Specialist 'Gifted' schools...do they exist?

[sleepingcat]

Having read a few US forums it would seem that the Americans have schools specifically for their gifted kids. Entry tends to be by either assessment or IQ testing.

Do such schools exist in the UK? I assume that Grammar schools are the closest thing we can get to a 'gifted' school, but what about at primary level?

Some schools in the UK seem to be members of the NAGC but that just seems to involve paying a yearly membership and using the NAGC logo on their websites!

Are there any schools (private or state) in the UK which specialise in teaching gifted kids at primary level?

Love the idea of enhanced language provision piffle, but for maybe top 10-30% rather than the tiny minority. It's shameful how badly languages are prioritised in our nations schools imo.

ZZZenAgain, you may have a point in that children highly stimulated outside of school may have a higher bar in the class. If teachers set work with that in mind there'd be a hue and cry about entrenching advantage. Though I don't see why teachers shouldn't just cater to each child depending on that child's needs.

seeker, the plural of anecdote is tons of research and reviews on how schools are catering for the more intelligent children. If individual teachers are all so great at catering for them then why the dismal national level picture?

I've got several links, reports and stats I could provide to demonstrate just how we are failing our most intelligent (from all sections of society).

But this summary of the government's own review into G&T says: Many state schools are unwilling to identify gifted and talented pupils for fear of being seen as "elitist".

Fear of being elitist doesn't stop at lack of identification. Read the whole report if you have the time.

Census figures, OFSTED reports, international competitions (in maths and other subjects) and various other data suggest that though most of us believe that teachers work very hard... they are not showing the results they should with the gifted.

"Another bitter irony is that she has been turned down for a statement because she is doing so well "
Disgusting! Didn't realise that getting a statement relied so much on grades. Surely a physical disability is a physical disability irrespective of the child's academic performance?

I have to say I do find the difference between maintained and independent sectors very striking in some respects.

For example, I went to two primary school Sports Days recently. The independent school (non-selective, indeed a large SN cohort) had the children running proper races and it was clear they had been taught a lot about proper athletics and had developed their running technique nicely, including the pubescent girls who traditionally avoid such activities, and the SN kids. I was pleased at how inclusive it was, despite looking like something out of a 1950s school story.

The maintained school Sports Day was somewhat anarchic, and the races were mainly of the obstacle race type, with children engaging haphazardly in random teamwork-based challenges, so of which were a bit silly (eg all standing still with bean bags on heads).

My question is what on earth is wrong with learning to run fast and throw things well? What they inadvertently ended up with at the maintained school was the naturally talented looking as athletically superior as ever, but the other children being deprived of the opportunity to really improve their skills. If the bar had been a little higher, and the necessary tuition provided, they may all just have pleasantly surprised themselves IMO.

For me this is something of a indicator for what's happening in the classroom. I think our education system is neither fish nor fowl at the moment. It produces largely self-orientated, individualistic workers, despite everyone's best efforts, yet the academic standards are a bit questionable some of the time (especially knowledge of the lingua franca and many aspects of numeracy).

This serves all our children poorly and the struggles of the highly intelligent are just one indicator of how the current system is badly adapted to the requirements of wider society. We have tried to tweak a Victorian model designed to train factory workers, instead of thinking the whole system through from the bottom up.

DAL - in response to "why do you think that learning how to socialise, how to listen to other's viewpoints, how to compromise etc., are qualities he'd get less of if he most of his peers were bright?"

I have observed that very many (young) bright children want to dominate the group that they are in and share what they know with others. I am not saying that all bright children do this and others do not, but as a generalisation, I think bright children do it more. I also think (again as a generalisation) that such children can be impatient with children who do not learn at the same rate as them and infact slightly dismissive. These are not traits I want to see further developed in my child. I want my son to understand that he is lucky to be bright and he should have patience, empathy and tolerance for people who learn at different rates. He should also learn that people are to be valued for different things, not just accademic prowess and that there are many things which it is possible to excel at which he does not. There is time enough to focus on the accademic when he is older, for now I would rather he focus on learning about people and how to interact with diverse range of them. I do not say that he could not do this in an accademically selective school, but I suspect it would be more difficult.

Goosey, this is why I like comprehensive schooling. I see the results of too much selectivity in Cambridge interviews and it's not always a pretty sight, nor do they always get in. Arrogancve and impatience with others are unattractive traits.

"such children can be impatient with children who do not learn at the same rate as them and infact slightly dismissive."
It is entirely your prerogative as a parent to guide your child to not develop certain traits. While empathy and tolerance are fine qualities to have and respect for others to be encouraged, I think the emphasis on learning to interact with a diverse range of individuals is a bit overdone.

It's not a skill that's as critical to future success in every walk of life as is made out to be. Sure, if you're going to be a floor supervisor in a Ford plant then you're likely to deal with a range of people of different abilities and talents. If you become a teacher you will be dealing with children from different backgrounds and different strengths.

But there is a place in this world for individuals who don't suffer fools gladly and who make it clear they don't, for individuals who set very high standards for themselves, colleagues and employees. These people are more likely to be the ones who command our armed forces, captain our industries, generate our wealth, reach the top of their professions.

