1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice
  3. The Teacher Q&A will be closing soon.

    If you have any information that you would like to keep or refer to in the future please can you copy and paste the information to a format suitable for you to save or take screen shots of the questions and responses you are interested in.

    Don’t forget you can still use the rest of the forums on theTes Community to post questions and get the advice, help and support you require from your peers for all your teaching needs.

    Dismiss Notice

Gifted and Talented in Early Years is it evident?????

Discussion in 'Early Years' started by katiewcps, Jun 1, 2011.

  1. Hello ALL :)
    <font size="2">I am planning on completing my dissertation of Gifted and Talented children. The main purpose is to educate myself more around the subject. My key questions are:</font> <font size="2">Can we label children are gifted and talented in early years?
  2. Hello ALL :)
    <font size="2">I am planning on completing my dissertation of Gifted and Talented children. The main purpose is to educate myself more around the subject. My key questions are:</font> <font size="2">Can we label children are gifted and talented in early years?
  3. I will be very interested to discover your findings. I did a similar research project a few years ago.The main 'model'/theorist was based on Gagne. I went to several in-service training courses that promoted the Reggio Emilia approach to learning and teaching. All in all what was promoted that young children can be gifted or talented in different ways. It's more a case of what we, in schools, actually value and/or can successfully support.

    My own sons (20 and 22 yo) could be described as having 'talents' in certain areas - but neither were necessarily talented or gifted in the school system ... and that's where the challenge lies.
  4. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    It really depends on your definition of G&T

  5. Agreed Msz. Not forgetting, of course, that some children can make rapid progress at the beginning of the EY then plateau while others move at a gentler place then catch up, academically, with their peers. What is G & T at this age and what difference does it make long term? Now that would be a really interesting dissertation.
  6. I would be reluctant to label anyone as anything in the early years. I'd ask, "Who is the label for?" "How does it benefit the child?" Sometimes diagnoses are useful (eg of Aspergers Syndrome), but even then each child is an individual and although the diagnosis can help access help and advice,in the end you have to find the right approach for that particular child not by labelling but by observing and responding. Identifying that a child has particular gifts and talents and offering that child activities which suit is really only the same as identifying interests and responding to those, which is what we do for every child.
  7. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    The DfE definition applies the word 'gifted' to those pupils who show exceptional ability in any national curriculum subject except art, PE or music. The word 'talented' identifies pupils who excel in those 3 subjects.

    <u>The National Strategy defines gifted and talented pupils as those in the top 10% of every cohort.</u> Basically this means that these terms are to be applied relatively rather than absolutely so that all schools are expected to identify their top 10% of achievers and make differentiated provision for them. The majority of schools have always done this but most probably referred to this group of pupils as 'more able' rather than 'gifted and talented'. Many schools still prefer to use the term &lsquo;more able&rsquo;.
  8. Hear! Hear!
  9. This is interesting.
    As has been said it is the definition of G and T isn't it. The top 10% is very broad isn't it ? How do we really know what that is ?
    A few years back I taught two children from the same family in an independent school nursery. The children were able but not gifted in my opinion and they certainly did not stand out from the rest, in fact there were children in the same cohort who were ahead of these children in several areas . I would have put them as at the the high end of average.
    At first as nearly threes. these children found settling in nursery tricky and were very much on their own agenda for longer than most . One enjoyed building and was good with number and the other role play. They were not particularly good oral communicators, nor social leaders. They had started to grasp the basic of phonics to support reading but were not fluent. They had good pencil skills and enjoyed drawing. They came from a fairly advantaged background and the nursery had a high staff: pupil ratio and so had a lot of opportunity to be with adults. They left the nursery as rising fives to go to full time school in the state sector, a financial descision.
    About six months later I met the parents who said that their children were now in the Gifted and Talented group of their new state school.
    Now had I missed something, or is this a definition of G and T open to misinterpretation, or swayed by the cohort of children they were with ?
    Whta happens if they were just riding on the wave of having been in small classes in previous school and, blowing own trumpet ,good teaching.
    Will they just be dropped ?
  10. Leapyearbaby64

