Memorandum submitted by Professor David
Gillborn (University of London)
RACE INEQUALITY, "GIFTED AND TALENTED"
STUDENTS AND THE INCREASED USE OF "SETTING BY ABILITY"
WITNESS INTRODUCTION
David Gillborn is Professor of Education and
Head of the School of Educational Foundations and Policy Studies
at the Institute of Education, University of London. He is an
internationally recognised expert on race equality and education
policy. His past publications include two reviews of evidence
for the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) that have become
standard references in the field; he edits the leading international
scholarly journal on race and ethnicity in education; and his
most recent book was named "best book in the field of educational
studies" (2000) by the Standing Conference on Studies in
Education (SCSE)/Society for Educational Studies (SES).
SUMMARY
Three years ago I predicted that the introduction
of the "gifted and talented" initiative would institutionalise
race inequality because Black children would not be fairly represented
in the scheme: the DfES issued a formal rebuttal, confident that
no such pattern would emerge. Earlier this year the department
published official data showing white children to be between two-
and five-times more likely to be deemed gifted and talented than
their Black peers.
Based on an understanding of the processes that
sustain and generate race inequality in education, this submission
predicts that, if left unchecked, the White Paper's proposals
will worsen the inequality of opportunity endured by Black students.
In particular, the plans to extend the use of "setting by
ability" and enhance "gifted and talented" provision
threaten further to institutionalise the race inequalities that
have scarred the system for decades. The submission draws on national
and international research to question the interpretation of "ability"
that is embodied in the White Paper; to expose how racial stereotypes
operate through teachers' decisions about who has/has not got
the required ability; and to demonstrate the need for explicit
race equality safeguards if the DfES is to meet its legal duties
under existing legislation.
EVIDENCE
The view of ability in the White Paper
1. The White Paper does not explain exactly
what it means by "ability": at times it seems to relate
to prior attainment in school tests, at other times it might mean
performance in written "intelligence" tests of cognitive
ability, and it can also relate to grades awarded by teachers
within school.
2. Despite this rather imprecise approach,
it is clear that the White Paper assumes children have a relatively
fixed amount of "ability", so that those with more/less
ability at one point in their schooling are assumed inevitably
to still have more/less than most of their peers at a later stage.
This is made most explicit in the following statement:
"we must make sure that every pupil—gifted
and talented, struggling or just average—reaches the limits
of their capability." (para 1.28) [5]
3. This is a particularly disturbing statement.
It echoes a common belief that there are three types of children;
in this case, the "just average", the "gifted and
talented" and the "struggling". English education
policy has continually returned to this belief since it was enshrined
in the post-WWII system of selective entry to secondary schools
and the use of the 11-plus exam. Although the Government has explicitly
ruled out a return to such a system, the logic of the White Paper
is that the selective system is re-introduced within an apparently
more diverse arrangement. Although the Prime Minister's Foreword
speaks of "all-ability schools that retain the comprehensive
principle of non-selection" (p 1) the reality is that the
White Paper seeks to further strengthen the selection that already
takes place within most state-funded schools.
4. The same quotation raises another deeply
worrying question; it speaks of "the limits of [children's]
capability"—but how are such limits to be identified
and do such limits even exist? This is addressed below.
"Ability" is not fixed and is not generalised
5. The principal objection to the White
Paper's view of ability is that, although it accords with some
people's "common sense", it is actually quite wrong.
Even those psychologists who design and market IQ tests widely
accept that a child's score can be improved significantly if they
are tutored in the relevant problem-solving techniques and there
is, of course, no single universally accepted definition of the
term "intelligence".[6]
Indeed, even among psychologists who believe that the concept
has some usefulness there is no agreed definition:
"When two dozen prominent theorists were
recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen somewhat
different definitions"[7]
6. There is, therefore, no sound basis for
the idea that children can simply be separated into different
groups on the basis of some kind of generalised ability that will
inevitably remain a marker of relative academic giftedness (or
deficit) for the rest of their educational careers.
There is no such thing as a test of academic potential:
every test is a test of what a person knows at present
7. "The fact that Billy and Jimmy [sic]
have different IQs tells us something about differences in what
they now do. It does not tell us anything fixed about what ultimately
they will be able to do." [8]
8. This quote is from someone working within
the psychometric field: Robert J Sternberg, the IBM Professor
of Psychology and Education at Yale, who is a major figure in
contemporary "intelligence" testing and a leading theoretician
in the field of human abilities and giftedness. Sternberg has
devoted considerable energy to his thesis that "abilities"
are "forms of developing expertise" including several
publications and the establishment of a dedicated centre at Yale.
