___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

My ds last had a school reading book when he was 5 (he's 9 now). He gets them from our now extensive library at home and takes them to school to read. Teacher sounds shit to be honest with you. The Horrible Science and Histories are good for non-fiction annoying the teacher. That's where ds learned about Newton. Came in useful when some engineers from Rolls Royce went into the school, he made a few more (older) friends! If they are running out of books take your own in. You can get some from the library aswell. I'm running into problems now though because I am running out of authors. He's done the obvious ones (J K Rowling, Roald Dahl, Anthony Horowitz, Phillip Pullman). He's reading Stig of the Dump and has Watership Down waiting. I did briefly give him Bram Stokers Dracula until I watched the film .

Well, that's obviously bonkers meow. DS isn't gifted in the slightest, but reads like a demon and is constantly congratulated for his encyclopaedic general knowledge. By his teachers that is. I find it a bit waering at times...

TFM. The governments G&T policy requests that they seek out the top 10% (or something like that). This means that a poorly performing school is picking the top ones that might not be top if they were in another school. There should be a set criteria for gifted, the children at the level below are bright. My own experiences of school have given me a bad opinion if sink schools. I don't know if they are all like this though so my thoughts may be wrong. Even at my ds's school I can see the difference between the bright children who have been spoon fed info and forced to learn by their parents and those who are naturally gifted. If they were in the state system they would all be classed as gifted, which I don't think is fair on them.
I would like to see a school have an understanding of what these children go through. Some gifted children struggle socially as they find it difficult to relate to their peers. To encourage the thirst for knowledge and take the time to teach them something off the curriculum. I know that the Government interferes here. There's alot of testing to ensure that the children reach targets but Maths, English and science isn't everything. Good, emphusiastic teachers that have the time to teach would be a start. I would move my ds back into the state system if there was a school that could support him. He's at least 2 years ahead, bullying concerns me, as do the class sizes.

Well, I've done G&T outreach with primary children (not one on one, but small groups). And the gifted child I referred to earlier did have access to university activities. So these things can and do happen. And should.

It's not all about academics though. The social problems facing gifted children can be severe. My ds used to get teased because he would say excuse me please if he wanted to get past someone. I suppose you have to raise the bar for other children to help them fit in or teach them to be more 'normal' for want of a better word.

IME, schools distinguish between the government proscribed G&T and real giftedness (is that a word?). Which is why teachers are about the term gifted being bandied about.

Social skills groups also a fantastic idea. And not just for the gifted.

Money though

As soon as you start taking children out of class, it's all about the money.

There's been a lot of talk about all the resources going to children with other types of SEN, but that isn't enough either. Not to do what really needs to be done. Even when there is a statement. Schools would like to do more than they can financially manage. IME.

When a parent tells a parent that their child is gifted because they are good at maths, that's giving the parent unreal expectations. You can see this from what parents say on this site. Parents are unable to see that their child has been called gifted because they are ahead, not because they have a passion for learning philosophy at 7 or because they have what is needed to be truly gifted. It's the teachers that are causing the problems (no offence intended)Shoot me but it waters the term down. I for one will not say to a parent that their child is not gifted because they can read better then the other children in their class.

Isn't it better to have that child in a state school then in a private one? If the state system can offer this then parents will be reluctant to move them to the private sector. If you can keep them at your school surly that benefits the children that are there and the school, you get money for each child don't you? If they have been moved into the private system that money is lost.

I'm confused by your post.

"Shoot me but it waters the term down. I for one will not say to a parent that their child is not gifted because they can read better then the other children in their class."

So would this child be gifted? Or not?

Teachers did not choose the vocabulary of the G&T programme BTW. They are implementing a government initiative.

But, seriously, should all schools in the country be geared up to deal with a profoundly gifted child should one come along? What if all the facilities are in place and all the resources allocated but no such child arrives? There is a lot of myth and rumour aboutwhat happens to g and t children "the school can't teach him any more" "the school can't provide books for him" all that sort of stuff. Which is, forgive me, patent rubbish, unless we are talking about the half of one percent. My ds is YEARS ahead of his age group in reading - it's not the school's fault that there aren't many books written for an easily scared child who is a 7 year old emotionally but 13 in reading ability.

And it's no good using the comparison with the one to one help needed for a child with special needs at the other end of the continuum. Any good TA can be trained to help such children. This is not the case for profoundly gifted children who need specialist academic guidance.

You get a certain amount of money per child yes. Enough to teach them in a class of 30. Not enough to teach them one on one. The one on one that children with statements receive is from extra funding. And it funds a TA, not a teacher.

