Define Gifted and talented

[seeker]

Just that really. No value judgments or sniping - just definitions. What does Gifted and Talented mean to you?
I'm not sure what it means to me, but at the moment, my thinking is -

To me, "gifted" means extremely academically able. I suppose something like being consistently 4 years ahead of the average for the child's age, and also, importantly, having an intellectual "spark". It would be possible to coach an averagely bright child to perform well above their age, but not to give them the spark which means true giftedness.

To me "talented" means being able to do something - like play the piano or do gym or swim or write poetry - significantly and measurably better than their peers. For example to play sport at County level or getting a Grade 6 in music at primary school.

I'd go along with the sparkiness for gifted -often comes with an innate curiosity and ability to ask the right questions.

On talented your music definition seems about right, but musical talent may shine through later for those who don't get the opportunity early on. On sport again it depends so much on what opportunities you have. I think a fair few kids could reach county level in a given sport given a resonable amount of drive and plenty of training and I wouldn't say they were particularly talented. District level might be more indicative of talent for someone who has lots of coaching, but county level for a relative newcomer.

Of course those are my opinions only - I think there are so many official definitions that the terms are rather useless.

Blimey! I wouldn't dare

Agree re Gifted , there is something instrinsic about the level of awareness and passion for knowledge which cannot be coached. Such children need avenues and opportunities to develop and achieve their potential.

Talents can be, and often need to be, nurtured but there must be an underlying ability and understanding beyond the accepted excellence for their age group.

To me it would seem difficult to categorically identify either in a child under about 7 unless they were of exceptional calibre.

I think your definitions are along the same lines of mine.

I think the difference between a bright child and a gifted one is the ability to self teach because of their innate ability. As you say a bright child will learn lots when taught. A gifted child will learn things just through observing others around them and an innate ability to process the information logically.

One of my cm friends has a girl who is 5yrs with a reading age of 10yrs, to me thats gifted.

I see children who are 4yrs and able to sing a song other than nursery rhymes in perfect tune, as talented. Children able to play the piano etc from memory or by ear etc.

Re the 10 year reading age in a 5 year old. Only gifted if they can actually UNDERSTAND it like a 10 year old.

And actually, I'm rethinking the reading thing. I wonder whether g and t-ness is something that has to carry on into later life. As an example, my dd was a precociously early talker. Really freakishy so - she was a minor celebrity in our little town for 6 months or so. But then everyone else caught up, and she is now (of course) a normally talking 11 year old. I wonder whether reading can be the same sort of thing - some children just catch on to the process earlier, but all the other children catch them up sooner or later. I don't think you could talk about a "gifted" reader at 11, could you? Whatever they were reading?

Ditto seeker. DD1 was the same with her language and v fluent reader from age of 4 and a half. She could "read" Harry potter when she was still in year 2 but not sure she really understood it all. Lots of other kids in her class who were behind her at age 5 pretty much caught up with her by about 9 and many got level 5s in their reading. She's above average but not gifted . Kids just peak and then plateau at different ages.

I don't think 'gifted' should be linked to doing normal things EARLY, like reading or singing or talking or dancing. It is only when the child starts to overtake normal adults in abilities that I would start to take notice. So any giftedness tag below, say secondary school, I would be quite sceptical.

Agree about self-teaching and self-starting motivation being a significant indicator. I work with some very very bright people (myself not included). Their genuine thirst for the subject of their interest (law in this case, dull as it might be) and ability to get their head around intricate details and leap dizzyingly and draw connections between concepts, subject areas and market trends just sets them apart from the average bright but joeblogg lawyers.

Also, some 'gifts' are more obvious than others. The geeky mathematician is likely to be overshadowed by a sterling sportsperson.

it's more a way of thinking than being able to do something really well, I would say - the making connections and "getting" things. DD1 gets invited to all sorts of English enrichment activities, despite not being particularly good at English (spelling awful, not that great at getting thoughts down on paper), simply becasue her mind works differently to most other peoples.

agree very strongly with the undefinable "spark", both my dds talked well from an early age but my dd2 has something different ( odd !) about the way she asks questions, wants to know things and works things out for herself, whereas dd1 though curious about things is just not the same though i find it hard to articulate it.

