___WEDNESDAY___CH 4___UPDATE___"CHILD GENIUS"___UPDATE___CH 4___

[RTKangaMummy]

WEDNESDAY

CHANNEL 4

AN UPDATE ON THE CHILDREN FROM LAST YEAR

x x x

Documentary
Child Genius Wednesday 16 April
9:00pm - 10:00pm
Channel 4
1/2
The subtitle of this series about megabrained children is "young and gifted", but by the end you half-wonder if it should be "young and cursed". We're catching up with kids we met in the last series - chess champ Peter (11), who wears a "genius in training" T-shirt, Adam (eight), who dissects rats in the kitchen, and Mikhail (five), who as Britain's youngest Mensa member has appeared on Oprah and Countdown. We also meet Georgia, who toppled Mikhail as Britain's youngest Mensa member. At two, she was measured with an IQ of 152 - impressive given that, being a toddler, she fell asleep halfway through the test. Her mother notes that "a lot of the pictures we take of Georgia have this white light around her . . ." That's the thing: inevitably, parents become caught up in making their gifted children into mini-celebrities, especially when TV crews get involved. It makes for fascinating TV; whether it's great for the pressure-cooker kids is another matter.

x x x

Standard Attainment Test (I think) They are a series of tests in English, Maths and Science taken by children in years 2,6 and (I think) 9. The mythical "average" child is expected to get level 2 at 7ish, level4 at 10/11ish and level6 at whatever age they are in year 9 - 14ish I think.

God no! Though in practice she was allowed to carry on -- or rather she was very clever at making a complete nuisance of herself in ways that the teacher couldn't actually do much about.

My complaint was the school's refusal to see that the fact she was bored senseless had anything at all do with her bad behaviour, and that if they'd made some effort to keep her productively occupied she might have had better things to do than spend all day dreaming up wisecracks at the teacher's expense.

I did take her to an Ed Psych at one point. The only comment the psych made was, "frankly, I'm surprised her behaviour isn't much worse!" Which was true but not helpful. We took the report into school to try and open up a dialogue, but they were so uninterested it wasn't even funny.

Ds's teacher told me that they no longer allow children to attempt a level 6 paper at 11, the highest he can get is a level 5, he's just turned 9 and is at level 5 now. I don't see this as fair.

Agonybeetle. I used to sit at the back of the class and count the spots on the ceiling for an hour whilst I was waiting for everyone else to catch up. In English I could read twice as fast as every one else, I'd finish the class reading text, be given a different book then have to go back and read bits out of the old book with the rest of the class. It was so annoying. I didn't correct the teachers though. I learnt early on not to ask or answer questions, life would have been far worse if I did that.

Hi, guys. Of COURSE I agree that it is really important to help kids learn basic skills, but I worry about agonybeetle's bored kid too, and it doesn't seem ok to me to help one kid at the expense of another. Shouldn't we actually try to help all kids at every level? My sense is that while education professionals worry a lot about the bottom third, they simply hope the top kids will be ok - and I'm not sure they will be.

Britain has had a bad system for many years, the bright ones are ignored so that the teachers can do crowd control. They should bring back the grammar schools. The kids that perform well but didn't get in should be given a chance to go, it seems unfair to place children that are bright or those who want to work with those that don't. We should be trying to help all children but the whole education system is flawed, it helps the middle classes more. The children at the top levels often require as much support and guidance as those near the bottom.

In primary schools in my experience the bottom third get abandoned very early as beyond saving. Schools seem to me to pay a lot of attention to the top because lots of level 5s look very good on the league tables. I am, however, talking about the "normally" bright top, not the very few super bright. I do think they are a special case - but as they are pretty few and far between I'm not sure what the best thing to do for them is. My two (one bright but not super bright, one g&t but not super g&t have been pretty well served by their bog standard primary school. The people who are being let down, in my opinion, are the "bottom" third.

I'm not sure mainstream schools can provide the very best education for any extreme. And the children referred to on this thread are at the very extreme aren't they? By their parents' own definition. And they certainly don't represent anything like a third. Top sets tend to be pretty well nurtured IME. It's the children who won't get a C who have a harder time of it. The rare very gifted child will probably not be stretched as much as they can be, and certainly not as much as either the teacher (and parents ) would like, because they are very rare, and much has to inevitably be one on one, which is hard to manage. I have taught one such child, and it was a joy. He went off to university (Oxford, from a comprehensive)and has had a pretty successful time of it.

My point I suppose, after much rambling , is that it is misleading to generalise from the experience of a very gifted child to that of other merely 'bright' children.

I agree - but you said it better! I'm not sure that it's fair to criticise the education system because it can't cope with the very occasional very gifted child. In the same way that I wouldn't expect my dd's music teacher to be necessarily the best person to teach her if she was a musical genius. Horses for courses.