And I don't consider my ds gifted, by the way - he's just a good reader. Everyone else will catch up. People aren't going to be saying to him when he's 20 "My, you're a good reader for your age"

No, this child's not gifted because they are a good reader, they may be bright, but not gifted. There's a difference between the child that can read well at 5 and the one that reads well, takes ideas from the book, then writes their own, or the child that can learn their 2 times table at 5 and the one that knows all of their tables and applies them in every day things if you see where I am coming from. A gifted child may be able to watch a sports race, then they are working out the average speed (because they want to), then apply Newtons Laws to the movements.

It's a government initiative to identify a percentage, but if these children were placed in another school they may not be top. Gifted children are the brightest of the bright (can be gifted in different ways though).

But, Seeker, the reading is often - not always, but often - a sign of a more general ability. I don't believe it's possible to be 'just' a good reader. If your 7 year old truly comprehends like a 13 year old, then he is significantly cognitively advanced. To understand at that level is no mean feat. Other people will only catch up in so far as they will learn to read all the words eventually. My own 6 year old, described by his teacher as 'extraordinarily bright', is not 6 years ahead of his age. So your child is extra-extraordinary and I don't believe your false modesty on his behalf.

But you wouldn't say to their parent that they weren't gifted?

I understand how the scheme works. I just think you're unreasonable blaming teachers for it.

I agree - I did say that my ds wasn't gifted!

But I do think that schools should be - and are, generally - geared up for children like him, who are significantly cleverer than average, but not profoundly gifted.

I don't think they should necessarily be geared up for the profoundly gifted.

It's not false modesty. It's not any sort of modesty. I didn't say he had the cognitive ability of a 13 year old - he doesn't. He has the reading ability of an average 13 year old. Significantly different. He can read anything you put in front of him - and he can understand most of the words. But he doesn't have the emotional maturity to fully comprehend what he's reading. And in all other subjects he's a bright 7 year old. So not gifted as I perceive gifted.

If the teacher can't teach the child then how is a TA (which is the 1:1 a statement is going to fund- not a university professor) going to manage it?

Avenanap- most children with SN do not get statements either- stroll onto SN to see the battles (tribunals, solicitors) that parents go through to get a statement for their child.

KM- a statement/extra resources aren't provided for the children to "meet their potential". They're provided to allow the child to access the national curriculum. It's why its so hard for parents of say children with HFA to get statements.

Often a statement for a child in mainstream will fund a TA for a child with SN but no training. This certainly happened to ds1 in mainstream. He was given full time 1:1 with a TA who had no experience of non-verbal children, no training in the communication method he uses, no training in autism, and absolutely no idea how to teach him. They couldn't even get him to sit down, let alone learn. All they did was introduce a whole host of dodgy behaviours that together with his special school we had to take the best part of a year to unpick.

Then we had to lead the way in getting him out of that situation. Even those children with the most profound SN get jack all unless they have someone battling it out on their behalf.

Moan about gifted children not getting the resources they need as much as you like, but don't imagine for one minute it's going to children with SN. Why do you think no-one can ever get through to the IPSEA helpline?

Madonna. I wouldn't say their child is gifted. I would say their child is bright and reads very well. The teachers are doing as they are told by the Government. They are told to identify a certain percentage, this is wrong. A gifted child doesn't come along that often and they shouldn't tell you to identify a child as gifted if they are not. A bright child needs stimulating aswell though, they also benefit from the extra classes etc but to label a child that's good at maths as gifted puts them on par with children like michael, which can't be right or good for that child. Parents rely on what they are being told, some can not cope with having a 'gifted' child and may force them into a life which is not right for them.

ds2 (year 1) is like that seeker. And I;d say the same as you. He is very very good at reading. It's useful- and it makes life easier- he's taught himself birdwatching for example from a few adult bird books- which is great as I know nothing about birds, but it's not a sign of great intelligence.

It freaked out my uncle ('he's just looked up Egyptian geese for me in the index...' ) but being a good reader doesn't mean great intelligence.

DS1 (severe learning disabilities/severe autism) was reading some words at 2 - aged 9 his language ability isn't at a 2 year old level- but he can still read - although we're not sure how much. It's decoding and a good memory- which both ds1 and ds2 have.

OK. I think there was just an extra not in your sentence.

I understand, really.

ds: was at reception level (reading letters, numbers, shapes)at 14 months. I could have converstations with him at 18 months. At 3 and a half he could read roald dahl (after being able to read for a week). He's got an excellent memory, has read alot of books so knows alot of stuff and uses it at every opportunity. He knows philosophy but has never read any books or learnt about it (theories on society, law etc). He plays the piano, he does no practice because he can play it after hearing it once. His reading age is 14, in maths he's 3 years ahead at school, I can tell by the way he talks that he processes info at a very fast rate, he can argue like any adult I've ever met (as in put his point across). I don't think he's at michaels level though. I have no idea if he is just very bright or gifted. He's never been assessed apart from sats (he's at level 5 now). He's just turned 9. I'm not bothered if he's gifted, I just want him to be supported and for him to be happy.