Once G&T, Always G&T?

[boolifooli]

Dds teacher said that she thinks she will always be working at least a level ahead of her chronological age. How can she know this? She's 5! If Dd settles into an average stream at some point should I feel that it's something I have done/not done? Personally I think she will quite possibly move about in her ability. I'm sure that's how it worked when my other was at school. Agree?

I think you are right. You want to enjoy your dd in the present, not making targets for the sort of person she's expected to grow up into and then feel you've failed if she doesn't.

Anyway, working a level above your chronological age becomes less significant when you're 42

Just enjoy your wonderful dd now!

dd is already working beyond that as she is the youngest in her year (August) and in top maths set for example - not classed as G and T though ! Enjoy it but agree it may well all change as others develop.

It is a silly thing for her teacher to say at 5. I agree with your op boolifooli.

The teacher may mean she will always be above 'the standard for her age' rather than 'the average for her age'.

The targets set by the government - eg:
L2 at KS1 (end of yr2)
L4 at KS2 (end of yr6)
L5 at KS3 (end of yr9)
are suggested targets that most children should reach. They are not averages and in many cases are not very challenging.

For example around 80% of children hit the KS2 targets nationally.

So I would say it is not unreasonable to expect that a child who is showing signs of being particularly able at age 5 might be expected to achieve beyond these 'minimum targets' as she grows and develops.

But Roisin the teacher has no way of knowing that at age 5.

Perhaps a teacher can tell, from years of experience.
One told me that DD was definitely University material when she was only 7 years old.

I was a genius at primary school.
Secondary school was a very different matter.

depends which uni though Fembear

Well I've got 16 years of experience but still wouldn't make a statement like that. A Kip McGrath tutor once told me that she thought ds 'could be a genius'. His teachers would probably wet themselves at that. I think it's unwise to make statements like that as a teacher. As the op says, if in the future the child dips or levels out, will the parent then question why that is?

dinny

I think if you have experience in particularly able children and are tuned in to them there are things you can spot very quickly, and you can tell a lot (not everything but a lot) at age 5.

Not at all, and labelling or high expectation can actually be detrimental.

All children excel at certain things at certain points in their lives, creative and imaginative, numbers and figures, sociability, etc.

I think there is some pretty clear evidence that SOME G&T children fail to learn the necessary study skills, because they find the early stages of school very easy, so they then struggle at higher levels. There was a Radio4 series about it fairly recently, "I was a child genius" that rang some bells with me. NOT that I was a genius but I was in all the g&T programs in primary school.

A parent I know (Oxford graduate, university lecturer) asked his son's teacher in Y1 if she thought he was Oxbridge material. We all mocked - but he went to Cambridge!

That's interesting Phdlife. I read somewhere that dyslexic chn who go on to do A levels tend to do well at them because they are used to having to work hard, whereas NT chn who have coasted can struggle with it, as the extra work involved is a shock to them.

That makes sense to me cornsilk - certainly the dyslexic kids I taught at uni were, on the whole, very conscientious.

Well for me personally - I was considered to be 3 years ahead at reading when at primary school. I passed the 11+ with ease. I went to a Grammar School. But went into the 3 out of 4 maths group when streaming took place after 1 year. Caught up but was always strictly average after that. I think it is FAR too soon to tell. I really wouldn't worry about it.

Sorry - just read PHDlife's comment above and thought she makes a very interesting point. I always found school and exams very easy - had a very good memory - til i got to A'Levels where it is more a matter of understanding and interpretation than "remembering". I think i had really coasted til that point and found it hard that I had to make an effort. So actually I do believe that effort and good study skills actually stand you in better stead in the long run, than simply "being bright".

Gifted and Talented labelled kids are marked as gifted and talented because of their good study skills, neat writing etc because that is what they measure in the sats. So they then become top 10%. So not really "bright". They do tests well! Most comments are regarding young primary age children. It is Fab they are doing really well but would be very interested if you say the same in Year 9, 10 & 11. A lot changes by then.

That's rubbish lijaco, my DD's (yr6) handwriting is truly appalling. Teachers refused to mark it because they couldn't read it, yet she has been "labled" G&T and thoroughly enjoyed the masterclasses etc she has been sent on.

My DS (yr8) is dyslexic and also "labled" G&T and is thriving in secondary school.

No, just because a child is labelled as G&T at one age does not mean they will stay there. Children develop at different speeds and, esp at young ages, they develop in phases. Slow starters can suddenly "click" and jump ahead over early starters for example. And some children plateau too - this happens a fair bit TBH.

G&T simply means a child is in top 5-10% of their year group at that school. If other children suddenly click with stuff they could jump ahead of a child currently G&T. I am not sure how schools deal with this.

Similarly if your child moves school then they may no longer be int he top 5-10% of that new school, so no longer G&T.

Which is why the whole G&T scheme as it stands currently in our state schools is questionable.

some kids average out, some don't, Some remain very bright but refuse conventional schooling.
They would be labelled a 'failure' at 16 if they didn't take any GCSE's.
This country demands bright kids prove it with school based testing.