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.

'To each according to their need'

If a child can read and access the material being used in class they simply don't 'need' the same level of a child who cannot read.

I have worked with children of 11-12 with reading ages of six. they really needed extra help in the class.

there is a differenmt between needing something and wanting something

so why do G&T kids get extra resources and the middle of the class get nothing?

My child has SEN so I am not arguing that SN kids should get less attention, just that all kids should get special time and attention. Concentrating resource at the top and bottom of the academic achievement range and iognoring the kids in the middle is not something I agree with.

podrick - thats schools for you. We'd all like smaller class sizes and more time for each child. Unless you go private or home educate its unlikely to happen.
Course, if poeple pay more taxes we could have more classroom assistants, more teachers, smaller class sizes etc etc
But right now its hard enough to get help for a severely disabled child without constant fighting for it.

The amount of exra money and time for G and T kids is negligable.

You will already know that the extra assistance for children with SEN is seldom enough. There is only so much money in the pot.

G and T does little to help, agitates some of the parents of children who are simply clever and don't actually 'need' much in the classroom. In essesnce kids are put on the G and T reg if they are in the top 3 of a class of thirty.....these seldom 'need' anything other than being shown to the library and given some gentle encouragement

soupdragon all children have a gift / talent you are not looking hard enough!!

Also if a child can't read well as they should does not measure their intelligence capabilities. Dyslexic kids have extremely low reading ages but their intelligence is far superior to other children. You can't believe your child to be g & t on account of reading skills. That does not measure intelligence at all. Some kids are never read to, visit library's own a book etc so wouldn't be up to scratch because of disadvantage. Doesn't mean they are not g& t.
If your child is achieving be proud label not needed.

Appreciating a child's skills, whatever they might be, would be an excellent thing. It would also, hopefully, change or negate the need for pointless homework. DS2's teacher has introduced a scheme where the children nominate their own weekly project as homework. It can be, as DS2 has done, researching and making paper aeroplanes and then demonstrating them to the class. He learnt an amazing amount about aerodynamics and had so much fun doing it that no parental pushing was required.

The problem with G&T isn't that extra resources are diverted to those children, as in many cases they're not, it's that you're applying a label. Too many people then see the label rather than the whole child.

I think everyone has the potential to be gifted and talented at something trouble is discovering that thing and having the money to encourage it. Plenty well of kids do stuff like tennis and are crap at it despite mummy spending a fortune on all the best gear. Little jonny from the council estate might never lift a raquet, but could be the next ace if only someone knew.

My DD is good at dancing but I think her particular talent is winning people over and making freinds and I think this will take her much further in life than having top grades in ballet exams.

Similarly my DS is great at maths but his talent is to think outside the box and come up with great ideas, again I think this will serve himwell in adulthood rather than being able to work out some meaningless sum off the top of his head.

I think everyone should value children and appreciate them and nurture them for the lovely individuals that they are.

But doing all the above does not necessarily mean that they are gifted and talented. Many children are neither gifted nor talented. That doesn't make them any the less valuable as good decent human beings.

See I get impatient with the g&t label for two reasons.

(i) The first is the way it is used in state schools and given to the top 10% regardless of the overall standard of the school which means that children get labelled as being gifted and talented in subjects that they are clearly not outstanding at.

(ii) The second is that it operates to make the 90% who are not labelled gifted and talented as not especially bright and may make them feel second class

So I agree with the OP. It's a useless label.

Don't think our school is into this, only place I have heard it mentioned is on here.

Claw, I'm all for labelling a child SN if it means they can access the vital help they need to get an education like the rest of their peers.

I think it's a far, far more necessary and useful label than the 'gifted and talented' one. As the G&T label is just done by percentages per class, it does not mean that a particular class's top 10%(or whatever) of pupils are unusually gifted and therefore need that extra attention.

In an ideal world of course, all pupils would be given the support they need to reach their full potential. (What a glib statement that sounds. How hard it must be to make it reality!)

'Dyslexic kids have extremely low reading ages but their intelligence is far superior to other children'
Thats not true. Dyslexic kids have the same inetlligence range as anyone else.

Tiger - Agree that in an ideal world, each child should have their individual needs met.

G&T children can experience all kinds of problems. Bored, frustrated, disruptive, uncooperative, angry, hyper sensitive, dont fit in socially to name a few. In fact the problems they can experience are very similar to that of a child with SN. The signs of G&T are often confused with ADHD.

G&T is a special need, just at the opposite end of the spectrum. Much like a child with SN if their needs are not met, the problems get worse.

wow you seem to so want to have the sn label

2shoes - bit confused as to whether you are replying to me or someone else?

Thing is, claw3, some G&T children can struggle with all or some of those things, but many won't.

That's where, IMO, the label is a hindrance. The issue the child is struggling with is always seen through the G&T filter.

