Aren't ALL children gifted and talented in something?

[pamelat]

Sorry I am new to this topic area but had a quick flick through and may not have done the topic justice, its just that I feel that all children/people are gifted or talented.

Take my DD, 10 months and only just learning to crawl (lazy monkey) and only doing commando style crawling BUT I am so proud that in my opinion she is so talented! She may as well be the first baby to ever crawl for how proud I am of her!!

I think that parents, friends, relatives and even schools are bias.

Who can really say whether anyone is of superior intellect or not?

At school my parents were always told that I was G&T (oh I quite fancy a gin and tonic!) but really I am very average but just went to a poor school. I was only G&T compared to the other students there. This came as a bit of a shock to me in the big wide world of work!

I am sure that there are the few exceptional cases of child genius, but I think that we all have the "right" to consider our little angels or terrors are exceptionally talented.

Wonder if tech will change this topic to really bright and talented, don't think the government will on my say so, then we can all get over the 'gifted' arugument. I'm getting a bit fed up with it.

I have always believed that every single person ever born has a special talent; you just have to find out what it is.

This month my DS#2 is gifted and talented at being a complete PITA.

Are we all G&T too, then? Or is it just our kids?

I'm much better at falling behind in paperwork than anyone I know, but beyond that seem fairly spectacularly average. Perhaps that's a gift in and of itself.

I'll see you and raise you there, OrmIrian. I have three dcs who are so profoundly gifted at whinging and being loudly ungrateful that I've sent them to bed with a book.

Im afraid I am with TPL on this. I am one of those people that is pretty much pants at everything. Jux if I have a special talent I haven't found it. That said I am in general pretty contented (current slightly challenging circumstances not withstanding) as someone has to be in the bottom bunch of things and as long as I give it my best I doesn't really bother me that it is generally me in that bottom group. I think the only true measurement that you can make is on a personal level i.e is something a particular achievement for the individual involved.

I think what always suprises me is that it should MATTER.

as nmc says, who cares once you have left school? Empathy and decent social skills will get you much further in life and so they should.

Though its striking to me that most of the kids I know do seem to have something they are very good at, that they love. Its just that you can't get g&t status for, say, bike riding or (oral) storytelling or birdwatching.

We all have gifts and talents - this is a wider view than being on the G&T programme at school for maths for instance. For example, you may have the gift of empathy and be talented at picking up stitches when you are knitting.

"pants at everything" is a bit of a negative attitude in my view.

Or making paper aeroplanes or drilling random holes in a plank of wood.

and actually, I think most kids would benefit from extra help with their hobbies.

I am sure my kids would love an enrichment program based on bike riding, knitting, dinosaurs, etc.

It's one of my great frustrations that schools only appreciate and value talents in a very few, very narrow areas. This is not representative of life and in my view is quite destructive for a lot of children. Making great paper aeroplanes is no less of a talent than solving quadratic equations quickly in my world.

I think its subjective. Who gets to decide what is talented? For example, emotional IQ is not awarded as much value (despite being more useful in the real world).

To those who say that you are rubbish or average at things, don't you think the very fact that you have to maybe try harder at something makes you G&T.

Maybe its the language of G&T that is 'wrong' (for me). To say that some people are not gifted or talented is (to me) rude. I think everyone (adult or child) has the capacity to be G&T at something.

I am not explaining myself very well (so am obviously not G&T at that!) but take my DH as an example. He is conventional in awarding value to academic achievements, in particular respecting the study of medicine, law and so forth. I, however, study social sceientce . When one of our friends was having a very bad time of things we both sat with her for 4 hours trying to talk her through it and support her. When we left he turned to me and said that what he had witnessed, my empathy and the things that I had said to her, had amazed and impressed him (a rarity!). I know I am guilty of stereotyping but i think most female friends would have acted and said similar things to me so does that not make us G&T in that?