    Leapyearbaby64 New commenter

    G&T is misused in my view. I have a boy who is reading at 10.4 years. So at the moment he will could be said to be a gifted reader. He learnt to read by sight at home, where he gets lots of support from parents and older siblings. There is no doubt that he is understanding the general gist of what he is reading, but he is unaware of the meaning of some words. At school he likes playing role play games with his friends. He is a clever child, and will be in the "top group" all the way up primary school. But other aspects of his development are very average. Can you really be "gifted" at reading? What these children have is a very high reading age in comparison to their chronological age. At the moment he is "giflted" in comparison to others, but they will start to catch up. And currently he is "gifted" to the extent that we make special provision to support his reading. Talented is also an interesting one. Because the group of children we see as being talented at music, sport or drama (impossible to measure in F2 I think, but in primary generally) have all had lots of additional input to those things. It's all relative. My children have both had tennis lessons from a young age. So in terms of school, they are both on their respective teams and are on the G&T list for sport at school (they both do lots of sports). However, with a sport like this, where lessons are relatively expensive and most children don't learn to play, I don't think that fact that my children (who are average club players) are gifted. Far from it. Same with me. I learnt piano from the age of 5 until I was 17. I was reasonably competent, but miles from being gifted, or even what I would call "musical". And after than long ramble, I think it's easier just to settle for "more able" as it's less emotive.
  11. I'm reception and refuse to put any of my children on the G & T list. I think many of the previous posters have accurately justified why not. However I have a new child starting after the holidays and his previous school have said he is gifted in literacy. He came for a visit and is nowhere near the top ability children in my class. Now even if I did a list he would not be on it. Both my children have been identified as talented at art in KS3 but apart from an interest in arty things showed very little talent until they left primary school. Why do we have to keep labelling children?
  12. inky

    inky Lead commenter

    A few years ago I had a boy in nursery who was gifted as a gymnast. I keep mentioning it as he goes up the school but nobody takes a jot of interest.
    I hate this falsae distinction between 'gifted' and 'talented' because I think they're spurious.
  13. InkyP

    InkyP Star commenter

    I have a boy now who, I think, is quite exceptional at making things from scrap materials available in the Creative Area. He plans, he evaluates and makes things he can play with or use like a water guage. I'm going to put him on G&T for DT when he goes up just to ensure his needs/ talents/ capabilities are catered for as I think they might not be otherwise. If I can persuade Year 1 to have Creative materials freely accessible to all then everybody wins.
  14. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    I thought the G&T was being scrapped [​IMG]
  15. I feel that it is difficult to judge who is deemed as G and T, I am not a teacher but I have observed consistently that those children who are advanced at 2/3 for development are usually the same children who are more able in EYFS age 5. As a parent and professional that makes me question why these children petre out perhaps at age 6 or 7 and fail to continue to be advanced. If a child comes to school knowing maths at the stage of KS1/ 2 and is then asked to recount number facts to 10/ addition to 10, when they count, multiply, divide in the 100's will the child get bored and lose interest? In the same vein, if a child is free reading chapter books aged 5 will they not become disheartened and frustrated at the level of plot in the average guided reading/ age appropriate text? My question has to be, do these children switch off after a couple of years because they feel learning is pointless? The national curriculum is stifling the talent and abilities of many children. For example, parents being told that the 'building blocks' must be completed before moving onto other things. Children having to do SATS before they can move year group. Teachers unable/ unwilling to allow SATS to be taken earlier. Learning is not linear! Until we grasp the need for teaching to ability instead of to SATS no child, regardless of ability will be taught as an individual in a state school.
  16. Has anyone used the Nebraska Starry Night Protocol (amazing name!)?
    If you google it, the first result (school-portal.co.uk) gives you a download. It's a set of descriptors (non-academic) for identifying G&T in the Early Years. We used it at a staff meeting to talk about all our children, and it helped us to pick out a number of children as standing out in certain areas, that we might not have necessarily picked out otherwise. We don't have a G&T list, but this was a really interesting exercise.
  17. Just had a look - those are the qualities I see in the able children I see at Nursery, the ones I think of as a cut above the rest.
    Maybe what we in the Early Years see as 'Gifted' or 'Talented' (for want of better words) is very different from KS1&2. I remember gushing about a child I was passing up to Reception who was amazing. When given hobby horses to play with she organised a showjumping event with long planks for jumps and a milk crate as the winner's podium, she dressed the 'competitors' in wellies, bowl helmets and different coloured tops, invited the adults to watch and made Duplo trophies for the winners. She was not from a horsey family, just had watched a bit on TV. The other staff were more impressed with the two little girls from a different nursery who could write their alphabet and numbers to 20.
    It's a shame that these 'talents' are less valued as the child moves up the year groups. But then, how much opportunity do KS1&2 children get to learn in this way?

Share This Page