When did you notice that your child was gifted and talented?

[lijaco]

If your child is gifted or talented in a subject is it because you have spent time yourself teaching to your child. For example showing your child how to do something, providing your child with all the necessary resources, and giving your child encouragement by out of school activities. Simple things for example going to the library to enjoy reading. Spending quality time making your child feel good about themselves and praising them. Also having the ability to do all of the above as a parent. This is a good starting ground for any child. So if you don't get any of the above as a child you will find that you may not be counted as a gifted and talented because you have never been shown or spent time with. If a child is shown how to do something it is then that we uncover a gift or a talent. What about those children who are never shown or encouraged. How do we then know who and what is truly gifted or talented. That brings me to how the gifted and talented criteria needs to be changed as every child is at a different starting point due to lots of factors. Every child matters and every child is an individual. This brings me to the point when did you discover that your child was gifted or talented? Was it when you had been teaching your child something? or is it something that you yourself are passionate about? Did you identify it or your school? Was you aware of it?

"Children of very high IQ have the potential to make proportionately larger contributions in future than those of very low IQ. "

Why are you comparing very high with very low? If you are focussing on factors you believe are important then yes no doubt someone with a very high IQ will pay more taxes than someone who requires lifetime care. Do children of very high IQ have the potential to make proportionately larger contributions than those with an average IQ? I very much doubt it. Once you get above a certain level of intelligence factors already discussed such as work ethic and resiliance will be more important.

dal - on a public forum do you suppose there may be a fair few people who might find your comments offensive? or does that not bother you particularly? ...the internet being one of the few places that people with disabilities can 'pass' effectively?

scientific my ass.

mld? sld? pmsld?
iq?

or just 'moron'

i'd love to hear more about how screwed up thinking by teachers has affected your gifted child though. if you could stick to the point with some less offensive vocab.

Yes, I agree with Saintly.

A child with a high IQ is not more likely to contribute to the wealth or culture of a nation, if they do not know how to apply their intelligence, and / or if they don't have the persistence and resilience required.

Also DAL - saying 'You are right, they are offensive words, I can see that. I apologise. I think it shows my age, and perhaps also that I'm not very good at understanding the weight or subtle messages that some words carry. I'll stop using them.'

isn't so very hard you know

Absolutely. How many bridge designers do you know DAL. I know quite a few. The most successful one I know is a friend from both school and uni and he is by no means a genius. he's incredibly hard working and diligent and pays incredible attention to detail. IQ above average, but no more than that. I suspect the same would be true for many of the leading proffessionals in the fields you mentioned.

I've always known

I think that you are born with a gift or a talent-if you have to work at it it isn't either. If it is a genuine gift or talent in will shine through whatever the parent does or doesn't do.
DS1 has a talent for rock climbing-I never took him!

I've never really been sure if my kids are gifted or not. I've suspected they might be, but then all parents are supposed to think their kids are fab in every way, so you can't read too much into that. The thing is ds in particular has stood out more as he's got older - he's very hardworking & concientious, so I'm not sure if it's iq or hardwork that makes him achieve highly. It doesn't really matter either way, most likely it's both in some proportion or another. I don't agree that IQ has to be top notch for high powered jobs - it has to be good enough for sure, but beyond that it's going to be personality, drive and work ethic that determines who the high fliers are. Many of the best teachers for example are not the most highly qualified or most intellectual people, they are the ones who care about those they teach & go the extra mile to create the best learning environment. I also think it can be a burden to a gifted youngster if they sense they are in some way expected to make some great contribution to society on account of their brains.

DaL I really disagree that we need to place more value on high iq. IQ is nothing but an interesting (fascinating actually) measure of something rather nebulous and it can't even be measured accurately. What we need to put more value on is helping all children to develop good attitudes to work & life so that everyone (not just high ability, though I do see some of them may have special requirements) achieves what they are capable of & finds their niche.

The contention by many teachers (and forum posters) is that just because a child is gifted he does not merit having that giftedness specially catered for, developed and helped to excel.

To me, that child is more likely to make a significant contribution to humanity than someone of below average intelligence. It may come from a financial contribution via taxes or job creation, an addition to the sum of human knowledge, a major life-improving/life-saving discovery or a way of saving the planet. That's not a PC thing to say either but a lot of people in the right places seem to agree. Also, pound for pound catering for gifted children represents better value than provision for average children.