Assuming that the issues are a function of ability can be inaccurate and a block to appropriate assistance being sought.

oh ffs, G&T children are not SN. Some of them may have SN, most will not.
Any child can be bored, fustrated, angry etc etc etc etc
And what do you mean that its at the opposite end of the SN spectrum? Are you maiking out all disabled children are stupid?
G&T are just a bit brighter than average (and 50% of kids will be). Its not a disadvantage however you try and paint it or a barrier to independant life. Unless a G&T child does have a SN like cerebral palsy or aspergers or ADHD, they will lead a typical life and will not face monumental obstacles every single day.
Why can't people accept that non-SN is good enough and stop making cleverness out to be 'special'. If you are that desperate for 'special' I can hand over my child with quadraplegic cerebral palsy.

Loremipsum - Sorry had to do nursery run!

You say 'some G&T children can struggle with all or some of those things, but many won't'. The same could be said of children with SN, not all have a learning disablity, but they still require 'extra attention'

Im fairly new to the G&T and SN side of things. Just trying to grasp a better understanding of it all tbh.

I have been doing a lot of reading and recently read that children with ADHD, G&T and children with learning disablities are often visual-spatial learners and require different teaching methods.

Also over half of children referred for behaviour problems are found to be unnoticed G&T. So does not meeting their needs result in the same problems as SN?

You got the scientific reference for the the claim that 'often' G&T (the top 10% in any class) are visuo-spacial learners?
And the other statement.

And no, a bored intelligent person will not be unable to communicate or walk or be incontinent so they don't have the same 'problems'.
dd1 was bored rigid in school (she did Y6 sats in Y2 and beat the 11 yo's) but all she got was bored and disruptive. She didn't develop any disabilities or 'special' needs. She needed a bit of discipline and some better books.
And of course SN children without a learning disability require extra attention. Those are the ones that have physical impairments.

Agree with SoupDragon.

Not all children have any special talents at all. And some very lucky children are born with multiple talents. That is the genetic lottery of life. What we need to do as parents (and educators) is ensure that all children are offered opportunities such that they develop what they have to the very best of their abilities; and we need to appreciate our children for who they are and for the efforts they have made and their own particular achievements.

needmorecoffee - I didnt say all disabled children are stupid, quite the opposite if you read what i actually said.

Basically what im saying is that if a G&T childs needs are not meet, would it not be a disadvantage.

Thanks, but i already have plenty of my own 'special' family members. I too have a deaf, dumb, blind, brain damaged brother in a wheelchair and a child of my own with SN.

Needmorecoffee - As i said ive been doing a lot of reading, both about SN and G&T, i dont have a reference to hand about G&T nor SN, i probably have something bookmarked about research which i can dig out if you like.

Have you done any reading or do you have any experience of what a G&T kids needs might be, other than they are smart arses and dont need any help?

claw, in your posts about G&T children, do you mean those classed as G&T by their school? ie a standard percentage of each class, irrespective of the average level of ability and attainment in that class?

If you are talking about the exceptional one-in-a-million child genius, I agree that they need an education that's tailored to their needs.

But if you are talking about children in the top sets of a class needing the same level of attention as an SN child, then I probably disagree with you.

I think some highly gifted children do need extra input. Because giftedness to them seems very closely related to quirkyness/a lack of ability to communicate with others on a different level.

But from there to oh-my-2yo-knows-the-alphabet-I-am-so-worried-that-she-won't-cope-socially is a big step.

Highly gifted children (as opposed to bright children) are few and far between at the best of times.

It is virtually impossible to look at a toddler and tell whether they will turn out to be highly gifted in later life.

Some highly gifted children are very specialised: they may be geniuses at maths, but not very good at language, or social skills. They clearly need support in those areas.

Others seem to be highly gifted at everything. Some of the most brilliant academics I have met have also been extremely musical and good at social skills.

Some highly gifted children seem to be very poor at stimulating themselves (at least judging from MN posts). They will quickly become bored and stop trying if an adult does not constantly supply them with material appropriate to their level. They clearly need help.

Others seem to have an almost inexhaustible capacity for providing their own mental stimulation. I have such people among my own close relatives. Several of them have gone through the Scandinavian system (no streaming in ability groups, no setting of extension work) and have still thrived.

From this it would seem to follow that extra help will be required according to individual needs, not as an automatic consequence of a child having an extremely high reading age.

These threads always go round and round in circles. It isn't helped by the fact that posters are arguing about different things.

Some people are arguing about the term "gifted" being used to describe children who are mostly just very bright or very, very bright.

Some people are arguing about the way that the current government initiative is structured - the idea that the top 10% of children in any cohort have to be designated 'gifted and/or talented'.

Some people are arguing about schools giving potentially misleading labels to children or their parents.

Some people are arguing about how the initiave is delivered, and whether very, very bright children might need some extra support or challenge.

Some people are arguing about whether it is ever appropriate to classify 'giftedness' as a 'special need'.

Some people are comparing different levels of SEN.

Some people are making extraordinary claims like "Dyslexic kids have extremely low reading ages but their intelligence is far superior to other children".

It's really difficult to know what to reply to. So I won't.

Of course being a bit clever is not an SN! Kids with SN require special help simply to give them the chance to participate and learn in an equal way (and often not even that) - you are saying clever kids need extra help in order to make them even more unequal or superior. It's a totally different thing.