Is G&T just spin?

[ginnyweeze]

Has anyone wondered why the Government has a G&T policy?

I've no doubt some children are gifted. My DS is one of them - the education system never 'fitted' him and from an early age he has dreamed in classes that are doing work he has grasped long ago.

But what's the point of the G&T register? He's on it and gets absolutely nothing as a result. No extra classes, extension work, nothing. All it means is he can go to the library and pick any book he wants instead of being given a book by the teacher.

Up to now I've just let this go on, hoping he would be OK, and he has done well. Now, suddenly, aged eight, his results at school have nosedived - from a couple of years ahead back to Infant School level. Why? He doesn't know and I'm not sure but I suspect he's not challenged. Is the teacher bothered? No. The answer is he's meant to do the same old boring stuff year after year and needs to apply himself to that.

What will the G&T programme do about it? Nowt. It's just a fantasy. Other parents may scoff that the 'so-called gifted child' is now dropping back. But would you enjoy working in a class with people struggling to grasp concepts you got straight away? This is what he faces and the G&T agenda is a smokescreen,

Thanks Piffle .

That was emphatically not a passive-agressive smiley, btw. It was a pleasant-agreeable one.

ginnyweeze it is widely believed that intelligence is close to being homogeneously distributed across the income spectrum and that intelligence can crop up anywhere regardless of parental IQ. There may be a slight skew due to genetic effects ('nature'), but many people think that 'nurture' plays a big role too and that if you are from an impoverished background then your innate intelligence will be less likely to manifest itself. Studies have shown over and over that if you are from a 'deprived' background you have less likelyhood of getting into a grammar school and so it's not really surprising that G&T should be any different. For example see here for a recent news article.

The social problems this causes go a long way to perpetuating class in the country and so are seen as 'a bad thing'.

Smug Snorkle, I think you will find it is widely believed that for every academic study supposedly proving a point there is always another to counter it.

Don't patronise me.

As it happens my hubby comes from a very 'deprived' background, went to a rubbish comprehensive as grammar schools had been abolished but still went to a top uni. Now he has a professional job (although not well paid) so we're supposedly the 'haves'.

Why should this stop our child being g&t...just like his dad?

Or maybe we shouldn't bother educating the middle classes in this country as they obviously have a more supportive background! What rubbish.

And I brought up the whole issue of free school meals because I think that the statistics show that - for want of a better title - middle class parents are better at manipulating the system to their advantage and therefore get an unfair share of the good stuff that's going. If there are not 16% of children on free school meals on the g and t register it means that it is not just pure g and t-ness that gets them there, ti's something else as well. And this should be addressed.

My dd was no brighter than many of her class mates, but the social and educational advantage she got from the family she happened to be born in means that she passed the 11+ and is now at a secondary school that's in the Sunday Times top 100, not one that, frankly, wouldn't make the top 5000 like the vast majority of her class mates. It is not snobbery or hysteria - it is addressing a grossly unfair and divisive system.

ginny, no one is suggesting that mc class people shouldn't be educated..how ridiculous!
I ti s obviuos that children born with the same amount of intelligence but with different backgrounds will have different educational needs.
Why is a threat to you to suggest that children with parents less able to provide financial benefits for their children should receive more help from the educational system itself?
I really don't think you have to panic about your son being overlooked because people you obviously feel superior too might do as well as him.
What really made me angry was the suggestion that in order to feel a quota of wclass children in the g&t programme that the standards would have to be lowered.

I don't think anyone did suggest that standards should be lowered did they? Or did I miss that?

' Do you mean they are targeting deprived areas for g&t...hate to think they'd pop a few on just to fulfill a quota'

Ah, I didn't read that. Not happy with that either. Let's hope it was just a throw away remark - if not, then it's n ot worthy of comment. Do you accept my concerns about access to the"good stuff" being unfairly skewed?

