Susan Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 I have been told today that a child scoring a total of 91 or more profile points should be considered G & T. Any one know anything about this?
Guest Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 From our recent training on G&T that varies from school to school. As a benchmark we are trying 100+ for more able register and 105+ for the G&T register as this works out about right for the % of the year group on each of the registers. However this doesn't really work for all of them and at the end of the day teacher judgement needs to be considered.
Susan Posted November 9, 2009 Author Posted November 9, 2009 I was led to believe that this was official figure.
catma Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 not heard it myself - am off to the QCDA conference next week for EYFSP leads so will see if anything is mentioned. Cx
Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 Recently on a training course I was told by the EYFSP assessment advisor (can't remember his official title!) that the 'average' child scored between 78 and 96, with scores above meaning they were considered able in the areas where they scored more than 8 points (96 obviously being an 8 in every stand).
Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 Hmmmmm....With the rest of the school, we have to know/say which area they are gifted or talented in, such as reading, music, maths, swimming (I'm sure you get the picture!) So......surely it is better to look at each child's scores for particular scales, and their skills/talents within these, rather than a total score? If they were able across the board, they would have a high score, but that doesn't mean they are gifted or talented. Not an expert at all, just thinking out loud.
Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 What about nursery? What is considered gifted and talented. I have a few children that can orally blend and segment and 1 child who recognises letters.
Marion Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 The guidance says the top 10% should be identified as G&T which is utter rubbish as the top children in my class could in another school be middle or even lower ability
JacquieL Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 That's what concerns me Marion as it rather depends on the intake doesn't it? My LA said at least 2 Levels above the average for the national expected levels for the cohort in whatever area, which made a bit of sense in KS1 as that would be Level 3 for Y1 at the beginning of the year. I think that there is a world of difference between very able and G & T.
Marion Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 I agree Jacquie I've taught some very able children but I don't think I've ever taught a child I consider to be truly G&T
Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 I was going to put that in my post, Marion (the bit about the top 10%), but it became a bit of a rant about the 10% of one class not being that bright but supposedly still being G or T! So I deleted it - but I'm glad you posted it - and far more concisely than I would have done!
Recommended Posts