If you could design a G&T policy how would you makes sure it works?

[oneforward20back]

Ok, we examine, tear apart, applaud etc the current system. But if you could start from scratch to design a g&T policy how would you ensure it does what it needs to, helps who it needs to etc

Go on you know you want to...

[lijaco]

goosey loosey i agree with you!

[DadAtLarge]

lijaco, I won't bite so, sorry, that game is over.

[GooseyLoosey]

My dc's school has no public recognition of G&T. However, when my son gets school work to do at home, his teacher often leaves a note explaining the theme of the work to me and inviting me to do additional work around it with ds - she is then happy to mark it. She would do more of this in the classroom, but there seems to be so many rules about what she must and must not do that it is largely impossible to develop interests that lie outside the NC. We should be a lot less prescriptive about what must be taught at primary level and focus more on making learning a good experience for all children. Teachers should be taught how to do this (although I'm sure many already know). We don't need a formal programme aimed at an abstract number of children, we need a better general approach to eductation which benefits all.

[lijaco]

dadatlarge you are so not into every child matters! You chat the biggest load of garbage! I think you are a TROLL! lol!! I find your posts amusing!! You are so elitist!

[lijaco]

Gifted and talented has a register just like sen. If your child slips below educationally they are put on the SEN register so that the teacher can cater for thier individual needs. The G & T register is their also so that the teacher is aware of the children that can potentially achieve above average or exceptionally. It is so that children can be planned for appropriately within lesson time. This does not mean that the assessments made are accurate. their are some sen children that are very intelligent and ask the most amazing questions but are unable to achieve to the testing system. For me the change would be to the method of assessment. It is way too shallow at the moment.

[DadAtLarge]

"Just wanted to point out that every teacher who lets a child read a book on the side is not fobbing them off with boring work..."
I agree.

[cory]

I am absolutely on your side when it comes to not letting dcs be fobbed off with boring work below their ability, Dad. Just wanted to point out that every teacher who lets a child read a book on the side is not fobbing them off with boring work below their ability. I was reading Les trois mousquetaires with a dictionary, while my mates were stumbling through the verb avoir. I'd hardly call that fobbing me off with work below my ability.

See what you mean about HE and agree with this; it should always be a choice.

[DadAtLarge]

cory, maybe I didn't explain it well. I intended to convey that if HE is the only way gifted children can be properly catered for in some cases then the schools have failed those children. HE should be an option to parents, not an act of desperation.

kittybrown, to be fair, yes, the FMs get changed. A lot. However, they have never supported ignoring gifted children on the grounds that, well, these kids are already where they need to be academically so we can focus on those who are going to mess up our SAT stats. FMs have never promoted sticking these kids in the corner with a book. Yet many teachers seem to think this is exactly the right course. They argue - even here in G&T - that their focus should be more on "inclusion", on helping the least able. And they are completely unaware of their responsibilities towards gifted children, they refuse to accept that giftedness in some cases is a special need.

It looks like your DS may be getting what he should be getting. Brilliant. And his teacher is clued up. Double brilliant. But in many schools he'd just get fobbed off with some boring work far below his ability because of ideological opposition to giving able kids any further advantage. Those are the teachers my comments were directed at.

It's not about what I want for my son - I've updated my thread to say we're getting that now and we're happy with how the meeting with the Head went. My comments in here are in the wider context of the G&T program - the question about how to make G&T work, not about DS per se.

[kittybrown]

My son does get appropriate teaching time based on his needs. He needs less teaching. He will still get guidance from the teacher but far less teaching.
His teacher does closely monitor and provide for him. She provides resources (books and internet) so he can explore further. She provides opportunities to think deeply and in different ways . She reads and marks his work and gives him feed back.
"Getting kids self-directed isn't a goal in any of the job descriptions. Fine if they use it but not fine if they use it just so they don't have to do their real job."
One of the other points of the G&T policy is to encourage independence and self-assessment. Which is in my view getting kids self directed.

My son's teacher has RTFM and 100's of other FM's! The FM keeps getting changed. Teachers get up to speed and then the goal posts are moved which is only right as education evolves. The latest stratergies have only just come out in this last academic year to fit in with the new curriculum.

What do you really want for your son?

[cory]

From your 12:04 post.

"Many truly gifted children are home educated"

to which you replied:

"That's a sad indictment of the education system."

Maybe I misunderstood you.

[DadAtLarge]

"you seem to make the assumption that every time a child is home educated it's a failure of the system."
Can't see where you get that from.

[cory]

But DadATLArge, you seem to make the assumption that every time a child is home educated it's a failure of the system. Whereas lots of the home educators on Mumsnet would tell you that they have deliberately chosen home education precisely because they wanted this element of self-direction and thought it would be more valuable to the child in the long run.

