IIRC, it was introduced a few years ago when it was recognised that some schools were letting their brightest kids coast through without really pushing them. That certainly happened to me at secondary school – I was always going to get 5 Cs so was pretty much just left to just drift along.

What then happened was the kids in the middle got left to drift along, so we now have kids being judged against expected progress with all kids being expected to exceed expected progress. I know that’s stupid, but remember we have an education secretary who wants all schools to be above average…

Lots of schools still keep it as an explicit list, but some don’t.

I used to be on one of those programmes back in the day (mid 70’s), we had a few hours a week where we could choose to do something which interested us. I mucked about with microscopes and stuff IIRC.

Sounds just like the PC way to talk about stuff – just like the old non-competitive sports rubbish that was attempted a few years ago.

What….eh…..really…. you seem hung up on Pc stuff for some reason but thanks for soapboxing …now back on topic

If they don’t try hard, then their gift or talent won’t show will it?

I suggest you look at studies, especially of twins , including those separated at birth to see what % of intelligence in innate and from genetics. Its like claiming they have worked hard to be tall – for sure at some point effort will matter and will have an affect and when it does I will be pleased.

allowing pupils from families that have no experience of tertiary education to aspire to and access higher education

Really – you think this is the goal – what % of the G & T do not come from parents with degrees? I would wager it is quite small tbh.
Interesting that some of you, I assume, are talking about secondary school and my kids are in primary

The idea that intelligence mitigates the need for specific attention is painfully shortsighted.

That is indeed a good line and your entire post if food for though…my approach may be mellowing here…damn you and your facts STW

Really – you think this is the goal – what % of the G & T do not come from parents with degrees? I would wager it is quite small tbh.

There are separate programmes aimed at students who are in the first generation to aim for HE; there’s probably a big crossover though.
I teach a lot of very bright students who are the first generation to consider uni. Most of them will have been on the G&T register at school.

I like to think I’d have been on a G&T programme had it existed when I was at school, and neither of my parents had degrees at the time. My wife would certainly have been in the G&T programme and neither of her parents have degrees.

Nursery say my sons special, is that similar?

Kind of.

Imagine a nine year old going into school. Teacher starts the lesson. kid knows this stuff already, switches off. Repeat, every single school day for two more years. There’s not much room for streaming in most primary schools, and lesson differentiation can only go so far, so if you don’t want the brightest to switch off, or worse still, turn their talent to mischief(which they would be good at too), you need to keep them engaged.

Not being either a parent or a teacher, I might be a bit behind the game here, but as I understand it lots of (presumably secondary) schools have mixed ability groups now. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have groups based on ability? Then teachers wouldn’t have to try and work out a way to stretch the G&T, the SEN and all the grades in between at the same time.

Imagine a nine year old going into school. Teacher starts the lesson. kid knows this stuff already, switches off. Repeat, every single school day for two more years. There’s not much room for streaming in most primary schools, and lesson differentiation can only go so far, so if you don’t want the brightest to switch off, or worse still, turn their talent to mischief(which they would be good at too), you need to keep them engaged.

My wife went into our daughter’s school when she was in Y1, because she’d written I’m bored on the wall by her desk.

While the teacher was talking to my wife, the teaching assistant came out of the classroom to collect some beads and string and while walking back in said “Ellie’s finished first again!” with a smile.

My wife just looked at the teacher, who looked sheepish and said “yeah, ok”. Ellie was never bored after that.

Not being either a parent or a teacher, I might be a bit behind the game here, but as I understand it lots of (presumably secondary) schools have mixed ability groups now. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have groups based on ability? Then teachers wouldn’t have to try and work out a way to stretch the G&T, the SEN and all the grades in between at the same time.

Depends upon the school.

My kids’ primary streams for English and Maths from year 4 onwards. We like it, because we have bright kids.

I have colleagues who hate streaming, because their lovely kids who struggle a bit at school get lumped in with all the dickheads.

Even without specific streaming, teachers should be setting work at the correct level for each child. In a typical primary classroom there’ll be 3 or 4 different tasks going on in each lesson. It’s one reason why primary teachers are working 60 hour weeks.

if you don’t want the brightest to switch off, or worse still, turn their talent to mischief(which they would be good at too), you need to keep them engaged.

