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'm not talking about L3 and L2 but about GCSE grades - does that help?

My boring/bored thing was in an effort to illustrate the difference between your DD(good social skills - not so bored) and your DS (not such good social skills - bored) just in case you missed that.

Really interesting to see that apparently no child (even a g&t one) should get bored at school because of all the interesting projects they do weather diaries, botswanna and the like

Sorry but in my and ds experience of various primary schools that is utter poppycock

Well mine weren't [has very dull children emoticon].

And anyway, now I come to think of it, what's wrong with being a bit bored sometimes? Not all the time, of course, but sometimes?

""

Seems like a good thing to do at this stage, I've made my points.

"I've made my points"

And completely refused to listen to anyone else's. Or to accept anyone else's experience as valid.

DAL I have a dd who is very bright and I really do not expect her education to be fully catered for by our small local primary. Yes she does get bored in lessons from time to time but we have discussed this with her and are taking advantage of her intelligence and creativity to allow her to find ways to deal with this. Because we have worked hard at her social skills she understands that a teacher who has other children to deal with and help will not appreciate dd saying she is bored. DD has found she gets much better results when she expresses this as enthusiasm (e.g. Mrs X I found that really interesting how would it work if I did a different way, or would I be able to do this?). Rather than feeling criticised and pestered by her parents for "extension" work or "stretching", dds teachers enjoy her positive feedback and say that she is a delight to have in class and will often inspire other children.

I do have some sympathy with the "only boring people are bored" school of thought and think that bright children have even less excuse. We are very keen to show dd how to take ownership of her learning (which will stand her in better stead than if we fight her battles for her). We also tell her that it is partly her responsibility to make sure she is making the best use of the time she is at school.

I have nothing against G&T although do think the use of the word "gifted" is unfortunate. Truly gifted children (and as others have said DAL I suspect your ds falls into this catagory), have either had extensive "support" from parents from an early age (making it harder for school to cater for them)or are truly self motivated to learn - meaning they are probably the one group of children requiring the least support from schools.

I definitely think more children are being "failed" at the other end of the spectrum and that this should remailn the priority but I guess this also reflects my political/ideological beliefs.

DadAtLarge-
love your discription of your DS's Maths classes this term! DD has a certificate for her 2x 5x & 10x tables this term (one of only 4 given in a class of 30). The fact that she knew them all 3 years ago seems to make no difference, she has still had to copy them out 5 times per day, 5 days per week for a whole term!
But others here would prefer to think that these children are bored for only a small portion of the day
Off to try to work out how many bored to tears literacy & numeracy lessons seeker would be happy for her DC's to tolerate before they completely lost their love of both subjects!
It doesn't matter how much effort you put in outside of school, if this is what the child has to put up with in the day even the most enthusiastic children will start hating these subjects!

Two points. NO child, of whatever ability should be copying out tables 5 times every day for a term. Nothing to do with G and T - that's just crap teaching. why is ANY child doing this - and why hasn't anybody told the teacher to stop? It certainly wouldn't happen in our pretty bog standard primary school.

But if for whatever bizarre reason they are asked to do this odd thing, I would expect the copying out to take my ds about 15 minutes. I could cope with my ds doing something boring for 15 minutes a day!

Sorry, I meant I would expect my ds to cope with doing something boring for about 15 minutes a day.

And completely refused to listen to anyone else's. Or to accept anyone else's experience as valid.
seeker, I'll go back through the thread and take some tips from you: for example, your gracious acceptance that the stats proves only the inadequacy of the teachers' ability to identify not, as you've been arguing, inherent unfairness in the G&T selection criteria.

mangochutney, boredom apart, would you agree that there is a glass ceiling - a ceiling of L3 at KS1, L5 at KS2 and A* at GCSE? Would you also agree that teachers have incentive to keep on the back burner any child who reaches those goals early so they can concentrate on the "slow learners" and push the stats up?

Now this is good for the slow learners, all the extra attention helps them move up a grade. But it's extremely damaging to many of the more intelligent children to suddenly stop them learning or dramatically slowing the pace. And, whatever your political ideology, surely you support this being corrected if it doesn't detract from any SEN work or adversely affect the "slow learners". And, to a large extent, it can be done within existing resources.

