Highly Able Learners and their Education:Guide

A brief history of education for more able learners

In order to have a better understanding of how education for more able learners has arrived at its present state, we as authors feel it is important to look at the field through a historical lens. For over a century, scholars have sought to understand and measure the idea. Theories and empirical investigations developed, complementing and sometimes contesting the nature of giftedness and talent development.

Throughout history, cultures have recognized and encouraged what they understood by ability. This was largely based on what was important in a particular epoch. The Spartans valued military prowess. The Athenians valued physical fitness and Roman society placed value on engineering skills. The Greeks saw high ability as being able to move through different levels of knowledge to achieve deeper understanding. In early China child prodigies were recognised and nurtured their gifts as much as possible, believing that children from all social classes had the right to be educated. Learning was differentiated for students based on their abilities. In the Renaissance and post-Renaissance periods, a common approach to fostering talent in art, music and dance was through the apprentice model, with support from the nobility or aristocracy.

There was renewed interest in the 19^th century with research into individual differences. Eyre (2011) describes how, the mid-20th century saw a shift towards the ‘cohort paradigm’, under which gifted education selected a group of students from the general school population, mostly through IQ tests. Studies of giftedness in the 1920s and 30s evolved from research into mental inheritance, low ability and the construction of instruments to measure this, along with the realization that schools could not adequately meet the needs of all children. Towards the end of the 20^th century and in the beginning of the 21st century, the focus in some countries shifted from identification towards creating educational conditions in which high ability might best be developed.

The assessment of individual differences

Modern studies commonly relate to the psychology of individual differences. Psychological constructs of intelligence, creativity, and motivation (from research in the 18-20th centuries) provided much of the foundation for our understanding today.  In 1884, Francis Galton established a psychometric lab in London, where he began testing individuals’ mental abilities. Galton’s publication of Hereditary Genius in 1892, a study of English families has been regarded as the first ever study on human ability. Galton concluded that heredity is the determinant factor in intelligence. In France, Binet, Henri, and Simon began developing methods to study higher mental processes. They argued that intelligence was best measured by looking at higher mental processes rather than the simple sensory functions that had been studied in the past and in 1905, the Binet-Simon scale was developed. Early definitions of ability were based on Intelligence Quotient (IQ) or general intelligence, known as g factor. Although such early work brought more empirical and scientific credibility to the field of gifted education and IQ tests do serve some purpose, their exclusive use at identifying high ability is now questioned by many, showing a limited view of ability that does not take into consideration an individualised or even whole child approach.

Equity issues

Education for very able learners is caught between excellence and equity. Critics of different highly able educational experiences contend that these services or programmes are unfair to other children (a view challenged by many individuals and organisations nowadays). From the mid-1960s to 1970s, public attention and the attention of educators, particularly in the USA shifted to issues of student equity. There continued to be interest in the education of gifted students, largely due to the recognition of the need for continuing the supply of highly talented individuals to maintain U.S.A. leadership in science, industry and academia. This was paralleled with considerable ambivalence to higher achieving individuals, with the common charge of being exclusive and elitist. The conflict between the public interest and personal feelings is mirrored in many societies and does remain a barrier to the education of gifted and talented students. Ford (2012) alerts us to a number of ongoing and unresolved controversies and questions in the field. Among them are identification, placement (programming, services, curriculum), and underrepresentation (of Black and Hispanic students). These issues play a significant role in contributing to the charges of elitism and inequity, and they are a significant factor reflecting the lack of commitment in legislation for the more able that exists in the USA. The Marland Report in 1972 was a significant milestone in gifted and talented education and it remains a touchstone even today. Subsequent legislation and reports, including A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (1983) and National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent (1993), have reawakened the rally cries for more equitable allocation of resources and funding for gifted education and reiterated the neglect given to this nation’s most able students.

Highly able education in England

The existence of official policy statements reflects an incremental development in England for the last half century where the terms ‘highly able’, ‘gifted’ or ‘talented’ are often used synonymously. In the United Kingdom (and England specifically) we can trace its origins back to 1944, when a new School Act provided possibilities for children to study at newly created Grammar Schools. These schools were later viewed as elitist and local authorities were encouraged to close them down and replace them by comprehensive schools, which were to provide equal opportunities for everybody. In the 1950s in a ‘cohort’ perspective (described by Eyre earlier), the challenge was to identify the limited number of ‘gifted’ students who were different to mainstream students. In some ways, this was an improvement on what had gone before, as it recognised for the first time that there were large numbers of students capable of high levels of achievement and who required a differed form of education.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI 1978, 1979) reported concerns that work in schools was not appropriately matched for very able pupils. Years later, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI,1992) voiced that very able students in state-maintained primary and secondary schools were not being sufficiently challenged by the curriculum; a view that still exists today. The first recorded government commitment to making effective provision for higher ability pupils is to be found in the government White Paper (DfEE, 1997). A formal action plan and associated funding were provided to develop strategies to meet the needs of able children within the Excellence in Cities initiative (DfEE,1999). Following a general election in 1997, this Labour Government policy was initially intended to raise educational achievement of higher ability students in secondary schools in socially deprived urban areas and subsequently extended to all age groups and schools in England. Schools were required to:

• identify 5 to 10% of their students as gifted and talented and place them on a register

• appoint a co-ordinator to be responsible for the education of gifted and talented students

• implement a distinct teaching and learning programme for gifted and talented students.

