Teachers; a question.

[thenewtoto]

Hi

With the approach of the new term looming I was wondering about this; what kind of levels would you expect a pupil to have got at the end of year one to be offered extension work or to be considered as gifted and talented going into year two?

Thanks.

Level 4 +

mrz - really?? but if gifted and talented is the top 10% of a year surely there are children who would fit into the 10% with lower scores?

But that shows the absurdity of the G&T guidelines! Mrz might have a G&T working at level 4,if I took the top 10% I might have one of the same age working at level 2, simply because the rest of the cohort are low achieving.

I think the idea that top 10% are G&T is a complete farce. The top 10% of one Y1 class may be working at level 2a-3 in one school and the top 10% in another Y1 class in a different school could be working below level 1!
To be truly gifted IMHO a child needs to be working considerably beyond age expectations (without the need for a home tutor)

For the record I've never had anyone working at level 4 at the end of Y1 and never had anyone I considered to be really gifted.

If you think your child is gifted, or of you think there is no challenge to their work, then you should speak to the teacher. Because for most children (and I am excluding very gifted children like Pixie's from this) whether or not they need individual extension work depends on the level of the rest of the class. DS is good at maths, and works a long way above age expectations, but so does the whole fo the top group in his class, so he does just fine. Ditto DD. Were they in a different class, they would need something more individual perhaps.

Nto quite that Pixie (although that is of course true). The OP was asking about how levels equate to G&Tness (as opposed to giftedness) and about the need for extension work. A child in your scenario would be considered G&T, and certainly would require extension work, or at least individually differentiated work. Whereas a child working at a higher level in a class with a number of other children working at a similarly high level would be working at the level of the top set and wouldn;t need such an individualised approach. It isn't about absolute levels if you like, rather comparative levels.

We are in agreement

Anyway, OP, do you have a beef with the school?

DD has just finished y1 and is g and t in her class and easily at the top however if she were in her cousins school she would be doing well but probably not in the top 10% so not go and t.

rainbowinthesky that is my "problem" with the whole idea that any child should be "labelled" Gifted purely on the basis they are in the top 10% in a class which IMHO usually indicates an able child but is ABLE the same as GIFTED ?
Personally I encounter many able children but very very few gifted ones. I disagree with the FallenmaDonna as I think (and would always expect that) work should be planned to meet the needs of all children supporting stretching and extending learning.

The whole G&T thing REALLy bugs me. Lots of good reasons on this thread, but also, children develop at different rates. Which means a child can be labelled G&T for a bit, but then another child has a developmental spurt, and lo and behold, your child is no longer G&T. Is crazy.

I MUCH prefer the terms 'able', 'more able' and 'less able' because it suggests something that is of the moment, without suggesting to parents that their child is a genius (and all the angst that seems to ensue).

Well yes of course mrz. But I don't necessarily see it as extension work when the top set is working at level 4 in year 2, whereas I probably would if my DC were the only one working at that level. It's a perception thing perhaps for parents, rather than a suggestion that primary school teachers don't differentiate the work.

The G&T thing is clearly ridiculous, not least because it leads to the statement "Child X is gifted and talented" (my emphasis), which is just plain greedy IMO, as well as misleading, if the child just happens to be pretty good at maths.

It may be within normal bounds (don't really know, teach secondary) but I think the majority of children do not work at that level in year 2. Or indeed reach it at the end of year 2, where I think a level 2b (or is it a?) would be seen as age appropriate. Average if you like.

And I am not talking about definitions of giftedness, but about the G&T programme and the idea of "extension work". The first depends on the overall achievement of the year group in that school, the second doesn't really have a clear definition. We need the OP

Level 4 in year 2 would be quite unusual

I don't think I've ever met a child who I would consider to be academically gifted. (not the government guidelines!!)

Thing is though, they don't tend to mark up to level 4, you would only 'know' that your child was level 4 if your teacher told you. Dd has just finished Y2, is an August baby, so the youngest in the class. She got level 3s across the board in the KS1 SATs. Ds1 has just finished Y4, so I know where he is working and have some idea of level 4s. Dd is up with him in some areas of literacy, but is nowhere near in maths. But she is not to my knowledge 'G&T' (though the school don't make a thing of it, I would be surprised if there was a 'list' and she wasn't on it tbh), but I am glad that she is not labelled.

(Sorry, hit post and realised had missed half the point - that KS1 assessments only mark up to level 3, you can't get 'higher' within the current system). Bit like at GCSE not being able to get higher than A* - they don't award you an AS Level or an A Level if you're doing really well!

KS1 assessments go as high as you need but the tests only go to Level 3