It isn't what they answer, it is what they ask.

the 10% is cobblers.

FWIW dd1 is very average academically and dd2 aged 3 can do alot of the things dd1 is just grasping ( spelling / reading ) and htough i agree she might plateua out it is again this unexplainable way in which she looks at the world that makes me think she is different. it is very hard to create definitions/criteria to label children who IMO are just "outside the box"

What is Gifted? includes some academic definitions.

My son was diagnosed as gifted at the same time as he was diagnosed as dyslexic. His overall IQ was in the top 2% of the population. Gifted often applies to the top 2% of the population, or the top 5%, depending on different theories.
In schools, they are trying to extend the G&T programmes to the top 10% of children.

thing is, it doesn't always last. At 6, dd was reading and understanding at adult level, doing GCSE type maths and the school put her in for the Y6 SATS and she beat all of them. She taught herself to read at 2and a half.
So they labelled her 'G&T'
forgot to label her 'highly strung' and in the 10 years since she has done bugger all and is now doing her GCSE's. She's still very bright and is bound to get A*'s and good A level and probably a graet degree but that huge gap is no longer there in my opinion. It does plateau out in many cases. Like any teen she is more interested in parties and mates than anything else.
Being 'gifted' does not mean great things, especially in our education system and even if she went on to do a PhD in maths, scientists are paid crap and in the scheme of things being 'gifted' means very little. And it doesn't mean being happy either.

I wouldn't use the word 'diagnosed' either. Being bright isn't an illness.

We use the term 'more able' for those who are excellent across the board. We tend to use gifted & talented for those who have flair in specific subjects. The extention work for each group is quite a bit different.

DS1 used to be described by schools as "very able" - I much prefer that to "gifted". He just happens to be good at academic work and at passing tests and exams but there are thousands like him every school year so he is nothing special (except to his mum and dad).

I think, crudely speaking, that gifted is used to describe ability in academic subjects, and talented in more practical subjects (eg music, art, games).

I've never really thought about the difference before. Gifted for academic/intellectual, talented for music and sport. Yes, that's probably right. You never hear people talk about a "gifted" singer, or a "gifted" 800-metre runner, do you? I also didn't realize that people were still using "able". I remember that from my schooldays. Or sometimes "capable". It sounds a bit 1950s, though.

The term "diagnosed" is used as it usually preceds " diagnostic assessment" which is what a full ed psych. assessment is- I could just have easily usd the word "assessed" instead of "diagnosed".

I do take th point you make needmorecoffee- asn for some time I used to work with Mensa and theri advice line for parents of gifted children, beofre they joined forces with the NFGC.

Keeping bright children motivated is an important issue . Sometimes they don't try because they are afraid of failing- especially if they know that they are "gifted" as they are always being told that- and at other times they don't work hard because they don't want to be seen as geeks/nurds by their peers. And being very bright/able/gifted is no guarantee of success or even having a personality that means you succeed- if you measure success in terms of material wealth.

What is importtant is that all children fulfil their potential, whateer their ability- but when my son was at school the G&T label did not exist- so any recognition of high ability is good, as too many educationalists regard it as a taboo word- and I am a teacher!

I think that what "gifted and talented" means to me is what it means to many of the posters on this thread.

It means out of the ordinary. Somone you wouldn't bump into every day of the week. Or even most days of the month.

I don't like the way that the term "gifted and talented" is being dumbed down. My children are neither gifted nor talented - they are just ordinarily bright - in old money that is.

Quatro, totaly agree with you.

I realised a little while ago that with the new system I would have been listed as G and T for Maths when I ws in school.

And I still count on my fingers and have problems with my times tables. I'm so not G or T in maths it is untrue!

But I was in the top 10% Pity help the rest!

I think with gifted, you know it when you see it. It is hard to define ahead of time. More able is easier - they are part of the bell curve, which is predictable.

Someone said you can recognise them by the questions they ask, rather than the questions they answer, and I think that is the key factor.