Gifted & talented should be stopped!

[lijaco]

I think this should be stopped it isn't accurate, it isn't fair and parents become self obsessed with it. Learning then becomes pressure for kids from parents to be top. If you didn't you wouldn't have this section. STOP IT!

Exactly my point really I know so many people who didn't achieve anything at school but are now extremely gifted and talented. Early participation in extra activities, lessons etc isn't ok for a lot of children as a lot of children don't develop fully until after the age of ten. These kids generally take over the fast early developers. Most people who post on here though think that teachers should just focus on their child and not the other 30 ungifted and talentless! The non achievers are usually so because of the learning styles in schools. In my opinion they are the square pegs in round holes. The hare and the tortoise story is very true. The label should be stopped because of this. It causes unequal opportunities rather than equal.

Do all schools identify G&T Children?

I ask, becuause I haven't been informed about DS.

Simao's post makes me LOL.

It's partly so funny because of the way it has been neatly side-stepped and acknowledging it probably ruins that effect.

I only go on this topic because it makes me lol. Thats probably a good reason why it shouldn't be stopped.

"These kids generally take over the fast early developers."

Where do you get this information from? It may be true, it may not be, but it's not been true of many people in my personal experience, and it has been true of others.

I do think, having seen many of the threads on here, that it is somewhat dangerous and misguided for schools to inform parents. The very words 'Gifted and Talented' raise expectations of both the school and the child that can't always be fulfilled.

The information from the posts on here state that their children are early developers. From experience of my own children,friends children, government statistics and with working in schools. It is all total ignorance with regards to child development.

Which government statistics? Can you point me in the right direction? I have looked on the National Statistics website but haven't found anything about slower developers being statistically likely to overtake early developers.

I'm sure it's true of some slower developers and some early developers, but my experience of myself, my friends and family, my own children, friends' children and volunteering extensively in schools doesn't seem to bear this out in any statistically meaningful way.

Having one fairly early developer ie reading fluently in reception and a late developer (dyslexic) not reading fluently until yr2 and overtaking a lot of the fluent readers from reception. I suspect the late developers lijaco are talking about are not really late developers but it's just the skills they are measured at are not really recognised in Primary.
Once DS started primary he was then marked individually in every subject and it turns out he excels in geography, science,IT and is a very deep and abstract thinker but still can't spell.

lijaco said:
"Most people who post on here though think that teachers should just focus on their child and not the other 30 ungifted and talentless"

Please give names of posters who think that way. Because I have missed all those threads, and I don't think that way about my DC (one is reputedly on G&T register).

I was labeled G&T as a child, so I know very well how cr*p a specialised G&T programme can be. But my parents didn't think the teacher should focus on me particularly, either (wish they had, really, would have saved a lot of trouble if my folks had been more involved and concerned!)

Oh, I absolutely agree that the skills measured early on in school are very narrow. In fact I posted this the other day on a thread about prep school entrance exams at 6/7. Primary school tests don't measure abilities in deep, abstract thought.

But children who are deep thinkers are still easily noticed by teachers. DS2 (7) is a bright little boy who is very good at reading, writing and 'rithmetic, but he might not test the best at any of those in his class. However, his teachers always tell us, when describing his abilities, how he gets jokes that others don't, understands concepts that others don't, notices and spots things that others don't. Primary school teachers don't just look at test results.

And I appreciate that deep, abstract thought doesn't always show itself early either.

We were told by one teacher she thought he was really academic and he was asking scientific questions she couldn't answer, but I suspect because he has a SLD we tended to concentrate on those problems. He was happy at primary and always enthusiastic and interested so I have no complaints. I do feel though that his talents have only really been fully recognized since he started Secondary so, he does appear to be a late developer, whether he is or not.

singersgirl I don't volunteer extensively lol I teach in school! There are many on these posts that feel they need to see the teacher because of G & T issues etc etc. I post on here because the top 10% is not an accurate measure. There are different learning styles and these are not all taught within schools so basically opportunities are unequal.

