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?

DAL Not for the first time I disagree with the experts then . If a child's gift "is" natural and not as a result of hothousing then the likelihood is that the child is very self motivated and has a huge drive to aquire knowledge - I can't imagine why such children wouldn't be entirely happy being "kept busy" with sideways extension whilst the teacher helps others. The kids ime who get "bored" tend to be those who have been "spoonfed" at home to get ahead. These children accordingly are not as "self" motivated, can be very demanding of teacher attention, and get easily bored when they don't get it.

I think for naturally gifted kids it is also useful to see school (esp primary) as a place they can learn lots of other skills - some of which can be missing/lacking as a result of the child's natural inclination to spend time on their passions/interests.

I agree unhappiness doesn't necessarily follow from recognising the limitations of one's ability, however if the motivation behind a child achieving is to receive praise to boost their self esteem rather than for the love of the task itself (and there is a danger this can happen if they are called "clever" all the time), then it is the self image which is damaged rather than just the enjoyment in the work. I think maybe you are a bit optimistic about the ability of children (even gifted ones!) to make "self-worth adjustments"

"Our brains are also preprogrammed for maths, If not, how could we account for e.g. autistic ssavant skills?"

The mathamatical skills of autistic savants are due to abnormalities in the neurological wiring and so perhaps aren't a good example of "typical" brain programming. I accept the brain may be predisposed to recognise pattern and therefore very basic numerical understanding, but it is the unique way that humans aquire language that allows the brain to make any sense of this.

MangoChutney, Cr*p Teaching was not the problem with my sideways extension.

The sideways extentions programme offered to us in the Gifted Program didn't stretch or interest me particularly; it's not like we got to choose what to to do. Calligraphy was the only thing I remember enjoying, the rest added nothing to my development (weekly sessions in primary school over 4 years). Other than typing (I did not to learn to type properly until years later) and ?maybe? drama (I have no natural talent for), I can't remember whatever else we did for extension work.

Personally I would have been much better off being pushed in just the traditional areas (maths, science and English) rather than the 'sideways' work. Actually, I would have been massively better off if someone had recognised that I was underachieving in most areas because of bullying, but that's another story! Although it's quite relevant to the discussion, because those four miserable years rather destroyed my self-motivation for years after.

From what I can see of the sideways extension work being offered to DC just because they made it onto G&T list, it won't particularly stimulate or inspire them, either. At best it will be a fun change from the usual boring routines of their usual classroom. A bit like Brownies or Beavers, but cheaper and more convenient for me...

Fun games that involved lots of maths or literacy or science knowledge, now those things might indeed stimulate and inspire. Actually, I'd love the school to have a proper science club

The brain has a specific capacity for reconising quantities and counting - whne I get around toit I will try dig out the papers. Autistic savants are not perhaps the best example but they do show that strong mathematical ability can exist when language skills are compromised.

And language can only develop within a social learning context. Feral children without that context cannot develop normal human language. So it is very much learned, even though the capacity to learn is itself innate.

Mango and Dal each make good points IMO. I think some kind of ongoing project work for all kids that allows them to work to their natural abilities is a good thing. I also think it is very important that brighter kids explore, and become comfortable with, working at the limits of their abilities. It is hard to do that at home if you have no books or internet access and parents who are not interested in anything much.

Social learning is useful of course - but is sitting in a class of 20 kids during school really a good model for learning social behaviour?

''Fun games that involved lots of maths or literacy or science knowledge, now those things might indeed stimulate and inspire. Actually, I'd love the school to have a proper science club''

I would have loved that too Peanut.

My child has "the maths thing"

He is working 2 years above his year group,, which is a shame because socially and emotionally he could do with being 2 years below it.

I haven't pushed him. I'm ashamed actually to admit that his 3 year old brother can't count past 5.

he relentlessly demanded information until I gave it to him. What are you supposed to do? Say "No, I'm not telling you what 3 after 18 is, you're 3 years old and you don't need to know."??

All I ever did was answer his questions. It's genuinely not my fault he started school able to count backwards in twos from 20. He taught himself.

So should I take the blame? I didn't cause his mathematical brain, just like I didn't cause his probably Asperger's Syndrome. I have actually BANNED talk of numbers at the dinner table. What else should I do, lobotomise the boy?

"The kids ime who get "bored" tend to be those who have been "spoonfed" at home to get ahead."

