should G&T be considered a Special Educational Need (SEN)

[oneforward20back]

Starts thread and takes cover!

Obviously, age makes a difference: dd is now 12 so has a fair amount of control over her life and is also old enough to understand how her work now will impact on her future. But if your giftedness is the kind that comes with a vivid imagination, then I think you are pretty well insured against boredom at any age.

BTW a few extra points to my post

A) If a schild has G&T and resultant sopcial etc issues then of course that should be SEN; SEN doesn't exclude G&T, but G&T doesn't prescribe SEN status without additonal concerns

B) There are some aprents who think that SEN fudning is easy to obtain, catergorically it is not and typically requires a lot of paperwork, it is a legally monitored process that causes even the aprents of quite severely affected aprents to need toa ccess appeals (my then non verbal, incontinent ds3 was refused support initially- he is autistic).

C) There would be massive repercussions for SEN supporet groups whom I suggest would shrink in horror at supporting applications for G&T (I stete again without additional concerns) in the SEN ssytem: theya re already many times over sunbscribed, and the system is a compelte mess as it is. yet with titles such as SOS!SEn what would happen?

I ahd dientified G&T at school and also soem SEN; I flew in the G&T areas and did not need legally resourced supportm, although bvisouly benefitted from extra classes etc and I would not argue for a moment that they dhould not be availanble. alck of SEN resources however did blight my life attainments for many years.

G&T kids must and shoud get appropriate support, but the systems shoudl be kept separate.

Too many etchnical difficulties anyway- such as at our school, many statements prescribe small group TA support: if you ahd the G&T kid with that on tehy'd actually be taught with the existing LD crowd, si that going to work? yet should a child with G&T get the actual 1-1 when all the asd / etc kids are sharing one for finance reasons?

The G&T register should be tightedned, maybe even given same legal status as SEN: but not combined.

"We should abandon all mention of "gifted and talented", it is an unhelpful label which does little to benefit those children saddled with it."
Even when there is a G&T programme, clear guidance on it, masses of resources for teachers to use in dealing with gifted children etc., teachers still ignore their needs. Imagine if G&T were scrapped!

There is a very definite glass ceiling, a very definite bias against providing for G&T needs and "entrenching advantage" and this can't be overcome by leaving it to teachers to just do what they think best. Teachers are at the root of the problem.

"children are not idiots Kerry (ironically enough) - they pick up on your drive for success whether you think you are telling them or not"
greensleeves, is it your suggestion that they should not be stretched, should not be encouraged to excel, should not be challenged?

BonsoirAnna's posts make me wonder why this does not seem to be a common problem in Sweden, where there is no streaming whatsoever and wasn't in my day either. In my day, nobody started school much before the age of 7, so you would have thought clever children would have been bored out of their minds by then.

I think it must be because there was so much else to fill our minds and because practical experiences have equal status there: a parent of even an outstandingly gifted child wouldn't feel they were wasting their time learning orienteering or woodwork, which is the sort of thing even very young children do there. I taught myself to read at an early age, but there was never any feeling that I would be bored if I didn't; there was so much in the woods and meadows to captivate my imagination.

I wonder if we expect too much from our schools?

Schools give grounding, and give children some kind of learning environment. We have a system where we expect our children to pass exams which should be utterly facile for a G&T child.

But what has schoolwork got to do with providing the entire stimulus for a G&T child? If they have minds that don't sit still they stimulate themselves - through reading, building, designing, playing chess (for you Kerry) etc

and so many skills to be learnt that were equally valued by society

BA (sorry C&P not working, your bit about society as a whole)

there are a great many kids who would have a level of independence if supported well, so yes. Funding benefits, support etc forthese kids post 16 is a massive cost to society: DS1 fore xample is borderline on indepenence;residential care as he would ahve needed had he not ahd adequate sen suport would have cost society up to £1k a week, plus all those chilren whose education would have been disrupted by thestimming violent kidat tyhe back.

Sn school doesn't exist for his dx, so no mid option.

