Generation Gifted BBC2

[Buxbaum]

Surprised that there isn’t a thread already - unless I’ve missed one?

Anyone watching?

Are you disadvantaged, Razzledazzle? In hope that doesn't offend. Weird question I guess and I suppose one that the production company may not have asked but tried to determine from you daughter's application.

Asking mensa members seems odd as I don't think anyone on the show could afford to join. It's mensa who do that child genius show isn't it? I'm going to start pitching ideas to channel 4 - Britain's smartest child on free school meals, Cleverest Care Leavers etc.

I think the posters who think the kids don’t seem especially ‘gifted’ might like to reflect on what qualities would give them that impression, and to consider if you know what it looks like when a child is very cognitively able but has few of the soft skills and little of the ‘polish’ that comes from a family background with plenty of cultural capital (even if not much money) to recognise, encourage and nurture their ability.

Cognition can only take a child so far and if they fall behind in the skills that they need to achieve their potential (whether due to mediocre schooling or a lack of support at home) then in my experience this often manifests as poor behaviour, anger problems, disaffection and disengagement- all borne of the frustration of being very cognitively able but without the necessary skills to express this.

I live in Birmingham, and did wonder why Jada wasn’t already in one of the city grammars and whether she had taken the 11+. The problem is that the intake of those schools is dominated by families who begin the tutoring process in Year 4 or Year 5, or send their children to private preps from Reception with a view to getting them through 11+. What chance does a kid like Jada stand?

Also the boy who was really good at science was being advised to go towards medicine. There are a million other careers in science.

I thought the point was that the teacher was grabbing an opportunity that came up to show him that there were other possibilities besides being a chef - the visit to the medical school was happening anyway, so the teacher took the chance to persuade him to go. He has at least another three years to make a decision, and at least the teacher has opened his eyes to the possibility of other openings in science.

Bux, that's a very good point and one I was thinking about last night. We are a very verbal family and were even in the early 1900s when the family were down the mines, could always talk the hind leg off a donkey so my bias is people who use a lot of words and speak well seem cleverer may be (and wrongly)? If I compare the Welsh girl (who cried in exams) with the art girl, the former seemed much brighter but was that just because she spoke better? I suppose the proof of the pudding will come in their exam scores which are in a sense purer.

I think Buxb is also right and we will see in the next few years the effects of their home lives, their already in some cases obvious mental problems etc coming out which is the other big factor (and affects rich children too many of whom are abused, have families where neither parent wants to be with them etc etc).

As someone who was a "gifted" working class child (and junior Mensa member ) I will be watching this with interest.
I do think its an awkward situation to be in as a kid.
There's often a narrative about "getting out" or "getting away" which can be pressurising and also sort of implies that theres something wrong with where you come from. Or possibly something wrong with part of who you are.
I certainly remember pushing against that message to a certain extent and self sabotaging to some degree. Which was foolish of me but perhaps understandable.
I read this book recently. Its the write up of the BBC class experiment from 2012 (I think). The one with the online class claculator that gets shared on here form time to time.
What I found really interesting was Mike Savage's observations on how middle class people aquire and display cultural capital. They don't necessarily confine themsleves to elite culture. But they do interact with all culture from an intellectual standpoint- or at least try to look as though they do. Part of that is displaying eclectic tastes or a mix of "high" and "low" cultural interests.
So the "getting out" and "getting away" narrative isn't even that accurate as a description of what its like to join the middle classes. Because the aquision of "cultural capital" is more to do with broadening your world view to include more things rather than giving up things that are part of you.
Fwiw I "got out" in the sense of moving away from my area and "got away" from poverty albeit not very far. I live on an estate very similar to the one i grew up in but in a different town. I have a lower middle class type wage and a house full of books I don't have enough time to read
I would put money on that being fairly typical.

Unlimited, that's interesting. My mother who passed the 11+ and went to grammar school (a route cut off in about 1971 by the way when I was 9 in the NE of England - no grammar schools since then). i found her IQ tests done in her 50s at home - 140+ which did not surprise me. She seemed to know everything she every heard. She became a teacher which was a good achievement for her. I was recently working on our family tree and the one she wrote in the 70s or 80s she has underlined those of her cousins who became a nurse or a teacher and on e a dentist. It was obviously very important in the family or to her to get on through education and qualifications. She underlined that one cousin's child got a "BSc London University".

I wonder if she got out and away (she moved into Newcastle) because her own mother went to work as a servant/nanny to an English family in India in the 1920s for 6 months so saw how other people lived may be? May be it was other reasons. I cannot remember her taking us once to visit her relatives (other than her mother coming to see us) but she had no siblings so I suppose there was no really close family. So she certainly got away although in later life did see some of that family. I woul.d say she became middle class and that we her children (and our children) are middle class. So she was the one who moved class. That is the hardest move. As her father was killed at work when she was a tiny baby she probably found it easier to move away from family as the 9 aunts and uncles and 52 first cousins was such a huge group I suspect it was a relief to be away from them lovely though they were.