Home education wasn't right for us, but I can sort of see their point.

I have the same experience as kittybrown; self direction is one good thing that happens at school when it's really working. School starts a train of thought that dd then takes further. And that sort of thing is much easier now when even primary schools have online access. The ordinary lesson (at top set level, as they are set according to ability) gives her ideas which can then be further pursued.

And with subjects such as literacy it can be easily fitted into the ordinary lesson: the teacher sets a writing task, you can usually do it to any degree of complexity.

[DadAtLarge]

"We are all happy if he reads his book whilst the teacher delivers the basics to the rest."
And any parent is perfectly entitled to be happy with that "provision" for their child.

I'm not.

But if we return to the subject of this thread, "the design of the G&T policy", there is currently an onus on teachers to

• identify, closely monitor and provide for gifted children
• personalise learning for G&T children against the five outcomes of Every Child Matters ... which includes progress, achievement, participation (not sitting in the corner) and positive contributions
• encourage these pupils to excel (as an investment in our future society, economy, culture and intellectual capital)

That's their job. And they are meant to do this within the existing resources.

My argument is that I can expect this, not that all of you should. My argument is that teachers who think they don't need to teach any of these kids (in their gifted subject) are not fit to practise.

Getting kids self-directed isn't a goal in any of the job descriptions. Fine if they use it but not fine if they use it just so they don't have to do their real job.

It's not about less or more teaching time, it's about appropriate teaching time - based on each child's needs - to meet the education goals i.e. I'd like teachers to RTFM!

[kittybrown]

But DAL I see a large part of the child becoming self directed happening at school. When my son was younger he asked questions, we answered, we looked things up togeather. That was him being self directed up to a point ie. he learnt in what he was interested in. As he gets older and with the help of the school he finds things out for himself and gets much more self satisfaction from it. That to me is self directed independant learning. We are all happy if he reads his book whilst the teacher delivers the basics to the rest. They all do the same written tasks but he does it more in depth with the knowledge he's taught himself. In maths he's given verbal and logic problems amongst others to solve and again he gets less teaching time than the other pupils but it's not a competition.

[DadAtLarge]

"is better to help gifted children become sefl directed"
I agree. And, like a lot of you parents of gifted children, we provide a lot of out of school support to our DS. But schools have your kids physically for a large part of the weekday.

"Many trully gifted children are home educated."
That's a sad indictment of the education system. There must be a lot of really gifted children in full time school, many undiscovered.

[DadAtLarge]

"Why is it dreadful if a child gets to read a book..."
You seem to be confusing reading the book with having nothing else to do but reading the book; confusing doing a maths worksheet with nothing else to do in maths class but maths worksheets. They need to learn but their learning needs to be actively directly and monitored. It involves a lot of teacher involvement - that's the accepted position of every LA in the country.

Where you and kittybrown are reading it wrong - perhaps unwittingly - is the "adequate provision". I was very clear on that. A teacher thinking that giving a child a book covers all she needs to do for the child in that subject deserves, I repeat my opinion, to be sacked. And good riddance. And the instituion concerned needs to familiarise the rest of its staff with what they're getting paid to do.

"They like inclusiveness, not (what they call) elitism"
Yes, ignorant teachers/teachers with certain agendas hijack inclusiveness to refer solely to disadvantaged children. Inclusiveness is one of the main goals of the G&T program and the #1 goal of the National Strategies planning for G&T:
"recognising and providing for gifted and talented learners is about ... inclusion (their emphasis, not mine) and accepting that they need as much opportunity, nurturing and support as those who struggle"

"Most school teachers are altruistic people who like to help others. They love helping little Johnny understand things and love seeing the penny drop. They cannot stand it when little Johnny already knows, and probably even knows more than them (especially at Infant/Junior and especially in Maths)."
I agree with all of that. That's why I agree with cory that they need more training. I feel they are badly behind in realising their responsibilities towards gifted children and they need to be educated as to what they can do - nay, what they are being paid to do.

[Litchick]

And whilst it's all very lovely to make and plans and shout a lot, there is the cold hard reality of state schools.
Many trully gifted children are home educated. This is true of those who have an academic gift and particulary those who have a sporting talent. Others pay through the nose, I know mine bleeds at the start iof each term.
A basic state education simply cannot provide a tailor made service for every child. There are not enough resources. Nor is there the political will. Sad truth but there we are. This government has spent an unprecedented amount of money on education and that is unlikely to be replicated in the forseeable future.
Thus in many ways Cory and Senua are right that it is better to help gifted children become sefl directed ( which will naturally happen - at 8 one of my own children had worked out her own sports plan and implemented it with an outside coach).

[cory]

What I don't get from DadAtLarge's 10:14 posts is why using a workbook and teaching pack would necessarily be better for a gifted child than reading Beowulf. Why is it dreadful if a child gets to read a book, but good if they are set to work with a Teaching Resource?