I have said this several times on here. But to me, G&T is genius-type

ie - Grand Master chess champion aged 8, playing Beethoven age 4

That sort of thing

Agree with NMC - 12 GCSE A* = v bright

If G&T means genius then that is different, as with my OP, they are the exception.

But I really think the words need changing if thats the case, as its not very nice to refer to those that don't meet the criteria as effectively "untalented" and "ungifted", which is just not constructive and rude.

fillyjonk - yes it's sad that schools seem to ignore huge rafts of talents. My eldest DS is pretty amazing on his skateboard. Really amazing. But that isn't of interest. We are still fighting a pointless battle to get the council to build a skateboard park and to stop bulldozing all the unofficial skates sites around town, and outlawing boarding everywhere else Doesn't do too much to make them feel valued or worthwhile. Only certain talents and gifts are of value it seems.

Sorry for the rant.

What a shame, Ormirian

What a shame, Ormirian

nmc - wow re your dd and the head switch! How's that going?

Pamelet - Until recently i hated labels of any sort, whether that be G&T or SN. I have now come to realise that labels are necessary in order for people (including myself) to better understand, help and cope with a childs behaviour.

I have a child who has both SN and G&T and i have found there seems to be more stigma attached to parents admitting that their child is G&T than it is SN!

for you ormIrian

the daft thing is that early excellence-and, much more important imo, an INTEREST in, say, paleantology would stand a kid in at least as good a stead for future employment as, say, early chess brilliance.

But its all part of our current educational system which values only a very narrow range of skills.

That's really annoying for you Ormirian. I so agree that a lot of talent goes unrecognised by the powers that be.

Also, I think some talent doesn't surface till much later. I am not saying I am hugely talented at anything (as I am not!) but the things I am good at now were not necessarily the things I was good at when I was at school.

For instance, for the last 20 years I have earned my salarey largely by writing. I first worked as a copywriter and now work in public sector communications. Doing a degree in journalism or English at Uni would have benefitted me a lot. Yet at school I was steered away from choosing this. I never got on with my secondary school English teachers, never really felt at ease with the English A level teaching and got a very mediocre pass mark.

My best friend was extremenly bright and talented throughout school, won lots of prizes, and then won an exhibtion to Kings College, Cambridge. Then things started to go wrong. He couldn't cope and died aged 42 of alcohol related problems.

Witnessing this, I strongly feel that it is unwise to give the genius label to a young child - the burden can be too great.

Tiger - Sorry to hear about your friend.

Do you mind if i ask whether you also feel a SN label shouldnt be given to a child with special needs?

Im not trying to be a smart arse, as i said earlier my son has both and im finding i get a lot less empathy from others when i mention the G&T label?

Is G&T not just another special need?

At the DC's primary school they don't refer to this government scheme as 'gifted and talented'. They call it the 'more able' children register, which IMO is more useful if you have to have a label. Children who are demonstrably better than the majority of their peers at a particular subject are given a chance to stretch themselves - eg special literacy sessions, the very bright at maths go to extra classes at the secondary school, there are special programmes for children who are very good at sport or art.
This is more or less what the government intends for schools to do I just don't think the label 'gifted and talented' is a good fit for the scheme as it implies that these children are somehow exceptional, which most of them clearly are not. However they do have abilities which need nurturing and why not do this. It is the label that is wrong and confusing, not the practice of giving a bit of extra input to the more able pupils in a school.

I think all kids deserve special attention and "extra input" in school. Not just the SN kids, not just the G&T kids - all of them equally.

except children do not equally require 'special input'. My ds who is bright and able but has Aspergers needs special input just to get through the day and begin to cope with the classroom, my daughters don't. That is not because my ds is lucky!

SN kids obviously require more attention. You got a child who's quadraplegic and non-verbal then they will need one to one support to do the things NT kids do without thinking. Moving from table, wee-ing, opening book.
Its not better attention its to enable them to do what non-disabled kids can do. they ain't getting anything extra ffs.