[font=Comic Sans Ms][size=3]hi, am new to this site but have been teaching piano privately and in schools for around 13 years now. I have an 8 year old girl student whos school has put her on the gifted and talented register for music. She also plays violin. She came to me this term after taking grade one with a teacher who has since retired and we commenced grade 2 pieces 3 weeks ago.
The girl can now play one of them ("the bee") from memory (a 2 page peice), the other two pieces hands separately from memory and all scales - were required - hands together with ease. I know her parents are quite musical and don;t push her - they have lots of fun "jamming" sessions from what i gather.
My question is - what provisions should i make for this girl who obviously enjoys music and is very talented. Is this gifted OR talented i wonder or both?
The girl also composes her own tunes and harmonises them with simple chords or appropriate bass line.
I would really to take my lessons to a new level with this amazing student but dont know how.

advise would be appreciated!

Lucky you! Looks like you're in for some fun. I would throw lots of repertoire in her direction - both exams work & non-exam work, in a whole lot of different styles. I'd also encourage her to start notating her compositions fo she can, if not you can help her with this. I have a very creative 9 year old student, whose compositions I help write down. recently we've been listening to a piece in a certain style (or sometimes it will be a piece from his repertoire) and he will go home that week & write something in that style. In the lessons we discuss the characteristics of the style, talk about the instruments used & effective techniques for writing for those instruments. He is really enjoying himself.

I'm sure some other people will come up with some great suggestions .. but in the meantime, welcome to the forums

Thanks for your message - what brilliant ideas! Writing down her compositions is good, thanks.

You asked if she was gifted or talented..... well I went on a "G + T" training recently and according to the powers that be in Somerset.... Gifted is to do with acedemic maths and English stuff... and "talented " is to do with other areas (so sport and music!!!) So according to some "experts" if you are good and music, that's a talent.... not a gift (so Mozart wasn't gifted but talented!!!!!!) Maybe that is to take into account the fact that music and sport requires practise!!!!!!
Not sure if I agree... but, hey, that's what I was told.
Also the "G+ T register" is to do with being in the top 5-10% of your cohort.... so my 8 yr old who is working for Gr2 violin would be on the G and T register for music as in her school, she is the only child who is of that standard on any instrument!!!!! She would also be on it for sport ( she's a good gymnast). Academically, she is on it and deserves to be there.... but in her out of school activities (music and gym), she's nothing spectacular when put against children of the same age from other schools. Yes, she's good.... but on a Sat. morning music club, there are other children who are more talented!!!!!

Hmm, would they label a brilliant musician who hadn't taken any grade exams as a 'talented' student? Or would they need proof of exams to be able to evaluate them?

I cannot forget the 6-year-old child who lost all her confidence as a result of not being put into a 'gifted' group along with her friends. You couldn't wish to meet a more exquisite child - she played violin and painted beautifully as well as sang and danced - but I don't know if the school even knew about that. They obviously didn't think about any of that when they put the gifted group together.

And that's not even to mention the parents who relish telling the other parents in the playground their child is in the 'gifted' group ('but yours isn't' by implication).

What I'm trying to say is: gifted and talented groups are all very well, but what do the children who don't get into any of these groups end up feeling about themselves? That they're intrinsically neither gifted nor talented?

I'm not of the 'all pets win prizes' mindset but I do feel the whole gifted and talented thing can be a nightmare for the children who don't get in - after all they can hardly all get in, can they? But try telling that to a devastated small child...

For anyone who doesn't agree, cast your minds back to school days and imagine a list pinned to the wall of your classroom with the names of all the 'gifted and talented' children on it. Your name isn't there, even though you know you work really hard. How do you feel?

Violinia

Maybe some could explain to those who think they are missing out is that the thing they are missing out on is extra work......

People are often defensive of the children who don't make it into the top achievers' bracket of whatever their discipline is. But we do need to consider the needs of the talented too. Their needs are not met by being lumped in with the lower achievers - and in fact, the lower achievers' needs will not be met either if all are taught together. I don't think it's wrong to tell a child - 'sorry, you're not in the top 10%'. They'll learn this anyway, and that's life!

Also suppose you're a child who plays violin beautifully (taught outside school) but for whatever reason isn't taken taking any exams. Would you make it into a 'talented' group over another child who didn't play as well as you but who learnt at school with the peri and had plodded their way to Grade 3 by the age of 10 but with mediocre marks?

If nobody here knows the answer to this I shall ask a teacher friend of mine!

Violinia



That depends on the age of the child when they're told this. The child I'm talking about was six years old at the time and she was devastated. This is not good.

Violinia

That's a bit of a unique case - maybe the child's teacher from outside school could make a case for her? Or could she audition, playing pieces of the standard that would have been required by the exam?

EDIT - Sorry - I've just realised that you're talking about a case from the past.

I know a child who was offered a place on a gifted children's program and decided not to take it because it just sounded like an awful lot more work and she'd have to do it in the school holidays!

The question of gifted and / or talented aside for a moment...

Our 8yr old daughter turns everything she touches to gold... in all academic subjects and everything else.

She first came across music as a young ballet dancer and has worked up the syllabuses miles ahead of her initial peer group, her later older grouped friends and even the older ones after that. She is now a G5 dancer in tap and modern and competes at the national finals for ballroom and latin each year.