[cory]

"entirely self directed at uni level" ah, happy dreams!



don't quite share senua's take on teachers- of course it is possible to some extent to educate teachers to become what we want them to be- how else would we have reached (some level of) inclusion for SN children or indeed any educational advances over the centuries

[senua]

"The core driver in your plan for primary education is to teach gifted children to cater for themselves i.e. make it easier on teachers."

Not at all. I am coming at it from a different, more realistic angle. My system is to deal with teachers as they are, not as you or I might wish them to be.
Most school teachers are altruistic people who like to help others. They love helping little Johnny understand things and love seeing the penny drop. They cannot stand it when little Johnny already knows, and probably even knows more than them (especially at Infant/Junior and especially in Maths). They are judged on whole-class performance, not individuals. They like inclusiveness, not (what they call) elitism. They will not / cannot do what you want.
Teachers start off teaching kids facts. As they go through the system, kids learn to learn for themselves until, at Uni level, they should be totally self-directed. Your DS just needs to get to the self-directed level earlier than most.

[kittybrown]

Any teacher who feels that giving a particularly clever child a more advanced book to sit and read by herself is adequate provision ... should be sacked (maybe also shot to protect against them taking up a job elsewhere).

You see I disagree with this.

My ds is very happy when his teacher gives him a book. It enables him to learn and to make connections for himself. To me that is enhancing his thinking skills. Learning is not always about having information fed to you on a spoon.

[cory]

Any teacher etc... should be sacked?

Regardless of the circumstances, Dad?

Because I felt sitting and reading an advanced book by myself was one of the best aspects of my education. In my case, being allowed to read English fiction (my first foreign language) in primary, when the others were learning their first verbs, and university history books in secondary school, while listening with half an ear to the teacher giving the textbook version of the Second World War, I think was adequate stimulation for me. I can't imagine anything that I would have enjoyed more or that would have been a better preparation for an academic career- which involves long lonely hours with little outside recognition.

I found when I got to university that my reading skills and my ability to work things out for myself was far ahead of most of my fellow students, because I had been allowed to do so much of it at an early stage.

Admittedly, I did not even start formal education until nearly 7 (grew up in Sweden) but don't remember being bored before that- perhaps the late school start made us more self sufficient.

I don't feel there was a price to pay in my case: I gained and the excitement came from the books and the knowledge that I was training for a career of finding things out. Like dd when she sneaks up to her room to read a book.

Wouldn't deprive anyone else from getting something more suited to them, I am all in support of your attempts to access suitable learning for your ds.

I just think generalising is always a bit suspect. For me, lonely learning, interspersed with working in a different ability group, worked well- and still does. Lots of writers have this mentality too.

Teaching gifted children to cater for themselves is not just about making life easier for the teacher. It's about equipping them for university, for one thing. As a university teacher, I am constantly dealing with students who would be bright enough to do the work but who do not have self sufficiency. The real disaster comes when these students manage to get taken on for postgraduate work.

[DadAtLarge]

Argh! typos, sorry.

[DadAtLarge]

[quote]But as a parent, my stand is that your life is your responsibility[/quote]
Absolutely! I can't agree more. But I fail to see how that conflicts with my assertions that schools needs to follow the national guidelines on provision.

"So yes, as a citizen, I am all for working out a good programme to support those G&T children who need it, by extra classes, uni visits, tutors whatever."
Fair enough, you are forgiven

[DadAtLarge]

The idea of two levels is nothing but a screen for the scrapping of G&T in primary school. It has a particularly malodourous whiff.

"there are two types of G&T kid: those for whom it is a problem and those for whom it isn't. My two-tier system was designed to turn all G&T into the latter."
The core driver in your plan for primary education is to teach gifted children to cater for themselves i.e. make it easier on teachers. While there's nothing wrong in helping gifted children discover things and learn to handle their giftedness that does not detract from the huge task the education providers have to stretch, challenge and help the gifted child achieve things appropriate to their ability. Can anyone guess that I'm not for institutions taking a back seat?

"it's a generalisation to say that this applies to all clever children"
It does, cory, it does! Giftedness may not cause all of them to become disruptive or violent but there's a price to be paid in every case for not providing adequate stimulation. The National Strategy has this to say on what provision should be:

• has a focus on achievement, not just on attainment
• offers personalised learning opportunities
• places thinking skills and deep learning at the core of the curriculum
• offers extension in depth and enrichment in breadth
• celebrates the excitement of excellence

senua's plan would remove those goals from provision.

Any teacher who feels that giving a particularly clever child a more advanced book to sit and read by herself is adequate provision ... should be sacked (maybe also shot to protect against them taking up a job elsewhere).