April Fool’s Day 2013

April Fool!

Government to extend National Curriculum exemption to all schools rated either outstanding or good by Ofsted: bit.ly/126nH9F—
  (@GiftedPhoenix) April 01, 2013

Gifted Phoenix 2012 Review and Retrospective

.

I thought it might be neat – as well as useful – to round out this year’s blogging with a mildly self-congratulatory review, looking back at the various posts I’ve written about giftedness and gifted education.

New Year Fireworks courtesy of RobW_

I have embedded links to every post, so this is also an index of sorts. If you missed anything first time round, now’s your chance to catch up before next year’s programme kicks off.

This is my 40^th post of 2012. There were none in August (holidays) or in October (heavy research and some privately commissioned work). I published between three and six posts in each of the remaining ten months. I haven’t attempted an accurate word count, but my best guess is roughly 200,000.

Crikey.

 

National Studies

I’ve published four ‘signature’ features on national systems of gifted education:

• South Korea – Parts One and Two;

• Singapore – Parts One and Two;

• New Zealand’s Excellence Gap – Parts One and Two; and

• Israel – Parts One, Two and Three.

The first two were studies of ‘Asian Tigers’, intended to showcase the particular significance of gifted education to a select group of jurisdictions that are so often held up as educational paragons for us to emulate as best we can. They complement an earlier series about gifted education in Hong Kong.

The New Zealand post was this year’s contribution to the NZ Gifted Awareness Week Blog Tour. It attracted a lot less attention (and, consequently, much less vituperation) than I had anticipated. The substance of my argument is that New Zealanders are over-focused on ethnic achievement gaps, including at the top end, rather than socio-economic achievement gaps (which will of course have a significant ethnic dimension).

The post on Israel was a huge task, given the immense range of background material available online. I knew that Israel had a long pedigree in the field, but hadn’t appreciated that it was quite so extensive. Much of this activity deserves to be better known and better understood – and I hope my post has made some small contribution to that end.

 .

The Directory of Gifted Education Centres

Four more of my posts during 2012 are contributions to an ongoing series about important centres for the delivery and support of gifted education:

• Back in January I produced a postscript to my earlier work on the Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education (HKAGE) analysing recently published data about the Academy’s effectiveness;

• The following month I published a full post about the renowned Centre for Talented Youth (CTY) based at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland, USA.

• In December I offered an assessment of the progress made by the nascent European Talent Centre in Budapest, Hungary under the title ‘Working Towards Stronger European Collaboration in Gifted Education’.

• Also in December I published a post examining the reinvention and relaunch of IGGY, the International Gateway for Gifted Youth at Warwick University in England.

.

Theoretical Posts

A third group of posts can perhaps best be regarded as contributions to the theoretical underpinnings of gifted education.

• At the beginning of the year I offered a piece called ‘Are All Children Gifted?’ – Parts One and Two – which was prompted by an initial discussion on Twitter. The first part set out my personal position, together with a frame for the consideration of statements of this kind. The second part analysed three different examples of the genre.

• One of those examples was the social constructivist approach, as embodied in Barry Hymer’s Doctoral Thesis. This led to an extended correspondence between us, eventually published in April as ‘Two Very Different Perspectives on Giftedness and Gifted Education’. (Our dialogue will shortly appear in Gifted Education International in a slightly edited format but the original is freely available here.)

• A Brief Commentary on Systems Thinking in Gifted Education was my response to a target article – ‘Towards a Systemic Theory of Gifted Education’ by Ziegler and Phillipson – which was published alongside a compendium of responses in a volume of High Ability Studies. My contribution was not included in that volume, so I published it here instead. I remain rather a sceptic.

• Later that spring I published ‘A Bold Step in Broadly the Right Direction…But There’s a Big But!’ This is my contribution to the vociferous and sometimes violent debate prompted by the publication of ‘Taking a Bold Step’ an article by Paula Olszewski-Kubilius, President of the US National Association for Gifted Children. Fundamentally, I argue for an inclusive, consensual position that can be supported by advocates of trait-based giftedness on one hand and gifted education as talent development on the other. But I place myself firmly in the latter camp, subject only to profound reservations over the idea that gifted education must be devoted to the nurturing of adult eminence.

.

Social Media

In the summer several posts were dedicated to consideration of the contribution that social media might make to gifted education.

I chaired a Symposium on this topic at the ECHA 29012 Conference in Munster, Germany. Two preparatory posts, published in July and September respectively, were concerned with the Symposium itself, including arrangements for a linked #gtchat on Twitter, designed to embody in practice some of the Symposium’s key messages.

There was also a substantive post ‘Can Social Media Help Overcome the Problems We Face in Gifted Education – Part One and Two. This considered how social media might be harnessed to support advocacy, learning, policy-making, professional development and research, offering several suggestions for worthwhile collaborative projects.

Finally, in October, I published a full review of the Conference as a whole, including reflections on the Symposium. This offered some potential learning points for the next conference in Ljubliana in two years’ time.

It is gratifying that the organisers have already been in touch expressing their willingness to act on such feedback. The Conference itself is called ‘Rethinking Giftedness: Giftedness in the Digital Age’, so this is perhaps the perfect opportunity to address some of these issues directly. I hope I can play an active part in that.

.

.

Posts Pertaining to English Gifted Education

Six of my posts dealt with the impact of English education policy on gifted learners, including high attainers.

• In February I published a Policy Statement on the English School Performance Tables for GT Voice. This was drafted on behalf of the Board and revised in the light of comments received from other members. Later in the year, in early October, I resigned from the Board in protest at the very limited progress made since GT Voice was first established. I am still a member and – despite continuing forebodings – I very much hope that GT Voice can develop some real momentum in 2013.

• The GT Voice Policy Statement was produced in response to the 2011 Performance Tables. In December I produced an analysis of the performance of High Attaining Pupils in the 2012 Primary Tables. There was evidence of real improvement between 2011 and 2012, though changes to statutory tests were a complicating factor and there is still considerable scope for further improvement in 2013 and beyond

• Three posts dating from the early summer consider issues arising from the emerging outcomes of England’s National Curriculum Review. The first considered The Removal of National Curriculum Levels and the Implications for Able Pupils’ Progression. This was supplemented by a proposed Basic Framework for National Curriculum Assessment. A final post traced the clarification of Government policy over the secondary National Curriculum and replacement of existing GCSE qualifications taken at age 16. Initial media statements presaging full abolition of the secondary National Curriculum were succeeded by plans for a ‘skeleton’ comprising:

‘very, very short programmes of study that will give teachers “extreme” and “almost total” freedom over what is taught’.

  .Six months on, these are still to be published.

• Two posts were dedicated to dissecting reports published by the Sutton Trust. The first considering its proposals for an Open Access Scheme; the second analysing a Report on ‘Educating the Highly Able’. I’m afraid I found them equally unconvincing. The first depends on a substantial taxpayer investment in independent (private sector) schools at a time when budgets are stretched as never before, quite apart from the fact that it would also denude state schools of all their most able learners. The second fails entirely to acknowledge the proposals in the first. By defining high ability almost exclusively in terms of high attainment, its proposed course of action would serve only to increase the ‘excellence gap’ between disadvantaged gifted learners and their peers.

.

Twitter Round-ups

I provided eight comprehensive listings of Gifted Phoenix Tweets during 2012. The first seven were monthly reviews, but the eighth and last marked a shift to quarterly/termly round-ups:

• January – Volume 3

• February – Volume 4

• March – Volume 5

• April – Volume 6

• May – Volume 7

• June – Volume 8

• July – Volume 9

• November – Volume 10

Gifted Phoenix on Twitter provides comprehensive coverage of global gifted education news, as well as links to useful research, commentary and resources made freely available online.

My Twitter feed also offers balanced analysis of wider education policy here in England, while specialising in unearthing and sharing newsworthy educational material from public sector sources. This supports the cause of greater transparency, espoused by the Government and opposition parties alike. It also helps ‘proper’ educational journalists keep up to speed.

Gifted Phoenix published around 6,500 Tweets during 2012. It has over 3,000 followers including several very influential politicians and educationalists.

.

Key Documents

Finally, I published a brief post drawing readers’ attention to an evolving Key Documents section of this Blog.

My plan is to build incrementally a global library of freely available documents, wherever possible (ie where copyright provisions appear not to stand in the way) by storing a PDF on the site.

When future posts need to reference the documents in question, I can link to the copy on this Blog rather than relying on external URLs. This should significantly reduce the incidence of dead links.

Phase One of this project is now almost complete, in that the ‘Gifted Education in the United Kingdom’ section is fully stocked with uploadable PDFs. I shall begin to stock the ‘Gifted Education in the Rest of the World’ and ‘Research’ sections during the coming year.

.

Analytics

It is never wise to place too much faith in Blog analytics, but WordPress suggests my readership almost doubled in 2012 compared with the previous year.

There have been visits from 151 countries since 1 April. Some 48.5% of those visitors are resident in the United States or the United Kingdom.

The next largest readerships are located in Singapore, Saudi Arabia, India, Australia, Germany, France, Canada, Malaysia, Hong Kong, New Zealand, the Netherlands and the Philippines respectively

The ten most read posts during the year (including some published before 2012) are:

Mawhiba: Gifted Education in Saudi Arabia (Part One)

Gifted Education in South Korea – Part One

The Removal of National Curriculum Levels and the Implications for Able Pupils’ Progression

Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education: An In-Depth Analysis

Gifted Education in Singapore: Part 1

Gifted Education in Singapore: Part 2

The European Council for High Ability (ECHA)

Are Leonardo Schools a Good Model of Gifted Education?

USA: Maryland – Center for Talented Youth (CTY), Johns Hopkins University

.

Finally

As we move into 2013, may I take this opportunity to wish all my visitors and readers a very Happy New Year.

I have several very interesting posts planned for the early part of next year. I hope they will continue to meet your needs but, if you would like me to address a particular topic, please don’t hesitate to suggest it.

.

GP

December 2012

IGGY – The International Gateway for Gifted Youth

.

This post is an in-depth review of IGGY, a service for gifted learners hosted by the University of Warwick in England.

I met IGGY’s Academic Principal at the 2012 ECHA Conference in Munster, Germany and undertook to feature the new set-up in an upcoming post. This is the product of that commitment.

An earlier post, from July 2010, included some detail about IGGY’s activities in Africa, but it has radically changed is character since then.

This post traces the transformation of IGGY from, first and foremost, an international summer and winter school provider into an education social network. It attempts a balanced scrutiny of current provision, identifying weaknesses as well as strengths.

The IGGY logo is reproduced here with permission. I stipulated the blue version, for the pink is not at all to my taste. (I expect it goes down well with 13-19 year-olds but it’s far too vivid for me.)

.

@dave2809 I'm worried about my blog's visual values. That pink is a bit, well…garish. Even worse than NAGTY purple (and that's going some)—
  (@GiftedPhoenix) December 06, 2012

.

IGGY’s Origins and Early Development

From 2002 until 2007, Warwick University held a contract with England’s education ministry to run the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, but chose not to compete for the subsequent contract to run Young, Gifted and Talented (YG&T), which was won by CfBT and ran until March 2010.

This new contract was to support all learners aged 4-19 identified as gifted and talented by their schools and colleges, whereas NAGTY targeted the top 5% of 11-19 year-olds (an estimated population of 200,000).

NAGTY itself evolved from summer school provider towards a blended learning model which relied increasingly on online provision, driven by the demands of scalablity within a limited resource envelope. YG&T also faced the same imperative, compounded by the fact that it served a target group five times the size of NAGTY’s.

Both experienced major challenges in combining effective brokerage of third party learning opportunities with a vibrant online learning community. The comparative advantages of a social network model were already becoming apparent towards the end of the NAGTY contract and in the initial stages of YG&T, but the idea seemed ahead of its time.

Decision makers found it hard to grasp the opportunities presented by this model, but understood only too well the not inconsiderable threats it posed. The balance was not attractive to inherently risk-averse organisations. Some major risks were exposed which IGGY will also have to manage and, if necessary, overcome.

Back in August 2007, Warwick hosted the biennial World Council Conference with financial support from the Government. This was, in effect, NAGTY’s swansong.

But the University chose this opportunity to announce the creation of IGGY, a new international organisation ‘targeted at the top 5% of 11-19 year-olds from around the world’.

The implication was that Warwick would capitalise on the expertise it had developed in the NAGTY years, with the University itself as the primary beneficiary.

The press release said that a pilot programme for up to 1,000 students would begin in spring 2008, followed by a full launch in the UK and an unspecified Asian country the following autumn. Subsequent rollout would extend the programme into two or three additional countries by autumn 2009.

It promised an inaugural summer school for 150 participants in summer 2009, and an intention to offer similar events in more than one country in subsequent years.

These signature events were to become part of a blended learning offer:

‘At the heart of the “IGGY” experience will be a developing personalized online learning network: a community-led site where leading national and international Higher Education institutions, educators, companies and others will deliver content, provide expertise and offer students learning activities and development opportunities (both online and through events) to enhance their learning and social development and to both contribute to and support their mainstream educational progress.’

Contemporary materials still preserved on Warwick’s website throw more light on the original plans and how they developed over time.

A presentation from June 2008 defines IGGY’s bipartite offer:

• A ‘collaborative online learning space’ backed up by an archive of material created by and for its members;

• Face-to-face activities provided through international partners with a ‘summer university’ as the centrepiece. The first of these – a two week event – is scheduled to take place in Warwick in August 2008 with four courses on offer for about 100 participants. There will also be a ‘winter university’ probably hosted abroad.

The presentation notes that ‘IGGY is a key project within the university strategy’ citing multiple benefits for Warwick’s international profile and branding, its student recruitment and wider reputation.

However ‘initial University investment will be limited’ while fees will be deferred initially and subsequently kept low. This means the rate of expansion will be heavily dependent on income generated from partners. It was this equation which initially drove IGGY in a philanthropic direction (though always with an eye towards international recruitment in developing markets).

.

Progress from 2010

A second presentation from April 2010 says that membership has reached around 2,500, drawn from 40 different countries.

Four ‘IGGY universities’ have been held since 2008, two more are planned for August 2010 and there are initial plans for an event in either Australia or South Africa in 2011.

An imminent event located in Botswana is described as ‘the main focus’ in the short term. The parallel Warwick event is expected to cater for 125 students and will host a delegation from Brunei’s Ministry of Education.

A 2010 University Corporate Planning Statement states categorically that:

‘An IGGY U[niversity] will be run in partnership with Monash [University], Australia in 2011’

but I can find no record of it having taken place, probably because the IGGY vision was undergoing radical transformation by this point. (IGGY is not mentioned explicitly in a university partnership recently concluded between Warwick and Monash.)

Other initiatives have been pursued alongside these summer and winter schools, including a series of Junior Commissions – based on an existing Warwick Commission model. These support ten members to work collaboratively on a year-long research project. IGGY has also administered a Litro Short Story competition with prize money provided by a Warwick alumnus.

Although not mentioned in the presentation, a separate entity called IGGY Juniors had also evolved by this stage, targeted mainly at younger children.

The precise relationship between IGGY and IGGY Juniors remains unclear. The new IGGY website doesn’t mention IGGY Juniors, even as a partner, though there is a page on the University website.

This refers to the ‘Da Vinci Group’ as the supporting ‘online intellectual membership community’ for IGGY Juniors, with a membership fee of £35 per month.

But the self-same Da Vinci Group is advertised as a service provided through another body called OLP. Their website seems largely dormant, though some 2012 courses are advertised.

The University publicised some of these developments in a 2010 press notice selecting February 12 2010 as the date of its announcement:

‘The national (English) Young Gifted & Talented website currently says “The Young Gifted & Talented website will be closing at the end of Friday 12 February 2010”.  However on that very same day that gifted programme’s original home at the University of Warwick will announce a range of new opportunities for its global membership of gifted young people in its thriving International Gateway for Gifted Youth (IGGY).

The University of Warwick was host to the original “National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth” for five years. Warwick moved beyond a focus on England alone and is now home to IGGY - a network of the world’s brightest and most creative young people aged 11-19.’

It is easy to suspect an element of schadenfreude in this statement, for the closure of the YG&T website marked the imminent end of its contract – and of Government-led investment in the education of gifted learners. This left the way open for IGGY to expand its domestic operation in an open market with negligible UK-based competition.

Whether IGGY could be described as ‘thriving’ at this point is a moot point. Membership of 2,500 after three years is arguably a relatively poor return on the University’s investment. There are obvious problems of scalability with the face-to-face events.

