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.

[exexpat]

So do any state schools in the UK ever just take the simple step of moving a child up a year? Or is it the fundamental belief that a child should always stay with their own age group no matter what?

Background: I have an October-born DD (7) now in a yr1/2 class of 30. She is one of the oldest, very able at maths, and a fluent reader. She has been complaining almost since the beginning of term that the maths they are doing is too easy and boring, even though they are split into smaller ability groups for maths. Last year, when she was a yr1 in a 1/2 class, she was much happier, and was working mainly with yr2s, but obviously that option is not available this year.

In my opinion, she would thrive if she was in a yr3 class this year - not just in terms of academic level, but socially and physically as well - she gets on better with older kids anyway, and is so tall that she would not look out of place in a yr5 class... She would only be about six weeks younger than the next youngest in the yr3 class anyway.

I was in a similar position at around her age, and was moved up a year, so I was always the youngest in the class by at least 6 months. It worked fine for me, though I think I was still under-challenged at times, but school would not move me up another year. Instead I just read voraciously on any subject that took my interest, which I suppose counts as sideways extension, even though it was on my own initiative.

Is there any point in even raising the idea with my DD's school? Or am I going to have to start looking at private options? I just can't face the thought of her being bored at school for another five years.

[DadAtLarge]

trickerg, certain "enrichment" and "extension" activities (breadth and depth) are great. They consolidate what's been learnt, put it into a practical context and keep children interested. Fantastic! But very few teachers are aware of how important acceleration is. Intelligent children need to be learning new stuff. It's in their interest to learn at their pace, not a pace that's convenient for the teacher based on what kind of intake she has that year. A teacher may not have the time to do it but many wrongly convince themselves it doesn't need to be done. Not the same thing.

Just because a teacher sees something as "difficult" is not reason to give up on it. I repeat my advice: If you've got a problem with G&T dump preconceived notions of what can and can't be done and demand your LT demonstrates how you're supposed to do what you're supposed to be doing.

LilyBolero, your 95% of parents who think their DCs are mozarts isn't reflected in academic subjects. There'll always be a small percentage but I doubt that 95% of parents consider their kids super geniuses in maths for example. Most are just frustrated that the work given to their DCs is far below what they can do. Parents are more worried about that causing boredom and loss of interest than they are about their DCs not completing GCSEs in Y4.

exexpat, they can move a child up, they do move children up, but a lot of heads don't like to do it. "not ready socially" is usually their main argument so it's good that you've got this covered.

[snorkie]

I know several children who have been moved up a year exexpat. Mostly they are in private schools but some in state. It's not unheard of, but it is rare.

To be honest it doesn't always seem to have worked out brilliantly for the child. Sometimes they go on to achieve not all that great GCSEs etc and you are left wondering if the move was all that good an idea, though of course you never know how things would have been if they hadn't moved - it may be that a bigger jump would be needed in some cases, but then you really do start getting into social issue territory.

I personally see it as a bit of a 'quick fix' for a bright child in the infant years, but as they get older the difference in standards between one year and the next is increasingly small so the benefits diminish.

The other thing that you have to be ever so careful about is whether or not the skip will be maintained when the child changes schools (to middle &/or senior). I know of several cases where at that stage the next school has either refused completely or insisted on extremely high test scores (which are not always achieved) in order to accept the out of year child. So if you do get the school to agree a skip, I'd advise getting agreement in writing from both the LEA and senior schools that they will maintain it at school transfer time.

[LilyBolero]

I don't think moving a child up a year does work - differentiation should be done within the year group. It's too complex otherwise - is the move permanent? Will the child therefore go to secondary school a year early? This has all sorts of ramifications - from having to travel on a bus alone at possibly just turned 10, to being the only one in the year not to be learning to drive, or being the only one not able to go to a 15 certificate film, or go to a pub to celebrate after A Levels. And it MATTERS to children to be able to conform to what their friends are doing.

DAL - I disagree with your assertion that 'acceleration is what is needed.' Remember acceleration is not the same as progress. For a child to make steady progress (and continue to learn new things), you do not need acceleration, you need forward momentum. Acceleration is the rate of increase of progress, and suggests that the rate of learning should be getting ever faster and faster. Rather than that progress should continue to be made, which is more sensible.

My biggest problem with this whole issue is the identification of a cohort of children to be labelled 'G&T'. Because I think that within a class, different children will excel in different areas, and thus the teacher should be able to give extension work as and when it's needed, not simply hand out harder work to the 'people on the register'. I've been pleased this year that ds1, who is Y4, and not on any G&T register has been given extension maths work when appropriate - he isn't even in the top maths group, but he finds some maths really easy, and on these occasions he's been stretched further. I'd be very unhappy if this didn't happen, simply because he wasn't in the 'identified group'. His class is a particularly high achieving class, (and would be in any school), the other class in the year is much less high achieving, and in that class he probably would be in the top maths group. However he is better at literacy based work, and is in the top literacy group. Still isn't 'labelled' as G&T though - probably because of some high achieving girls in that group, but he is still stretched.

