Do schools really cater for G+T children?

[pinkmunkee]

My niece has been put on the G&T register in her school because she is excellent at literacy. It seems to me she's just very bright and very keen, but that's by the by.

When my sister asked how they would be stretching her, being as how she is G&T, the answer seemed to come back as "give her harder work."

She is about to go to secondary school and my sister asked at the intro meetings last term how they supported G+T children and they seemed to reply setting, with the odd gimmicky project to make it look like they're doing something. But they also seemed to say that primary schools don't really do anything.

So I wondered; what are other people's experiences of schools supporting children who are G&T? Primary or secondary, are you happy with your school? Or do you do extra stuff at home to compensate?

Anything to do with education tends to be a contentious issue, pinkmunkee!

lljk I don't think that the G & T thing is boastful. I just thing that kids should enjoy being kids and not pushed too hard because they excell. Some kids I feel are disadvantaged and varied learning styles are not used in schools to bring other kids to their full potential. We are all individual and all learn differently so I just personally feel that the assessment isn't justified for G & T. The school system seems a bit unfair really. If your child is smart in literacy keep it fun. Things can get a bit too serious.

RE the Harry Potter Ds 12 was about 9 when he started reading them and they are the only books he read until about 3 weeks ago and he has turned into a little book worm. They are aimed at 10+ and they aged with the characters.

DS is dyslexic and being on the g&t list, initially for cats scores and now for science and geography has really boosted him. He could have gone to a science summer school but it proved a bit of a problem getting him there, also when he goes back in September he will be doing Crest Awards in Science which he is really looking forward to. THe disadvantage he has found has been because he is seen as very bright the teachers expect him to be the same in each subject even with his literacy difficulties. His french teacher was very disappointed with him even though he averaged a level 3 which is normal for Year 7.

And in answer to how do you know if they are brightest in the class. DD's (10) teacher told us she was the most intelligent child in her class,when discussing how difficult it was to read her writing. Her primary only really brought in the G&T register last year after DS left. She has stretching maths lessons which usually involve problem solving, has been to a masterclass at the local secondary and did a maths and itc summer school there this summer.

Dyslexia is a gift they are far smarter but unfortunately a lot end up in lower groups because they are unable to achieve their full potential the coventional way. with literacy they are able verbally and are just as good wth the knowledge as the kids achieving but it doesn't show. My point really about how accurate is G & T? Just because kids seem more able it is not always the case. It is how it is measured/ assessed.

LOL AbbeyA- how right you are!

I object to the term G+T myself, TBH. All children have their own gifts and talents, and it's our job as adults to help them uncover them IMO.

But even if you take away the title, I was wondering how people felt their school deal with bright children (whatever their ranking!?). Just seems like a lot of money goes on special needs? Not saying they don;t need it, obviously they do. It's just there are extremes at both ends aren't there. And they all need help.

Or maybe it's the ones in the middle who need the most help anyway.

It isn't true that a lot of money is spent on special needs? Alot of kids don't get the right help unless they are statemented and do you know how difficult that is!
There are procedures to follow and steps to be undertaken. Money is not given out easily. That is why equal opps are important for all children.

G&T childrenc are generally assessed as having special educational needs in the same way that a child with Aspergers or ADHD has special needs, just different sides of the same coin.

At the end of the day the children who are under achieving below a level to achieve useful qualifications are IMHO more in need of help if resources are stretched, than a child who is gifted and who will, because of their giftedness achieve excellent grades but maybe not as quickly as they could with extra classes iyswim.

I've already said this but that last point just isn't always true I'm afraid. Sometimes yes. But G&T children will often not do as well as they could or should or even sometimes as well as the rest of the class because they give up or are disruptive. Some very gifted children used to be statemented themselves as having special needs for this reason.

DS did get a lot of individual help in the later years of Primary. They did several schemes such as Stareway to spelling with him which seemed to have helped.
I did get the impression that he got the help because he is very bright. Teacher said his spelling/punctuation wasn't that far behind of average, it was a long way behind the rest of him, which was why he got the help so he could reach his full potential.

I wonder what percentage of mums think their child is G&T? Any suggestions? How does 96% sound?

Not all G&T children (even genuine ones) become disruptive if there is a lack of a special programme at their school. It's partly a personality question. Some bright people are easily bored and stressed, others find it easier to make their own entertainment.

I used to read copious amounts and studied foreign languages at home; this left me feeling stimulated enough not to worry about school work sometimes being a bit tedious. Also, I really enjoyed helping the other children, which turned out to be useful training for my later teaching career. I think what helped me was that my parents never worried about my being gifted- they saw it as an opportunity to expand my enjoyment of life and that's how they sold it to me.

