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?

Yurtgirl, yes they do try to get them to conform. The problem with "acceleration" or teaching children work from future years is two-fold: it is extra work for the teacher (and the G&T coord) and it upsets teachers down the line who then have to find further challenging work for the more advanced children. It's easier for them if there is less of a range to deal with.

"I can't imagine why any teacher would want to dumb down. "
See my previous para. Also, the OP has diplayed time and again on these boards the kind of prejudices that teachers have against the more intelligent

1. No kid can be that intelligent, they just happen to know more because of their "middle class" parents
2. If they are already ahead then our efforts are best deployed with those "disadvantaged children" who are heading for low SATs scores.
3. Giving them more advanced work is putting pressure on them

fembear, yes, it's a post code lottery, that's why we have experiences like piscesmoon's. Hers is the exception though. This government accepts it has failed gifted children particularly badly. Bear in mind that they are adept at spinning so the position could be worse than they admit.

However, it's also a lottery within the school. Our DS had lovely teachers in Reception and Y1 but they didn't attempt to stretch him. They did sterling work in getting him to fit in socially (because he did have problems with that) and were very quick to stop him getting bullied but they were quite happy with him being bored in Maths. They'd just find some non-maths stuff to keep him occupied. His current teacher in Y2 has kept pushing the G&T coordinator for guidance and material and has attempted to give DS work that requires him to think rather than repeating the usual 5 times tables stuff he's known since he was three. The teacher makes a big difference.

"Dadatlarge is just trying to cause chaos because he is in fact a TROLL! WARNING DON'T BITE HIS BAIT!"
Feel free to follow your own advice.

snorkle, do you know that you need only 18% to pass?! It used to be 40% but it's been eroded over the years. Cut-offs for As and Bs have similarly been reduced.

The reason they introduced the A was because As were too easy even for children slightly above average. But, of course, A is way, way too easy for gifted children. Based on his current progress my DS could clear an A* before he's eight. And he's not particularly gifted or any sort of genius, he's just a bit on the intelligent side.

I can't help it - I don't think I'm particularly chippy, but I always roll my eyes in exaggerated stylee at G&T

Where are all the G&T adults? Have you met one?

My area has a lot of high achieving parents with high achieving DCs (or DCs that they would like to be high achieving). Most of them use the comprehensive system and if the schools performed in the way that DadatLarge is describing and the teachers had such poor attitudes there would be absolute hell to pay!!
In August the local paper will have pages on exam results from all schools in the area-private and state. Top performing students will be photographed and named. It will say which university they will be going to and the state comps regularly send to Oxbridge. Go to any school meeting about 6th form (I have been to a fair few with 3 DCs)and parents will be asking earnest questions about Oxbridge entrance.
The following week there will be photos and names of students with the top GCSE results.

I admit that teachers hate the bureaucracy and government intervention in teaching, but they aren't cynical about the pupils in the way suggested on here-at least not the ones that I know.

The problem with G&T is that there are far more parents who think they have a G&T child than DCs who are actually G&T- as on these threads. People have no idea what the normal DC achieves and so they think that if their DC is reading at 3 yrs the school can't cope!

hmc Mon 22-Jun-09 00:21:50 Add a message | Report post | Contact poster

"I can't help it - I don't think I'm particularly chippy, but I always roll my eyes in exaggerated stylee at G&T

Where are all the G&T adults? Have you met one?"

I have. Of course they weren't called g&t in those days, but some academics I meet seriously have brains the size of a planet, think in a totally different way to ordinary people, have enormous capacity. But they don't all fit the stereotype usually presented in this section- lacking social skills, unable to get on with people of lesser intelligence, bored if not provided with outside stimulation. Others do fit this description perfectly.

But ime you cannot judge a person's intelligence from their social behaviour: I have seen people whose whole behaviour was that of nerdy genius but whose talent wasn't enough for a PhD, and others who seemed like fluffy socialites but who produced very good research indeed. And I have also seen the opposite.

"Where are all the G&T adults? Have you met one?"

Eh? What about your doctor and dentist, any consultant etc at the hospital. Some teachers, and academics at University. Accountants, financial advisers, architects, vets, lawyers (not all of these are G&T but a good percentage are). I have had bosses who were Oxbridge graduates and bosses who are G&T-standard but who couldn't wait to get out of the learning environment at age 16. My MP went to Cambridge. There are several ex-Oxbridge posters on MN. Shall I go on?
Why are you trying to pretend that G&T people don't exist?

