Instead of starting threads taking the piss out of G&T children why don't you all just...

[PhantomOfTheChocolateCakeAvena]

stop it. It's pathetic.

Thanks.

It's true.

We need a support topic for the beautiful, thin and wealthy, and of course if you also happen to be G and T you are truly done for.

And for people really, really good at drawing. It's a dog's life, it really is.

(will get told off again in a minute)

I am very much in favour of fircone's suggestion of a thread dedicated to Inferior Children.

just ploughed throught this lot. Thank god for home education where kids learn at their own pace and there are no labels.
And being clever isn't even remotedly like a disability.

Hi needmorecoffe you have said it in one. I am all for home education myself. Its also how being clever is assessed. Through natural ability or I have extra everything ability.

at you lot

thumbwitch I choose to go on this topic because I find it thoroughly amusing. I am addicted because of the lol content!

I see my hundred quid's still safe!

quite safe seeker.

Kerry - did you read my post above - I'll cut and paste it here - I think it explains why people take the piss out of this topic.

This topic isn't called 'the very occasional child who is truly gifted/talented and has associated problems'.

It is called Education;Gifted and Talented. This is clearly referring to the Gifted and Talented programme used in UK School, which many people (myself included) find fairly ridiculous, as there is no correlation between schools (so a child can be average, move school and suddenly become gifted). Some parents of children on the register can see their child's presence on the register as 'validating themselves as parents' and congratulate themselves both on their fantastic parenting and on their superior genes. Many others just accept it for what it is and get on with life (many on MN who don't broadcast their child's G&Tness).

Some parents of babies aspire to have children who are G&T and post silly threads on here, to try and ascertain whether their baby is truly brilliant (eg - I'm worried about where to send ds - he lifted his head up 2 weeks earlier than average - a real thread). Or 'What do you do with a gifted 3 year old? - she is always asking me questions like 'why do flowers bloom?'.

Couple that with a hint that being G&T is as much a SN as autism for example and it's no wonder the board becomes used for joke threads. No-one is mocking the children - rather the whole concept prevalent in our schools that 10% of children are G&T and 'need' to be labelled as such.

Kerrymum, you really enjoy deliberately flouting rational ways of arguing. Normally I would put that down to a real distaste for anything intellectual, which is what you so readily accuse others of.

Strange really to 'argue' like this allegedly in defence of intellectually minded people.

Kerry - don't you want to claim my £100 for Children in Need? It should be easy money for you.

Or would that involve reading what people actually say, rather than what you think they are saying?

Some bright kids fit in, some don't, just like 'ordinary' kids. Those who lack social skills should be supported with things like 'Circle of friends' to learn these skills, regardless of ability level

Some kids are bullied. Some of these are G and T , some are 'ordinary'. The bullying happens for a range of reasons. It shouldn't , regardless of ability level.

the UK G and T classification is at best meaningless and at worst causes anxiety in some parents that simply shouldn't exist. If you swap the phrase 'G and T' for, 'my kid came third in a class of 30' it just goes to highlight this. How many of our parents would be stressed about 'stretch' us simply because we came 3rd in a class of 30.

'Education- a thread for kids come come 1st 2nd or 3rd in a class of 30'

couldn't see that topic flying, somehow.

I can't see the point of having a G&T measurement that is subjective - ie top 5 or 10% in a school. For it to mean anything it has to be an external, objective assessment. I was always top or nearly top of my class/year but can't say I was ever G or T and I'm not sure I'd have wanted to be labelled as such. What real purpose does it serve?

I don't understand the problem people have with G+T. I know it's an artificial measure in that it takes the top ?% in every school, and so the children will vary greatly in ability, but the whole point is to encourage schools to stretch children. It's very easy to overlook brighter children because they're likely to get good grades without too much effort. That doesn't mean they're fulfilling their potential.

Why don't they deserve to have work that challenges them? Are we all aiming to educate children up to the government's pass mark and no further? Should those who show potential have to sit quietly in the corner whilst everyone else catches up?

Some children classed as G+T probably have stratospheric IQs. Others may just be rather good at a particular subject. I see no reason why both shouldn't be encouraged. Education shouldn't just about Qualifications and box ticking. It should encourage learning for its own sake. Nothing kills enthusiasm for learning more quickly than boredom.

all kids should be encouraged and many kids of all abilities are bored rigid in school.
The G&T register in school is meaningless. Its to make parents feel better. My sons' school doesn't have one thank goodness and asa home educator (they chose to go to school at 13) I am interested in if they are happy. Not what % they are in in academic subjects (and the G&T register is unbelievably narrow - where the PE G&T? the mechanically minded kids? the artists?.
Frankly I find most of the education system difficult to fathom. All kids should learn at their own pace and all be catered for. But it ain't gonna happen. So the Govt invented the G&T to keep parents happy with labels. If your child is truly gifted rather than just bright - and its very rare - home education is better for them cos they can do their own thing, not a rigid curriculum.
And talking about G&T at babyhood or 3 is ridiculous. One of my brood walked at 6 months, read at 2 blah de blah. You know what? She's lazy and can't be arsed and only got 6 GCSE's cos she couldn't be bothered. If the internet had existed back then I'd might have made a prat of myself on musmnet. Being bright is no indication of future acheivment. She didn't get bullied either and her goal is to live in a yurt as a traveller.
I think the labels are for the parents myself and lead to all sorts of nastiness. A bit of humour is called for.

combustiblelemon - the kids are being stretched. I would say the VAST majority of so-called G&T children are being well served by decent differentiation within a class. A teacher will always differentiate between children, and will give extension work to those who find it easy. The very (and I mean VERY) occasional child who is not well served by this may need an IEP. But these children are SO few and far between, I'm not sure a government initiative (or a chat forum topic) is going to help them particularly.

