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!

It's a pity it begins with a G really as people often think it mean Genius.

Senua, how do you mean 'the most able are the ones who can most easily jump ship'.

I think the scheme set out to realise potential in children that might have been missed, particularly children of lower social backgrounds and if it has raised expectations in a few then I think it was a good thing, although agree very hit and miss.

IME, the G&T programme doesn't mean anything, so there is no labelling and distinguishing. It's bragging rights for the grandparents, that's about the sum total of what it results in.

I don't perceive that the elitist classist outlook that OP describes actually exists... not widely, anyway.

(*in our house it's a bit of a joke, so when DC do something especially daft I get to quiz closely about exactly which daft teacher was it that nominated them for the G&T programme? )

"Senua, how do you mean 'the most able are the ones who can most easily jump ship'."

I mean that the most able are the ones who have the choice to go somewhere other than the local catchment school. The very cleverest children can win places at Grammars or scholarships/bursaries at Independents. The next cleverest, if parents feel that the local school will not do right by their PFB and they can afford to pay, may also go Independent.
If schools want to keep the comprehensive ethos then they heed to make sure that they cater, and are seen to cater, for all types. Teachers may enjoy rubbishing the G&T scheme but they are in danger of shooting themselves, and their school, in the foot.

I am reading these threads from a fully comprehensive area, thought you meant into private. I forget that grammars still exist. Thanks for clarifying.

I agree with abouteve that it is really very hit in miss.

The asessment criteria are not followed consistently accross all schools. The enrichment programmes are not always made available, added to this, individual teachers sometimes fail to offer differentiated learning in class.

What worries me most is that average children in failing schools will feel an over-inflated idea of their own capabilities only to land flat on their faces later on, in the really real world! The other major concern I have for brighter/gifted kids is many are inclined towards perfection and many can not cope with failure. It places an additional burden to be labelled.

I taught for 10 years at secondary level. I met many very bright children. I met less than a handful of truely gifted children. I did however have a group of "G&T" children most years.

G&T as defined by education is not the same as gifted in the true sense IMO.

Hulababy is right, many bright kids but few gifted.

Has anyone here read any research from Prof Joan Freeman. She has been working as a gov advisor in this area. She has had a lot to do with how we define giftedness.

abouteve don't forget that comprehensives can select too. Specialist schools can select up to 10% of their intake, if they wish.

But what is 'gifted in the true sense'? Dictionary definitions of 'gifted' seem to support the way it's being used in schools.

Rather than rage against the use of the word, I would think it's far more useful to debate whether any initiatives taking place actually have a positive impact on children's learning, as well as exploring the effect they have on other, not selected children.

Totally agree Singersgirl. Sorry Hulababy but seen this so many times on these threads, teachers misinterpreting, IMO, the word 'gifted' and saying they have only met one or two gifted children in how ever many years they have been teaching when the government are targetting 10%. It hinders a debate somewhat.

DD1 is on the G&T registrar, she received some extra opportunities in Yr6&7 but nothing really noticeable. She is bright, just came top in her year for maths however she is not exceptionally gifted just naturally bright.

Fortunately she was able to get into a secondary school that streams the children so she is with others of the same ability. No selective schools in our area.

IMO if there is any point of G&T register then it should be to give access to a higher/harder level of secondary education so that they achieve what they are capable of.

Pixie, there is a book by a US expert in gifted kids, called Deborah Ruf which has quite a good framework for this. She defines different levels of giftedness. At the first level it's really just bright kids and then I think she goes to highly gifted (maybe 1 per 100) through to exceptionally gifted who are the really 'freaky' clever kids who are doing algebra aged two etc.

So to answer your question in her terms, they'd be 'exceptionally gifted'.

DD is g&t at art - gawd help us as she really isn't. Her school don't make a song and dance about g&t thankfully.

abouteve - it never hindered by teaching of my G&T group. They were certainly brighter than the other children in that area fof the curriculum. the differentiated group enabled me to give them more challenging wrk aimed more at their needs. In the same way that all my differentiated groups allowed me to plan for individual needs better.

However I also know that many of the children I had in my GT group in one school I taught at wwould not have been in the GT group in the previous school - they would not have been in that top x%.

I think that is my difference between school G&T and "true" gifted.

To me true giftedness is noticeable. not sure I cand efine it as such -but it does stand out as being way above and beyond the normal parameters, even for a bright and able child. Th way they talk and think and act in their area of specialism - it really does just stand out massively - which is why I say that I have come across just a handful of children I would called truely gifted as opposed to bright and very bright children.

I also think the words "gifted" and "talented" are different to one another. It should be gifted and/or talented really.

singersgirl - I would rather there were no such names groups personally. I think ALL children should be given individual learning pans and differentiated work for their own needs. It doesn't matter where on the ability scale a child falls they should all be entitled to the same level of challenge and pushes to reach potential - just the actual objectives and targets will be different.

Now there we are in agreement, Hula. Our primary has just started doing some more after school things for able pupils but it has already caused problems for some children (who weren't chosen despite considering themselves at the same level as the children who were) and of course some parents. These things also demand that children give up some of their out-of-school time, whereas ideally all children should be working all the time to their potential.

Pixie - I would, as reallyreallytruly says, call them either 'profoundly' or 'exceptionally' gifted, or, in some very rare cases, 'genius'.