I don't know if anyone else was in it, or has experienced it themselves, or their children, but Sheffield ran the pilot a few years ago (and now has it as a permanent feature of secondary education) for the Gifted and Talented Scheme.

Basically the top 10% achievers in the school are given extra opportunities - school trips, extra classes, music days, drama days.....etc.

I was in this scheme and it was fantastic for me, obviously, but I think it's a truly appalling idea. It's been extensively proven that high educational attainment is based on more than just I.Q. - it's usually got some relation to class, and therefore the high achieving, mostly middle class students who get the trips are the ones who's parents can afford to take them to similar places, and probably have been doing since they were little, as is a trait of middle-classness and/or wealth.

Also, if the kids actually are clever, shouldn't they be doing ok and the focus should be on the lower achievers?

I was.

Went to see One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest on Stage with them. Declined to go on other trips because they were crap TBH!

Got a lovely certificate somewhere.

Originally posted by noseyrosie

Also, if the kids actually are clever, shouldn't they be doing ok and the focus should be on the lower achievers?

And drag everyone down to the same level? I can see you'll make a good Labour voter one day!

I have no personal experience of it, but this sounds like one of those schemes where, having abolished any form of selection in secondary education, and forced all the grammar schools, direct grant schools and so on either to shut down or become independent, the government has now realised that it actually helps to recognise that some people might be cleverer than others after all and should perhaps be encouraged a bit. And having benefited from it yourself, why not give others the chance too?

Incidentally, you mentioned IQ - where does that come into it? Surely the top 10% achievers are indeed those with the highest educational attainment, never mind what their IQ is - they might be the ones who work hardest.

Hi Rosie,

Good question, so I'll give you my view from experience working as a classroom assistant in a secondary. The school had been failing but was gradually improving (so they said - although the staff claimed to see no obvious improvements!)
The behaviour of the kids was appalling - no other word for it - after day one I was in shock comparing my own cosy secondary experience (Tapton) with what I was witnessing.
The trouble was so much of the teachers energies were used up on the kids causing trouble, frequently low achievers, to try and encourage them to write a sentence in the space of an hour (big cheers if they did!) or stop climbing in and out of the windows with their mates from other classes in tow, that the kids who showed desire to learn generally got ignored.
The teachers knew this and found it incredibly frustrating. I think they were grateful for the g and t scheme because at least it allowed them to devote some of their time to the brighter kids or the quieter hard working kids, and gave them the resources to do it.
So - in my experience the lower achieving kids got tons of attention, while the brighter ones suffered in silence. In my view, gifted and talented is a good scheme.

My children benefitted from that scheme and thoroughly enjoyed the trips/events which was a nice break from studying at times. My kids also come from a working class background and at the time I may not have been able to afford to take them to such places myself (being newly separated). I think it's good to reward achievers.

I can see your point on having a scheme directed at encouraging low achievers but my opinion is that not everyone is academically gifted. Some of us may shine in practical, hands on work and all attempts to make them prove themselves through books etc may dent confidence and dreams.

Achievements now only seem to amount to performance levels when compared to 'national averages' so character is out the window.

They started the gifted and talented scheme when my little sister was at school and it just resulted in a weird sort of hierarchy being created in her class. A large number of people were on the scheme which led to those that weren't feeling lesser pupils and not trying as hard. At the same time the ranking of the kids on the scheme was released by the school. Knowing where they were rated just led to those lower on the list feeling bad about it even thought they were on the scheme and those at the top lording over them. It seemed a terrible idea!

This was in Newcastle so I don't know if it's different in Sheffield.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Also, if the kids actually are clever, shouldn't they be doing ok and the focus should be on the lower achievers?

I think more focus should be on individuals who have the best attitude, and who want to do the work and improve themselves.

I would place more emphasis attitude than ability.

But I agree with you, it does sound like a pretty lame idea for a scheme, and would probably only serve to create more division amongst the students ('US' vs 'THEM'). I'd be interested to know, was that your own experince?

Originally posted by metalman
I have no personal experience of it, but this sounds like one of those schemes where, having abolished any form of selection in secondary education, and forced all the grammar schools, direct grant schools and so on either to shut down or become independent...

Wrong on all counts mate.........but dont let truth or facts get in the way of a good partisan rant

'gifted and talented' sounds a bit glorified doesnt it? maybe they could change the name to something less demeaning to those who find school a little more struggling. i think in some circumstances this sounds like a good way to nurture those with a keen attitude towards learning. Yet isnt the point of education the equal oppertunity for everyone? everybody gets the education, whether they work or not is up to them...they create their own oppertunities by working hard or just dossing. it sounds like an unfair scheme tbh...better oppertunity and nurturing for those who find it all comes naturally...surely it should be the other way round?

The scheme is well intentioned but fately flawed. You end up with the brightest peole from the better backgrounds getting into it. This only causes resentment.

Reward a school as a whole but not a small group. There is no I in team.

There was definitely division as some of you have mentioned. It was also really horrible for me to have to answer questions from some of my friends - 'How come I haven't been asked to go on this trip?' - I mean, how can you answer that?

I wasn't implying 'bring everyone down to this level' - more, bring everyone up to a higher level. I think it's plain to see that potential doesn't equal grades. The boy with the highest measured IQ in our year consistently got crap grades because he'd had no academic stimulus at home, and fell in with a bad crowd. Because he got crap grades he didn't get to go on the G&T scheme, and ended up getting poor GCSEs.

Oh by the way Sheffette - conversely I went from a 'problem' school like you mentioned, to Tapton for my A-levels. Similar culture shock!

Re culture shock. It's bizarre isn't it! For all the Government's harping on about bringing in standards across the board, each school is its own little universe with unwritten but observed rules of behaviour for kids and staff. An anthropologist would have a field day, lol.