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!

lol at Simao - are you a name changer?

fembear move on because I am bored of this . Not defeated because I didn't know this was a battle? Are you for real lijaco said this,lijaco said that omg!!!!!!!!! I was being sarcastic about the gifted and talentless dor! What are you actually trying to prove? My opinion motivated the post and my opinion hasn't changed. Would you call it research really. I can't believe each of the 100 posts have been read through. 20 posts are quiet a lot really, but my thoughts are from the threads that I have read and I haven't read all 100. If you disagree fine this is my opinion and I haven't attacked anybody personally. Let this thread die because I am interested in my new post thanks! Not because of defeat just not that bothered now.

I feel the G&T initiative is one of the worst things to happen to state education in many years. I hope it will die a natural death like other barmy ideas have (ITA reading scheme for one). It is divisive and harmful to young minds. In labelling a group of children as 'gifted and talented' you are implying the rest are ungifted and untalented. What message does this send to young children (or older ones for that matter)? At my 10 year old daughter's school the G&T's have a high profile. There is even a group of children publicly labelled 'The Gifted and Talented Music Group'. This cannot be wise! Of course bright children should be extended in school, and good teachers always differentiate effectively. I do, however, take issue with children being excluded from activities that EVERYONE could benefit from just because they aren't in the top 5% (or whatever it is!) Most of my daughter's friends are in the G&T cohort. This has caused huge problems. How do you explain to a little girl that she can't go to a study centre with her friends to learn about mini beasts? My daughter felt this group were having a great treat, from which she was excluded. At the ripe old age of 8 she was made to feel inferior. It broke my heart. It just seems so morally wrong.
Sorry to rant on. Apologies for length of contribution - new to Mumsnet and unfamiliar with abbreviations!

I feel the G&T initiative is one of the worst things to happen to state education in many years. I hope it will die a natural death like other barmy ideas have (ITA reading scheme for one). It is divisive and harmful to young minds. In labelling a group of children as 'gifted and talented' you are implying the rest are ungifted and untalented. What message does this send to young children (or older ones for that matter)? At my 10 year old daughter's school the G&T's have a high profile. There is even a group of children publicly labelled 'The Gifted and Talented Music Group'. This cannot be wise! Of course bright children should be extended in school, and good teachers always differentiate effectively. I do, however, take issue with children being excluded from activities that EVERYONE could benefit from just because they aren't in the top 5% (or whatever it is!) Most of my daughter's friends are in the G&T cohort. This has caused huge problems. How do you explain to a little girl that she can't go to a study centre with her friends to learn about mini beasts? My daughter felt this group were having a great treat, from which she was excluded. At the ripe old age of 8 she was made to feel inferior. It broke my heart. It just seems so morally wrong.
Sorry to rant on. Apologies for length of contribution - new to Mumsnet and unfamiliar with abbreviations!

i created this post due to the facts that you just stated. I was then attacked personally, pulled for spelling mistakes etc. Just warning you !!!!!

Haven't read the whole thread, but ...

Once upon a time, I was gifted and talented. No one in my family had stayed in school past 16 and no one had any O levels or CSEs.

I went to a rough, rowdy state primary and excelled there.

Then I went to a state grammar school (the old name for "gifted and talented" ...) and excelled there.

I then went to Oxford and excelled there, getting a scholarship.

I went on to do research, publish, and to teach at Edinburgh and two French universities before I was 25.

My input to this thread is this:

1. segregation into distinct groups (as opposed to streaming) is damaging and divisive. Not only did I miss my old friends when I went to grammar school - I have since seen the sort of educational environment they got and it breaks my heart to know that my privilege was at that price.

2. The things I am reading on this and other threads are like something out of the Dandy. G&T (or whatever you call it) may indeed be a special need but it is not a disability. "My child doesn't fit in"; "my child is sensitive"; "the costs of continually stretching a G&T child". For the record, the stretching I got was that, for literacy, I just devoured any book I could get my hands on, regardless of quality and appropriateness, and haunted the town library; for numeracy, I was encouraged to help my grandparents work out their gambling winnings with the aid of a ready reckoner (I am still particularly strong on fractions ...) I was not lonely, friendless, or bored at school, though I did prefer spending time with other bright kids instead of the potential future convicts who formed the bulk of my primary school classes.