That's rubbish IME.
DH (who is seriously bright) and I (who am not nearly as clever) were both bored to tears at school and were not spoonfed - it's just boring being forced to sit in a class listening to a teacher explaining at length something you've picked up in the first 20 seconds. If you were allowed to use the time to pursue your own interests or read ahead (as an intelligent child would generally like to do) it would not be boring, but teachers don't tend to take kindly to a child reading their own books in lesson time - they expect everyone to be on the right page and to be listening to them.

Dd has the maths thing - as did both her parents before her. She's not way out scary good at maths, but she has discovered that you can 'play' with numbers - add them forwards and backwards, mix them up etc. It just started one day out of the blue. She's delighted and amused. Isn't that how it should be? I noticed one of her best friends doing the same at the tea table (his father is also very mathsy). They start reception in Sep. Seems a shame that they will not be encouraged to do what comes so naturally to them when they start school.

You know those remarkably tedious TV documentaries that deliver information so slowly, with so much visual filler you feel you've slipped into a hole in the space-time continuum? Well whole school days can feel like that - as Kathy describes. That just can't be right, and I'm hoping things have moved on...........

If maths was purely learnt then why is it the building blocks of nature - fibonacci for example. Surely if maths is natural in the natural world then it should be an inate for it to be pre-programmed into our brains. If you're cr*p at maths its probably because you had a poor teacher!

So missmem, you're saying that everyone has a natural aptitude for maths, and that the only deciding factor in how well we all apply that is the maths teacher we had at school ??

My understanding is that, like language, everyone has a natural aptitude for maths - but the degree of that aptitude varies a great deal! Most people can count - even if they consider themselves otheriwse mathematically challenged.

A very long time ago I did some remedial maths teaching. Some kids definitley responded to the attention - there was nothin much wrong with their aptitude. But there was a lurking residual minority that really, relaly, couldn't get it. No matter how many times you tried to take 2 pencils/elephants from 8 pencils/elephants - it just didn't compute.

But then listen to the way some people use language - doesn't it make your ears hurt?

If a child's gift "is" natural and not as a result of hothousing then the likelihood is that the child is very self motivated and has a huge drive to aquire knowledge
mango, unfortunately teachers are wont to treat gifted children as a homogenous group whereas individual drive, self-motivation and interest vary widely even within a given area of strength. It is possible to have an exceptionally gifted pupil who is neither hard working nor self-motivated. In fact, sadly, teachers' lack of understanding and inability to cater properly for gifted children often causes these children to lose interest in the subject.

Which is related to what missmem said: if you're crap at maths it is likely/possibly because you had a crap teacher.

Mango, you may disagree with the experts but their view is shared by the DCSF, OFSTED and, it seems, by most of the posters in this thread. If the average child runs at 50 mpy in a subject and the gifted child runs at 100 mpy you can't after the first year expect the latter to stay entirely stationary for a year while the others catch up. You'll be doing her a severe disservice. When you do want her to start, the tyres will be flat as flat as the battery. She may still have a 6.0 litre engine but it would possibly have lost all interest in moving forward.

It's been proven that gifted children need to learn at an accelerated speed or they learn less well.

As Acinonyx points out, it is vital to let gifted children do the same thing that we allow other children to do - work to the limit of their abilities. It's also considered very important to let them work with similar ability peers (just like we do with other children), and the G&T program advocates this. Does such provision give them an academic advantage at the expense of the non-gifted? Sure, and that's often the political motivation behind holding gifted children back.

it is perhaps unreasonable to expect schools to cater for that completely.
Ultimately, it boils down to political ideology. The current government expects schools to cater for gifted children "completely" and describes in great detail what schools should do for them (much of which you would appear to disagree with). And that's from a left of centre party that treats teachers as part-time social workers. You would seem to prefer education moving a bit further left.

Firstly I do strongly believe that whilst poor teaching does not benefit any child, a truly gifted child will not lose interest in a subject just because of poor teaching ? Imo, unlike other children, gifted children do not rely to the same extent on external support and praise for their motivation ? this internal ?drive? and working for the love of the task itself is very much what defines them. It may be possible to have a ?bright child? who is neither hard working nor self-motivated (well within the capabilities of the average classroom teacher to deal with I would imagine), but not an exceptionally gifted pupil.

Again ime the level/difficulty of the learning is not as important as keeping a child stimulated (important for all children and if anything easier for gifted children due to their inherent love of all learning ? they really are the least likely to care ?what level they're on?).

