Help me prove/disprove my theory please!

[pugsandseals]

If you have a G&T registered child, when is their birthday? I have a theory that the younger ones are less likely to be picked as they have to prove they are 2 years (not 1) ahead of their peers to be considered?
Thoughts please!

I wouldn't worry about children being on the list unless the school has a really good G&T programme, many do nothing except compile the required list.

Our secondary has taken DD out of school to a science challenge once and she is going into year 11. When we first heard of G&T I read that it was a tracking system to see if the kids that showed potential at 11 fulfilled it. i.e gained 3 A's at A level, or had the school let them down. Then it started in primary and infants.

The only real advantage of DD being identified imo is that she is aiming to get the 3 A's and go into higher education, whereas she might not have aimed so high. The disadvantage is that she doesn't put enough work in as she thinks she will sail through it now!

franklymydear, No it's not simply 'top 10% at any school'. The guidelines say about 10% of students at a school should be G&T, but it's not necessarily the top achievers at all. They are supposed to identify underachievers with potential as well as talented students in various different areas too.

In the document I linked to before, chapter 9 starting on page 90 looks at exactly this issue. 23,267 students were identified as G&T and were in the top 10% of high attaining pupils (top 10% of SATS results), a further 40,721 students were identified as G&T who were not in the high attaining group. Furthermore there were also 20,305 students who were in the top 10% of high achievers (not far off half the high achievers) who were not identified as G&T.

I think one of the reasons DS was included in g&t was because of his CAT scores which are age adjusted.

What's a CAT score?

Ours were based on CAT scores but I wasn't aware they were age adjusted.

the guidelines say about 10% which incorporates academic, art, music, sport - it's still a line drawn though isn't it? After this point this child can't be classified as the appalling term of "Gifted and Talented" because we already have filled the year quota.

it is such a rubbish, nonsensical, pointless pathetic programme of crap politics - sits there next to the accountants SATS in determining a school's success - extended curriculum? opportunities? education? music not needed in primary, art not needed in primary, drama not needed in primary arrrghhh

Cognative Ability Tests. From what I can gather they are Verbal, Non Verbal and Quantative reasoning tests and test innate ability.

10% is a guideline, some schools id more and some less. It's not a hard cutoff line because a) It can be done on a whole variety of measures not just achievement scores (including teacher or parent recomendation) so quite a range of abilities might be included and b) more can be added.

I'd agree it's a bit rubbish though. Although I daresay most of the very few truely gifted are probably id'd there's going to be loads of others on the list who are in reality no better than their peers who miss out. However since the provision for all of them is so scant in any case (did I read an average of £7 per child per year?) I don't think it's worth getting stressed about.

Most secondary schools do CAT tests soon after entrance into year 7.

Results are used to predict individual GCSE results, which are used for setting, also looked at along with SAT's results and teachers observations to compile the G&T register. That how it worked in DD's school.

"Firstly it is the top 10% in the year. What happens to the 11th percentile or the 12th?"
Actually, schools are left to define how they filter for G&T. Some set it at 1%, some set it at three years above peers. You need to read each school's policy - it is not 10% across the board.

With respect the 89th percentile (which is what I assume you mean) - that's a wider discussion. The topic here is how age affects chances of being put on the register. What a lot of people get hung up about is the terminology. If it was called the Finding Talent Club then people wouldn't be so antagonistic about it and G&T could go about its job of filtering the children already on the Register to find the really gifted. It's the (mistaken) association of G&T with genius, and the reference to G&T children as "gifted" - when 50% of the overall school population may be more able than G&T children from some schools - that don't serve it well.

G&T is simply a first step to identifying and catering for the smartest among the smart. And it was instituted because A) the State system wanted to attract more of the bright ones who were disappearing into the private sector on scholarships and B) because these bright sparks weren't being picked up and encouraged in a state system where teachers are judged by how many get the minimum grade in SATS.

"G&T is the biggest pile of rubbish ever."
"It's a load of bollocks, I agree."
"tosh tosh and thrice tosh"

It's strange how almost every thread in G&T descends into comments like these. They aren't normally accompanied by constructive suggestions on what we can replace G&T with in our pursuit of identifying and encouraging the most intelligent children. Perhaps the intention of some posters is to deningrate the scheme because of their ideological opposition to any specialist catering for a section of pupils who they feel are already advantaged. The criticism is sometimes driven by envy, sometime by ignorance of what G&T is meant to achieve (rather than what actually happens on the ground), sometimes by the belief that their own jobs would be easier without G&T and sometimes in the conviction that their own non-G&T children would be better off if G&T were disbanded. There are numerous groups who stand to gain by attacking it (or believe they gain in some way). In the long run they all ...lose.