This section of the site seems to be more about "rich and clever" than "gifted and talented" - the posts seem to be much more about how to maintain the mystique and aura around G&T status than actually bringing along bright kids.

Rant over. I've got a rubbish French thriller to watch.

I've just encountered this site and topic.
I've scrolled through, what is obviously, a highly emotive topic.

What is wrong with our educational system and the concept of gifted and talented?

My view is that we categorise children in education by chronological age - this is a fundamental nonsense. As infants and todders we measure in days, weeks and months. As soon as children encounter formal education, a 12 month span is one group - utterly ridiculous!

There are children who have particular, and in some cases, exceptional ability and this is a fact. Where they have the advantage of parents who can support this - good. Not push, but support.

We should have a) smaller class sizes to allow teachers to develop each child b) flexibility to support children to move seamlessly around a school according to ability and not age. So, a child who needs more support in Literacy works with an appropriate group and a child who very able in Maths works with an appropriate group- across the school or schools.

As adults, if we have an exceptional ability, our age is completely irrelevant.

My daughter is gifted at Maths & English but needs support in Sports. I was gifted in English & languages (40yrs ago!!) but needed help with Maths ( I didn't get that help, and it's taken me most of my adult life to develop any confidence) - I feel I'm succeeding with my daughter's school because we talk, we discuss, we work together and I am so very aware of the political pressures they are constantly trying to meet.

For those who think that "G&T" should not exist - OK - then Special Needs and "statementing" should also be abandoned. Children at each end of the spectrum cannot be ignored - and for those who feel that G&T children are the solely the result of 'pushy' parents, I would suggest that logically your argument means that Special Needs children are the result of non-pushy parenting - Rubbish! Of course it is!

State education, as with all state services, predominantly exists to serve the masses and 'the norm' - what policymakers must try to deal with ( and it's a real toughy) is that people do not easily fit into pigeon-holes. So, perhaps we should ask, how much more are we prepared to pay for individualised education?

"For those who think that "G&T" should not exist - OK - then Special Needs and "statementing" should also be abandoned. Children at each end of the spectrum cannot be ignored - and for those who feel that G&T children are the solely the result of 'pushy' parents, I would suggest that logically your argument means that Special Needs children are the result of non-pushy parenting - Rubbish! Of course it is!"

I had some symapthy until I reached this, but fgs. I have a child who is in the top 10% of his class. I also have a 9 year old who cannot talk. Who cannot understand language spoken in sentences.

To compare the two is exactly the reason I loathe G&T. Most kids who come under the current definition of G&T can be educated very well within the standard classroom (as my top 10% son can). His brother (non-verbal aged 9) needs an expensive, specialist education to learn anything at all.

No I don't want my top 10% child to be ignored, but actually there's no reaosn for him to be ignored in a standard classroom. He's easy to teach. He understands when teachers talk to him, he can read and write. He can work independently. He can draw. He doesn't bite himself or hit his head. He can sit on a chair and stay there.

Don't try and compare the 2 when you clearly know nothing about the extremes.

I think tbh you haven't understood the legal requirements behind education. Legally the state has to provide a suitable education - not the best; just a suitable one.

If you start demanding the best education for G&T kids (and tbh I'm not sure that my G&T child needs much more to make his education the best), then I'll demand it for my SLD child as well- so in his case imo that would be 1:1 from people trained in ABA, Floortime, Teacch and HALO.

Of course there is occasionally a child so G&T (or G or T) that they cannot access a suitable education in a standard classroom, but they are few and far between. There are far fewer of them than many parents would have us believe. Just as a dyslexic usually doesn't require education in a special school, most kids who are G&T do not require additional 1:1 help and can be well taught within a standard classroom.

If the current set up isn't suiting your average run of mill intelligent child, then chances are it's faiing others equally (or more as they don't have the sitting skills, listening skills etc to understand in a class of 30) but that's a different question.

Just read manIfeellikeawoman and agree 100%. Well said.

Get ready - this is a long one (been a while since i've said that ...)

Response to Cathe1.

?My view is that we categorise children in education by chronological age - this is a fundamental nonsense. [...] As soon as children encounter formal education, a 12 month span is one group - utterly ridiculous!?

