should parents take some responsibilty

[mangochutney]

OK I was just thinking and wondered what people thought about the idea that gifted children (particularly in Primary schools and particularly in maths), are partly as advanced as they are because of parental input/encouragement and therefore it is perhaps unreasonable to expect schools to cater for that completely.

Children who are very creative or who have a large vocabulary and good grasp of language are usually this way because they have absorbed/aquired this knowledge from the environment (through day to day conversations/TV/books etc)and it is also much easier to cater for children gifted in Literacy without requiring a whole new syllabus/moving away from peers etc.

Maths however seems to me to be a different kettle of fish. Young children don't aquire terms such as "Multiplication" or "Square root" etc from their day to day environment and interactions - this is something they have been taught, arguably earlier than is necessary. Encouraging a healthy love of numbers is one thing, but I think it is a shame when there are so many other things to learn about before school, that some parents encourage more narrow interests and create this problem for their children and for teachers.

I'm not saying that all gifted children are a result of pushy parents, but they are definitely out there and don't do the cause any favours imo.

Anyone prepared to admit to being one?

It's in everyday life though, so can be hard to avoid.

"Most bright children will be fascinated by anything they are taught"

Not sure I agree with that either! I say that as both a teacher and a parent.

My DD1, had very particular interests. She's bright (but not gifted or anything), but had a fascination with clocks and washing machines. So she taught herself how to tell the O'clocks by 3, but absolutely would not draw a face or anything. Had no interest in that whatsoever. That's just a specific example - but she was very definite about her likes and dislikes at a very young age. Although I teach 'A' levels, I find that many of my students have very clear ideas about what they enjoy studying and what aspects of the course they do not.

Being bright does not mean that children no longer have likes and dislikes, and so long as they have likes and dislikes, then there will be somethings that they dislike being taught, so you can't just teach them 'anything'.

mango - my response was mainly addressed to your bits that do seem to equate "teaching" maths at home with hot-housing (""teaching" it early...serves to widen the gulf between kids who have been "hothoused"...") I would say that teaching and hothousing aren't the same - hot-housing has implications of pushiness, and stretching or even going beyond the child's inquisitiveness, enjoyment, and abilities. none of which are inherent to "teaching".

and I was also addressing your assumption that maths isn't a daily part of some households' interactions ("Young children don't aquire terms such as "Multiplication" or "Square root" etc from their day to day environment and interactions") You should come and spend a day or two at the hat-house .

Your point about responsibility wasn't something I particulary responded to - and, to an extent I kind of agree with you. Do I expect dds' school to "cater" for the fact that dds understand the basics of algebra before doing it at school? Well, yes and no. I don't expect the school to alter the curriculum and skip that lesson/take dds out of it - of course not - but I do expect it/the teachers to have sufficient flexibility and enthusiasm to keep the kids interested - but I expect that of the school for all its kids. and, on the other hand I expect dds to sit, listen, build on what they do know and behave. even if it's something they already know about (or think they do). If they don't and start playing up then I take at least part responsibility for that - and I would hope that dh and myself plus school can co-operate to sort that out. (btw I don;t think dds are G&T)

you are possibly right that there are some kids who really are "hot-housed" and whose parents are way too pushy and are always hassling school because their kids aren't being "stretched" and possibly do make unreasonable demands of their teachers. I guess I wanted to make the point that there are also plenty of people who "do" maths at home, whose kids have grasped/are interested in quite complex things - but who don't fit that hot-housing/pushy characterisation

mango - I think you're coming at this whole concept from your own background and interests - it seems perfectly normal and right to you that children pick up certain subjects "naturally" in their home environment, but "unnatural" that they should pick up others. I think that perhaps shows that you have a natural interest and flair for language and creativity, but find maths "alien" and not part of normal day-to-day life.

You simply need to expand your horizons a little to see that there are families (like Hatwoman and IOnly...) where maths is just as much part of the normal conversation as language etc are to other families. Conversely of course there are families where neither is much in evidence...

For others, it may be science - biology, physics, geology, etc are so much part of their knowledge and interests that "everyday" conversations will be about how plants grow, why the sun is hot, why hills come in different shapes... And parents who know about these things, and have a child who is interested, will end up explaining the concepts and using the proper scientific terms for things, long before these would be covered in the school curriculum.

I don't think parents should expect a school to be able to differentiate work to deal with this "detailed but patchy" knowledge all the time - but a decent teacher should be able to develop a child sideways if they already know a lot about a topic before the others have started it.

