How do i know if a DC is G & T?

[aristoBLACKcat]

Please help, how can you tell if a child is Gifted & Talented?

Silly question, i know.

I've got 16hours EP time for the year to assess those children I feel have SEN or AEN and have to prioritise I'm afraid no way we could deliver this level of assessment without a radical overhaul of provision.

trickerg, let me get this right. You admit you're not putting any KS1 children on the register. When I point out that it's your job you say that it's impossible to identify children at this age (despite the fact that lots of other schools seem to be managing).

You don't seem to have read the G&T documentation on how it can be done and seem genuinely interested in learning.

So I suggest that your first port of call should be the person who is responsible for G&T implementation in your school.

You don't like that idea.

So you press this person whom you don't know to come up with another one.

I provide something for you from the documentation (about speaking to parents to suss ability that you haven't recognised yet). You don't like that idea either. You want another one and you narrow it down to assessments.

So I suggest that your thinking should be more along the lines of intelligence tests than curriculum tests like the rigid KS1 and baseline assesssment.

Voila! You seem to have a QED for why you can't do what you're being paid to do.

I'm not surprised. My experience has been that (many) teachers find a lot of excuses to not implement G&T properly. They have ideological objections to giving children from "privileged backgrounds" any further advantage in life. They judge the parents - what was it you called them, yummymummies? - and fear that they'll get pressure from parents if they mention G&T. They argue they have too much of work already and their responsibilities are more towards those who are struggling because the smarter ones will be okay anyway (the SATS argument). They believe that their objection to the usage of the word "gifted" is enough reason for them to not implement the compulsory G&T. Or that they are so capable and experienced that can provide adequately for all intelligent children without the framework, guidance, rules and checks imposed by the G&T program.

Failing the nation's more intelligent children takes concerted efforts from thousands of teachers. And there's ample evidence those teachers are succeeding.

I'm very sceptical about the idea of early identification of G&T - children are SO different in development rates, and external factors can be so significant. For example, my ds2 has a hearing problem, which has affected his speech. But he appears to be bright, picks up concepts v quickly - it would be sad if a hearing problem prevented him from accessing opportunities.

My view is that certainly in KS1, good differentiation in the classroom is the way forward. So, rather than having a cohort of children who are 'listed as G&T' and therefore get extra input, teach the class, and children who are finding it easy get extension work. Sometimes this will be one child, sometimes another. Obviously there will be a trend for the most advanced children to tend to be in this group, but not an obligation. I don't believe at KS1 that there is ANY advantage in 'labelling' a child as 'G&T', especially as this may change later on as other children develop.

If a parent really believes their child is not being stretched sufficiently, they should imo stretch the child sideways - take up a musical instrument, or a sport, or a langauge, teach them cooking, or study latin. There is lots that a parent can do that simply can't be covered in an infant school. And I do think stretching sideways is better than pushing in one area so that they are miles ahead of their peers - that often has implications emotionally.

DadAtLarge - I have not been impressed with our experience of G&T at the hands of Shropshire's LA. We have never been given any help for DD or DS without suggesting it ourselves. At the moment DS is obviously being taught maths below what he is capable of and his teacher does not seem to understand that this is not okay! We have had varying levels of understanding and help from different teachers but I have never felt that I could step back a bit and be confident that things would continue successfully. We have never tried to dictate to the school, but have always tried to work with them, but it is very difficult to keep on and on.

You sound extremely bitter about the issue and I think I can understand why (banging heads against brick walls?) - I am becoming increasingly cynical and find myself doubting that there are any state schools that do look after gifted children successfully. I read on here that of course there are - well, I wish I could find one. I am not alone in feeling this way - a friend has children in another local school.

After all, parents of gifted children are not asking for miracles, they just want their children to be given work at the right level for them - just like any other child.

Rant over!

LilyBolero - "if a parent really believes their child is not being stretched sufficiently, they should imo stretch the child sideways" - well, yes, parents of gifted, bright, whatever you want to call them, children of course do this anyway!, but they don't want their children bored stiff whilst in school - not only a waste of time, but a great way of turning a child off learning.

englishpatient, I disagree - I read a lot on here about how parents want their children to be taken further and further ahead in maths/reading/whatever.