But this thread is about month of birth affecting inclusion on the register. As I've pointed out before it shouldn't make the slightest difference if teachers are doing what they should be doing and filtering based on ability. The stats are proof that they are not (because teachers either can't do it or can't be bothered to do it). My suggestion is that teachers be given more training in the identification of "gifted" children, that regular reviews are made - by OFSTED or some other body - into how schools are identifying children for the Register and that G&T forms an integral part of teacher training and assessment.

Dadatlarge, I agree with you in lots of ways. I don't normally join in these discussions as I have limited knowledge but I could answer this one about summer borns.

Going off topic and the reason I said it was bollocks is because the register exists at our school but in 4 years, DD has attended one extra activity. So I wonder what the point is for the pupil.

The activity she did was at a large uni and I must say it inspired her to want to go.

abouteve, then, with respect, it's implementation at the local level of your school that's, as you put it, bollocks. And yours isn't the only school that failing to meet its obligations in this regard.

I'm all for encouraging schools to meet their commitments under the program, helping them when we can, pointing out when they haven't and filling in the feedback form OFSTED inspectors provide parents at inspections.

You're very honest in admitting you don't know much about the programme. Unfortunately, a lot of the vitriol around here is from people who don't know the first thing about it but think they do. Sadly, that includes a lot of teachers.

If anyone has taken the trouble to read up about it - I mean from source documents, not venom on MN - then I'm happy to hear their considered criticisms and their suggestions for a replacement programme. In the meanwhile maybe, just maybe, the thread will get back on course to month of birth.

The activity she did was at a large uni and I must say it inspired her to want to go.
Brilliant, I'm glad for her. There will be others here who resent that she got sent on any extra activity at all, but I'm hoping they won't derail the discussion on DOB influence by telling us why it's so unfair your daughter got "special treatment".

extension work and activities within class and as homework by ability and interest within each topic covered

threads are not linear we don't have to 'stick to the initial topic'

source documents are not as important to me as implementation. I am pleasantly surprised to find one poster who believes the implementation works anywhere and would like to hear more about this

I agree with you that implementation is bad in many schools though there have been several reports here of people being happy with their local implementation (and I'm working with DS's school to bring them up to scratch).

source documents are not as important to me as implementation
Ah, so when you say it's "its all a pile of tosh" you're talking about your local implementation rather than the G&T programme itself?

I am genuinely of the belief that if there are any resources available they should go to helping the most disadvantaged/least able to achieve as much as possible. I am not saying that there shouldn't be provision for the other end of the spectrum as well, but the bulk of the resources surely must go towards helping those who, without additional targeted help, won't be able to access the curriculum at any meaningful level,and who will go on to be unable to contribute to society. This is vital both for the individual child and for the ultimate good of society.

No, I think the concept of identifying a percentage of children as G&T is extremely flawed and a political salve.

As I see it the main problem currently is that not enough money actually gets spent on activities to help the children because there are
a) far too many children & not all that much money.
b) too much money wasted on monitoring, bureaucracy etc.

If we follow DaL's advice & spend even more money on training teachers in identification & more money on reviews then I don't think we'll get more resources for the kids themselves. I particularly think worrying that precise identification may be a waste of time as you can never really prove if you've got it right or not (OK, so a child might not go on to achieve highly, but was that becasue they weren't really G&T to start with or because the interventions weren't right for them?). I suspect you could spend lots of time & effort on complex identification and still end up with a very imperfect system. The more you spend on identification schemes the less there is to actually do anything, so I'd argue that what money there is should be spent mainly on activities for the children - either a small-scale activities for a large number of children (as at present) or larger interventions for a small number of children for whom school isn't working or a combination of the two.

snorkle/seeker, the discussion of more resources is a later one. At the moment there are a lot of resources available that the teachers don't use - trust me, there's tons, and tons - even without calling in third party sites or even ygt.dcsf.gov.uk - and many teachers don't even know they exist despite the DCSF harping on about it. The G&T coord at DS's school had never been to their website ... ever!

