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?

If you're not sure whether they are gifted / exceptional then they are probably not (just my lay opinion).

There are plenty and plenty of very intelligent children out there, but by virtue of there being so many it means they are not exceptional.

What is it that you do?mrshear Do you get lot of opportunities to work or recognise many gifted children?
For you to generalise, "Many gifted children underachieve" it just simply isn't the truth.

It's probably worth breaking down the generalisation, strictlovingmum:

Many able children who fall within the government definition of gifted (top 10%, or 3 per class) will achieve well. They are probably better described as 'more able', a much smaller subset of this group will meet theoreticians' guidelines of giftedness, the most generous of which (based on IQ > 130) encompasses only 2% of the population, other definitions encompass less.

Many exceptionally able children (bearing in mind that the top 1% of the population includes as broad a range of abilities as the 'middle 96%' who fall between the 2nd and 98th centiles, so there is a huge range even in this small minority of children - theoreticians in this area define 'levels' of giftedness to callibrate this) do underachieve in normal classrooms. This is partly because they are so rare - if a child is at a 1 in 10,000 level of ability in a subject then a teacher will normally teach either 1 or 0 children of this ability in a whole teaching career.

I will agree to disagree with you strictlovingmum,one of the reasons that parents contact the NAGC is down to underacheivement in school.
And yes many gifted children do underachieve particulairly if they are underchallenged.

In terms of reading specifically, the Ruf model of levels of giftedness (summarised here www.talentigniter.com/ruf-estimates) gives some indication.

Level 1 and 2 are what you would call the 'more able' - up to 3 in every primary school class. It's at Level 3 or 4, where you start talking about 1 in every 100 or 200 children, that you probably enter the world of 'giftedness'.

This is quite a generous set of definitions - the reference I gave earlier has a logarithmic definition (1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, 1 in 10,000) which gives a clearer definition of the exceptionally able end of the spectrum but obviously causes more children to fall into the 'able' rather than 'exceptionally gifted' definition.

There is also a question of whether a gifted child may be underachieving in an absolute sense, or underachieving relative to their potential. Giving a Reception child e.g. number bonds to 20 problems is 'more able' in that context, but it doesn't allow that child to show that they can add and subtract negative numbers, multiply anything up to 11x11 and add / subtract 3 digit numbers mentallly.....

In DSs Yr1 class, approx 8 were given 2b/2c for maths and they were all 2a/2b for reading.

As parents, we all have at least a basic degree, with a doctor, mathematician, accountant and scientist.

(it is a bit of a Boden school)

They're all bright kids, but in no way G&T. There's a huuuuuge difference between a very bright, curious child and a truly gifted child.

Thank you for that breakdown teacherwith2kids and clarification.
Precisely, school gifted register will include 10% of very able children, but I think tiny minority of only 2% are in fact truly gifted, as you have stated and this the group I have been referring to, not to the whole 10%.
I have also experience of this with our DS 14 years ago, when he started primary school, at the time there was no G&T in in place in primary schools across the country, albeit DS very able mathematician(at the age of 4.4 could, add and subtract mentally with ease, knew rooting system of numbers, and whole of time tables) was only classified as very able, and that was all.

There was never any talk of him being gifted, and I don't believe that he is, he is still just very able.
This a genuine question, Is it the case that such children as him, today would have been place on G&T register?
And why is that?
Should only those really gifted(2%) be placed on such register?
Does it warrant a child being placed on G&T for being very, and only very able at one subject rather then being amazingly excellent at that subject?

There's a huuuuuge difference between a very bright, curious child and a truly gifted child.

True. DH was a very bright DC. He taught himself to read at 3 yrs. He won a full scholarship to a fee paying, selective school at 11yrs (despite being an August birthday and not having any tutoring). He was (and is) very able-he isn't gifted.

Strictlovingmum, I mainly refer back to my earlier post
"From a practical point of view - both as a parent and as a teacher - the rough yardstick would be 'someone who is so far advanced in a particular area that to keep moving them forwards in their learning they need individually planned tasks almost all the time and / or specially planned intervention, whether that be 1:1 work on a more advanced area or special provision at a whole school / whole cluster of schools level'"

Being put on a register is only of use IF it then produces appropriate provision for a child which would not otherwise be available. If a child is anyway being given appropriate work to move them on at an appropriate rate from wherever their starting point is, then there isn't any need for a register ... I was glad that the register existed in DS's old school because it prompted them to DO something about him, but I couldn't care less whether he's on the register at his current school because he is very well provided for in the normal timetable.

This is also the group i'm referring to strictlovingmum,truly gifted children.

Just wondering highlander how you know that sat grades in year 1 . In our school we aren't told them apart from in year 2.

we got our DCs grades in yr1 too.