However, Sternberg's central argument is not as revolutionary
as some might think. The Cleary Committee, appointed in the 1970s
by the American Psychological Association, stated that:
"A distinction is drawn traditionally between
intelligence and achievement tests. A naive statement of the difference
is that the intelligence test measures capacity to learn and the
achievement test measures what has been learned. But items in
all psychological and educational tests measure acquired behaviour
. . ." [9]
9. Contrary to popular belief, therefore,
there is no test of capacity to learn: every test so far conceived
measures only what a person has so far learnt. Despite all the
"scientific" facade that surrounds the industry of standardised
testing, therefore, we must remember that tests—all tests—measure
only whether a person can perform well on that particular test
at that particular time.
The driving test analogy
10. One way to think about this in education
is to compare our use of school tests with our use of driving
tests. Schools routinely assume fixed differences in potential
on the basis of their assessment of students' performance. They
separate children into different groups (eg separate tables in
primary classrooms, different "sets" in secondaries).
These different groups cover different amounts of the curriculum
and, not surprisingly, eventually emerge with markedly different
results.
11. But this is the equivalent of saying
that people who do not pass their driving test on the first attempt
can never attain sufficient competence to drive a powerful vehicle.
Of course, in reality the person takes additional lessons and,
on the basis of their improved abilities, the vast majority eventually
make the grade. We do not assume that a poor driving test result
denotes an inner deficiency that can never be made good, but that
is precisely how many children are treated in terms of their academic
potential
Teachers' decisions about "ability"
tend to disadvantage Black students
12. When teachers separate students on the
basis of their assumed "ability", Black students[10]
are frequently over-represented in the lower ranked groups. This
is an extremely common finding in educational research in both
the UK and North America. [11]
This has been observed in "tracking" systems in the
US, for example, and in approaches to "setting by ability"
and the "tiering" of GCSE examination papers in England.
These decisions are often made at quite an early stage in the
children's schooling but, because lower-ranked groups cover less
of the curriculum, they have a cumulative effect that can be devastating.
In research in two London secondaries, for example, my colleague
Deborah Youdell and I found that two thirds of Black students
were entered for Mathematics GCSE in examination papers where
the highest possible grade was a "D".[12]
Further research, conducted with colleagues at Bristol University,
has examined these decisions in a larger sample of schools and
found very similar patterns of Black disadvantage. [13]
Without explicit safeguards Black students will
be disadvantaged by the proposals to extend "setting by ability"
and the "gifted and talented" scheme: this is institutional
racism
13. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry proposed
a definition of institutional racism (subsequently accepted by
government) that focuses on the outcomes of processes not their
intent:
"processes, attitudes and behaviour which
amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance,
thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority
ethnic people"[14]
14. There can be few clearer cases of institutional
racism than an examination (such as the lowest tier of GCSE mathematics),
disproportionately taken by Black students, for which the highest
possible grade is commonly accepted as a "failure".
15. In view of past experience, therefore,
there are considerable hidden dangers of further stereotyping
and race disadvantage in the White Paper's proposals to extend
the use of "setting by ability" (para 4.36) and to develop
a national register of gifted and talented pupils who will benefit
from the additional opportunities offered by the National Academy
for Gifted and Talented Youth (paras 4.23-4.25). There is nothing
intrinsically racist in the proposals themselves: however, we
know from recent experiences that Black students are likely to
be under-represented in the selection decisions unless clear safeguards
are built into the procedures. The same danger exists for working
class students (regardless of their ethnic origin). This can be
demonstrated by considering the operation of the gifted and talented
scheme to date.
Warnings were ignored in 2002
16. In 2002 I gave a major public lecture
which argued that the gifted and talented proposals, in the then-latest
round of reforms, would likely result in an under-representation
of Black students in the programme. The lecture received a good
deal of media attention and the Department for Education issued
a rebuttal arguing that:
"The gifted and talented scheme will identify
children by looking at ability, rather than attainment, to capitalise
on the talents of the individual child, regardless of ethnic background".[15]
17. I have already commented on the fact
that there is no difference between tests of "ability"
and "attainment" (paras 8-9 above) and so I will not
labour that point again. Rather, I will simply record that the
department's own data (released earlier this year) show that my
original warning was entirely correct: white pupils were identified
as "gifted and talented" at more than twice the rate
of Black Caribbean children and five times the rate for their
Black African peers. [16]
PERCENTAGE OF PUPILS IDENTIFIED AS GIFTED
AND TALENTED BY ETHNIC ORIGIN (ENGLAND)
The new proposals will make things worse for Black
students
18. The DfES's own data clearly demonstrate
that the "gifted and talented" initiative has already
operated in a fashion that disadvantages Black students. This
was wholly predictable when the programme was launched but no
safeguards were built-in. Consequently, the gifted and talented
initiative has further institutionalised the already marked inequality
of opportunity experienced by Black students. Therefore, in terms
of the understandings established by the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry,
and accepted by government, the gifted and talented initiative
currently operates in an institutionally racist fashion. The White
Paper's proposal's will worsen an already unjust situation.