The child who is gifted in maths will be one of three things ? Either they will be bright and fairly capable in which case it should not be difficult for a teacher to keep them stimulated/challenged without them having to move away from their peers for learning. Secondly they may be truly gifted, likely to be extremely self motivated and spend a lot of their free time indulging in their passion ? these children can be left alone to get on with it quite happily or (perhaps even better), could spend more time on areas they are not so strong at. The third group of children will be ahead of their peers due to parental input/hothousing but may require a lot more attention due to their tendency to get ?bored? partly as a result of ?spoonfeeding? at home. Would add though that crap teaching will result in bored children (of all abilities!)

Peanutbutterkid You said that you were made to do drama ?which you had no natural aptitude for? ? I think it especially important for gifted children to spend time doing subjects that do not come so easily to them. The fact some gifted children find this boring or difficult imo is usually linked to self esteem issues again ? If I can?t do it/I find it hard then I must be rubbish so I won?t try or I?ll say I?m bored. Poor teaching will always result in poor learning but I see no reason why sideways enrichment, if done properly, wouldn?t work.

"If the average child runs at 50 mpy in a subject and the gifted child runs at 100 mpy you can't after the first year expect the latter to stay entirely stationary for a year while the others catch up." ? Of course I am not suggesting gifted children be ignored, I just do not see the hurry to rush through the curriculum. I think one of the joys of a gifted child is the extra time you can spend exploring a particular theme or setting them interesting work which maybe falls outside of the curriculum. I also believe gifted children should be used to help and inspire others. Far from being a cop out, if done properly and sensitively this can benefit all parties ? it is one thing knowing a subject and quite another being able to explain it to another child ? this can also really help with social skills.

As Acinonyx points out, it is vital to let gifted children do the same thing that we allow other children to do - work to the limit of their abilities. ? Hmm very difficult I would say to define the ?limit of a child?s abilities? ? and ability at what ? just their specialist subject? I would say allowing them to do this at school is sometimes at the expense of letting them get further towards the limit of their abilities in other, just as important areas.

The current government expects schools to cater for gifted children "completely" and describes in great detail what schools should do for them (much of which you would appear to disagree with). I think the government is talking about bright children here not ?gifted? children and that many of the policies in place are there primarily to appeal to parents and ensure children aren?t lost to the private sector. I fundamentally disagree with the labelling of school children as ?gifted? anyway as I have said on other threads.

?You would seem to prefer education moving a bit further left? ? maybe I would! .

"a truly gifted child will not lose interest in a subject just because of poor teaching"
You "underestimate" poor teaching . To start with, the child will just be very bored in every (say) Maths lesson. Then he'll begin to hate maths lessons so much he'll want to avoid them. From there it's not far to him associating boredom / frustration with Maths. Take your favourite song, set it to repeat, turn the volume to full and leave it on ...for a few months. It won't be long before that's not your favourite song any more.

"It may be possible to have a ?bright child? who is neither hard working nor self-motivated ... but not an exceptionally gifted pupil."
May I ask where you got this from? It's just that from everything I've read what stands out is that not all gifted children are the same and not all possess every single giftedness indicator. Some gifted children, just like others, can be lazy. In fact, constant easy work in school can make them lazy. Also, sometimes social circumstances muddy the water.

But even the most self-motivated are reliant on the teacher teaching new concepts and providing the challenging material to work on.

I can agee with your categorisation of children with above average performance as gifted, bright and spoonfed, but your solution - leave the gifted alone to amuse themselves and give the bright some stimulating work to keep them out of the way - is exactly what is happening in many failing schools and exactly what schools are expected not to do. It's usual sidekick is called teaching to the test.

The goal of teaching gifted children rather than having them while their time away in the corner isn't to rush them through the curriculum, it's to keep them learning in all subjects including their subject of strength. In schools that cater well for gifted children teachers include substantial material from outside the curriculum. They'd have to.

I have nothing against gifted children being used to help others provided they are also getting what's to their main advantage: working with ability peers. I don't share your belief that giftedness goes hand-in-hand with poor social skills. You seem to have a stereotype of the gifted child and to believe they all fit that image.

Why should letting a gifted child work to the limit of their abilities in their specialist subject hold them back in other subjects? In the maths example, he's not going to be doing maths in Literacy lessons, is he?

''Firstly I do strongly believe....''

you can believe whatever you like but statements of personal belief have no plave in a debate intended to influence the opinions of others. How do you know this - is it from personal or professional experience, from published research...? Or is this you armchair opinion - as that's how it comes across?

"you can believe whatever you like but statements of personal belief have no plave in a debate intended to influence the opinions of others. How do you know this - is it from personal or professional experience, from published research...?

