Tell me about the 10%

[Honeybarbara]

I am curious about the concept of G&T=top 10%of a given class or year group.

Does this mean the top overall 10%. ie the best all-rounders, or does the list comprise the top 10% in maths, plus the top 10% in reading or writing, plus the most talented artists and musicians etc, thereby resulting in a larger list than 10% of the cohort?

It's bollocks if you ask me, the top 10% won't necessarily be the same top 10% if they are moved to a different school. IIRC, it's the top 10% of that subject.

so 30% or more of a class could be on the register?

It depends on the size of the school, if there's 100 children then 10 would be G&T for art, 10 for maths etc so probably yes, 30%+ of a class could be on the register. All it means is that the children are 'good' at that subject, sometimes they are taken out of class to do additional work that 'stretches' them a bit more. It's all a farce if you ask me, about 8 years ago the father of a bright girl tried to sue the LEA in order to make them fund a private school on account that there were no provisions for bright children in the state sector, the government responded by saying that all state schools had the facilities to cope with any child, even the bright ones so the father lost the case, then the G&T policy was set up. They were also a little pissed off at the parents of bright children who could afford a private education moving their children as the SATS results suffered (this is my theory)

My son is very bright, he picks things up the first time and runs with them IYKWIM, he's hard to teach as he picks up a new concept within a few seconds and finishes his work within 10 minutes, meaning he often has naff all to to. He's years ahead because of this but he's still left doing nothing or given tasks like collecting books just to pass the time. It's a badly thought out policy designed to get the LEA's out of a hole. They are trying to show that the one size fits all policy works when very clearly it doesn't.

At least shows they are trying. I think it's better to educate clever children with only other clever children in clever children schools from age 4 or 5 as we did with ours and that seems to work fairly well. My brother and sister are doing the same with their children. I am fairly sure that most children at places like North London Collegiate where my daughter went (she's now a student) at junior and senior level will all be G&T in the state's terms because of the academic selection at entry and the huge numbrs who don't pass the entrance tests (as indeed a competitive state grammars in the few areas with them) and may be that's a better way. If the whole class has a simialr IQ and all races ahead and feeds off ideas from each other it's a nicer enviornment for the bright to be in so the solution is women to get high paid jobs so they can buy these kinds of education for their clever children.

Research (don't ask me what though) states that it's better to educate bright children with children who are not at this level because it helps the children who are not as bright improve, it probably does naff all for the bright ones though.

The 'women to get high paid jobs so they can buy these infs of education for their clever children' is a whole new argument though, I can't see this happening myself when we live in a country still working it's way out of 1960s male focused ethics, it's 2010 and women are still not valued equally, how many fathers do you know who take time off work to care for a sick child?

But if you earn a lot you can pay for a nanny surely or have an au pair? Au pairs are not that expensive once you're above minimum wage levels. My 5 children have hardly ever been sick anyway but if you're in a marriage where you earn a large multiple more than your husband it's pretty clear which of you will take time off if you cannot find other childcare and a child is off sick school and we are talking here about age 5 - 11 or 12 so it's not a huge period in your life anyway.

I certainily don't feel inclined to help those with less clever children by allowing mine to be set back to be in mixed ability primary or secondary classes so that something from mine rubs off on the others. No parent unless they were very very left wing would want to do that.

Xenia - you never fail to raise a smile. In some ways you are quite right but not all women can or will "get well paid jobs". I am lucky enough to have a reasonably well paid job and had my ex stuck around we could have afforded private education for our DS. As it is ex left and to care for DS I need to work less hours and hence earn less money. Not tio mention that my DS is deemed to have high functioning autism so no private school would touch him - or if they did it would cost me far more in one to one support that he currently receives in the state sector. One size doen't fit all unfortunately....and if my DS is ever sick I would rather care for him as opposed to leavuing him in the care of a nanny or au-pair. Different strokes etc.......

Xenia at least you are consistent .

I actually think that having me at home with the children means that they are able to be influenced by me which helps their development.

I am not very very left wing, but do believe in mixed ability classes.

(On the subject of G&T I think it is all a bit naff really. Some children really are G&T in some areas. Some children are a bit ahead of others in some areas. Setting a figure to be G&T always seems a bit odd to me).

I was G and T coordinator in a secondary school before having DC. We used to get the top 10% of the school using their CATs scores and then as teachers, parents and children to nominate anyone else. We tried to be as wide-reaching as possible. There was money available from the government that was there to enrich and deepen the educational experience of those in the school who needed extension.

G and T children have very specific characteristics, like BelleDeChocolate's DS it sounds like, so you could call it a special educational need, in which case, if we didn't cater for them, we would be guilty of neglecting their needs as learners, which was exactly the scenario my job was meant to prevent

But they had to set a figure for G&T.

