Memorandum submitted by Professor Deborah
Eyre
The current Government should be commended for
creating the National Programme for Gifted and Talented.
It is the first Government to give priority
to this area of work and to recognise its importance in the creation
of a high performing education system. During the duration of
the programme to date many students have, without doubt, benefitted.
However, in a general sense the policy aspirations have not been
translated into a sustainable model for the future. The reasons
for this are complex but the constant changes in delivery models
over the 10 year period have led to policy incoherence and inconsistency.
This is particularly damaging in the light of
the clear steer from the 1999 Education and Employment Committee
Report (Third Report, Highly Able Children) which indicated
that the development that would make most difference would be
a change in attitude among teachers, LEAs and perhaps even more
importantly among the public and society at large. So a clear,
simple and consistent policy was needed if hearts and minds were
to be won. In this climate any sensible programme would also need
a systematic communications plan aimed at drawing attention to
the benefits of the new programme for students, families, schools
and society at large if it was to secure greater acceptance and
system-wide culture change. This did not occur.
Not only was this period characterised by frequent
changes in the major delivery platform but crucially, at no time
was the policy delivered or co-ordinated through one single delivery
platform. For example, during the NAGTY period (2002-07), NAGTY
was in receipt of approximately 50% of the centrally held budget
with the other 50% being deployed direct by DfES through a plethora
of small, autonomous and sometimes conflicting initiatives. This
created a very confusing landscape for schools.
The constant change has led to weariness in
schools with some schools increasing their activity and support
in one phase of the programme only to retreat at a later stage
when more changes occurred. (Gifted and talented pupils in
schools, Ofsted 2009). It also led to frustration for parents
and out-of-school providers with again ebb and flow in both interest
and activity levels.
Finally, when delivery models were changed the
lessons learned and successes secured were not transferred and
hence rather than a cumulative effect the result was a constant
restarting of the programme with resultant superficiality in content
and slowness in delivery.
A revised model is essential but it must build
on what has been learned, seek to rectify these problems and strive
for sustainability.
Why is a sustainable approach to Gifted and Talented
education important?
The gifted and talented agenda is significant
for a range of reasons which transcend the needs of the individual.
It has system-wide implications and hence securing a robust and
sustainable approach is important.
1. Economic competitiveness. It is
widely accepted internationally that national workforces are suffering
from a shortage of highly educated and highly skilled personnel.
This "talent crunch" is forecast to increase with an
ever increasing need for a high performing young people. (Manpower
Inc, 2007). This appetite for high performing individuals requires
the school system to raise its expectations, to nurture its most
able students from a wider range of backgrounds in order to provide
the volume of high achievers needed and hence to minimise talent
wastage and maximise achievement in the system. For a country
like England which is so dependent on intellectual capital as
a form of wealth creation this is particularly pertinent. Competitors
in the "Asian Tiger" countries and in the parts of the
Middle East are already addressing this agenda and the UK risks
being left behind. The G&T agenda is the mechanism for
increasing the volume of high performers.
2. School improvement and performance.
Research evidence suggests that where schools approach Gifted
and Talented education by providing challenging curricula coupled
with a structured approach to the provision of demanding opportunities,
then overall standards in the school are likely to rise. Expectations
of students generally are raised, not just those of the target
group. Hence when well used the G&T agenda can provide
a mechanism for driving up overall standards.
3. Social mobility. In the drive
to improve social mobility education is vital. Research evidence
around the financial and other benefits of a university education
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP(2005) indicate that gaining a university
degree can lead to 23% more in earnings a lifetime than leaving
school with 2 A levels. At the school level those most likely
to achieve social mobility are those who perform highly in their
educational setting. Hence where gifted and talented provision
is effectively applied it can create a structural mechanism for
increasing social mobility. For example, the National Academy
for Gifted and Talented Youth (NAGTY) demonstrated that all students
admitted into NAGTY were statistically likely to obtain places
at leading universities, regardless of socio-economic background.
4. Individual fulfilment. For the
individual, education matters. Whist the general public often
believe that the most able students will achieve regardless of
their education this idea is comprehensively refuted by the evidence.
Without appropriate provision they under-achieve. All students,
even those from the most advantaged backgrounds need an education
that creates appropriately demanding opportunities, supports them
at difficult times and helps them to develop learner behaviours
such as resilience and persistence that are the building blocks
for high levels of performance. Without a system-wide approach
to nurturing giftedness and talent, system-wide underachievement
occurs with this being most pronounced amongst minority populations.