The mainstream British education system - right up to the traditional university ? has been much more about socialising the individual and equipping him or her with transferrable skills than about the precise content taught. This is why we group by age. My primary school decided not to put me up three or four years for reading on this basis ? ie precocious 6yo?s and average 10yo?s do not mix well. The same can be observed when 12yo?s go to Oxbridge ? do you honestly think they have a whale of a time? They might as well have stayed at home and studied by correspondence.

?There are children who have particular, and in some cases, exceptional ability and this is a fact. Where they have the advantage of parents who can support this - good. Not push, but support.? Yes, there are ? but I bet this is not the case of all the children whose parents contribute to threads like this.

?We should have a) smaller class sizes to allow teachers to develop each child? ? yes we should ? write to the Chancellor. ?b) flexibility to support children to move seamlessly around a school according to ability and not age? ? no we shouldn?t. Suppose a 6yo is exceptionally gifted in English. Are you suggesting that he should ?seamlessly? move into a GCSE or A level class discussing the bawdier works of Chaucer, the poetry of Larkin, or Lady Chatterly?s Lover?

?As adults, if we have an exceptional ability, our age is completely irrelevant.? That?s right ? because physically, emotionally and socially, we are roughly equal, so the playing field is level. This is not true of children.

?My daughter is gifted at Maths & English but needs support in Sports.? Why does she need ?support? with sports? Does she actually have special needs with sports? Or is this a way of saying that ? like a lot of people ? she is not very good at sports and/or doesn?t like them?

?For those who think that "G&T" should not exist - OK - then Special Needs and "statementing" should also be abandoned. Children at each end of the spectrum cannot be ignored - and for those who feel that G&T children are the solely the result of 'pushy' parents, I would suggest that logically your argument means that Special Needs children are the result of non-pushy parenting - Rubbish! Of course it is!? This is toss. It isn?t even logical. But its fundamental flaw is confusing genuine geniuses (who usually effectively end up being self-taught and/or mentored by appropriate adults rather than schooled ? they go to school because they have to) with bright but ordinary kids who have been elevated to a mystical status of ?G and T? because they are from nice, well-adjusted, aspirational and (usually) comfortably-off families. I am sorry, but being able to play Bobby Shaftoe on the recorder aged 7 does not put you in the same league as Hawking, Einstein or Montaigne.

?State education, as with all state services, predominantly exists to serve the masses and 'the norm' - what policymakers must try to deal with (and it's a real toughy) is that people do not easily fit into pigeon-holes.? Sadly for all parents of special little sunbeams, it is the masses and ?the norm? who pay for state education. It would seem churlish to put their needs second.

?So, perhaps we should ask, how much more are we prepared to pay for individualised education?? Indeed ? start us off. How much are YOU prepared to pay? An extra penny in the pound in tax? Half-fees for an independent ?G & T? school, even state-controlled, if the Government agree to put up the other half? Full fees for an existing private school? One-to-one tuition? Give up your job, live on benefits and home-school your children? Start the ball rolling for us!

Do any of us know what Stephen Hawking was like at 7?

According to this blurb from Channel 4, he wouldn't have even been identified as gifted at 7. It's very hard to tell who's going to be the next adult genius.

"Stephen William Hawking was born on 8 January 1942 in Oxford, eldest child of middle-class but unconventional parents. He was a talkative child, but not precocious ? he learnt to read late. His father, Dr Frank Hawking, a medical scientist who travelled the world researching tropical diseases, encouraged his son's curiosity.

Hawking, who went to a public school in St Albans, did not like conventional lessons, his handwriting was terrible and he was not competitive, says his mother. He was often near the bottom of the class."

He didn't start to flourish till secondary school.

"But its fundamental flaw is confusing genuine geniuses (who usually effectively end up being self-taught and/or mentored by appropriate adults rather than schooled ? they go to school because they have to) with bright but ordinary kids who have been elevated to a mystical status of ?G and T? because they are from nice, well-adjusted, aspirational and (usually) comfortably-off families."

Absolutely. And that was my point about the vast majority of children having needs that should be easy to meet within a standard classroom. For those that are leagues ahead the statementing procedure does exist and can be used. No it's not very easy to get a statement - but it's not easy for a lot of children with SN to get a statement either. My eldest son has (special) educaitonal needs that are very far from the norm -because he can't speak, and doesn't understand sentence level language, has zero attention etc etc - we had to fight to get him an appropriate education- it wasn't just magically handed to us.

singersgirl - exactly why we should not separate out/individually coach children at a young age - the real genius might be the dreamy girl in the corner, rather than the bright lad who can count to ten in French.