If a gifted child is bored at school it may be as much to do with the speed at which the curriculum is delivered as what the content is, so avoiding letting them learn about certain things before starting school wouldn't solve the problem.

AMumInScotland has said exactly what I was going to say.

ds has been fascinated by maths and science this past year (from looking at books) and so we talk a lot about them. And really, it's always seemed pointless to me not to give things proper names as well as simpler names so he can understand both whichever one he chooses to use.

Notice I said talk, he's never had to sit down with a pen and paper. We've looked in books to illustrate points brought up in conversation, but that's all. And yes such things as square root can come up in conversation, it's not work to ds, it's playing with numbers.

For us it's something we do like other children do arts and crafts, something which ds, so far in his 5 year life, it may change, could really not care less about despite my attempts over the years!

if someone has a truly mathematical brain it doesn't really matter what they have encountered and what they have not before they learn it formally at school they will still grasp the idea within minutes and be bored of the simple step-by-step approach and repetitive reinforcement required by most other children.

i speak from personal experience... i am not mathematically 'gifted' but i do have a maths degree and i was WELL ahead of all my peers up until the middle of university when i reached a kind of limit to my instinctive understanding and realised a phd wasn't for me.

anyway, as a young child i was fascinated by a calculator and would insist my parents told me what all the signs on it meant. i adored mathematical puzzles such as 'magic squares' and similar and i always wanted to work out genral rules for things rather than trial and error (basically doing algebra before i knew what algebra was) and my parents couldn't shelter me from geometry... it's everywhere!

basically even thoug my parents did not coach or hothouse me, when a new concept was introduced at school i'd grasp it immediately, rush through the worksheet or whatever then be bored out of my mind for the rest of the day... in my 'bog standard' state schools before g&t existed this was considered ok and i'd get library corner time while everyone else did the rest of the maths... it was fine by me too.. but i sometimes wonder what would have happened if i was stretched or set questions that i couldn't do or given anything i wasn't able to get 90-odd % in every time....

I remember my dad teaching my brothers and me to do sums in base 2 to keep us quiet on a long car journey!
He was not a pushy dad at all, clearly that was just the thing he managed to find that engaged our interest.
Love Snorkle's story about the fractions and 'I didn't know you could get sevenths!'

muminscotland - I like your reference to "detailed but patchy" knowledge. it's an accurate reflection of what goes on in our house and for me it contrasts with other references to "moving ahead" or "rushing/hurrying". anything that gets imparted to dds at home that they might not yet learn at school(whether maths or other stuff) isn't, in our minds, situated on some line of progression. or imparted with a view to advancing, reacher higher levels, getting somewhere quicker/sooner. it's just imparted because it's interesting and they can grasp it (and if they can't we just shut up).

and I have no doubt at all that when it comes to the more formal learning of a curriculum they will, as a result, have patches of knowledge but lots of gaps too - in quite irregular places.

and perhaps thats one of the differences between "hothousing" and teaching/learning for sheer interest.

Well if my ds1 learned his maths form me it's a fecking miracle. I simply answered his questions from day one, he was reading the Letts GCSE maths books in Waterstones while I looked at Ok and Hello magazines.

He is now 15 and super gifted at maths, feck all to do with me, lots to do with the child he was, he is gifted in all subjects as it happens.

I do know of one boy who has sat his Maths gcse prior to yr7 and got an A* - not sure what that means for him at secondary school and that certainly needed parental input, but he's a lovely lad and who is to say it is right or wrong?

I also have a 2 yr old son now who is extremely numerate already, I think it skips a generation to be honest

hatwoman - I think you're right. Parents who decide to "hothouse" their child (whether they think of it in those terms or not) will have a clear plan and probably a clear idea of structure and progression. The rest of us are just answering questions as they come up, picking up books which we think they'll find interesting, including the chidren in conversations about things. Which does lead to the "patchiness". I'd say that I have an equally patchy collection of knowledge about all sorts of subjects that I never actually studied but have "absorbed" as I've gone through life - some areas I found really interesting and have chosen to dig into properly, but most are just random snippets!

A pushy parent is the one who decides that the DC needs to be hothoused in maths-that is quite different from playing maths games with a DC who is fascinated by the subject.You can't hold back a gifted DC and I don't think you can make one, not long term.

Exactly!