Why has a sustainable approach not been achieved?
Over the 10 year period the Government has attempted
to structure its G&T programme in a variety of ways and tried
many approaches.
For the benefits outlined previously to be secured,
not only is a strong G&T policy (maybe in preference to a
programme) needed, but its delivery must be configured in such
a way as to achieve the desired goals. Much was known from the
experience of other countries about what works at the delivery
level and also about potential difficulties. This knowledge was
not appropriately factored into G&T policy planning. The overall
approach adopted was old-fashioned and sometimes confused.
Without doubt the constant changes in G&T
policy emphasis and hence in delivery structures has impeded progress
on this agenda. The reasons for these constant changes are not
clear but two tensions in policy prioritisation seem to have contributed
significantly to the constant changes in emphasis and hence delivery
structures.
1. Tensions around the merit of focusing the
programme as a universal benefit for all relevant students or
as a targeted intervention for the disadvantaged students.
2. Tensions around the focus on in-school improvement
and out-of-school enhancement.
For a National Programme for Gifted and Talented
to be truly effective it would need to operate simultaneously
on all four quadrants. In this way it harnesses the benefits of
integrated in-school and out-of-school provision (Eyre's English
Model, 2009) and also provides a universal service whilst using
incentives to actively manage take-up from disadvantaged groups.
In the National Programme these elements have been construed as
an either/or option with policy see-sawing between the two extremes.
Hence, as general education policy has shifted
in emphasis so the National Programme for Gifted and Talented
has shifted in response. At periods when general education policy
has focused on standards (White Papers: Excellence in Schools
1997 and Higher standards better schools for all 2005)
the focus in the National Programme for Gifted and Talented tended
towards universal services and towards an integrated model of
in-school and out-of school provision—these being seen as
the best routes to high performance for students. With a change
in direction to focus on Narrowing the Gap (Children's plan
2007, Every Child Matters 2008 etc) the National Gifted
and Talented Programme shifted its focus towards disadvantaged
students, particularly those located in urban environments. In
effect this moved the National Programme for Gifted and talented
back to its Excellence in Cities roots and lowered its profile
in suburban and rural schools.
Throughout the 10 year period the National Programme
for Gifted and Talented has suffered from a lack of priority (and
sometimes interest) in the Department for Children, Schools and
Families. Most policy interest in education during this period
has been around the securing of floor level targets—A-C
at GCSE, Level 4 at KS2, reduction of NEETs, Sure Start, etc.
Hence the National Programme for G&T has sometimes appeared
marginalised and those charged with driving forward this agenda
at Local Authority and school levels have complained of lack of
clear expectations from the Department and lack of penalties for
non-compliance. In a period of strong accountability schools were
not held systematically accountable for demonstrating their gifted
and talented provision in school. Indeed some schools themselves
complained of a lack of interest and knowledge amongst Ofsted
inspection teams and School Improvement Partners. During the 2003-05
period this in balance began to be addressed with, for example,
clear references to "support and challenge" in the White
Paper, Higher Standards, Better Schools for All (2005)
but this was not sustained in subsequent government documentation.
Non-governmental public bodies have also failed
to factor significantly the National Programme for Gifted and
Talented into their on-going work during the period and hence
have not contributed to system-wide changes in attitudes in schools.
For example, TDA, in its annual NQT surveys did not ask about
the preparedness of NQTs to provide high levels of classroom challenge
for the gifted and talented nor did they highlight gifted and
talented in their national CPD priorities. Work in BECTA and NCSL
has been equally slight. Set in this context the findings from
Ofsted (Gifted and talented pupils in schools, 2009) are
unsurprising.
What is now known about in-school provision
Over the last 10 years the National Programme
has learnt much about school-based provision. It has confirmed
the findings from the international literature and enabled a better
understanding of how to achieve this optimal provision within
the English education system.
Findings from Ofsted suggest that, during this
period, most schools have engaged with this agenda, at least at
a superficial level, but often with insufficient understanding
so leading to the implementation of generic approaches and structures
which do not fit comfortably in their school. Academic research
in this field in the UK is underdeveloped and there has been no
examination of whether the instruments and structures being recommended
by the Department and National Strategies are fit for purpose.
So the reasons why most schools have failed to make the required
progress is unclear but the impression is a combination of; lack
of sympathy with the agenda, low priority in school, lack of expertise
in teaching for high performance and inadequate leadership from
Senior Leaders and governors.