If anyone wants to believe differently, be my guest.

"A child with a high IQ is not more likely to contribute to the wealth or culture of a nation, if they do not know how to apply their intelligence"
Absolutely! If they know how to apply that intelligence they are more likely to make big contributions. That's why we need to take special care of them in schools, to teach them how to harness their intelligence rather than having the maths genius sitting in the corner colouring a clown every time the others are doing maths. These C are more likely to slack, get bored. They need more help if we want to keep them working at the same pace as their peers and happily achieving.

"screwed up thinking...how has it affected..."
It's not my DS, it's me, and I've posted elsewhere about my descent into drugs, crime and homelessness as a result of years and years of boredom in school. Not normal boredom but boredom that would be banned today as inhumane.

"Do you have any idea what nurses actually do?"
They knit woolly jumpers for Santa Claus? Or are you arguing that it's just as easy for a nurse to learn neurosurgery as it is for a neurosurgeon to learn how to nurse/clean the theatre floor?

"What we need to put more value on is helping all children to develop good attitudes to work & life so that everyone (not just high ability, though I do see some of them may have special requirements) achieves what they are capable of & finds their niche."
I can't argue with that.

"I don't agree that IQ has to be top notch for high powered jobs - it has to be good enough for sure, but beyond that it's going to be personality, drive and work ethic that determines who the high fliers are."
I daresay that if a study was done of the people in the highest powered jobs there would be very few with below average intelligence, just the odd John Prescott.

"I daresay that if a study was done of the people in the highest powered jobs there would be very few with below average intelligence, just the odd John Prescott."

I'd agree with that too. But above average isn't the same thing as G&T by any definition.

I see gifted and talented as way above your normal high achiever or DC with a high IQ.
For example gifted at maths would mean a DC who works with DCs way above his age-a boy I know is in year 8 and works with 6th form-it isn't just a 16yr old who gets an A*.
Talented at football would mean that he was spotted by scouts-not just the best in the local team who are top of the league.

Of course it's not. But if it's above 100 then a pre-disposition towards intelligence in the selection. Narrow the sample to the very, very highest powered jobs and take out George Bush. You'll be left with the Tony Blairs, Barack Obamas, Bill Gates and Warren Buffets, not all of whom I like but all very far from average in intelligence.

(My reply about was for snorkle)

piscesmoon, I've a DS who's six years old and is more capable in maths than any of the Yr6 children in his school.

I think he's intelligent but I don't call him gifted (except when talking to the school - because they understand it as G&T). There are real genuises out there whom we are failing because of the hang ups some people have about "entrenching advantage".

In my area they nurture DCs like that. The boy who now does maths with the 6th form used to go to the secondary school once a week for maths from Year 5. They often hold workshops for the best in different subjects.

DAL:''Also, pound for pound catering for gifted children represents better value than provision for average children.''

Even if that were true, is that really how we ethically distribute resources to children? That is a VERY conservative, right wing view. Myself, I favour: to each oaccoring to their needs, from each according to thier ability.

However, although I tend to agree with the flack you are getting, there is some stuff which resonates with me. Boredom is corrosive. Talent can be squashed by negativity. I also went 'off the rails' but it wasn't all about that - it was also my temperament. Do you not think the same?

"The boy who now does maths with the 6th form used to go to the secondary school once a week for maths from Year 5."
And he enjoys it? Excellent! There are some here who would consider that manifestly unfair even if there is no extra cost involved. Do you support the extra cost of the workshops?

Acinonyx, if providing by need involves extra provision for the gifted - which it often does - I see that as very good value and something that should be encouraged. What price severe "ethical distribution" today if it impacts on fund generation/ availability in the future by not investing adequately in the next generation of providers?

Distribute resources by need but it's got to be each child's need, not the teacher's need to satisfy her political convictions.

"it was also my temperment"
Hmm. Now that's something that is influenced by the environment. You can't corrode with boredom and squash with negativity and have the spirit emerge unscathed.

'You can't corrode with boredom and squash with negativity and have the spirit emerge unscathed.'

