So very angry right now!!

milliebear00001

Gingham_R wrote: »

Parents are often the child's only advocate so I'm not surprised that many of them feel unhappy when their child is asked to compromise. Often that compromise is not a compromise at all - it's a 'sorry, we can't help' dressed up to look like a compromise.

I'm very interested in this 'shouting out' issue. Sylvia Rimm says she's rarely taught a gifted child who didn't shout out answers. ADHD type symptoms can cause a child to call out not just because of impulsiveness but also because of short term memory problems - either call out or forget what the answer was. And a child who is calling out is listening and engaged unlike many who are sitting quietly and drifting off in their heads.

There are ways round it in the classroom. The Read Write Inc training for example puts emphasis on getting kids to tell each other the answers, or answer chorally or several other ideas, none of which involve putting hands up, which has several problems associated with it not least the calling out. Susan Weinbrenner also has some sensible solutions. These methods both reduce the calling out AND the daydreaming.

So no compromise needed there - just a different way of approaching the issue.

So, in other words, closing off one type of teaching (whole class, open questioning, hands up) that may actually benefit, and be the preferred style of learning, for other children in the class. At some point, those children who prefer to call out, are going to need to accept that it isn't always appropriate to do so - even if that may not be the best route for their learning.

As I said - everyone has to compromise in a class of 30. The teacher is likely to be using all the mthods you describe already - they won't suit all children equally, so some will be benefiting more than others at any given time. That's the nature of learning alongside 29 other children.

Of course, if taught individually, that child's preferred and most beneficial way of learning could be used all the time - there's the difference.

milliebear00001

Gingham_R wrote: »

You've raised an interesting point and are right that it's dear to my heart. I was not at all happy with my eldest's first 3 years of schooling and I believe that it wasn't because of the competing needs of the other children, but the lack of understanding of the complex needs of high gifted children that was the issue - again a training issue and not the individual teachers.

Again, this is easily solved in the classroom if teachers and management are prepared to take risks. For example, remembering that children need to be learning in class - not necessarily being taught.

And the money to train teaching staff and leadership in all these issues come from...?

Most teaching staff in this country haven't even had formal training in how to teach synthetic phonics! What you describe would be at the very bottom of the priority pile.

Gingham_R

milliebear00001 wrote: »

So, in other words, closing off one type of teaching (whole class, open questioning, hands up) that may actually benefit, and be the preferred style of learning, for other children in the class. .

No. Continuing with whole class, open questioning without the need for hands up. It has all the same advantages with none of the disadvantages.

Gingham_R

milliebear00001 wrote: »

And the money to train teaching staff and leadership in all these issues come from...?

Most teaching staff in this country haven't even had formal training in how to teach synthetic phonics! What you describe would be at the very bottom of the priority pile.

The very top of the priority pile should be the things I outlined earlier. Anything less than that is unsatisfactory.

The hands up/no hands up issue is far from the bottom of the priority pile if you've got children who are interrupting your lesson and children who aren't paying attention. It's a quick rethink - a half hour part of a wider training issue in my experience.

milliebear00001

Gingham_R wrote: »

You've raised an interesting point and are right that it's dear to my heart. I was not at all happy with my eldest's first 3 years of schooling and I believe that it wasn't because of the competing needs of the other children, but the lack of understanding of the complex needs of high gifted children that was the issue - again a training issue and not the individual teachers.

Again, this is easily solved in the classroom if teachers and management are prepared to take risks. For example, remembering that children need to be learning in class - not necessarily being taught.

This may not have been the issue in your particular school, but I guarantee it will be in many. Some schools have to cater for many more children with special ed. needs and disabilities than others. Many, many more have children with complex emotional needs and deprived and neglectful backgrounds, whereas some have very few of these issues. Schools have children with very different needs and have to cut their cloth and make tough choices accordingly.

Person_one

Gingham_R wrote: »

No. Continuing with whole class, open questioning without the need for hands up. It has all the same advantages with none of the disadvantages.

The disadvantage would be that there are lots of bright but shy children who would never feel confident enough to shout out an answer unprompted even if they know it and could make a valuable contribution. This happens even at university level!

Gingham_R

I'm talking about my experience of dozens of schools as well as the specific needs in my son's school.

Teachers are STILL not trained in how asynchronous development, dual and twice exceptionalities (gifted with another learning difference eg dyslexia) and high giftedness affect their needs in the classroom. If teachers were more aware, they'd be able to see how damaging not meeting their needs is, to the individual child and to the class as a whole.

Again, not the teacher's fault. A much wider issue.

Gingham_R

Person_one wrote: »

The disadvantage would be that there are lots of bright but shy children who would never feel confident enough to shout out an answer unprompted even if they know it and could make a valuable contribution. This happens even at university level!

Exactly. Which is another reason that a no hands up rule and other ways of getting children to talk about the answers works.

milliebear00001

Gingham_R wrote: »

The very top of the priority pile should be the things I outlined earlier. Anything less than that is unsatisfactory.

The hands up/no hands up issue is far from the bottom of the priority pile if you've got children who are interrupting your lesson and children who aren't paying attention. It's a quick rethink - a half hour part of a wider training issue in my experience.

This is pure cloud cuckoo land stuff. Training staff in the complex needs of gifted children (in all their guises) is very far from a quick half hour. Ni hands up is commonly used in classrooms now anyway. This is not what the research suggests is needed - which is that impulsive childrne would benefot from no hands up all of the time.

In most schools the top of the priority pile will be providing individualised learning for those children whose needs are such that they require a hugely different learning experience. Then we will do what we can to cater for as many different learning styles as possible within our own classrooms, but you cannot teach in all ways all of the time, so children must sometimes learn in ways that would not be their first choice.

Gingham_R

Care and high consideration for social and emotional issues
Care and high consideration for special needs

These are the two core priorities I set out earlier. I'm guessing you didn't mean these when you said what I wanted in schools was at the bottom of the priority pile.

If these aren't at the top of the pile, we're getting something terribly, terribly wrong.