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!

.....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.....

DAL I disagree with you here. I see my dds teachers job as to do the best educationally for the "group" of children they are teaching - and of course some needs will always have to take priority over others, (helping my dd to understand this is part of her education imo - although don't confuse this with me wanting her to "fit in" - she is as proudly eccentric as they come!).

...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)......

You're assuming that a level 3 at KS1 etc "would" be the best for those at the "bottom" of the class - maybe they just take longer to reach the glass ceiling!?

I am guessing that most "gifted" children (if we take gifted to mean top 5/10%) do have proactive and enthusiastic parents. If we look at a more traditional definition of gifted then I think you have a point - although I think the G&T initiative is less about identifying this relatively small group of children , and much more about keeping a certain category of parents happy!

DAL the money can't all have been allocated -it's supposed to be for 2008-2011.

I worked out that it was the equivalent of £600 000 per school .

Mango - we are told by schools that their job is to help each child fulfil their own potential. Surely that doesn't mean reaching the group's potential but helping the individual child progress if that's what is needed even if it surpasses the average level for the group.

I don't think DAL meant that L3 at Ks1 would be best for those at the "bottom". Just that their aim may be out of reach at that point and so they were being extended by default.

Not all 'gifted' children will have proactive parents. I think DAL is asking how these children will be identified. If it takes proactive parents to enable a child to be able to show their abilities then the 'gifted' child without proactive parents won't have had the same opportunities to be able to display those abilities when required.

DAL I disagree with you here
Fair enough. My grouse with teachers (not all, but certainly a large majority) is that they neither know what's required of them wrt to G&T nor implement what they're being paid to do. They're working blind. Many of them don't even know their school's policy on G&T much less how to cater for the most gifted children ... or even the top 10%. I don't want them to spend more time teaching the gifted but to get more clued up about it. I want them to stop "avoiding" the placing of children on the Register and to stop working to "even" gifted children out to make life easier.

I am guessing that most "gifted" children (if we take gifted to mean top 5/10%) do have proactive and enthusiastic parents.
No, they don't. You're thinking like a teacher: "achievement" rather than "possible achievement". Gifted has always been about the top percent of intelligence/academic ability, and neither are the preserve of the middle classes.

juuule - of course schools will say they want each child to fulfil their potential - I just don't believe everything I'm told!! Very difficult to measure "potential" anyway (at what point would parents be satisfied their children are fully "extended" - work can always be harder!).

Rather than racing ahead on the clever table, I believe bright kids can benefit hugely from mixed ability group work/helping classmates (it's one thing knowing something and quite another skill to be able to communicate this knowledge).

I think the identification of bright children is probably well within the ability of most qualified teachers and still maintain that the labeling of a "bright" child as "gifted" sends out the wrong message to children and parents alike.

I believe bright kids can benefit hugely from mixed ability group work/helping classmates
The ones who benefit from that are the classmates.

The biggest study into what works for intelligent children in the classroom was done recently by EPPI, on behalf of the government. The study was commissioned because OFSTED reports were consistently showing how badly schools were failing gifted children.

The conclusions of the study:

• That differentiation etc is all very good but it's very dependent on how the teacher does it... and it's mostly not being done right
• That gifted children benefit from working in groups but don't really benefit much unless the group is comprised of similar ability peers (confirming numerous other studies on this)
• That a lot depends on the teacher, the teacher's ability to identify needs particular to each gifted child, the teacher's expertise with a lot of things related to dealing with gifted children etc., and we've already examined teachers' lack of incentive to do much here.

One fact can't be disputed: The system is failing gifted children badly, far more badly than it's failing any other single group.

I think it just depends on the school they go to. My dd had nobody in her primary school on the G&T register, yet some of the children in her secondary school, (different primary schools) are on it, and apparently are not that bright or have other special talents.

Do the schools get extra funding if children are G&T?

mango - "juuule - of course schools will say they want each child to fulfil their potential - I just don't believe everything I'm told!! "

No, neither do I. But I would prefer to be informed of the truth rather than strung along and having to second guess what's going on....or give up.

DAL I've read the EPPI report findings and what comes out is a big plus for personalised learning .

Your interpretation of the study is worrying however.

