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.

Singer - Very true!!

Im not arguing at all, just trying to grasp a better understanding of it all. Not suggesting that it would be appropriate to label G&T as a special need.

Just saying we would not deny a child with a SN any extra help, but we seem eager to deny a G&T child any provisions, trying to work out why.

Plenty of studies show that singling children out to label them as gifted is positively harmful. and have less happy adult lives

Sod all the arguing, I would just like to point out that ds is VERY gifted and advanced at being a bloke-in-training. Spends ages on the loo, ignores me whenever I tell him to do something, drops stuff on the floor and expects the tidy fairy to pick it up.

For what it's worth, Claw, I agree with you that people seem very keen to say that very bright children don't need anything extra. I don't know why either.

There is in any case a spectrum of 'special educational needs', with the needs of the child with dysgraphia very different from the needs of the child who is partially sighted and so on. Nobody, surely, is trying to suggest that all needs are equal or require equal support or funding. They might still be needs.

I find it disheartening when people say stuff like (and this is a paraphrase, not any one poster's words) "My child was reading at 2 and way ahead at primary school but still failed GCSEs". That's really just showing why very bright children might sometimes need special provision - it argues for it, not against it.

Very true Singersgirl.

My own stand would be that if a gifted child has social or other related problems, then it is those problems that should be regarded as the SN, not the giftedness itself.

And I think this is part of the problem- people find it easier to say 'the school does not cater to my child's giftedness' rather than saying 'my child has social problems/is on the autistic spectrum'. Understandable, but it does risk medicalising other equally gifted children who really do not need it.

I have a dd whom I believe to be genuinely gifted. She also happens to be physically disabled. I would be furious if any money (of which there is never enough!) was diverted from supporting her physical disability to some perceived SN that it is assumed she must have because she is gifted. If she gets bored at school, that is hardly a problem to be compared to having crawl on her hands and knees to access the toilet.

But of course I would not for a minute grudge the money to a gifted child who needed it.

Sometimes reading through these pages I get the impression that highly gifted = helplessness. The need to be spoon-fed by adults. But does it always? My 10yo nephew is certainly understimulated at school and has been for years, but he is not bored and unhappy in himself. He makes up for it by spending his afternoons composing music, teaching himself a foreign language, playing several musical instruments and playing for his local bandy team. Does this mean he is less gifted than somebody who let themselves get frustrated? Can you not be gifted and mature?

singersgirl on Mon 24-Nov-08 10:37:12
"For what it's worth, Claw, I agree with you that people seem very keen to say that very bright children don't need anything extra."

Not me. I'm saying some do, some don't.

"But of course I would not for a minute grudge the money to a gifted child who needed it."

What I meant was 'to another gifted child who combined giftedness with social or other problems'. I would want such a child to have every support.

But I have never let dd think that being bored is an excuse for anything in her case, because I know it isn't. She, as an individual, is perfectly capable of expanding her own knowledge and if she chooses not to work for her GCSEs because she gets bored, then it is quite frankly her own silly fault.

Would you write that all kids are gifted and talented at football? I'm betting no, because it's clearly nonsense. (Mine REALLY aren't unless it's gifted to trip over your own feet )

So it is in academicals as well. Some people are much better at them than others, and we don't really know why that is. As with dancing or running or anything, this doesn't equate with the worth of the child as a human. Nor does footballing ability, but it is real.

Surely that's the point - there are diverse abilities, but the issue is what we should do about it? Work to drag everyone onto the same level/ dumb down to give the same result/ set different targets for different abilities? I don't know the answer/s.

Tiger - My son is suspected of suffering from sensory processing disorder, which is classed as a SN and of being G&T. Before i allow them to label my son with anything, i have been looking into both.

I was surprised to learn than 1 in 6 of G&T children also suffer with some sensory processing disorders. Possibly more as it is harder to detect.

G&T children are often visual-spatial learners, as are ADHD children etc. Children in top and bottom 3 per cent of the population have atypical developmental patterns and require differentiated instruction.

Lots more interesting facts as well, i wont mention all of them.

Im not suggesting for a minute that G&T should be labelled as SN. All im saying is that provisions shouldnt be denied.

I have also found that when i talk about my sons SN, everyone is very sympathetic. When G&T is mentioned "oh well, if he is that smart, he should have no problem dealing with his SN"

"quite clever and a bit talented" would have been a more British way to put it.

No not everyone is gifted or talented. I am quite celver but wouldn't say I had any specific gifts or talents.

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses and endearing qualities - doen;t make them either gifted or talented.

I do think there is a benefit to providing more stimulation to more able children as we need to encourage them for the future of british industry/teaching/health service/research etc. But its just as (if not more) important to make sure that the average child is competantly edcuated to the limit of their ability and that they are stretched too.

you should read this study

It is very interesting about the harmful effects of labelling children as gifted, and on how people look for 'oddness' as proof of their child's giftedness.

"Gifted" children were less likely to fit in at school and had fewer friends, Professor Freeman found in the study, being presented today at the British Psychological Society's education conference. They were more likely to suffer from "nervous" problems such as insomnia and poor co-ordination..

But while parents believed their offsprings' problems were due to their talents, Professor Freeman found this was not the case. The children with identical IQs had few difficulties fitting in. She found that children labelled as gifted tended to have "unusual family circumstances" and that their parents were more likely to have separated or moved house often.

"The mantle of giftedness laid on these young shoulders was seen to have had repercussions," Professor Freeman said. "Sometimes their parents tried to live vicariously through them, which was a hard act for the child to live up to every day. For any children, emotional problems could follow from such circumstances ... But for them [the gifted], their difficulties were often mistaken for the anticipated 'symptoms' of giftedness."

