Annex
Apt or Able?
Philip Hunter, Chief Schools Adjudicator
In the new "modernised" comprehensive system
now taking shape, the aim is that all secondary schools will become
specialist schools. Most headteachers and governors have welcomed
this as it offers schools the prospect of additional resources
and a clear focus for future development. But, as many have already
discovered, preparing a bid for specialist status can be hard
work - not least trying to find ways of raising the necessary
sponsorship.
So it is often late in the day before would-be specialists
face up to the difficult issue of whether or not to select pupils.
Some schools might find this an attractive possibility, but need
to consider carefully before taking such an important step. Here
are some points to think about.
The first point is to work out what kind of selection
is allowed by law and what is not. This is not as easy as it might
sound. Schools are allowed to select up to 10% of pupils for a
specific aptitude in the performing or visual arts, languages,
sport or design or IT. Incidentally, this is open to any secondary
school that can demonstrate it has particular facilities or expertise,
not just specialists. What they are not allowed to do, according
to the 1998 School Standards and Framework Act, is select for
ability or general aptitude.
If a neighbouring school, or local education authority,
objects to a school's admission arrangements an adjudicator is
called in. Usually the objection is that, while purporting to
select by aptitude, the school is actually selecting by ability.
So it is crucial we know what the two words mean and the practical
difference between them.
Finding a difference between the meaning of two such
words is the sort of exercise lexicographers get up to when they
haven't enough to do. Most dictionaries tend to use the two words
alongside each other in the definition of both. In an attempt
to draw a clear distinction, legislators have also got in on the
act. The School admissions code of practice gives the following
definition: "a pupil with aptitude is one identified as able
to benefit from teaching in a specific subject, or who demonstrates
a particular capacity to succeed in that subject" —not
the most helpful guide to anyone who wants to know what it is.
We can find a way through this by using the word
'ability' in the same way as we use 'achievement'. Ability is
assessed using the normal tests used in schools and elsewhere—GCSEs,
musical instrument grades, swimming proficiency certificates and
so on. These are tests to find out what people can do.
The word 'aptitude' then means a gift or a talent.
It denotes a potential or propensity to develop an ability given
appropriate teaching or preparation. In other words aptitude +
preparation = future ability.
The next task is to find a means of assessing a specific
aptitude that does not trespass into assessing ability or general
aptitude. Aptitude tests are hard to come by but there are a few
that have been developed for some subjects. There are tests for
languages that rely on the propensity of children to recognise
the meaning of non-familiar languages. Tests for aptitude in music
assess the propensity of children to recognise pitch, rhythm,
harmony and texture. Tests in spatial awareness can identify aptitude
for design and technology. But be warned. Even these tests have
a tendency to select general as well as specific aptitudes. Schools
can correct for this by making sure that the pupils selected are
spread across the ability range but that is an extra stage to
go through.
Aptitude tests for sport are being developed but
are not yet established. There are no aptitude tests yet for the
arts. Here it seems reasonable to rely on the assessment of qualified
coaches, directors or teachers. But the people appointed to do
this must be experienced and independent of the school and the
pupils they are assessing. They have to work to published criteria
so there is no possibility of discrimination against applicants
on the grounds of gender, ethnic origin, disability or family
background.
Having done all this, schools must consult their
neighbours and parents properly. This does not mean everybody
has to agree but proper consultation involves a full dialogue,
taking on board reservation that partner schools or parents might
have.
If a school gets that far down the selection path
there is one further hoop to go through. It has to go back to
the beginning and ask itself why it wants to select. From some
of the cases we have had referred to adjudicators recently, it
seems some excellent schools have found themselves selecting simply
because schools around them are doing so. There is no evidence
that they need to select to maintain their standards or ethos
or that the children selected do any better than those that are
not. A school should only decide to select if it has clearly thought
through what it hopes to achieve by selection and why it is prepared
to devote resources and energy to a process that has proved to
be both time-consuming and expensive.
I am grateful to Professor Dylan Wiliam, Kings College,
University of London; Tim Oates, Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority; and Chris Whetton, National Foundation for Educational
Research for their advice which informed this article.
| 
