Generation Gifted

[RedPanda]

All fair points RP. I am an idealist I suppose, and to me spending money on targeted interventions looks great on paper but can never address the big issues to do with underlying equality. And while this country is so focused on children as potential adults (in terms of what they can be taught which will be of use to society) rather than for their own intrinsic worth, EY interventions are always going to be about ensuring they don't fall further behind in their reading and writing, even if that isn't stated overtly, than in a genuine reduction of social disadvantage.

Funny you say that. That was exactly the measure I was looking at.

Point taken!!!

[Eccentric]

+1....!!!

No....the government, in their wisdom, decided that they were no longer needed as a central service made up of various youth workers/social workers/housing benefits experts etc could do the job just as well, and sort out drugs issues, teenage pregnancy etc etc as well. No need for specialisms, the government decided....

That went well then.

I was an area manager for Connexions and apart from the fact that I lost my job it was such a short sighted, stupid thing for the government to do. Now all the services work separately again and the careers side is almost non existent. Young people have to wait months for an appointment with someone who simply doesn't have the links and resources to help. The most devastating part is that the care leavers and other vulnerable young people no longer have a worker who is designated to them who can help them with any issues such as homelessness etc.

[Eccentric]

Yes a good few years ago...I left before they made that decision as the govt targets were becoming ridiculous....Some schools have still employed CAs in school so that makes it free/cheaper for parents. Some CAs have chosen to go private - maybe because having spent a lot of money on getting professionally trained, and having bills to pay, they have had to do something when the govt pulled the rug out from under the service with no warning. I chose to leave the service but, most of us predicted that once the service was gone, people in the know would realise what a crying shame it was.

Difficulty with allowing adults to "speak" online to school children even if it is about work, can be difficult to police.

In short, no. The service has not been replaced adequately and there are now too many people with scant knowledge "helping" young people make decisions about their future...personally I have had to pick up the pieces for a few friend's kids who were advised incorrectly about A levels or options with the grades they were predicted, which is horrid. It also means in families with pushy parents the kids have no one independent to bat for them and in families with no interest or ambition they equally have no one.

Something you and I have in common KCG

[mystery]

It is a shame about the scrapping of Connexions with no equivalent replacement.

I just watched episode 1 and most of episode 2 of generation gifted. Thing that surprised me is how future focused in year 9 the kids, the school and the parents were. Not like that for us and our three year 9 experiences so far. I was also amazed to see at some of the schools that the year 9s were apparently given real GCSE papers in summer 2017 to determine their sets for year 10 onwards. And they were graded 9 to 1 in all subjects (althrough that has not happened in the real GCSEs yet). That was a bit strange surely?

But all those schools really impressed me - they seemed to know the pupils extremely well both academically and as real people. And the head of drama who got the girl into the after school performance club and singing in the end of year show was amazing. And a uni trip in year 9 was impressive too.

and they all had parents who cared about them one way or another and were switched on to the notion of working at school being a good thing. In my short teaching career I taught plenty who did not have that - and in year 9 too when that was the first year of high school after a middle school experience.

In general, it seemed like there was a lot of school pressure in year 9, the degree of which surprised me.

Thing that struck me most was how lovely all those kids were and their strong desire to look after their parents, siblings etc with what they hoped to earn in the future made me want to cry.

[loobylou]

Finally managed to watch episode 2. Cried my way through it, particularly when Kian didn't do as well as hoped in his exams and his dad handled it so badly...
I thought the advice from Liam's teacher was understandable and well-meant. It's just a shame that he fell into the trap of "nice boy, good at science, ideal medicine candidate" rather than exploring other scientific pathways...
I really hope they are all successful. It made me feel a bit hopeless. I can understand why those of you who are educationalists would want to offer to help.

[mystery]

I am interested that this series has aroused such strong emotions on here. I'm not saying that life isn't tough for those particular children in various ways - but they had a lot more going for them than a huge swathe of children here e.g. good schools, caring parents, caring teachers, self-motivation etc etc.

Those year 9 exam results etc still don't make sense to me. And that thing where the father had got cross with the son - the exams were supposedly real GCSE papers in year 9 marked to GCSE standard and that is what the son was tring to explain to the father.. But why would a school do that in year 9? And if they did, why would not they explain the results more carefully to avoid this kind of thing. I suppose at the end of the day it was just TV.

There's a rumour o n the streets around where I live that there are primary school children round here who if they get good feedback from their teachers on their work they are told off / bullied / hit by their parents because they don't want the children to do better than them. If it's true, that's very sad too.

[Surferfish]

I am interested that this series has aroused such strong emotions on here. I'm not saying that life isn't tough for those particular children in various ways - but they had a lot more going for them than a huge swathe of children here e.g. good schools, caring parents, caring teachers, self-motivation etc etc.

I agree mystery. I've been quite surprised by the some of the reactions of people on here who were moved to tears at the plight of these "unfortunate" children. I can only assume that some of the posters on here must live in an extremely privileged upper middle class bubble to have been so affected.

Personally I was encouraged by the attitude of all of the children and think that they will probably end up doing just fine in life. They were getting good grades at school, were articulate, ambitious and determined and most of them already had some sort of idea of what career they wanted to pursue. They even read books and did artwork in their free time for goodness sake! I only wish my own DS was a bit more like that!