OK so he's unlikely to win a nobel rize but should be able to do something because of the input he gets on social stuff

Well, I don't know DadatLarge. Did I post that? [scans] No, I didn't. So it probably isn't my suggestion.

I despise the term 'stretched' however, it encapsulates the distasteful way in which bright children are treated.

I believe in challenges though, for all children not just the gifted ones. I believe engaging children at their own level and capturing their interest is the best way to draw out their strengths and foster their innate desire to learn - all children, not just the gifted ones.

But I loathe the culture around gifted children generally - I used to feel like a big brain in a jar, not a person. I won't allow my children's sense of themselves to be warped in this way by ambitious teachers or starry-eyed relatives.

Gifted and Talented is actually treated as a special educational need. The label is their to cater for these children. They are not sen in the respect of learning difficulties, but need stretching and differentiating to their individual needs. All children need to feel part of a group / class though and do not like to be made to look any different to their peers. If any child is bored in class it is because the lesson is boring! Learning needs to be fun and inclusive for all.

Cory= interestingly we took the yr3 kids orienteering last week (am volunteerat school)

with the obviousexception of visible difficulty you couldn't tell the sen from the G&T during the practical. OK, I had tositdown with theSEN kids (including dyslexias here- so some very bright as well as 'classic SEN' kids) and do the written stuff afterwards bt without exception they could all contribute nd learn in a way that they couldn't have done in a classroom, with additional laughter and camaraderie.

Wonderful experience.

"But what has schoolwork got to do with providing the entire stimulus for a G&T child? If they have minds that don't sit still they stimulate themselves - through reading, building, designing, playing chess (for you Kerry) etc"

The can stimulate themselves by being disruptive as well. You can't expect a four year old maths genius to stimulate herself in the class playing chess in her mind.

The National Strategies requires teachers to stimulate gifted children. Every single Local Authority requires teachers to challenge gifted learners and help them excel. Whatever stimulus the parents provide outside school does not change the schools' responsibilities.

I wonder how much those parents advocating the sytems merge are ware of the actual SEN system?

here is a copy of the code of practice

It's not about identifying kids who just need more help, it's a legal guide gicing firm clearance on how chidlren with additional needs such as LD and physical differences should be handled within the educational system.

Nahui exactly the same happened to me at school,I was even palced in detention regularly for reading too fast and finishing the school English curriculum too early (2 yeras too early, in fact).

Absolutely I think there should be special provision amde for G&T< I dont think merging with SEN is the way to do it. Especially as that would in my VHO simply give the LEA's an excuse to fail even more kids with the susual excuse of funding and time.

the entire stimulus DAL. Yes obviously extension work etc should be (and is) available.

The whole school and examination system is going to be on the slow side for a G&T child. It just is and can't be otherwise.

The point I am making is that schools can't provide the entire stimulus. They should and do provide additional stuff for G&T children. But they can't do everything.

"I believe in challenges though, for all children not just the gifted ones. I believe engaging children at their own level and capturing their interest is the best way to draw out their strengths and foster their innate desire to learn - all children, not just the gifted ones."

All very well except that if this is just left to teachers a large majority would just ignore the gifted ones to concentrate on those who have the best chance of improving the SATS scores. It's a sad fact of life. That's why there needs to be a programme, clearly defined rules and measures for whether schools are implementing them. And if SATs are scrapped there would still need to be careful monitoring of provision for gifted children because of the bias in the system against them.

What I was saying is that discussions of G&T children conflate entirely separate needs. Some do struggle to integrate socially and that needs to be addressed. This is entirely separate from whether the work being done in the classroom is appropriate to their level of ability.

If I was ruler of the world, I would get rid of SATS and probably the National Curriculum and focus instead on addressing the needs of the individual child and allowing teachers more flexibility. They already have too much to fit into the classroom so we need to take away some of what they already do so we can allow more child centered teaching.