A bit of all three as it happens - although I don't see anyone else having to justify or reference their posts!? And my intention is not to influence the opinions of others in the slightest - I am completely comfortable being the only one holding this view - and I may well be!

back to the debate though - I have acknowledged all along that poor teaching in schools will lead to bored children (of all abilities) but I would be surprised if this alone led to an "exceptionally" gifted child losing interest in a subject. The exceptionally gifted children I have met have been pretty much ?self taught? and often verging on obsessive about their area of ?expertise?. If you substitute ?gifted? for bright ? which is what the government really mean if we?re honest then maybe you have a point.

My original question was whether it is unfair to expect schools to cater for children who are working at a level above there peers "solely" as a result of parental pushing/hothousing ? also could pushing these kids when the motivation does not come from the children themselves lead to failure later on/self esteem issues?

I do have problems with extra provision for bright children above and beyond sideways extension partly because I don?t really see the rush to get further ahead (and become less able to work alongside peers), so long as the child is stimulated and happy ? again ensuring this is the case takes a good teacher.

I have not said all gifted children will have poor social skills but I implied some will because some do ? It is well documented that many of the traits of highly gifted children have similarities with those of children with autistic spectrum disorders (esp high functioning). It has been suggested that the way these childrens brains process information can also lead to difficulties with social interaction.

I don?t particularly like G&T programmes which enable certain children to go on outings/trips or engage in activities that could be enjoyed by all the class ? I also worry about what message this sends out to the ?sorry but you?re not gifted? children who are less academically able but may be trying twice as hard ? where are the ?look how much we value you? special programmes for them?

"poor teaching in schools will lead to bored children (of all abilities) but I would be surprised if this alone led to an "exceptionally" gifted child losing interest in a subject."

I have known an example of this. The child was put off Maths by poor (nay: antagonistic) teaching. Because the child was multi-gifted, like many G&T, it moved its interest to different subjects.

But how would a teacher ever know if a kid was hot-housed?

I have known an example of this.
I know an example or two myself. Sorry mango, but your guesses and gut feeling don't match the facts on the ground. And if you do have published research like you say, it would be useful if you provided some links to it.

I don't support sacrificing teaching of academic subjects so gifted children can be helped with social skills instead. That's simply awful for the many gifted children who need no help with social skills.

My original question was whether it is unfair to expect schools to cater for children who are working at a level above there peers "solely" as a result of parental pushing/hothousing
I'm uncomfortable with individual teachers making value judgements and rationing their teaching based on some wild guess of who is spending time with their children, how much of time they're spending and what subject they are spending it in. Teachers should stick to helping every child strive for excellence as explained in their job description.

I think where this really falls down is in the assumption that 'gifted' kids are hothoused. But lets assume for arguments sake that ALL gifted kids are hothoused.

How much unput should parents have in their dcs education? If dcs are struggling - is it OK for tyhose dcs to be improved by the equuivalent of hothousing in order to bring them into line with class averages? If so, then the problem is entirely about disrupting classroom averages and you are saying that parents have a duty to the state to ensure that they do not push thier dcs beyond the average attainment expected in the average classroom.

Now I actually accept some of that as a logistical reality - but it is an absolute nonsense wrt educational standards. Basically, you can encorouge and tutor your dcs as much as you like/can - as long as you don't push them ahead of the mean - because that's cheating and inconvenient.

Not that I actually support hothousing for kids of any ability.

My other beef, is this business of gifted kids being necessarily by definition fantastically self motivated and incapable of boredom. Why should that be the case - that just comes from nowhere.

As for g & T programs - that's another matter. I'm very unsure about that and tend to think the labelling and catogorising is unhelpful. But that isn't the focus of this particular thread.

Sorry about my fantastically gifted spelling .....

Mangochutney said:
"I don?t particularly like G&T programmes which enable certain children to go on outings/trips or engage in activities that could be enjoyed by all the class ? I also worry about what message this sends out to the ?sorry but you?re not gifted? children who are less academically able but may be trying twice as hard ? where are the ?look how much we value you? special programmes for them?"

I agree with you fully there, Mangochutney.

It's impossible to accurately & consistently distinguish children who are only 'ahead' academically because of hothousing, as opposed to children who are ahead with (or inspite of a lack of) 'ordinary' good parental support & encouragement.

But Suppose you could distinguish: what do you say to the hothousers? "Your children aren't genuinely bright, so we aren't going to treat them as such" or "Only bright children with sh't parents get extra attention in our school", "We don't care about extending your children because you've already taught them too much at home"? It's a non-starter.