Dd in Y2 is probably at this stage a 'higher achiever', and despite being the youngest in the class is probably the best or second best reader, top group for maths, probably the best writer in the class. To my knowledge she isn't on any G&T list either - but this doesn't mean she isn't challenged in class, or motivated to work. She went to bed last night with a couple of longish novels, and a piece of paper and a pen, so that she could write down any 'interesting' words that would be good for her to use in her writing. Wasn't my idea - was entirely hers - so she is stretching herself, which is the ideal imo!

Ds2 is going to struggle at school, because of a speech delay. He has however been assessed as being 98th centile in intelligence, so it will be interesting to see how that pans out. What he is going to need is extra language support, so that his abilities aren't hindered by a lack of language.

I think what I'm saying is that every single child is individual and has individual needs, and a crude 'register' identifying a cohort of children is never going to meet the needs of the whole class. And teachers get a lot of stick on here for not 'meeting the needs of the gifted', but they have to meet the needs of ALL the children, and for some children these will be complex.

[DadAtLarge]

Yes, yes, individual teachers think they cater well for the more intelligent children but the national picture is that they are failing. Big time. That's why the G&T program exists. If it didn't, teachers would find even less need to dish out "extension work" or "stretch" the more able pupils. They are not all like your DD's Y2 teacher.

Acceleration has a particular definition in physics. In education it's "the practice of presenting content earlier or at a faster pace" (DCSF). Feldhusen, 1989: "Acceleration is a misnomer; the process is really one of bringing gifted and talented youth up to a suitable level of 
instruct ion commensurate with their achievement levels and readiness..."

And the context of my comments have been clear - it's about pace. Teaching them at the pace of the slowest child impedes their "progress", causes underperformance, de-motivates and is responsible for numerous other problems.

I disagree with your assertion that 'acceleration is what is needed.'
You are not disagreeing with my assertion. You are disagreeing with expert opinion and the DCSF.

[trickerg]

How can you prove that teachers are failing with G+T? I can't see how statistics for this can be gathered.

'Acceleration is "the practice of presenting content earlier or at a faster pace " (DCSF)." '
Then acceleration happens in any well-differentiated class. For instance, if one group can cope with adding tens and units, you accelerate the learning of your top group, who will be adding HTU, or experimenting with new methods.

I hope NO teacher teaches to the rate of the slowest child. That's a ridiculous assertion.

Have you ever been in a school DaL?

[DadAtLarge]

Proof? LOL, I wouldn't know where to start (stats are gathered from the school census; OFSTED; reviews and studies conducted by the LAs, government and "partners" like EPPI; lots of places). If I get a chance I'll dig out links from some of my older posts in the G&T forum here.

[trickerg]

But we are not identifying giftedness within the G+T programme. We are identifying the 10% brightest pupils. The brightest pupils in one school are not equivalent to the top 10% in another (hence pupils gaining and losing their status in a move).

This is not a true reflection of giftedness, just a result of inner city politics.

[LilyBolero]

trickerg - exactly. The scheme doesn't identify the top 10% of the population at all, only the top 10% of each school. It would be entirely possible for a child to be G&T in one school, and not in the next. Have their needs suddenly changed? No.

[LilyBolero]

DAL - you sound very bitter and have obviously had a bad experience. But I think you are over-egging the pudding here. My view is that parents get far too hung up on the G&T thing, and it was all far more sensible when our generation were at primary school, and it was accepted that most classes would have able pupils, average pupils and pupils who struggled a bit, and were taught accordingly. And most kids I know, and parents, are happy with how they are being tuaght.

In fact, the group that is most commonly 'let down' is not the G&T group, but the next group of children - the 'bright but not quite in the G&T squad', because the expectations of these children sometimes aren't in line with their potential - because they aren't the 'G&T' group, they are not expected to achieve the high results, and thus don't, when they are actually more than able to do so. So I think the group we need to be most concerned about is the 'average to high average' children.

[DadAtLarge]

But we are not identifying giftedness within the G+T programme
Er, but G&T (not giftedness) is exactly what you asked me to prove teachers were failing on!

We are identifying the 10% brightest pupils.
We seem to have come a full circle and back to not grasping the funtional use of the term "gifted" within G&T.

The attitude you seem to have is common among teaching staff: "I do not agree with "gifted" being used to describe the top 10% so I won't do what's expected of me under G&T". I agree with you that gifted is not the right term. But that's not good enough reason to create your own rules. Proper implementation of G&T raises overall standards in schools / makes a big difference to even the children who are not G&T. Why do you think so much is made of it in the CQS, IQS, APP etc? Because of the whole school benefits.

