why 9 times out of 10 gifted doesn'tmean gifted.

[gracemargaret]

I have read many of the threads here and have been watching with amusement the whole G&T developments in education. I have two daughters who have both been placed on this register - one who was born truly "gifted" and has never ceased to amaze and frankly terrify me from the day she was born, and the other who is bright and quite academic and who is bound to do well in life with far less emotional difficulty along the way. My eldest daughter is eight - she spoke in sentences at 9 months of age was reading and writing before two - she has never really been a "child" - has never played with toys or other children (and I was a stay at home mum running a toddler group so she had plenty of opportunity!) Take her to a park and she will sit on a bench with a book. She is already far cleverer than either myself or her father and will spend hours in her room (if we let her) reading books and writing notes/constructing powerpoint presentations. As an example the other day I suggested going for a walk (it was raining) and she said she was rather "waterproof to that idea and was much more absorbant to the idea of staying at home" - she also likes home made food as "you can taste not just the ingredients but the effort too" Although she has us in stitches constantly with the things she says, her intelligence is far from a blessing as I worry about her constantly - she is so emotionally sensitive that she can hallucinate when upset and will taste words and smell voices - I am sure at some point she will be bullied as she is so obviously different and awkward and I can't see how she will ever develop as an adult able to deal with the realities of life (although will try my best to help her). My other daughter is an absolute joy - bright, very popular, high achiever and wonderfully within the realms of normal - she might be in the top 5% but is definitely not "gifted" despite what school might say and gives me far less reason to worry. Although I love both my daughters more than anything I still say nobody would choose a gifted child and what gifted children need most is not pushing to acheive (this is an inner drive they have anyway), but support, love, and help to try to adjust to a world where they may never feel they "belong". Good luck to everyone with gifted kids - and those with high achievers - know the difference - and realise how lucky you are!!

consoder - a verb that just begs a meaning....

I agree that in an ideal world all my dcs would go to fantastic state schools where they would be stretched academically to achieve their potential in quiet, non disruptive classes with children from all walks of life but in reality that's naive. Grammar schools would be an improvemt, I think they should be more fluid though, option of moving etc but as it stands atm all my children (who are, it appears reasonably bright but not mega gifted) will be going to a private school about 8 miles from where we live, I know they will be stretched and benefit from small, quiet classes

Oh god don't start on disruptive children again.

yurt- unless you have recently experienced the inside of a state secondary either as a pupil or as a teacher, you can have little idea how truly awful the discipline has become. I sympathise with anyone who cites discipline as a good reason to put their children in private school. That's why I do. It's simply not possible to stretch all children adequately when you spend 25% of every lesson quelling discipline problems. If you imagine trying to sit down calmly in the middle of say, a shopping centre, with 30 children, and try to get them to learn something, you might have an idea approaching what the modern is like. Some (about 10 in every class in all the state schools I've taught in) have a very limited attention span even at 15 (worse when they're younger), and as the lack of desire to learn grows more acute, so do the discipline problems increase.

These children need to be kept physically active all the time in order to be kept on target. For whatever reason this is, you imagine the repercussions on the less needy/ more shy/ brighter children of effectively learning alongside pupils who are bouncing off the walls.

And practically every one of these disruptive children has a parent who will pop up and say either that their kid is fine at home (read- they do what they want so we hardly see them), or has a problem that prevents them from sitting the fuck down and concentrating on the lesson.

and breathe

I feel like a broken record, but if all state secondary schools are like this, how come so many children come out with good A levels or other qualifications and go into good jobs or futher education university and do well in life? As I keep saying, only 7% of the country's children go to private school - are the other 93% REALLY doomed to failure and/or call centres?

I agree with seeker. 25% of each lesson sorting out discipline. I don't think so!

Are you a teacher. duchesse?

Well TBH, you're both right.
In some schools, in some areas at least 25% of the lesson is given over to controlling children whose behaviour is unacceptable.

But no way is this indicative of the whole state system. In many, many schools across the country they have adopted a zero tolerance approach and even low level disruption is treated as unacceptable.

For the record, even children in schools where teachers are tearing their hair out due to disruption can still achieve well. I certainly did and I wasn't alone.