Then, she started violin 3yrs ago and piano 2 1/2yrs ago. After an initial shaky violin start due to a poor teacher which we (as non-musical parents) were slow to respond to, she has taken off in both instruments the same way. She is now working towards G4 violin and G5 piano. She is Distinction level in everything she does, incl high exam results in scales etc. and sight-reading (the normal pet hates). She has also passed her G5 theory because she wanted to get it out of the way before G5 practicals. For the last 12mths she has been using Sibelius (and the old fashioned way of manuscript paper!) to compose her own pieces, using her knowledge of theory to help structure the pieces. 6mths ago she was invited to become a 2nd violinist in a quality intermediate level strings orchestra which competes (and wins) nationally.

The first obvious thing to suggest, as a novice parent, rather than a music teacher, is that you allow your excelling pupil to continue to excel. We found it is really important to let our child run at her own pace. In the early days, for homework, her teachers would typically set her a single piece of music and she would learn 4 or 5 pieces instead. Now, as they are so long and complicated, she simply goes further into a piece than she has been asked because she masters her task and wants to keep going. She typically takes an exam grade on both instruments on average every six months. She is competing in a music festival in 2wks with a concertino typically set by her teacher for GCSE. She rises and we all go along for the ride.

The second obvious thing is to keep everything fun. Our daughter loves her music lessons. Eg. she composes pieces and gives them to her teachers as sight-reading practice (as a bit of a joke) which they gamely play. She plays pieces with the opposite hands, just to see if she can. She plays scales over different length octaves with different accents, just because she can.

Another thing we found was to give her freedom not to do everything by the book. She loves playing around with the rhythms of set pieces, often coming up with a better version in the process. Obviously she has to play by the book in exams. Duets have been good ways for her to enjoy expressing herself. This led on to composition. Maybe that's something you could tackle too.

If your pupil is a high-flier than try her out on theory. Our daughter wants to take her G6 next even though she doesn't have to.

Watch out for the child being a perfectionist. My daughter gets very cross with herself when she doesn't get something perfect first time.

Mostly just enjoy having such a great response in your pupil. We often sit in on our daughter's lessons or at the back of orchestra practice and enjoy the experience.

Sorry for waffling on!

I've got one of those too! Not to mention my husband wasn't very impressed with the enormous fees charged for the courses.

Amen!!!

My son is doing really well academically and i almost found myself apologising when asked what his SAT results were!!! Now I dont - I just say that this is obviously "his thing" and he wont be good at everything but we should praise and provide for those who are excelling. Afterall when you go for a job interview they only want 1 person and if you're not it you deal with it - life is full of those situations and we dont want to discourage kids but but G&T children will get bored if not challenged appropriatly. Parents and teachers do need to be careful about how these things are presented and find out what they other things pupils excel at and reward and acknowledge appropriatly.

I find it bit chilling when the response to a devastated 8-year-old's feelings on being left out of a group of 'gifted and talented' is: 'they'll learn and that's life!' Do parents deliberately downgrade a small child's achievements in order to 'prepare them for life'? Hardly. So how can it be beneficial to the child who doesn't get in when the school does it? Of course it isn't beneficial to the child - it's potentially devastating and can wreck confidence on a long-term basis as I saw happen with this particular child.

In the race for one's own child's achievements perhaps it's not the best thing to forget others. I know we're not personally responsible for the feelings of other children and their parents but I was often shocked by the attitudes of some of the other parents in the playground when they boasted about little Johnny's test results. Other parents kept quiet for the sake of the feelings of the parents whose children didn't do so well for whatever reason, and their children have still gone on to great things, no doubt relieved that their parents weren't continually boasting about them to anyone who would listen. I've seen children look most uncomfortable as their parents raved on and on to anyone within earshot.

I've also seen some of the kids of the boasters suddenly drop out into a drug-hazed stupor, no doubt exhausted by the pressure to live up to their parents' lofty expectations. Or they burn out at uni, having suddenly decided they've had enough...

I've also seen low achievers all through school suddenly get a taste for learning in their 20's or even 30's and then go on to great things.

I must say I have a sneaking affection for the parents whose kids do well but who never boast about it, even when asked. I can think of one particular mum with three high-achieving sons - she never, ever talked about their achievements in the playground but instead was always there with a kind word for others and the offer of practical support when anyone was in trouble.

No we can't all be top but do we have to be triumphal when our child comes top? Or just quietly pleased for them?

I don't think there's ever been a time when parents were so competitive - it honestly makes me feel quite ill at times.

Violinia

Here's an interesting series of posts from kids on a BBC site talking about their parents:

Your comments

My mum and dad really embarrass me when we have friends or family over at our house. They always make me play the piano for them and they brag at how I placed 1st in state. They even brag to my friends' parents.
Claire, 12, Australia

My parents can get really pushy over some matters, especially SATS.They want me to get straight 5's but I'm not that good at English.
Claire, 11, Aldershot

My dad shows off to others every time I do well in an exam or something. I hate it because it causes resentment amongst other people.
Louisa, 15, Reading

My parents are the best. They can sometimes be annoying but that's not very much.

