I really hate this section .. can we change the title so that every time I see it I don't want to go

[Twiglett]

'arrrghhh the G&T programme as dictated by government is so not about gifted or talented children but about clever ones'

maybe we could call it 'clever kids'

and then have a 'thick kids' section too

no?

lol twig! Gets me really riled the G&T does!

pmsl at someone falling off the stool.

he just very little right!!!

screwed up all his scales and arpeggios

even screwed up his aural - and he is a chorister!!!!

The trouble with the section is that it's really offputting not only to those with children who aren't officially G&T, but to those who really wouldn't like their children to see their intelligence as a defining factor that makes them better than everybody else. Intelligence is merely a tool, and does not entitle the bearer to any special treatment, particularly when outside the narrow world of education.

Sorry, had to let that rant out.

My sympathies, Beetroot, over the piano exam. My DS is doing Grade 4 in a couple of weeks [panic emoticon].

top 10% is all well and good. Top 2% is def special educational needs. Hiding lights under bushells may suit plenty of parents, but not me. I have a dd with visual SN her needs might seem more important but are her brothers not equally important? To me they are.

top 10% is all well and good. Top 2% is def special educational needs. Hiding lights under bushells may suit plenty of parents, but not me. I have a dd with visual SN her needs might seem more important but are her brothers not equally important? To me they are.

It can be a national benchmark. NAGTY was and that's how it all started. OK they changed the goalposts recently to make it more inclusive.

Its just annoys me when posters come on to these G&T threads and harp on about 10% in one school doesnt mean G&T 'because if they moved to our school, selective private, grammer etc they wouldnt be G&T' FFS well your kids are already privileged so why knock it if kids are placed on the G&T register in a state comp and it spurs them on to do well and get into a good university. Just as those going to the selective privates are expected to anyway.

Oh bit of a rant!

lol abouteve agree with that comment

Piffle, I'm not starting a fight with you - OK . I'm not even particularly in favour of hiding lights under bushels. And I do think there are some real issues. One I consider particularly important is ensuring that my children don't grow up obnoxious (and I'm not suggesting for a moment that your children are). Nor should they feel ashamed of being who they are.

But I have noticed a real sense of "entitlement" on here of late. I think most of us settle for our children having some of their needs met some of the time, and the rest of the time spent accessing the Unofficial Curriculum. I don't think that being clever entitles anyone to constant stimulation, and I also believe the Unofficial Curriculum has its virtues.

abouteve, I agree there is far too much discussion of who should and shouldn't be considered G&T, and a fair bit of oneupmanship.

I post on threads that interest me, not being unduly put off by the fact that one of my children isn't G&T, and parp myself silently on some of the others. (But sometimes the effort to hold it all in proves too great )

well, if poeple consider being clever 'specialneeds' then label it special needs.
I have no idea what actually defines G&T plus that definition changes as a child grows. dd1 read at 2, read Lord of the Rings at 6 but at 16 is a lazy selfish can't be arsed to do schoolwork teenager.
There'd be egg on faces if we'd gone on about her being G&T.

On a different note, I don't think schools cater for any brighter than average (thats 50% of them) children. Have you seen the Science GCSE paper? Its pathetic.
And from where dd2 is, anyone who can feed themselves, walk, speak and wipe their own arse is gifted.

concur totally hallgerda! I struggled for years with ds1 and his bountiful brain. Never asked for anything from primary schools, despite the loathsome G T tag THEY put on him. Why bother if it means nothing to your childs curriculum? I've met all his needs outside school. Then uprooting family moved to be near an adequate decent state grammar so that he' d be stimulated and extended. We pay for all his activities as I do firmly believe resources are limited and priorities should not be GT kids being extended. I am amazed that the tag is offered by the govt as to be frank it means shag all. Hence why the topic should be renamed perhaps but not disappear.
Fwiw ds1 is kept firmly on the ground. No obnoxious teen here.. Yet!

oh good grief yes needmore !
I have a very very bright child (ds1) who is doing very very well at his school and I have a very severe SN child (ds2) who has many many limitations.
All those who are so desperate for their child not to be average are missing a trick.
DD is bright enough in her own way but i have high hopes that she really really is just average. heaven !!

Needmorecoffee. The G&T programme in secondary schools was designed to track kids that show potential but may give up on schoolwork, as you mentioned with your DS. If the school can keep them on track then it carnt be such a bad thing. Can it?

Can I ask - if a child is identified as G&T in KS1, does that stick for ever and ever? Or if their development slows down and they become more average / typical, do they get struck off? And what if some even brighter children join the class, do they get demoted?

I am strongly in favour of children being given extended challenges and appropriate educational opportunities, but shouldn't it be based on a continuum, and include all children who would benefit from it?

Needmorecoffee. Sorry I meant your DD

we don't need 'special' G&T stuff. We need decent schools and decent exams. Unlike the dumbed down crap taught nowadays.

I havent seen any GCSE papers as DD starts her courses next year. I agree that maybe the GCSE's look pathetic to an educated adult but they must hold some challenge to a 16 year old or they would all achieve A stars.

I expect that the A levels are much harder and from what I was led to believe the G&T was tracking bright kids to make sure the school got them up to 3 A's at A level.

the other thing that gets me on this topic is how demotivating for the top 11th centile .. and then the 12th .. what about the 20th are they now 'not bright'?

it's just so badly conceived

Twiglett I take your point.

You could say that about being set though. Everyone knows who the top set which is more than 10% what about the second set. It can also be motivating if a child works hard and gets moved up a set or added to the list.

Also its not transparent who is on the list. Parents are told so the children know and but may only tell a couple of friends if anyone.

sets are more fluid than some arbitary list and there's no specific cut-off

abouteve - I think your comment about 'if they moved to a different school they then wouldn't be G&T' is referring to my post.

My kids are at a state primary in a very mixed area. Some very bright children, some children with severe SN (educational and otherwise). Some with little home support - the spectrum is huge.

I just think it is too arbitrary to say '10%' in each school. It may be encouraging for some, but imagine how discouraging if you had to change school and happened to go into a very bright year and suddenly had your 'encouraging label' removed? That's why teaching should naturally differentiate to be accessible for the lowest ability levels and challenging for the highest.

For example in music in Y7, you can go from a child with no experience of any instrument, reading music, singing to a child with Grade 7 or 8. So a good music teacher will differentiate the lesson plan, so that, for example, if doing keyboard work, the non-keyboard players could be given some 5 finger tunes that they can play by numbers (fingers 1-5), whilst the higher abilities could be asked to compose using the keyboards. But the top 10% of that class PROBABLY won't be 'gifted' and labelling them as so is probably not helpful to them or the teacher!

Blu, the label doesn't necessarily stick forever. I don't know that it really amounts to enough to be worth getting seriously upset about though.

In previous years DS2 and DS3 have been to some fun sessions in museums (write a poem, make a mask, that kind of thing). It's fairly light encouraging stuff, not hothousing by the state or of a nature likely to overinflate anyone's ego. Lambeth does a series of Maths sessions in the spring term of Year 5 following a course devised by Brunel University (iirc). It's all absolutely free - I discovered a few years ago when DS1 did the Maths course that some other London boroughs charged £200. At from my children's school at least, it's not all middle class kids selected.

DS1 lost his label on transfer to secondary. I gather most secondary schools go on the CATs results rather than actual achievement. I'm not at all bothered on DS1's behalf, but the fact he's doing extremely well (somewhere near top of the class in most serious subjects) at a grammar school and isn't G&T does leave me wondering who's missing out at other schools who might benefit.

Oh, and I agree with you on the continuum point.