Discipline is a big issue in a lot of state schools. In today's Times there's a mention of some of these graduates who go into Teach First and learn on the job who might otherwise not go into teaching. One from oxford designed a program where you can key in all the discipline issues in the class so the next teacher has a record and that child's problems etc are charted. A brilliant idea but even better if you don't have all those discpiline problems in the first place.

As for private school children peaking at A level that is not true. If you look at proportions of private school pupils at senior levels later in life.

I repeat - 93%......it's a TINY minority of children who go to private schools! I just can't get my head round the attitude that the only way to succeed is by going to private school! There are so many other factors at work - school is only a very small part of a child's life!

I have to say Duchesse is right about discipline problems. I taught briefly in secondary school and have friends who taught - only one is still teaching. He is now at a private school having 'paid his debt to society' at a state school.

It really is a major headache and no amount of pay incentives to attract teachers will work until class sizes are reduced.

But once kids are streamed into sets - most of the serious problems are in the lower sets. That's why bright kids can still do well. But it's hell for the teachers, and for those kids in lower sets who want to do the best they can.

If I had a kid in a lower set I'd be even more tempted to pay for private school A good friend of mine has just paid for his neice to transfer for this reason and she is totally transformed.

No one would say the only way to succeed is go to a private school but it's just about the best use of their money a parent can make in the UK directly to benefit most children. So why not give our children that advantage, plus attention, plus reading to them, plus a stable nice home, plus good genes, good exercise, nice food - let's give them the works so they have the best start in life possible.

I think most private schools have less disruption in class than most state schools. I am sure of that. My exhusband worked in both sectors. in the state sector he said he was a policeman and in the private schools a teacher. Massive huge incredible difference he found.

Indeed I agree with the comment above it's almost better value to pay if they're a bit thick actually because they need all the chances they can get and accent, connnections, smaller classes, no bullying.

But think of the things they don't learn at private school - how the other half lives, for example. Or,actually, how the other 93% live....!

In the end though, I think a good state school with a good supportive family environment is the best option. The two friends I mentioned earlier had highly educated middle class families entirely unlike the rest of us - I'd never met people like that before. That was the real difference - and in the ned - they went on to higher ed and better jobs than other, much cleverer friends whose parents were indifferent or hostile to further education.

Just to add - if I hadn't been a teacher (and been in a lot of schools for other work) I would never consider private education and would have been totally gobsmacked at my friend going to teach at a private school.

Yes I am a teacher.

My father came to see me at work once, and asked my husband whether he had life insurance out on me.

I should say, in answer to to all the people saying "I went to state school and it never did me any harm". Yes I agree. But that was 20 years ago, and discipline has taken a serious downturn since if my older colleagues were to be believed. I went to state school (albeit in France), and I NEVER thought for a minute that I would be willing to pay through the nose for mine not to. Until I started teaching, that is.

And yes, one or two in each class may very well do well against all the odds- my best friend from university went on to Cambridge from one of the roughest schools in the country (now shut); BUT she got there entirely on her own work and the encouragement of a few idealistic young teachers who thought they could make a difference to the school and the area, and "paid their debt" to society.

They couldn't, the school is shut, my friend got where she is not because she made so many good friendships and found out how the "other half" lived (which I personally find very very patronising as a concept- what other half? the poor- she was poor? or the simply uninterested in learning? more the latter imo) but because she worked bloody hard despite the disruption. Not very many children are able to do this. Many many more with much potential will fall by the wayside.

duchesse don't get me wrong - I have no moral high ground to stand on at all - ds2 and ds3 will either go to the state grammer or, if they don't get in, some private school somewhere (another thread got me reading the Sands prospectus and I fell in love )- because our local secondary school has a full time policeman on site but there's a bit of history of belladonna talking about disruption and then launching into SN - I am no fan of inclusion in it's current state (my son, thank god is now in special school- long may it stay open) but there was rather a long thread before with some rather extreme views about kids with SN, and it was that I was referring to.

Ah OK, understand now.

Sands- haven't been there but know loads of people (well, not loads, for obvious reasons...) with children there or who have been there. They're all real fans.

It's fascinating to see what different values different people hold and how my assumptions are not everybody's assumptions.

I never knew that only the well paid jobs were the interesting ones. I love my job as a researching academic and my dh loves his as an archaeologist, though between the two of us we earn about the same as a teacher. I always thought we were the lucky ones because we get to have fun every day. I don't see how the entertainment value of my day could be improved by being paid 150k a year. This is not about being less ambitious because of being a woman; note that my dh is also in a less well paid but extremely rewarding profession. There are many different ways of defining ambition.

