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

[oneforward20back]

Starts thread and takes cover!

GL ds1 in a big class actively ahrms the other kids so probably isn't set alongside; taht's why he has a statement.

Most 'G&T' kids are just ordinary, bright, hardworking kids.

There is a minority - and I mean a minority, or frighteningly bright children in schools, and I would hope that teachers differentiated accordingly.

However, identifying this minority can be very difficult. Often such kids do tend to become quite disaffected with the school system quite early on.

I honestly hate the 'G&T' label, it's arbitrary, essentially meaningless and very often doesn't accurately reflect ability.

Sorry Peachy - I see what you mean. I have always been a great advocate of the needs of all children being met and that this would be better done though a more flexible system. It had just occured to me though that this might be difficult for the teachers as they would have children who had a real need and those whose parents just percieved that they had. I appreciate that where there is a statement, the teacher would not have to make that judgement.

Peachy- I think those that are academically able but with communication disorders - are THE group with the biggest unmet needs. Far more that an NT gifted child. Yes a communication aid for ds1 would be nice, but he is at least able to access a school that understands his learning needs and can provide a suitable environment etc.

Those on the spectrum who are more able academically are usually in an environment where their true potential (to grow up and live independent productive lives) is seriously put at risk.

I do know one child who is academically able but was able to move to a unit where he can have an individual workstation be in a small manageable classroom and be taught by staff who understand his needs and his life and chances have improved dramatically. There is a huge population out there who have those sorts of needs that are unable to access suitable provision. And their needs are imo greater than the vast majority of gifted children (most of whom are like my ds2).

lower- yes there are a few children who are so bright they are extraordinary. And meeting their needs will require a different type of differentiation and possible some money. Children who fall into that group are very very rare though. Most (so-called) gifted children can be easily accommodated. There are lots of parents though who think that because their child could read at 2 or something similar they are in that amazingly able need the school rules rewritten group (which always makes me smirk because my little man with severe learning disabilities could read quite a few words aged 2).

lol mrs d - i have a similar smirk when well-meaning but utterly patronising parents pat dd2 on the head and clear the path for the wheelchair... (often accompanied by the word 'bless' for some reason?)

mrs t - clearly i am not g&t lol

Peachy: Thanks for clarification of the SEN definition.

I think that my early summary of the situation about it being the 2ndry affects of G&T (emotional/behavioural) issues still meet this but am also very clear (now) that being G&T itself does not qualify under the definition laid out. So there is alot of necessary asides that need to be resolved. eg G&T policy that doesn't necssarily work or work for all and might be better sticking to fixing these seperate issues rather then merge two systems. One of which seems to be helping a fair proportion of people who need it.

I think it depends how you define G and T. If you are talking about the top 10, or even 5% of a school, then any teacher worth his or her salt ought to be able to keep them interested and stimulated in an ordinary classroom. It would be outrageous if any of the money intended to help children with special needs access school was diverted to them.

If you're talking about the once or twice in a teacher's life time truly gifted or truly talented child, then I think it's a different thing. These really exceptional children may need extra help or resources that aren't available on the normal primary school budget.

I could read very well at 2.5 (well compraed to my peers LOL- wasn't onto Tolkein until 7)

My needs related to that could have been met by an increased library resource and getting some support to the kids weilding knives in class in all honest truth. These days those same kids might well have a label (thiniing of a specific case) of ADHD and offered help through SEN system.

MrsT I almost cried with your last post . I alwasy feel guilty asking for X or Y for ds1, becuase I am aware of the impact on the ther children. But I am also aware of the possible outcomes of not meeting his needs- which would be dependence, exaccerbation of the anorexia he already has, possible prison (identified by school as a risk) or even suicide (not unknown in HFA / AS).

It shouldn't be the case that kids with SEN have to almost outwit their similar peers through the stetement system in order to get the things they need so badly, or indeed that the funds needed for G&T kids aren't there.

