Hi
Can't offer any experience with my own children, unfortunately , but I am interested in this subject and how we see 'intelligence' and 'ability' in children more generally.
I am interested that the ,intelligence, is not fixed and can develop and grow in all of us.
It seems many think of giftedness and talent as meaning possessing 'inherent all round ability' when what it should mean is that the current level of performance surpasses that of the peer group.
There is lots of talk about 'potential' at the moment it seems but it can be dangerous if we think of it in terms that some children have 'greater potential' than others.
If we think like this we might think that low achieving students have less 'potential' than high achieving students when you can equally reason the other way around. Those that haven't achieved much yet have 'more' potential.
From what I've been reading we should be concentrating on believing that intelligence isn't fixed and believing that all students aren't working anywhere near their ability ceiling.
I've written on another thread about 'ability' labelling and the inherent dangers. A child that has been labelled 'gifted and talented' early on is unlikely to be re-categorised after a run of poor results. It's likely that a reason will be found, he's got in with bad company etc. The 'bright' child will be described as not living up to its potential. A child that is seen as academically weak is unlikely to be 'upgraded' if they go on to do well. There's a danger 'over achieving' weak student will be credited with lots of effort rather than suddenly becoming 'gifted and talented' etc.
There's some statistics that say less than half of the children who came in the top 5% on national tests at 11 go on to remain in the top 5% at GCSE. Despite this the Times Educational Supplement in 2006 reported on a plan between the DfES and Specialist Schools and Academies Trust to encourage universities to establish links with pre-teen students who do very well in these year 6 tests. The Trust's chariman is apparently convinced that 'bright' 11 year olds should achieve 3 A's at A level and wants the heads of secondary schools 'held accountable' if children don't make the grade.
Gifted and Talented students will be registered cannot be 'let down' by secondary schools.
Most of these ideas are explored by Bill Claxton and regurgitated here by me. He writes about the Pygmalion effect in other words self fulfilling prophecy, whether the students inclusion is justified or not. He also says they may suffer pressure by being 'registered bright' and become anxious and conservative learners. Those who don't make the list could suffer from a reverse Pygmalion effect and stand less chance of pushing their way forward if they are a late developer, or they might be comfortable without the pressure and lead a happier life.
The 'bright' children in our primary school are given extension work so higher SATS grades will more likely be on the cards etc. I'd argue that more than the 'top' table could do the work with encouragement, and so it goes on.
I heard about a study done where two 'gifted and talented' pupils were identified in various primary school classes. They tested IQ and performance and found the highest achievers. They then fed back false results to the teachers of the classes (2 children were chosen at random) guess what? The performance and 'ability' of the 'chosen' children increased exponentially, they became 'gifted and talented'.
I am not suggested that children should not be stretched and interested in your view.