However, I do agree with mangochutney that some children capable of more advanced work got there because of parental "pressure".

But it would be a mistake to assume that all such children were hot housed. And it would be a mistake to divert their learning attention into other areas just to avoid them getting too far ahead in their subject of expertise. If schools applied that "policy" to children like my DS and several others mentioned here, the DCs would have to study no maths for one-five years till the others caught up. That would cause immense harm to their learning and risk them losing all interest in the subject.

It's not easy differentiating to what extent a child's level of knowledge in a subject can be attributed to natural curiosity encouraged by parents and to what extent to arm twisting. Maybe schools should be guided by the level of interest these advanced students display in the subject.

With respect to mango's question about whether schools should be expected to cater to children starting significantly ahead of their peers: Some would argue that it depends on your political philosophy. If you believe schools are an extension of the state and an integral part of social services and their remit is not just education but narrowing the social divide/improving racial tolerance/providing indirect aid to some sections of society... then at an extreme there is the communist model. If you believe that schools are there just to educate and to cater for each child based on his or her ability and starting knowledge then there should be no disadvantage imposed on the children of involved (or pushy) parents: they should be allowed to capitalise on their fortunate (unfortunate) background. This is what happens in educationally competitive countries like India.

Our system tries for the middle-ground.

paisleyleaf, I saw that David Baddiel program ... and I don't agree with him. As a society we don't have reservations about telling children how pretty they look, how fast they run or how beautifully they sing. Why should we hold back from telling children how clever they are? Provided it's not overdone it's valid encouragement and helps maintain an interest in learning.

Amum, I think you made a really good point (your first post). I think discussions come up naturally in families dependent on the child's interests and what the parents are interested in too. I teach philosophy, so it not surprising that I discuss some philosophical issues with my five year old DD. Now to many people this wouldn't be everyday conversation, but as someone who questions everything (the nature of a philosopher!), my DD and I often have conversations about 'how do you know that' and 'do you really know... ' etc.

Kathy: 'If a gifted child is bored at school it may be as much to do with the speed at which the curriculum is delivered as what the content is'

That is SO true. It's like watching paint dry.

"mango - I think you're coming at this whole concept from your own background and interests"

I don't think I am. In fact I am speaking as someone who remembers getting quite excited by appied statistics! As a closet geek and someone who has a few "quite narrow" interests, one of my concerns is that I don't make the assumption that my children will automatically be interested in what I am interested in and fall in to the trap of living through them or making them into projects (must add very quickly that I'm not suggesting this applies to anyone here ).

I also think that children who are really five years ahead in any given subject are usually so self motivated to learn (if they have not been hothoused!) that they probably will spend ample time at home engaging in their hobby/passion and school might be better used to focus on other areas.

Sideways learning or enrichment in theory seems great - but whilst gifted children might be happy with this ime there seem to be a lot of parents for whom only progression upwards will do.

Are you saying that schools should not cater to gifted kids because some of them have been hothoused? But then what about the gifted kids who get absolutely nothing from home? There are plenty of them - their parents are just not on these boards. Sure some kids will have been hothoused - but school is the only learning resource for some kids.

Mangochutney, I have to say you are wrong about our brains being pre-programmed for language. Virtually every illiterate person on the planet knows how to calculate how much money is owed to them when buying/selling/trying to scrape a living as they would not be able to survive without this.

And as for if it is fair on the school. Well I'm sure that it has only been in recent decades that the government decided to define what should be learnt by the "average" student of school age. Prior to that the emphasis was on doing the best that you could, not dumbing down to conform with the masses.

DP and I are mathematically challenged so you can imagine our surprise when ds showed considerable promise in maths. Looks like dd is going down the same road. I couldn't nurture it if I tried. The wonder of genetics!!! I think I had an uncle who excelled in maths.

He is also very good with philosophy and this I do nurture but as far as I know they won't do SATs in this in yr 6.

If you're the sort of parent who hot-housed DC into being well above average, won't you also be the sort of parent to get tutors in, fork out for extra courses, make the sacrifices to send DC to private school, etc.?
So unrealistic expectations or demands of State schools would be least likely from pushy parents, no?

Speaking from personal experience, sideways enrichment is cr*p in practice, btw.

I'm definitely not a mathmo, but I don't think "multiplication" and "square root" are necessarily things that would never come up in conversation with a primary aged child. They really do ask all kinds of things!

