So what do you call the highest-attaining students in your school or college? We call ours Scholars, which may sound rather grand, but does the job for us of identifying pupils who are strong sports all-rounders (Sports Scholars) or talented musicians (Music Scholars) or, in Years-7-11, the academic all-rounders are simply identified as Scholars. The name suits us as an independent school, and I know of at least one other using the same label.
Our OFSTED equivalent is the Independent Schools’ Inspectorate, and ISI criteria define talented pupils as those excelling in a specific area eg music, art, design, drama, dance or sport. Gifted pupils may have ‘special abilities in one or more subjects’. No surprises there, and many schools do of course routinely use ‘gifted and talented’ as a generic label for a cohort of students who are recognised as having particular learning needs. The waters cloud a little, however, with the addition of the term ‘able’. An able pupil is defined as ‘one who achieves, or has the ability to achieve, at a level significantly higher than his or her peer group in the school.’ So presumably ‘able’ is the generic, overarching umbrella term under which shelter ‘gifted’, ‘talented’ ‘very bright’ and lots of others. Fine, but how do we as teachers define ‘able’ or its comparative cousin ‘more able pupil’ or its superlative sibling ‘most able pupil’? What is ability, and what is potential? How do we measure ‘significantly higher’ and what, indeed, is the ability profile of a majority of a peer group -which might be a class, a set, or a year group, among other possible cohorts?
The ISI and DfE use the notional figure of 5% as a measure for gifted pupils nationally. Within our school we reckon the figure to be closer to 30% in Years 7-11 and 20% in the Sixth Form; these figures are calculated from MIDYIS, YELLIS and ALIS data.
Schools use many different calculations and the data can be pushed this way and that but for me, the notion that up to a third of any class I teach merits stretch and challenge questioning, tasks and activities gives pause for thought. It kicks into touch any sense of having two or three very sharp students who, in my case, will know more History than I do in terms of factual detail and, much more importantly, that they can see angles, make connections and read the past better than I can, or could ever do. I’ve never had too much difficulty with that. What does cause me to sit up and think is the idea that so many students in any class could do this, and should be routinely doing it, if I can find the means to help unlock that potential. Really, a third?
These are some of the questions with which I am grappling in a role which gives me responsibility for our gifted and talented students across Years 7-13, with the addition of supporting existing provision in our Junior School. I’m struck by the paucity of literature and advice out there.
My first port of call, as so often, is Tom Sherrington. His post champions the need to stretch and challenge all students in what he terms a ‘total philosophy’: open-ended tasks, depth and rigour to all content, problem-solving; teaching to the top and supporting at the bottom, not ‘differentiating upwards’: http://headguruteacher.com/2012/09/12/gifted-and-talented-provision-a-total-philosophy/
This month Tom brought us his latest thoughts on stretch and challenge in his version of Dylan’s Basement Tapes, a Kitchen Video: http://headguruteacher.com/2013/11/16/video-ideas-about-stretch-and-challenge/
In terms of the sheer number of nods of the head as I read and re-read his wise words, Tom’s blog serves as my benchmark against which I can assess other contributions to the discussion. Perhaps I’m missing a trick, but I’m not impressed by either the quality or the quantity of suggestions out there about how best to provide for our most able students, but more on that another time.
Testing some of these ideas in a wider forum, I went on an Optimus Gifted and Talented course in the impressive surroundings of The Oval in London recently. There must have been over 300 teachers there; it was a huge event. Just to focus on the point of definition, Ruth Powley spoke persuasively about the problem of schools data-crunching their statutory 5% of ‘g and t’ students. What about, she quite rightly asked, the 95%? The 5% may want to mask their achievements anyway. She suggested self-selection, an intriguing idea which some schools seem to be using. Not least, this gives you a higher percentage of free school meal children. Ruth also suggested using the terms ‘able and ambitious’. Does your school have an Ambition Plan?
At the same conference, Carmen Rodney HMI gave the OFSTED perspective. She asked if you can show that all students are being stretched. Inspectors will ask students if the classwork is sufficiently challenging, and likewise homework, and marking. ISI Inspectors will want to see the same things. They fully acknowledge that different schools will have different names and labels for those whom they identify as their best drama students, mathematicians and linguists. What matters is not the name but the learning, not the label but the attitudes it fosters.
Finally for the moment, no discussion of labelling and naming and its manifold implications for measuring progress, among many others would be complete without recommendation of the Gifted Phoenix blog, a remarkable body of work in its own right.
His forensic skills have dissected official literature and left the body parts exposed: http://giftedphoenix.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/how-high-attainers-feature-in-school-inspection-and-performance-tables-and-what-to-do-about-it/
He tells us that there is, in late 2013, a disparity between the OFSTED Inspection Guidance with its references to ‘most able’ pupils and School Performance Tables which refer to ‘highest attainers’. If the former is taken as a benchmark, many of the learners in many of our schools will be deemed to be ‘high attainers’. They will be starting Yr 7 at L5 or having the potential to attain L5 in English and/or Maths at the end of KS2. In the School Inspection Handbook there are references to the ‘highest attaining students’ rather than the ‘most able’. Confusing, n’est-ce pas?
- It’s not encouraging that several gifted bloggers and commentators have identified terminological inexactitudes and definitional blurring in official literature
- Nevertheless what matters on the ground is settling on names and labels that we can live with in our school, and which our students, colleagues and parents can understand
- My challenge is to keep my school’s ‘gifted and talented’ provision open and accesible because students don’t make progress in straight lines. Students can therefore become Scholars at any point. We’ll keep the idea of self-selection under review, though
- The numbers and abilities of the students whom I face every day who need ‘stretch and challenge’ is higher than my fixed mindset believes, so I need to grow a little…
- But what about the high ability students who never quite produce the best History essay or Maths solution? If I teach to the top, challenge but support, I may help them get there. They are simply not there yet, as John Tomsett reminds us. A former colleagues used to call these ‘the middle third’ of our classes because they are rarely in trouble, can easily go unnoticed but may have some, many or all of the attributes of our highest attainers. They deserve better.
Comments, thoughts very welcome