I often look at this section but have never posted on it before. Whilst in many ways I can see the purpose of G&T I do wonder if, unfortunately, it is yet another government initiative to make middle class parents happy. I am not a teacher but, remembering back to my own schools days, can see that some children really are G&T and when I read some of the posts it is very clear that a number of posters have truly G&T children (in the acadmic sense). I think, and this has been discussed before, that it is ridiculous to say that 5-10% of children in a school are G&T. Surely there are actually a number of 'bands' of children. The really G&T, of which there are very few in reality, and then the 'bright' children. Surely all that should be happening for the 'bright' ones is that they are given extension work, as would have happened in schools when I was young (I am 42). These days it seems, with the curriculum being so set, that extension work means you are working in the year above. My reponse to this is 'and...' what does this mean. From what I have seen of the targets for the infants years actually many of them are quite low so for a number of children of course they are working above this. However surely a really G&T child will be given not just extension work i.e. the year above but a wider range of work that stretches outside the frankly quite narrow curriculum (and I am only talking primary here). Gosh I am rambling now and am probably going to be slated as seems to happen so often in this area. However I wonder if the problem is that we all know that there are really gifted (academically) children out there but more often than not the children being put on G&T are simply bright and any school or teacher worth their salt will simply quietly stretch that child without labelling them unnecessarily.

Oh yes and should answer the OP - no G&T as a mumsnet section should not be stopped.

Yes, Lijaco, I've seen you teach art in secondary school. So I still don't see how you can be so certain that at the primary age, slower developers generally overtake faster developers. Some do of course - and in fact my DS1 is possibly one of those slower starting children (though, caveat caveat baker's man, no genius and not gifted).

I think it is in disadvantaged areas, where expectations may be low, that the programme is of the most use. Does it matter if we don't agree with its name if it raises aspirations for the most able children in a school of perhaps generally lower achieving pupils? This is what Roisin talks about.

At my children's primary school in affluent, professional SW London, specific "G&T" provision isn't really necessary - there are large numbers of highly able children so teachers are differentiating as a matter of course. Aspirations and parental expectations are high too and don't need to be any higher.

Additionally, just because a child may not always be ahead of their peers doesn't mean that they couldn't benefit from additional stimulation at the time that they are.

what are you talking about singergirl. all children from birth develop at different rates it is a fact. the brain develops in different areas at different speeds. just because your child develops late in some areas doesn't mean they are not gifted in others. I have not mentioned anything about genius,I think you are misunderstanding my point. I don't agree that children from disadvantaged backgrounds benefit at all that is very inaccurate. Differentiation is brilliant if it is actually happening within the classroom because that makes an amazing difference to childrens learning. I believe all children should have an equal opportunity to additional stimulation. I just believe that learning should be fun at primary school age. This should involve no labelling, no pressure and CHOICE of extra stimulation no matter how gifted or talented. It isn't a true measure this gifted and talented especially in primary school. there is a long way to go and you get the kids who find achieving easy but are lazy and the hardworkers who in the end seem to take over through sheer dedication. Big changes take place as soon as children hit secondary school. Get rid of the gifted and talented labelling in school and make learning fair for the hardworking disadvantaged kids. These are the kids that haven't been priveleged enough to attend prep school!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think what I was talking about was perfectly clear. I said in my post that children develop at different rates. What I'm taking issue with is your contention that slower developers generally overtake faster ones. Some slower developers overtake some faster ones. That is all that can truly be said.

My opinion is that the G&T programme may be of most use in disadvantaged areas. You say this is inaccurate. What you actually mean is that you disagree with me; your opinion is not the same as mine.

Just because some schools put some children on a 'list' doesn't mean that their learning isn't fun or that they are pressurised.

What have prep schools got to do with it? The G&T initiative is a government programme run in state schools.

I agree with you (I think, as it's very hard to know what you are trying to say sometimes) that it's not a good idea for primary schools to go about telling little children or their parents that they are Gifted and/or Talented. If their children truly are gifted, like those of some parents on this forum, they don't need the school to tell them that.