Chantel, 10, Leeds

My mum is always the loudest to cheer when I am at a netball match, then she gathers the whole team round and tells them to do it just like me, CRINGE.
Daze, 10, Gloucester

As I'm only 10 and six ft tall my mum always says "she's only 10 and look how tall she is, she is getting on so well at school"! I get SO embarrassed.
Olivia, 10, Coventry

Well my parents are completely different! Instead of being over ecstatic at my achievements and believing in me, they stick with the past when I was lazy and obviously younger, therefore thinking that stuff I want to do (there is a Africa trip in two years and we have plenty of time to save up and train for) but my mum believes that I will hurt myself or moan... it's so unfair... all I want is to be trusted! Sazzeh, 14, Thornbury

I'm sure it must have been very embarrassing, but just remember that parents are only trying to make you feel happy and loved!!!
Peggy, 10, Southampton

My parents are well pushy, this one time they forced me to play the banjo in front of their friends and I'd only been learning for like two weeks. I went so red, because I was well embarrassed.
Jeneice, 10, Rutland

My parents are cool and don't embarrass me at all, well maybe sometimes but overall they're cool. They're not pushy in a bad way that would embarrass me but in good ways that will benefit me.
Zahra, 13, Blackburn


My dad embarrasses me big time!!!! He makes me play the piano for my nan when we visit her. Rebecca, 14, Essex

Even though we will always be embarrassed by our parents just like they can be of their parents, we should still be pleased if they are proud of us and our achievements.
Katie, 14, London

Luckily my parents don't embarrass me as much. They do say some silly things about me to other people though.
Nosheen, 12, London

I think my parents are so cool!! I love them more than anything in the whole wide world!! They take me to amazing places like Thorpe Park and Legoland!! I'm the luckiest girl in the world, that's what I think anyway!!
Ellie, 10, Southampton

I hate it when my mum tells her friends how well I'm doing because she always tells me I do too much and I take up all her time!!!
Natalie, 15, Chandlers Ford

My parents really embarrass me when they talk to their friends about how well I'm doing at school. Jenny, 13, York

A six foot tall ten year old!?!?!?

Back to the issue of the G+T child, she should be given plenty of things to do to stratch her. Keep lessons fun and move on swiftly - the most boring thing has to be listening to the 5th repition of something that was understood the first time.

I'll be back later with more on the issue of seperating G+T kids out!

I'm back!

I think it can be possible to provide for G+T students without taking them outside the classroom, for example setting open-ended tasks. This allows them to challenge themselves. Or, having extension tasks (NOT more of the same) ready for those who finish early. More of the same just leads to bored kids, sitting around doing nothing instead of letting the teacher know they've finished. Then they can even start to cause trouble. Its all too easy for Gifted students to be low achievers because they simply get bored stiff. There can be an air of 'They're gifted/talented - They'll succeed on thier own'. This couldn't be further from the truth - There are very few who will do this without the proper support from the school or thier parents. Ideally both should be in place.

Once children are old enough not to get too upset by it, then gifted students should be put into a seperate class, because they are capable of moving much faster than others, and often in totally different diferections. I guess the old 11+ used to do this pretty well, and seemed to work pretty well for those who didn't pass it. Now, its a lottery as to whether a gifted child will get any provision whatsoever.

Gifted children need just as much support as those with learning difficulties. In an ideal world this would happen - sadly the system doesn't even begin to address the needs of gifted students, in my experience.

You want to see a girl we know, except she's 13 now, this could have been her. The parents took her to the pub at 11 and if shekept her mouth shut you would never have known she wasn't 18. Of course if you got in to a conversation with her you would have soon worked out her age.

The school my daughters attend has a Gifted and Talented programme, they don't seem to include people in iot for Music, Art or Sport. The people on the programme get to go out on various trips, in reality it's more likely to be the children the can behave themselves and will participate than strictly the one's on the list.

The 11+ worked very well for the 20% for whom there were grammar school places but it was a disaster for the 80% who failed it and had to go to secondary modern schools where they got a second rate education because they were only expected to end up in low-paid jobs or menial work. Millions of lives were wasted - it was a scandal. Some kids only failed the 11+ because they didn't know how important the exam was so didn't bother on the day - my partner was one of these. Due to sheer grit and determination he ended up manager of a large arts centre but how many have that kind of determination against all the odds?

I think a huge part of the problem in this country is the class system - still alive and kicking, sadly. The grammar schools largely catered for the children of the professional classes and the secondary mods catered for the children of the working classes. Some extremely bright and focussed working class kids managed to get places at grammar schools but would often end up feeling very out of place. Of these many went on to do really well but some never got over the social nightmare they ended up in. I have a friend who was so embarrassed by his Cockey accent that he tried to assume a middle class one and has suffered an identity crisis ever since.

Because of the class system, most middle class people will do anything in their power to keep their kids out of the schools that serve mainly working class kids, so you end up with the current nightmare we have today, especially in London.

I don't know what the solution is - you can't bring back the old system because it was so divisive and ruined the life-chances of so many, but the current system isn't working too well either and I don't deny that gifted children can end up bored and frustrated, though in my home town they do seem to end up in top sets at secondary school where their needs are generally met. Or they get bursaries and scholarships to private school.

Two girls I know have just got into medical school from a 'bog-standard comprehensive' - one at Kings, London and the other at Leeds. Another three I know have just got into Cambridge from a very average comp.

I like the sound of the new ideas for secondary education - whole days on one subject interspersed with 10 minute bursts of Mandarin Chinese or whatever; looking at a subject from two disciplines simultaneously, lots of trips to the theatre, galleries etc etc. These ideas tally greatly with the ideas put forward when kids were asked back in the 60's how they'd like education to change. I think many kids instinctively know how they learn best and I can remember thinking as a child: why these one-hour lessons when I'd love to spend a whole day studying one thing?

But the changes will be a long time coming, no doubt...