In reality, good school provision requires:
1. A school-wide understanding of the nature
of advanced academic performance and the routes to it.
2. An understanding of the values, attitudes
and attributes associated with outstanding performance.
3. An understanding of the potential barriers
to success for individuals and mitigations for them.
4. Structures and culture that deliver the above.
There is no single structural approach that will fit all schools
or all students.
A minority of schools do now have in place good
provision with demanding curricula, tight monitoring of progress
of individuals, an effective blend of in-class and additional
opportunities and high expectations across the school. This good
practice needs to be built upon using more robust mechanisms for
recognising effective schools and more systematic incentives and
methodologies for sharing practice. We also need national data
showing system-wide progress and the proportion of schools reaching
this status.
During this period a major success has raised
awareness amongst students and parents in schools. Some students
have gained real empowerment and are able to critique their experiences.
Ofsted (2009) signalled that it was the pupils rather than the
teachers who indicated that the level of challenge was inconsistent
across their lessons, and some had requested more challenging
work. Students should be more actively engaged in their schooling
as these are the most adept learners with the strongest sense
of how to "co-construct" (Leadbeater, 2004) their learning.
At the same time this inability of teachers to create high levels
of challenge consistently in lessons should be noted as the single
most important target for change. This is so important that it
warrants recognition as a national CPD priority.
What is now known about out-of-school provision
NAGTY proved conclusively that out-of-school
informal learning has the potential to change lives and expectations.
(A) In the 21st century technology has made informal
learning readily accessible and increasingly impactful on student
performance. For the most able students it provides a mechanism
for empowering autonomous, self seekers after knowledge. High
quality, non-school, academic learning, which uses web-technology
to provide links to; experts, communication with like minded peers
and on-line courses, etc can transform learning opportunities
in areas that interest the individual student at any age—personalisation
in action. Nrich (University of Cambridge) offers this opportunity
in maths for even the youngest students. It can supplement and
enhance school-based learning and motivate the pupil.
(B) Intensive face-to-face with experts. These
highly motivational opportunities can open the eyes of students
to subject learning beyond the traditional school curriculum.
Working with experts such as Chatham House or the Royal Shakespeare
Company is the intellectual equivalent to football coaching at
a premier club. New advanced skills are learned and expectations
are raised. The student is better equipped for work in school
and more motivated to do well. The longer the session the greater
the impact with Summer Schools which are designed to study one
subject for a week or two weeks offering the greatest impact (Ofsted
2004).
(C) On-line chat and other contact with similarly
academic students. For academically able students, especially
in low achieving schools or from families with limited formal
education, isolation can be a problem. The community effect of
NAGTY proved immensely powerful in providing a support structure
for these students enabling them to achieve highly and without
emotional distress. NAGTY has been closed for two years but students
still continue to support each other via NAGTY Forever, a site
they created on Facebook so indicating its importance in their
lives.
In short out-of-school opportunities can transform
individuals but only if they are (a) frequent, (b) of high quality
and (c) linked back to school work. It must be a comprehensive
rather than a piecemeal approach.
In addition national identification schemes
such as NAGTY entry can empower students, especially those from
disadvantaged backgrounds but only if the identification process
is seen as robust. School registers have not achieved a similar
effect on student self-belief.
The new proposals for the National Programme for
Gifted and Talented
The new proposals appear to have three strands:
1. Targeting gifted pupils from deprived backgrounds
with a new £250 annual scholarship for up to four years,
to help them develop their particular gift or talent from 2010.
2. A new online catalogue of learning opportunities
for G&T pupils provided at local authority, regional and national
level where pupils can "shop" for opportunities that
suit their particular gift.
3. A new network of High Performing Specialist
Schools that will focus on Gifted and Talented as part of their
specialism, to work alongside local authorities in improving the
quality of support for G&T learners across the country.
These proposals do not constitute a comprehensive
response to either the system requirements outlined in page 2
of this submission or the four components outlined on page 3.
As in the 1997-2002 approach, the 2002-07 and the 2007-09 models;
the new arrangements provide only a partial response rather than
a thought through approach and again fail to build on what has
been learned.