Speaking from experience, the kids that remain working with the peer group, but are stretched sideways are the most balanced group (and I've seen both sides - the exceptional child taken out of school to focus on their 'gift' - ended up rejecting that subject altogether and running away from home - and exceptional twins who could easily have done A levels a couple of years early, but in preference to this did extra subjects, and grew up very balanced and happy, and are now at Oxford and Cambridge (one at each).).

The thing I think is wrong with 'G&T' is the identification and labelling of children at a young age. Surely it will be obvious to a teacher if a child is finding a particular task easy, and to provide extensions work for that occasion. Not every G&T child will always find the work easy, and sometimes a 'non-G&T child' will excel (shock horror). And they have a right to be stretched just as much as a 'child on the register'.

It's about adapting your teaching to the actual circumstances, and rather than teaching according to some list, actually watching and listening to the pupils and responding accordingly.

My children's teachers have all been excellent at providing extension work when appropriate.

Don't all parents want their children to progress in every subject? Some children progress more quickly than others though. I am talking about the situation where a child who is bright at maths is not taught anything new at school, just re-taught what they already know, or given harder worksheets with no teaching to go with it! This is not right, is it? I would be very pleased if there was sideways stretching in my DS's school - but there isn't - which is why I, like many parents, are doing everything I can at home to help DS continue to love learning, not think it is boring.

I'm sorry if I sound angry; I am, but not with you, LilyBolero. I agree with you in that taking children miles ahead in one or two subjects does not help them at all, and that labelling a child G&T in itself is not helpful. I don't care if my DS is labelled G&T or not as long as he is given the level of work he needs! You are absolutely riught to say "it's about adapting your teaching to the actual circumstances".

You are very lucky that all your children's teachers have been excellent at providing extension work when appropriate. Sadly, this is not the case everywhere.

"Surely it will be obvious to a teacher if a child is finding a particular task easy, and to provide extensions work for that occasion" Well, that's what I always thought, but if they never give them anything harder to try, they never will find out. DS, for example, arrived in reception with mental maths at an average Y2 level, (though his written numbers were average). He has always been in the top group, and always found it easy. The teachers insist they are giving him "extension" work, but this is only after the easy (top group) work has been completed.
So he spends most of the lesson doing worksheets that he could have completed two years ago, then the last 5 minutes doing slightly harder stuff, which is usually it is still easy for him. Once in a while they give the whole top group something they simply can't do, (and leave them to struggle) IMO just to remind them (and the parents) that they are not geniuses. Which DS is not, but he is working way below his abilities, and then the teachers wonder why he is "sometimes silly".
Apologies for rant, but I do believe that schools let down the "clever" children, expecially in maths.

Apologies for rant, but I feel the way children who are good at maths are treated is analogous to making an athlete spend 90% of their training doing warm-ups.

ChoccyP1g and English Patient - I'm afraid my DS's experience has been the same as yours.
LilyBolereo - I wish it were true that there was extension work or sideways learning for the most able in every school. The only differentiation which takes place in my DS's yr 3 class is that the least able are given simpler books and worksheets. Everyone else does the same, regardless of ability. I don't know if my DS is on the G&T register. To be honest, I couldn't give a hoot! I only want him to be stimulated and "switched on" to learning - not bored stiff doing things he already knows.
We do try to stretch him sideways outside of school - violin and lots of trips to the science museum, etc but that isn't stopping hom from switching off at school.
Working with the school to extend DS is a non-starter. The head is idealogically opposed to the G&T programme as well as VERY defensive. Our school doesn't even have a G&T coordinator let alone make any effort to stimulate or extend its brightest pupils. To suggest that DS is bored and requires extended work would likely result in a backlash to prove DS isn't very clever after all - not difficult since he has now switched off and is underachieving. If I could move my DS I would (kicks self for letting her Catholicism lapse!)

choccyp1g, you are very right.

When he was younger (5/6), my maths "gifted" DS's teacher wanted to show me that he did not have the maths ability I believed he had. She pulled out a piece of work as an example. It was a set of about 12 numbers all ranging between 10 and 30 (if I remember right). He had to find the 14 combinations that totalled exactly 50. Nice task, challenging, different. But he wasn't taught a methodical approach to the problem. I knew exactly what would happen! He got the first few combinations very quickly but it got slower and slower. He finally got to 13 solutions and gave up in frustration because, working randomly on a trial and error basis, it's very difficult for even a smart adult to find the last one. And becomes very annoying.