I've posted this before on here, but I have known a handful of children who I would describe as being 'truly gifted'. And I've known of one other. Let me tell you about them;

Child A and B - identical twins. I used to babysit them and be ASTOUNDED when at age 5 they had a grasp on the A Level Physics I was doing. They had also designed and made cars powered by elastic bands. Everything about them screamed 'amazing brain'. They were stretched sideways - so rather than doing GCSEs and A Levels early (which they could have done with their eyes shut tbh), they did extra GCSEs, extra A Levels. They did more sport, learnt classical languages and instruments. They are extremely well balanced young men now, one went to Oxford, one to Cambridge, one did medicine, the other law. Both got prizes at the end of their 1st year for getting the highest marks in their exams.

Child C - very gifted musically, but needed to learn social graces. Not because of his 'giftedness' but because he had virtually no bringing up - he had pretty well brought himself up. I taught him for 5 years, he got a scholarship to the Royal Academy, but also managed to 'round' him off, so that he is now able to 'live' with others and has a very good social life. This really wasn't anything to do with his 'gift' - it was all about his lack of upbringing.

Child D - all round 'clever' child - good at most things. Slightly quirky, but respected by his peers for his intelligence, and they actually liked his quirkiness. Again, stretched sideways to keep him 'normal', went to Oxford to do maths, won prizes for exam results there.

Child E - muscially 'gifted' child. Amazing at composition - at early age (12) had orchestral piece performed by London Orchestra in Royal Festival Hall. Pulled out of school to concentrate on music, ran away at 16, gave up music completely, cut off ties with parents. At about age 30, tentatively returned to music, but in a teaching context in a school.

The stretching sideways is definitely the way to go imo - if a child ISN'T being fulfilled by the curriculum then see if they can do something different as well - maybe learn a bit of Latin or French, or Russian, or an instrument, or do a project on something interesting and unusual.

If a child is a very 'good' reader, it still doesn't mean they are emotionally ready to tackle the hard texts - similarly, in music, a brilliant technique does not mean you can 'meaningfully' perform some of the more emotionally complex music - I would much rather hear a younger musician performing Mendelssohn than Rachmaninov, because in Rachmaninov they are probably simply playing their teacher's interpretation, in the Mendelssohn their youth is on their side!

Heaven forfend anyone should ever take the piss out of anything, huh? No, wait, only the things that Kerrymum says we cant Assuming of course she understands exactly what's being taken the piss out of

The thing is, I'd not mind if it wasnt so brazenly hypocritical. Truly.

MNHQ isnt condoning anything, and if you are shocked that easily - you really need to get out more.

the end.

I don't think we should confuse the issue of what children need in their daily life to keep them stimulated and engaged with future achievement. Keeping a child bored because they might not achieve much doesn't seem a very good philosophy, though I'm sure that's not really what Needmorecoffee means.

I entirely see why the title riles people. It is a very nonsense string of words and very un-British. I see why the initiative bothers people and of course it is daft having it set by cohort. The thing that I think is particularly daft is that people are told this about their children and then think it necessarily means something. I still think it is better than not having an initiative at all. I disagree that all bright children are being successfully stretched at school, with or without the initiative.

I don't really understand why Mumsnet posters object so much more strenuously to some forms of 'boasting' than others. It is apparently not OK to say 'My child is intellectually gifted', but it is OK to say, for example, 'Look at this poem my child wrote' or 'See how well my child did in their swimming gala.' People boast on here all the time(often covertly and covered up by all sorts of pretence); it is part of what an online community is for, a place you can say how happy you are about something wonderful your child did or said. Just because that might be an academic achievement doesn't make the 'boaster' any weaker, more needy, more insecure, more anxious to show off their fantastic genes, more desperate to bask in reflected glory than if it's any other achievement.

Sometimes people just want some advice. Perhaps they want not to be mocked themselves, just sometimes, because something you might find funny might actually be a serious worry for them.

Lets get over some of the myths about G&T. If a child came 3rd in a class of 30 that would equate of 10%. However if that class is top set then its 3rd out of say 120, pretty good odds I'd say. Also some of the kids on the G&T register are not just in the top 10% or 5% of the particular school but top 5% of kids there own age in the whole country. Therefore, that's not fluid.

It wasn't brought out to placate the 'middle classes' to keep their kids in state schools but to hightlight the kids that have potential to do very well academically or talent wise, whether their parents earn 100K, 50K or are on income support. Yes, some kids of lower achieving parents are super intelligent, call it a mutant gene, I don't know why it happens but it does sorry if that doesn't fit middle class ideals.

Lot's of highly intelligent children do have problems fitting in. The 'cool to be clever' ethos is in our state school anyway having results. Kids are still labelled geeks, swots etc but can also motivate average children to try harder because trying can sometimes be the key to getting good exam results and aiming higher.