1. Targeting gifted pupils from deprived backgrounds
Here the policy emphasis is on the "targeted
rescue" end of the continuum rather than the universal provision
end. In line with the recommendations of the Final Report of the
Panel for Fair Access to the Professions (2009) a main focus is
now to be gifted pupils from deprived backgrounds. It is however
unclear how a small grant to individuals will help achieve this
social mobility given the twin problems of inadequate academic
performance and low cultural capital. The National Programme has
gained good understanding of what is needed to achieve large scale
social mobility in the G&T cohort. This response does not
seem to build significantly on these findings. It does not appear
to be a co-ordinated response to this issue and is unlikely to
gain success.
For example, research evidence suggests that
it is unlikely that appropriate students will be identified. Numerous
studies in Europe, Asia and US (Frasier, M M, Garcia, J H, &
Passow, A H (1995), Campbell, R J, Muijs, R D, Neelands, J G A,
Robinson, W, Eyre, D, & Hewston, R, (2007), Patton, J M, Townsend,
B L, (1997), McBee, M T, (2006), Phillipson, S N, and Tse, A K,
(2007)) indicate under-representation of minority groups within
selected cohorts. In the US Borland (2005) noting that in the
National Educational Longitudinal Study of eighth graders (1991),
children from affluent families were five times more likely to
enter gifted programmes than their poorer peers.
Also, we have learned much about the level and
types of support needed to secure social mobility. It is high-touch
and the student needs regular support over a sustained period.
Hence it is unlikely to be secured via a cash payment approach
(vouchers) as identified in this scheme. In addition success seems
not only to be related to access to appropriate additional opportunities
but also to changes in the individual's self-esteem and intellectual
confidence. Hence a more structural response will be necessary
if progress is to be made on this agenda.
2. A new online catalogue of learning opportunities
for G&T pupils provided at local authority, regional and national
level where pupils can "shop" for opportunities that
suit their particular gift
The experience of the levels of success of the
contrasting model of delivery characterised by NAGTY and YG&T
demonstrate clearly that an unmanaged directory of events is unlikely
to be effective, at least in the short term. Reasons for this
are as follows:
— Students do not find the concept of a
directory attractive and need to see a reason to engage. Take-up
of opportunities offered through YG&T was small whereas in
NAGTY it was significant. This was because NAGTY had a social
as well as an academic purpose and enabled students to join a
club of like-minded individuals operating at a similar intellectual
level and with similar interests. A directory is passive, it will
not, in itself, create demand.
— A directory does not guarantee quality,
adherence to any particular pedagogy, continuity or progression.
It is therefore unlikely to provide a life-changing experience
or significant enhancement to school learning.
— This approach does not offer an effective
route for social mobility. £250 will buy very little access
for the disadvantaged to these experiences, so this kind of provision
is likely to join sport, art and music as essentially middle class
and may serve to increase the social mobility gap.
— Supply of opportunities is likely to
vary across localities and across subjects as no one is charged
with managing the market or stimulating supply. Rural communities
are likely to be the main losers in this approach.
3. A new network of High Performing Specialist
Schools that will focus on Gifted and Talented as part of their
specialism to work alongside local authorities in improving the
quality of support for G&T learners across the country
Evidence given to the Committee suggested that
the existing set of Specialist Schools already identified did
not always demonstrate effective provision, so this scheme will
need to be strengthened if it is to be useful. Schools need to
be expected to compete more strongly for the status and meet more
robust requirements.
There is also some concern about positioning
the main policy in schools. Consistent findings from HMI (1992)
and Ofsted (2003) have shown lack of challenge in the classroom
to be a on-going problem of longstanding. In addition, the literature
base indicates that a dependency on the school as a key institution
for delivery of gifted and talented provision may be problematic.
Some (Bourdieu, in Lawrence, 1991 p 244) suggest that life chances
are not so much promoted by school as restricted by them. Hence
this approach may serve to perpetuate the status quo with even
the most gifted individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds continuing
to be unlikely to achieve high attainment.
Overall, the new approach is passive. It has
no advocates to drive forward improvements. No advocates operating
on behalf of the students and parents (NAGTY), no national, regional
or local change managers (Local Authority G&T staff or Regional
bodies) and no mechanism for changing the attitudes and culture
in society towards the value of investing in these children. Something
more active and comprehensive is needed if transformational or
even incremental, sustainable change is to be achieved.