One purpose was served - it kept him busy for a long time. Did he work out that a systematic approach of progressive elimination would have saved him time? No. Was that the object of the exercise? I think not. But it did keep him "out of the way" and did "prove" he had no unusual ability.

A lot of the "extension" work given to children is like that example.

englishpatient, don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with the effort DS's school is making now. But it didn't happen overnight. And when we did make progress it was only because the school gave him a KS2 paper in Y2 and he maxed it out. (Yeah, the trigger was "achievement" rather than ability)

One reason why teachers prefer to do the identification later on is because the testing is easier - they can use standard tests like SATS papers. Of course, this tests achievement/what they've learnt rather than ability/potential but, hey, we've had numerous examples here of teachers who thought G&T was about the top 10% in achievement.

If a parent really believes their child is not being stretched sufficiently, they should imo stretch the child sideways ..

Er, it's not about them not being "stretched sufficiently". It's about them not being "stretched sufficiently" in the class. And I'll take lectures on "stretching" opportunities outside school from a teacher who is capable of doing it properly in the class. Most aren't. In all that talk of "stretching" and "extending", teachers miss out the most important third corner of the triangle. Most won't even be able to identify that is is "acceleration" ...far less how to implement it. It's just not part of their training. In fact, when parents point out that their child wants to learn new things the tendency is to explain about how they need to develop in other areas and acquire social skills and not become one-sided.

Poppy

and

Cock

mussyhillmum, G&T isn't optional. Having a G&T coordinator isn't optional. Maintaining the G&T register and putting children on it isn't optional. If your head isn't playing ball, have a word with the governors and/or the person at your local authority in charge of G&T.

You see, I think that 'accelerating' in a particular area is not good for the children. And I happen to believe that if a child IS gifted at a subject, then the best thing a teacher can do is to ensure they keep a love of it. I don't think this comes either from sticking to a narrow curriculum, or from accelerating them beyond their peers on to ever harder and harder work.

Stretching sideways - it occurs to me that this is basically how I think extension work is best given to (as well as increasing breadth of experience of other subjects). For example, last year dd was clearly ahead of the rest of her reading group (she was then in Y1). So whilst the group's homework was to practise reading the book, dd was asked to imagine she was a character in the book, and to write a letter to another character from the story. This took her understanding of the story to a new level, as she had to gain a greater depth of character understanding, imagine what might have happened 'after the story had ended', and practise writing skills as well. All of which was stretching 'sideways', as it wasn't just giving her a 'harder book' to read. Often in reading children can read books that are beyond them in comprehension, even though they can read the words, and it is a shame for them to read books too young (speaking from my own experience here again - there are books I wish I hadn't read until later on, as I think reading them early spoiled them a bit).

Likewise, in maths, if a child has done the work easily (and I don't think there is ANY harm in repetition if they can do it easily - I can play many pieces on the piano easily, but simple exercises still benefit me), then get them to do an investigation using that technique, and see if they can derive a simple formula, or find a pattern - so do something a little more evaluative than simply solving sums. But stay within the subject area, and then you are increasing depth of understanding and consolidating skills learned.

Lily, I think your piano analogy is a good one. in Maths, you do still need to practise the basics, but where I take exception to DS teachers, is that they want to spend about 90% of the lesson practising basics..because most of the class haven't really mastered them.
I do see your point about broadening out rather than simply surging ahead. Most teachers can do this in literacy, and anyway, a keen child will naturally write more, or use more an advanced language in a literacy topic, but in maths, most teachers probably need a bit more training about how to extend the activities.

IMO a major problem with stretching maths sideways in school is that very many primary school teachers have themselves a maths ability that is exhausted by the conventional exercises of a yr2 class. This is not really even a criticism - just an observation - it's true of a great many other jobs/professions.

Stretching literacy is very easily done in comparison.

In which case the school needs a maths co-ordinator (just as there is a literacy co-ordinator, a music co-ordinator, a SENCO etc etc), and they should be able to help. I'm sure most primary schools do HAVE a maths co-ordinator, but perhaps they aren't being utilised in the optimum way.