The grammar school definitely had an effect. She learned French. Therefore she took herself off on holiday on her teacher wages to the South of France a few times. She sang in the choir and at college so took part in Durham University events and shows and met people. She read and read and read all kinds of books, joined the Lit& PHil (private library thing in Newcastle - www.litandphil.org.uk/ ). She was very keen they bought a piano and we children learned to play and do exams in it - I suppose in those days whether you owned a piano and your children played was a cultural thing. She liked the ballet. My father liked opera which she tolerated but did not like really.

I agree she and others broaden their world view rather than losing bits of who you are but it's a big issue for people. I have read some books about people leaving certain groups, religions, closed cults and if you leave you lose all your family and connections and are cut off and shunned so you do not pollute those left behind. Going to grammar school and then university is not quite the same but it can make people different from where they came from. We noticed it at her funeral comparing my children to those children of the 52 first cousins some of whom are where my mother started - not that there is anything wrong with where she started - those are my roots and my people and I owe them a lot - but it was a very visible divide, not that any of us let it stop us chatting away at her wake.

ZB, Leghair, Mensa is free for the first year, well it was for my daughter so guessing they could be members that way.

I don’t think we fitted into the group they were looking for, my dh and I both work full time and live in a London suburb. The requirements were year 9, Mensa member and attend local comp.

I look at these children in the programme along side the children of the partners at my city accountancy firm, the amount of tutoring on top of elite private schools these children receive, how can the two groups compete....

With Shakira (the girl who was good at art), she did know who Margaret Thatcher was and what the art project represented- I don't think that's something most year 9 children would know, so I got the impression she was bright and interested in other areas. I really felt for her, as obviously her brother's disability has a huge emotional impact on her. She was obviously generally lacking in confidence, but hopefully drama will help with this.

I think "gifted" is a vague term, and without really seeing the children's work, you are basically relying on how they express themselves, so more articulate and confident speakers will come across as "cleverer".

If it's based on mensa scores, then sorry but I'd dismiss the whole program. IQ is an utterly invalid test of anything, and is shown to favour a western male sort of "intelligence" and at the age of 13, there would already be significant differences caused by family circumstances. You can also have a very high IQ and do terribly in exams, because you haven't bothered to learn the content. I would hope the schools use other, more valid methods of identifying "gifted" pupils.

I think the rhetoric of ‘escaping’ or ‘getting out’ is particularly hollow to many of the children on the programme; it was really striking (and laudable) that they virtually all felt deeply loyal to and protective of their families, particularly those with a family member in need of 24-hr care. Anne-Marie explicitly described the responsibility that she felt to use her ability to do well and be able to support her family financially.

I do think that the term 'gifted' is used to say that typically students from this type of background would be looking at grades 2/3/4 at gcse but these students in particular are gaining 5/6/7/8 so as a comparison to the group in society in which they live they are actually 'gifted'.

I don't think they mean 'gifted' in the way most of the population would assume as in top grades 8/9 across the board and Oxbridge candidates.

I do believe Drama and singing on stage really helps with confidence. It’s a shame that so many schools do not see performance as an important tool for confidence building.

Like others I though the Hartlepool Dad was awful but the school was also at fault for not informing parents about the exams and what they represented.

The teacher who thought the grammar wouldn’t suit Jada was wrong too. He should keep those thoughts to himself. He was possibly thinking that they needed her in their school for league table purposes. However all the teachers seemed to support aspiration and it will be interesting to see what their GCSE results are like in the future.

If, historically,people thought they couldn’t get on, we would have suffered as a nation. Even Grammar school in my day didn’t mean everyone went to university. About 50% from my school and the same at DHs grammar. However everyone went into careers and became solidly middle class. There is no reason why schools cannot help with social mobility. It’s not always poor people who have disability in the family either. It does appear to be poor families who rely on their children more. It will also be interesting to see how many will leave Home for university or just stay at home for caring purposes.