Within the presentation, the online dimension is described as dependent on an ‘interim website’ which is old-fashioned and not designed on social media principles. Online presence is recognised as key to scalability and described as a priority over the coming year, but there are clear (if undeclared) tensions with the philanthropic direction of travel, because of the limited reach of sophisticated broadband-reliant social multimedia in sub-Saharan Africa.

There have been software trials involving Cisco and a project officer has been appointed but development appears to have been slow, perhaps because the University was not able to reconcile these competing ‘high-tech’ and ‘philanthropic’ aims.

While social networking is perceived as key to the future vision, the cost is prohibitive, so Warwick is exploring prospective partnerships. There are plans for a ‘rolling programme of themed online provision’ but partnership funding will still be necessary to achieve ‘a sustainable funding position’.

The points made in 2008 about limited scope for income generation from fees and a low ceiling on University subsidy are repeated verbatim. The accompanying notes read:

‘real progress made but still haven’t had that one big donation that would allow a step-change’.

This is perhaps understandable, because the benefit stream to prospective sponsors is not entirely clear. Moreover, they are being asked to subsidise an endeavour that places Warwick in a privileged position in the race to recruit potentially lucrative international students. One can imagine that several potential sponsors might prefer a model that distributes the benefits more widely.

.

.

IGGY Changes its Delivery Model

The Director of IGGY at this time was Warwick’s Deputy Registrar and former NAGTY Operations Director. The re-invigoration of IGGY can be linked to his return to Warwick as Registrar in February 2012.

Though IGGY’s new direction was already established by summer 2011, its former Director retained a role in its development while employed elsewhere.

An article on Warwick’s intranet from June 2011 confirms that IGGY has been working towards a predominantly online delivery model through partnership with IBM and CISCO.

Pre-testing began with existing members in May 2011 focused on computer programming, creative writing and global leadership. This was intended to pave the way for a more ambitious summer pilot, with the aim of launching the full service in September 2011.

A University strategic presentation dating from September 2011reveals (in the associated speaking notes) that Warwick is sticking with its existing IT partners. Cisco has sponsored IGGY’s graphic designer while IBM has provided ‘Lotus Live software plus expertise’.

Promotion activities are scheduled to begin in autumn 2011, and declared targets at this stage are for IGGY to recruit:

• 6,000 members by 2012, so more than doubling its membership in 2010;

• 50,000 members by 2014, implying rapid eight-fold expansion over the two succeeding years; and

• 40% of members from ‘low income homes internationally’ (this presumably applies domestically as well).

There may be the possibility of cross-subsidising members from poor backgrounds by charging the relatively wealthy a premium fee.

IGGY will also be a ‘key component’ in Warwick’s campaign to raise £50m (though it is noteworthy that it isn’t mentioned as such on the campaign pages).

But, by November 2011, there has been a significant change of tone. Warwick announces the appointment of a new Director who is to begin work the following month.

The aims are highly ambitious. The new Director:

‘served for almost 5 years as Channel 4’s Head of Education where she led a major strategic shift in Channel 4 Education from TV programmes to digital projects, successfully targeting teen audiences with innovative digital content. That experience will greatly assist her to realise IGGY’s next stage: a new online network offering significant, high quality content to over 100,000 gifted young people across the globe.’

No timetable is applied to the fulfilment of this latter ambition, which doubles the declared 2015 target.

Progress during the first half of 2012 was mostly low-key.

By April, IGGY membership had increased by 500 or so to ‘over 3,000’ but curiously the number of countries supplying members has reduced from 40 to ‘over 30’. Maybe some of the summer and winter school beneficiaries were less attracted by predominantly online provision.

It is interesting to speculate whether an increase of 500 members in two years – even though it could be seen in a positive light as 20% growth – was viewed by Warwick as relatively underwhelming, especially since the distribution between countries has fallen by up to 25%.

It leaves Warwick needing to recruit 3,000 more members in eight months to satisfy its target of 6,000 members by the end of 2012.

A June 2012 feature on Merlin John’s Blog provides some interesting insights into how thinking is developing:

‘Students take up subscriptions with IGGY through the website, authorised by their teachers who are an important key to the service. IGGY will be a subscription service but will offer up to half of the memberships free to disadvantaged students. The subscription price is still to be confirmed but will be in the region of £120 a year with substantial discounts for schools,’

We will look at the final arrangements in more detail below.

The new Director undertook a series of meetings with UK gifted education interests, to update them on plans and lay the groundwork for mutually beneficial partnerships. I met her myself in April 2012 when plans were mentioned to run a ‘Global and Gifted Conference’. This duly took place on 4 July at Warwick, but no invitation arrived.

The Storify record says there were over 100 people present.  Though billed as having ‘a focus on new international research and developments in gifted education’ there were just three presenters: Joan Freeman, Jonathan Hare (a freelance research scientist) and, IGGY’s newly-appointed Academic Principal.

The presentations were initially published but are no longer available online. There was relatively limited coverage of the topic specified. The fundamental purpose of the event is rather unclear, but it will not have positioned IGGY at the heart of contemporary debate about global gifted and talented education.

Two other announcements of note were made during the summer of 2012:

• In June 2012 IGGY offered free membership to all 1,470 Year 9 students nominated for the education ministry’s Dux Award Scheme. The Ministry makes no reference to this in its own materials, so it is not officially endorsed. It would have been impossible to pass on student details to Warwick because of data protection restrictions, but maybe the list of participating schools was shared. We do not know how many Dux participants have taken up the offer, or to what extent this has contributed towards the achievement of IGGY’s membership targets.

• In August 2012 IGGY and Warwick’s Institute of Education jointly offered support for two part-time PhD research scholarships in gifted education, with funding to cover full fees (£2,340 in the current year) plus £500 per student for expenses. Doctoral supervision is to be shared between IGGY’s Academic Principal and a WIE lecturer. Those eligible are required to:

‘keep abreast of the latest research developments in gifted education; produce a 2,500 word report each quarter detailing their findings; contribute to IGGY’s annual conference; publish papers in academic journals and present at relevant conferences’.

This sounds like a cunning plan to strengthen IGGY’s gifted education expertise, so giving it the wherewithal to contribute to developing thinking in the field. It may also help to provide some evaluative capacity (the Academic Director’s job description requires him to develop systems to assess the impact of IGGY’s activities). It is similar in many respects to arrangements made during the NAGTY era, when an in-house research capability was evolved. While it may enable IGGY to develop a ‘thought leadership’ capability, there is a risk that these students may be perceived to have too close and reliant a relationship with IGGY to be entirely objective, especially if they are to be utilised as evaluators.

 .

The IGGY Relaunch

The new-style IGGY opened for business in September 2012 as planned.

Warwick’s internal news service reports that initial priority is being given to English, maths, science and history. Ten postgraduate mentors have been recruited and partnerships established with Severn Trent Water and the National Grid to ‘involve students in real-life projects and issues’.

We are not told whether these two organisations have provided financial support or if the relationship is confined to ‘in kind’ support.

Not only will IGGY offer free membership to students from disadvantaged backgrounds, it will also extend this to all eligible students at Warwickshire and Coventry schools (a sure-fire way of increasing numbers, though not entirely equitable). An earlier offer of free places for all until early 2013 seems to have fallen by the wayside.

There is provision for pilot schools, another mechanism allowing IGGY to recruit members en masse. The first is located in Leamington Spa, on Warwick’s doorstep. It is evident that the University is pulling out all the stops: expensive banner advertisements for IGGY appear in at least one national newspaper for several weeks.

The September 2012 announcement confirms that the likes of Cisco and IBM have been set aside in favour of ‘local games company Fishinabottle’. It is not clear whether this work was procured competitively.

Strangely, the Company fails to list IGGY amongst its clients, though it has released a press notice announcing the launch of the new website:

‘IGGY.net features full social profile building functionality, forums for discussion and debate and a “Knowledge” section, in which members can tackle challenges and take part in activities either collaboratively or as individuals. The site offers deeply rooted ‘gamification’ in its social aspects; members gain experience, earn awards and prizes and are attributed statuses as they progress in the world of IGGY. This ‘gamification’ drives engagement and encourages exploration, two of the most important factors in creating digital materials for the educational space.

The biggest challenge in creating IGGY was ensuring a safe and secure environment for our members. To that end, we developed an enrolment process whereby members are confirmed by both their parents and their school in order to gain access to the community. This provides accountability as well as strengthening the authenticity of IGGY’s membership.’

 A second phase of website development was launched in October 2012:

‘Members can now create their own profiles including a public or private blog, comment on articles and debates, build an activity page, earn points and achievements for the things they accomplish on the site, make friends and collaborate with other gifted students around the world.’

A further release is scheduled for late December 2012.

During October the IGGY Office moved to Senate House at the centre of Warwick’s campus. One might read into that an intention to make it more central to the University’s wider business, or possibly a determination on the part of Warwick’s senior management to keep a closer watch on proceedings – perhaps both simultaneously.

The University hosted a launch event at this time, captured by this podcast. Clearly a profile-raising opportunity, there was negligible press coverage. No invitation reached Gifted Phoenix Towers.

At this point, the appointed Director is still in place, at the head of a staff of twelve. But some three weeks later she has been replaced.

Warwick announced that:

‘IGGY, the University’s online network for gifted students, is expanding and has appointed Adrian Hall as its Managing Director. Janey Walker becomes Director of Partnerships and will focus on building new relationships with funders and content partners… Adrian has been working with IGGY as Content and e-Learning Advisor since May 2012’

It is difficult to know what to make of this, though it cannot be a vote of confidence, nor can it mark complete satisfaction with the progress made during the preceding year.

The logo received a makeover at around this time and the change at the top also coincides with a big increase in complement: the staff now numbers 18, a 50% increase within a month.

Warwick stocks most of the job details on its website, so it is possible to estimate the approximate expenditure on salaries. Unfortunately, the posts advertised do not correspond exactly with the current organisational structure.

However, it seems likely that total salary expenditure is somewhere between £600,000 and £700,000 a year, implying annual expenditure on salary and on-costs of around £1m. That is a big investment for a single university, especially if sponsorship remains thin on the ground.

In early November it was reported that IGGY would organise a third Junior Commission in 2013. The supportive quote is supplied for the first time by Hall rather than Walker.

IGGY merits a brief reference in Warwick’s Access Agreement for 2012/13, setting out how it plans to support fair access to the University for those from disadvantaged backgrounds:

‘The International Gateway for Gifted and Talented Youth (IGGY) will offer free membership and access to its resources for eligible students from low participation neighbourhoods helping to raise their aspirations through on-line resources and networking events.’

The 2013/4 Agreement repeats this verbatim, but also mentions a relationship with Warwick’s Goal Programme, the university’s principal fair access initiative:

‘The programme recruits a new cohort of 100-200 disadvantaged students each year, giving them access over four years to a programme of bespoke activities and free access to the wider YG&T provision… All members of Goal automatically become part of IGGY’.

So more grist to the recruitment mill.

.

.

Recruitment Targets

Membership targets have been adjusted but also front-loaded:

‘IGGY aims to reach 15,000 gifted students in its first year and 50,000 after 3 years. Applicants will have to be endorsed as gifted by their schools. As well as UK students, IGGY is already recruiting new members as far afield as South Africa, Singapore and Saudi Arabia.’

One must assume that the ‘first year’ is now academic year 2012/13. If IGGY is to achieve 15,000 members by August 2013, that will require a five-fold increase in 16 months.

The use of the word ‘reach’ may hide a multitude of sins. Whether it is a looser construct than membership remains unclear, but making it so would arguably be statistical sleight of hand.

The 50,000 figure for 2015 has been scaled back by 100% compared with a figure of 100,000 mentioned in the Academic Principal’s job description dating from early 2012. So the autumn 2011 target has been doubled and then halved again, indicating some tempering of the University’s ambitions by realism.

Another job description indicates that half of the 50,000 target for 2015 – ie 25,000 – must be international members. Obviously then, 25,000 must be drawn from the home countries.

There is no further reference to the original 40% target for learners – national and international – to come from low income households (‘up to half’ in the John blog post), although I have taken the latter figure into account as a continuing assumption when considering the implications for income generation below.

The volatility of these targets suggests they have been plucked from the air rather than based on any projection or realistic assessment of what is achievable.

The overall size of the global pool in which IGGY is fishing is almost impossible to calculate, but it is much easier to analyse the domestic market.

If we leave aside post-compulsory education (including around one million 16-19 year-olds) the total number of 13-19 year-olds in UK schools – maintained and independent – is around 3.55m.

Assuming 5% are eligible for IGGY membership that gives a potential pool of 177,500 school-based students. (There is no reference to further education on the website so I am assuming this is not currently a target.)

If we assume that 50% of IGGY members are to be drawn from the UK, this means that:

• By September 2013, the target is to enrol 4.22% of all eligible students, or roughly one in every 24;

• By September 2015, the target is to enrol 14.08% of students, or roughly one in every seven.

But, as we shall see below, the 5% assumption is not really reflected in the eligibility criteria.

.

Eligibility Criteria

IGGY was originally intended for 11-19 year-olds, as was NAGTY before it, but the lower age limit has now been raised to 13. Why this step was taken is not explained, though it probably rests on the assumption that a social networking environment is relatively less suitable for 11-13 year-olds, while the associated risks are that much greater.

Prospective members need to demonstrate:

‘The potential to perform in the top 5% of their peers worldwide in at least one curriculum area’

But this is inherently unmeasurable, so a degree of subjectivity is inevitable.

Emphasis is seemingly placed on:

• Ability rather than achievement and

• Ability in one or more school curriculum subjects, as opposed to all-round ability, or talent in practical fields such as art, music, sport or leadership.

Within the UK, however, this translates into one more specific criterion:

‘The potential to achieve level 8 grades in SATs at the end of Key Stage 3 (year 9) and A*/A grades at GCSE and A level.’

These are of course attainment measures. Presumably students who have already achieved at least one Level 8 or one GCSE A grade automatically become eligible.

Only students not yet at the end of Year 9 and those with a string of Bs at GCSE must necessarily rely on showing potential, as opposed to achievement. There is scope to accommodate students who have underachieved in KS3 and/or KS4 assessments, provided they can supply evidence that they are expected to do better in future.

It is instructive to compare these measures with the 5% threshold.

• In 2012, just 1% of pupils achieved level 8 in KS3 teacher assessment in English and science, but 8% did so in mathematics. As far as I am aware, national teacher assessment data is no longer collected for non-core subjects, but it will continue to be available in schools and so would qualify under these eligibility criteria;

• In 2012, the percentage of entrants achieving a full course GCSE grade A/A* across the UK varies from 4.7% (Other Technology) to 61.4% (Classical Subjects). The average percentage across all subjects is 22.4%.

This suggests that the IGGY entry threshold is pitched extremely low, especially at KS4, and when one reflects that it requires only (typically higher) predicted rather than actual grades.

Of course that significantly improves the probability of recruiting members but, conversely, it threatens to dilute the academic experience of many joining in expectation of a challenging experience amongst their intellectual peers.

The reference to SATs, GCSEs and A levels is also rather Anglo-centric, suggesting that the other home countries are not a priority (or at least some neglect of their sensibilities).

For those outside the UK eligibility depends on ‘the potential to achieve top grades for their particular mode of assessment’, which is largely a subjective measure.

Four other less specific evidential measures are mentioned (the criteria aren’t specific on the point but presumably only one criterion needs to be satisfied by each applicant):

• ‘in the top one or two students in the average class of 30 students in an averagely-performing school’;

• ‘regularly outperforming their peers in assessments’;

• ‘on the schools [sic] ‘gifted and talented register’;

• ‘have been accelerated in school (eg moved up a year or started higher qualifications earlier than their peers)’.

Some of these are rather vague and variable. Some schools even manage to include all their pupils on a gifted and talented register, and not only selective schools either! The final criterion leaves open the possibility that some under 13s will after all be admitted.

Eligible students must have applications endorsed by their school and approved by their parents (or presumably their carers, though IGGY uses ‘parents’ as its standard terminology).

No evidence of ability is required:

‘We do not ask for written evidence that a student is gifted but we do require an email…to confirm they are gifted and would benefit from membership’.

Schools are encouraged to sign up groups of students and are incentivised to do so by receiving discounts on fees.

The registration process is kept as light-touch as possible:

‘If you want to register your students for IGGY membership contact us at info@IGGY.net. We will contact you to discuss how many students you want to enrol and whether any are eligible for free membership, and agree the overall cost. Your school will then be given the appropriate number of codes and you will allocate these to the individual students.