Dd writes fiction and dreams of being an author; this stimulates her. Also, she is interested in people, so she's never going to be bored at school (or anywhere else) even if some of the curriculum might seem a bit easy.

Not everything has to be organised by the teacher; you can do a lot at home to teach a child to organise themselves. For instance, maintain a good home library, encourage weekly trip to the public library and maybe find some extracurricular activity that is exciting and stretches the mind.

I think money should go not on all G&T children - they don't all need it!- but certainly on those children that are actually struggling. And that includes some G&T children.

Certainly IME money is tight. What we have found is that if (like dd) you have a physical disability but no behaviour problems you are going to end up very low on the list, because you are not disrupting the lessons. In our LEA you can't get statemented if your education is interrupted by chronic pain for instance- because that's not classed as a learning difficulty.

My DS1 (Year 2) is on the G&T register for Sciene and as of yet, I have not seen any extra lessons/tuition or the like made available to him. I'm hoping this is in the pipeline as he would benefit a great deal.

He has some behaviour/anger issues and a bad stammer; I think this is because he is so frustrated and under-stimulated. So I do think it is a special need and they do need something to satisfy their need to learn.

Note of caution here - in year 5 &6 DD1 was pulled out of class for G&T literacy sessions. She hated them, found them boring and unstimulating, thought the teacher was patronising and far preferred her normal class literacy lessons with her class teacher. So the quality of provision is an issue too.

i am not sure that all children are given fair amoounts of attention with learning needs in general. Gifted & Talented is such a contreversial subject!

With secondary school a lot of the work is in the form of projects and own research anyway: so there are no limits to how difficult you can make it.

You don't really need any special G&T treatment, at least not in the humanities, when you are being set subjects like 'write a biography of a medieval person' or 'analyse the result of the battle of Hastings with special reference to chronology' or 'give a presentation on the threats to the Antarctic' (all genuine examples from dd's first 4 weeks in Yr 7).

There is absolutely nothing to prevent a gifted student to writing this to any level they fancy. Obviously not all children are going to be writing as much or doing it to the same level of complexity- but there's no way you can complain these subjects are too easy, they're as difficult as you want to make them.

"ou don't really need any special G&T treatment, at least not in the humanities, when you are being set subjects like 'write a biography of a medieval person' or 'analyse the result of the battle of Hastings with special reference to chronology' or 'give a presentation on the threats to the Antarctic' (all genuine examples from dd's first 4 weeks in Yr 7). "

Sorry, but I so disagree with you there. I find (and have always found in my humanities subject) that if G&T students are not managed correctly, they can really end up confusing the other students! In my subject (RS and philosophy) that there are so many different levels that a student can be working on, that a brighter student may try to participate in a class discussion on a philosophical issue, but they are on such a different level that they can unwittingly end up confusing some of the other students. Yet, you can't just say to a student you cannot participate in this class discussion because your points are too complex for the other students to understand.

Managing G&T children is not just about giving children harder work, but actually I find half the battle is managing the dynamic in the classroom. Thats not to say that all G&T children are disruptive, because they're not... but its how you deal with the child who has always finished the work 15 minutes before everyone else (and ensuring that they then don't distract the rest of the class), ensuring that they don't always give all the answers and the rest of the class rely on him / her to do the work for them (particularly in group work, presentations and discussions), ensuring that their contributions to class discussions are relevant and pertinent, and do not take the discussion off track to a fascinating discussion, but somewhere completely off piste that will just confuse those who haven't quite understood the topic in the first place yet. Its about managing the student who doesn't need to take notes, because they understood it all years ago, but also making sure that the lazy student next to them does make notes, whilst appearing to be fair and not picking on the lazy child, or seeming to let the G&T child get away with it all of the time. Its not enough to just say let them get on with it, because it is a difficult balancing act to ensure that their intelligence is harnessed in a positive way, so that they're not just treading water in class, that they are a positive influence on the rest of their classmates and that they add to the positive ethos of the class. These things can actually be really tricky to manage (I have one G&T student at the moment, and these are just some of the issues I have to juggle with at the mo!). Incidentally, we get no funding for G&T where I am (Not in a school though) and no formal support at all for our G&T students. So, for me to maximise the potential of those G&T students and the ethos of the classroom, it can actually be quite a juggling act, and is far more complex than just asking them to write more!

