Generation Gifted BBC2

[Buxbaum]

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

Anyone watching?

I've just watched the girls one and my gosh it was a hard watch.
Very capable kids but (with the possible exception of Jada) such delicate self esteem.

Growing up in poverty really wreaks havoc on a persons sense of self and then to have the pressure of being "the one with promise" on top of that....its no wonder Anne Marie was struggling with anxiety.
She's putting so much pressure on herself. The bit where she explains how its her responsibility as the eldest child to make decent money and provide for her disabled brother and carer mum!

When the teachers were trying to get Shakira to audition for the school play I was thinking "Nooo! Don't make the shy girl sing!" But what do I know? turns out it was really good for her in the end!

The scene with Jada and her teacher discussing Grammar School: What he's doing is called "inoculation". Basically bringing up the possible barriers before they happen so that the person will be prepared. Its a coaching technique and he's very much got Jada's interests at heart. For those that didn't see it, the conversation can be summarised as:
Teacher: Have you considered that you may face discrimination at Grammar School?
Jada: Yes I've considered it and I'm ready to face it.
Teacher: That's fine.
I doubt that this is the first time Jada has heard of racial or class discrimination . I would expect she's also had "the talk" from her Mum and Grandma - maybe quite a few times.

What I find very effecting is the way all three consider university to be an enormous leap- only for the very brightest and act as though there's a question over whether they can do it or not. Putting aside whether the kids are "really gifted" or not (I can see some up thread would like to have that discussion); I think that middle class kids of the same and substantially lower ability would expect to go to university as a given.

Yes, unlimited. That's true. I specifically sent my children to schools where just about 100% go to good unviersities because even "weak" or lazy children tend to copy their peers so if they are in a good peer group as teenagers then even going off the rails might just be a ni ght drunk but you still go to university (and parents lose influence over children as teens when friends become more important as a rule).

I think it was not too intrustively done. Anyone taking part in these things knows there is a risk only certain parts will be shown of how you are and what you say and there will be an agenda. Even the "Up series" has it's own original aim - to see if the posh v East end children turn out as you will expect. I was reminding myself of where they ended up last night on wiki.

The mental health of some of them is a slight concern and their backgrounds will not have help with that as they have a lot to cope with at home. I hope they all do okay.

We are very lucky they have allowed us into their lives. (I also had hoped they had been flilming for 3 years and we would see all 3 years in the next few weeks but we have to wait...... a contrast with some teenagers locally at academic schools might have been an interesting contrast.

To be honest, I don't buy that those kids behave in any way that is different from their peers. This is what disappointed me the most. The show didn't manage to engage me on that level and make the link between poverty and outcome. Instead thinking about it afterwards I felt manipulated (no surprise there, all these shows behave in the same way).

I felt that the teacher with the grammar school girl was off putting. I may have to see that scene again, but the way I remember it was negative, and not meant to prepare the girl.
To me kian's father's reaction was justified. Upthread more than one poster explained that those mock tests are meant for yr9 and are not real gsce papers.

Anyone taking part in these things knows there is a risk only certain parts will be shown of how you are and what you say and there will be an agenda.

But these are 13/14 year old CHILDREN. It's ultimately down to the parents to consent on their behalf. As an adult, I fully understand the implications of putting my life out there on TV for all to see but do these children fully comprehend that when they agree to take part? I don't think they can at that age. I think then it is doubly important that the programme makers don't manipulate situations or choose to use footage that might not be in the participant's best interests.

I would go further long, do you think their parents FULLY understand the implications? We live in the reality TV era, so to them it might look normal.
In addition they will get paid for appearing (and I wonder how much).
The more I think about it the more I convince myself that they should have shown it in 2 years' time.

Makes me so sad that we've gone backwards..when I was that age, my parents became anxious when I said I might want to go to university, but I had leaflets explaining how there were grants, and I got a good degree, without needing any financial support (and they had very little to spare..), which has led to an interesting career, and being far better off then they were.

I know I'd never have had that opportunity under the current system (they'd have discouraged me from taking on a huge debt for life, and I wouldnt have defied them..).
The current system will deprive many bright children of opportunity :-(

Yes I think you're right Arkadia. I think some of the parents are just proud of their children and maybe some of them think it will help their children in the future. I don't feel entirely comfortable watching it but feel conflicted because I think it's important to be aware of the struggles that many people have.

