I thought this year might be good - gt teacher, an unofficial/accidental cluster of gifted kids in a year 3/4 class with streaming in maths.

8 weeks in. Streaming abolished and replaced by "extension classes". These are by teacher recommendation and only 4 kids from each class can attend. Today the other two gifted kids in the class went to the first science one along with a friend of my sons who is neither gifted or particularly high achieving. I really hope he enjoyed it and I don't begrudge him going but how does such a system work "better than streaming" for my child. Unfortunately he doesn't shine much as he is weak at writing and never allowed to work above level in maths - they have been doing statistics all term as well which is the most language oriented part of maths.

Thanks for listening.

The only consolation I can give you is that every time you accurately communicate the travesty that is experienced by gifted students during the mandatory education years is this:

their gift is their brain; they have it. No one can take it away from them. It does not matter what test they devise, we pass it.

The schools are doing whatever the schools are doing.

The employers know about the gifted students.

Hang in there. When the non-gifted students are done with school, the gifted students keep going and are able to self-teach very quickly.

The government knows the facts, too. I posted once before that I saw live television one Sunday morning. Picture this:

Cokie Roberts and George Will sitting with Robert Reich (previous head Labor guy, author, documentary film maker). RR says (and I paraphrase) that the average IQ is 100 and it always has been (or something to that point). You have never seen a live show cut to commercial so fast and, of course, when they came back, it was not mentioned.

Point is, it is a very touchy subject. Always hang in there and make the best of it, even if just to commiserate about how awful it is.

Keep exposing your child to new areas so that your student can find a true passion to follow and know that later in life, the gifted mind will pursue other passions, too.

We are happy to listen. We are right there with you. Take care.

Or, self-destruct.

That is what tends to happen in my family. The asperger like quirks and the inability to tolerate boredom are an explosive mix. My younger child who tests a SD lower (I think he was too young and he would go up to Mid EG if retested later though) has an explosive temper at time but is generally more socially adroit and can play the system probably has better odds of surviving.

I don't have any personal data on that from the people that I have observed over time.

Every single gifted student that I have tracked is a gifted adult with at least one (usually two minimum) successful career.

They are all basically happy and enjoying life, volunteer and give back.

Sorry I can't give insight on this one; maybe someone could recommend some research or book. Sorry.

Some may say this thread is misnamed, as the topic is not truly focused on "Downside to cluster" but rather "Downside to lack of challenge for gifted".

Some may say this sounds more like "myths of gifted", conflating gifted with high-achieving. Gifted students, having possibly learned more information from a variety of sources may test poorly, providing answers other than what a test is seeking. Lacking appropriate challenge and support/affirmation, gifted students may also learn shame, hide their gifts, and underachieve.

Increasingly what employers may know about gifted students may be negative information, provided from the extensive data tracking created in order to assess the efficacy of such education reforms as common core: Students who cannot be pigeon-holed or who become frustrated, or develop perfectionistic tendencies as coping mechanisms for lack of appropriate curriculum and pacing may be labeled a psychological risk.

Possibly an auto-didactic myth?

Possibly the story shared here reveals an attempt to deny the data?

Some may say this becomes more difficult the more damaged the student becomes by the system. As someone once said, "You can't un-bake the cake."

@puffin, I'm sorry to hear this is happening. Hopefully the support, affirmation, and enrichment you can provide at home will keep your kiddo positive and balanced. Lending support.

I said downside to a cluster because they have put most of the gifted kids in one class then put a cap on the number of kids from each class in extension classes. It is like putting all the good teams in pool A so you end up the 3rd strongest team missing out on the semis because they had to play teams 1&2, then teams 10&11 who won pool B end up playing teams 1&2.

At this point if the kids were spread out they would have more chance of the extension. Never mind I have decided school is day are at this point.

Thanks for clarifying.

It's difficult to determine from the posts whether the school believes it is addressing the need which exists (as identified by some combination of LOG and/or demonstrated achievement or some other measure of readiness and ability)?

While some level of "competition" may be expected, and while a student who "needs" a higher challenge may be vastly different than a student who "might benefit from" a higher challenge, and while being too inclusive can create a program or service which does not serve those at the very top, other recent posts here and here have considered whether more seats ought to be opened to match the number of students who qualify for a program or service, to avoid rationing.

I understood what you meant, and that must be so frustrating. Hopefully your advocacy will get through to them soon

I spoke to someone else whose child went today. Apparently the kids had to put themselves forward by filling in a form and writing a letter as to why they should be chosen. I cam see why my writing and challenge averse 6 year old didn't apply. I can't see why the parents weren't told about it though. The parent said that her daughter reported that only she and the other known gifted kid were really into it and could do the stuff without a lot of help. Guess it will be easier next time. I dont know what the school thinks. Apparently my son doesn't need more advanced maths because he can't design, carry out and report a statistical survey without help. I'm sire this is TRUE but it is not relevant to my complaint about gettin 2+2 for homework for the third year running. Nor does it explain why he has advanced less than a year in that time according to them.

Exactly. Students may benefit if schools provide instruction/challenge at various levels to support/develop individual student strengths.

It sounds as though he may be learning to "tread water" and underachieve.

Are there other students in a similar situation as yours? Might his growth be better facilitated by the school setting aside chronological age and cluster grouping by readiness and ability in each subject (considering math as a separate skill or strength area than ELA/writing)?

Probably but they have just dropped streaming for year 3/4 maths and replaced it with this model on the grounds that it is more beneficial for students not to be ability grouped. They will not change until next time there is a change in educational practice (maybe in 10 years) and even the teachers who disagree will toe the line until then. I could change schools but there is not likely to be much difference and if there is it will be shortlived because the schools all work off the same ministry/ero advice although some change sooner.

I will just have to come up with a new plan. And yes he is starting to develop worrying perfectionist/avoidance techniques. He did when he was four too so I sent him to ballet which helped until he was 6. Now I send him to a one day a week extesnsion class. Unfortunately the schools don't fund this and the cost is causing problems.

The motto of mainstream education these days ( with a few exceptions, of course ) seems to be :-

Cluster is only half a word