Identification is just part of the story. Training and teacher assessment shouldn't stop there. Assessment/normal inspections should include how they've used the resources, what they've done for the more intelligent children etc, and any pupil assessment/SATs replacement shouldn't have an upper limit on achievement (presently, Y2 maxes out at Level 3, Y6 at L5!).

I didn't advocate spending more money on teachers or taking money away from SEN. I've never suggested that. In any thread. Though a lot of people have accused me of it. Sure, it's emotive and a teacher or two has tried to paint me as an SEN funds stealer - great rabble rousing but not factual.

My suggestion was to modify the existing training. Teacher attitudes need to be changed and that can start only with a wider assessment of their performance to properly include what they did for the more intelligent. That can be done within existing budgets.

I think the concept of identifying a percentage of children as G&T is extremely flawed
What's very clear - and there's tons of proof about - is that we are failing the most intelligent children. Badly. And if anyone has a better idea than identifying them and using existing resources effectively as a first step (i.e. G&T), then by all means let's hear your suggestions.

Why is it so important to identify them?

And i wasn't talking about SEN when I said that resources and effort should be focussed on the lower achieving end of the spectrum. I was talking about NT children who are, for whatever reason, underachieving. SEN provision is an entirely different topic.

Hold on a minute-
DadatLarge, did you say that not even G&T kids are allowed past level 3 (KS1) or level 5 (KS2)?
I was under the impression they went onto a different scale- if they don't then whats the point of identifying any of them?

No problem at all with using existing on-line resources better (offline ones will cost extra). Training usually does cost, but if it can be done within existing training schemes then fair enough.

I agree wholeheartedly with changing the curriculum to challenge the more able (maybe not do away with ceilings completely, but certainly raise them) and reverse the current trend of grade inflation. IMO this is pretty much the only thing that will force schools to challenge the more able, especially if the numbers achieving the higher levels can be incorporated into the wretched league table system somehow. I suspect most if not all of the top 10% are underchallenged in some way or other at the moment.

ds1 is july but we ae in Scotland and age-wise he is in the middle .

"And if anyone has a better idea than identifying them and using existing resources effectively as a first step (i.e. G&T), then by all means let's hear your suggestions."

extension work

said it before say it again

a class teacher notes a child's ability in a subject / range of subjects and provides vertical and horizontal extension work

it's called "Every Child Matters"

no, pugsandseals - they are on the same scale. It's not all about SATS, you know!

extension work
That's funny

The full name for Every Child Matters, as far as most schools are concerned, is that Every Child Matters Unless They Are Very Intelligent In Which Case They Still Matter But Matter A Lot Less. It's not how they plan it, it's just the way it turns out.

pugsandseals, that's right, there's a glass ceiling. If you're Y2 then the highest you get - officially - is L3 even if you can work at L5/6 level. There is no official measurement of achievement beyond what is prescribed as the normal range for the age and therefore no incentive for teachers to let the brighter kids progress at a pace that's right for them. Teachers seem to think that "extending them sideways" - otherwise called letting them tread water while the others catch up - is sufficient. Many teachers are oblivious to all the studies which show that these children need to learn (new things) and at an accelerated rate or they learn less well than other children and (tend to) get distracted, lose interest, get disruptive.

With our DS (was six years old, L5), I discussed this sideways extension in some detail with the school and had a look at the work. I didn't approve of most of the "sideways extension" I saw. Also, sideways isn't enough. I'm not saying that pushing them far up the curriculum is the solution either. While these children need to keep learning we need to recognise the dead-end problem and I don't want DS to take GCSEs at 8/9. What would he then do in Years 5 and 6? I've made some recommendations which the school liked and accepted. They included teaching of concepts, mathematical techniques etc., that are outside of the curriculum and I'm helping the school put this together.

DS may be a bit more ahead than some of the other intelligent children in the school but the same principles apply to all - they've been learning at a certain rate to get to where they are now and it's simply unfair to suddenly put a brake to that. In DS's case he simply loves maths but school maths was pure torture and making him very miserable. His story is repeated thousands of times across the country. It's very sad.

The natural way things settle in a class involves kids averaging out. Which is a good thing for the slower ones but not a good thing for the brightest children. That's why report after review after enquiry shows schools failing (particularly) these children.