I would advise anyone who thinks that DAL is the voice of knowledge or reason in this area to read pages 10 and 11 of the study and draw their own conclusions.

Brilliant choice of pages, I just read them again. My summary of the entire two pages:

• differentiated provision is an effective approach (one size fits all isn't)
• out of those streaming, mixed ability provision and individual programmes work well (they provide a caveat on mixed ability: it relies on a particular classroom climate otherwise presumably it doesn't work)
• participation in special G&T classes or schools can lead to decline in academic self-concept (a good thing - gifted children learn that they are not "special" or "superior", that others are clever too)
• gifted children in groups of similar ability perform better than those in mixed ability
• also, social interactions within the group are a stronger predictor than ability of peers
• the vertical curriculum model - which groups pupils on their (ability) rather than age - offers significant increases in maths performance
• gifted pupils using self-directed, individualised maths instruction gain more than those who don't get it
• collaborative learning among G&T = superior performance in Information Tech (over those working alone)
• some G&T pupils in mixed groups performed as well as those in selective groups
• some G&T pupils react positively to working with less able peers, others don't (suggestion: the ones who like to dominate may work better in mixed groups)
• underachieving G&T pupils gain from being able to demonstrate and use their talents (including to their peers)
• allowing them these "structured interventions" can encourage reticent G&Ts to participate more fully
• points to third party studies that suggest that in order to fulfil their potential G&T pupils require advanced content/use of higher order thinking (though they don't directly conclude this themselves)
• G&T pupils tend to have better memory which could mean they fail to develop "a repertoire of conscious strategies"

Maybe my comprehension skills aren't that hot. thedolly, care to tell me where I've gone wrong?

........."gifted children benefit from working in groups but don't really benefit much unless the group is comprised of similar ability peers (confirming numerous other studies on this)"...........

• I guess it depends on what you are taking as your measure of "benefit" - If I was taking as a measure of success, just my individual dds SATS results then maybe so, but actually It's just as important to me how her whole year group do (and it is good for her to know this I think). Also just as important is how she behaves at school/how hard she tries (and this includes skills such as patience and friendliness not just with her academic work). I think that the importance of the message/values conveyed to children by mixed ability groups are often ovelooked.

Are there studies which show that children who struggle academically do "better" with similar ablilty peers?

Of course G&T kids will benefit from enrichment/extension/provision etc but then I would imagine most children would.

The idea that the system is failing gifted "children" more than it's failing any other single group is crazy imo - although agree it might be failing gifted childrens parents expectations.

And with regards to fulfilling potential - I still don't really see how this can be quantatively measured?!!

They really aren't that hot, nor is your ability of offer an unbiased summary.

They really aren't that hot, nor is your ability of offer an unbiased summary.

Care to elaborate where I went wrong, thedolly? Or is it just, like, a gut feeling?

I think that the importance of the message/values conveyed to children by mixed ability groups are often overlooked.
I've yet to find a study that suggests children need to be in mixed ability groups to best get these messages/values. That seems to be a common misconception around here in MN and the more it gets repeated the more people seem to believe it's true. I'd be glad for any link that makes this connection.

(The system is not failing gifted children more but) it might be failing gifted childrens parents expectations.
And the DCSF's expectations actually

Anyway, I'm going to be off for a few days. Anyone with any questions, get them in now. Especially welcome are questions from those who aren't convinced I'm "the voice of knowledge or reason in this area"

Do the schools get extra funding if children are G&T?
teamcullen, sorry, I missed that earlier. No, they don't get extra funding but they do have to show how they've catered for these children. G&T coordinators, like the one in your DD's primary school, are required to put the top few per cent of children on the Register but avoid doing so for various reasons including wanting to avoid the extra work and being ideologically opposed to calling intelligent children gifted.

so take a hypothetical child who has a particular gift for maths. Say that this hypothetical child has reached level 5 in year 2.

What should a primary school be doing to support and help that child?

(I apologize for hypothetical-izing your child, DAL, but it seems to me that maths is the most difficult subject to fit into extension work in a normal classroom. A child gifted at story writing, for example, could be writing a story at the same time as the others, but just at a much higher level, and a good teacher should have no problems helping and supporting the gift. A gifted 6 year old mathematician could be outstripping an average adult!)