Violinia

We still have the 11+ in N. Ireland. Last year, over 80% of people got into their first choice of school. Can the same be said of the comprehensive system in England? - Or does it depend on where you live? At least the chance of sitting an open and competitive exam gives the 'socially disadvantaged' the opportunity to choose, irrespective of location. I was brought up in a 'working class' area myself, but was able to go to a top grammar school by virtue of the 11+. If the local comprehensive had been my only option it would not have been a good school - believe me. My parents would have had to move to a much more affluent area to get me into a good school. So I strongly disagree that the 11+ favours the wealthy. Quite the contrary. It favours those with a positive attitude to learning, combined with the ability to make the most of it. It also has to be remembered that not everyone actually wants a grammar school education. Many here choose not to sit the exam. Our secondary schools here are are of a very high calibre too, and if the schools don't do A-Levels, pupils have the opportunity to transfer to a grammar school at that stage. I think it is wrong to disadvantage either the very bright or those needing extra help by lumping them all in together.

Sorry - but I'm a result of the old 11 plus system - I got into grammar school etc etc. And I've taught in a comprehensive school where everyone was lumped together - you have no idea how difficult it was as a teacher trying to plan lessons to incorporate both lower and upper ranges of academic ability.......no wonder I got out of the classroom as soon as possible.
I agree with a previous post - the clever and talented kids need to be looked after too. They are "special needs" in another way. Everyone thinks that the term "special needs" applies only to those kids who struggle, but technically it also means those who are exceptionally intelligent in whatever way.............And actually I don't know that kids do necessarily know how they learn best. My Latin teacher drilled us in all the conjugations and declensions - my sister's teacher didn't - guess who found Latin easy to understand and construct. I'm not saying we should return to the Victorian era but I am extremely sceptical when you see that more and more children struggle with basic reading/writing/arithmetic and yet you see exam results reaching record levels of passes every year ...... oh yeah?

<applauds chocolatedog>

I sat (and passed) my 11+, and was offered a place at a nearby (but not my nearest) grammar school. The journey to school would have involved two buses in each direction, so my over-protective parents decided to decline the place, and send me to the local comprehensive instead Fortunately it was a good school, where the year was streamed so that the most able could be stretched and the least able could be helped. One of my best friends was of lesser ability; we've lost touch now, but the last I heard she was doing very well for herself.

At the end of the third year, we moved area. This involved a change of school; my new school did stream people but not to the same extent, and there was very little to challenge the most able - I really resented having to go almost back to the beginning in French, despite being in the top set.

What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter whether it's a grammar, secondary modern, comprehensive or any other type of school, but the whole outlook of the school. Around Valhalla, the fee-paying schools consistently head the league tables, but there's a huuuuuuuuuuuuge gap between the best and worst comprehensives - the best can hold their own against some of the fee-paying schools, but the worst are truly dismal.

I often wonder what would have happened if I had taken the place at the grammar school, or had remained at the good comprehensive. My pet theory is better exam results, better university and better job.

This is correct. Yes, the government's position is well summarised. Pathetic provisions instead of wholesale reform. To support your last line which is also absolutely true, my daughter performed G5 pieces in public after a little over a year's tuition in violin and got in the newspapers etc, and, guess what, when she went to RAM on Saturdays, she found folks who play better than her.

We are a working class family with a very bright daughter. She has passed her 11 plus for a local Grammar School. I have been fed up with her being held back in Primary School. The bright ones are sat next to the not so bright to drag them along. This time could be spent stretching the bright ones that little bit extra that they need.

Every child has the right to a good education, no matter how bright they are or what special needs they have. They should all equally be given the chance to reach their own full potential. The local comp does not stream kids for the first couple of years and I do not want this for her. We have two Grammar schools both 12 miles away she chose the one she did because of the Music Department.

People seem to have such negatives about Grammar Schools, but one size does not fit all. I say each to their own. What is the problem?

I totally agree with you on the streaming point. We NEED to stream and teach according to abilities. The govt has been beating around the bush for donkey years and they provide nothing but a half-baked once a yr course for the G&T. Pointless. Just to satisfy vanities of parents like us but of course, most can see through such gimmicks and pointless official classification. In my days bright kids are streamed off to a different class or to a different part of the class and given very different work (silently/no boast/no telling the other kids) to work quite independently relative to the rest so those who need more teachers' time/attention actually benefit.

By the way, we don't like the grammar school in our area bec they stop ALL musical activities including instrumental lessons during exam term each year to make one work even harder for one's exams. Aaargh! THAT is when they MOST need their music for relaxation, etc.

I think all those lauding the old grammar/secondary modern system are completely missing the point. If there were grammar school places for only 20% of the children and 30% reached the standard required to get into the grammar school, what do you think happened to the other successful 10%? They raised the pass mark and sent the rest to the secondary modern. Where was the choice in that?

How is there any genuine choice of you have to pass a test to get a decent education? In most countries in Europe - no test but a decent, well-funded education for all.

I get a queasy feeling when people go on about super-bright children being as 'special needs' as those who struggle. The super-bright will generally do well wherever they go to school and go on to do well provided they have the social skills to match.

There should be well-funded, high-quality education for all.

Violinia

To the OP - I think people have already mentioned some good ideas and I'd like to echo what they said - she may enjoy theory, get her playing in loads of styles (jazz might be an interesting way to stretch her), try getting her into notating compositions and developing them further, get her doing plenty of non-exam stuff and so on. I bet she'll be a real joy to teach as the years go on

This thread's raised a lot of interesting points about G&T provision, and as someone who's in the system at the moment and is studying the education unit of GCSE Sociology at the moment I'd like to add my views.