We don't "do" G&T at our school (a not hugely selective independent). There are more able pupils there who are extended (or not) within the normal classroom environment. I guess top band classes would be about top 25% ability range (maybe top 10% in maths) and though some lessons do seem dull & only going over what's known already I think as long as they're not all like that it's not a huge problem. There are opportunities for them like school quiz team, maths challenge teams, chess etc which are available for anyone to try for but only the brightest get chosen (so avoiding the need for a G&T moniker) and people are encouraged to enter other things like national cipher challenge (where any number can enter regardless of ability but it probably only appeals to the more able). The school isn't into doing lots of extra exams or doing exams early (except maybe language exams for bi-lingual children). In short, there doesn't appear to be much provision that any school couldn't easily provide without formally identifying G&T & it seems to work well enough imo.

Extra stuff at home - it doesn't really feel as though we actually do anything, since what happens is at the children's choice (and is again independent of G&Tness). However we've done instrument lessons & associated practise & orchestras etc. (which is a great way to stretch a bright child 'sideways' if they're into music); and lots of reading. Sometimes when the reading strays ahead of the curriculum it can cause some problems - but nothing major.

This has worked for us, but there are many degrees of giftedness & I'm not really sure where we'd fit on the spectrum (though along with 96% of people I'm fairly sure we would be on it somewhere ).

Elkat on Mon 13-Oct-08 23:15:13
"ou don't really need any special G&T treatment, at least not in the humanities, when you are being set subjects like 'write a biography of a medieval person' or 'analyse the result of the battle of Hastings with special reference to chronology' or 'give a presentation on the threats to the Antarctic' (all genuine examples from dd's first 4 weeks in Yr 7). "

Sorry, but I so disagree with you there. I find (and have always found in my humanities subject) that if G&T students are not managed correctly, they can really end up confusing the other students! In my subject (RS and philosophy) that there are so many different levels that a student can be working on, that a brighter student may try to participate in a class discussion on a philosophical issue, but they are on such a different level that they can unwittingly end up confusing some of the other students. Yet, you can't just say to a student you cannot participate in this class discussion because your points are too complex for the other students to understand. "

Yes, but IMO this is a very valuable skill for gifted students to learn- to explain concepts in simple terms. Of course, it requires a little more guidance from the teacherto get them to do this, but in the case of socially well adjusted non-quirky bright children, this does not seem impossible. That's how I started, by being used as a school monitor. Which basically meant that I had to think over everything I knew to explain it again to the children who were really struggling.

After 20 years spent in academic research, I have come to the conclusion that there are very few concepts indeed, at least in the humanities, which cannot be explained in simple terms- if the person doing the explaining is putting enough thought into it. This is a life skill.

(I do know about juggling acts- am currently teaching all comers, from first years to PhD students, from beginners to post-A-level in the same class. It's just that I think challenges are fun . Particularly if they involve bright students).

"Yes, but IMO this is a very valuable skill for gifted students to learn- to explain concepts in simple terms. Of course, it requires a little more guidance from the teacherto get them to do this, but in the case of socially well adjusted non-quirky bright children, this does not seem impossible. That's how I started, by being used as a school monitor. Which basically meant that I had to think over everything I knew to explain it again to the children who were really struggling. "

Yes, this is a good idea and one I have used lots in the past. But you seem to suggest that differentiation for the G&T student is as simple as giving them their own work (independent of what everyone is doing - so at their own level) and asking them to reinterpret it / dumb it down for the other students. But this cannot be the sum total of differentiation for the G&T - If all I did was that, then I would be classed as a failing / unsatisfactory teacher (at least where I teach). This is particularly true under the new 'every child matters' framework, where we have now got to show how each student has moved forward in their own learning and learnt something new oh and how every student has participated in all aspects of the class.

The methods you suggest work well in a framework where didactic teaching is the predominant method. Yet, this is rarely the case in the modern classroom (not least because it is very heavily criticised by OFSTED). For example, where I am we no longer have 'lesson plans' we now have 'learner plans' and we have to track what every student is doing and how they are moving forward and improving in each lesson (and this has to be formally monitored too). So it is no longer enough to simply allow the G&T student to go off and do their own thing - because every student has to be incorporated into the class (Making a positive contribution criterion!). Equally, it is not good enough these days for us just to say, well they are miles ahead, just let them explain it to the rest of the class - I would be classed as a failing teacher for doing that too. In my subject, where group work and discussions make up a major part of class activities, I have got to show how all my students are actively involved and learning something new in all activities. Doing this for the G&T student (or for other students when there is a G&T student in the class) can be a real headache. Giving harder work and asking them to explain more simply to the others is the simple stuff - but that doesn't even cover half of the requirements we have placed over us these days. (Rightly or wrongly, these are the requirements). This is why I think G&T is a real issue, because we can't any longer just give them different work to do, or keep them quiet, or just ask them to dumb it down. I have to differentiate all of my lessons to show how every student is progressing (a point I do agree with in principle, even if it is totally impractical at times) - oh and I have to do it on half an hour's prep time a week.