DS is on G&T but IMO is very able (also Aug born) not G&T in the truest sense iyswim.

He got 2Bs in his report last yr (yr1)

I will be interested to see which book he gets for yr2 (still being assessed)

Oh my gosh... I don't know ANY year ones at our school that would be able to read Harry Potter AND understand what they were reading! That would normally be year 4, or 3 at a push!
My own son , who was classed as G&T at reading in Foundation, didn't read Harry Potter till year 5, but made up for it by reading all the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit books not long after, and all the 'His Dark Materials' books.

I think some people are in too much of a rush to push young children onto 'classics'...why does it matter so much? Children need to understand what they are reading as much as they need to be able to identify the words.
If you want them to like classic books at year one, why not read them TO your children and talk about it...much nicer. Then they may feel inclined to read them for themselves when they have the understanding sorted out?

Not sure being "gifted" is really a gift seeing the animosity the term seems to bring out in people! I think "more able" and "exceptionally bright" sound better.

would say teacher with 2 kids label "From a practical point of view - both as a parent and as a teacher - the rough yardstick would be 'someone who is so far advanced in a particular area that to keep moving them forwards in their learning they need individually planned tasks almost all the time and / or specially planned intervention, whether that be 1:1 work on a more advanced area or special provision at a whole school / whole cluster of schools level'" is great but not quite catchy enough........

No animosity here iggly2.
I just dont agree with the description of gifted children given by strictlovingmum,imo it's misleading.

I'm staggered by the poster that said "many" Y1 children could read HP ! Really? I would say it was quite unusual.

I would also agree with the poster who said that many of these children are not actually understanding much of what they are reading - when I used to ask children in my class to come and read to me, often if they were reading books such as HP they couldn't read half of the words and couldn't really explain what was going on. A lot of their knowledge of the plot appeared to be gleaned from the films .

These were Y5/6 children.

I wouldnt put too much emphasis on this at such a young age, because you could get disappointed when they are older and not progressing at the same rate.

There are lots and lots of children capable of reading and understanding the white books in Year 1, and yes, whilst they are better readers at that age, it doesnt necessarily make then continually gifted as they get older. They might continuously be measured as being 2,3,4,5 reading age years above their chronological age, but they might still be poor writers, not expressive, bad at communication etc.

Making comparisons with other children is also a bad idea. Just let your child read and enjoy books without any kind of pressure

"A good reader makes a good writer".

True? My DD's are both prolific readers, always have been, and are also great writers. Coincidence? Just wondering what others think.

thank god for stitchingmoss! Dd1 ended YR on orange level which is the expected for beginning Y2 which I conclude means that reading HP is certainly not usual at that age (nor infact is orange level which is significantly lower). However, I agree that reading book level means nothing. Dd1 has me read her all the Roald Dahl books of which only the Charlie and the Chocolate factory and Matilda are films she has seen. Yet if I question her about the what, where, why or how she always gives a logical answer and her comprehension far outweighs her actual reading ability.
She is well above average in all her areas of learning, from trampolining at level 6 aged 4 years, riding a bike without stabilisers at 4 prior to going to school, understanding of the implications of not having money i.e. developing countries and suggested sending a food parcel showing her social conscience iyswim. Ability to sit still for 2 hours aged 3 to create something or watch a film all the way through giving commentary in detail about what people were doing/ thinking. Giftedness is actually not always easy to spot because it is not always academic and sometimes pupils have not been given the opportunity to demonstrate their ability i.e. in leadership for example.
This is a good link for matching book bands to NC levels docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:4BUz_9Z2kWAJ:www.devonldp.org/do_download.asp%3Fdid%3D5212+percentage+of+reception+age+children+at+reading+recovery+level+17&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgOShEC6KWXqnyQfyjzRJcdW7YTcFJWBBLAC3FFFY5r5bMJA0EnEFc1x0cLl1IjyRlhrIYPOI3vKAqS8WqTSZ5AxkkiE5ngS-i3PRqJ11otZkv7qxHiKiuRAjmuk66a3Q-WH7f6&sig=AHIEtbSD30ejXL3S_vNa5XEfSvRTeUfOXQ

Surely, if a child reads earlier, it facilitates them in being able to extend their own knowledge of other subjects earlier because they can read non fiction and more complicated texts. Thus early reading as well as the ability to solve problems should be a reasonable predictor of future success . Also if the able readers are the ones with 'good parents' why would they level off, because the parents will consistently provide input and support teachers in them continually progressing ?

good point thecaptaincrocfamily*

My Ds is a very prolific and early reader but I hold no hope of him being a good writer .

Ds is a good reader and a pretty good writer too but tbh its spellings that he is very advanced with.

He seems to have a memory like an elephant for it, unlike me who regularly goes to the shop to forget what I went there for in the first place