Yes GL, agree.

even class sizes affect that- DS1 is in aclass of 30, very little additional whole class stuff: DS2, a year below in the same school, is in a class of 21 and they do absolutely loads fo the stuff that genuinely prevents boredom- outside work, projects (usually done as a whole curriculum project, they're making purses atm and have done fabric qualities, strength analysis, pattern making with graphs and measuring, and now actualamking up so art skills)

DS2 is categorically not ored in his class, and it's obvious why

i am an advocate of appropriate differentiation for all levels of ability, whether extremely able or not.

dd2 has two ieps lol, one for her disability, and one for her g&t targets.

i am not keen on the idea of merging the systems at all - it would lead to exactly the kind of competition for funding that cory alludes to, thus creating an either/ or situation.

class sizes are too large, the general trend towards inclusion at all costs is too great, and discipline has been eroded, which means that teachers are unable to differentiate appropriately.

way too simplistic to bung g&t in with sen.

I have a child with severe LD's, and 2 NT children one of whom is supposedly gifted (he's not, he's bright and able and found learning to read very easy which helps). Frankly school is a breeze for him - his class teacher manages to differentiate work for him very easily. It's really not rocket science.

My other son requires very expensive specialist education. If there was a choice (and it always is a choice - budgets are limited) between ploughing money in for my bright son 'to reach his potential' or a communication aid from my son with SLD's I'm afraid there is no competition. A decent communication aid would revolutionise my son with LD's life. My bright son has the opportunity to make his own future. If he's so inclined and wants to go to Oxbridge that is an option that is open to him - there is no need for someone pushing behind to 'ensure he fulfills his potential'. It's his job to decide what his potential is (or what he wants it to be) and to then work towards is.

Good point whoever mentioned Ruth Lawrence. She went to my college so I've always been a little interested in her story. I would say she has fulfilled her potential - to have a happy life- with great odds stacked against her. The obstacles she had to overcome to achieve that arose from that weird pushing for a warped notion of success/achievement.

I think people who drone on about the needs of the gifted being overlooked have a very poor understanding of how inaccessible basic learning is to many with learning disabilities.

'the general trend towards inclusion at all costs is too great'

DS1 hates being in large grups, his ASD means he cannot cope, but is lovely with 1-1 or at most 1-2.

So when aprents on very rare occasions decide to be kind and ofer a playdate, they are amazed at the wonderful,plite, coping child they have visiting- the words of a Mum yesterday.

In class however he is aggressive, rude and struggles. His measured verbal ability drops from aged 16 -21 at age 6 to abrely functrioning, communicating mostly with the words cheesy, no way jose, and a yreah-yeah sound.

I fimrmy beleive that additional funding in SN education would help all kids especially G&T ones but it won't ahppen, the only SNU here taking ASD kids in small classes only accepts non verbal ones.

I actually think that every child should have their needs met. Whether they're bright, average Joe or severely disabled. To meet the needs of those with LD's requires heck of a lot more money than meeting the needs of those who are gifted. The needs of the vast majority of 'gifted' (ie bright) children can be met cheaply with some imaginative teaching. This shouldn't require huge budgets or schemes. Although it might require some better training, and perhaps streaming in some cases.

Completely agree MrsT. I wonder though how easy it is to indentify "needs" as opposed to what would just be nice. Clearly in the case of the child who requires some physical support it is fairly easy, but other things are much more difficult. I suspect that Peachy's desire for her son to learn in smaller groups would be set alongside the desire of parents of G&T children for their offspring to do additional maths problems. Clearly one need should be treated as greater than the other and resources prioritised accordingly, but it would not be easy to placate all of the parents.

Absolutely MrsT, no child should be left behind- but a good teacher in a reasonably sized and resourced class (which obv many are not) should be able to provide that for most if not all children currenlt classed as G&T.

Whereas that's just not possible for a child with SEN; in this situation I would class as 'severe enough to require a statement' as the differentiating point.

The iea that a child like MrsT's or others on here cannot have the best communication aid for their needs is abhorrent. At a lesser level taht ds1 used to be left in wet nappies as his statement didn't finance the cover needed. Upa nother level to a child whose use of a hearng loop depends on TA availabitlity or DS1 with his need for small class provision, or even the ability to sit close to the board as he can't see it (not in his statement so not provided)

It's a bizarre mess, I'd be amazed anyone would want in unless needed TBH