I agree that there should be a G&T list - but I don't think there needs to be a big fuss made about it. Yep, in an ideal world we'd be able to celebrate the people on the list and their abilities in the same way as we'd celebrate school athletes and so on, but that's not always possible. I think if there's no fuss, then being on the list appears to be less of an agenda - I remember that in Year 2 I was sitting SATs extension papers and being given all kinds of tasks to challenge me. There was no issue from classmates because there was no fuss about it. I've also sat UK Maths Challenges in the past - the maths department didn't warn us we were sitting them and didn't make a big thing about it. There was no hassle from classmates. It's when a fuss is made that you start to get resentment building up, and I wish that more teachers would recognise the need for tact.

I don't, however, agree with across-all-subjects streaming and the tripartite system (grammar, secondary modern etc). I think it's over-divisive (you can literally have no contact with those of different abilities, and they can get very competitive) and studies show that there are often problems (the competitive upper stream, the lower stream classes often contain a large proportion of misbehaving pupils that disrupt those who want to learn, teachers who end up being bothered about one stream and not the other, and so on). The 11+ was also reliant on one exam on one day, and unless that's changed I think this is a really bad way to judge ability and pretty much determine someone's future.

Additionally, streaming has a "one size fits all" approach - my Sociology teacher started in the middle stream of a grammar school, and when he was moved up he had no problems with History and Maths. However, he was awful at Science and struggled with it even more in the higher stream than he had in the middle. Top streams makes no provision for those with extreme strengths and weaknesses, and none for those who have one talent in particular - they work best for good all-rounders.

I think it's a good idea to set some subjects - the compulsory ones are usually the best ones to set, I think (probably because people are being forced to be in the lesson and so disruption is at its highest here). Currently I'm in a set for Maths and Science - Science isn't too good because the syllabus is, to my mind, fairly easy and thus the Higher band is very wide and contains people who ordinarily would be sitting an Intermediate tier. Maths, however, is brilliant - for SATs we were mixed-ability, and it was getting to the point where our teacher was calling the 6-8 entrants back for "revision classes" (from what my friends said, these were "teach us the whole syllabus" classes, but since they clashed with choir and I never went to one, I can't comment!). There's quite a lot of Higher stuff to cover in Maths so it works very well and mixed-ability would be a nightmare.

Ideally, I think a good solution would be setting some subjects as needed - for example, I'd prefer to be streamed for English and Maths, but History doesn't bother me at all in a mixed-ability class. I'd also like to see way more extra-curricular and extension (Rosemary7391 is spot-on - something new, not more of the same) for G&T pupils. I get offered pretty much all the opportunities that come up (the aforementioned maths challenges, debating competitions, a film-making club and even the chance to appear on a Science TV debate show) and they're always fantastic, but the most I've seen the school offer in a year is 8 or 9. Extension work and support (support rather than the pushy parenting a lot of parents sadly tend to adopt) through the year would be even better.

I agree that G&T children need to be stretched - but I'm not sure the grammar schools and streaming are the way to do it.

Violinia,

I think you might be mistaken if I understand you correctly. Most gifted and talented kids I know are not special needs kids at all. I know many personally and only one is SP and his mother claims his unacceptable misbehavious stems from boredom. They get nothing extra at all other than a summer course to attend which they almost invariably turn down as being unsuitable so what are people complaining about?

My niece is supposed to be some kind of weirdo who taught herself to read the newspaper at 3 when her mother left her with a maid much of the time whilst she pursues a demanding career mostly abroad but she behaves impeccably. What special needs? My sister pays for all her counselling with a psychologist as she has serious social issues - no friends.

I agree that there should be well-funded, high-quality education for all. The list is just a pointless (in practical terms) strive, vanity and jealously-arousing gimmick to bluff us all that this government is doing something for education.

We will never send our child to a grammar school bec we think that most do not offer a well-rounded education but we still applaud the good work they do albeit only for those or the few for whom they suit.

T.

I think when people refer to gifted children as "special needs" they don't mean special needs in the commonly used sense - they mean that gifted children need help to fulfill their potential. I'm not sure what I think of that theory myself (I believe that part of being G&T is having some independence and being able to help yourself, though I'm not sure enough of my views to debate them!), but the idea is that gifted children need support too - sometimes emotional/social help, but also educational help so they can stretch themselves beyond the average, beyond what's expected of their age.

That's like me! I'm tall for my age, so when the first years come up it's always the same questions A frequent one is 'Are you honestly third year? Are you sure 'cos you look like a sixth year?" Grrrr... You get used to it. I'll shut up now because I'm not on subject. I've only had a chance to skim throught the posts. I like English because we are in a set ability class. This is the same for Maths and French which are compulsory in third year. However, Music is also said to be set, but when you have a class in the highest set, and half of them can't read music, well what can you say? This really annoyed me a lot, and even more so when the teacher said that the 'best behaved' pupils were put in it. So someone who gets a detention every 5 minutes is put in the 'highest set'? Doesn't quite work out. The same can be said for my Geography class, which is a mixed ability class. I like Geography, and me and quite a few others are fed up of the misbehavers getting all the attention. Rant over.
Setting is a good thing. It allows people with the same ability to get the attention that they need to move forward with their education.