Whenever I look at the frankly bizarre 'environment impreovemenbt#schemes in the city I wince, or when i watched three men (!!) planting a pot plant on civic centre funds the other week.... in two weeks time those plants will be dug up and replaced (its a constant cycle atm for Britain in Bloom) but that might have bought 30 minutes TA time for a child who could benefit, or extra library books. We had to take an amendment reading 'DS1 benefits from a routine' to panel to be added to the statement fgs- I dread to think how much that costs, I have 10 pages of related paperwork sent twice here though, pluss staff time.

There is a sector who should get access to the SEN system though, medically ill children. there were two in ds3's class- one with epilepsy and one with terminal cancer- FFS, neither qualified for extra support despite clearly needing it. They benefitted from ds3's TA (supposedly 1-1 but how evil would you have to be to complain?), now he's gone I am awaiting a call from a Mum at the weekend to help her form a strategy to gettting the one with epilepsy ti qualify fir a statement, as it is affecting his learning now.

LAst weeend I lsitened for a while to a distressed Mum whose son needs a SNU place but might miss out on one next term simply becuase the LEA frgot to put his case to panel twice- all apeprwork there, just forgot.

beleive me, if I had G&T kids I;d want their system as far away from the SEN one as possible.

Oh and absolutely iof a child with G&T has additional needs (not that unusual in the dys lexia/praxia etc dx'd for example, and completely independent of most physical disabilities) theyb should ahve access to the ssytem: the barriers for a statement should also include those with needs not clearly defined as LD /physical (meantal health, etc) and leaving any child at risk of real ahrm out of the system is just wrong.

"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 sentiment that every child should have their needs met sounds like a good pre-election, safe and non-controversial political statement to keep everyone happy.

The complexity lies in the determining of those needs, agreeing on what "meeting" those needs involves, and in the allocation of scarce resources.

"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."
For every single case of LD and every single case of giftedness? Please don't generalise if you are unfamiliar with really gifted children and the exceptional needs some of them have. This perpetuates the stereotype that dismisses all gifted kids as easily provided for. There are a few who need more money than you'd need for the average LD.

back atcha.

don't think to patronise anyone else unless you are familiar with the difficulties experienced by children with the most profound (special) learning needs. you have taken my breath away with that arrogant remark.
please don't generalise?! i think by trotting out the merits of ECM/EDCM we are all aware of the limitations of the current system.
i'd quite like a run through of the costs of the uber-gifted in comparison with those denied communication aids though. what specifics did you have in mind dadatlarge?

"i'd quite like a run through of the costs of the uber-gifted in comparison with those denied communication aids though."
Costs for the uber gifted? You're having a laugh? You seriously think there's a huge chunk of money being spent on them? Out of the One Billion pounds spent on personalisation last year, less than fifteen million went towards G&T ... and most of that was swallowed up in admin costs, producing reports and papers, some online resources etc.... do you know of any case where the money was given to the school to spend on the child?

I have no experience with children who have SEN. However, it is completely OTT, illogical and uninformed to claim that every LD child - however low their LD (and I'm not talking about your DD2 or anybody in this thread) - has a higher right to more money than, say, a particular gifted child who has serious adjustment, behaviour and social issues that are closely connected with the extent of her giftedness? That's what I pointed out in my "patronising" post. I stand by it.

There's no such thing as an average LD

However for a child toreceive a statement, they have pretty costly needs- other wise it wouldn't be so worthwhile the LEA paying people to fight the applications so often

Might I hazard a guess though that the kids who'd ahve very xcostly G&T needs might fit the SEN system anyhow? Most other needs should be met through differentiatioon of provision, albeit properley funded provision

BTW, I'm not saying Mrs T made that claim (higher right) but am pointing out what could flow from her generalisation that it takes more money to cater for someone with LD than someone who's gifted.

DadAtLarge - you sound incredibly ignorant of the costs associated with the severe LD's I am talk about. I made it clear I was talking about severe LDS'.