But they they then hit secondary school with unrealistic expectations

Surely bright kids have to get used to being bored?
My youngest is a year ahead for maths what happens when he has to repeat this year at primary? or at secondary?

Any secondary school teachers able to say how they get streamed there?

DO they sit exams early?

@ Junkyard

Yes, they do, as per my previous post, Master flicker will be doing his maths GCSE a year early and a further maths/statistics qual. when the thickies other kids sit their GCSE maths ;).

The transition from primary to secondary school was very good and we’ve never had a concern over his education, sounds like we’re quite lucky.

As for background, working class thicky parents on the edge of a very middle class area.

But they they then hit secondary school with unrealistic expectations

Gifted & talented is just an occasional outing… my son’s only expectation of senior school is that it’s like school. But bigger.

Anyway, maybe I should get my bright kid to debate this with you, cos I don’t get your points at all. But then it’s his mum that has the degrees, not me.

Round here a typical primary has two classes per year, “two form entry”, in the jargon. Typically 400 kids. If you stream, you get basically a top-half and bottom half.

Typical secondary, excluding sixth form, 1600-1700 children. Streaming from day one, based on SATS and pupil data passed from primary(often not trusted by seconday so they get tested again). That’s 320 per year group. Now your top set is the top 10%.

Surely bright kids have to get used to being bored?

or

Be nice to nerds. Chances are you’ll end up working for one.

If they don’t try hard, then their gift or talent won’t show will it?

Absolutely this. But at primary school age it would be highly unlikely that a child would be self motivated enough to stretch themselves without direction and push by their teachers.

Another aspect is being able to differentiate what kids can do by achievement as opposed to really understanding their ability. Particularly with fact based subjects like maths; if a kid routinely gets every answer right, you can’t know what they are really capable of. They need to be pushed to the extent where they get some answers wrong, and understanding that that that’s how you really learn, by failing in a positive way.

Round here a typical primary has two classes per year, “two form entry”, in the jargon. Typically 400 kids. If you stream, you get basically a top-half and bottom half.

Ours is 1 form entry, which is big for round here – the next nearest schools are both 1/2 form entry!

I was never pushed at school, I could get good marks with no real effort. The teachers mostly concentrated on the idiots. I got A’s in Science at GCSE’s with exactly no revision…. even during class I spent most of my time locked in a 1000 yard stare dreaming about being somewhere else.

Because I got in trouble a lot for being off in my own world, I lost respect for most of my teachers….became prone to sitting at the back of the class with mates making wisecracks….did things like blow up bins with fireworks. When I got my GCSE results, I didn’t care much for them except it allowed me to stick two fingers up to my teachers and say that I could have done it without them.

It took me a long time to shake the “coasting” attitude that I developed.

If they don’t try hard, then their gift or talent won’t show will it?

Yes it will because it is innate …its like saying they wont get tall unless they try.
Ok lets use sport

A natural sports person [ gifted and talented] will be good at sports without effort [ we would call them hard working and achieving otherwise] …how far that takes them will depend on application but the talent will show, initially, without hard work.

Roughly 75% of intelligence is genetic so it will show without effort especially in primary.

Any secondary school teachers able to say how they get streamed there?

Depends upon the school. The one our daughter will be starting in September streams from day 1 in pretty much every subject. Others we looked at only streamed maths and English, some only streamed English from Y8.

DO they sit exams early?

My brightest current A level physics student got his A* in GCSE in Y9, got an A* in additional maths GCSE in Y10 and got an A in AS maths in Y11, in a school without a sixth form.

Almost every school will put their Y10s in for GCSE foundation tier in Y10, to ‘bank’ the C grade, then use November and June entries in Y11 to sit the higher tier and move up to a B or a C. Some schools enter the Y9s for GCSE maths now, just so they can fail it, because the rules were changed to only allow a November exam.

Roughly 75% of intelligence is genetic so it will show without effort especially in primary.

Which means that someone with an IQ of 100 as an adult could have either had an IQ of 125 or 75 depending on their underlying genetics and their enviornment.

That is a pretty huge variation.

Roughly 75% of intelligence is genetic so it will show without effort especially in primary.

Sorry, but you’re wrong.

A bright but lazy kid will not achieve the same as a bright but hard-working kid. They do better than the thick lazy ones, but that’s all.