Your students have to register themselves online. An email will be sent to their parents asking them to confirm the student’s details and explaining they are joining IGGY. Once the parents have confirmed these details the student’s account will be activated.’

As far as I can establish, this is a once-only process so students, once admitted, remain members until they exceed the upper age limit. Those who move from one school to another, or who transfer at age 14 or 16, do not seem to require additional endorsement from their new institutions.

It follows that many institutions will not know, unless they check, that some of their students are IGGY members (unless IGGY approaches them for payment of the annual fee, having been refused by the student’s former school).

While this is no doubt attractive to schools – apart from the last detail above – it rather leaves open to question whether IGGY genuinely caters for the top 5%.

Pragmatically of course, IGGY has everything to gain from a liberal set of eligibility criteria, especially while it is striving to build up numbers. There is an associated risk though that membership becomes less attractive simply because it is less exclusive.

.

Pricing

Since 15 October 2012, IGGY has been charging members an annual subscription which it says is highly subsidised by the University. The current subscription is £120 per year for members resident within the UK and £200 per year for those resident elsewhere. These rates are not necessarily fixed.

This differential is justified on the grounds that:

‘It is more expensive for us to deliver student mentoring, arrange and deliver face to face events and generate content partnerships with organisations outside our UK base, and we do need to ensure that these additional costs are covered.’

This seems a little unfair since most overseas members are likely to access the online environment rather than face-to-face experiences. It is unlikely that such events will be offered free at the point of delivery: if there are additional costs, those would be recouped in the additional charges levied.

The FAQ written by the Academic Principal contain a section: ‘Why is IGGY only offered online’ which tends to contradict the rationale given above.

In effect the price differential means that overseas members are cross-subsidising those resident in the UK. Such an arrangement could be open to challenge.

What IGGY calls ‘sponsored memberships’ are available for UK disadvantaged students if they are:

• Eligible for free school meals
• Children in care
• Live ‘in an area that has low participation in higher education’.

The latter provision can be applied wholesale where school-level applications are made. Other extenuating circumstances may be considered for individual applicants.

It is curious that this entitlement is not extended to all otherwise eligible learners aged under 16 in England who qualify for the Pupil Premium since that would be much simpler administratively for schools.

The inclusion of an area-based low HE participation criterion – both at individual and school level – will extend eligibility to relatively advantaged students who live in relatively disadvantaged areas, so generating significant deadweight.

Presumably the POLAR classification is applied, though it is open to question whether schools are always aware of their POLAR classification.

For members outside the UK, the definition of disadvantage is:

‘Based on whether students already receive educational financial support or if they are living in an area that has low participation in higher education.’

Quite what that means in practice is unclear, though overseas applicants faced with the higher basic fee are quite likely to find some evidence to back up a claim of disadvantage.

Schools that take advantage of the opportunity to register groups of students with IGGY can qualify for additional discounts.

A three month trial for up to 10 students attracts a one-off fee of £450. Otherwise discounts are on a sliding scale, depending on the number of students admitted.

It costs:

• £1,200 to register up to ten students, then £100 per additional student;
• £2,500 to register up to 25 students, then £80 per additional student;
• £4,000 to register up to 50 students, then £60 per additional student;
• £6,000 to register up to 100 students, then £40 per additional student.

So there is clearly an incentive to schools to maximise enrolments rather than limiting recruitment to students who genuinely fall within the top 5% by ability.

This provision also favours selective schools and those in the most advantaged areas with a heavy concentration of high attaining students.

The online guidance makes clear that some schools pass on membership fees to parents, whereas others pay subscriptions themselves or share the cost. Since schools qualify for discounts even when parents pay, there is scope here for institutions to play the system, passing on full fees to parents while only paying the discounted fees to IGGY.

If we ignore the impact of discounts, assume that 50% of places are free and 50% of the remaining 25,000 are recruited from abroad, the maximum annual fee income from 50,000 members is:

.

(12,500 x £120)  + (12,500 x £200) = £4.0m or £80 per student.

.

The maximum fee from 15,000 students is:

.

(3,750 x £120)  + (3,750 x £200) = £1.2m or £80 per student.

.

Given the salary and on-costs outlined above above, plus other development and running costs, it is likely that IGGY will not break even for some time.

.

.

The Relationship with Schools and Partners

Schools are advised that they will receive ‘a content plan’ and ‘usage statistics’ though it is not quite clear whether these are generic or specific to each learner.

There is also an option to register as ‘IGGY Pilot Schools’. The financial basis of this arrangement is unspecified, as are the specific benefits for the schools concerned. Ten English pilot locations are currently named on the website, the majority located close to Warwick.

Trinity Lismore Catholic College in New South Wales, Australia is also mentioned, as are ‘Al-Hussan National Schools’ – three English-medium day schools in Saudi Arabia. Neither website seems to mention their relationship with IGGY. The Australian school does however feature its gifted and talented provision.

There is a revealing section of the IGGY website headed ‘How much work will this mean for teachers?’

The answer supplied is:

‘Apart from the initial conversations with IGGY to decide how many students to enrol, you won’t have to do much at all.’

But this is surely disingenuous, since the onus clearly rests on schools to ensure complementarity between members’ in-school experience and what IGGY provides.

The comparative inattention given to this crucial connect was a significant weakness of the NAGTY approach and there is a risk of repetition. IGGY would be much better served by an explanation that this is both necessary and critical. Services should be available to schools to make it easier for them – above and beyond usage statistics and a generic content plan showing what provision is available.

At the very least, there should be a portfolio service enabling students and their schools to build and access records of engagement with IGGY. This may be under development, however.

From January 2013, members will be able to undertake:

‘The University of Warwick approved IGGY Award accreditation at Bronze, Silver and Gold Level.’

It may be that this will include a portfolio service, since accreditation will require details of students’ online engagement with IGGY to be stored and verified.

No further details are available, including whether additional fees will be charged for the privilege. The idea is a good one in principle but the devil is in the detail. Quite what value the accreditation will have remains open to question. Warwick would no doubt like to see it feature on future university applications, but whether it will gain any significant currency remains to be seen.

IGGY claims ‘the support of top academics and businesses’ but there are only two declared business ‘content partners’ to date and the vast majority of the content  emanates from Warwick. The internal arrangements – and funding – necessary to support this activity are not made public. It would be interesting to know whether the costs are passed on to IGGY or expected to be swallowed by the faculties that generate them.

The two ‘content partners’ – Severn Trent Water and the National Grid – are not particularly forthcoming about the benefits they foresee, though presumably they might expect some business advantage from IGGY’s ‘junior think tank’ capability.

Four ‘gifted and talented partners’ have recently been added to the website – CTY Ireland, NACE, NAGC and Villiers Park – but only in the first and last  cases do we get any real insight into the nature of the partnership.

CTYI will share ‘good practice and research’ while Villiers Park will provide content in return for sponsored membership for those undertaking its Scholars’ Programme. (The site does carry a second Q and A supplied by NAGC comprising ‘the top ten questions they are asked by parents’. This might imply the future development of parental services in conjunction with NAGC and parallel professional services in collaboration with NACE.)

IGGY says ‘it is always looking for new partners’ but it seems to have a relatively narrow conceptualisation of what it is seeking. The benefits of partnership, other than reputational value, are far from clear, especially for those working outside the educational sector.

.

What Kind of Service Does IGGY Provide?

The website provides access to a range of open-access material which prospective members, their parents and schools can use to judge the nature and quality of what lies behind the subscription paywall. Another section carries an index of materials that members can access.

As we have seen from the Fishinabottle press release, IGGY has nailed its colours firmly to the ‘gamification’ mast. That will help to give it a more contemporary feel for users, but may also attract criticism from those who believe this approach has its own significant shortcomings.

I offer no assessment of the quality and educational relevance of the materials, or the ‘gamified’ structure – that is for others to judge – but much can be gleaned from other parts of its website about the nature of the service IGGY seeks to provide.

IGGY markets itself as providing the extra ‘challenge’ and ‘stimulation’ that learners might not receive through their mainstream education. It provides a supportive global network and community that boosts learning and self-esteem.

It promises to provide a weekly diet of new interactive content, challenges, debates and competitions. There will be a mixture of short puzzles and longer-term research projects. Students can opt to work alone or collaboratively. According to the Beta Website, the initial subject offer has been extended to include creative writing, maths, science, history and politics. There is as yet no timetable for extension beyond those fields.

I cannot find any substantive treatment of the different ways in which schools might utilise the service – whether exclusively for independent learning outside school hours, or integrated into lesson time, or within extended day activities. That is a missed opportunity from the marketing perspective.

An upcoming highlights page is published frequently – it is not clear whether this is the same content plan promised to teachers, or if they get a more developed service.

Other parts of the service include:

‘A support network that includes University of Warwick academics and student mentors…Events, conferences and gatherings for members across the world…Support and advice for gifted students and university applicants.’

But the detail of what exactly is and will be provided under these heads is still rather sketchy, so members cannot see exactly what they will get for their money.

A series of ‘FAQs for Students Parents and Teachers’ authored by the Academic Principal admit that IGGY is ‘primarily an online initiative’:

‘The financial argument is simple. Face-to-face events are relatively expensive compared with online communities of the same scale, yet they only benefit a fraction of the number of people. In order to keep our membership fees as low as possible, to create the best content with the best academics, to allow students to connect with other international students and to make IGGY a sustainable community, we have decided to use an online model. However we do plan to offer some face to face events and will be asking the IGGY community what developments and events they want to see over the next year.’

The FAQs also describe the’ intended learning outcomes’:

‘IGGY aims to encourage independent learning and critical thinking as well as getting students to work collaboratively…encourages students to have an international perspective and understand the impact of globalization… stimulates students to utilize social media and tools to advance their education… each IGGY member can tailor their involvement to match their own areas of interest and personalise their learning experience.’

Moreover:

‘The aim is to develop appropriate 21^st century skills for IGGY members, including critical and creative thinking, communication, research and independent learning skills…IGGY’s learning principles are broadly aligned with Vygotsky’s social constructivist approach, which is based on learning through discovery and social interaction’.

Later on the Q and A describes IGGY’s service as fundamentally enrichment-based rather than accelerative, though with some degree of ‘content-based acceleration’. Both these dimensions need to be planned into schools’ understanding of their learners’ experience, to ensure the right fit between their IGGY and school experiences.

Members are expected to take primary responsibility for their own learning. They score points for their involvement in activities and can record what they’ve undertaken via their profile page. (Whether this yet amounts to formal tracking of progress and achievements as claimed is open to question.)

Student mentors also provide feedback but it is not yet clear whether they will play any role in supporting accreditation for the upcoming Bronze, Silver and Gold awards.

In answer to a question about the quality assurance measures that apply in lieu of a test for IGGY membership, the Principal argues that ‘the research literature is currently showing a paradigm shift towards giftedness as a developmental concept’ hence the admissions criteria are deliberately flexible.

This is fair up to a point, but no actual quality assurance measures are cited. One presumes that the only real measure is the freedom for learners to leave IGGY (or, more accurately, become inactive) if they feel that it is not for them.

Some degree of selectivity is implied by a reference to the possibility that applications can be rejected, in which case candidates can re-apply after a period of twelve months. In reality, it seems unlikely that few if any applications will be rejected given the generosity of the eligibility criteria.

Some of the terms and conditions for IGGY members appear rather draconian:

• IGGY can’t be held accountable if the site is unavailable, regardless of the duration of the gap in service;

• If usernames or passwords are made public, they can be disabled;

• Users can print off only single copies of material on the site for personal use, though reproducing content for ‘non-commercial educational use’ also seems to be permitted. (The terms don’t say explicitly whether this allows a school to use the material with other pupils who are not members but, if so, such materials must not be altered in any way.)

• Anything posted on the site can be used by Warwick for any purpose ‘in any media across the world’ as long as that is consistent with the declared privacy policy. They can change and adapt that material as they see fit. These rights aren’t exclusive, however, so others can be granted similar entitlement. (This presumably applies to any content provided by third parties.)

• The terms of use can be changed at any time

IGGY even seeks to control links to and from third party sites. Authors must:

‘Make sure you do it [ie link] in a way that is fair (and legal!) and doesn’t damage or take advantage of our reputation’.

They ‘can withdraw permission to link to IGGY whenever we like’, though that begs the question whether permission is required in the first place.

One sincerely hopes that an honest, balanced and constructive review which highlights shortcomings as well as good points doesn’t amount to reputational damage…and that the hyperlinks in this post are unexceptionable.

.

Overall Assessment and Prospects for Success

Some of the commentary above may appear to have accentuated the negative, but I have been stress-testing deliberately some of the more vulnerable aspects of IGGY’s delivery model.

It is early days, at least for the relaunch, and several issues should be ironed out as they emerge through careful monitoring.

The overall concept is sound and I strongly support the broad social networking model which IGGY has adopted:

‘Because social media can address so many of the problems faced by gifted learners, while also capitalising on their familiarity with the online environment, it is tempting to regard the relationship between gifted education (in this narrow sense) and social media as ‘a marriage made in heaven’.

But it is too early to speculate whether or not IGGY will be successful. The final judgment will need to take account of several factors, including:

• Whether the social network is attractive and addictive enough to pull gifted learners away from Facebook and Playstation for worthwhile periods. Is it a viable alternative, or is it doomed to be a poor second-best, scorned by the majority because of its worthiness and endorsement by parents and teachers?

• Assuming that IGGY is attractive enough to secure and maintain a substantial audience of 13-19 year-olds, what level of engagement it will engender in its users. Some members may treat IGGY like any other social network, dipping in and out as the mood takes them and valuing the experience primarily for the social interaction. Others may be more engaged with the learning activities, possibly even undertaking them on a systematic basis, so achieving the planned accredited awards. Like its precursors, IGGY’s success must be judged on the number of genuinely and consistently active members (rather than the number of members per se).

• Whether a methodology is established to secure genuine and system-wide integration with learning in schools. Bolt-on enrichment has very limited value in itself – the added value is only derived when the enrichment activities become a fully integral part of the learners’ educational experience. But that requires significant input on the part of schools, with obvious implications for teacher time. IGGY will need to adjust its position on this and evolve effective tools to support school staff with this process.

• Whether the educational benefits are confirmed through robust evaluation. This must be able to isolate convincingly the impact of IGGY from all other factors and quantify the benefits, not least the impact on individual and collective educational achievement and on fair access to competitive higher education.  Good evaluation is expensive and one dimension must necessarily be longitudinal. (Like all gifted and talented education interventions, there is a potential contribution to excellence and another to equity. Both are important and must be kept in balance.)

• Whether IGGY can balance income and expenditure and so achieve longer term financial sustainability. Upfront and running costs are significant and IGGY is unlikely to reach financial equilibrium for some time. It would be interesting to see an evaluation of the monetary benefits likely to accrue to Warwick from this investment, and the probability of those being realised. Ultimately income has to depend on membership rather than sponsorship. There are several more established competitors worldwide, especially those located in the United States. It will be hard for IGGY to attract business away from them, so the alternative is to become established in new markets. The international business brings obvious benefits for Warwick and for learners, but there is a risk that it could deflect the organisation from an initial priority to secure its domestic audience.

There are several other conspicuous risks, not least the following four:

•  IGGY is ‘high maintenance’ in that it relies on the availability of a never-ending flow of high-quality content, much of which has a cost attached. Should that stream ever falter – even when IGGY has built up a sizeable repository of old material – the value to members will decline significantly.

• Online security is similarly ‘high maintenance’, carrying with it a huge reputational risk if there is ever a serious breach. IGGY has evolved a relatively light touch procedure which – while it does not inhibit recruitment – could potentially be compromised.

• The domestic and global markets might evolve in a way that is unhelpful to IGGY. It is vulnerable to bigger generic players choosing to extend their services to gifted learners. Competition here in the UK is currently negligible. While it is open to question whether a continuing IGGY monopoly would be in the best interests of UK gifted learners, the evolving market for HE-driven MOOCs may pull demand away from IGGY if they are deliberately marketed towards younger students. (It is noteworthy that Warwick is a partner in Futurelearn, the new endeavour led by the Open University. The evolving relationship between IGGY and Futurelearn will be interesting to chart.)

• IGGY is leaving no stone unturned to secure a critical mass of members in line with its targets, but this may compromise the value of the service to learners who are genuinely within the top 5% by ability. There are conspicuous advantages to open access on one hand and strict eligibility criteria on the other – and there may be some cause to suggest that IGGY has fallen between these two stools.

The acid test will be whether IGGY can successfully reconcile its twin imperatives – to improve significantly and measurably the education of a critical mass of gifted learners and, simultaneously, to generate the flow of benefits that will give Warwick University a competitive advantage over its peers.