So maybe if as a parent you feel your child isn't being challenged by the maths, request a meeting with the class teacher and the maths co-ordinator to see what can be done.

I really am convinced about this 'sideways and increasing depth of knowledge' approach. As a child, if it had existed, I would definitely have been 'G&T' for music. What my excellent primary school did was to give me loads of opportunities - playing for assembly, accompanying school musicals, letting me get choirs together etc etc. None of which 'pushed my ability forwards' but gave me loads more experience in other areas, that couldn't be covered in regular piano lessons. And tbh, that's possibly what stood me in the best stead for my future career (as a pro musician).

So in maths, once they've mastered the skills required for the curriculum topic (supposing it was measuring or something like that, this would be the physical technique of measuring, the knowledge of 100cm=1m, and the ability to record measurements), you could then ask a child to devise a way to show measurements (graphs etc), and to explore patterns - for example, get them to measure classroom objects, and describe them in terms of each other - so a table might be twice a chair. This could then lead on to simple algebra even.

I'm sure with a bit of imagination it's possible to do this! And the emphasis in extension work should imo be CHILD LED investigation - so that they can start to think for themselves. Let them work out the patterns and the relationships. A gifted child will thrive on this! Certainly the music I did at school was led by me - when I got kids together at morning break to practise songs, there wasn't a teacher suggesting I did this, it was just what I wanted to do!

Imagination is indeed key here - and many people find it extrememly challenging to be imaginative about maths. That would indeed be an excellent use of a dedicated maths coordinator.

I was also fortunate enough to attend a primary school with unusually good music provision. Maths was another story, however

And I happen to believe that if a child IS gifted at a subject, then the best thing a teacher can do is to ensure they keep a love of it. I don't think this comes either from sticking to a narrow curriculum, or from accelerating them beyond their peers...

The accepted wisdom is that accelerating them is what keeps gifted children interested in the subject. Study after study has demonstrated this is what gifted children need. I know this is an odd concept for some teachers to grasp but these kids need to keep learning (and learning at their pace).

And it's not acceleration you're seem so much against as acceleration "beyond their peers". Why would/should the abilities or inabilities of peers affect the optimum speed a gifted child learns at? Weird.

DadatLarge - firstly I'm not a primary teacher, please don't make assumptions.

My issue about 'not accelerating them beyond their peers' isn't weird at all. It's based on my experiences with gifted children, and observations on what happened with them, and also my own philosophies on education.

What I mean about not accelerating them beyond their peers, is not getting them to a stage where they can take A Level maths at age 9 or 11 or whatever. Or where they NEED to take A Level maths to stay interested. You don't get a prize for getting it first. But if it may be something that becomes your life's passion, then learn around the subject, think laterally, learn to apply it to different areas.

History is littered with 'child prodigies' who reject their gift/talent because of acceleration. I know some personally - truly gifted people who were accelerated beyond their peers, to a stage where they could no longer learn with their peers, and as a result had emotional breakdowns, partly because they were constantly with people far more mature than them, and they needed their peers emotionally, and partly because of parental pressure. I don't buy the 'they have to be accelerated to stay interested' argument, this goes against what I have seen tbh.

I can give you 3 examples, 2 of which I have cited already, but will give more detail;

1. Friend of dh's - highly gifted to the extent that a BBC documentary was made about her. Parents took her out of school to focus on this talent. Age 16 she said she wanted nothing more to do with it, it had ruined her life, and that was that, she gave it up and wouldn't touch it again.

2. Twins I babysat; at age 3-4 they had a better comprehension of physics than I did - and I was doing A Level. They had grasped the basic concepts of mechanics (albeit in a simplistic way) but were applying them in a way that showed a full and deep understanding. At this age they were designing vehicles powered by elastic bands - no adult was showing them, it came from within. They remained working with their peers, but did 13 GCSEs and 5 or 6 A Levels each, plus lots of music and sport. Then to Oxford and Cambridge. Utterly balanced young men, happy and incredibly well educated.

3. Dh's cousin - had a remarkable talent for ballet. Was accepted for Royal Ballet school. At the end of the 1st week she begged her mum to take her home, and never danced again.

