Gifted Children

silly_moo

Better_Days wrote: »

Children maybe described as gifted when in fact they are above the average level of intelligence.
[...]
Parents do boast about how gifted their children are at this or that, and from the outside it is not easy to separate the wheat from the chaff, what is boasting and what is actually genuine talent. This is not envy, but a recognition that a parents assessment of their child's abilities is not always accurate. Also, I suspect the terms gifted and talented are often used in a wider way, rather than the more narrow educational definition.

My understanding is that "gifted" refers to a child who has a gift in a particular area, e.g. maths, literacy etc. Talented on the other hand refers to children who are great at music, sports, arts etc.

Where do you think the line between "gifted" and "above average" is? And when can a parent officially say their child is gifted? I'm not planning to subject my son to any intelligence tests, as he's way to young for that but at the same time I think his abilities in certain areas are exceptional, and not merely "above average".

ViolaLass

I'm a bit bemused by the reaction to my post. What I meant was, were there so many children labelled 'gifted' at that school that set 1 was full of them and thus some had to be in set 2 (because surely labelling someone as generically gifted and putting them in set 2 for everything doesn't add up).

I wasn't calling anyone names or suggesting anyone wasn't gifted, although you could argue that I was raising an eyebrow at the school and wondering what the point of those labels was (or, lulu, was the label in primary and not at secondary? That might make sense.)

lulu_92

ViolaLass wrote: »

I'm a bit bemused by the reaction to my post. What I meant was, were there so many children labelled 'gifted' at that school that set 1 was full of them and thus some had to be in set 2 (because surely labelling someone as generically gifted and putting them in set 2 for everything doesn't add up).

I wasn't calling anyone names or suggesting anyone wasn't gifted, although you could argue that I was raising an eyebrow at the school and wondering what the point of those labels was (or, lulu, was the label in primary and not at secondary? That might make sense.)

I understand you didn't mean any malice, I just stated it sounded slightly off.

It was in secondary school but it was only brought in when I was in year 9 (new headteacher) so that may explain it.

When I was in primary school there wasn't any of this Gifted and Talented lark.

Looking back I guess I got the label because of my heavy involvement in drama and music, and the fact I did very well in both, and most of the G&T folks were either into arts or sports. I would still consider myself an academic, but I much prefer being creative.

FBaby

Where do you think the line between "gifted" and "above average" is?

That's the issue. There is no clear line. Some schools will apply different ratios, for some it will just the top 30, others the top 5. Also, a child in a the top 5% of one school might be in the 50% of another school.

You have children with one particular gift or talent in one subject, but who is very average in all the others, as much as kids who might not be as talented and gifted in that subject, but excelling in all subjects. These children will have different needs.

It feels like it would be reassuring to hear that your child is G&T, but it really doesn't mean much at all on an individual basis. Better to focus on what their individual needs are than what their needs on the basis of the label.

GlasweJen

Our school didn't have a gifted register, I'm in Scotland so don't know if it applies.

We worked through the NQ levels A to E, I'd finished level E in all subjects by primary 5. Primary 5 was disruptive because our teacher dropped down dead in front of us and they couldn't recruit a replacement so we had a succession of substitute teachers, at least 15 before a newly qualified teacher got assigned our class in the April.

Primary 6 was spent catching up on where we should have been in primary 5 but for me I spent the year reading and doing some maths work that the high school sent as bridging work for the primary 7s.

In primary 7 they introduced level F, I'd finished that by Christmas so the high school sent down some reading, maths and logic stuff for me to do.

High school didn't stream until the end of 2nd year but the brightest 8 in our year were given extra work for some classes. I was top of all my academic classes but languishing in the middle in art, drama, PE and sewing (was top in cooking).

I have a whole host of grade 1 standard grades, As for highers and 4 advanced highers. I walked through my degree, had a masters at 22, another undergrad degree was completed in 2 years (career change due to disability) and at age 25 I had 2 BSc (hons) first class, 2 masters and a post grad diploma in a completely unrelated subject.

I currently work in the NHS as a typist. Life isn't fair and I'm now severely disabled. I keep my mind active outside of work but can't manage more than a few hours at a time.

Knowing that I have high functioning autism I wish my parents or someone had focused me on using my extra time in primary school learning how to interact with people. I can do it on a professional level but can't pick up the phone to even call my own mum for a chat - I can't even understand the concept if I'm honest. I'm lonely, my partner is lovely but works full time and I have carers come in and out but they're not friends and they change a lot.

Academics is fine, a high IQ can be a burden (I'm a member of Mensa) but it's more important to be a rounded person.

Indie_Kid

I don't think we ahev G&T in secondary school. They decided for whatever reason, that mixed sets were the way to go. It meant I was sat there bored. And then we had a supply teacher who couldn't teach.

lulu_92

Indie_Kid wrote: »

I don't think we ahev G&T in secondary school. They decided for whatever reason, that mixed sets were the way to go. It meant I was sat there bored. And then we had a supply teacher who couldn't teach.

The supply teacher sounds like the ones we had.

Indie_Kid

lulu_92 wrote: »

The supply teacher sounds like the ones we had.

We complained and were told it's because we didn't allow him to teach. A friend of my sisters had the same teacher and had the same problem with his "teaching".

[Deleted User]

GlasweJen wrote: »

Academics is fine, a high IQ can be a burden (I'm a member of Mensa) but it's more important to be a rounded person.

This is the most important thing I've read on the thread so-far

IQ is great, EQ is probably more important to be a functional person

lulu_92

Indie_Kid wrote: »

We complained and were told it's because we didn't allow him to teach. A friend of my sisters had the same teacher and had the same problem with his "teaching".

Yeah we got a similar explanation. Apparently it was our fault we weren't learning anything but he would never go off the syllabus and we just got given busy work. He loved sending people out of class, too. I was once sent out of one of his lessons because he didn't like how I chewed on my (own) pen when I was thinking.