OK, so they didn't live in luxury houses with parents who could help them with homework and pay for private tutors and their university fees. But they did have good supportive teachers and at least their parents cared for them and wanted them to do well at school, even though they couldn't advise them how to navigate the system. Kian's dad was overly harsh, but it was only because he didn't properly understand what the mark referred to and thought that he hadn't been trying his best. Deep down you could tell that he wanted the best for him. There are children far, far worse off than these believe me. (those examples that you mention in your last paragraph are a truly sad case)

My concern is for their friends and classmates who weren't featured. The ones who aren't considered "gifted" and therefore don't deserve a TV program to be made about them. It all reminds me a bit of the pro-grammar argument. These working class children are getting all the attention and offers of help and support from well meaning teachers and forum members purely because they are "bright". But its the less bright ones who are in most need of help and unfortunately just get forgotten about.

[Amber]

I am one of those who was moved to tears, and have come to defend myself. Firstly, I have worked with many disadvantaged children over my time in education. It is not as though I looked at the children on this programme from my cosy, middle class background and wept crocodile tears at the poor sweet darlings. I came from a background which I won't call disadvantaged, but it certainly wasn't middle class - no books at home, no money, no foreign holidays etc, and my children are very much better off in that sense. And I have worked with disabled children, abused children, sick children and children with mental health needs, as well as with very poor children. My 'middle class bubble' is there all right, but it is a bit more well-informed than some and does not tend to get burst by sentimentality or sensationalism.

I did not think that the children on the programme came from particularly 'good schools'; nor did I think they had particularly well-informed parents. They had parents who loved them, if that is what you mean by caring parents, but their parents generally did not have the first idea of how to support their children in moving away from the narrow aspirations of their circumstances. These children have a mountain to climb to get anywhere near the opportunities which children whose parents are on this forum take for granted.

And by the way, yes I know there are other forms of disadvantage too - I know of several children at a very expensive school near me who are most definitely the subject of parental neglect - they are at breakfast club and tea time club every single day of the week and spend the holidays with nannies and at clubs while their parents take expensive holidays and weekends away. It must be miserable. It depends how you define disadvantage, and it is not always about money.

I agree that the classmates of this tiny sample of young people are also deserving of assistance and support, of course they are. But if television, which so often just turns minds to jelly and backsides to fat, can actually make people think a little bit about the kind of society we have created, then in my view that has to be a good thing. Would you suggest not making the programme at all, as it can't include everyone who might be bright but has few opportunities?

[Surferfish]

Hi Amber. Firstly I certainly didn't mean to cause any offence to any other poster on this thread, least of all you, so apologies if it came across that way. (I know from other posts of yours that you've worked with disadvantaged children and really respect that along with most of your excellent posts).

And I did find it an interesting and worthwhile program. I was just a little surprised by the general reaction being one of people being upset. I guess I viewed it differently to others and found it quite uplifiting in a way.

I did not think that the children on the programme came from particularly 'good schools'; nor did I think they had particularly well-informed parents. They had parents who loved them, if that is what you mean by caring parents, but their parents generally did not have the first idea of how to support their children in moving away from the narrow aspirations of their circumstances. These children have a mountain to climb to get anywhere near the opportunities which children whose parents are on this forum take for granted.

Despite their backgrounds, the children were all getting good grades and though at still a young age, many already had high aspirations beyond their current circumstances. One wanted to be a paediatrician, another a criminologist etc. That's the major hurdles overcome already IMO. Their schools may not have been ranked as outstanding but they appeared to have supportive teachers who encouraged them to attend university open days and open their minds to opportunities and would no doubt guide them through the application process when the time came. So personally I can't see any real reason why they most won't be successful and no reason for any tears ( I did feel sorry for the girl with the disabled brother admittedly) . Is having parents with an in depth knowledge of the educational system who can hand-hold you through the entire process to PhD level really that essential (or even desirable) when you've already got good grades, clear aspirations and teachers who can advise you?

[Amber]

... personally I can't see any real reason why they most won't be successful and no reason for any tears ( I did feel sorry for the girl with the disabled brother admittedly) . Is having parents with an in depth knowledge of the educational system who can hand-hold you through the entire process to PhD level really that essential (or even desirable) when you've already got good grades, clear aspirations and teachers who can advise you?

Ok well I would perhaps make a distinction between the one who wanted to be a paediatrician and the others. I don't really want to dissect the programme but for example Anne-Marie's Mum had absolutely no idea at all about university - she thought it might cost £500. Having high aspirations in Y8(?) will not translate into anything at all unless things change a lot for these children. The one who had such an amazing voice was also totally held back by lack of confidence, and she had never met anyone who hadn't stayed on the estate she grew up in. I have seen countless able children in Y8/9/10 who are all fired up when they meet someone who inspires them (even me on occasion ) and then it all comes to nought later on because it is about so much more than just being bright and loved. There is this nasty little factor which comes into play and which is called cultural capital, and many of these families just don't have it at all. They don't know how to work the system to their advantage. When 'parental choice' gives people the 'freedom' to choose schools, these are the ones who are left with the school no one wants. When Y10 work experience comes along, these are the kids who have never seen anyone go out to work so don't know what to look at (and yes, I have tried to coordinate work experience for an entire year group like that). To me it is just not credible to say that these children have everything going for them and will make it just fine without a hand. I do not believe that they will. And I believe that our society is so fundamentally skewed against them that even if they do (Oprah-style) succeed against the odds, without systemic change, there will be millions more where they came from, and they won't be so lucky as to feature on the BBC.

And thank you Surferfish but I wasn't offended at all. I know that at times I have controversial views and can be provocative. It is kind of my reason for being here. If everyone agreed there would be no point, and what a boring world it would be!