I actually quite enjoy the challenge of making both ends meet; it's something I've learnt from my Mum, who took great delight in her own ingenuity. I remember it as one of the things that helped to bond our family.

Could do more for my disabled daughter with more money, admittedly. But then I think of her future; surely being able to cope without a lot of money gives her a greater career choice than if she had got used to having lots? And she wants to be a writer, so she might as well resign to some meagre years before she gets published.

I always thought I was lucky to have such a mixed circle of friends (some high-ranking academics, some with very limited education) because it makes my life more fun than if we were all the same.

I always thought my children were lucky because they get to meet lots of different people in their local council school.

Wanting money for extra frills is all very well if you happen to want those particular frills that cost money, but as it so happens most of the things I really enjoy don't cost a lot. Reading aloud to each other, having a bit of music, walking in the woods. I don't grudge other people nice holidays in the Bahamas; I just don't see why we all have to want the same thing. I know a lot of families who are very happy with limited amounts of money.

It's not that I would want to stop my children from aspiring to a different, more wealthy lifestyle, but I really do not see that I have a duty to sell them a wealthier life as being by definition a more happy/successful one, when I think there are so many different ways of defining success or happiness. Out of my own family, two siblings did PhDs, one went into business and one started work on a trawler- we all chose what we found most interesting and I can assure you that our parents were just as proud of all of us.

Arguably it's many private school parents struggling to pay the fees who give their children a better example of proper priorities and making ends meet and sacrificing holidays abroad than someone richer who picks the state school option. I think you find elements of what you posted above in private school parents too, the laughs, and reading together and walks and going to the library because it's cheaper than buying books etc. You can teach all those things to your children even if you earn more than the average wage.

But what is likely is that children tend to stick with what they know, don't they? So if you're brought up to leave school at 16 and go down the pit you're likely to do that. If all the family go to university and become doctors that's likely to be your own norm. Thus parents hugely influence children on both expected standards of living and careers and also morals.

I would never tell my children that earning more money makes you happier. They know all about happiness, the older ones and I wouldn't presume to lecture them on it but they do need to know that to run a car costs X and if they might want to buy a flat they will need Y so they don't make choices they regret later.

One intersting issue is that most children want to do a little better than their parents and largely over the decades people have done that. We never had it so good they said in the 1950s but then 60s was pretty good and if you compare the average child's life in 2008 to the 60s it's generally getting more money, more things, more likely to have central heating, inside lavatory etc. They say that now might be the first time in the US and UK that children may do worse than their parents, not even be able to aspire to buy the houses the parents bought or keep the non working wife their parent kept and that's psychologically interesting. My children talk about this issue of course - that they are used to XYZ and can take it for granted but know not everyone has it. That is different from accepting you might well not do as well as your parents and live in a smaller hour and not be able to afford the car the parents can afford etc. That may not matter but it's interesting that every generation seems to want to do a bit better (materially).

Oh very well put Xenia. Yes unbelievably parents who choose to put their children into private school can ...and many do, also encourage their children to grow into normal well-balanced human beings who have experience across all walks of life. oh and they do also visit the local library and borrow books!

I could fill a very large document with a long list of the things my children don't have that many others seem to.

this is mainly because we can't afford anything except school fees (it's a fine balancing act, about to be upset as child 3 goes from fees at 4500 a year to 9000 a year- not even sure how we're going can manage it at the moment- may have to delay her entry to senior school until her older brother finishes GCSEs).

I don't do this because I love the stress.

I am with you there

Well I gues you'll have to ask me again when dd is at secondary school, but having gone to a comp and taught in a comp - I really think the better state schools are OK - especially with support at home i.e. an atmosphere that encourages learning and sees education as a positive thing (which I most certainly did not have).

However, if we had no choice but to send dd to our current local secondary, we would be plotting how to afford private school. But personally, I would rather move to a nicer area and school than go private. I don't want to live on bread and water to pay the fees, and I don't like the aura of elitism that goes with private education. Dh is the one who is tempted and that is not for academic reasons but to do with bullying and discipline problems in state schools. I really, really doubt that that will be a insurmountable problem where we are going - but if it were, we would reconsider.