In the mean time, let's stream or stretch, rather than laying on separate activities for the apparently clever ones. In my personal experience, what genuinely clever children need - and this is especially true where there is no family history of educational attainment - is an adult, alomst any adult, to listen to them, take them seriously and respond to them on their own level.

Incidentally, I didn't mean that G&T children at 7 would resemble Hawking, Montaigne or Einstein at 7. I meant that genius children might end up with the same competencies that Hawking, Montaigne or Einstein ended up with. So though I am genuinely interested in what Hawking was like as a bairn, it's not actually relevant.

Little Johnny is the one who, during break, always has a book in hand.

Little Johnny is the one who has stopped putting up his hand in class, but on whom the teacher calls specifically if she wants the right answer.

Little Johnny is the one who gets 100% in the exams where everyone else scores under 70%.

Do you really think the other pupils won't realise that Little Johnny is different, just because you don't put a name to it?

You could split the class into Lions, Tigers and Bears, if you like, rather than "Gifted and Talented", but that won't stop your daughter in the Lions realising that all the Tigers are better at academic subjects than she is.

argh
'"For those who think that "G&T" should not exist - OK - then Special Needs and "statementing" should also be abandoned. Children at each end of the spectrum cannot be ignored - and for those who feel that G&T children are the solely the result of 'pushy' parents, I would suggest that logically your argument means that Special Needs children are the result of non-pushy parenting - Rubbish! Of course it is!"'

You cannot compare the two. A child who cannot walk or talk or see needs special education. A child who excels at stuff does not.
FFS.

Identifying individual strengths and weaknesses of each child within the educational system is obviously a useful and worthwhile pursuit in theory. Regardless of how parents perceive this and react to these labels, there is an undeniable benefit of knowledge as without any knowledge of their abilities, teachers do not have a hope of planning and supporting learning effectively. How that assessment information is used for the benefit of the individual is less easy to achieve and the problems start arising. Merely testing and identifying highly able pupils with specific abilities is not enough. You can have two children achieve identical marks in a subject and yet need totally different teaching methods to fulfil potential. Like all labelling that starts out with aims to individualise and identify, G and T has often turned into exactly what it tried to avoid - grouping together and generalisation. Such a missed opportunity and such poor insight into what individual pupils really need - teachers with enough time and support to plan, teach, review, assess and talk with other teachers in order to do their jobs effectively.

Oh, I agree that it's not remotely relevant what any individual genius was like as a child, though it is quite interesting. But 'G&T' in schools is, as you know, not supposed to be about the one-in-several-million genius. It's supposed to be an initiative to stretch and motivate particularly able children. That sounds eminently sensible to me, and not at all at odds with your post. Whether the way it's being implemented at the moment, or what it's called, is right is another matter.

My children's primary school doesn't really 'do' G&T for all the reasons you'd expect - divisive, not really adding anything as there are many highly able children in each cohort, dangerous to give labels like that to parents. It is coming under pressure to be seen to be doing something, though.

You could argue, however, that the programme wouldn't necessarily be invalidated even if it did miss the dreamy kid in the corner. After all, we need not only to consider what children might become, given the right circumstances, but what will stimulate them and keep them motivated now - increasing their chances of doing well at whatever they want to later in life.

read last few posts here yer yer disagree!! How many here are talking private education and lots n lots of advantages or state system! What is this about dreamy kid in corner? Labels should be abandoned not the good teaching techniques, or the good support for ALL children's individual needs and all children to be treated EQUALLY! The EQUAL bit with the G & T is well out!
Little Johnny is the robot who has mastered how to achieve in class, very disciplined, even robotlike! G & T truly is the child who is harder to handle, may not achieve 100% in exams but asks thoughtful questions, very active, inquisitive and challenges everything.
Truly who is gifted isn't always recognised because truly sees things differently. Little Johnny has been taught to the test so achieves 100 %.
Clairwil you have misunderstood gifted and talented. I don't consider your Little Johnny described as gifted and talented. Gifted and Talented is a label to describe the top achievers not the gifted and talented. The natural gift for music or art that cannot be taught.

lijaco - I was responding to Tatsie, who said " At the ripe old age of 8 she was made to feel inferior. "

But you can't have it both ways - which is where this thread seems to be leading.