I agree, but unscathed is a long way from going off the rails. Temperament is as inborn as intelligence IMO. They are both on that leash - they can only vary so much.

All children have needs and probably very few of them are really met because the reality is that resources are stretched to the limit.

Personally, I think our entire education system via mass age-cohort schooling is totally unnatural but that probably belongs on another board. Pity I'm allergic to homeschooling.

I think any child should be helped to reach their potential. Don't understand why it should only be the gifted. As I explained elsewhere at great length every child from the most to least intellectually able has the same right which is to a suitable education NOT the best. Suitable. Obviously it would be better for the child to be entitled to the best education but it would be unaffordable for local authorities as every child in the land could sue.

I find the idea ida society in which the more intellectually able are segregated and pushed to achieve rather frightening if you mean anything more than streaming or the grammar system. How awful for a child to feel they're a failure if they want to become say a nurse rather than a doctor, a beautician rather than a nuclear physicist.

And I have no idea why you persist incomparing those who are below average ( by which I assume you mean those with learning disabilities as that's the level at which iq makes a difference to daily living skills). You have made very clear the value you place on those with learning disabities so please desist from continually dragging that vulnerable group into the argument to make pointless comparisons. It's making me feel sick.

oh that whole post to dal of course.

"I find the idea ida society in which the more intellectually able are segregated and pushed to achieve rather frightening"
Funny how letting gifted children work at their own pace, keeping them happy by providing work (and work group) best suited to their abilities, providing them accelerated learning at the 2x-3x normal speed that they best learn at, letting them enjoy achieving at the same rate as their classmates (which involves working at a higher level), giving them what they need is... pushing the poor darlings, putting pressure on them and ruining their lives.

"I think any child should be helped to reach their potential"
If you agree with me about all children being helped to achieve their potential, that's good. If you're happy for teachers to be taught how to help gifted children achieve their potential then that's doubly good! Because these children do have different needs and teachers generally aren't taught how to deal with them.

You see a constant reference to learning disabilities where there is none. When I refer to non-gifted I refer to children of average and below average intelligence. I'm sorry I hurt you earlier and I'm trying to bear your circumstances in mind now when I post.

There is a group of people who pay for all manner of social costs like pensions, free school meals and housing benefits. These are the earners in society and they pay different amounts and it's right that they pay. But we need to also accept that some people pay a lot more than others. We need these people, we need to know that we as a society are producing enough of them (not least cause one day soon I'm going to be drawing a pension )

"How awful for a child to feel they're a failure if they want to become ...a beautician rather than a nuclear physicist."
That child is a failure if she can and would like to become a physicist but backward thinking in schools dumbed her down so her only job option is plucking eyebrows. The school's job is to help her reach her full potential and let her decide when she's mature enough whether she wants to be a scientist or a manicurist.

"age-cohort schooling is totally unnatural "
I agree, 100%.

dal - forgive me for not having stalked you round the boards to dredge up your life history.
i see a lot of unnecessary projection in your comments, and suspect that a lot of your ideas about g&t are rooted 10? 20? (no idea how old you are) years ago when you believe you personally were failed by the system. i think you may be trying to live vicariously through your son and right the wrongs you feel you experiecned through him, by challenging what you see as inadequate provision for more able children.

when i was at school there was no such thing as g&t, and i didn't descend into 'drugs, crime and homelessness' because i was bored at school.

i'm pleased you've managed to overcome your issues (i assume you have), but i don't think you have sufficient distance from the subject to look at it objectively. basing an entire theory about children being severely compromised and endangered by not being challenged enough at school is far too simplistic.

and i really really object to your 'there are some here' comments. afai can see no-one has challenged appropriate differentiation - what people are taking exception to is your manner, and your bizarre assertions about iq and value, and the even more bizarre assertions about those who are lucky enough to be more able to have priority over everyone else. shall we take away the vote from anyone with an iq below... oo, i don't know, what's yours?

"i think you may be trying to live vicariously through your son"
As I've said in this thread, my son's not one of the really gifted children. But there are some out there who will end up like I did and for the same reasons. Good for you if you didn't.

"no-one has challenged appropriate differentiation"
That's the OP's main goal.