And we may not be producing enough of them.

A professor I know researches bacteria that clean up oil spills. He has managed major contributions to environmental protection because, as he says, he works with a very intelligent bunch of people. Is he unable to talk to the checkout assistant at Tesco, the receptionist at the surgery or the mechanic who services his car? Of course not but he may not choose to socialise with them, and there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't reduce his overall happiness.

Recognition of one's strengths and the preferring the company of similar ability individuals is not a bad thing.

If some children are impatient with others who don't learn at the same rate as them then the answer should be to put them with children who learn at their rate rather than dumbing them down so they can appreciate that others are slower. We don't do that in the 100m dash, why do we do it in the class?

"But there is a place in this world for individuals who don't suffer fools gladly and who make it clear they don't, for individuals who set very high standards for themselves, colleagues and employees."

There's a name for these people but it's unprintable here.

They've had many names over the years: Winston Churchill, Bernard Shaw, Margaret Thatcher, Steven Spielberg, Stuart Rose...

In fact, does anyone suffer fools gladly?:

"I live in hope of reading someday an obituary that says: "He was wise and talented, greatly accomplished, and much admired, above all for his ability to suffer fools gladly.""

BTW, I forgot to say, your last but one post was a great post, BoffinMum.

Thanks DAL.

But in response to your post, the inability to converse on any other topic other than work is sadly evident at too many formal halls. There is one particular biologist we all make the new people sit next to, because nobody ever survives more than one evening next to him/her droning on about the worms he/she researches. That's naughty of us, I know, but says a lot about why it's vital to Have A Life and probably also a laugh in the process.

That made me smile DAL.

I am all for setting high standards.

I just object to people who base themselves and others purely on achievement/ability. I have met many of them and they come across as arrogant and rude. I have a very peculiar job and am near the top of my niche profession. Outside of work I like to blend into the background. It is always amazing how people's attitude towards me changes once they find out what I do. It's like I'm suddenly worth their time.

Teaching children empathy, patience and tolerance for others is, in my view, a good thing. The earlier it is inculcated the more likey it is to become second nature. These things are not being taught at the expense of pride and ambition.

I agree that children should have the opportunity to work at the same pace as others who are similar. I do not see it as dumbing them down when they are made to work with people of differing ability. There is a place for both.

I've attended a couple of high table meals. I would see an ability to converse on any topic as something rather essential to surviving the experience tbh. And am busy trying to work out who the worm person might be -
I have some suspicions....

kittybrown - I have experienced the same - the change in attitude once academic qualifications are discovered. Personally I find it revolting. Couldn't think of anything worse than being in a room full of people who think they're too good to be friends with mechanics or receptionists

BoffinMum, the inability to converse on more than one topic isn't confined to the highly intelligent who weren't allowed to "mix with all types" in primary. I know car buffs who can talk on little other than cars, teachers who always talk shop and an Arsenal fan who... you get the picture. As you say, it's about having a life.

Back to GooseyLoosey's post...

I'm sure Steven Hawkings would have trouble having an extended conversation with his cleaning lady about Eastenders and Big Brother. Why is it even important that he can?

Highly intelligent children, like others, need to respect people from different backgrounds and different abilities. But you don't necessarily need to give up working with your peers just to learn how to talk with these people. Talking with them comes naturally. Socialising with them as an adult is probably something you won't choose to do anyway.

I don't see the need to choose a mixed ability school over an academic one just so you can learn to mix. In fact, you probably need more practice mixing with, relating to and dealing with people of your own ability because that's what you'll likely be doing a lot of as an adult.

"kittybrown - I have experienced the same - the change in attitude once academic qualifications are discovered. Personally I find it revolting. Couldn't think of anything worse than being in a room full of people who think they're too good to be friends with mechanics or receptionists"
It's evolutionary to pick people on your wavelength to be friends with. If the mechanic or receptionist is less likely to be in your book club or join you for a trip to the theatre or share your other interests then you're less likely to take their phone number at a party. It's a simple as that. It works in reverse too. If some people think they are "too good" to mix with receptionists and mechanics, do those receptionists and mechanics think they are "too bad" when they consciously avoid the company of doctors and professors who are discussing boring things like the Gaza strip, quantatative easing and the schism in the church?

There are academically selective prep schools - my DCs attend them. It is quite normal for these sorts of schools to select following structured play sessions and a short interview at the age of 3.

All methods of selection are fallible and will miss slow/late developers. Or even children who are having a bad day. It's just a fact of academic selection at that sort of age.

If you are talking stellar - really stellar - as opposed to bright, I don't believe the education system caters for them fully or adequately. As indeed, why should it? It seeks to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

There are problems with even the level that my DCs will achieve. The school accelerates them through the curriculum to a particular pace and then they just stall. Do a couple of extra GCSEs to mark time, sorta thing. Must be extremely difficult for the uber-bright.

You live in the strangest world DAL. Thank goodness my qualifications haven't ghettoised me in the way you describe. I couldn't think of anything more dull than the limited social circle you describe.