That said, I think there may be a difference in our subjects. You teach Latin, correct? Maybe the fact that teaching languages has a very different teaching style may account for it. I teach concepts, abstract ideas. The only way I can really teach this effectively is through group work and discussions - and this is where I find most of the problems lie (not least because I am only actually allocated 1/2 hour to plan and mark essays for each hour lesson I teach). Maybe the fact that the subjects have different teaching styles may account for it, or maybe we just have to agree to disagree!

I find the whole thing confusing and I don't think it's a real reflection of the brightest kids. My dd(12) was never really thought of as G&T, but she was chosen by her Y.6 teacher to attend a summer school, much to our - and her - surprise, and again in Y.7. She's now in Y.8 and last year was put on the G&T register for a whole stream of subjects. However, last weekend the English Dept had a G&T weekend & she wasn't chosen, and as she considers English her best subject, is now saying that she's stupid & no longer clever! I'm very puzzled TBH as she got more G&T commendations than anyone else in her class and she can't have gone downhill in such a short space of time, but I told her I thought they were probably giving other people a chance (one of the ones who did go only got one G&T commendation last year - in PE!)

My ds(9), however, is generally considered by various experienced teachers that we know as being gifted, but he doesn't get the results at school & would be very unlikely to be chosen for a G&T event - even though he ticks far more boxes for 'giftedness' eg as on websites for gifted children.

I think you are simplifying what I mean, Elkat, or that I am expressing myself badly (probably the latter .

I was not thinking of my own teaching, but rather of the history and geography that my dd has been doing this term. A lot of it is in the form of writing projects. My point was that that when you are writing essays about the factors behind the outcome of the battle of Hastings or the future of the Antarctic, you can do that right up to any level. The task set is the same for all children, but they can choose how far they take it,how many sources they look up etc. That seems to be how a lot of Yr 7 works these days. This gives far more scope for differentiation than the school system I went through, which was mainly learning one textbook by heart. But it's the child who has to take responsibility for how interesting they make their essay.

I understand that it would be easier if everybody was exactly of the same degree of intelligence and maturity. (Doesn't apply just to schools either, but to most workplaces.) But it's never going to happen.

In the meantime I think any teacher who saw an intelligent and interested child mainly in the terms of a headache would be doing that child a serious disservice. I imagine that would put anyone off learning for life.

Tbh teachers have to put up with worse. My dd is not only bright and interested, she is also disabled and sometimes wheelchair bound (but not bad enough to have a TA)- I imagine that is a good deal more inconvenient to her teachers.

I would still not take kindly to any of her teachers who posted on a public board what a headache it is to have a disabled child in the class, as if she could only see the negative side. So why is it all right to do that with G&T?

I think bright children have a right to be taught by teachers who see them too as assets to the class.

Sorry, have got to reply to this...

I have never said that I have found the students a headache - it is the system that I find problematic. The system tries to make the students fit into nice little round holes, when often the reality is that this does not work. Hence, my post defending G&T on the other thread!

My point is that these are students with real needs that deserve help - some of the problems I think are created by the bureaucracy in schools and colleges (Such as ECM, but not exclusively) which means that we have to try and make these students jump through the right hoops, when perhaps it is not appropriate for them to do so. All the different requirements that we have upon us mean that it is not as simple as just giving them extra work, or telling them to write a harder essay... These are pressures placed upon us. Therefore, my post is trying to defend the fact that we should be given time to cater for G&T properly. As you imply, it is a need like any other and is not acceptable to be seen as a negative... and I also believe that it is a need that is also not acceptable to be ignored. Hence the fact that I do have to put a lot of work in at home trying to ensure that such students are appropriately challenged and stimulated. But I think to do G&T students service, we need to be given more time to do it properly... that is the whole point I am trying to make. It is an issue, and it deserves to be dealt with properly, and not just brushed under the carpet with 'give them harder work' or 'make them dumb it down' which in my view is not proper differentiation and does not serve the G&T student properly.

(Sorry, a rushed post - about to teach!)