My argument hasn't been that no child should ever be bored in the class. That's a deceptive tactic used to trivialise the issue. seeker isn't the first to play that game and she won't be the last. And while she may argue that others don't consider her experiences valid, she refuses to accept the experience of others as valid: that extreme boredom does happen, that it affects a lot of children and that it causes extreme damage.

But the big issue isn't even the boredom. I don't want the most intelligent children in the country just kept from being bored, I want a lot more for them including for them to strive to reach their personal best. And that can't be done without

1. Teachers knowing their job including what their employers expect of them wrt G&T
2. Teachers getting more formal training and refreshers on the catering for intelligent children and what works best for them - sometimes it takes just a small change in existing practice
3. Teachers doing more than RTFM but actually implementing it and using the G&T resources provided
4. Teacher assessment (and remuneration/retraining) being expanded from "how many did they get into a certain achievement band" to how they provided across the board for all children (including how they implemented the Classroom Quality Standards for G&T)

I don't know how you think it works DAL. There is no glass ceiling beyond that imposed by bored students who choose to be disruptive rather than advocate for themselves. Teachers are not mind readers.
There is no conspiracy theory.

If you really want to improve the opportunities given to the brightest minds try, coming at it from the stance of what is best for all pupils. The provision of education is constantly evolving and can always be improved upon. All children need to be allowed the opportunity to reach their personal best.

G&T is a red herring (and a ton of red tape too).

The more I read of DALs posts the more I agree with a lot of what he says.

However, I'm not convinced that the G&T system is the answer. I think smaller more manageable classes and a means to remove disruptive pupils would be better. Alongside more personal learning programmes for each child according to ability.
But I reckon that would cost oodles so can't see it happening.

If you really want to improve the opportunities given to the brightest minds try, coming at it from the stance of what is best for all pupils.
You mean like my point #4 above?

juule, you may disagree with me on G&T but at least you offer some suggestions for an alternative. I'd certainly subscribe to catering for each child according to ability.

There are a people here with various (and sometimes questionable motives) who scream for the abolition of G&T for no reason other than their ideological conviction that clever children have enough of an advantage in life. Because they include teachers and parents of non G&T children they constitute a huge - and vocal - majority.

Suggestions for alternatives are great, at least it gets the focus on how we can cater for the brightest pupils. But may I ask what specifically about the G&T convinces you it's not the answer?

Do you mean like this juule:

£1.6 billion over 3 years invested in 'personalised' learning and special needs-

"The pedagogy of personalisation is distinguished by the way it expects all children and young people to reach or exceed national expectations, to fulfil their early promise and develop latent potential. Planning for progression and differentiation are fundamental. High expectations of progress apply equally to children and young people working above, at, or below age-related expectations, including those who have been identified as having special educational needs. There is an expectation of participation, fulfilment and success; and teaching and learning is characterised by ambitious objectives, challenging personal targets, rapid intervention to keep pupils on trajectory and rigorous assessment to check and maintain pupil progress. There are clear plans to support those who are struggling to maintain trajectory. "

from the DCSF website

Seems like a lot of money to me

I think that G&T doesn't always pick up the more able children. I think some children hide their light under a bushel so to speak and keep their heads down so they fit in with peers. I think some children don't want to be singled out or take up offered opportunities that their perceived less able friends don't have access to. I agree with you that the G&T provision isn't consistent and in a lot of cases is just given lip-service. I think it's selective in that some of it (courses etc on the ygt site)cost quite a bit so exclude those whose parents cannot or won't pay.

If every child (regardless of ability) was able to have a personalised learning plan, reviewed regularly and updated to suit them and the staff ratios were there to support this fully then I would consider that a better option.

As I said in my last post, Dolly, a lot of it is just lip-service. They talk the talk but the system is too stretched and not much is being done about disruption leaving a lo of teachers stressed and under pressure so with little room for manouevre for the individual. Or at least that's how it appears to me.

a lot

Dolly, you might find this interesting

article in TES

"It has been hailed as the centrepiece of the Government?s education reforms and the key plank in a Pounds 1.6 billion investment programme, but five years after the term ?personalised learning? was first used, it has reached the end of its useful life. No one, it seems, can agree on what it means."

