Can 10% of kids really be gifted?

[minimathsmouse]

Before you all jump on me, let me just say my kid's bright too, but I am not going to go into that.

How many parents of G&T children really beleive that the top 10% are truely gifted?

Are you concerned that this scheme is driven by socio/political targets rather than a genuine desire to educate great minds for the future?

I have been studying the guidelines and targets given to the lead G&T teachers. Makes very interesting reading. I work in schools teaching maths and I can assure you that the top 10% are not exceptionally gifted and a school may be lucky enough have one truely gifted child.

My real question is this, should we label children and distinguish them from their peers? Or should we set/group children at an earlier age so that all children irrespective of ability receive teaching that suits their ability and learning style.

From a personal point of view I am concerned about over testing and lack of provision in my son's school.Equally so It concerns me that any child should be singled out or made to feel pressured to perform. Education should equip children to think and encourage creativity but even the brightest minds are subject to a reliance on plugging in facts/skills and over testing. Will we end up with neurotic adults! Many teachers are not happy with the work G&T generates for them. Many teachers do not beleive in the scheme. Whilst many teachers are inclined towards social models of equality they are intelligent enough to know the books are being cooked! As a middle class parent you may do more harm than good, persuing G&T status. Was it intended to pick out the most able or intended to propel disadvantaged children up the social ladder!

I live in Wales and we don't have G&T.

Which means that the bottom 10% do get additional support, so that they are able to achieve their potential and also so that the class teacher doesn't have to spend so much time worrying about them and can target her lessons to the "average" child.

However if you are at the top end you get no additional support, and often end up bored and coasting. Some teachers (DS1 had a very good one last year) do differentiate and set harder work for more able pupils, but they are definitely a minority.

In an ideal world all children would be taught at a level which corresponded to their ability, and I think G&T was partly designed to address this. Which would make it a good thing.

10% of children are more able than the other 90%. End of.

Glad to see Lovecheese has excellent maths!
One might also be able to state that 10% make up the least able, this leaves the 80% in the middle. Are 80% of children of average ability? It might also be useful to quantify what is average. This will differ dependning on the overall cohort within the school.

So in areas of high deprivation the top ten percent may well be working at less than the average attainment from children in a small village school.

I think it depends on how the school does it. In dd's schools g&t has been very low key: facilities are there to be used if the child wants to, but they don't make a huge song and dance out of it.

It's like SATS, it can put huge and unnecessary pressure on children, but it doesn't have to.

I get fed up of having to repeat this.

"Many teachers do not beleive in the scheme" ... and there is the problem.
The Government wanted to stop middle-class families leaving the State system for the Independent sector so it decided to introduce a system to recognise G&Tness. Many teachers got round it by saying that they didn't have any G&T students (because they like to use the 'once in a generation' definition). The Govt then said that G&T was the top 10% of any school - prescisely so that teachers couldn't deny that they had such a cohort.
Also, when G&T was first introduced it did have a very narrow band (2% IIRC) but that was too narrow and implied that those chosen were in the 'so bright that they are a wierdo' category. Widening to 10% made it more inclusive and therefore more politically and socially acceptable. It helps Comprehensive schools stay comprehensive because the most able are the ones who can most easily jump ship.

So, in summary: yes 10% are Gifted because that is the current definition of Giftedness. You might as well ask 'are 50% of people above mean-average?'

Dds school don't stick to the 10%. There is a club run by the secondary school for high achievers in maths and they send 9 children (where the top 10% would be 5). A recent literacy scheme was similar. Its done by the child rather than the numbers.

By the Gov top 10% theory , the top 10% in a school for children with SLD/PMLD should have a G & T group too.

" 'gifted' in its true sense means something very different."

Hmm, everybody has their own definition, that's half the problem. I agree with you about nomenclature: if they called it the '10% cohort' then it would stop all these irrelevant arguments which cloud the real issues.

I disagree about defining it as the 'high acheivers' cohort' though. It should, early on, be based on potential, not acheivement. Later on, it could mutate into the '10% and they can be bothered to apply it' cohort. True genius is as much about hard work as it is about aptitude

10% and can't be bothered in some cases. I was v lazy at school but still achieved good grades & and trying to encourage dd1 to actually do something more than bare minimum is a challenge as I want her to actually achieve her potential rather than drop out like I did.

That's why I said the younger ones should be based on potential, nymphadora, precisely to catch the likes of your DD.
I'm not sure when you give up on the 'cba' cohort. Post GCSE, maybe?

The trouble is the government has taken a word for it's own use and redefined it. Most people understand gifted in terms of Einstein type figures. "Gifted and talented" should be renamed "more able than average"

onebadbaby - absolutely; Just found out my DD2 is on the "Hallowed Register" but I would not call her gifted; "more able than average" would suit me just fine. I know that there will be some kids who are truly gifted ie one in a million, but the vast majority can't be, can they?

