G and T register. Any teachers thoughts?

[Laura0806]

At our school if your child is assessed as in the top 10% at the end of reception they are placed on the G and T register. They then stay on it throughout the whole of primary. This also means noone else can then join the register? Is this the norm? I ask as I have one 'older child in the year ' dd who was placed on it and who is clearly not now far above her peers and one child 'young in the year' who is above her peers now, well above but wasn't at reception and so will never get any of the enrichment opportunities? surely this can't be right? Surely they should move on and off accordingly? Any teachers thoughts?

If it's done this way it should be re assessed at least annually, of not more frequently with new arrivals etc.

Personally, as a teacher, the top 10% being G&T is absolute bollocks and doesn't serve well those who are truly gifted or talented.

Not a teacher, but a governor. That seems a nonsensical policy. Would be concerned that if work were differentiated by who is/isn't on the policy that students weren't be differentiated for accordingly.
The whole '10%' G&T is no longer accepted policy anyway.

We regularly review the lists and children are moved on and off as they need to, which in our case is usually down to the odd 1-2 pupils in the school who are taught outside their year group for specific lessons. So they have an IEP to ensure the work is of the right level.

Our school has 'parent nominated' g&t list and teacher nominated. so parents can say 'I think my child is gifted at maths' and that child's name is added to the parent list and the teacher is informed. The teachers can also say ' these children are gifted in x, y or z' and they get added to a different list - some children will be on both, some on one and some on neither. It is reviewed yearly.

Thank you. I would have thought the annual assessment was a better way. I agree KittyandTeal, v few chidlren are actually gifted. Mine certainly aren't. In fact probably none in the whole school most of the time. It just seems unfair that some children go on extra day courses based on their performance in reception and others miss out.

Completely bizarre. Are you sure? It just seems so strange. Was this perhaps what you were told a few years ago with your first child and have assumed it has stayed the same?
it was a strange policy even then but one would hope the school had realised that themselves by now and have changed it.

that doesn't sound right.

our school either don't have one or don't tell anyone about it but schools no longer have to have this top 10% thing.

'gifted' in the sense of the IQ is the top 2% so in a 2 form entry primary school of 420 children then that is only 8-9 children isn't it (or is my maths rubbish) so that really is very few children, 1 or 2 in a year on average.

Top 10% in a particular year group being g&t has always been completely nonsensical. Children who move schools can find themselves pushed off (or put on) the list without any change in their ability.

If this is true, it's utterly ridiculous. Children develop at such different rates. A child that is 'top of the class' in reception could be average or lower in a couple of years time. And vice versa. Which is why all the comparison of book bands etc in YR and Y1 is nonsensical.

Complete rubbish.

DS struggled in reception but by yr1 he was flying. He is now several years ahead in every subject (he is in yr4) so does that mean he isn't identified as G&T?

Having said that, if it's just a label that doesn't mean anything/lead to anything, then I guess it doesn't really matter.

That sounds odd. In our school we have an able pupils register, so those in the top few percent get individual learning plans so they are stretched. DC1 is on it for maths - for reference he just got a 5b in end of year exams in Year 5.

It's different from G&T - while DC1 is clearly very good at maths for his age, I don't think he is some sort of prodigy so quite rightly not G&T...

I wouldn't worry about it. DS was assessed as being on p levels for music at year 2 despite playing 2 instruments, playing in an orchestra and a member of a choir.

Enrichment is the parents job mostly as schools do their best but are standardisation factories thanks to Government policies of recent years.

Personally, as a teacher, I hate G&T registers for young children for many reasons. Surely we should be identifying the needs of every child and providing activities that stretch each and every one of them. The SLT and subject leaders check we are providing challenging work for the most able in each subject (just as they check we are supporting those with other additional needs). We track the progress of every child and expect each one to make at least expected progress. It goes against our ethos that every child is unique and has their own talents hat we should find and nurture; that we expect every child to make the best progress they can in every area, regardless of starting point.

Labelling a child as gifted so early does not consider the maturation aspect and it feels awful putting a reception child on the register as they are an early reader, but telling parents that we are taking them off the register as their peers mature and catch up a few terms later. It just feeds the misunderstanding of certain parents that feel their child must always be "above" certain other children because of a snapshot level at a certain point in time. This doesn't accept the concept that maybe some of those other children hadn't had all the home opportunities their child had, but as they mature and had time in school could make exceptional progress as they are extremely bright.

Omg so in modern primary education we have to have bottom, middle, top, and g&t sets.
Then in gcse we have C, B, A and A*.

Can things be kept simple and just spend more work and energy to focus on each individual according to their learning progress, strengths and weaknesses? All these labels seem to create so much complication and stress. Also unnecessarily too low or too high an expectation of a child. Do we need top dogs and under dogs in such early days in our children school careers?

Nothing useful to add, but just general amusement at parent nominated G&T lists at Galena's school. No mummy-goggles there then...

I dunno Quiet. A parent list would enabled the school to see and investigate the huge discrepancy between parent-reported musical talent and teacher reported p-levels in my son's case. His instrumental teachers say that he is exceptionally musical (he was writing harmonies to nursery rhymes when he was 3).