To me, it's just semantics - ALL kids need support one way or another. Different support. Strange that I should be saying this bearing in mind that a psychologist has advised us that our two kids are on opposite ends of the learning spectrum. I feel for other kids who are smack in the middle - Are we to give to those two at the extreme ends MORE at the expense of the in-betweens? I do not have the answers although I agree with the Daily Telegraph education editor that the G&T scheme is a cop-out.

There are many issues with the 'super-bright'. Not all will excel, and few will even do well, without some kind of support. Sadly there is the issue that its not cool to be clever. So what do bright kds do? They don't bother, they hide the fact that they understand it and they fail to reach thier potential. Or, they get so bored that they misbehave and get labelled as troublesome when in fact they are frustrated because thier needs are not being met or considered.

I agree, everyone should have a good education. The problem is that someones good education is someone elses worst nightmare.



Yes There has been a survey (Can't remember where or who by) that showed the highest proportion of university drop outs are actually academically very bright. The theory is that they can't cope with actually having to work. I think that is scarily true.




yes - setting perhaps not just by ability but also behaviour? So those who consistently disrupt classes can be put together without harming anyone elses education.
Interesting that you have trouble with Geography , I have the same problem with the same subject We don't have enough musicians to set them, but again half seem to have no theory whatsoever.

My elder daughter said something like this about her not coping with A levels.
She said that the whole way through school from primary to GSCE she'd been allowed to put it little effort with her school work as she was in the top few without trying. When it came to A levels it was the first time she'd had to put any effort into her education and so she just couldn't handle it and dropped out of 6th form.

The same happened with her sister though she hasn't expressed it like that.

I wouldn't have said that either girl was extraordinarily bright at any stage.

If we look at what our teenagers are telling us then there appears to be a pattern of workers and disrupters. I know my eldest complains all the time about people who have not completed coursework for GCSE and end up holding everyone back. The thing I don't like about there school is they split the year into two populations and have two set one's etc. This means in reality some of the people in top set are really only set two standard and therefore if the top half are taught to the standard required the bottom half are struggling.

This year she's not complained about too much disruption, maybe she's just picked options with no nonsense teachers. However she is becoming increasingly frustrated at being held back because of others. My daughter is not gifted and talanted she just works hard, behaves and does what's required.

Sadly its the ones who do what is required who get held back. I've spent a month of my GCSE douing nothing because everyone else hadn't met coursework deadlines and were being given lesson time to do it, and hte teacher was too busy doiung riot control/getting people off games to give me anything else to do. I wouldn't mind being held back so much if it was because someone genuinly didn't understand, I'd probably help them work it out, but if they don't bother it just makes a mockery of it all.

I keep saying to my daughter that whilst she's rushing her Art coursework to get it all done in the times set, everyone else who didn't bother are getting more time, stealing ides etc. I have the horrible feeling that whilst there are times when she's the only one hwo actually does every bit of the work set that she won't be the one who gets the best mark.

In Maths they are split into 3 groups ahead, catching up and behind. The teacher gave them the opportunity to stay after school to tidy up coursework, the 4 people that stayed behind are all from the ahead group!

I don't really know that gifted and talented makes a difference but something has got to be done with the Education system. Schools need to start working with parents and involving them in their children's learning more than they are now. I'm not sure that returning to Grammar schools is the answer, because I was one of those pople who passed 11+ and ended up in a Comprehensive (long story).

Perhaps some of the parents who come across as pushy to music teachers are really frustrated with the education system. It's part of their childs learning that they can gain more control over (not saying this is right).

One of the problems there is that I suspect which subjects people would like to be in different sets for would vary from person to person - I suspect that a lot of real history buffs would LOVE to be streamed for history and put with others who truly enjoy the subject.


I didn't drop out of uni, but I did find it slightly unnerving to actually have to revise to actually do well in exams, because, to be honest, I wasn't used to that. I had to teach myself how to revise from never having actually revised before or knowing how one would go about it... sounds silly, but is true... (Though I do know some people who continued their ridiculously-intelligent-and-talented wave right through uni so I guess some manage even at uni!)


To be honest, hard work and doing what you have to do will go an awful long way, and many of the real high achievers at uni (my uni and other friends whose uni studies I've witnessed in some way) that I know are those who were reasonably clever to really quite intelligent but just worked their socks off. The ones in the quite-to-very clever range tended to do well if they worked (I can think of at least one who I'd def. say was very intelligent and got a first in my dept. which in an arts subject and a language as complex as Russian is like wow, BUT I know he worked very hard especially in his fourth year) but many ended up coasting to some extent doing well but not incredibly well (ie good healthy 2-1s without killing themselves with stress, BUT not firsts - I knew one excessively talented linguist who came out with a 2-2 because though he was talented and intelligent, he didn't do the work to back it up and came unstuck). And then you had those who were just terrifyingly intelligent or talented/gifted at what they studied, and got firsts (though even then I can think of very few if any who really genuinely coasted to firsts).

This is obviously a generalisation and loads of people can no doubt be exceptions, but my point is - very, very few people can get the highest marks on talent alone even if they're super-clever, and hard work can from what I have seen make up and sometimes more than make up for not being as super-bright as some of the scary-genius-type people! A good work ethic goes a long, long way, and potentially sets your daughter up better than any amount of G&T(!)ness.