The UK gifted education community is fragmented, competitive and highly suspicious. There is precious little effective collaboration. IGGY might usefully position itself to change that but, to be successful, it must be fully open and transparent in its proceedings and prepared to learn from the mistakes of the past, not least by opening itself up to constructive criticism emanating within and outside the gifted education community.

I said it was too early to speculate on IGGY’s chances of success but, if pressed (and setting aside my innate pessimism), I would put them close to 50/50 as things stand. We should have a much clearer picture in twelve months’ time.

.

GP

December 2012

High Attaining Pupils in the 2012 Primary School Performance Tables

.

This short post examines data about the performance of high-attaining pupils at Key Stage 2 in the 2012 Primary School Performance Tables.

It compares this year’s outcomes with those for 2011 when the high-attaining pupil measure was first introduced.

 .

Introduction

The 2011 Tables included performance measures for low, medium and high attainers, to encourage schools to improve the performance of all their pupils, rather than concentrating disproportionately on those at risk of not achieving the threshold measures.

The Key Stage 2 threshold measure is achievement of Level 4 in English and maths. Level 4 achievement has always received most attention in the public interpretation of school performance.

More recently, measures of progress have been added alongside those relating to achievement. All pupils are expected to demonstrate at least two levels of progress during Key Stage 2.

These two measures of achievement and progress are enshrined in the Government’s primary school ‘floor targets’, which determine whether school improvement intervention is required.

Comparison between the 2012 and 2011 Performance Tables provides the first opportunity to assess whether the introduction of these three categories of prior attainment have encouraged schools to adjust their behaviour – and whether this is to the relative advantage of higher attaining learners.

 .

Definition

The definition of a high-attaining pupil in the 2012 Primary Performance Tables is based on the average points scores they achieved in Key Stage 1 teacher assessment four years earlier.

High-attaining pupils are deemed to be all those achieving above Level 2 at Key Stage 1, with the precise borderline marked by the achievement of an average points score of 18 or higher. The definition is unchanged since 2011.

It is not clear from the Performance Tables User Guide whether this average points score is based on achievement across reading, writing, speaking and listening, maths and science (the full spectrum of KS1 assessment) or a subset of these (to ensure agreement with the KS2 measure which is confined to English and maths only).

Regardless of which methodology is selected, this measure will not include learners who are particularly strong in one area while particularly weak in another, unless their performance in one field (or more) is high enough to compensate for underperformance in another. The scope for compensation is clearly higher if science is included in the calculation.

That said, the measure is more likely to be criticised on grounds of over-inclusiveness rather than the reverse. But it is hard to source concrete figures.

National data about the percentage of pupils achieving Level 3 at KS1 across reading, writing, maths (and science) is not included in the official KS1 assessment statistical tables, nor are KS1 average points scores across these subjects. This seems something of an oversight given their significance for the Key Stage 2 Performance Tables.

We do know that, in 2011, the average points score across all pupils was 15.5, just 2.5 points short of the high attainer borderline. We also know that the average points score measure will include some pupils who achieve the average score while not achieving Level 3 in at least one area, making it relatively more generous than a requirement for Level 3s across the board.

In 2012, the proportions of learners achieving Level 3 in individual assessments across all schools were: 27% (maths); 14% (writing); 22% (speaking and listening); 22% (maths); 21% (science). The overall percentage of pupils within the high attainer category will obviously depend on the subjects used to derive the calculation but will almost certainly lie somewhere above 20%.

It is also important to note that, since this is an attainment measure, not an ability measure, it will disproportionately include pupils from relatively advantaged backgrounds. In 2011, the average points score across all FSM pupils was 13.5, compared with an average non-FSM figure of 15.7.

It follows that schools with a relatively advantaged intake will tend to perform better on this measure than schools with a high proportion of disadvantaged learners, though there will be some that ‘buck the trend’.

.

2012 results

The 2012 Primary School Performance Tables show that:

• 27% of pupils nationally achieved Level 5 or above in KS2 English and maths tests. (The corresponding figure for reading and maths tests and teacher assessment in writing combined is 20% – a writing test was not administered in 2012, so creating comparability issues between results in 2011 and 2012.)

• In individual subject areas, the percentage of learners achieving Level 5 or above in English overall is 38%, in reading only it is 48% and in maths it is 39%;

• The proportion of pupils achieving Level 6 through the new KS2 level 6 tests is not given in the Performance Tables but we know from other published data that 900 pupils achieved Level 6 in the KS2 reading test and 19,000 did so in the maths test. While the former is significantly lower than 1% of total entries, the latter is equivalent to 3%, so roughly one pupil per class is now achieving Level 6 in maths. (About 700 pupils also achieved Level 6 in science teacher assessment). Almost all learners achieving a Level 6 will have demonstrated three levels of progress. We know from other provisional data that some 2,500 of those securing Level 6 in maths achieved either Level 2A or even Level 2B in maths alone at KS1, so managing four levels of progress in crude whole-level terms;

• But, reverting to the average point score methodology deployed in the Primary Tables, no high attaining pupils achieved Level 3 or below in English and maths at KS2, hence 100% of high attainers achieved Level 4 or above on that measure;

• Only 72% achieved the expected two or more levels of progress between the end of KS1 and the end of KS2, by achieving Level 5 or above in both English and maths. This means that over a quarter of high attaining pupils are underachieving on this measure;

• The separate figures for English and maths look better. Some 87% of high attainers made the expected progress in English, while 92% did so in maths. This may suggest that the degree of overlap between high attaining pupils in English and maths respectively may be relatively low;

• In maths, the percentage of high attainers making expected progress is slightly above the percentage of middle attainers making expected progress (90%) and significantly higher than the corresponding percentage for low attainers (71%);

• But in English there is a more worrying situation. Some 93% of middle attainers make expected progress and 83% of low attainers do so. High attainers surpass the latter, with 87% making the expected level of progress, but that is markedly short of the middle attainers, suggesting that – in English at least – there is still a bias towards the middle of the achievement spectrum, at the expense of outliers at both ends. Why that should be is largely unexplained.

.

Change Since 2011

Compared with 2011:

• The percentage of pupils achieving Level 5 or above in KS2 English and maths tests has increased by 6% from 21% to 27%, but the removal of the writing test has had a significant impact here. There is some evidence from teacher assessment results that there has been an improvement, but this cannot be reliably confirmed;

• The removal of the writing test also impacts on the percentage achieving Level 5 or above in English which has improved from 29% to 38%. In reading and maths, where there are no such comparability problems, the percentage achieving Level 5 or above has also increased significantly, by 5% and 4% respectively. Achievement at Level 6 cannot be compared with 2011 when tests were not available;

• In 2011, 1% of high attainers failed to achieve Level 4 in KS2 English and maths and only 61% achieved Level 5 in both subjects, so there has been significant improvement in that the proportion not achieving this key benchmark has fallen from about four in ten to less than three in ten. This proportion remains unacceptably high and the impact of the removal of the writing test can only be guessed at, but the headline figure suggests that the introduction of the high attainer measure in the Tables may be having a positive impact;

• Turning to the individual subjects, the percentage of high attainers making the expected progress in maths has increased from 89% to 92% and the comparable figure in English has increased substantially from 77% to 87%. Interestingly, in English the high attainers have overtaken the low attainers, though they continue to trail the middle attainers (see table below).

 .

	Maths			English
	High	Middle	Low	High	Middle	Low
2011	89	85	65	77	89	80
2012	92	90	71	87	93	83
Change	+3	+5	+6	+10	+4	+3

Percentage of high, middle and low attainers achieving 2+ Levels of progress from KS1 to KS2

.

One can see that the rate of improvement is slowest for high attainers in maths and fastest in English, though this may imply that the removal of the writing test has enabled many more high attainers than low attainers to make the expected progress. The fact that one in seven high attaining pupils are still not making the expected progress in English is, however, a cause for concern.

.

Additional analysis

Back in 2011, the Daily Mail published some further detail. It put the number of high attaining pupils not making the expected progress in English and maths at ‘up to 51,000’.

Furthermore:

• 2,160 primary schools returned a gap of 20% or more between the proportion of middle and high attainers making the expected 2+ levels of progress in English (presumably in favour of the former);

• About half of all primary schools had some high attainers who failed to make  2+ levels of progress in both English and maths (so they did not have a 100% record on this measure);

• Incredibly, about 800 schools had high attainers who failed even to achieve Level 4 at KS2, meaning they remained stuck at Level 3 after four years of KS2 education.

• 15 schools had over 20% of their pupils in this position – some 1,300 pupils in all.

The 2012 Tables suggest that just 11 schools had high attaining pupils who were stuck at Level 3 in English and maths combined, with the highest recorded percentage for an individual school reaching 9%. It seems that only a few tens of pupils were in this invidious position.

But, more worryingly, in about 125 schools, 25% or fewer high attaining pupils failed to achieve Level 5 in both English and maths. Some 1,130 schools had 50% or fewer high attaining pupils achieving the expected progress.

Fewer than 870 schools had a perfect record in this respect, a significant improvement on 2011 but still not good enough.

.

Conclusion

Overall there is some positive evidence that underachievement by high attainers is being significantly reduced – although the extent of the improvement is confused by the incomparability of 2011 and 2012 results as a consequence of the removal of the writing test.

Nevertheless, the extent of this underachievement remains unacceptably high, with well over a quarter still not securing Level 5 in English and maths combined.

The 2+ levels of progress required under existing arrangements is arguably insufficiently challenging for the majority of high attainers anyway – as evidenced by the increasing numbers achieving Level 6 – so there is a hidden underachievement factor to superimpose on top of the published figures.

There are improvements in progression in English and maths when considered separately. Although the improvement in progression is about three times as fast in English as in maths, the percentage failing to secure Level 5 in English remains higher.

Moreover, the progression rate for high attainers continues to lag behind middle achievers in English, which would suggest that many are continuing to receive inadequately differentiated challenge and support.

Issues with the structure of the Performance Tables remain. The high attainers measure is insufficiently differentiated, especially since Level 6 test results do not feature as a separate measure in the Performance Tables.

And, since the existing measure is not applied to the Narrowing the Gap indicators, we have no way of knowing whether schools are neglecting high attainers from disadvantaged backgrounds relatively more or less than their more advantaged peers.

Finally, it has been confirmed that National Curriculum levels are shortly to disappear, but no information has yet been published about the means of recording achievement and progression in future – and how that will be reflected in Performance Tables, assuming they continue to exist.

So, although there is scope for some optimism in the short term, the medium term prospect remains decidedly uncertain.

.

GP

December 2012

An Evolving Gifted Education Key Documents Collection

.

Regular visitors may have noticed that I am evolving and populating a set of Key Documents Pages as an integral part of this Blog.

I envisage discrete sections for:

• Gifted Education in the UK

• Gifted Education in the Rest of the World and

• Gifted Education Research

Each section will be divided by year of publication, for this century at least, with an additional catch-all category for anything published before 2000. Depending on the size of the ‘rest of the world’ section, I might sub-divide the material by continent.

Each page will carry a gallery of captioned thumbnails of the publications produced in that year. Visitors can click on the relevant thumbnail to launch a PDF of the document in question.

My first priority is to stock the pages on Gifted Education in the UK, starting with contemporary material and working back in time.

I want to create a chronological record of the work undertaken at national level in the UK, particularly in England, over the period I have been involved. It is all too easy to forget just how much was achieved, particularly since the forces of revisionism are already in play.

Most of these documents have more than historical value – they remain directly relevant to the development of national policy and practice, whether in the UK or elsewhere in the world.

Everything on these pages has been sourced online, though drawn from a host of different locations. I wanted to bring all the material into a single user-friendly online repository, for the ease and benefit of potential readers.

At this stage I am incorporating only those documents which do not seem to be restricted by copyright, though I will be seeking permissions in cases where copyright may be an obstacle.

More significant copyright problems are likely when I come to stock the pages for research and the rest of the world, though there may be ways to work round this. The last resort will be to provide hyperlinks to material located elsewhere, though that has significant ‘dead link’ downside!

The UK Gifted Education pages populated to date are:

• 2012

• 2011

• 2010

• 2009

• 2008 and

• 2007

Do let me know if these are useful, or if I can improve them in any way (recognising the limitations of the platform that hosts this Blog).

If you hold additional material that should be included in any of the three sections – particularly if you own the copyright – please send me your documents and I will add them to the library.

Leaving aside basic quality assurance, my only stipulation is that, for the time being at least, everything should be written in English. (I don’t rule out adding material in other languages in due course.)

.

GP

November 2012

Gifted Phoenix Twitter Round-Up: Volume 10

 

Here, rather belatedly, is my latest review of @Gifted Phoenix Twitter activity.

The previous edition was published as long ago as 14 July, so this post covers over four months of activity.

I intend to publish approximately termly reviews henceforward – either three or four a year, depending on my level of industry (and Twitter activity) and your level of interest!

I have made some adjustments to reflect these new arrangements. Rather than attempt coverage of my entire Twitter feed, I have concentrated on drawing together material relevant to gifted education.

As far as wider education policy is concerned, I have included only those tweets that are pertinent to gifted education in England.

The review is organised as follows:

• Global gifted education – I have divided this into two sub-sections, one covering the World Council’s activities, the other everything else.

• Separate sections for Africa, the Americas, Asia, Australasia and Europe (other than the UK) respectively. The Americas is divided into three: Other Than USA, US National and US Local. The latter covers material relevant to states, cities, counties, gifted centres, universities and schools.

• UK, again sub-divided into three: Gifted, Related Issues and Data.

• Thematic, which also has three sub-sections: Twice Exceptional, Creativity and Innovation, Intelligence and Neuroscience.

• Commentary, which is once more tripartite, containing subsections entitled Gifted Research, Academic/Gifted Education and Advocacy/Parents/General Interest.

I have exercised some discretion in placing tweets into categories. Some would fit in two or more different sections. Some of my categorisations, especially in the UK and Commentary sections, are also a little rough and ready.

The tweets in each section are organised so that linked material is together, but are otherwise in broadly chronological order. As ever, all the tweets are mine, though a handful are retweets or modified tweets originated by others.

The photographic accompaniment is also supplied by yours truly, collected on my last visit abroad. But where did I go?

 

Global Gifted Education

 

World Council/World Conference

WCGTC conference Auckland July 2013: earlybird registration for non-members falls NZ$ 174 to NZ$ 825 (£428) http://t.co/BvvRc9uW

The results of the 2012 International Chemistry Olympiad, just finished in Washington DC: http://t.co/2ik7OhPI

WCGTC is celebrating an International Week of Giftedness in August 2012 – and again in August 2013: http://t.co/6YpmHwPs

More about the WCGTC International Week of Giftedness: http://t.co/buA97BO4

More again about the WCGTC International Week of #Giftedness, which has its own hashtag #IWG2012: http://t.co/3nSoG5c9

The World Council Executive Committee (sans President) at their new HQ in Bowling Green Kentucky: http://t.co/iuGdZ9mH

@wcgtc Do you support the African Council for Gifted and Talented as claimed here? http://t.co/OamEFoPE

Breaking news: World Council 2013 Gifted Conference in New Zealand cancelled. Nothing here yet: http://t.co/r8ZtXV54

Nothing on the World Council site either about cancellation of the 2013 Conference in NZ: http://t.co/Im8szete

NZ Gifted Conference 2013 scrapped due to lack of sponsorship; organisational differences with World Council: http://t.co/PjAaAIgs

World Council Gifted Conference has been cancelled at short notice for second time in succession http://t.co/PjAaAIgs

World Conference cancellation is a huge blow to NZ gifted education: http://t.co/PjAaAIgs – but it also begs questions …

With just 10 months before World Council conference runs, even US fallback locations will be hard to find: http://t.co/PjAaAIgs

Maybe the IRATDE Conference in Turkey could be rebranded as a joint World Council/IRATDE conference: http://t.co/PQga5zrl

Look what I’ve found! Could the 2013 World Council Gifted Conference be moving to Dubai? http://t.co/2sZv6vUy

The site has now moved to a different URL: http://t.co/6XY745sE – Think this is the venue ICIE used in Dubai http://t.co/9afiXmPp

WCGTC Conference 2013 has a byline and workshops (mostly Exec Committee members) but still no location http://t.co/MrDaozgs

World council gifted conference in Kentucky USA as predicted http://t.co/BKA0Ao9q  but Louisville rather than Bowling Green

World gifted conference dates moved to August 10-14. No other details on programme or host location: http://t.co/BKA0Ao9q

.