What about your doctor and dentist, any consultant etc at the hospital. Some teachers, and academics at University. Accountants, financial advisers, architects, vets, lawyers (not all of these are G&T but a good percentage are).

Just intelligent and able imo (as am I incidentally - Masters Degree etc) - not some mystical 'gifted and talented' category.

"some mystical 'gifted and talented' category."

G&T are only meant to be the top 5 or 10% of the population. Not some mystical, mythical, rare-as-hens'-teeth type that appear less frequently than Brigadoon. They are merely the brightest and best of a generation, who it might be an idea to nurture instead of trying to dumb down. It's all about trying create a culture of "it's cool to be clever" and make people realise that they are not alone and isolated.

Oh really? - the 'best' not just the brightest? Well, fancy me having a problem with that

I'm easily within your arbitrary 5-10% so no personal axe to grind - I suppose I just can't abide the elitism of it all

"your arbitrary 5-10%"

If you were so clever you would know that it is not my definition but the Government's. MN as a body seem to purposely misunderstand the concept of G&T and deny that anyone fits the definition. It is merely the opposite of the SEN policy: trying to make cleverness mainstream and stop the middleclasses running off to private schools instead. It is actually inclusive, not elitist.

fembear ~ you can say children do well academically,are good at sports,talented musically,but you cannot say they are "best","brightest" or "top"as that infers they are intrinsically better than other children.

I was a child who did well at school scoring 100 % allegedly in the 11plus and got a free place to a direct grant school etc etcBUT I am no different from any of my friends or children at all and although i am capable and logical I am not brain of britain,I just found school easy especially language and so did well.
I have a ds who is very brainy but in the sort of way that doesn't get top sats/gcses at school as language was a weaker area for him .Now it would have been lovely for him to be on a g& t register maybe,for his confidence,because he is really clever but found some things difficult like spelling,tables etc so didn't shine until the sixth form.

fembear ~ you can say children do well academically,are good at sports,talented musically,but you cannot say they are "best","brightest" or "top"as that infers they are intrinsically better than other children.

Showing my age, eh? 'Brightest and best' used to be a compliment to the most able. In this egalitarian, you're-no-better-than-me age it is taken as a insult to the rest.
As you say, your son would have benefited from a good G&T scheme which would have seen beyond (under)achievement to the underlying potential.
Does that mean that you are agreeing with me?

"but you cannot say they are "best","brightest" or "top"as that infers they are intrinsically better than other children."
That's half the problem with the system. A child can be the fastest on the field, the most graceful dancer, the most talented painter but she can't be the brightest; she can't be academically best, tops or even just better than other kids. Suddenly there's the connotation of "intrinsically better".

"I'm easily within your arbitrary 5-10% so no personal axe to grind - I suppose I just can't abide the elitism of it all "
This is a very British thing, still trying to "make amends" for their old class system. I don't know any other country that worries about this. They accept that some children are clever, some very intelligent, some exceptionally intelligent. And there isn't any resentment against them or ill-feeeling if they are taught to aim high (higher than those children without their abilities) and achieve their full potential.

There are academic scholarships aplenty in the Independent sector as well as the odd day out/enrichment event for said scholars but probably only a minority of these children would be considered gifted.

There are huge steps towards 'inclusion' in the state sector that mean non-competitive sports days, no Father's Day cards etc. but I don't think not recognising gifted individuals is one of those steps. They are acknowledged which is a good first step it's just that what happens next can be seen as lacking.

A good school should have an intelligent (maybe even highly so ) G&T coordinator. The problem is that, as already mentioned, all the really clever individuals are off being brain surgeons.

yurtgirl dadatlarge is very rude and it is a taste of his own medicine.

It is ok then for him to be rude then and accuse people !!

"This is a very British thing, still trying to "make amends" for their old class system. I don't know any other country that worries about this. They accept that some children are clever, some very intelligent, some exceptionally intelligent. And there isn't any resentment against them or ill-feeeling if they are taught to aim high (higher than those children without their abilities) and achieve their full potential."