Originally G&T was narrowly defined. And a very large percentage of schools said "we don't have any kids that clever. Nothing to see here. Move along."
So the Govt had to say "yes you do have clever kids. In fact we are going to define G&T as your top 10% so you can't deny they exist"
So now we have the vast improvement where schools have to register their 10% and put them on a list ... and then do nothing with them.

Xenia- there's far, far more to school surely than meeting the same as you. I'd hate it if my child only met that.
On the OP though each school has to nominate 10% on the register, but how the school determine that 10% is up to them as G&T covers everything from academic to sport to leadership skills. So I think you may be wrong Belledechoc in saying 30% could be registered. In our school the criteria is if a child is outstanding in one or more areas of school life, so it's not necessarily academic, but about them as rounded people. The idea of identifying them is to make sure they're stretched so those abilities grow. The register's reassessed twice a year, so those on it can change. Personally I'd hate it if it only for the most academic, though it's a shame they have to choose some kids over others.

But even in the kinds of schools my children were ilke Habs you still had different sets. It was just that all the children were in the top 10%. There is a big difference between the top 10% and top 1% even so they did get to meet children of different abilities and of course out of school too but in the class just like in a comp where subjects are set at secondary level as they mostly are, they are with clever other children so they can spark ideas off each other.

Anyway I think it's pretty clear that if you cream off the brighest 10% at age 5 into different schools those children do much better in later life and as our own moral imperative is to help our own child even if that means other children don't get that benefit, whether the benefit be good food, love, being read to or whatever, then it behoves parents to pick the best school for the child and not worry about some supposed moral good whereby their very bright one benefits those with low IQ who happen to be in the same class.

Xenia, pointless to argue really, but just quickly I'd say my child can easily benefit from even the child with the very lowest IQ, as everyone has something to offer and sparking off one another isn't just to do with intelligence levels.

• they do stream in primaries, so the children mostly work with kids of the same level as themselves anyway.

Having experienced the shiteness of the school system in the UK as both a parent and a very bored child, I'll say it depends on the school. The right one can nurture any child, a teacher with fire and passion for their job can do wonders. Sadly, not all schools are like this. Even a child with the lowest IQ has something that will benefit the class, they all have talents in one area, even if they don't know it. It is wrong however, to place a very gifted child in a class where he/she stands out like a sore thumb as the only result from this is bullying. I would like my son educated with other children who are like him, where he is safe to read outside without having the book snatched from him and thrown over a fence, where he can play chess without having his head smashed against a filing cabinet. Streaming doesn't work, they always stand out.

So Xenia's (and obviousy many others) children are going to schools that only take the top 10%.

When I was a student, only the top 10% got in to university.

I got in, and I went to a low-achieving Primary School.

So being in the "top 10%" does not make you particularly special, needing an entirely different type of education.

As you say Belle, it depends on the school. No way would any of that happen at my child's school. Your poor son.

When I went to university in 1977 15% of people went and one third only got a 2/1 or higher so I was I suppose in that 5% and my 150 odd mensa score and current earnings level etc may be all come back to the same thing. But that same thing might just be having clever parents, good genes and a reasonably supportive school and my being the oldest child.

If you are quite clever then as I remember from my own very small girls' private school full of rather thick girls it can be quite isolating. I had my essays read out to the class as examples. I had not one single person in class to talk about the subject with. Obviously it was better than being in a rough comp but I still think a slightly bigger school with more children like me would have helped and indeed has helped my own children and their cousins - all 9 cousins are in good academic private schools doing pretty well (except my older 3 who are now beyond school age).

There are plenty of schools like the Belle one. Even just getting my boys to sing a Dvorak mass recently - they are practising - I feel they could not so easily do that even in a mixed private school because choir is seen as a girlie thing. Strip out all girls and just have boys and then boys will take part.

Comps stream and indeed so do very academic private schools. My oldest was in the 5th of 5 sets of maths and still got an A and that was the right set for her in that subject. But the whole ethos of the school was 100% go to the very best universities, everyone is clever so the herd mentality which is what most teenagers follow sadly once parents lose their influence needs to be the kind of herd you want for them given most are weak. It's a rare child who makes it through against the odds to something better from a school where most leave at 16 or else get a hairdressing degree from middlesex poly.

Mixed ability is a total logistical nightmare for a teacher and 20/30 children. It benefits nobody. The less bright get left behind if you pitch it to the more able, and start messing about because they don't get it, and the brighter ones start messing about if you pitch it to the less able. You cannot possibly provide differentiated work for everyone in the class so it makes sense to set students thoughtfully, taking account of the fact that different students are good at different things. The difference between the most intelligent and the least intelligent, for want of much better descriptors!, is vast.

Incidentally, more creative subjects work in a mixed ability environment.