Other Global

A timeline of developments and influential people in gifted education: http://t.co/9GBRRvCE – WARNING highly US-centric!

IRATDE’s 3rd International Conference on Talent Development and Excellence in Turkey, September 2013: http://t.co/yiqHpedi

Review of and link to @gtchatmod’s webinar about #gtchat: http://t.co/wAruukku

Did you know? #gtchat now has a blog! Sneak peek @ http://goo.gl/mmiOi  for chat summaries, links & news

Visit our new #gtchat Blog 4 chat summaries & news about upcoming chats at http://t.co/sDBh2573

IBO and World Academy of Sport offer a flexible Diploma to accommodate talented young sports stars: http://t.co/tu2I0glC

The results from the 24th International Informatics Olympiad, just finished in Italy: http://t.co/e9kqn0Yh

Facebook and Gifted Education listings: http://t.co/FV98jZTw – thanks for including me!

Mensa for Kids is running an Excellence in Reading Award: http://t.co/JYjNvROM

Mensa for Kids Reading Award booklist for Grades 9-12?  http://t.co/chzKWZgU – Curious. Would love to know the selection criteria

Pearson’s Project Blue Sky looks interestingly relevant to gifted learners: http://t.co/72cOK2kw

.

.

Africa

More about sponsorship of Kenya’s gifted learners: http://t.co/Ufcb0dgX

Messy end for an independent school for gifted learners in Kwa-Kulu Natal: http://t.co/tMUuDbMN

President Jonathan visits Jigawa State Academy for the Gifted, Nigeria: http://t.co/HHJ5cPm0 – background here http://t.co/gE8O1uiv

.

Americas

 

Other than USA

Caribbean Science Foundation is running a pan-Caribbean summer school for gifted students: http://t.co/Cz67zQzj

‘SO(bre)S(alientes Reloded’: The revival of a blog about gifted education in Mexico: http://t.co/KV1PNo7X

The Iberoamerican gifted education conference starts today in Buenos Aires Argentina: http://t.co/ucNuKQBv

.

US National

US NAGC view of the year ahead: Making a Difference with Small Actions: http://t.co/s7ASulsf

Preview of US NAGC Convention in November: http://t.co/ms2WfyAT

Details of US NAGC’s Back to School Webinar Series (£): http://t.co/G6eO2xNH

Joy Lawson Davis has a place at the US NAGC Board of Directors’ table: http://t.co/XOSVLkQb

US NAGC’s Report on support for gifted disadvantaged learners: ttp://t.co/rCuUMc2g – At first glance this looks rather pedestrian

Edweek on the NAGC report on gifted disadvantaged learners that I called pedestrian yesterday: http://t.co/hXKV8LhY

Will the National Association for Gifted Children’s (@NAGC) new paradigm be divisive? http://t.co/SGGNR7YE

Has Mariam Willis left US NAGC? Parenting High Potential Blog has been dormant for 3 months: http://t.co/f9zu4AXu

Unwrapping the Gifted’s report of Day 1 of the US NAGC convention: http://t.co/AeBcQK7e  - mostly Common Core

Excellent review of day 2 of the US NAGC Convention from Unwrapping the Gifted: http://t.co/107FEFOw

SENG’s National Parenting Gifted Week Blogtour details: http://t.co/k5IMia96

Catching up: the full roster of blog posts from the SENG National Parenting Gifted Children Week: http://t.co/k5IMia96

Update on SENG activities: http://t.co/45kwMvJu

Article about the 2012 Davidson Fellows: http://t.co/sNVN8BI0

Jack Kent Cooke Foundation to dish out $500K annually for talent development: http://t.co/Wszn0Inc – 1st recipient Renzulli Academy

National Consortium of Early College Entrance Programs just met http://t.co/GpzW6Llu – but no insight here into proceedings

Feature on the iGifted School, a US-based non-profit provider of after school activities: http://t.co/Nkh8sS9b

Welcome to Right Side of the Curve – a new US-based online gifted education community: http://t.co/pbmUa6ix

I see Tamara Fisher, author of the Unwrapping the Gifted Blog, has joined Twitter as @thethinkteacher : http://t.co/8at8Uyab

US Government tracker says, optimistically, that Grassley’s gifted bill has 1% chance of enactment: http://t.co/rji7GG5X

Passing reference to gifted learners in Obama’s Educational Excellence for African Americans initiative http://t.co/rLj4wW71

Education Next feature on selective ‘exam schools’ in the US: http://t.co/ULa6evi1 and a comment on same:  http://t.co/SU2gRopr

Extended Washington Post article on development of maths as ‘competitive sport’ in the US: http://t.co/I9vfcRD4

Three reasons why Americans ignore gifted children: http://t.co/OAQG99Br

This Dropout Nation post says US gifted education is a legacy ‘of racialist thinking’ and should be ditched: http://t.co/HjKjMxbd

A critical commentary on the Chester Finn piece about US neglect of gifted learners: http://t.co/yD2eYgxs

‘Solving America’s Math Problem’ through better differentiation including for top performers: http://t.co/qxtabIQI

More Advanced Placement controversy: http://t.co/kFWrHC7q and http://t.co/88x5G8fl and http://t.co/eQgQk2Fj

The ‘Asianification’ of selective US high schools: http://t.co/GDXpx1aa – a selection issue as yet largely ignored here in the UK?

Worrall et al on minority gifted students: http://t.co/A6Qwthig – fails to state firm principle that ability is evenly distributed

US Needs to Focus Its Educational Efforts on Talented Americans (@JonathanLWai):   http://t.co/Ssv1czWw

‘The smartest kid in the room’ – another current state of US gifted education article: http://t.co/g0vtpA3h

.

US Local

First part of a critique of gifted education in the Southern states of the USA: http://t.co/sJAnrRZt

Second part of that blog post on being gifted in the Southern states of the USA: http://t.co/8xHxrScX

Michigan educators worry whether the emphasis on gap-narrowing there will disadvantage gifted learners: http://t.co/DXVYrv8p

It’s Time to Respect Our Gifted and Talented Students – a Delaware USA perspective: http://t.co/dArsz4BU

Minorities are under-represented in Virginia’s gifted education programmes: http://t.co/cyrGjmFc

Gifted jobs: Virginia Association for the Gifted requires a PT Executive Director: http://t.co/3RgeXrT9 ($35-40K)

The scary state of gifted education in Ohio: http://t.co/RQWbJg9W

Gifted education issues in Ohio: http://t.co/PPVPpZ0b

A state of the state report on gifted education in Oregon USA: http://t.co/lCGlGyFs  - the ‘quiet crisis’

Your  Member Newsletter: Gifted Education News from MCGATE http://t.co/SVSH4eeM

The Gifted: Left Behind? (in Montgomery County): http://t.co/MgRgs3En

A view of gifted education from the Chicago suburbs: http://t.co/3n3yMIJi

Ethnic bias in admission to NYC’s selective high schools and efforts to rectify that via the DREAM programme: http://t.co/VAh8h4zM

Can opening up NYC selective high schools help poor kids? http://t.co/tlMdpVGb

James Borland lays into NYC’s gifted education programme, and with some justification: http://t.co/QyXbEaPq

Finn says selective high school admission in NYC needs reform but dislikes ‘disparate-impact analysis’ http://t.co/RMUGoLMa

Why the Naglieri test won’t make admission to NYC’s gifted programme more equitable: http://t.co/fL2eajuu

More on what’s wrong with gifted education in NYC: http://t.co/S16aVr2J

Gifted education jobs: MIT seeks Assistant Director of Admissions to lead on recruitment of talented students: http://t.co/qdGImf4G

Vanderbilt Programs for Talented Youth appoints new Director, though Stambaugh remains Executive Director: http://t.co/FcokU3Zj

Gifted jobs: William and Mary CFGE seeks Assistant Clinical Professor leading on publications/professional development http://t.co/CnDocAQJ

Belin Blank advertises its international credentials: http://t.co/o05jldZF and has updated its website http://t.co/QofMUs0s

Belin Blank’s Colangelo is retiring imminently: http://t.co/jUffZPml

More about CTY’s Rural Connections Gifted Programme: http://t.co/OpgdgruM

Looks like expansion at CTY given some of these new posts: http://t.co/5E8Nhpvm

Gifted jobs: National Society for Gifted and Talented requires a Program Director based in Stamford CT USA: http://t.co/pz9huNK2

CTD’s Summer 2012 newsletter on implications for gifted students of the Common Core: http://t.co/FrQq7Xik

September News from the Gifted Development Center: http://t.co/lGLoQHtg

Jonathan Plucker – the excellence gap expert – has moved to UConn’s Neag School of Education: http://t.co/Q5OzORjiThomas Jefferson HS in the US is being sued over non-admission of gifted Black and Latino students: http://t.co/s5yTTJl6

Interview with the Director of the Institute for Talent Development at Northern Kentucky University: http://t.co/Kydcke54

Gifted jobs: Western Kentucky University requires an Assistant Professor with gifted education emphasis: http://t.co/hnbdNPKp

You can only be Professor of Gifted Education at Whitworth University if you’re a committed Christian http://t.co/YSqxrxiN

Gifted education jobs: Notre Dame of Maryland University seeks a specialist Assistant Professor: http://t.co/FVDZrCYf

Thomas Jefferson High School and the Search for Equity in the Nation’s Schools: http://t.co/kNhJAgeD

A bunch of Thomas Jefferson students have launched a social learning start-up: http://t.co/fB3eCBol

.

.

Asia

More from the opening ceremony of the Asia-Pacific Conference: http://t.co/QRW9ADTv

Malaysian 1st Lady’s remarks at Asian-Pacific Gifted Conference http://t.co/i6ZkCL1w More on her involvement http://t.co/e4d7NJvS

Plug pulled on eagerly awaited gifted classes in China (Anhui province): http://t.co/9ocJvPYQ

Mensa China’s chair joined ‘to land an intelligent boyfriend’: http://t.co/L6pIgfHP – old one couldn’t understand her jokes

S Korea, US and China lead the medals table at the 2012 International Maths Olympiad. This report from Vietnam http://t.co/mOnrDFGR

A useful outline of gifted education in Vietnam and other ASEAN countries by Kim Ngoc Minh: http://t.co/quRwmCqt

Funding problems for gifted schools in Vietnam http://t.co/bRenn9mf

Wow. Vietnam invests US$20m to improve quality of gifted education in rural and disadvantaged areas: http://t.co/OaIjc1Yo

Singapore’s Gifted Education Programme (GEP) cracks down on questionable private tuition providers: http://t.co/Q650OALd

Outstanding Performance by Singapore at the 2012 International Science Competitions http://t.co/4c1H8qsO

A documentary and review about Singapore’s Gifted Education Programme (GEP): http://t.co/DKYnZxVw

Thoughts on gifted education in Singapore: http://t.co/aaWyG79d

Interesting Singaporean parental view: ‘Let’s not hold back children who are gifted’: http://t.co/bLmtbocG

A brief but fascinating insight into gifted education in North Korea: http://t.co/k82n2sGw

An article on recent developments in Malaysia’s Permata Pintar gifted programme: http://t.co/i7s30D25 (via @noorsyakina)

Looks like Malaysia plans significant further steps in its national strategy for gifted education: http://t.co/m6YQijgY

Here’s that Malaysian Education Blueprint Document – plans for gifted education are on pp116-117: http://t.co/2DrjMGUu

Commentary on Malaysia’s new plans for gifted education: http://t.co/JBejpcBk

Brief report on gifted education in Sarawak, Malaysia: http://t.co/Plt4U1jo

Malaysian DPM seems to be inviting international efforts to contribute to Malaysian gifted education: http://t.co/yHr26NjZ

A slightly different take on what the Malaysian DPM said yesterday about #gifted education: http://t.co/H1L8cNeK

Teach For Pakistan is launching the Pakistan Talent fund, an annual competition for talented young Pakistanis http://t.co/nAcGWm0P

Cramming is now less virulent in Taiwan because it has so many (some would say too many) universities: http://t.co/dNql1z6Z

A senior Filipino politician proposes a Bill to support gifted learners and those with special needs http://t.co/Jrf0C6HZ

Filipino House of Representatives passes Bill establishing local resource centres for gifted and SEN learners http://t.co/uIhmgQuI

Iran’s Ayatollah engages with the country’s gifted young people: http://t.co/RZQkXukD – I find this rather disturbing

It’s the 55th anniversary of the Abai Kazakh Language and Literature Residential School for Gifted Children! http://t.co/MyGVr6Y3

Arab Bureau of Education argues for Gulf-wide collaboration in gifted education: http://t.co/FRC67zfg – Too many rivalries?

The Saudis have been to check out Gatton and WKU – Minister to follow in January: http://t.co/I6FqcNpx

Dhool Ke Phool – Neat Indian talent development model that blends X-Factor and support for most disadvantaged: http://t.co/SNS0QqDY

.

Australasia

A mixed picture of threats and opportunities in NZ gifted education: http://t.co/2Av49dPW

New Zealand’s undertaking a new national survey of gifted education http://t.co/eJvyHCFN More use than a dodgy Sutton Trust report

The latest edition of giftEDnewz from new Zealand: http://t.co/nR3Pkctg

Revised, updated version of New Zealand’s handbook on Meeting Needs of Gifted Students has been published at http://t.co/Afp8VJhb

The NZ Ministry of Education Gifted Handbook in alternative format (for those having trouble with the PDF): http://t.co/7PObD9nD

Media coverage of release of updated NZ Handbook on Meeting the Needs of Gifted Students: http://t.co/JoKD0fKh

NZ Education Gazette article on revised NZ Gifted Education Handbook: http://t.co/aRrqXKPB – memorably calls one author ‘Roger Molten’

NZ Journal of Gifted Education Vol 17.1, featuring some gifEDnz conference papers: http://t.co/Fmx8nphi

Evidence of increased focus on Maori giftedness in New Zealand: http://t.co/YT0kAP0U

To be gifted and Maori: http://t.co/oUfioQwE

Some support from NZ’s Labour Party for gifted education there: http://t.co/wdMYJKmP

Item about NZ’s Future U competition for gifted young thought leaders: http://t.co/3c4OakwZ

New NZ site on mentoring in gifted education: http://t.co/qXsHyJD6 – developed as a student project

An insight into gifted professional development activity underway in New Zealand: http://t.co/7m3xWktC

Gifted Resources August newsletter can be read online at http://t.co/NdCxq8jc

Gifted Resources Newsletter August (vol 2): http://t.co/iOh0W6pY

Gifted Resources September newsletter can be read online at http://t.co/cBC7JwtC

Gifted Resources October newsletter online at http://t.co/e2FjTO0X

A second October Gifted Resources newsletter can be read at http://t.co/htdmIlsp

November 2012 Gifted Resources Newsletter from @jofrei http://t.co/g1aWJmvJ

A new article by the Chair of the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into gifted education: http://t.co/nizhXazp

A post by @jofrei on the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into gifted education: http://t.co/Ba1RItBX

.

Europe

Javier Touron blogs (in Spanish) about the imminent ECHA12 Conference: http://t.co/YZvBBxBa

Christian Fischer article ahead of ECHA12 in Die Welt (in German): http://t.co/0G2DfbPs

Interview with Peter Csermely mentioning European Centre of Talent Support: http://t.co/CJqbaa8k

Mission statement for the European Talent Centre: http://t.co/cju11wvI

Elsewhere on the gifted conference front, I can find out nothing more about the mysterious Polish event: http://t.co/d0vfFzpt

…Except that there is now a satellite event for East European experts in Hungary a few days later: http://t.co/d0vfFzpt

Details arrive of the Polish Gifted Conference, just under a week before it happens! Here’s the Programme: http://t.co/ta0JwZDG

@tanzania8 will present in Poland on UK good practice: http://t.co/ta0JwZDG Could you live tweet and share presentations Margaret?

