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...

[DadAtLarge]

BTW, oneforward20back, I do think that the current G&T policy itself is pretty sound in many respects. The design of the current scheme has been made in consultation with a lot of people in the field whom I respect - people who have done extensive research with highly able children, fine tuned resources specifically for them, studied how various countries manage their gifted pool and had direct experience with how not catering for them adequately affects their development. These are educationists, psychologists and other experts with a wealth of practical exposure.

Also, the government has made some excellent resources available to teachers. Have a look at the National Strategies website, for starters. There are free downloads and include some real gems. For example:

• Handbook for Leading Teachers for gifted and talented education. Revised 2008

• Gifted and Talented Education - Guidance on preventing underachievement: a focus on exceptionally able pupils

• Evaluating gifted and talented education: The school improvement partner's role in engaging the school

(there are others dealing with multiple exceptionality - disabilitees to you and me - children in care, Romas etc)

There are also annual conferences; professional development opportunities (incl an accreditation program and a PG diploma), CDs and DVDs supplied free; workbooks, teaching guides, plans, packs, handbooks, other teaching material, posters, newsletters, magazines, sample IEPs, the works! All specifically to help them cater for G&T children.

From my more recent research it seems that Local Authorities are doing their bit as well providing training for G&T volunteers, information on funding, help with allocation of personalisation funds within existing budgets towards G&T provisions etc.

There are two main problems. One is funding.

But where the whole edifice comes crumbling down is in the implementation. The G&T coordinator at DS's school, for example, is really clueless (or pretends to be). She hasn't the vaguest idea what G&T is about, claims to not know the emphasis on early identification (the later kids are identified the less work for the school), and claims that she gets no support or help from anywhere for her Leading Teacher role.

As we've seen on these boards, some teachers are vehemently opposed to G&T. Getting them on board is probably what's most important.

Have a look at page 19 of the third book in the list. It's an apt, clear and illuminating summary of what G&T is about and why it's necessary. Compare that with the perceptions many here have about G&T being a club for slightly clever kids... or those with money etc. It's excusable from parents but the comments from teachers - here and on teacher boards - often give away just how incompetently ignorant they are about G&T.

[oneforward20back]

Brilliant. Partly started post cos fed up of people so critical and wanted to know what they would do. But it has also brought out some interesting view points as to what is currently being that actually works and how it can be tweaked to be made better. Very educational especially for those of us with a G&T kid due to start in Sept and a PGCE interview next week. It gives a lot of food for thought in both cases. I had experience of good thoughts ideas badly implemented before and was wondering if this is the case. Implementation seems to be a bit hit and miss and depends on the implementing individual's understanding and acceptance of the idea and williness to put in the effort.
Shame cos these kids deserve as much help to be well balanced educated individuals as the sn kids and when both is involved

Really like senua's 2 level policy as i think it sums up the basic starting point for a G&T policy.

Thanks to all ... I wish I could wave wand a get a system sorted for all but the only difference I can make is in knowledge and attitude if i get my pgce place and I want to make the difference I can. [optomisic emoticon] plus it is very interesting to know the struggle I may have with ds. thankfully so far school seems pretty good ... we'll see.

[DadAtLarge]

I don't personally believe there's any merit in splitting levels. The only argument offered in its favour is deeply flawed.

senua's claim about the emphasis in junior schools being mostly social skills is misguided - there's a broad curriculum. So is the claim about them "learning to manage their giftedness".

And she couldn't be more wrong in her assertion that it's not till senior school that boredom becomes a problem. I, like others here, have a six year old who can do things in maths that senior school children can't do. It would be ridiculous to tell him to go socialise for the next four years as his boredom will only be taken care of when he's 11. And that applies to all clever children in the class of 20. Enrichment, acceleration through the curriculum, broader and deeper study of topics and challenging work are all cornerstones of provision for intelligent children in Primary schools.

"so the child can realise that they are not alone and, also, not that unique."

My DS is unique. So's yours. And hers. Treating them like sheep and ignoring their individual needs is what this two level program seems destined to do.

An emphasis on social skills for seven years?! Blimey, is this how low our aspirations have dropped?

[senua]

As I see it, 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. I know your kid is bored DAL, my system wants him to take charge of his boredom and channel it himself. He has to do this because the education system won't - the truth is that it is a numbers game and they don't have time to individualise everything all the time for all pupils. This is what they have to learn in primary. The system doesn't really care that much about your kid (as long as he hits minimum targets) until he becomes a GCSE / A Level /school-leaver statistic.

[cory]

DadAtLarge, I fully understand that boredom is a problem for your ds, but I still think it's a generalisation to say that this applies to all clever children

I was working so hard in my spare time that I regarded school - or at least those lessons where I was way ahead of the syllabus- as a pleasant place to put my feet up, doing the minimum to stay top of the class, while my main learning was done elsewhere

(and of course there were lessons where I still needed to learn from the school)

I was no more unhappy than any child that has worked hard in the day and then crashes out in front of the TV

we all need to rest somewhere

[cory]

Also, from what you say, it is mainly the maths lessons that are the problem. So it's not just socialisation that's left to him- he can still work at getting better in English and history and PE. Surely there is no limit to how hard you can work on writing a poem? (which is the sort of thing dd was doing in Infants) So he does still have areas of stimulation.

I still agree something should be done about his maths btw.

[cory]

a) if my parents had believed that I would lose interest and stop working just because the school was failing me, then I seriously doubt that I would have put in all those hours studying- I would have missed out if I had believed that I needed someone else to stretch me, I wouldn't want this to become a self-fulfilling prophecy for dd

b)as a university teacher, I struggle with students who genuinely believe they are excused from making a success of their studies if they are not constantly stimulated to learn- they see learning as something that is provided for them (and has to be made pleasant for them) rather than as something they go out and find.

Of course I realise that it's different for a 6yo, but dd at secondary school is now reaping the benefits of attitudes that I taught her when she was little, namely that if you cut off your nose to spite your face (e.g. stop working because the teacher is boring), then it will be your face that is disfigured. Blaming anyone else is totally pointless.

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.

But as a parent, my stand is that your life is your responsibility, people have risen above the most appalling difficulties and so can you. I will hear no excuses.

[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).

[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]

Argh! typos, sorry.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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]

"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!

[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]

"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]

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.

[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?

[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.