How well they do in primary will set their targets for GCSEs. If your bright lazy child goes up to secondary with a B target and no experience or expectation of having to work hard, they’ll get a B.

Which means that someone with an IQ of 100 as an adult could have either had an IQ of 125 or 75 depending on their enviornment.

Not quite – IQ tests (are meant to) test innate ability. Someone with an IQ of 75 will probably need help tying their own shoelaces.

IQ tests don’t measure academic performance Mike….

Not quite – IQ tests (are meant to) test innate ability. Someone with an IQ of 75 will probably need help tying their own shoelaces.

The brain is plastic, I’m sure that IQ can be affected by nutrition and growing up in an environment that taxes the brain.

If the environment is responsible for 25% of an adults final IQ score, then it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that identical twins in two different environments could vary by as much as 25 percent.

Whether the literature actually supports this is a different matter…

IQ tests mainly test how good you are at IQ tests.

As I understand it, you can’t jump from 75% of intelligence being genetic to an IQ of 75 with no work rather than 100 with work, because IQ scores are based on standard deviations from the mean rather than being a linear scale.

But that’s all academic (pun intended) if we’re talking about school performance and Junkyard’s assertion that we should let bright kids coast through primary school so they get used to being bored in secondary school.

Every kid is expected to make a certain amount of progress in each year. This is based on their performance in the previous year, with the more able kids expected to achieve that progress. There’s simply no margin for coasting (though that’s not to say it can’t be exciting and fun).

I assume that the 75% figure is coming from recently publicised research which was looking into what effect a teacher/school could have on performance. That looked at the performance of identical twins (ruling out genetic differences and, presumably, the impact of home culture and environment). They looked at variation in exam results, which showed what difference having different teachers through school made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleability_of_intelligence

Check out the IQ table. There’s a 21 point change in there.

When I was young I couldn’t sit still enough to take an intelligence test, I think I scored quite low on one when I was about 5 or 6. Even when I was 12 or 13 I was to immature to really concentrate on them! These days on average I’m in the mid 130’s.

Sometimes I look back at threads I’ve started and just wonder at the power of the internet…..

Interesting range of experiences of the G&T thing, will ask some questions at parents evening to see what it actually means for our kids.

Had a fun game with MrsMC last night trying to guess which of the parents at school today would be rushing to tell the rest that their kids had got the letters yesterday

God damnit now I’ve developed an interest in epigenetics and brain development.

*Furiously googling/database trawling*

IQ tests measure the ability to do well in IQ tests, and are only a vague indicator of anything else.

Back in NornIrn in the 1970s, our class was intensively coached for the 11+ exam, which was basically an IQ test. Vastly improved our scores, but I suspect not our intelligence.

will ask some questions at parents evening to see what it actually means for our kids.

One thing you might discover, which I have many times, is that nobody in “the real world” thinks like singletrackworld!
I bet if I asked 30 people in this building if they would be pleased if their child was put into gifted and talented. 30 would say ‘Yes’.

Sorry, but you’re wrong

Well you should get that published and then you can show all the other research to be bobbins

Best of luck 😉

Twin studies mono and dyzygotic including those separated at birth show this

I would google for you but i am off now

Bright people have bright kids generally
Tall people have tall kids generally – do you doubt this as well
Etc
Will post links later today

The vast majority of twins studies actually fail to introduce significant enough socioeconomic differences….

I know a member of Mensa and he stays indoors all day in a dirty flat. His bed recently broke but he can’t be bothered to order a new one so sleeps on the floor.
Be careful what you wish for!

Bright people have bright kids generally

I’m not disputing this.

I just thought of why Junky’s “like being rewarded for being tall” doesn’t hold up:
You’re not at school to be learn how to be tall, you’re at school to be educated to learn how to be clever. Not being rewarded for this is like a tall kid being made to walk on his knees – because being tall has its’ own rewards and takes no effort to demonstrate.
ps.
Just found this in the lad’s school bag –

🙂

can’t be bothere to read all the replies so apologies if i say similar to whats already been said.

i think it may depend on the schools involved as to how well run it is and how efective, but both my kids have been on the programme and really benefited from it, my daughter more so but only because the school managed to send the teacher in charge off on long term sick leave through stress (long story) so its not run as well now.

Genius children somehow becoming average adults

😀