Have you ever been in a school DaL?
Nope, everything I learnt was in prison

[DadAtLarge]

DAL - you sound very bitter and have obviously had a bad experience.
In case you don't know from my other posts, I used to own a school (not in the UK) and my association with education goes back to long before I had kids of my own. I'm talking from extensive research, not from "one bad experience". I know more about the G&T program than most teachers do. I know more about the education of highly gifted children than most teachers do.

My view is that parents get far too hung up on the G&T thing
Yes, it's the parents, isn't it? It's a good thing teachers are just getting on with their job and we don't have hordes of them here, in the G&T forum and out there in thousands of schools trying to justify why they aren't properly implementing something that's required of them (and that they are getting paid for).

[englishpatient]

exexpat - state schools can move children up a year. My DD, now nearly 12, moved up from yr 1 straight into yr 3. In practice this meant joining a class of yr3/4/5 instead of a class of yr1/2; it was not as shocking as it may sound as she knew the other children moving up with her owing to the school always re-mixing the classes each year. She has continued in the year ahead (although still found her yr6 year very boring!) and has gone to secondary school a year early. She's now in yr8 (would be in yr7 by age if she hadn't moved up) and is being challenged and loving her school (selective fee-paying). Of course only time will tell if we made the right choice for her, but certainly so far it has been so.

I was very interested to read your post because it sounds so like my DS - he's in a mixed yr1/2 class and is 7, Sept birthday, yr2, so the oldest in the class, and is finding the school maths far too easy. He is keen on reading too; however, the literacy side at the moment seems to be dealt with okay. We did not try to get him moved up, however, as he differs from DD at that age - socially he is possibly a little less mature than the older children (DD wasn't) and he is not way ahead in all aspects of the curriculum as DD was (e.g. his handwriting, though okay, is not wonderful). We felt that moving up was not right for him, although now I am not so sure, and as you say, the youngest yr3 children are only about a month older than he is.

If you really think it's the right thing for your DD I would go and talk to the school - but be prepared to show that you have thought it all through carefully. Don't get angry/emotional and try to behave as thought you want to work with them. I consulted the NAGC helpline about DD and they talked about it with me, which was very helpful. The social side seems to be the side on which the focus is put: "she won't cope" - but this doesn't have to be true. The school head at first said "she must stay with her cohort" and seemed immovable, but after several very rational, sensible discussions and her consulting the Local Authority G&T person (who felt moving up was the right decision for DD) she said she had decided that DD should move up!

(Sorry for long post but I really wanted to help exexpat.)

[LilyBolero]

I do think it is the parents though DaL - because before the G&T thing was thought of, it was good practice to cater for ALL abilities of pupils within a class. The brightest and most able would be stretched, the struggling would be helped.

The G&T register is typical of government responses to problems - look, the problem is solved, here is the paperwork to prove it.

Rather than actually looking at a common sense approach that says, some children need extension work, some will do fine with the regular curriculum, some need help, do it on a pupil by pupil basis. Instead there is this crude 10% to 'prove they are catering for the able.'

Given the freedom to do this, most teachers will enjoy stretching the most able.

I'd be interested to know your views on the rest of my post, about the group of children immediately below the 'G&T' crop - I know lots who have been badly let down by their schools.

[LilyBolero]

(The beginning of that wasn't clear - the reason I think it is the parents getting hung up is because, now that G&T exists, you get parents saying 'My child is G&T, what are you doing for them?' rather than 'how are you best educating my child who is strong at maths but struggles in geography', OR you get parents saying 'Why isn't my child G&T, they should be'. OR 'My child is G&T, they are clearly a genius.' Rather than actually looking at what the child is doing.)

[DadAtLarge]

I'd be interested to know your views on the rest of my post, about the group of children immediately below the 'G&T' crop
Your suggestion for a sub-G&T group conflicts with your position that no groups are necessary and teachers can cater for all abilities because... they just can.

The children most failed by our schools is the top 10%, not the [top 20% minus the top 10%]. That's very, very clear. Some sample links from 2008 about gifted (top 10%):

DCSF study: Schools are failing gifted children

Estelle Morris (minister) says schools are failing gifted children.

Lord Adonis (minister): Schools failing gifted pupils

And that's from a government great at PR and putting a positive spin on things!

Teachers should worry less about what the odd pushy "middle-class mum" is going to say and concentrate on doing what has been identified as necessary to counter how they've been failing intelligent children. Yes, that's why G&T was started - because teachers are failing these children in a big way. But, hey, you probably know best. Maybe we should just close G&T - and OFSTED - and give these infallible teachers carte blanche.