The initiative attempted to address social inclusion and boost education standards in inner-city state schools. It was intended to create inclusive schooling that recognised the different abilities of all learners. Several educationalists, including Radnor, Koshy and Taylor (2007) have suggested that underpinning the introduction of the gifted and talented education policy was a need to retain middle-class children in state comprehensive schools and to stop their leakage into schools in more affluent areas as well as into the independent sector.   That said, the English landscape of gifted education changed from here. Although not mandatory, this was the first time in the history of UK education, where teachers were expected to select gifted and talented pupils and make appropriate educational provision for them. It was also the first time that the topic of improved provision for these students had been placed firmly within the national agenda.

Although there was significant funding attached the EiC programme and it did serve to put the education of the more able on the educational map, latent tensions with terminology soon became apparent. This was due to people’s interpretation that gifted meant exceptional in some way and was no longer taken from a set percentage of a cohort of students. The term ‘gifted and talented’ tended to create a resistance amongst the teaching profession for this reason and it also raised questions about teachers’ knowledge to judge this accurately in their students. In response, the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF, 2008) provided specific guidance for schools:

Gifted: the top 5-10% of students per school as measure by actual or potential achievement in English, Maths, Science, History Geography, Modern Foreign Languages, RE, ICT or Design and Technology.

Talented: the top 5-10% of students per school as measured by actual or potential achievement in the subjects of Art, Music, PE or the Performing Arts.

The problems of identification remained with many teachers morally opposed to labelling children as ‘gifted’. They preferred to use the term ‘more able’ instead (Koshy & Pinheiro-Jones, 2013) and indeed the term used in this Guide is ‘highly able’. The term ‘gifted and talented’ was perceived by many as confusing and elitist. An earlier Select Committee (1999) adopted the term ‘highly able’, justifying this by saying that the Department for Education and Employment used the term synonymously with a range of terms from ‘very able’ to ‘exceptionally able’. It also raised practical problems about the keeping of separate registers for both categories of ability. Could both categories also be possible?  The governmental response to these and other inconsistencies concluded that schools themselves should manage their implementation of the G&T policy.

In 2002, a funded National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth (NAGTY) was set up at the University of Warwick. This provided summer schools and other support for ‘gifted’ pupils in the secondary sector. However, despite the positive evaluation of the NAGTY by the Department of Education, and more than 200,000 children receiving support, thousands of teachers being trained, the NAGTY was closed down in 2010.  It was followed by the Young Gifted and Talented Learner Academy (YG&T) for 4- to 19-year-olds, set up and run by the Centre for British Teachers (CfBT) Education Trust.  It was significant that local authority advisers were not involved or consulted in the process of setting up of either the NAGTY or YG&T. In 2007, the National Strategy for Gifted and Talented pupils was introduced. Local authority advisers had a key role in implementation here, and yet there was no funding attached. Local authorities and schools which had not been involved previously in gifted and talented initiatives were now required to document and demonstrate their provision for their most able learners. Evaluations of impact of the national gifted and talented programme were ‘inconsistent and incoherent’ and stated that ‘the impact in classrooms generally with regard to provision was patchy’ (Evans 2010).

Since 2010, a national framework for Gifted & Talented in England no longer exists. The previous national register is closed and much of the previous material produced by the National Strategies is available only as on-line archives. The National Academy is disbanded and regional partnerships and Excellence Hubs are closed. Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) inspections continue to highlight that provision for able pupils in state-funded schools is far from satisfactory.  The Government priority is on raising achievement in schools. There is now more regionalisation. Orientation is towards school-based provision. Organisations such as the National Association for Able Children in Education (NACE) and Potential Plus fill this gap and provide much needed professional development for teachers in all sectors in terms of support materials, challenge awards and conferences (more of the current status in the next section). The twenty-first century represents a new era where the possibilities augur that the future for highly able children might again be a national priority.

References

Evans, L. (2010). G&T policy inconsistent [editorial]. G&T Update

Eyre, D. (2011).  Room at the top: inclusive education for high performance, Policy Exchange, London

Ford, D. Y. (2012). Gifted and talented education: History, issues, and recommendations. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. M. Royer, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 2. Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 83–110). American Psychological Association

Koshy, V. & Pinheiro-Torres, C. (2013) ‘Are we being de-gifted, Miss?’ Primary schools gifted and talented co-ordinators’ responses to the Gifted and Talented Education Policy in England. British

Radnor, H., Koshy, V. & Taylor, A., (2007). Gifts, talents and meritocracy. Journal of Education Policy, 22(3), pp.283-287