Excuse me???? The super-bright will generally do well wherever they go to school??????? I think not! They will get victimised and bullied, and also very bored in class (as they will find most of the work too easy and finish well within class time and then have nothing to do.......) and could then end up being disruptive......and if the teachers give them extra work to occupy them, it will still single them out as being "different"..... no, super-bright kids have special needs too..................

Poor jolly pianist. I bet she wonders whether she shd have asked this question - My question is - what provisions should i make for this girl who obviously enjoys music and is very talented. Is this gifted OR talented i wonder or both?

What a debate the philosophical bit sparked.

A local primary school teacher mentioned to me that to be gifted is to excel in most academic subjects and think "outside" of the box where talented would be if you are very, very good at ONE thing whether it be maths, music or a sport.

......... i still need MORE teaching ideas for this little girl's piano lessons.

Could you play the game.......

"If this music was playing while you were watching a film, what do you think might be happening in the story?"

and turn it around....if she writes a story, can she choose music to illustrate that? Mood music to set the scene, a different musical theme for each character? (Like Peter and the Wolf - does she know that? Do you know the easy piano version?)

To take up the point that most university drop-outs are the ones with the highest level of intelligence, who have never been used to having to work.

This is a direct result of the fact that they have been lumped in with lower ability students throughout their academic lives to date. They should have been stretched and stimulated in a way that would make them put in the same effort as those who have struggled since day one. To be given a reading homework and a maths exercise, geared toward the lower ability end of the class, that can be completed by him in 60 seconds, is merely demonstrating to a bright child that academic success will be handed to him on a plate. And it probably will be until post-GCSE (especially with the current GCSEs being in their present format - but therein lies another debate!)

I am not sure that labels are a good thing, although I think it helps lazy - or overstretched - teachers to teach at more of an appropriate level. The fact is that ALL children have different strengths and weaknesses, and motivation is another factor which hugely determines how children react and how much they learn. Some children are clearly very bright but are quite happy to go along with the crowd and not stretch themselves (cf all these children offered extra-curricular G&T activities but not wanting to do "extra work"). Others WANT to be stretched and learn new things all the time, and they may get frustrated in a class where they are always having to wait for others to catch up. They are the ones who may get disillusioned with school very quickly. But it could be just as damaging for a bright child who doesn't really want to go further to be pushed harder.

No different from any other children, really. And generally, whatever their "innate" ability, it's the ones with motivation who get further in life. But motivation is not something which can be taught, hence education can never be "fair".

In musci teaching we are often in the enviable position of being able to teach one-to-one. This means every pupil can be taught differently according to his/her own strengths and weaknesses (in terms of motivation and interests, as well as ability).

So I would say for the bright pupil at the beginning of this thread, try lots of different things and see what takes off. If she gets into composition, encourage her to write it down, look at different styles of writing, give her structured tasks to do, etc. If she gets into improvisation, again give structured tasks, help her try different styles, etc. Try music from a wide range of composers. Ask her to analyse it, to get excited by identifying cadences and structures, imitation and sequences. I remember I went through a phase of learning to play off figured basses when I was about 12 - I was fairly rubbish, but I enjoyed learning how it all worked. Why not?
I am not suggesting that she should not try things she doesn't seem attracted to, but I think it does everyone good to find something a little out of the ordinary that "clicks" with them, and then to pursue this further.

I have just read the original post again and find that the student is about grade 2, so some of my suggests may be a bit beyond her at the moment! But the general principal still applies. I remember being very excited to learn what a "Tierce de Picardy" was at about that age, and kept finding them in pieces I was playing. I also learnt all the tonic triads off by heart like times tables, a challenge which I enjoyed at the time, and which has been incredibly useful over the years! Good luck - enjoy your lessons with her.

Yes, but it's really stupid because we have someone in our music class who is allowed to sleep!!! They do not try at all, and while most of the class are able, and do try their hardest, it's constantly this person who just holds everyone back. The Geography thing also annoys me because I really enjoy it. The teacher is constantly occupied with those who will not behave, and he gave out about 5 detentions the other day!! Art is the same, and we are falling behind because our class is a mixed ability again, and there are those who try (around half of us) and those who think it's a chance to muck about. To be honest, that's probably why they chose it notmusicmum is right, and it is basically split into those who want good grades so they can go to university and do well, and those who want to drop out at fourth year with the minimum grade, and not do anything with their lives.
I would agree that those who are intelligent are seen as the 'boffins' and are therefore picked on; it happens at my school all the time. However these people can hardly add up two and two, so they aren't worth bothering about, I know I'm probably seen as a bit of a geek because I try hard, and always want the best mark possible,but hopefully it will pay off in the end! Phew...

It's this which is the problem for intelligent kids I think. Being clever, or even *gasp* ENJOYING school is seen as being something "sad" or uncool. So some of the clever ones dumb themselves down more to fit in.

If there is any way to make learning popular and give it a good image, this needs to be a priority of teachers and education ministers. I appreciate it's difficult, but I think it's incredibly important. This is speaking as someone who was bullied for years for being clever and good at music. I had a miserable time at my old school, and eventually moved to a private school nearby where learning had a far better image, and people admired you for wanting to learn instead of ridiculing you.

I was speaking to a girl I know recently - she told me that when she was in year 8, she tried to work hard, and her group of friends told her that they didn't like her when she worked.

This needs to change.

The trouble is that often these attitudes are fostered at home.