After watching the show (using this word on purpose) and reading this thread, some considerations:

1. how were these kids chosen? Are they the top in a low performing school? Are they the top in the "free school meal" category? If so, how are the other kids performing? Is anyone performing better?
2. As it has been pointed out already, the word "gifted" is wrong in this context. I knew nothing about this program before watching it, but from the title I was expecting something completely different.
3. The girl who could draw (good for her, by all means), in what way is she "gifted"? All the boys and girls selected look more or less average. Perhaps they should have explained better why they were there. Again, we are not given a clearer benchmark, nor is any comparison made.
4. I though that Kian's dad's reaction was justified. By any standard scoring 28/80 (or whatever that was) is unacceptable, unless the previous time you scored 8/80 or that day you were ill, but went in anyway. Instead according to some posters we are supposed to make excuses. Isn't that exactly the sort of trap we want those kids to escape?
5. I though the show has been edited in very much some kind of X-Factor kind of style and some of the speeches too were a bit "on the nose". Clearly if you are in front of the camera you behave differently, but still... they (the producers) could have tried a bit harder not to manipulate the audience. However, since we do not know how/why the 6 were selected it is difficult to reach any meaningful conclusion.
6. Isn't showing the show NOW, when those kids are still at school wrong? I wonder if turning them into some sort of celebrities could actually harm them.
7. To me the best bits were Anne-Marie (?) talking about university fees with her mother and the girl who wanted to go to a grammar school being pretty much talked down by her teacher (who could have made the same point in SO many different ways). However, I do wonder... is what we saw the result of editing? Is what we saw the truth? On a more general point, whose truth do we see in this kind of reality shows, the participants' or the producers'?

Hmm I was looking forward to this. Found it interesting but also a bit of a let down too. Ime what holds many PP kids back is lack of parental support which is the biggest hindrance imvho. All of these children had very supportive parents,where were the children whose parents don't make them do their homework,don't get them off screens,don't berate disappointing results,don't care if they haven't got anywhere quiet to work etc.

I felt Khians dad was doing the best he could. He's terrified his son won't use his intelligence and get out of poverty. His dad pushing him is one of his biggest advantages and his dad knows that. Also not his fault he didnt know the make up of the assessment. To be honest I've been brutal with my kids too at times,sometimes they don't need false platitudes. Admittedly it was misguided in this case but he wasnt to know.

When is the next episode?

I think that's it until next year?

I just wanted to grab the boy from the north east and take him to work with me. I work as a food scientist, o expect he has no idea that kind of job existed. I certainly didn't and he is certainly bright enough

He is a lovely little boy, a bit like one of my sons at that age. I think he should be a doctor. If my sibling can be a high paid doctor from the NE there is no reason this boy can't. Anyway very early to say.

Arkadia, very good points. The 7Up series I mentioned above goes into the same issue in later episodes - some of the participants now my age (50s) to say on camera how it affected their life -that kind of responsiblity to the camera that every 7 years sicne you are 7 you are filmed unless you choose to opt out so the programme in a sense can affect your life (although often to the good not just bad). One 7Up boy ended up living rough in Scotland I think I remember. The 1960s questions were about the same issues as on this new programme really - what makes us what we are and how does out environment (or genes) affect us. The 1960s one looked issues like is strict discipline and rules and bed times good or bad or at least asked questions about those things.

This new programme is bound to be a bit scripted - presumably they film for hours and then have to pick out bits that make reasonable TV.

I think that may be it until next year - we see them each year up to A level presumably.
I just checked and my favourie (the UP series) is being filmed again later this year for b roadcast next
"The last installment, 56 Up, premiered in May 2012; Apted has stated that filming for 63 Up will occur in late 2018, for release in spring 2019"
(56 was their age last time. They were 7 at the first programme).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Series
I called it 7Up above but I'm wrong. The first was 7 Up, the second 14Up etc.

Ive watched the UP series since I was a teenager. Its fascinating. I remember the boy who ended up sleeping rough or in a caravan in the middle of no where. He had some sort of breakdown. he was the very gifted one from the poorer background. A teacher from one of my son's school was/is married to one of the men in the series and part of the most recent one was filmed at his school.

Following on my previous comment, I have thinking about GG and the more I think about it the less I like it or understand it.
So, the showed us 6 young teenagers who don't quite seem to fit or to be able to express themselves. BIG DEAL! They are young teenagers and their job is not to fit and to be unable to express themselves. What conclusions are we supposed to draw from the show? I believe, none. I mean, they could have found the same identical kids from a more affluent area and going to a selective fee paying school.
They gave us no background nor they showed us what kind of hardship they hd to overcome.
OK, the bedrooms were cramped, but I don't believe that to be SO unusual. In addition the parents were trying their best for their kids, so I am not clear where the obstacles they want us to see are.
I read not long ago "How not to be a boy" (not a very good book, BTW) by Robert Webb, where the author tells us how he managed to get into a grammar school and subsequently into Cambridge pretty much on his own and with no parental help. He was not on free school meals, but his siblings went to the local comp and nobody in his family had gone to university. So perhaps they should have concentrated on how the likes of Webb managed to overcome a difficult situation. At this moment in time we are given six random kids and no clear indication of what the show's point is.

