so are we considering gifted and talented as academic success or financial position /status when child grows up.

[lijaco]

For example child A who has 10 GCSE'S at A*s and equally A levels/ good education. Struggles to progress through life or doesn't have the motivation to climb the ladder. Or child B who has a disadvantaged background leaves with few good GCSE results but for example starts own business as a tradesman and becomes very well off... and established. This child has the drive to succeed.
How do you view this?

I say well done child B. Hats off.

But is this really relevant to "gifted and talented"? I thought this thread was about academic success according to a fairly rigid set of Government criteria.

If this was a thread called "Man United junior academy" and you asked, "who is better - George Best, or the kid who grows up to enjoy football in the park with his mates?" I don't think 1 person in a 100 would choose "child B".

Why must we muddle, fudge, and soothe hurt feelings around academic excellence but in sport we can call a spade a spade and no one challenges it?

I think either could potentially be gifted and talented. As could child C, who is dyslexic, but a brilliant gymnast/swimmer/actor. I would suggest it's not just about having ability, in whatever field, but to go on and put that ability to good use.

The government "gifted and talented" program is (I think - we don't have it up here ) only about academic success.

But most parents, whether in this section or elsewhere, seem to say "I'd rather they were happy and fulfilled in what they do".

So if child A is struggling and unhappy, then they are not that well off. But if they are chugging along happily and not an ambitious person, then what does it matter if they are "successful"?

Similarly child B may have the motivation and be doing well materially, but we don't know if that's making them happy either!

Being gifted at school definitely doesn't mean a child is destined for greatness.

Success is more down to confidence, personality, luck and contacts, judging by my old classmates.

Agree with mistletoe - what's really important is a child's happiness. I don't actually see the rlevance either way of G&T.

But, if we are actually talking about G&T, then I think it covers child A in your example and not child B. It's an assessment (quite a crude one) of ability, not of happiness or being an all-round good guy.

View what? I don't understand OP.
Sounds like Child A squandered their chances, although if they are happy and responsible members of society, it doesn't matter. Child B had a lot of character and determination, which allowed them to be successful, in spite of lack of innate academic ability.

G&T as govt. defines it would only relate to things measured in a school environment. G&T as "we" define it?, er, I don't. Am I supposed to?

I don't even agree child A has failed actually. I have spent a lot of money on school fees for 5 children over the years but that has never been on the basis they have to "succeed" or earn over £200k or whatever. It's to give them a good education then to do what they choose as the best people they can be and that might be farming, joining a monastery for a life of contemplative prayer or working for a charity or in the City. Neither is better nor worse than the other. Plenty of very clever children have no interest in making money. Loads of clever mumsnet posters who did very well at university chose to become housewives or work in very low paid work. Do we think they've failed? If they've happy earning a pittance then that's their choice as long as they don't expect my taxes to keep them.

Agree with Xenia. Of course there are ways of failing - like becoming a criminal or not doing anything at all - but just not being a financial success does not equal failure.

I think the measure of my own parenting success is for my dc to work hard, do their best and have the nous and the balls to use their education to do something that makes them happy and fulfilled. If child 1 gets straight A's and an Oxford first and spends her life doing something that makes her happy but pays squat all, that's a success. And ditto if non-academic child 2 works hard to scrape some qualifications and then uses them well to find his own niche.

On the other hand, if Child 1 gets her A's and Firsts and gets a partnership at Clifford Chance in her 30s, but spends her life wishing she'd had the guts to study horticulture and run a smallholding, then that's a waste. And if non-academic Child 2 can't be bothered to get off his behind, find an access course that will lead him into something useful and instead spends his life doing something mundane but safe, and gettting bitter about the fact that he wasn't as academic as his sister then that's a failure to.

ok so most posters on here feel that gifted and talented is set by government standards. That the achievement of being within the top percent of that school is gifted and talented then.

Er, no. We believe that that is what the term 'Gifted and Talented', as used by schools and the DfES, means. 'Gifted' in the US and Australia has a much broader connotation than it does here; it means 'top of top set' rather than 'genius'.

I don't think either of the children in your first description sound particularly gifted to me. Child A is academically able, but not exceptional; child B has lots of drive and determination. Great.

I think what Xenia says is true . Academic ability is one thing that might help a person do what they want to in life - but they might not want to earn lots of money, climb a career ladder, own three properties or become a movie star. They might want to become a Buddhist monk or whatever.

crikey, Xenia said something sensible -- that it's okay for clever people to be low-achievers if that's what makes them happy >