"Professor Hargreaves, a former chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), added: ?It?s outlived its usefulness. I wish the department would simply drop the term.?"

Doesn't sound encouraging, does it? And even though the article claims that teachers do this anyway, I would say they can only do it within the constraints of the environment they work in.

So juuule, you like the idea of a personal learning plan, I like the idea and there is money out there. As usual, assessment seems to be the easiest part of the plan to implement and I suspect the introduction of APPs comes under the 'personalised learning' umbrella (I may be wrong).

So what would you do with the money? It has certainly got me thinking .

So juuule, you like the idea of a personal learning plan, I like the idea and there is money out there. As usual, assessment seems to be the easiest part of the plan to implement and I suspect the introduction of APPs comes under the 'personalised learning' umbrella (I may be wrong).

So what would you do with the money? It has certainly got me thinking .

mangochutney, boredom apart, would you agree that there is a glass ceiling - a ceiling of L3 at KS1, L5 at KS2 and A* at GCSE? Would you also agree that teachers have incentive to keep on the back burner any child who reaches those goals early so they can concentrate on the "slow learners" and push the stats up?

DAL yes I do agree that there is a glass ceiling in terms of SATS results at KS1 etc but I do not think this is the same as saying there is a glass ceiling to learning (we focus very little on results in this house!), and I do still feel that the majority of very bright children with proactive and enthusiastic parents really have no reason to be unmanageably bored at school. Of course it about box ticking to a degree but showing dd how to get the most out of the education system she finds herself in is probably going to be more productive than making enemies of her teachers by insisting she takes up more of their already too thinly spread time.

The problem with G&T imo is that it is grossly divisive and I think sends out completely the wrong message to a huge group of children who are being told they are "not gifted or talented"....NICE!! Also when you say "slow learners", I assume you are talking about maths/literacy rather than "learning" to share/draw/sing/ride a bike!!

too add to previous thread I am not disputing the need to cater for very bright children (although do think this is not the greatest priority in education) but just that I think the labels aren't helpful. It would be lovely to think of all children completely fulfilling their potential in all areas of education academic and otherwise, but not only is this not very realistic, I'm also not sure how good a preparation this would be for the real world where it is sometimes quite useful to be able to tolerate boredom, and ones individual wants and needs are not always put first!

thedolly - I'm not sure what I would do with the money. I'd have to think more about that.

Seems like a lot of money to me
1.6 billion is a lot of money, the bulk of which goes to SEN. About 0.007% of that went towards G&T (I've provided links in some of my other posts on MN); admin and creating the resources ate up most of that 10 million. The amount per identified gifted child in 2007-08 was £7. That works out to about 90 pence per G&T child per year. But even 90 pence isn't a fixed allocation. Unlike with SEN where there are all kinds of fixed allocations, earmarked funds, ring-fenced spending etc., there is no requirement on any LA or school to spend even £0.01 on gifted children. They can spend their entire personalisation budget on SEN. Bear in mind that this is in addition to the SEN budget.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, that'll get everyone up in arms about how important SEN is. I'm simply pointing out what happens in the field.

What would you do with that 90 pence per child per year, thedolly?

mangochutney, yes, sadly, you'd make enemies of her teachers if you required them to do their job properly. Whatever you do at home and whatever you teach DD about "fitting in" at school, teachers have three responsibilities to gifted children:
Enrichment - going outside the usual limits of a topic, including open-ended project work
Extension - to develop higher order thinking skills, autonomy with work and self-discipline
Acceleration - having children do higher level work either with older children or peers of similar ability
It's teachers' job to cater to children based on needs and ability, not cater for the brighter ones less just because they happen to be scoring higher on the mock SATs.

I do still feel that the majority of very bright children with proactive and enthusiastic parents really have no reason to be unmanageably bored at school
I don't agree, and lack of boredom doesn't mean they're achieving their best (a target that seems to apply only to those at the bottom of the class). But, a question for you: what about the gifted children who don't have proactive and enthusiastic parents?

One of the primary purposes of the G&T is to identify these children so they can be properly catered for.