It was at A-levels I started to drop out. I didn't need to work for GCSEs and I did ok not working at A-level but should have worked harder. There would have been a backlash if I had been pushed though. I never went as far as Uni partly on a CBA strategy

I believe in broadening as well as challenging and I probably would have reacted better to that. dd1 certainly does. She is learning two instruments this year. Her extended maths groups works on those grounds too, lots of practical challenges.

I think that you prove my point, nympha. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind and it is preferable if good-but-lazy kids learn the hard truth in sixthform, when they are at home with the parents. Better than finding out at University, away from home and thousands of pounds in debt for a degree that they never finished.

Helyg,I think Wales does have a g+t register doesn't it? My nephew is in Cardiff and he was put on it for one of his subjects.I am not far from you,but my dd is only just starting full time school so I'm not sure what happens here in West Wales?

Oh, I'm such a pedant. But I've been driven to look up 'gifted' both online and in my 1991 Collins (British) English dictionary. Collins gives:

"having or showing natural talent or aptitude: a gifted musician, a gifted performance".

Online dictionary definitions of 'gifted' include: "having special ability in a particular subject or activity", "clever, or having a special ability" and "having a natural ability to do one or more things extremely well".

People so often say on here, "That's not what 'gifted means." But my dictionary doesn't say 'an incredibly unusual ability' or 'a once in a generation level of intelligence' or 'like Einstein'. It just says 'showing natural aptitude'. So on a school register it would be the 10% showing the most aptitude.

For what it's worth, I think 'Able' would go down better in this country; in the US and Australia, 'gifted' is used in schools without any of this chest-beating angst.

Look at it another way. Are 10% of adults gifted? I don't think so!

But 105 of adults probably have 'natural talent or aptitude' for something. So in a strict sense, according to some dictionary definitions, they are .

Loving the typo there! Yes what makes this so ridiculous is the lumping together into "gifted" or not. Some kids are brilliant at maths and science but only so so at arts and humanities, and vice versa. Some excel at music but are crap at sport. Etc.

Helly perhaps it depends on age? I work in Education within the Foundation Stage, and all three of my DC are still in Foundation too and there is no provision there. Maybe there is in KS2 onwards.

Doesn't matter whether those 10% are genuinely G&T or not IME because it has only ever been a box ticking exercise.

I have a son who was labelled as G&T in Science, Geography and Maths. He isn't remotely gifted at Science or Geography but he is at Maths.
The label was all he ever got though. Nothing else. No differentiation, no extra coaching and in spite of even offering to mark extra work myself no additional work.

Mmm, yes, the 105 adults, not including me...

Waves hello to Helyg across the mountains-I don't know what foundation stage is,or KS2 for that matter,I am a bit clueless still about School as although my daughter is five she is only just doing full days this week.(half-wit mother emoticon needed).My nephew is 10,and at a state school in Cardiff.
My dds teacher did mention that she was way above average for her age at her assessment and that this would be flagged as they have an obligation to ensure that brighter children are kept stimulated.I think the whole G+T thing is just semantics really,surely its just a label for the top 10% in any given subject,just as the bottom 10% will be noted and hopefully given extra help and support?
My daughter is certainly a bright child,but she is not a genius or a child prodigy and nor is my nephew.
now I'm off for my own G+T.With lemon.yum.

I'm a teacher and my DD was also on the G&T register.

I don't for a second think that she is amazingly bright or anything. I know that now, she is ahead of a lot of her peers, but this might well change as she grows up.

I agree with the previous posters who say that the problem is with the name - that seems to be what winds people up so much.

But, as a teacher, I can also see that it makes sense. Where I work, we don't do extra G&T days out or anything, but we do use it as a handy reminder to ensure that students do not coast and that we are meeting the needs of the more able students within our classes. I think it can be very easy for these students to get overlooked and not learn anything - I can see that in my daughter's work too. G&T helps me to ensure that I meet the needs of all the students in my class. To this end, it is worthwhile.

I don't think it needs all the added extras, bumpf or whatever though and I think it would be much more acceptable if it changed its named, but the basic principle is sound.

Helokitty,
"I think it can be very easy for these students to get overlooked and not learn anything "

Hell yes, my son is still working at the same level in maths within school as he was this time last year. According to his teacher he hasn't even so much as budged a sub level!

Do I think him gifted, no I don't, but he's bright, do I think his teacher is capable of teaching maths? My son has actually stated that she refuses to mark his work in front of him, will not answer his questions. Now she avoids me like the plague! because I happened to ask what the point of this G&T list was.

Senua, I agree with a lot of what you have said. However I also know that the governement is obsessed with the fact that 3.7% of school pupils are in a small minority group( decide who you best think they are!) they are apparently disadvantaged due to socio/ecc reasons but also ethnicity. The guidlines state that they only make up 3% of the G&T register. So teachers are now charged with making up the other 0.7% From where, from average kids who only tick the box on background, not giftedness!

Teachers should be allowed to teach and children need to be set/grouped according to ability.

There seems to be a fashion for labels, G&T, AS, ADHD, etc, and the list of options is growing all the time.

You need to ask if the low acheivers would like their own label? Any suggestions?