The idea that the gifted were bound to be "odd" was common among parents. Well-behaved children who simply did well at their lessons were far less likely to be identified asgifted. Boys were twice as likely to be thought of as gifted than girls.

No - everyone is not gifted in their own way. The majority of us are a bit better than average at some things, just average at others and less than average at most.

In addition, we live in a society which appears to be uncomfortable with anything which does not conform to the prevailing norm. This means that rather than supporting the needs of the "not average" individual, we label them as falling outside the norm and treat them with suspicion.

As an aside, I am immensely proud of my children but the pride comes from them excelling at being them rather than at being better than other children.

MATHS PEDANT ALERT

ummm... (accoutant speaking) its difficult for the majority to be "less than average at most" as that would bring the average down and you would just then be average again.

By definition most people ought to be average (yes I know its theoretically possible for the majority to not be average and have an unusually high number of above and below average people) but its unlikely.

As you were...

I agree with Anna. It's no good pretending everyone has special abilities, but it's vital to bring out the best that each child is capable of.

Mabanna - Just read, interesting stuff. As i said earlier i hate labels of any sort, unfortunately sometimes labels are needed to provide some clarity and for a child to receive the help and understanding they need.

I myself have been finding it easier to understand my childs behaviour since the 'labels' have been suggested to me and i have been able to read about them.

That's an interesting article Mabanana. Although you missed his last point.

"Professor Freeman added that today's gifted pupils should not face the same problems as the children of the 1970s because current methods tended to keep them with their peers."
The study was started over 27 years ago when education was totally differnt. I know I spent ages in KS1 learning how to knit and crochet and definitely didn't do as much academic work as they do today. It wasn't the schools who were labeling the children gifted it was the parents. By todays G&T rules the school would have put both the parent labeled and the non-labled child on the G&T list if they were in the top 10%.

This is a very interesting interesting thread

Sorry I can't read all the posts now, but there are some really interesting arguments here, some of which I've had with myself too, and I'm sure at teacher training there was a heated debate about it.

I'd like to say that addressing G&T in schools is important, and it is different to addressing SEN/SN, but what I object to most is using the term Gifted and Talented - at all, but especially in front of the children. A fabulous way to give the G&T kids a superiority complex or set them up for bullying or put too much pressure on them to achieve, and the perfect way to make the other kids feel crap and encourage them to stop trying. I think it's spectacularly insensitive and I was when I heard a Primary school actually using those words in front of the children.

I was one of the ones in the top set at secondary school, but apart from German classes, which we had to miss fun - ish lessons like Music and Drama for, all extra stuff was outside of school time and didn't flaunt it in the others' faces (it wasn't hidden, just discussed matter-of-factly). I thought that was a much more sensitive approach.

sn+ special needs
SEN = special educatinal needs.
now where I agree being G&t might mean you have SEN
I do not agree it means SN.

"As i said earlier i hate labels of any sort, unfortunately sometimes labels are needed to provide some clarity and for a child to receive the help and understanding they need."

Claw, this is where the G&T label is pointless. You're talking about your dc having an SPD. How is a label of G&T going to assist in tackling the SPD? Particularly as only, according to your research, 1 in 6 children identified as G&T present as having SPD?

I don't think we should be ignoring or denying the fact that some children excel academically. It's just that a system that genuinely focused on meeting the needs of all children and helping them achieve their personal best would, by definition, be able to meet the extra academic needs of the children we label G&T.

It strikes me that those children who are within the government guidelines for G and T probably don't need that much extra if teachers are doing their jobs properly and I for one wouldn't want to see tax money diverted from SN provision which is already woefully inadequate.
For those children who are truly gifted I would question whether mainstream schooling will ever be adequate. Many children who fall into this area are home educated.

I remember being told as school that we all had our own special 'gifts'. Never did find mine though!

Lorem - Its early days for me, but the G&T label was just as helpful as the SPD label, in as much as i knew what i needed to read about to try and understand my ds's behaviour.

SPD is also strongly associated with learning difficulties, behaviour problems etc and i was finding the SPD thing very conflicting. It has helped me to understand that some of his behaviour could be due to SPD and other behaviour could be due to G&T and how the two often overlap.

Im not quite sure what problems my son will experience at school, he hasnt started yet. Although i can imagine being G&T and having a special need or vice versa its going to be hard to meet his needs. (if he does in fact have either).

Do they put him into a special need group, so he is supervised and given help to cope with his SN or into a gifted and talented group where i should imagine they are deemed more able and are not supervised?

needmorecoffe dyslexic kids are very intelligent. Their brain works completely differently, their intelligence is very high. Dyslexia is a gift in itself. Dyslexia is very complex.

Mabanana that is exactly my point!

claw, school isn't like that. There isn't a little group of kids with SN all taught together in one classroom, or a group of G&T kids all taught together in another wearing their special G&T or SN badges! It's a classroom of children, doing work suitable for their ability, usually differentiated for different levels of ability or flexible enough to allow children to work at different levels on the same work - ie writing sentences. Sometimes the children who can, say read better, or understand maths better will be put onto a separate table to work on more complex ideas. Children with SN may have support within the classroom from the TA to access the curriculum. For example, my ds needs a lot of help organising himself and to keep him on track, so he will do more complex words, harder spellings etc, but with his TA at his elbow much of the time to help him start and complete tasks, prompt him to get him organised and to keep him calm so he doesn't run about being silly.

Kittybrown, but surely what Prof Freeman was saying (in 2001) is that children were far less likely to have these lifelong probelsm associated with the label of being gifted, if they were educated alongside their peers with no special labels. Now, of course, in 2008, things have changed, and there is the MORE special labelling and making children feel different and superior to their peers, which was at the root of the problems of the children in the original study.