I'm away on business for a few days, enjoy your chats everyone.

[LilyBolero]

Well, I've looked at those links, and tbh those articles weren't saying that schools were actually failing gifted children, they were saying that they were FAILING TO SPOT THEM. Or NOT TAKING PART IN THE PROGRAM. They don't say that those children are then being failed educationally. That is an assumption.

My thoughts about the next 'group' down are not at odds with my thoughts that groups should not exist - I don't think they should be 'labelled' as a group, but it is my experience that this is the group of children who may be let down educationally, because of the G&T program. If they are not 'on the list' then they are not regarded as 'high achieving' when they may in fact be, and as such expectations are lowered. There is research on this, that shows that a child will generally perform to the expectation of the teacher, regardless of whether this is their true potential.

I also know of such children, who have been badly let down by their schools. Without the existence of the G&T program, they would have been able to excel in the areas they are excellent at, but have help in areas they may struggle with.

No contradiction there. Don't label children is my assertion!

[smee]

To say schools fail all gifted pupils is absurd. It's a sweeping generalisation, as with much that's spouted about education. It's simple isn't it, some schools cater for some abilities better than others. It's a lottery dependent on the school, just as how the G&T register is a lottery. Some schools use it well, others use it in such a way as to make it massively divisive. Some parents turn it into quite an amusing bunfest too.

• Lily I agree - being average is definitely a curse for many because they're missed. The average student ticks the achievement boxes, so often isn't given as much attention as those at the top or the bottom. It's always been the same. Surely what matters is that a good school teaches all children well regardless of their ability. Ditch G&T and get back to that basic concept and we'd all be winners.

[LilyBolero]

smee - exactly. Allow the teachers to teach the children in their class, without having to fill quotas of '10% G&T'.

I would repeat to DaL that those articles do not have any evidence that the top 10% are let down educationally - merely that they are not always put onto a list. Think I'd prefer my child to be taught well and not on any list tbh!

And I wish everyone would stop being so critical of teachers - it's a tough job, and most of them do it admirably with ever increasing amounts of beauracracy and form filling. If there were fewer forms (and quotas of children to identify and list) perhaps they would have even more time to spend with the children.

[cory]

Having a child who is both very gifted and physically disabled, I have no doubt at all as to which side of her that has been failed by the school system.

School has done lots to stimulate her mentally, but it took about a year to persuade the head that allowing a wheelchair bound and incontinent child access to the disabled loo might actually be a good idea. (when I asked dd before how she managed, she burst into tears and said "don't ask"- it turned out she crawled on her hands and knees!).

HT's constant cop-out was that "you have to understand that we are not used to this situation; we've never had to deal with a disabled child before" (total lie btw, there were several even in dd's time- I expect he said the same to all the mums).

So IMHO it's a bit of a myth that SN children get all these wonderful resources that average and gifted children do not get.

Otoh teachers were always happy to help dd to work harder, never had a problem there.

Of course I want all sides of dd to be catered for. But if resources are stretched, I'd rather they catered for the bit that means she's not going to fall down the stairs and break her neck.

And if I had an average child, I would not immediately assume that it is unfair if they get less attention than a child with SN or G&T. Of course, a child with SN has to have more attention if they are to access the same learning- and the same might well go for a very gifted child.

If ds's mates' parents are upset because ds gets extra help with his writing, they are very welcome to the condition which leaves him in permanent pain.

[smee]

Cory, your poor DD, but I don't think anyone would argue in any way that she shouldn't have all the resources she needs or extra time, as of course a child with SN needs more resources - I agree they don't always get them, but they most definitely should. Still though I'd take issue with you saying it's maybe fair for an average child to receive less time than say a G&T child. For me, it matters not if the child's average, below average or above average child. They should all be stretched in terms of what they're capable of as they're all equally of value. And yes, I am an optimistic, but am talking in an ideal world here.

[LilyBolero]

cory, I hope your dd is getting the support she needs now.

The point I was making about the 'average to high-average child' is that the expectations of what they can achieve are often lowered because they don't fulfil the criteria of the 'G&T' group. The 'invisible child' is a well known phenomenon, and whilst I'm not saying they need loads of extra time, every child should be able to fulfil their own potential, not just government quotas and targets.

[thedolly]

The main thrust of G&T is to help with underprivaliged underachievers is it not? This point seems to have been overlooked on this thread. Some of those would presumably fall into your group Lily.

[LilyBolero]

thedolly, I don't think they would - I'm thinking of bright children who wouldn't be in the 'top 10%' of a class, and therefore wouldn't be 'on the list'.

[thedolly]

Underachievement is underachievement is it not, regardless of ability? I don't get the G&T thing at all.