[quote name='sbhoa' date='Feb 9 2007, 03:12 PM' post='460871']
[quote name='cellocase' post='460869' date='Feb 9 2007, 03:09 PM']
[quote name='Clariano' post='460813' date='Feb 9 2007, 01:39 PM']
The Geography thing also annoys me because (now I'm going to sound sooo sad) I really enjoy it.
[/quote]
It's this which is the problem for intelligent kids I think. Being clever, or even *gasp* ENJOYING school is seen as being something "sad" or uncool. So some of the clever ones dumb themselves down more to fit in.

If there is any way to make learning popular and give it a good image, this needs to be a priority of teachers and education ministers. I appreciate it's difficult, but I think it's incredibly important. This is speaking as someone who was bullied for years for being clever and good at music. I had a miserable time at my old school, and eventually moved to a private school nearby where learning had a far better image, and people admired you for wanting to learn instead of ridiculing you.

I was speaking to a girl I know recently - she told me that when she was in year 8, she tried to work hard, and her group of friends told her that they didn't like her when she worked.

This needs to change.
[/quote]

That's terrible. I haven't ever been bullied because I'm intelligent, because people accept it's who I am and I'm not changing that for anyone. Those who say anything to me about how it's 'sad to be smart' are just not worth bothering about. I'm not part of the 'popular' crowd, because I don't want to act dumb, and worry about if my nails are breaking etc. etc. I am also good at music, and my friends accept that I am never at lunch because I'm in the music department doing something or other. They accept that and it's fine, they don't question it because music is what I want to do. It's 'my' thing that I do.
I have seen some of my old friends fall into the wrong crowd, and it's horrible to see, because they were once intelligent, but now choose to act dumb and not care anymore about school. People who once tried hard are being excluded, just so they can be popular.

This has really generated an interesting amount of comments. For years, since the almost national disbanding of 11+ and the poor comps put in their place, the Educators have realised that something needed to be done with the bright children. The Assisted Place scheme was monopolised by the Middle Class and quite unfair, so the G&T was set up. It is not perfect either but I firmly believe it is better than nowt. Two of my children were put into the G&T programmes. The No 2 was talented in Art, but ended up on Geography courses (she wasnt doing Geography!) and other subjects she wasnt remotely interested or any good at. At that time, 7 or so years ago, it seemed rather shambolicly organised and I took no notice of it. My youngest daughter is both 'Gifted' & 'Talented'. There was no discussion again I just got a letter saying she was ! However at a recent parents evening at her Comprehensive school, the French teacher (new) berated her poor results, a C, (the only ones below A) as not what she expected from a girl on the G&T programme! My daughter was oblivious and declared the subject just didnt hold her interest. However the French teacher took it personally that she should have an A in French and wouldnt let it rest. I could see the fog in my daughters eyes

On a personal level I remember being the first one that could read fluently in class and subsequently being passed over for Everything, because the others were still learning. I never even got to read aloud! Why because I could. Bizarrrrrrre 1960s teaching methodolgy! Looking back I was practically self-taught and bored through most of my primary school. I became a book worm always reading in the playground. I too passed my 11+ with ease following my older brother and sister into grammar school, but the school ignored my achievement and I wasnt even given the traditional book on speech day. My grammar school was a relief as I was surrounded by teachers who championed my quick mind. I am grateful for receiving a good education and yes I did keep in touch with my two very best friends who went to the local comp. They lived near and we met up to go swimming, church and hang out. It was never a problem, we had the same sat jobs even.

I still am a keen believer in equal education for all, but I still remember being one of the two kids in my primary school who were totally ignored until we left. Me, 'too bright', and Clifford, 'far too dim for anything'. I have a soft spot for these two extremes. Well my older sister bumped into Clifford and he is now a detective inspector. He admitted he could never have coped in a grammer school but got there in his own way.

I became a weak socialist, have taught in a variety of schools and now teach at home again to a variety of children, those struggling learning to read and those trying to get into grammar/independent schools.

Its not just the Schools, but just having one or two teachers who are so negative can wreck a young person for life!

Hmm, where's your evidence for this? To have got into uni they would have had to do A-levels first, which involve quite a lot of focussed study over a 2-year period - so you haven't really explained why most university drop-outs have the highest level of intelligence. Perhaps they'd just decided they'd had enough?

I don't know if nybody here watched the programme last night about gifted children - it was quite an eye-opener. Most if not all the children featured were unable to fit in with their peers; one of them seemed really unhappy and it was bizarre to hear the father of the super-bright 3-year-old insisting he hadn't pushed his child - but had entered him for Mensa at the age of 2!!!

Reflecting on it all this morning it occurred to me that in two of the countries where there's so much hot-housing of children (here and in the US) there tends to be a lack of that easy empathy with children that you see so much of in places like Southern Europe, where children are so treasured just for being children, not for their superior intellectual abilities.

A neighbour of mine also sprang to mind. Now in his 40's, he was a super-bright child, hot-housed by his very ambitious parents. He lives alone, works as a software designer and has a nervous twitch and a very strange manner about him. He finds socialising difficult, painful even, and has never really fitted in with anyone around him. He wants to belong but just can't, and he certainly can't be described as a happy person, though successful he certainly is, if you count intellectual ability and job satisfaction as measures of success. But socially he's a mess, and he's told me he desperately wishes his upbringing had been more average.

I'm not suggesting all gifted children are being hot-housed, but it'd be disingenuous to say that these children with massive IQ's often spring out of nowhere.

In the end, social skills are terribly, terribly important, and we neglect to foster these at our and our children's peril.

Violinia