Absolutely, seeker, I actually think we were making the same point re grammer schools and environmental advantages etc.
It wasn't your school dinners remark that ruffled my feathers.
Feeling a bit ranty today actually!

my comment was based on the previous post that the goverment were targetting deprived areas to label a few children simply to fill quotas to combat the criticisms of the failure to allow all children no matter of income or social standing/class to access an equal and good standard of education.

I'm no middle class drone I'm afraid... far from it, we have deep deep working class roots on both sides.
I was simply shocked that the drive to find G+T children from lower income areas was perhaps not going to be based on the ability angle.

But what evidence is that report based on Piffle?
It seems like it was assumed that because these children were being targeted in deprived areas that they wouldn't be as bright.

They're grammar schools....not grammer.

based on snorkles post

snorkle on Wed 21-Nov-07 11:22:37
yeah, me too (uneasy that is). The haves always seem to be better at working the systemthan the have nots. What's particularly worrying here though is that the G&T scheme is supposed to particulary (but not exclusively of course) target deprived areas.

Okay, Piffle,I didn't read that post but I still don't understand why you believe it won't be based on ability just because?

The reasoning being this
The new benchmarks for the identification of G+T students will be based on a top 10% in every school quota...

previously it has been top 5% nationally (NAGTY)

This is hoping to show up some students who may have the ability to make top 5% but are currently not being inspired/encouraged or whatever.

The logic dictates that 10% from a top grammar will be significantly ahead from the top 10% of a failing comprehensive say...

So the benchmark is being lowered, this was according to an article in the Times on Sunday a few months ago

The 10% per school thing does effectively give children from schools where the average attainment is lower (often in more deprived areas) a lower entry threshold to G&T.

I don't particularly have a problem with that aside from... oh loads of stuff, but it doesn't actually bother me that it's easier to get into at some schools than others.

The G&T funding is also, at least in part, targeted to deprived areas see here

I don't think I have a problem with that either.

I don't think I'm being smug ginnyweeze, why should I be? I've not suggested that your child isn't or shouldn't be G&T (unless your dcs name is Jocasta, in which case I apologise), merely that I don't think it's wrong to try and give underprivileged kids a boost through G&T and ensure that they do not get overlooked. It is all rather academic as has been stated earlier the provision is so pitiful in any case.

If it's on a school by school basis, then it shouldn't matter if the benchmark is proportionately lower at the failing school down the road than it is at the good school across the other side of town, should it? I mean, no-one at the good school is missing out, are they?

I agree dinosaur. I think G&T should be targetted to kids that are performing at a level significantly above their peers because they are the ones that are most removed from the teaching level. That would be different for different schools. However, I think the 10% thing is too many really. Maybe around 1% would be right?

Of course if teachers were all really good at differentiating work then it might not be necessary at all, but lots aren't.

The g&t or as it is sometimes called gifted and able programme is about ABILITY for gods sake. That is different to knowledge or facts that have been taught parrot style.
It is about the way the mind works and the questions children ask. Honestly, these working class children can't win can they? If they get through on the programme it's because they were the best of a crap lot!

I agree with your last two comments snorkle.

I do think that those pupils performing at the top and bottom of a class should both be identified and appropriate provision made. There are two things about a blanket top 10% that makes me :

If you reverse it, you wouldn't take the bottom 10% and label them all special needs. Or whatever horrible label a government think tank could create.

One thing I really would hope some sort of G&T scheme would do is identify those children that havn't shone yet but are hugely talented and intelligent. Maybe their spelling and maths isn't up to much but they're creative and original thinkers. Maybe they hide in the middle of the class but shine at engineering and problem solving.

Hah! Blueblob, the Government would fight tooth and nail against categorising so many children as "special needs" because they wouldn't cough up the resources to teach them. Ask any parent on the SN board about the struggle to get appropriate education for a child with SN.

Just an aside...

They certainly would, several of my friends are having awful problems at the moment.