In my son's case his educational needs require 24 hour funding. If we weren't providing a lot of this the cost of his education would be in excess of £200 000 a year.

I don't believe the costs of educating a gifted child remotely approach that.

"There's no such thing as an average LD"
Just like there's no average gifted.

Some of them might fit the SEN system, yes, but SEN has a very narrow definition at the moment. For the others there still needs to be properly funded provision, I agree. But, before that, the bias in the system against gifted children needs to be weeded out. There's a lot teachers can do now within the current funding (and without taking away from SEN) that they are not doing, free resources that they are not using, CPD opportunities they are ignoring because these are not PC etc

Mrs T, in the case of severe learning disabilities I do not dismiss the costs, it could be all that and more. I quoted a statement of yours that did not reflect that context, hence my calling it a generalisation.

tsk tsk. temper temper.
my point was merely that you have no idea how much a child with profound needs costs lol. i was genuinely interested in what theoretical costs a gifted child might possibly rack up that approached it. at no point did i suggest the government/ lea was actually spending the money - they rarely spend the money that is required for children with ld's to reach their potential without going to tribunal, so i do realise that proving a gifted child has a need great enough to require funding would be a tricksy task.

interestingly though - it did happen locally. the costs involved didn't in any way approach even the most average ld costs tbh.

oh, and dd2 doesn't have any lds. she has a pd, which is why she has a statement of sen, and is also 'gifted' lol. for which read, reasonably bright, like the other two.

DadAtLarge I made it clear in the previous post that I was talking about severe learning disabilties.

I am intrigued at why teaching a gifted child requires a lot more money. I have come across many 'gifted' people and tbh access to a decent library does pretty much provide a lot of what is needed. Because gifted children are able to work independently some creative teaching can do the business - you don't need lots of manpower (which is where the cost for LD's comes in).

A school has a legal responsibility to provide a 'suitable education' - not the best for any child. If you want to start saying 'every child has the right to reach their potential' then that is true for every child, including all the average Joe's. The only way that could be achieved is via a completely independent timetable and curriculum for every child. Isn't going to happen.

Yes those who are more able should be stretched. It is incredibly rare that this would require addition funding or resources though.

"they rarely spend the money that is required for children with ld's to reach their potential without going to tribunal"

Good point and this is something I point out on these threads. If a child is so far from the norm that they require additional provision that cannot be met under the usual system then they have the same option available as the parents of a child with SN- apply for a statement. Parents of children with SN have to apply for statements themselves and usually have to fight for adequate provision-often at very great expense. (Google SEN lawyer). Nothing to stop the parent of a gifted child doing the same.

It is possible to be gifted AND have SEN. In this case the SEN should be catered for because it is a SEN. The giftedness is a separate issue. I think where people get cross on threads like this is where people argue that giftedness is of itself a SEN. I suspect sometimes because parents are a bit in denial about the SEN and prefre to focus on the giftedness. Which, not surprisingly, gets right up the noses of people who have to struggle to get funding for a person to help their child go to the loo. Maybe it would be better if people said "My child is dyslexic and therefore needs additional help in the classroom" rather than "My child is gifted and needs extra help - oh and by the way, he's dyslexic" IYSWIM.

"I have come across many 'gifted' people and tbh access to a decent library does pretty much provide a lot of what is needed"
That's a common misconception. Unfortunately it's one that a lot of teachers share. I'm not talking "gifted", I'm talking gifted. Children gifted in some subjects, like maths, need a lot more than a trip to the library. Boys in particular need competition, need goals to beat...

Reaching potential is all very well but for some gifted children they need the attention just so they don't go off the rails, cause self-harm, become disruptive...

"If a child is so far from the norm that they require additional provision that cannot be met under the usual system then they have the same option available as the parents of a child with SN"
No, they don't. No matter how gifted a child he won't fall under the two very strict definitions of learning disability or physical disability that comprise SEN.