Everyone wants their kids to do well. But I don't think that 'well' is necessarily 'as fast as possible' because surely the desired end result is for your child to be a)happy and b) well educated, and this isn't necessarily achieved by going 'as fast as possible'. In fact, I think when you have a child who is 'gifted' that you have even more responsibility as a parent to give them a balanced childhood, and to ensure they grow up happy.

You're confusing "as fast as possible" with "at the child's own speed". You're confusing "acceleration along the curriculum" with "acceleration". I've already mentioned the dead-end problem in this thread and how to avoid it. And with my DS, trust me, I've had to go to great lengths to teach the teachers that it can be avoided and I've provided material outside of the curriculum for them to teach him (teachers are wont to take the easy route and just teach material from future years which would have had him ready for GCSEs at 8).

I agree with you that the child's happiness should be at the core. And if he's happy, wanting to learn new material and ready for it, he would gain from being taught new material. He shouldn't be held back for the sole reason that his peers in that particular class are not up to scratch yet. I'm sorry but that does strike me as completely ridiculous.

It's not holding back, it's exploring further.

What benefit is there in a child doing A Level maths early? Because that is the end result. Is there not far more benefit in them enjoying applying what they've learnt to other problems, to investigating further what they've learnt? I think that is of much more benefit to them, both now, and for their later life.

Take the music analogy again. If my parents had pushed for it, I could have gone even faster than I did. I could have done hours of solitary practice every day. Instead, I learned that music can be a SOCIAL and FUN activity as well as something to work at. I don't think I would be in a different place to where I am now - I make a good living through being a performing musician. But I also ENJOY it.

A child needs to learn at their own pace. Surely this is part of what "child led learning" is about anyway. If a child's pace of learning is faster than the others in their class, they will need to have an imaginative teacher to help them keep learning new things. This does not have to mean going far ahead with the curriculum but it does mean learning NEW things.

DD attends a selective (private) secondary school which she moved to a year "early", having moved up one year when she was leaving year 1 at primary school. She loves the new school - she is learning at a pace that suits her, and she is being taught well by subject specialists. We are not talking about "moving ahead of her peers" to a ridiculous level here - she is only just over 2 months younger than the youngest in her (year ahead) year group. She fits in well and loves going to school now - a big change from primary.

I get sick of the parents who just want their children to be catered for adequately by their school being tarred with the same brush as those who push their children far, far ahead - the sort of children who appear in the news and on documentaries (sadly the documentaries tend to prefer to turn the issue into some kind of 'freak show' rather than featuring 'normal' parents who are trying to do the best for their children whilst keeping them normal and happy).

englishpatient, I'm sure that's true - read the G&T boards on here and there's a real mixture of 'how can I support my child' to 'my 1 year old is waving in a talented way, how do I get extra help'... etc etc.

I think there is a general disrespect for teachers - even on this thread - quotes like "Most teachers aren't even aware of their school's policy on G&T. " Of course they are. But sometimes (and not saying this is necessarily the case here, but it may be), dis-satisfaction with teachers comes when they don't give you the answers the parent WANTS to hear.

In fact I would say most teachers are VERY aware of their school's policy on G&T. They have to be. But there will be a few who either don't agree with it, or aren't up to the job, as in any industry.

In my job I deal with parents, 95% of whom believe their children are the next Mozart. And they are NOT happy when you don't move them on to the next Grade or a harder piece, because they think they should be being 'accelerated'. It would do them NO GOOD, and would actually be harmful to their development.

dal - I am NOT adverse to looking at G+T, BUT I still maintain that it is difficult to recognise 'gifted in the early years (to 7). What intelligence tests am I qualified to administer to these children?

As to all these other posts - there are so many people out there living in the dark ages with work sheets and work books. Looks like the revolution has passed a lot of schools by - how do they get through Ofsted?

I would hope that even a gifted child would enjoy going out and measuring the curcumference of trees, using string and meter sticks. (In that acitvity, we covered measuring using standard units, circumference, comparison (with estimating) - AND the higher ability children investigated complements of numbers to 100). If you run practical activities there are always extensions and investigations that arise from the activity.

DAL - I've just re-read your post, and I do see that you're not just saying 'accelerate along the curriculum', so sorry if I misinterpreted your post there.