Reading in Y1 - which NC level (if any) would be considered G&T or unusually advanced??

[NorhamGardens]

What sort of level would a 5 year old in Y1 be reading out to be considered G&T or unusually advanced?

Thought you'd disappeared NorhamGardens!

My DD2 was reading purple books this time two years ago and she is considered G&T - although the school haven't officially told me.

DD is in year 1 and reading purple level and gold level books. Definitely not G&T - she is just pretty good at reading. There is another child in her class reading at a higher level than her although I do think he is more likely G&T but not to do with reading - more to do with his general interest and knowledge about nearly everything :)

DS (5.3 years old) is on ORT level 10 - white books? - and I've been told he's on the G&T register.

What NC levels (reading) do purple and gold equate to? Yes, still about. :).

According to this purple is NC level 2C and gold is 2B. DD's Reception report said her reading was at level 2B I think.

Oh fgs. Some children in YR/Y1 (one of mine, for eg) will be reading Roald Dahl-type books around the time they turn 5. These kids are clearly ahead of the game, but they are not necessarily geniuses.

I thought G&T (if you are talking about teh school register of G&T not being considered gifted in laymans terms) was a numbers game - top 5% of the class? so top 1 or 2 pupils. Or am I wrong?

I agree :) I think the problem with the label G&T is that when it was started there was an urge to identify the top 10% of a cohort, which would obviously be different absolute ability depending on what the rest of the cohort was achieving. But to be truly G&T I think a child needs to be on a completely different level from others, and need extra support to be able to enjoy their work and achieve appropriately

DS was identified by his old school as being G&T for Maths (which possibly he was there). When we moved he was definitely not G&T for Maths, despite being the same child

Laurie - the other point DS's teacher made (he's just gone into year 1) is that many children on the G&T register in YrR 1 and 2 is just a developmental stage (ie they just got there quicker) which may slow down or even reverse in subsequent years. She says she used to get many very disappointed paretns whose childrne learned to read or write early, totally flummoxed when their child dropped off the register and everyone else caught up!

They don't tell us who is on the G&T register at this stage in our school unless as you say they need special help.

NorhamGardens How did your DS do in his SAT's in the end?

First few to be free readers in y1 will probably end up on g&t register.

I think Kew's right as it's well acknowledged there can be huge leaps and spurts in Yr1/ Yr2. Lots of v.bright kids don't start reading until they're seven. Others start far earlier, but then can flat-line in terms of progress. Very hard to tell until they're older.

In year 1 Dd1 read all the available Harry Potters (I think no 6 came out half way through that year), Swallows and Amazon series, Narnia.
Dd2 read the Little House books, when Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit, Noel Streatfield.

Neither I would regard as being G&T for reading. They just enjoy books! Technically they were at the top of the form, so I guess they would have been regarded as G & T, but the school didn't formally do that and I really didn't care.

Ds (just started school) will happily read as long as it's a technical book about planes, preferably military or concorde. If you offered him an ORT he would look at you as though you were loopy and tell you it's boring.

dear god! how does being a good reader make someone gifted and talented? I despair

I agree but they appear to have a 'policy' in our school. It's code breaking plus isn't it? :) Some get it earlier than others.

dd was reading white band books at home fluently and with expression. she could answer a lot of questions, but had trouble with some why/how/what are they feeling questions. she also does not automatically use "sounding out" (guesses some random nonsense word.) she knew how to use an index and could find the answers to simple questions in a non fiction book, she could give a good summary of a story with lots of details... but she missed out the key point that set up the story(everyother detail though ) and it is very rare that she will cooperate and retell the story. she can predict what will happen, but it is like pulling teeth sometimes. it think she is scared to get it wrong.I do not know whether she can talk about the main events in the plot...

she can do a lot, has a fantastic sight vocabulary, but I am prretty sure she does not tick enough of the boxes for a level 2c, never mind 2b that being able to read gold and purple fluently would imply. ie, even though your dc is reading those band books he may not be doing all the otherr stuff required, or may not be demonstrating it at school.

also, I do not have up to date level descriptors that give examples of what is expected and what exactly each statement means.

blackeyedsusan I agree that reading a certain level of book shouldn't imply a certain NC level. I don't think that DD is reading at level 2 at all in terms of all the other skills needed to show it. I don't actually want to say to her reception teacher that I think she put a too high level on DD's report though .

Being good at reading at a young age I feel has more to do with parental support/input than a child being 'gifted and talented'.

I agree 2BoysTooLoud Isn't early maths promise a better indicator of future "Giftedness" . But those children who do get reading early should be supported well at school.

I do not think that being labelled "G and T " for reading alone is a true reflection of a Gifted and Talented child. As one poster already pointed some children read and enjoy reading. They are encouraged to read at home, they are bright and capable but I doubt if they are really gifted and talented.
It is clear that if children get a lot of support at home with reagrds to reading they will develop at a faster rate than those who do not get the same level of support. I was always of the understanding that a gifted and talented child excelled in all areas and not just reading.

I'm not sure you can be g and t at reading, can you? If it's a skill they all get, it doesn't really prove anything if you do it earlier. In somethingnli,e Maths or science or music or art some children show q deeper understqndingbtha others - those are the g and t ones. Reading is a definednskill- you would never say to an adult "0h, you're good at reading!" but younwould say that th were goodnat Maths, or art or whatever. Does that make sense?

So can a child be put on the register just for reading? Or would they have to be really good at literacy in general to qualify?

Lots of yr1s read Harry Potter. They are advanced but not especially so-the rest catch up. No one can tell at 13yrs who was a fluent reader at 3 yrs and who wasn't until 8yrs. It is a skill that develops into a pleasure.

agree 2BoysTooLoud Isn't early maths promise a better indicator of future "Giftedness

I have been told this too. According to a leading authority on Giftedness, Deborah Ruf, author of "Five levels of Gifted" early mathematical awareness is a more reliable indicator than reading. Although spontaneous reading at two or three is pretty reliable too.

To me, giftedness is evident in what the child picks up independently and the level of abstact thought they display.

host of info here.l