I agree @arkadia, some of the parents probably don't have a full understanding of what they have signed up for, or how it will affect their children. I will admit I don't know anything about payment- do the working class people who appear on shows like this usually get paid?

I agree @unlimiteddilutingjuice the biggest problem was the children's own self esteem- very much not seeing university as for "the likes of them". I thought the same was true with the boys. Also they seemed very aware of financial stress and family worries for their ages.

I think it's all about critical mass- if a critical mass of your peers expect to do a-levels and go to university, then you probably will too. If they are aiming high for competitive degrees at top universities, you probably will too, if you are able. Equally, if lots of people expect to go to college to study vocational qualifications, or do apprenticeships, or drop out of education all together, you are more likely to do that. If a critical mass of your peers expect to live on benefits, then you're less likely to aim high.

If I was going to be really negative, I would say maybe 1 of the 6 children will get GCSE results that reflect their actual ability, and go on to a good university and "get out". At least one of the children will have a child young and this will affect their life chances. One of the children will disengage with education totally before GCSEs. One of them will end up with a drug problem or a criminal record. The other two will achieve something and go to the local college and maybe a mediocre university or get an apprenticeship, and achieve something, but nothing like their full potential.

I really hope I'm proven wrong!

Did you seriously just juxtapose some very valid and thoughtful concerns about the ethics of the programme with a lurid run-down of your predictions of what might happen to these children? Can you see the contradiction there?

"the biggest problem was the children's own self esteem- very much not seeing university as for "the likes of them"."

It's not quite that. They think it's for them-but with great difficulty and because they are particularly (unusually?) smart.
It's for the outliers and over achievers.

Whereas I think middle class kids view university as something you can probably manage if your average.
I remember being surprised to hear middle class young people talking about a 2.2 as an average persons degree that you could get without compromising your social life.

@LadyLance, thanks for your insightful comment. I think you are quite right... you go along with what people around you do and if enough people do a certain thing, you follow suit.
So perhaps they should have chosen at least one or two people from a deprived background, but living in a more affluent area and going to a more affluent school to see what they thought of their chances. Instead the show is manipulating the viewer into believing that deprived background -> low self esteem and high level fo self consciousness, which is total tosh, especially because those schools have been portrayed as quite homogeneous environments, so given this premise I don't see why there should be a higher number of kids with low self esteem. Their self esteem might not be geared towards university because none of their peers think about that (just like I didn't think about becoming a footballer or a TV star), but it doesn't follow that they see themselves as worthless. For example, take tattoo girl, the show made a big deal about her participating in a school show and singing in front of an audience, but what about all her school friends who were participating in the show and were singing in front of an audience? Where did they come from and where did they find the confidence to do it?

PS
One thing, though: nothing wrong with apprenticeships. I am sure a good plumber or heating engineer makes more money than me :D

Interesting how the teacher described the stigma children on free school meals have as it marks them out as being different and not as good as their peers which they carry through to the rest of their lives.

Interesting article by Caitlin Moran yesterday in The Times on how poverty affects your ability to be clean; all these seemingly small things eroding away at these children's confidence which the rest of us not in poverty take for granted.

Yes, Caitlin M's article reminded me of those books Tuppence to Cross the Mersey where I will always remember the passaegs about lack of soap - the family had very ineffective parents who spent a lot on smoking etc and the children were much less clean than other just as poor families around them in particular because they had no soap at all at home and secondly their parents (who had fallen on hard times from a family that had been better off) did not know there were public baths you could use and wash in. It's one of the best descriptions of that kind of very worst poverty I have read.

One of the biggest changes for a lot of children is that usually there are just 1 or 2 children in the family now whereas Caitlin M was one of many, my great grandmother had 11 (10 of whom lived). Although not always easy it is a bit easier to buy soap for 1 or 2 children than 10.

I loved it . A real eye opener , and it made me realise what a great job their teachers do too . I found kians father quite touching actually . He has lost his career , he has to care for his wife and he is doing his best. Kian stopped crying and calmed down pretty fast .
We have a 2 bed house and I was a but frustrated with jada , her mother could maybe a be a bit straighter with her . But she got her a bunk bed . I worry the most for Anne Marie and Shakira .
Anne Marie is just so anxious and carries so much. I agree with what PP said about properly educating her how student loans work , and what degree to go for .
Shakira well I just wanted to bundle her up!