It is not perfectly clear what you are saying. you are trying to make out that you know what my views are!!!!
I do believe that there are definately gifted and talented kids. The ones with the label are not the only ones that are though. They are just the ones that are achieving well at the moment. Prep schools where I live are private schools for children that can afford private education. Not exactly disadvantaged. I get the impression that the majority of gifted and talented on this section are actually privately educated or are from very caring parents that give their children every opportunity, i.e laptops, computers, extra private lessons, outside activities and of course these kids develop well. I agree with this. Disadvantaged kids have none of these luxuries BUT they are perfectly capable but don't have the opportunities or the gadgets that help children progress. Most don't know when their next meal will be. Have awful role models etc etc.... ...
The label should be stopped. My point is that it isn't a fair assessment for every child because they all have different starts, problems, backgrounds, advantages, disadvantages. It depends how you look at your childs abilities though as well. My 18 month old says "why" to everything. He isn't asking "why" he just says it like a parrot. Its developmental but another parent would say how clever my child is asking why! and probably post on here. My 4 year old's teacher was talking and pointing to a frog. He said thats not a frog its an amphibion. Only because I have read a book to him and that is what it says. He isnt gifted and talented he has taken in some information and remembered it. Because he is advantaged and probably will be in the top 10% of his class because of his very good memory. I am relaxed about his learning and so he will be. Every child is different and G & T is all about achieving through opportunity and learning styles at such a young age. The others will catch up because their opportunities will come later at school. I really don't believe it to be fair to all children.

Is anyone else just really relieved that they don't have a child doing art at lijaco's school.....

at Pagwatch.

I'm not at all sure that I know what your views are. You told me something I said was inaccurate. I just pointed out that that was your opinion, not a fact.

Lijaco, it's good that your 4 year old has remembered the word amphibian, but he hasn't understood that a frog is one of a number of amphibians.

Of course G&T it's not a fair assessment for every child, but neither are GCSEs, key stage assessments or any other form of assessments.

I am not posting on here as a teacher.I post on here as a mum. I do not have personal opinions within my professional role. I strive for my learners to have equal opportunity, safe environment and enjoyable learning. I love hands on creative work and I am very proud of my learners achievements. The label of Gifted and talented should be abolished I still insist. That does not mean that I am saying that there are not gifted and talented children at school or that they shouldn't be stretched. Yes singersgirl my 4 year old remembered the word like a lot of these gifted and talented. That is what I am saying. G& t also isn't a GCSE or a key stage it is a label. I agree to disagree. Movin on now end of conversation I am bored (yawn).

'Gifted' means working at an unusually high level in several (academic) areas; 'talented' means having a particular talent in one area like drawing, music or sport. I'm pretty sure I'm right about the academic/not academic divide, not so sure that to be gifted you need several areas.

pagwatch.

I did it, I am SO sad, but I had to do it. I went back though 100 threads in this topic, looking just at what OPs were about, to see if I could test this claim:

lijaco said:
"Most people who post on here though think that teachers should just focus on their child and not the other 30 ungifted and talentless"

And guess what, the stats break down as follows:

Is my child gifted? threads: 14

My child is identified as Gifted, what does that mean? 18

Discussion/Debate about the whole idea of G&T, and how it's implementd: 14 (not counting 2 started by lijaco herself)

Seeking information about outside tutoring, opportunities, activities: 10

Miscellaneous, mostly social issues, joke threads, early reading age, etc.: 38

I Want teacher/school to do more for my Gifted child: 20

Only 20 threads out of 100 asking for school to do more for their child. Hardly suggests excessive focus only on own child's needs in the classroom, does it?

[Insert Raspberry emoticon here]

20 threads too many!
Have you nothing better to do. You have only cheked titles though what about content.
Leave this thread now it's old move on.......

ROFL. I bet you want to "move on" now that someone's research has blown your preconceived ideas out of the water.

I think your jibe to pb.kid is remarkably ungracious in defeat. By the way, if you read it properly, she said that she looked at the OP (otherwise known as content), not the title.