I used to be Gifted and Talented co-ordinator at a school near Jamarley's School.

It's worth pointing out that 'gifted' applies only to 'academic' subjects/mainly written subjects e.g. English, Maths, Science, MFL, Humanities. 'Talented' is used to describe children who excel in music, art, drama, tech and PE.

I'm a music teacher at a rural secondary school. Jamarley is undeniably talented but probably hasn't had much formal tuition (might have learned to play in church).

arkadia we can safely assume that all of these children are in receipt of Pupil Premium/Free School Meals funding. This is a socio-economic measure that OFSTED are very interested in, as they like to keep track of how Pupil Premium money is spent and the progress that these children make (they don't generally make as much progress as they should in many schools).

The main tenet of the programme is therefore, do socio-economic factors hold children back? (Answer: on the whole, yes).

Shack did we wear Jamarley play? I don't think so, or at least I don't remember.

In any case, what you are saying is that the producers hope that these 6 kids will fail, so that they can have another show on WHY they failed. (and if they succeed, they have yet another version of X-factor... almost a win-win for them ;) )
However, we are missing the benchmark and we are not really given any info on their situation. To me they are pretty ordinary kids. Perhaps at the higher end academically in their school (or are they?), but apart from that they are pretty ordinary teenagers in what the do and say.
Let us assume the succeed/fail, what conclusion can we draw from their story? Not very much, I'd say. After all this is a show, not a piece of research, so we shouldn't expect anything different.

So @Arkadia, to summarise - you felt that a) the pupils were not gifted enough, and b) they weren't deprived enough?!

Liam and his brother had to eat in shifts because there was only one tiny table in the house; this was also the only space where Liam could study.

Shakira and Anne-Marie both had a profoundly disabled younger sibling who necessarily took up a huge amount of their parents' time and attention.

Kian's father was a full-time carer for his mother.

Jada and her family were essentially homeless, hence why they had to stay with grandparents. The only space where Jada could study was her bunk bed.

Precisely what type of deprivation were you looking for?

I happen to agree with your very valid concerns about the ethics of broadcasting the programme in 'real time' and the effect that this might have on the children.

Incidentally, we did see Jamarley play - piano, bass, and guitar.

I honestly wonder if you were watching the same programme as me. You can't have been paying much attention.

I agree Arkadia, I felt the show explained exactly what problems the children faced- including financial details for all the families except maybe Jamarley's.

Only two families (Jamarley's and Liam's) had a parent who worked. Liam's mother was a shop worker at a discount school, and their father was absent. Jamarley's mother was a security guard and his father had been deported (the only bio father on the show who seemed involved with his child in any way). Both families received top-up benefits.

Shakira and Anne-Marie both had disabled younger siblings, and in both families the mothers were full time carers for this sibling, meaning the families relied on benefits. This also meant that their parents had less time to be involved in their lives, and although it wasn't shown, I think Shakira must have been involved in caring for her younger sibling, given the way she talked about him.

Kian's mother was disabled, and his father was her full time carer. His family relied on benefits.

Jada was essentially homeless due to a family breakdown, and at the start of the show shared a bed with her sister. I don't remember if they said whether her mother worked or not, but they were obviously in a very unstable home situation.

The show explicitly stated all children were on "free school meals", this means their maximum household income is

Re the ethics, and the possible impact of being on the programme for the kids and how that might affect future programmes - I read that the producers did think that it was possible that opportunities may open up for the kids by them being on the programme, and though that would distort the story in the future, they wouldn't get in the way of those opportunities because they could be so beneficial to the kids.

I thought the bit with Kian and his dad was highly manipulative TV. I really think it unfair as the Dad clearly hadn't had the context explained to him, or if he had, hadn't understood it. He just bulldozed in there thinking his son had done terribly.

I think the Director really set him up and knew that would happen. He obviously wants his son to do well and his heart is in the right place but Kian is such a sensitive soul. I think it was quite exploitative. Maybe the school was at fault and should have sent something home explaining what they were doing and the reasoning behind it. I feel the programme makers really stitched them up and felt quite angry and sad watching it.

I was also uncomfortable with the way they showed the Mum telling her son that his Dad had been shot. Could he not have been told that in private and then the viewer learn about it after he's had at least a few minutes/hours to process it?

Also, I knew this was going to be filmed over 3 years but I had misunderstood and thought what we were seeing was from 3 years ago and then it would come up to date to last year's GCSE results or this year's. What awful pressure to be on those kids for 3 years knowing that all their peers are watching them every step of the way. Totally putting them under the spotlight.

I do like the programme and its overall intention. I am obviously gripped and I LOVED 7-Up but am just feeling a little bit uneasy about how the programme makers seem to be prioritising 'good telly' over what's good for the well being and happiness of the participants.