Sweet FA from the Warsaw gifted conference. No presentations or tweets. All there is (in Polish): http://t.co/5vCw5kZl

Information about ECHA 2014: http://t.co/ynITMFmV

Our Slovenian colleagues are to be congratulated on setting up an ECHA2014 Forum: http://t.co/xrEYxThg – open registration

Smart Kids, Bad Schools – A Norwegian perspective (courtesy of Krumelurebloggen): http://t.co/rCW9BjOS

Irish Times piece on How to Make a Modern Superhero – mentions CTYI: http://t.co/TbYkTu2R

The autobiography of a gifted counsellor with Romania’s IRSCA Gifted Education Programme: http://t.co/VgtfZWvk

TES reports on a Finnish teacher’s book alleging that gifted students’ needs are neglected there: http://t.co/SV4YjUWO

Description of UYEF, the ‘Federation of Gifted Children Education’ in Turkey: http://t.co/OPJ2TWBK

Article about the Enderun, an Ottoman school for the gifted (15th to 19th century): http://t.co/sTfL4pJ9

CTYI students report on the CTYI experience: http://t.co/OGP0oas8

Gifted education in Malta: http://t.co/okgTU6aq

Los ninos de alta capacidad son el 3-5% de la poblacion? http://t.co/Xg2Cp8IR

Aqui­ esta la nueva entrada. Espero que is interese http://t.co/uBuRsMq9

Aqui­ estan las 10 claves para hablar de la identificacion. Saludos http://t.co/uBuRsMq9

Sobre la identificacion de los mes capaces http://t.co/GF9X4zCb

Cuantos alumnos de Alta Capacidad hay en Espana? Unas cifras para la reflexion http://t.co/Sf1kUf2e via @jtoufi

http://t.co/uBuRsMq9  rendimiento en PISA y talento.

Una Vision Grafica Del Rendimiento en PISA 2003, 2006 y 2009 (from @jtoufi ): http://t.co/GF9X4zCb

National Report on Identification. oy si aprendemos de los demos? http://t.co/fLjaPWwy

La excelencia nacional. Un informe interesante. http://t.co/GF9X4zCb

Los instrumentos de medida en la identificacion http://t.co/fykpeKKl

.

.

UK

 

Gifted

Sutton Trust report on educating highly able pupils-but does it cut the mustard? http://t.co/Rb9wL8f1

Ian Warwick’s dissects Sutton Trust Highly Able Report: http://t.co/BdwoMjPB  - Been there, done that already: http://t.co/bBOSb8u4

Summary of Sutton Trust Highly Able research: http://t.co/EjXrx8OA – rather spoiled by an inaccurate commentary at the end

@EducationElf I fear there is bias and misinformation in your commentary on Sutton Trust Highly Able research: http://t.co/EjXrx8OA

Apropos the IMO, here are the UK results from the 2012 Olympiad, because they won’t get reported here: http://t.co/OZwChlv1

Good luck to Team UK, heading to Germany to compete in the International Geography Olympiad! http://t.co/esR05CZQ

Arts Council PN confirming Sadlers Wells will run the new National Youth Dance Company for 16-19 year-olds: http://t.co/NfJoA4Fl

LSU gifted education professor addressing Oxford Round Table event on Talent Development of Olympic Athlete: http://t.co/Ga3HcEpL

Indy Leader uses the G word of sportspeople with zero embarrassment: http://t.co/5pqehjVr – Linguistic discrimination

Martin Stephen pleads for the Olympic investment to be extended to our academically gifted learners too: http://t.co/Kl1IBo6t

Meanwhile the Mail produces its annual ‘zoo exhibit’ story about a gifted child http://t.co/aS95k9aD So predictable; so depressing

Does the British culture celebrate mediocrity and penalise success? http://t.co/yPqngvU0 Gifted education is part of the solution

Evidence of the huge variation in schools’ capability to support their highest attainers: http://t.co/A1jdAwkB

Article summarising Mujis research on the relative success of sixth form colleges in securing top A level grades: http://t.co/w056sNdu

UCAS Chief floats 1-10 A level grading with 9 and 10 pitched above A* to raise ceiling for gifted learners: http://t.co/He4rVZi8

Gifted learners need flexibility within curriculum frameworks that tie learning to specific year groups: http://t.co/wgFaexIj

Inter alia IFS notes case for action to narrow the excellence gap between poor and other gifted learners http://t.co/j4bSsx8r

New IPPR Report on Closing the Attainment Gap http://t.co/rI8BOu1o Notices the gap at top grades p16, but doesn’t really address it

Feedback link on DfE’s Dux awards page contains no feedback; Schools Network link’s moribund; no link yet to GT Voice: http://t.co/IKNmuyaj

Milburn’s Report lays into the Dux Scheme: http://t.co/D7ztHKkv (p 38) – that won’t please DfE

Of course independent heads will support Open Access if Government pays: http://t.co/ffTyLoTn But it’s politically rash and too expensive

Lampl’s still pushing open access http://t.co/bRpLxDXi – His other suggestion on fair access to grammar schools is more of a runner

Lampl wants Government to stump up 100s of £m to denude state schools of their most able pupils. Idiotic: http://t.co/JrBhQeOT

Apply between 7 and 30 September to be a Specialist Leader of Education with expertise in highly able pupils: http://t.co/RdzTa3wE

How seriously does England take education of its most able? http://t.co/E1GwyI2H  On PISA high achiever data (my analysis included)

Farewell then Mike Baker, a friend of gifted education: http://t.co/fEwakud2

Ian Warwick on KS2 Level 6ness: http://t.co/BlY8d1IP – Level 6 is of course slated to disappear by September 2014

More from Ian Warwick on ‘level 6ness’: http://t.co/pgCy3RCZ – a concept with a very limited shelf-life

Moynihan says Government sports strategy fails to support talent identification or progression to elite sport: http://t.co/TWjKyxB3

Need to see detail of London Mayoral Gold Club of schools ‘to stretch the brightest pupils’ http://t.co/PVGgev7K – what will it do?

Wall to Wall is preparing a Child Genius Show: http://t.co/Uh1C9H4G

Why Do We Underestimate Our Most Able Pupils? http://t.co/Cq7Xx9AQ  - Agree in spades with the final section!

Lampl still flogging his Open Access dead horse: http://t.co/tX65DBCB  - Only a crazy or desperate party would add it to their 2015 Manifesto

Richard Garner in the Independent supports Lampl’s Open Access scheme http://t.co/5Myxjp4h Government and Opposition more sensible!

Oral PQ reply on steps taken by Government to improve attainment of most able pupils in maths: http://t.co/jFpL8XjG (Col 14)

Truss’s argument for investment in intellectual capital goes beyond STEM: it’s the case for gifted education: http://t.co/2FIP17Kq

Truss maths speech also cites lack of gifted young mathematicians http://t.co/YtdCmJIa Concerted strategy is needed to change that

It’s a small victory that this DfE press notice cites the disparity in high attainers’ PISA outcomes in maths: http://t.co/BPyuX1jI

Arts Council is to pilot a Music Industry Talent Development Fund: http://t.co/aMue55Sc

Gender imbalance revealed in Cambridge Chemistry Challenge: http://t.co/UNja0acT

UK’s It’s Alright to be Bright Week is scheduled for 20-27 October 2012, details to follow: http://t.co/S656NwBC

On Giftedness and ‘It’s alright to be Bright!’- The UK celebrates a 2012 Gifted Awareness Week!- http://t.co/qRKb8rbZ

It’s Alright to Be Bright Week is well underway: http://t.co/I4UasSVh

I kid you not, GT Voice Board member Jonny Ball is to be a contestant on Strictly Come Dancing: http://t.co/7QKXFoFu

Apart from me all this lot still serve: http://t.co/sOF6Qq98 – The item on my resignation has vanished – must repost

GTVoice Bulletin for October 2012: http://t.co/xQbXeLNi

Take the gtvoice survey: http://t.co/JkPigkRo

I see Warwick University/IGGY’s offering scholarships for 2 gifted education PhDs http://t.co/EZC1NjdB (but they’re still in my bad books)

IGGY revitalisation press notice: http://t.co/qnzpt6yN – Targets to ‘reach’ 15K students in 1 year; 50K in 3 years (ie not members)

@iggywarwick: The beta version of our new website http://t.co/4hpLgL6c  Let us know what you think! http://t.co/JNAgVZEa

IGGY’s not new, dating from 2007. Useful resource, but won’t alone secure quality gifted education in schools http://t.co/bH3xUYHr

Jimmy Saville’s MENSA membership is quietly expunged. Compare 2010 FAQ: http://t.co/tUWw5hau with new version: http://t.co/dmbzK8bm

I don’t want to labour the Savile/Mensa connection, but someone shelled out £160 for his Mensa scarf and tie: http://t.co/aANCycxA

.

.

Related Issues

More on Cambridge and contextualised admission: http://t.co/7HnOau6s – Does it all boil down to confusion between ability and attainment?

Apparently a 5.3% rise in state school admissions to Cambridge, but I can’t find the source: http://t.co/1Go2jZsP

Peter Wilby suggests imposing a version of the Texas 10% model on Oxbridge: http://t.co/RlJB28Je Right principles but details awry

Do you ever read a newspaper story and think ‘I told you so’: http://t.co/OEngyBkx – impact of stalling A level grades on AAB grade HE entry

More evidence that AAB recruitment didn’t work out exactly as it should have done for many selective universities: http://t.co/acqnH8jT

Higher report says A level students with AAB grades were projected to increase by 4000 but numbers stayed unchanged: http://t.co/MYZgpbMC

Statistically I’m unclear why a bigger cohort increases A level pass rate but reduces proportion of top grades http://t.co/k83x6xUq

Here comes the ABacc: http://t.co/l236LDG2 – basically ‘gold standard’ A level with choice limited, plus academic/service learning bolt-ons

KS5 performance tables already have A level AAB+, RG/Oxbridge destination indicator from 2013 – now ABacc measure too? http://t.co/zl6Wzman

Interesting Ofqual research on comparative A level stretch and challenge: http://t.co/QrAN2APV – though definition’s a tad basic

Cambridge’s post-16 maths project: http://t.co/jzBlGBE0 – is actually £2.8m to strengthen NRich so nothing to do with A level reform

Why We Need Olympic-style Maths Academies: http://t.co/XajJQJID Forgets there’s funding for a tranche of 16-19 maths free schools

TES reports results of AQA further maths certificate offering A* with distinction: http://t.co/p4V5o4wM  - see http://t.co/pGmhGExN

It won’t be straightforward to add top-end stretch and simultaneously eliminate tiering from a single son-of-GCSE exam: http://t.co/ZwTCG5r2

Son of GCSE to be graded with 1-6 (7 a fail) with 5-10% limit on grade 1 (norm or criterion-referenced unclear): http://t.co/mqzvkYUo

If only the percentage achieving the top EBC grade is fixed that discriminates unfairly against high attainers http://t.co/hEbrqA7y

The brakes will be applied to GCSE results as well as A levels: http://t.co/T1SLC6BW Disproportionate impact on top grades again?

Thankful for small mercies? It seems that O level mark 2 will be takeable in Spring 2016 after one year of study http://t.co/KU5gXx64

EBC consultation document shows early entry in core subjects will be impossible in 2016 after all (para 1.4): http://t.co/AoLudQud

Blistering attack on EBC proposals, including idea of a cap on percentage achieving top (all?) grades: http://t.co/P6hXa735

Irresponsible early entry reporting http://t.co/XYmItsX3 – Can be right for gifted learners but only those secure in A*/A should be entered

Wilshaw’s comments on early entry to GCSE pre-empt a report to be published shortly. Ofsted press notice at: http://t.co/YqxQcuXs

The Mail and Smithers should temper their enthusiasm for GS until they see FSM pupils’ HE destinations data next year http://t.co/F9xDgwpj

Answer to the question of how to make grammar schools more socially inclusive isn’t necessarily more grammar schools: http://t.co/fyXQS5HB

Doubt Brady will ever get new 11+ grammars into a Tory Manifesto, but that doesn’t stop him endlessly trying: http://t.co/hO0a14BS

Graham Brady is in broken record mode about grammar schools – has nothing new to say: http://t.co/JnRzpcbn

Redwood on selection: http://t.co/1OE4xEf9  - Presumably Brady and Daley contributions come later

Kent is looking for a ‘less coachable’ 11 plus test: http://t.co/VC4bnKjV – but less coachable is still coachable. Half measures.

Why would you set up a determinedly mixed ability free school and still select 10% of pupils by aptitude? Contradictory http://t.co/RNQG636c

Ministerial statement on the Olympic sporting legacy: http://t.co/3pqvtuh3 (Col 36WS): a bit thin on school PE where ‘more needs to be done’

Nrich has had a makeover: http://t.co/e2QGVXXC

Sutton Trust press notice accompanying the report of their recent Social Mobility Summit: http://t.co/wDUTIkEA

Hodgson and Spours on ‘squeezed middle’ in the attainment spectrum: http://t.co/p71d3MKA – Is Government overly focused on top 30%?

Barber IPPR essay fails to recognise how Asian Tiger gifted programmes help drive achievement AND innovation http://t.co/CP2J2okE

.

Data

330 of 2164 schools and colleges sent no pupils to RG universities in 2009/10; 1395 sent none to Oxbridge: http://t.co/qSHDv7A5

Slight increase in Cambridge applications; slight fall in Oxford applications – doesn’t tell us much: http://t.co/cWz1Okd0

Percentage of students achieving 3+ A levels at A*/A fell from 13.1% to 12.5% (Table 1b): http://t.co/qXg6ZqOx

In 2011/12, 33,154 students gained 3+ A*/A grades at A level: http://t.co/KeY5wJQ9  (Col 200W)

Overall UK GCSE results: A* grades down 0.5% on 2011; A*/A grades down 0.8% on 2011; A*-C grades down 0.4% on 2011: http://t.co/XDdGuuk3

Percentage of pupils making 3 levels of progress from KS2-4 increased by 3.7% in maths but decreased by 4.2% in English http://t.co/8AEXdiXR

23.3% of pupils achieving KS2 L5 in English failed to make 3 levels of progress by KS4: http://t.co/8AEXdiXR (Table 1d)

20.4% of pupils achieving KS2 L5 in maths failed to make 3 levels of progress by KS4: http://t.co/8AEXdiXR (Table 1d)

23.3% of pupils achieving KS2 L5 in English failed to make 3 levels of progress by KS4: http://t.co/8AEXdiXR (Table 1d)

2012 Performance Tables to show AAB A level grades but not KS2 L6 results (but L6 counts in progress measures) http://t.co/TUB6urT1

KS2 SFR shows that in 2012 11% of those achieving L3 in KS1maths managed only 1 level  level of progress to L4 http://t.co/fppoISG7

But KS2 SFR also shows that 14% of those achieving L3 in KS1 maths achieved L6 at KS2: http://t.co/fppoISG7

KS2 SFR shows that in 2012, 16% of those achieving L3 in KS1 English managed only one level of progress to L4: http://t.co/fppoISG7

KS2 SFR shows that around 900 pupils achieved L6 in reading and  3% achieved L6 in maths: http://t.co/fppoISG7

KS2 SFR shows L5 maths up from 35% to 39% in 2012, a significant increase on the previous 3 years: http://t.co/fppoISG7

KS2 SFR shows L5 reading up from 43% to 48%, restoring most of a big 7% dip in 2011: http://t.co/fppoISG7

KS1 SFR shows much bigger FSM gaps at L3 than at L2 across all of reading, writing, maths and science: http://t.co/mj12UyEs

KS1 SFR shows 1% increases in L3 TA in Reading, writing, S&L, science and 2% increase in L3 TA in maths http://t.co/mj12UyEs

.

.

Thematic

 

Twice-exceptional

Great blogpost on being twice-exceptional: http://t.co/DV3XKAG4 – Required reading for a certain Ms Teather I would suggest

Twice Exceptional Newsletter 26 July 2012: http://t.co/IC6G0x4B

Twice Exceptional Newsletter 13 August 2012: http://t.co/ydAcFZk8

Twice-exceptional Newsletter 4 September 2012: http://t.co/t0KTlqph

.

Creativity and Innovation

The tension between schooling and creativity from a gifted perspective: http://t.co/9X25V1eE

How lucid dreaming can support creativity and innovation: http://t.co/1AG3vaWd

10 Suggestions for Raising Creative Kids: http://t.co/QX1AqiBK – I would personally omit number 6!

Identifying the Creative Child in the Classroom: http://t.co/myP7h9AJ

Informative extended article on creativity (especially musical creativity) and the brain: http://t.co/CUfBuF4k

Creativity and Chaos: http://t.co/f7ka1AYv

Does social rejection fuel creativity? http://t.co/gkyUGTlt – Low need for conformity; high need for uniqueness. Recognise that profile!

Interesting article on the components of creativity: http://t.co/O6AgExJK

Creativity and IQ – what is divergent thinking and how is it helped by sleep, humour and alcohol:  http://t.co/7EAconiR

Another version of the constituents of creativity: http://t.co/sbvXVy0p

Maybe Gifted Underachievers are More Creative: http://t.co/qJzXycjT

Grounding Creative Giftedness in the Body, from @sbkaufman http://t.co/Y5k27xeZ

.