Congrats, Juuule's boy! how wonderful.

I've no gifted children thus far or at least we haven't discovered their latent giftedness, err, erm, anyway

I was apparently gifted. Once. I was almost the eldest in the year. I'm sure it helped. lthough my clever friend Helen was one of the youngest.

I think they used to judge it on your age, rather than your year - so say they were testing your reading ability, it was measured as eg chronological age, 7.8 years, reading age, 12.3 years. That kind of thing.

I wonder why they don't do that now? Or do they - haven't read entire thread.

i don't think they had a 'register' back then either - they just all gossipped about you and made you tidy out the craft cupboard once you'd finished allllll the blardy workbooks for the term.

Apols tis Flight btw.

Thanks Holyshihtzu (Flight), I'll pass it on.

seeker, good question. The short answer is that I'd want the school to follow what's in the docs - the school's policy doc and the guidance from the LA and National Strategies.

Maths is a special case and it's more difficult, I feel, to cater for a child gifted in Maths than some other subjects, but I don't agree with you about the ease in supporting other gifts. If a teacher finds it easy she's not doing it correctly (bear in mind, we're talking "one or two in a lifetime cases").

Reaching L5 in Y2 is not itself a sign of any giftedness, the 6 year old girl could have been very heavily coached at home. I'd want the teacher to first contact the G&T coordinator and assess the child before putting her on the register. Assessment is important as her particular strengths and weaknesses don't come out in the course of the normal school day. I'd want the teacher to not rely on her own (lack of) expertise in teaching gifted children but to seek help from the G&T coordinator - that's what she's there for. I'd want the G&T coordinator to be up to date on G&T, attend the half-day/full-day courses provided (it's not compulsory and most G&T coords don't bother attending), read the information provided by NS, liaise with other schools in the area to develop peer-group opportunities, be familiar with the vast amount of resources made available for free to G&T coords - and use them. I'd want her to keep tabs on what the teacher is doing for the child and on the child's progress... basically I'd want her to do the job she's specifically getting extra money for. And I'd want the Head closely involved in monitoring that the G&T coordinator is doing what she should.

If I may return to the earlier suggestion by some that because the selection for G&T is skewed towards Autumn borns, G&T is unfair. As I pointed out, G&T isn't skewed towards Autumn borns - it's just that teachers are not applying the right identification. The DCSF has noticed this.

Gifted and Talented education: Guidance on addressing underachievement - planning a whole-school approach (pdf)

Among the reasons it gives for underachievement is that teachers are not applying the rules properly and are basing selection on achievement rather than ability (thus actually favouring hot-housed kids!) This results in summer born children being inadequately represented in G&T Registers (see page 6 & 7), results in summer born children underachieving ...and is something that needs to be corrected.

Surely being a summer born is an advantage for the g&t child.

The complaint by many is that summer borns are disadvantaged at school because of their young age and are often falling behind because they are not catered for and expected to do work at the same level of children born a year later.

Therefore a child born in summer who is working say 2 years in advance will already be catered for by being given work for the average for their age by a year. As most schools differentiate I would have thought by working in the top group/set they will be given work even further ahead, whereas a September child of the same level of intelligents for their age need to be stretched by 3 years within the same group to have their needs catered for IYSWIM
What I am trying to say is that a very bright summerborn is having part of their needs met already without doing anything. Becuase they are younger they may have social problems due to immaturity which need to be sorted out.

I have september borns and I find the biggest problem is my DS in particularly is very mature for his age both mental,physically and academically and although he is not 14 until next week and twice in the last few weeks he has been taken for a 16/17 year old. This caused a few problems in year 6 because he had outgrown alot of the silliness of the other boys, but once he joined secondary he has started to find his own niche ie teachers allowing him to join the 6th form engineering club when he was only yr8. He joined in backstage drama where he is allowed to do a lot of work that the 6th formers do.

I think a clearer way of describing it is,

Take two children child A born 31st August ,child B born a day later on 1st September, but have equal intelligence/giftedness.

A will be in say yr3 when B will be in Yr2. It seems to me that summer born A has the advantage not B the September born.