Lovely lovely kids and I hope this ends up being a positive experience for them overall.

I couldn’t see an updated thread but did anyone see the first episode of year 2 last night? You can just see how much harder the pathway is for these kids compared to middle class peers. Jamarley did well enough in music but I wasn’t sure why the school was pushing for early GCSEs especially as that class was filled with kids that didn’t want to be there. With an extra year could he have perhaps got an 8-9 for his music. Again a 4 and 5 for his other ones felt a bit low if he is gifted. I can understand doing maths a year early for kids doing a-level maths but something like history just seems wrong to rush when so much of it is developing analysis and writing skills.

It was frustrating to see Jamarley’s school putting them through the foundation subjects early. They will be doing it to cram as hard as possible in year 11 for the core subjects, because maths and English are double-weighted and therefore more valuable in the progress measures. It’s strategic - creative subjects like music and art and practical subjects like tech are time-consuming and they’ve taken the decision to remove that factor from year 11.

Yes I watched it again and again don't see why these kids are classed as gifted.
Not being horrible but I doubt Liam is Cambridge material when he wasn't even doing his maths homework 🙄

I'm going to repeat my words from last year on the subject of whether the pupils are 'sufficiently gifted':

"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 can only imagine the way in which this documentary series has increased the pressure on the young people which it features (bringing us back to those ethical concerns again). I'd be more surprised if they didn't act up or seem disaffected at times, especially considering the additional emotional burdens that they are carrying.

Not being horrible but

Mumsnet's SEO is pretty good. Googling the name of the programme will get you to this thread. Please remember that you are talking about an actual child and that your words could easily be read by them, or by their family.

Buxbaum Good point. My comments were not intended as a slight but more out of frustration at the school for putting pressure on a year early and what implications that might have for the bright kids in particular.

I know myself that I needed the extra year to reach my potential through added maturity, consolidation of knowledge, practice, refined writing skills etc . I very much doubt I would have got an A* in history for example if I had done it in year 10. I just can’t see how they can effectively get through all the material a year early in multiple subjects while allowing time push the high achieving kids.

For music, an extra year of playing is likely to provide better marks in performance (assuming standard would be higher), more opportunity to develop composition skillsand deeper understanding of the theory. I assume they won’t be starting a-levels early if they are cramming the core subjects in year 11 so what happens to someone like Jamarley in music? Would be not take the subject for a year and then pick it back up in year 12?

I know that university fees aren't repaid until later, but there are other costs that meant when I was advising A level students on where to apply to university, there were places they couldn't consider ie anywhere outside of the city we live in.

If your family has a very low income then it's impossible to pay the deposit on Halls or a flat, buy all the bedding and things you need to take, and actually get yourself to university. It was much easier years ago when people used to set off with a rucksack and no deposit was needed.

Just watched it now.
I really like Jamarley's mum

I wondered why all the anxiety about coming out as gay to his grandad to the extent he stopped seeing him. I thought maybe he'd made some homophobic comments in the past but his reaction seemed lovely in the end

I know Jamarley’s school and I think it’s bonkers that they do GCSEs early when most of the kids aren’t high achievers at all.

And now the girls as well. Why are they doing important GCSE’s early? It seems common across most of the schools shown. I’d be interested to see which cohort of students this most benefits. My suspicions are that would help those on the border get more passes but fails those who could get the top grades with more time. It was a disgrace Jada had to do her Spanish a year early because there wasn’t a teacher. A at for a language makes a massive difference.

You can really see that Anne Marie in a more middle class home would have been on an easy pathway to a top university. She is clearly bright and self motivated but was putting up with a hell of a lot. I hope she had support through the bereavement and will be able to get special consideration if she doesn’t resist. But again why was the school pushing students to do chemistry, English, history and Welsh early. It just feels very unfair as those are the sorts of subjects you mature into and develop greater understanding etc.

God knows why they make them take them early, seems pointless and unfair.

Anyone else have a tear in their eye when Anne Marie got her A in English? Think I was more pleased for her than her Mum

Anne Marie did so well under the circumstances. The programme did make me wonder about ethics as others have done. Employers will be able to google in the future, the kids choices are still live and ongoing. I just hope they don’t all regret the filming in a few years. Every part of their lives have been exposed.