less able children.