Try France . The school system is unashamedly communist. Anti-élitism would be huge progress!

the problem being really that gifted and talented children are not all represented within the top 5 percent! It is a big problem! The achievers are in the top 5 percent!

lijaco Yes! my ds was not a top achiever at primary but in the sixth form at A level his abilities have shown themselves more ,he has come into his own now.

"yurtgirl dadatlarge is very rude and it is a taste of his own medicine.

It is ok then for him to be rude then and accuse people !! "

Mummy, he started it!

How do I say this without sounding rude... but a certain level of maturity doesn't seem to be a pre-requisite for a teaching job either. OMG, it is like WAY bad!!! cuz any1 can join.

"The problem is that, as already mentioned, all the really clever individuals are off being brain surgeons. "
Some of the smartest and most interesting people I know are teachers. Unfortunately, it's apparent from these boards and elsewhere that atrocious spelling, ignorance about even basic grammar and the inability to string a sentence together aren't barriers to becoming a teacher. I've nieces and nephews who argue it's quite normal to use "you was", "them books" etc., because even their teachers talk that way. Inclusion?

But, yes, some of the best brains I know are teachers. And teaching is what I'd love to do myself. I haven't disclosed this before but I used to own a primary school many moons ago and I love teaching. It's not teachers I'm against, it's bad teachers.

"Try France. The school system is unashamedly communist. Anti-élitism would be huge progress! "
Yes, "class" is still a bit of a problem there too . Countries like India which have a more deep-rooted class/caste structure still "shamelessly" value academic ability and give awards for best performance in exams and coming first in the school/city/state. And soon they'll join the Chinese and others in providing the bulk of the world's intellectual capital. Good luck to them, they'll have deserved it for properly valuing their most able.

"the problem being really that gifted and talented children are not all represented within the top 5 percent! It is a big problem! The achievers are in the top 5 percent!"
That's the kind of basic ignorance that is rife. The programme is not for the top 5-10% based on achievement but based on ability. And such ignorance is actively peddled by those who know the facts but would portray G&T as designed for rich people. The misrepresentation is used to draw people to their cause of scrapping G&T altogether. If they were really interested in getting the right children into G&T - the most able ones including those whose "disadvantages" make them less easy to spot - they'd be proposing better selection rather than stopping the programme.

"A good school should have an intelligent (maybe even highly so smile) G&T coordinator."
OMG!!!! I can almost hears the screams for you to be guillotined. I would say that one quality that is indispensable to being a a G&T coordinator is commitment to the G&T program. If your personal beliefs are that G&T children are already advantaged and should be dropped a notch or two to fit in... then you're a crook and a fraud if you enrich yourself by getting paid for doing a job you're actively sabotaging.

DAL your response was a bit garbled but as some of it was undoubtedly aimed at me I will reply.

You are smart and thus seek out smart people to befriend. Some of the smartest people you know may well be teachers but I'm guessing that is a very small percentage of the teaching population.

'People that can do, people that can't teach' remember that old adage.

Satisfying the needs of a highly gifted child would I am sure require an intellectual input not normally required of a standard class teacher. Simply being committed to the G&T program is unlikely to be enough. One can read up on and attempt to get to grips with the various other SENs that children possess but you simply cannot feign intelligence.

Hey, I agree with you (and especially about me being smart )

When I retire I'm going to be a teacher.

I think on the whole I got a very good education in the Swedish comprehensive system: learning was encouraged, comparing yourself to others was not. Best of both worlds imo.

"One can read up on and attempt to get to grips with the various other SENs that children possess but you simply cannot feign intelligence."

If you think that you can read a few books and suddenly be able to teach kids with all SEN I suggest you get yourself down to the local SLD/PMLD school and figure out how to teach children who have no language, or who 'think' visually, or process the world via movement and guess what every child in the school does it differently - and their diagnosis tells you nothing.

That requires intellectual input.

Agree with hmc (no personal axe to grind either - fembear has identified me as G&T in 3 categories ).

Agree with cory too- nothing wrong with encouraging learning, don't think G&T is the way to go about it.

My point was really that one's own intellect is not compromised by endeavouring to teach children with SEN.

speaking personally, I have always found it far easier to teach dd who is gifted and very quick and understands my argument as well as I do (and has been known to pick holes in it) than to teach ds who struggles and does not necessarily understand what I'm trying to tell him

I admire anyone who can teach a range of children with varying SEN, that imo takes brains