Oh and also a chance for children who are talented in things it is unlikely the school would ever assess or see demonstrated, to be recognised and/or make allowances if and when the child needs so special consideration like traveling the afternoon before a competition etc.

I agree with QuiteQuietly!

No wonder there are so many boasty mums out there if schools are giving 10% of them every reason to think their child is superior! Top 10% is surely just 'kids who are doing really well relative to everyone else' (and only at that moment in time anyway). 'Gifted' means 'having exceptional talent and natural ability' (just looked it up). Really? So that is the case for 3 kids in every single class, specifically in terms of academic stuff (which i am guessing is what it refers to)? DS is in YR and in the top band of reading (ATM!) along with a couple of other kids. I would be very embarrassed if someone decided he was gifted on that basis! Great kid (extraordinary to me, but probably pretty normal to everyone else) and I hope he goes on to do well, but I am pretty sure he isn't 'gifted.' Hopefully his school is sensible about this kind of thing.

Also agree with some of the other posters on parental involvement. DS is doing well in reading at least in part because we get him to read to us every night. Not every parent does this at the moment, for various reasons, so when those kids get to grips with stuff or when their parents have more time, those kids will catch up or move ahead. In the early years of school, so much of it is obviously about how time is spent at home. If we didn't get him to do his reading every night he'd be on a lower band for sure.

I see your point. But perhaps school music judges on different criteria - they simply wouldn't assess harmony-writing and instrument ability. And if a child is incredibly skilled in a field, then it may be rather boring to shake a jam jar of dried peas and stop on a cue (for example). School often seems to manage and assess a very narrow set of strict criteria, while ignoring the vast richness of life skills that falls outside the Sacred Grids of Achievement.

I hope your DS isn't disheartened by his "lack of achievement" at school though and enjoys his musc regardless.

I'm a bit at parent suggested list. I think of the parents I've met who've thought their dc should be G&T, and would go in and want them on a list, the dc are doing fine, but not high fliers. Otoh I suspect those whose dc are put on the teachers' list probably won't worry too much about the parents' one. Maybe it's there to warn the teachers who the pushy parents are.

For mine, infant school doesn't have one afaik, didn't have one at the time they were meant to either because the (previous) head didn't believe in children actually doing better than others.

Juniors does have one. The top maths set is automatically, and there's a separate literacy one too. The first you know about it is when you get a letter inviting your dc to a day of G&T literacy-they have 2 a year, and invite half to each. Maths get a letter offering a very expensive lesson on a Saturday morning run by a for profit company.

Seniors is more interesting. They identify at the start of year 7 from the CATs (?) tests the top 10%. After that from exam results at the end of each year. They then offer all of them all the G&T opportunities that come up, except where it's a small number wanted. So if you're G&T in maths and you're first to get your form back for the art extra session you get it, or vica versa . Personally I think that's a poor way of doing it.

Except for music and drama which they apoint one more person for each at the end of each year. (so there's 1 in year 8, 2 in year 9, 3 in year 10, 4 in year 11) They get quite a few opportunities to go to watch concerts etc.
Thing is that for dd1's year, the person who got the music one already plays two instuments, one in an orchestra, sings in choirs and goes to plenty of concerts etc. anyway. I can't help feeling that yes, he is G&T in music, but actually someone who doesn't already play instruments and have an interest in music firstly has no chance, and secondly probably would benefit a lot more. Not knocking this lad, just it feels to me that picking someone who hasn't already had a lot of opportunities would make more difference.

I obviously have no dealings with this, since I read this as gin and tonic register.

Sorry, I shall leave now.

I quite like the idea of the parent list actually - you don't necessarily need to DO anything with it - but it means you know which child's parents think they are G&T - and if the teachers don't agree, so be it - and yes, it can pick up those who are county level gymnasts, etc.

I know DD will be on the teacher's list - she's just finishing YR and has been doing literacy and numeracy with the top group Y1s since Christmas. I, therefore, felt I couldn't NOT fill in the parent list form. I know she's doing well - yeah, she's possibly gifted, or possibly just bright and quick at the moment. However, being on a list means nothing - it's how she's taught that does. I know she is being taught at her level, and it's fantastic. (She regularly points out similes and alliteration in her reading and written work - not come from home, so well done school!)

Yes. What is a list gonna do, jump out of the filing cabinet and teach quadratic equations?

I agree with Sewell especially her last paragraph. If a child is in the top 10% of their year then ok. However that is different to being gifted or talented. Also it not something that necessarily happens in every year group let alone a standard of 10%. Really 10% of our population is g& t.

I taught for several years before having ds and out of about 180 children over those years I think I only had one I would have said was gifted and talented.
Lots of bright children but my g and t child was on another level altogether. He was a year 2 who was comfortably a level 5 in numeracy and a level 4 in literacy. Comfortably. The numeracy was particularly strong, he was up there with our very top year 6s. He was difficult to teach because it literally took him 5 minutes to get the concept of something new and that was it! Challenging him was tricky!

Agree with Snow. A gifted child is so unusual that normal differentiation cannot cope. The top 10% are just the most able in a cohort.