In summary, the Government should be commended
for persisting in its quest to find a sustainable model for gifted
and talented education but the new arrangements look to be inadequate
and a lost opportunity. They continue to be piecemeal, un-ambitious
and conflicting in their intentions. It is unlikely that any of
the 4 main goals for gifted education will be achieved via this
model and another generation of children will be destined for
under-achievement. The Government would be well-advised to conduct
a proper review of this area in order to clarify goals before
putting into place a long-term approach. As part of this they
should look towards the modern, system-wide, international schemes
which are setting the pace in this field of educational work.
The gifted and talented agenda is important
for the country, for the school system, for social mobility and
for individuals. It is not a special interest for a small minority
of named students. We have learned much in the last 10 years of
the G&T National Programme and now we need to capitalise on
it, not ignore it.
So often UK has followed the USA but it is important
that we do not do so here. In 2002 the US government passed the,
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which focused primarily on ensuring
minimum levels of competence for all. Although it included a specific
reference to gifted students, none-the-less overall it led to
a waning of interest in gifted education and an outcry from some
quarters.
"Even as our high-tech world and age of
modernity demand critical thinking, creativity and deep analysis,
federal education resources are focused on making every child
at least average—with no thought to fanning the flames of
those whose intellect burns the brightest." Stanton decries
NCLB, which "snuffs out" our "best and brightest",
as the institution that will end the United States' "reign
as the most powerful nation". NCLB is the "Smartest
Child Left Behind Act."
Billie Stanton Tucson Citizen (26 November
2007)
It would be very unfortunate if after so much
investment in this field, we, like the USA became deflected from
this particular improvement agenda and allowed the quest for equality
to lead to mediocrity. It is no coincidence that many of the top
performing education systems (McKinsey and Company, 2007) have
a strong emphasis on nurturing giftedness and creativity as a
part of their pursuit of advanced student performance.
February 2010
REFERENCESBourdieu,
P, (1986b). Distinction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Campbell, R J, Eyre, D, Muijs, R D, Neelands, J G
A, and Robinson, W, (2004). The English Model of Gifted and Talented
Education: policy, context and challenges. Occasional Paper, 1.
Warwick: National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth.
DCSF (July 2009) Gifted and Talented receive more
targeted support. Press Notice 2009/0142.
DCSF (2008) Every Child Matters. London: The
Stationery Office.
DCSF (2007) The Children's Plan. London: The
Stationery Office.
DfES (2005) Higher standards better schools for
all. London: The Stationery Office.
DfES (2001) Schools achieving success. London:
The Stationery Office.
DfES (1997) Excellence in Schools. London:
The Stationery Office.
Eyre, D (2009) The "English Model" of
Gifted Education. In Shavinina, L (Ed) The International Handbook
on Giftedness. Amsterdam: Springer Science & Business Media.
Frasier, M M, Garcia, J H, & Passow, A H, (1995).
A review of assessment issues in gifted education and their implications
for identifying gifted minority students (No. RM95204). Storrs,
CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
HMI (1992) Education Observed: The Education of
Very Able Children in Maintained Schools. London: HMSO.
Leadbeater, C (2004) Learning about personalisation:
how can the learner be at the heart of the education system? London:
DEMOS.
Machin, (2003). Higher education, family income
and changes in intergenerational mobility, in Dickens, Gregg
and Wadsworth (eds), (2003), The labour market under New Labour:
The state of working Britain.
Manpower Inc, (2007). Confronting the Talent Crunch.
Milwaukee: Manpower Inc.
McBee, M T, (2006). A Descriptive Analysis of
Referral Sources for Gifted Identification Screening by Race and
Socioeconomic Status. 17(2), 103-111.
McKinsey and Company (2007) How the world's best
performing systems come out on top. www.mckinskey.com
Milburn, A (2009) Unleashing Aspiration: The Final
Report of the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions. London:
Cabinet Office.
Ofsted (2009) Gifted and Talented Pupils in Schools.
Downloaded from www.ofsted.gov.uk. Feb 2010
Ofsted (2003) Standards and Quality 2002-03, The
Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools,
Ofsted, London: The Stationery Office.
Patton, J M, Townsend, B L, (1997). Creating inclusive
environments for African American children and youth with gifts
and talents. Roeper Review, 20(1), 13-17.
Phillipson, S N, and Tse, A K, (2007). Discovering
patterns of achievement in Hong Kong students: An application
of the Rasch measurement model. High Ability Studies 18(2),
173-190.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (2005) The economic
benefits of higher education qualifications.
Stanton, B, Tucson Citizen (26 November 2007).
| 