The references to race equality in the White Paper
are tokenistic and piecemeal
19. The White Paper makes several references
to minority ethnic groups, often in the context of their lower
average attainments. This is to be welcomed as it shows that race
equality is on the DfES's agenda: unfortunately, the precise details
do not live up to the rhetoric. In fact, the main proposals in
relation to minority ethnic children are either optional or add-ons
that have much lower status than the principal reforms. For example:
(a) The School Improvement Partner (SIP)
scheme (paras 2.62-2.63): it is suggested that the SIP ("usually
a headteacher, working for the local authority") might help
schools make use of data to improve minority attainments. But
there is no obligation to consider race equality as part of the
SIP's relationship with a school: the SIP may view lower minority
results as commonplace and acceptable, or they may view the issue
as too sensitive. Will they receive formal training in race equality?
Will SIPs be any more likely to raise race as an issue than Ofsted
inspectors (who have sometimes been seen to document race inequality
in their statistics but then leave it out of the school's action
plans)? [17]
(b) The "Aiming High" initiative,
which has focused on raising Black achievement in 30 pilot schools,
is hailed as a success in para 4.4 and then offered as a source
of ideas to be applied more widely (para 4.30). But there are
no concrete suggestions about programmes that schools will be
required to join, nor any sense of firm targets for improvement.
Once again, minority achievement is an optional extra.
(c) The White Paper talks of raising the
number of minority ethnic teachers (para 8.14) but this alone
will not address the deep rooted problems in the system—role
models alone are not the answer: the lower representation of Black
students in gifted and talented schemes reflects the expectations
of their teachers more than the students' aspirations. The same
paragraph (8.14) talks of expanding "available" support
"to ensure all teachers have the skills and confidence to
teach in a diverse classroom": once again, the support is
"available" but there is no sense of any urgency or
compulsion.
There is an urgent need for the DfES to take the
lead in prioritizing race equality, as a mainstream issue, in
line with their legal duties under the law
20. The government is committed to "evidence-informed
policy making". The evidence on race and education is very
clear: race inequality is sustained, and even worsened, where
judgements are made about ability and academic potential but no
safeguards are built-in to ensure that stereotypes and unintended
consequences do not further institutionalise the disadvantage
faced by many Black students.
21. The DfES's own data show that the gifted
and talented scheme has further exacerbated race inequality: the
current under-representation of Black children was a wholly predictable
outcome of the reforms announced in 2002. The same research evidence
which led me to that conclusion three years ago (rejected by the
department at the time but now confirmed in official statistics)
leads me to the view that the latest White Paper will further
disadvantage Black students through its recommendations on setting
by ability and the gifted and talented initiative. Unless these
proposals are rethought and, at the very least, framed to include
obligatory race equality safe-guards, the DfES risks failing to
meet its legal duties under the Race Relations Act.
November 2005
5 Unless otherwise stated, all references refer to
the 2005 White Paper, Higher Standards, Better Schools for
All. Back
6
See, for example, Sternberg, R J (2001) Giftedness as
developing expertise: a theory of the interface between high abilities
and achieved excellence, High Ability Studies, 12(2): 157-79. Back
7
Neisser, U et al (1995) Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns.
Report of a Task Force established by the Board of Scientific
Affairs of the American Psychological Association, released August
7, 1995: www.Irainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html (last accessed
26 November 2005). An edited version was later published in the
journal, American Psychologist, February 1996. Back
8
Sternberg, R J (1998) Abilities are forms of developing expertise,
Educational Researcher, 27(3): p 18. Back
9
Cleary Committee of the American Psychological Association, Board
of Scientific Affairs: quoted in Kamin, L J (1981) Intelligence:
The Battle for the Mind. London, Pan Books, p 94: emphasis
added. Back
10
In this context I follow the usual convention of using "Black"
to denote those students who would be counted as Black Caribbean,
Black African and/or Black Other in official returns. Back
11
I have reviewed this literature extensively elsewhere: Gillborn,
D (2004) Racism, Policy and Contemporary Schooling: current inequities
and future possibilities, Sage Race Relations Abstracts, 29(2):
5-33 and Gillborn, D and Mirza, H S (2000) Educational Inequality:
Mapping Race, Class and Gender-A Synthesis of Research Evidence.
Report #HMI 232. London, Office for Standards in Education. Back
12
Gillborn, D and Youdell, D (2000) Rationing Education: Policy,
Practice, Reform and Equity. Buckingham, Open University Press. Back
13
The final report is currently under preparation for the Department
for Education and Skills but preliminary analyses clearly replicate
the earlier work. Back
14
The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (1999) CM 4262-I, p 28. Back
15
See Smithers, R (2002) Racism rife says school expert, Guardian,
12 March: also available on the net at http://www.Politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,11032,665805,00.html
(last accessed 25 November 2005). See also BBC News On-Line (2002)
Racism warning over curriculum plans http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1867639.stm
(last accessed 5 November 2005). Back
16
Department for Education and Skills (2005) Ethnicity and Education:
The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils. London, DfES, p 36. Back
17
Parsons, C et al (2004) Minority Ethnic Exclusions and the Race
Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. London, DfES. Back
| 