If G&T is meant to be the genuinely gifted and talented, then this sort of programme is unlikely to reach them. At least some of these kids will be more perceptive and intelligent than some of their teachers. What the school can teach them is how to be a social animal.

If it's the top 10% then that's 3 kids per class, give or take. You don't need a special programme if you're slicing that thickly - you need extra worksheets and reading books for the fast workers and some open-ended activities.

Once you actually separate kids out (as opposed to streaming) you create all sorts of problems far greater than the ones this scheme might purport to solve.

When I said emotive, I meant emotive!!

Why does anyone think that being particularly able is being a "genius" and, even if a chid were, why is "genius" a dirty word! I don't imagine that any parent who has a really "genius" child is to be envied.
Is is wonderful to be a genuis as an adult? I don't know, but I suspect that most of us just want to fit in and have no-one pointing a finger or mocking for any reason.

I am not saying that children who have special needs should be abandoned, far from it - that is why I say the argument made was a nonsense. Smaller class sizes ( ask any teacher can only be a benefit to all the children in the class). I am saying that G & T kids should not be assumed to be easy to teach - how many disruptive, tuned-out, bored and angry children are there because they are not being reached?

Reception class teachers I have met as friends, colleagues and as a parent will tell you that there are children who are not ready to move up through the school solely due to age. They need more time to mature and to develop the skills they need to function within, what are, large and complex class groups. Any parent knows that each of their children will get to various developmental stages at differing times - all their children are not the same. Please do not confuse the value of the individual with their achievements.

I disagree that as adults we are broadly equal. We may be broadly equal physically (perhaps??) but we are not equal in our social or emotional skills and ability to cope. Some people are well-rounded and balanced and others are not. Some have strengths that others do not. Some function better and some worse in this world. All adults are simply not the same. One in 4 or 5 of us will experience mental health issues during our lives and life events will challenge us all. Children develop at different rates at different times and this is not recognised within our educational system. Clearly, the bizarre scenario of a 12 Y/O at University is a complete extreme - a child moving across years in a junior school to access opportunities is not comparable. I am told by Aussie teachers that the Australian education system assesses the "whole" child and children move around according to their all-round maturity.

To whoever it was who had a bit of a dig about my daughter - she has a lack of physical co-ordination, so whilst intellectually able she needs help/support to develop motor skills - she is what used to be called "a clumsy child" - but obviously that is not valid and the opportunity to join in games with her peers is really not important.

As I have paid tax and worked full-time all my life I don't see the need to be unemployed and homeschool my child - I don't have the skills anyway - but I would pay a great deal more for classes of 15 kids ( hello - public schools - How do they get their results?? Well,start with 11-15 children per class and let's see what happens) for all children. My daughter is not some precocious "sunbeam" and I'm amazed by the assumption - I am an older professional mother who is frankly gobsmacked that anyone can think that our education system is so wonderful that it cannot be improved. I look at the demographics and we had better invest in our young - there will not be enough of them who are able to support us in our old-age - mine is not too far off! So, if we want our economy to provide for us as pensioners - get real - smaller classes = better standards of literacy/numeracy and, bluntly, productivity. For those people who are angry because they think I do not support special needs - push for an education system that will equally promote future wage earners & taxpayers too - when this recession really bites and when the the majority of the population is over 60 - funding for anything?? We will be lucky to maintain emergency services in 20 yrs time if we will not look and learn at alternative systems.

Oh, and PS: Yes I will be putting my money where my mouth is. Because my daughter is 14 days too young to go to secondary school next year I am going to pay for an independent school ( no the Gov't doesn't fund at all - they used to but it's not PC anymore) fortunately today she got the letter telling us she has just got a scholarship. Otherwise she would have to repeat the curriculum again ( already repeated one year) - and guess what, on that day about 30 children in the same situation - not geniuses but repeating years solely because of the age banding. As I've worked my behind off for 34 years I may as well carry on. And no, she doesn't do extra-curricular stuff - unless you count after school club every day because as a single person and single parent I've never claimed a penny of benefits. Maybe my mother's example, as a divorcee with 5 children under 5, an ex-husband who left us to the bailiffs with no child support or benefits system at that time, taught me that, even though I do lobby politicians, you can only try and keep trying.