I suppose, the question is why should a child who is so far from the norm/mean in one direction have such a different educational experiance than his polar opposite? If you can't expect a child with an IQ of 50% below average to function in a mainstream class then can you expect a child with an IQ 50% above average to function in mainstream? I think it should be easier for parents who will never be able to pay for a private education (because lets face it, most of the time a private education is more suited to a gifted child than a state one) to get a TA or one -to- one help for their gifted children. I suppose though this would only work with very young gifted children because by 8 or 9 they'd be able to outsmart and think much faster than most adults...

There does need to be some sort of support system in place though...

It seems that everything is unsuitable. If you leave them with their peers they become bored and are singled out, if they skip a year they are still singled out and it's generally not thought of as a good idea by other schools. What's a parent to do? They should have Grammar schools and split them. I know it's unfair but it may be the best option in the long run.

I am deffo strongly in favour of SIDEWAYS LEARNING ie researching more about whatever the class are learning about sideways rather than vertically

So they can find interest in the topics the class are learning about

But grammar schools don't separate the very gifted from the merely bright, any more than setting in a comprehensive does.

At least there's a learning environment as opposed to the hole school I attended. The state school we are in catchment for has behavioural problems. I don't see the problem splitting those children who want to work from those that don't. If a grammar school does this then that's a good thing. I don't see gifted as an elite group though, they are still children with needs, however misunderstood. Sideways learning is an excellent concept. Grammar schools would prevent the bright and gifted being lost in a class of disruptive children.

But all secondary schools set. I REALLY don't think you can arrange schools to suit the half of one percent - or whatever is is - of profoundly gifted children. And I think, from my experience/observation that the comprehensive system deals with the "merely" bright very well. My dd is at grammar school - and, of course, from purely academic point of view, it is a much better place for a bright child. Not so sure about it from the learning about life/social point of view, though!

I agree with Seeker and FallenMadonna. I know one person that I would describe as 'gifted'. He's top of his academic field, top first in his year at Oxford, etc etc - and he got there from a comprehensive with no extra resources thrown at him.

Every child has the same legal rights at school- that is to receive a 'suitable' education, not the best, a suitable one. There will be a very few children who are so bright that the standard mainstream education cannot provide them with a suitable education- Michael may be one of them - in which case you have exactly the same rights in law as the children form the bottom few %. Statements when introduced were expected to be needed for about 2% is the school population. Parents of children with those severe needs usually have to fight for an adequate statement that actually means something. It's not just handed out to them. If your gifted child's needs are so far from the norm that the only way they can receive a suitable education is via extra resources then parents can apply for a statement.

Most gifted children don't need extra resources though- they can get a suitable education (remember no-one is entitled to the best) without extra resources.

Parents with gifted children can not get the statements though, not unless their child is a nightmare. That's what Georgia's mum from the first programme was trying to do to get her a place in a school. She had her IQ testes to try and prove that she was gifted and had special needs because of it. It didn't work, she didn't get in.

My ds spent reception in a state school, he was on the special needs register because he was Gifted and the teacher had to do more work to cater for him. It was a right mess. He did literacy with the year above (he couldn't write very well), he went from class to class.

That's true yurt. A colleague's son had a statement for that reason, with no SN (as opposed to SEN, IYSWIM).

Ds1s grammar separates the gifted ones. Extension activities extra levels and streamed higher attainment classes.
Also re the level 5 cap at primary. Ds1 got put straight onto level 8 at grammar in yr7.
Was very frustrated at primary. Now he faces similar! Cannot go past level 8... But yr10 looms hooray!

It's not fair!

This should apply to all children, regardless of ability. They should all have the opportunity to be educated to their potential. The UK education system lacks this though.

"They should all have the opportunity to be educated to their potential."

Yep, very true...must remind DDs teacher of this. DD's teacher said today 'we need to slow her reading progress down so that she wont read all the infant library before year 2'. She then went on 'I dont think she should read so much non-fiction as she will know too much too soon'. Hmmmmmm. Anyone tried to slow down a speeding train with a thirst for knowledge?

Good schools, even comprehensives , have G&T programmes, for their brightest children. You don't need a grammar school to do that. But that's for the bright children.

I thought you were talking about very gifted children, about whom Jane Lumley says:

"Realistically, we and our kids MUST always be in a tiny minority. Most TEACHERS are only going to have ONE profoundly gifted kid in an entire career, statistically speaking. Most people won't have met one. Not even one."

What would you like to see schools do for them? That could be accomplished in a mainstream school? I am genuinely interested in your answers BTW. I'm not being argumentative or arsey here. I'm a teacher. I'm interested.