Intelligence and Neuroscience

How do cognitive abilities change over the lifespan? Number sense as an exemplar: http://t.co/wnTy8mwG

Short Time article on recent ‘genes for learning’ studies: http://t.co/K6OEJRQj

The (limited) contribution of brain imaging to distinguishing intelligence: http://t.co/vfEJMTde

Intensive practice in reasoning skills can change the brain http://t.co/5Uj3TY5T – Does tuition have a value beyond mere rehearsal?

On whether neuroscience supports free will or determinism: http://t.co/2JU2L6Fw  (warning: you may need to read this 7 times)

How early social deprivation impairs long-term cognitive function: http://t.co/pbjyr0t4

Are great leaders born or made? Do they need intelligence and creativity? http://t.co/mCH5zTJz

Evidence that adult brain structure changes as a consequence of learning: http://t.co/h57SGZoZ

Cogmed working memory training: does the evidence support the claims? http://t.co/jS0unaTN

The relationship between genes and intelligence is still far from understood:  http://t.co/tv34E1mJ

Another piece on the relationship between genes and intelligence: http://t.co/2LcHLeH7

More from Willingham on working memory training: http://t.co/YnUJBaYh

The prevalence of ‘neuromyths’ amongst UK and Dutch teachers: http://t.co/9pV4gg3i

Why social and mechanical reasoning are mutually inhibiting: http://t.co/BTWpyJdf

Perfect Saturday reading – an academic paper about Einstein’s brain: http://t.co/vbdaEo2t

.

.

Commentary

 

Gifted Research

Seeking participants for research on gifted kids and their hobbies http://t.co/53iW6v3V

The impact of genes on athletic performance: http://t.co/YbcosXHk – a brief review of research evidence

Algebra for All Harmed High Achievers, Study Finds: http://t.co/3eT9W738

Working paper on Conscientiousness, Education and Longevity of High Ability Individuals by Peter Savelyev: http://t.co/mCdPGByA

The value of deliberate practice (as opposed to practice per se) in achieving (musical) excellence: http://t.co/oweOCtQU

The impact of self-regulated learning (from Ericcson’s expert performance perspective): http://t.co/9WSZ3Qvq (via @sbkaufman)

Top Maths Achievers Spread Unevenly Across Schools – Ed Week report on a (£) academic paper: http://t.co/S1Iy8rey

Review of a recent French book by Lignier – A Sociology of Gifted Children: http://t.co/F2YVy9mT

Gifted and Talented International edition with Persson’s article on cultural bias in research and responses: http://t.co/QjatxTKs

@JonathanLWai on a (£) Gifted Child Quarterly edition devoted to responses to that Subotnik et al article: http://bit.ly/U3J0my

You can access Subotnik’s target article free but these Gifted Child Quarterly responses are sadly $20 a time: http://t.co/2WFgNfZn

The Entire “Rethinking Giftedness” Debate http://t.co/QMQ27Hdg – from Gifted Child Quarterly

Thanks to @sbkaufman for publishing the full Gifted Child Quarterly edition on Subotnik et al’s paper: http://t.co/zrtloocW

A critical Koshy paper on English primary gifted education which, on a quick skim, is very curate’s eggy: http://t.co/fQBWkoCY

.

Academic/Gifted Education

A gender dimension to the Flynn effect? Mr F promotes his new book: http://t.co/KdgCfwkd

Interview with James Flynn: http://t.co/OMHQMBbN and his article in Wall St Journal: http://t.co/Q20gscL4

An interview with June Maker, speaking at the Asia-Pacific Conference: http://t.co/TxNvZ0g9

The concept of Optimum Intelligence – and what happens when you’re outside those boundaries: http://t.co/Z1PUBn8Q

Some complex thinking aloud about distinctions between high IQ and genius: http://t.co/PV7GQoDT – don’t think it’s that simple!

An interview with @sbkaufman http://t.co/rWldQ6vr

A restatement of the nature/nurture balance in development of genius: http://t.co/GH6YD8tb

If expertise has such limitations does that undermine gifted education theories predicated on its development? http://t.co/9LJNKhUn

The changing nature of expertise: http://t.co/n6l2gVq7 – has implications for expertise-in-development models of gifted education

Feature on Olympic talent development based on work by Rita Culross at LSU: http://t.co/2IxTXFJ8

CTD at Northwestern on flipped classrooms: http://t.co/FEWMrPvt

Belin Blank’s Colangelo on high attaining learners’ progression to teaching as a career: http://t.co/UVnAlyqO

Part 5 of Belle Wallace’s gifted blog http://t.co/1WB9V5Wa on developing a problem-solving pedagogy

Final Belle Wallace article in series of 6, on ‘Whole Brain Based Learning’: http://t.co/JGwvKOaa – not sure this one quite works

Nine ‘research-supported facts’ about gifted education: http://t.co/70jri2Bk – some are contestable though…

The relative impacts of harmonious and obsessive passion on performance:  http://t.co/H12USG0r

The relationship between ability and motivation: http://t.co/EyWYQXao

Learners need  knowledge as well as resilience. More commentary on Tough’s book:  http://t.co/i9JCnVvY

A bit more follow-up on the Paul Tough book: http://t.co/ElADKgai

Hirsch on Tough: http://t.co/lZugEyYm

Even more ‘true grit’ (and its impact on student achievement): http://t.co/bS3MWNqj

I thoroughly commend this blog post about a gifted driven model of teaching and learning by @headguruteacher http://t.co/XCWdhevw

Interesting post incorporating Sternberg presentation on assessing creativity, common sense and wisdom http://t.co/aLFW0OKU

Review of Finn and Hockett’s ‘Exam Schools’ and the merits of balancing excellence and equity: http://t.co/aZlLM55p

Another review of the Exam Schools book: http://t.co/E53Aq1t2

From the Curry School of Education Blog http://t.co/XbHBTPFO – I share this perspective on social and emotional needs

Camilla Benbow gifted education article: http://t.co/CpU0Yb0H  (I reckon she has the best name in gifted ed btw)

The Pesky Persistence of Labels from @sbkaufman http://t.co/5nRZw8p7

Duke TIP blogpost on academic self-concept: http://t.co/1eCIYdQZ

Q. What can we learn from international best practice in gifted education?: http://t.co/gH8AgGmx – A. Much from careful scrutiny

Paula O-K takes a sensible middle way on social and emotional dimensions of giftedness: http://t.co/MROc1nbV

Links between child prodigies and autism (summary): http://t.co/5PRzWZOp

Impact of openness to experience on cognitive ability: http://t.co/Mg3ugopU

In which Brink Lindsay, author of Human Capitalism fails to take on board the Smart Fraction argument: http://t.co/ufovMYQh

Everything you ever needed to know about prodigiousness (and more): http://t.co/IQlXF47C

Restatement of an old question – do objective standards (of excellence) exist in the arts? http://t.co/9JZdlR9R

Long Subotnik et al article in Scientific American: http://t.co/VknsTjlE – the eminence trajectory remains the weak link

10 Lessons on Gifted Education – Part 1 (by @RichardCash) http://t.co/ORaK4ipj

Valentine Cawley argues that gifted people suffer as a consequence of the Dunning-Kruger effect: http://t.co/fbhTBPuE

The arguments for and against detracking: http://t.co/QHP6yijS

WCGTC 2013 Conference post on highly proficient readers: http://t.co/oCoJOVge

World Conference 2013 blog on Technology: http://t.co/kEvlThf9 – High time for gifted educators to enter the 21^st Century

@ByrdseedGifted proffers an example of a ‘fuzzy problem’ for gifted learners: http://t.co/MsHdNW3O

How black gifted students are ‘living between two races’: http://t.co/sf0WRCma

Catching up: Mainstreaming effective gifted education practices: http://t.co/hDsLvfWy

More ways to use Twitter in gifted education: http://t.co/afX0KVVt

.

.

Advocacy/Parents/General Interest

Nicole Kidman – a Brief Profile of High Ability and Complexity: http://t.co/luR2Obye

Are we doing enough to support the parents of gifted children? http://t.co/tXdR6v2L

More valuable advice about parenting a gifted child: http://t.co/jJSO4lWF

Everyday Glimpses of Giftedness: http://t.co/4NYZvtjJ

Catching up: ‘why is my gifted child so anxious all the time’: http://t.co/SBmrBJ9q  (causation/correlation health warning)

Catching up: a blog post on gifted labelling: http://t.co/25srnzz2

What should we do about gifted and talented pupils? Do they exist? New blog post http://t.co/f2PH2KlV

Catching up: The Smartest 1%: Do Americans Value Intelligence? http://t.co/KJ2E2uFT

Catching up: Advocacy Groups for Parents of Gifted Learners: http://t.co/Xe7vI0uM

50 Essential Links for the Parents of Gifted Children http://t.co/qYbwywDQ  Has transformed the very English Gifted Phoenix to Kiwi! (no 28)

Catching up: Gas station without pumps cocks a snook at National Parenting Gifted Children Week: http://t.co/jFyzDj8H

Catching up: A post about Raising Gifted Children: http://t.co/UgO6X1px

Pondering the Olympics from a gifted perspective: http://t.co/gjqoY7Ju

Why Gifted Teens Should be Sponges Not Spongers: http://t.co/fkJs8OzA

Wouldn’t it be Weirder if I Didn’t Think my Child was Gifted? http://t.co/9B8RJxXt

Blog post on The Value of Exclusive Gifted Programmes: http://t.co/WnWwUZMa

Why Are All the Smart Kids Cheating (an inaccurate headline but worth reading anyway): http://t.co/NfDv3xSI

US comparison of academic v sporting success http://t.co/3VklrysO Raises big questions about support for elite academic performance

A comparison of gifted education and varsity athletics: http://t.co/VvYYGlvJ

All kinds of smart: applying lessons from the Olympics: http://t.co/s2qMDAqD

Online education for gifted homeschoolers: http://t.co/b7hTAtDl

Sibling rivalry: Blog post – Life Among the Gifted http://t.co/JfaHvwzH

The Talent Myth: http://t.co/Urge1dRY

Ideas on the causes of negativity towards gifted learners and gifted education: http://t.co/drOdK46l

Insights into gifted adults in the workplace: http://t.co/YEfeHhzc

Raising the floor but neglecting the ceiling: http://t.co/pijN8Uxm

Daniel Coyle offers some tips on talent development: http://t.co/bGgTFflV

Courtesy of @sbkaufman the correlation between national chocolate consumption and number of nobel prizewinners http://t.co/bpSqDj26

Bullying and the Gifted: http://t.co/orQ9u1NI

An article advocating IQ testing of gifted children: http://t.co/sGMUVej9

A contrary view about the value of IQ testing: http://t.co/937DaaZz

Strategies for helping gifted children back to school: http://t.co/pWYGOuFj

How does one discuss giftedness with a gifted learner? http://t.co/Q9G8biTR

New post on Gifted Resources blog: virtually attending the ECHA conference http://t.co/y3deJaBx

Can’t find a school for your gifted child? Start your own: http://t.co/qjnmAq3V

Grades and gifted learners http://t.co/dNkL5IYq

Young gifted and neglected: http://t.co/Jq7T7Y3s

Gifted Exchange on tuition for tests giving entry to gifted education programmes: http://t.co/eWxP6bwz – a can of worms

Do teenage gifted writers have sufficient opportunity to engage their imagination in school? http://t.co/BUGs3Zaw

From the editor of Concord Review: why are we afraid to show off our brightest students? http://t.co/mVtPpSVs

Withholding appropriate education from a gifted child is educational neglect: http://t.co/DM46Nk3I

Against Accelerating the Gifted Child: http://t.co/ukeFoHjE

In which I respond to nearly 200 @NYTMotherlode comments re: acceleration in gifted education: http://t.co/7tsZMXOC

The advantages of acceleration: http://t.co/YnTxIWby

Inductive learning for gifted students: http://t.co/9NSFa5lo

Things I’ve Learned About Parenting a Gifted Child: http://t.co/9kItBqk6

The Highly Distracted Gifted Child: http://t.co/tJ5uCmmL

A Prezi on Talent Identification and Development in Sport: http://t.co/LPPeSiTM

Universal Traits of Giftedness – http://t.co/PuabDj08 – there are of course no such thing!

Leave gifted children alone: http://t.co/jdkosnI9 – I think he actually opposes hothousing rather than support

The 2 worst words in gifted education, parts 1 – http://t.co/Ff1uRgvE – and 2 – http://t.co/ATgIsMNP

How to Recognise the Parent of a Gifted Child: http://t.co/lQOiBtMu

Stacie says ‘Shut up about what a burden your gifted child is’: http://t.co/nh3ROl4z

Holding back gifted learners: http://t.co/H9WF2dOp

Differentiating between gifted and high-achieving students: http://t.co/cDC1zqLt  - Better imho to treat latter as subset of former

Is there an emotional intelligence equivalent of the Flynn Effect? http://t.co/YoqGLGRZ

Ten myths about gifted students and programmes for the gifted: http://t.co/7kcsCnwK

New post at GPS, “Just My Imagination” http://t.co/p6H7yNtM

New post at Gifted Parenting Support, “Accentuate the Positive” http://t.co/3Ss5n4es

New post at GPS, “Supporting Your Child’s Gifted Teacher”: http://t.co/E1DGB6bQ

New post @GPS, “What to Expect When You’re Expecting? The Unexpected” http://t.co/bs6kcZlT

New post on GPS, “Nurturing the Global Nature of Giftedness” http://t.co/vfdTPCdG

Check out our latest gtchat blog post on the ECHA12 Symposium @ http://t.co/LKBmKPb  - Thanks Lisa!

‘Is there a place at table for parents’? from Gifted Parenting Support: http://t.co/k3BRejik

New Gifted Parenting Support post from @ljconrad  on standardisation: http://t.co/qkzY5jl0

New post on our #gtchat Blog, “The Middle School Years” http://t.co/57ShDvgQ

Gifted Resources Blog post about #gtchat http://t.co/ZltPzmn8

Couldn’t make #gtchat this week? Check out our blog http://t.co/foD28LZK  for  summary & links!

Missed Friday’s #gtchat ? ‘Collaboration, Not Confrontation” Transcripts: http://t.co/7D59mVzX

Giftedness as a Special Educational Need, chat transcript: http://t.co/6PQzNIvf

Transcripts of the last 2 #gtchats with guests van Gemert and Housand respectively: http://t.co/yMqrYKLK and http://t.co/JMnH7APa

Transcript of yesterday’s #gtie chat on gifted education research: http://t.co/W7vSN760 – Thanks so much for referencing my blog!

Transcript from tonight’s chat, Essential Websites on Giftedness: http://t.co/uzo2LnKv  (and thanks for the reference)

Transcript of When Parents Push Too Hard http://t.co/qWjlA1vp

Some #IWG2012 blog posts: http://t.co/lslp0Vit and http://t.co/guDjMaHl and http://t.co/MlTlsMrG and http://t.co/gnbPQdUQ

Another selection of #IWG12 posts: http://t.co/s3z8eQr0 and http://t.co/1HyQRqv0  and http://t.co/nxuWzig8 and http://t.co/ZMzdTFnj

A 3rd selection of #IWG12 blogposts http://t.co/SGOZxObH and http://t.co/VGtin47J  and http://t.co/tpZhSIK5 and http://t.co/u3pyQV06

A further selection of #IWG12 blog posts: http://t.co/i1kbTtmj and http://t.co/P60LsE8b and http://t.co/ugcazW7X

A 5th set of #IWG12 blog posts: http://t.co/7wxSCvYq and http://t.co/md5j47qP and http://t.co/NF92bLmg and http://t.co/pG7WUhnB

Today’s selection of #IWG12 posts: http://t.co/t58m6R7B and http://t.co/axRCfVez  and http://t.co/ngfLNrX6 and http://t.co/Va7TQwIM

Couldn’t fit these #IWG12 posts into the last round-up: http://t.co/0I0oXjBl and http://t.co/rW1Uwq3s

Sunday’s batch of #IWG12 posts: http://t.co/aomQTAdk and http://t.co/W4uYfLPz and http://t.co/vK93dzz1 and http://t.co/aKOlczny

….and one last one: http://t.co/L6LPL42w

A final (?) #IWG12 post: http://t.co/cBCqzdYJ and one that perhaps should have been: http://t.co/ycAp6g9M

.

GP

November 2012

Gifted Education in Israel: Part Three

.

This is the final part of a full-scale review of Israeli gifted education.

.

• Part One provided background on Israel and its education system before charting the development of Israeli gifted education up to 2006 or thereabouts.