From the other side - my grandfather was a maths teacher who did used to talk/teach/hothouse me - however you want to describe it! He bought me a calculator and then explained what all the buttons did. So I did have secondary level maths at primary school, but it didn't change the fact that it's not really what I'm good at. I was interested enough, but it didn't catch my imagination the way it would have done if I had had a real talent.

So - I'm not sure how much use "hot housing" is really - you can't make someone into something they're not. Brighter children will be well ahead of what's going on in class - just as well give them something to think about so they don't get bored and play up, I reckon!

So MangoChutney- what advice would you give to any music teacher trying to teach note lengths to a year 3 (basic fractions)? Don't bother you might upset the class teacher by covering fractions before he/she is ready?

Are you saying that schools should not cater to gifted kids because some of them have been hothoused?

I'm not saying schools shouldn't teach (and basic fractions at year 3 doesn't sound way out of the ordinairy); I guess it depends on your definition of "cater for". Children who get no or little input from home but who show enthusiasm or aptitude for a given subject should of course be "encouraged", as should any child; I do feel though that a child who has been "hothoused" or is so self motivated that they are gifted to the extent that they are several years ahead in a given subject, is probably less needy of a teachers time/resources than other children may be (or at least for that given subject). Again I guess it also depends on what you take as your measure of success.

I am not wrong about our brains being pre-programmed for language - there is lots and lots of evidence to support this, and the fact that virtually every illiterate person on the planet knows how to calculate how much money is owed to them when buying/selling/trying to scrape a living is very much because they have the language to bring meaning to the concepts of "money", "profit" "loss" etc.

peanutbutterkid - Ime if sideways extension has not worked it is usually down to uninspiring box ticking teachers and if teaching is "crp" then any extension is probably going to be "crp" irrespective of the direction of the learning!

And DAL, whilst I think it is very important to praise children I also diagree with children being called "clever" especially gifted kids who have perfectionist tendencies. Imo the danger is that this identity of "clever kid" can become an itegral part of a child's self image and linked to self esteem (particularly if coupled with copious praise). The danger here is that if that child then is challenged or makes mistakes they can start to see themselves as "not clever/stupid" and worthless leading to unhappiness or apathy. Better maybe to call actions rather than children clever - e.g. that was a really clever thing you did.

Our brains are also preprogrammed for maths, e.g.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7563265.stm

If not, how could we account for e.g. autistic ssavant skills? Number/counting ability is as innate as language. It is dissociable from logical reasoning, interestingly.

Maths is not an espeically learned skill any more than language.

I was 5 years ahead of my peers with no input from home - not sure I have the energy right now to get into that. But it can be a confusing and lonely experience without any external input. It has always seemed to me, that teachers basically cannot really understand this situation since frankly so few of them were ever even close to experiencing it for themselves.

Re the "you're so clever" thing - I think the point being made in the David Baddiel programme (mentioned above) was exactly that - children who are constantly told they are clever can start to associate that with approval, and therefore loss of apporoval if they do not excel at a particular thing. I think the researcher in question (American woman) had also decided that tell certain children how clever they are stopped them from trying their hardest, whereas telling children "well done, you really tried hard at that" had more consistent results. Not sure where I stand on it, to be honest. I do often tell my children "you're so clever" but also remember to praise them for their efforts, even when things don't go totally to plan.

Hate to admit it but I agree with DAL when he points out that we have no problem telling children "you're very pretty", "you're so graceful", "you're so fast" etc. I guess it's about balance.

gifted to the extent that they are several years ahead in a given subject, is probably less needy of a teachers time/resources than other children
mangochutney, some experts would say that it's precisely the children whose natural gifts place them several years ahead of their peers who are most likely to have special needs and for whom the average classroom is a very boring place. Unfortunately, it is precisely these children teachers have very little experience in dealing with.

I would disagree with you that it's only the parents who want upwards progress. The official recommendation to schools is that these gifted children should get extension (depth) but also enrichment (breadth) and acceleration that involves "pupils moving (further) ahead of their peers". In isolation, extension is used as a way of keeping children busy while the teacher gets on with teaching the rest of the class ...hence experiences like peanutbutterkid's.

While I see your point about children being called clever, I would disagree about the negative effects you claim. In fact, The Children's Plan specifically states that they need to take risks and make mistakes. Unhappiness doesn't necessarily follow from recognising the limitations of one's ability. These children would simply make academic self-worth adjustments. And they need to learn how to do that by hitting the extremes of their ability.