• Part Two considered how Israeli gifted education has developed over the last five years and its condition today.

Part Three takes a closer look at some specific initiatives and institutions that play a prominent role in the Israeli national programme as it is now.

It begins by describing Amirim (which featured towards the end of Part Two), moving on to look at mostly university-led courses in maths and science.

It also reviews a handful of important services supporting disadvantaged gifted learners and a couple of unique Israeli programmes that are not strictly domestic gifted education, but are closely related to it.

There is a substantive section devoted to the activities of the Israel Center for Excellence in Education, including the Israel Arts and Science Academy, which falls under its control.

This is followed by an overview of other specialist schools and organisations and various providers of professional support.

Finally, I offer a personal assessment of the impact of the full panoply of Israeli provision.

.

Amirim

Amirim is based on Renzulli’s Enrichment Triad Model. The programme covers primary, lower and upper secondary schools, exposing learners to content not found in the normal school curriculum.

The aims are to:

• Support excellence in schools, teachers and learners;

• Develop an ethos and culture that supports the achievement of excellence;

• Increase educators’ capacity to develop excellence in learners; and

• Develop activities that enable learners and educators to set and achieve targets for excellence.

Each district is advised how many schools can participate in the programme, but the schools are selected locally. Each school appoints a co-ordinator and teachers to participate. The teachers undertake a training programme.

The Amirim ICT project may be what is described by another source. If so, this is led by the Centre for Technology Education and Cultural Diversity (TEC). The Division for Gifted Students jointly funds the project with the Kibbutzim College of Education Technology and the Arts.

Around 100 learners from Grades 5 and 6 are involved, drawn from nine schools around the country, including Jews, Arabs and Druze. They communicate through a social network and work in multicultural teams. A face-to-face conference is held for all participants at the end of the project.

.

Programmes for Gifted Learners in Maths and Science

There are many different providers of programmes for students gifted in maths and science, several being accelerative programmes offered by universities.

.

Tel Aviv University

There is a brief English language description of the maths provision at Tel Aviv University dating from 2008, while the Hebrew web page is here.

A set of Acceleration Programmes in Mathematics (APM) began as early as 1970. Pupils aged 13-15 were selected for participation by their teachers. Many of the participants completed an undergraduate degree, some even a postgraduate degree, by the age of 18.

In 1987 the University began to offer a course for 12-17 year-olds called ‘Mathematics for Excellent Students’ with two parts, each taking four hours a week over a single semester. Students completing both parts were entitled to begin the first year undergraduate course at the University.

Tel Aviv University also hosts a Dov Lautman Unit for Science Oriented Youth established in the School of Education in 1981, which has an ambitious programme of activities relatively little of which is described in English. At least one receives support from the EU.

.

Bar Ilan University

Bar Ilan offers an English language page about its support for gifted learners (the Hebrew site is here.).

It provides an enrichment course for learners in Grades 6 and 7:

‘intended for students who are interested in studying exciting, stimulating subjects in mathematics, most of which are not included in the regular study programme in schools; and also as preparation for the programme for youth gifted in mathematics.’

Participants attend the course for two hours a week in the afternoons, after school.

The gifted programme is for students in Grades 8-10 and has the following aims:

• Preparing students for the matriculation examination in maths at the end of the 10^th grade.

• Integrating 11^th and 12^th grade students Bar-Ilan’s undergraduate maths courses.

• Enabling students to complete their degree within 3 years, ending one year after the 12^th grade, requiring a year-long postponement of military service.

Participants attend a four-hour session weekly. The programme now runs at 20 different centres. Some 2,300 students were enrolled in 2006/07 (more recent data is not provided) and 60 teachers are involved.

Some 1,300 students completed the course as 10^th grade students ‘in the last five years’. An online article describes the experience of one participant.

This programme seems to be slightly different to another Bar-Ilan project, also described online, which is called ‘A Fostering Programme of “Doctoral Students for Math”’.

This has as its objective the development of:

‘leadership in math among youth in development towns and suburbs who excel in their high school studies by accelerating them toward their university studies in the sciences and mathematics.’

Participants are selected in Grade 7 and during Grades 8-10 they undertake 30 three-hour sessions a year based in special centres:

‘The programme provides several routes:

(a) Matriculation examination at the end of the tenth grade and continuation of studies at Bar-Ilan University;

(b) admission to Bar-Ilan University to continue studying maths with the matriculation in mathematics determined by the marks received in the two core courses at the university — “Linear Algebra” and “Infinitismal Arithmetic”;

(c) admission to Bar-Ilan University to continue study in maths with the matriculation exam coming during the 11th or 12th grade or

(d) return to school to take the maths matriculation exam at the end of the 11th year and continuing studies at Bar-Ilan in the 12th year.

‘Infinitismal Arithmetic’ is a one-year course comprising four hours of lectures and two hours of ‘drill’ weekly.

In the period between Grades 11 and 12, students can take a special concentrated five week course for four hours a day ‘Introduction to Grouping Theory and Analysis’” This is equivalent to a full year of study. They may then:

‘complete the baccalaureate degree in mathematics as a primary subject (24 annual hours of lecturing and 10 hours of drilling), meeting all the requirements in two years and, in some instances, even less time.’

.

Technion

At Technion, the Israel Institute of Technolgy, in Haifa, the Mathematics Department hosts the Noam Outstanding Youth Center which offers:

• A Maths Summer Camp for 20 outstanding students in Grades 9-12, selected on the basis of school recommendations and interviews. Participants are divided into four groups and study number theory and encryption.

• A summer workshop on ‘Games, Luck and Probability’ for learners in Grades 6-8 at lower secondary schools.

• The ‘Grossman Math Olympics’, a competition for students in Grades 10-12 as well as those undertaking military service. There are cash prizes and  tuition fee waivers for those who choose to take up a place at the Technion.

• A ‘Math Riddles Course’ which uses many questions posed in Maths Olympiads, open to adults with an interest as well as upper secondary and university students.

• ‘Math Circles’, a weekly after school enrichment class for lower and upper secondary students, run by Technion undergraduates and postgraduates.

• ‘From a High School to the Technion’, another programme allowing students in Grades 10-12 to study courses contributing to an undergraduate degree and to be admitted to the University on that basis.

Another international summer programme is run via World ORT which recently announced that it is launching a $35m ‘Anieres II World ORT Engineering/Technology Scholarship Programme for ten annual intakes of around 60 disadvantaged teenagers:

‘The students will enjoy a special residential programme for the final three years (four years in the case of those from overseas) at school, including extra-curricular studies at the internationally renowned Technion – Israel Institute of Technology and, if necessary, ulpan. Those who make the grade in final exams will study engineering at the Technion for four years with the added benefit that they will receive academic credits, which can be applied towards their degree, for all courses successfully completed in the high school component of the programme.’

I believe ‘ulpan’ is a Hebrew language-learning programme. The press release says $15m of the $35m cost has been supplied by a philanthropist and $18m by the Israeli Government. The remaining $2m is to be paid by students. It is not clear how disadvantaged learners will be able to find around $3,500 each.

.

Ben-Gurion University

The Ilan Ramon Youth Physics Center is based in the Physics Department of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and provides opportunities for about 8,000 learners in the southern part of Israel.

Established in 2007, it is administered as part of the wider Madarom Programme a partnership between the Ministry of Education and the Rashi Foundation. One aim is to support and develop gifted learners. There is a strong emphasis on astronomy – the centre is named after Israel’s first astronaut.

One element is designed to foster scientific leadership in astronomy and physics. Each year some 150 upper secondary students receive leadership training and training in science education. They subsequently serve as guides and counsellors for other activities undertaken by the Center. They meet regularly as a cohort throughout the school year.

Once ex-participants have completed their military service they qualify for academic scholarships and act as tutors to the next cadre of participants in the programme.

.

Weizmann Institute

The Weizmann Institute of Science has an educational arm, the Davidson Institute (so-called because it is supported by a $35m endowment from Bill Davidson.

This is not to be confused with the entirely separate Davidson Institute in the US, founded by Bob and Jan Davidson.)

Davidson provides a range of after-school courses in maths and science, some of them designated specifically for high achievers. Its ‘Science by Mail’ and ‘Math by Mail’ courses are available internationally and targeted at ‘talented and curious children in Grades 3-9’. Participants study four in-depth topics each year.

It also offers the annual Bessie Lawrence International Summer Science Institute (ISSI), a month-long programme for 70 highly-talented recent upper secondary school graduates, plus an annual safecracking tournament for teams of 17-18 year-olds who must build a safe that only they can open.

.

Haifa Sunrise courtesy of chaim zvi

.

Open University

It is also possible to take courses with the Israeli Open University while still at upper secondary school. These are courses originally designed for undergraduates and, unusually, are not confined to maths and science.

In principle at least, students can enter courses in maths, science and engineering, but also in the humanities ( Jewish studies, history, literature, linguistics, music, art history, cinema, philosophy) and the social sciences (political science and international relations, sociology, communication, education, psychology, economics, management and accounting).

Courses are offered at one of three levels:

• Open level – general introductory courses which may require prior knowledge obtained in upper secondary school;

• Standard level – subject-specific courses which build on open courses and

• Advanced level – comparable with third-year undergraduate courses at other universities. Some require preparation of a paper during or after the course.

Upper secondary students may undertake Open University study in normal classes alongside adult students. Others may be part of dedicated study groups or study centres where numbers are sufficient to permit this.

The website says that, while hundreds of upper secondary students undertake Open University courses, only a handful have completed an undergraduate degree, while a ‘few dozen’ have managed the first half of an undergraduate degree.

.

Programmes Supporting Disadvantaged Gifted Populations

Ariela Foundation – Maof and Star

The Ariela Foundation supports learners from the Ethiopian minority, of which there are some 120,000 resident in Israel, targeting:

• The top 20% of lower and upper secondary school students from Tel Aviv,Jaffa, Gedera and Ness Tziona through the Star Programme and

• Learners who demonstrate high ability in one or more fields through the Maof Assistance Programme, a ‘nationwide initiative to promote excellence amongst outstanding youngsters through ongoing personal mentoring and long term tailor made assistance’.

Participants may join the programme in primary school and continue until university. The support provided to each participant varies but might include: financial aid, a scholarship, tutoring, coaching and mentoring, access to after-school enrichment and guidance and counselling. All participants undertake voluntary work.

.

College for All

Despite its name, College for All runs centres:

‘Throughout Israel’s economically distressed areas for children who possess potential for individual and academic excellence. College for All aspires to nurture and promote excellence in children and youth with social, family and economic circumstances that would otherwise hamper their potential for success.’ 

College for All was established in 1999 and now supports 25 centres throughout the country and over 1,500 learners. It employs 500 or 600 undergraduate students (the sources differ on the number) who teach learners once a week, receiving a scholarship or academic credit in return. Fifty qualified teachers are also involved.

The College website claims that Israel experiences the widest social gap between rich and poor amongst developed western countries. There are over 800,000 children and young people living below the poverty line, of which 100,000 (so 12.5%) have ‘unbounded potential for excellence’. This target group seems to comprise those identified as high achievers at primary schools.

Learners with high potential benefit from:

‘A top quality, socially-minded curriculum over the course of 10 years – from 3^rd to 12^th grade - thus assisting them in reaching their full potential, broadening their horizons, developing their academic capabilities and deepening their social conscience.’

Every learner has access to 16 hours a week of tuition in maths, English, IT and verbal skills as well as homework support. The website mentions:

‘Special classes in mathematical theories; English and language skills; science and nature; study skills; creative writing; environmental studies and literacy, as well as creative extracurricular programmes including: comics; art; photography; music; theatre and personal and group empowerment activities.’

Participants also benefit from social and cultural enrichment activities and are expected to serve as volunteers within their local communities. From lower secondary school onwards there is a personalised approach designed to help each learner ‘overcome their personal obstacles and difficulties’. Undergraduates act as mentors and role models.

The website claims as evidence of success the fact that its ‘first class of graduates achieved a 97 point average on their high school matriculation exams’. Nothing is said of subsequent cohorts.

.

Two Unique Programmes

Although strictly speaking outside the scope of this post, I want to devote some attention to two fascinating initiatives that are closely linked to the national gifted education programme.

.

Talpiot

Talpiot is the Israeli armed forces’ talent development programme, launched in 1979.

Israeli students completing high school are required to serve in the Israel Defense Forces, typically for two years (women) or three years (men). The IDF tests all students in Grades 11-12 to inform decisions about placement.

Those who score in the top 5% are invited to undertake a programme that combines basic military training, officer training and completion of a degree. Applicants are sifted and up to 200 attend a final selection process overseen by former graduates.

According to Wikipedia, Talpiot cadets undertake a science degree in either physics and maths or computer science at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University. Academic study is interspersed with field training in different parts of the IDF. The total course takes three years and four months. Graduates are ranked first lieutenant and progress to specialist positions. They undertake six additional years of service.

The annual intake is said to be around 50 cadets, but this November 2011 report from IDF’s own website says that the current class of 40 graduates is the largest class in the programme’s history. A few women are successful.

An earlier Wall Street Journal story dating from 2007 describes the programme as ‘secretive’ – the journalist complains that officials would not describe the military elements of the programme – and its premiss is that Talpiot has ‘created an unforeseen by-product — a legion of entrepreneurs that has helped turn Israel into a technology juggernaut’.

Critics note that only a handful of participants have achieved senior rank in the IDF. Although in the early years, many remained in the armed forces or shifted to academic positions, that is no longer the case. One of the programme’s founders is quoted:

‘He doesn’t mind that graduates are getting wealthy, but says that if they aren’t working in the country, “Israeli money should not be invested in them.”’

But a Talpiot graduate poses the opposite argument:

‘Though most graduates aren’t involved in defending Israel, their role in the country’s economy is just as important to Israel’s survival. “What we are doing is generating new ideas and solutions,” he says. “That is very difficult to wipe out in a war.”’

.

NAALE Elite Academy

Another original programme is the NAALE Elite Academy, which supports Jewish young people from the diaspora to attend an Israeli upper secondary school.

Established in 1992, the programme has supported over 13,000 or over 20,000 participants since its inception (depending on the source).

It is funded by the Ministry of Education and the Jewish Agency for Israel – there is no charge for participants beyond the initial $500 registration fee. Students have all their living and Israeli travel expenses met, as well as the cost of flights to and from home at the beginning and end of the programme.

Participants attend Israeli upper secondary schools throughout Grades 10-12. Initial courses are taught in English, but teaching is conducted entirely in Hebrew by 11^th Grade. Some 20 hours a week are dedicated to learning Hebrew in Grade 10.

Participants can be placed in either secular or religious schools – 26 schools participate in the scheme. They board at their schools but are allocated a bilingual host family who offer ‘home-away-from-home hospitality during Sabbath and school holidays, and a warm and caring environment’.

In order to qualify, applicants must demonstrate academic ability and emotional maturity. They undertake a series of selection tests – in English, Hebrew and maths – as well as a psychological test. This is followed by a series of interviews. However, 60% of applicants are accepted.

Up to 30% decide to return to their countries at the end of Grade 10, but nearly all who complete Grade 11 continue into Grade 12. Some 90% of these achieve the Bagrut (they receive special dispensation for recently acquired Hebrew language skills).

Once students have completed the course, they can decide to stay in Israel. Some 85% of those completing the programme stay and transfer to university or undertake military service. Of the 15% who return home, over half return to Israel within a year.

This recent news article features NAALE.

.

Jerusalem Israel City Hall Complex courtesy of jaime silva

.

Israel Center for Excellence in Education

The Israel Center for Excellence in Education is a big player, providing a huge range of programmes and also the Arts and Science Academy.

Interestingly, one source describes the Center as ‘a staunch critic of the Education Ministry’, although it collaborates with it over the provision of many enrichment activities..

The Center describes its goal as:

‘To foster the concept of leadership, excellence and public responsibility throughout the entire educational community.

The Center for Excellence challenges bright and motivated students in every segment of Israel’s population.’

The website divides its work into five discrete areas:

• The Israel Arts and Science Academy (IASA) – which is described as its flagship programme and is outlined in the next section;

• National Programmes, which include Excellence 2000 (E2K) – already mentioned in Part Two.

• Professional Development

• Special Initiatives and

• International Activities

.

National Programmes

Within the suite of national programmes, five carry an Excellence 2000 imprimatur. The overview explains that the original programme was for lower secondary schools and was styled Mitchell Excellence 2000. Provision was extended to elementary schools via Skirball Excellence 2000 and subsequently to upper secondary schools via E2K High School. There are also E2K School-Wide and E2K City-Wide programmes.

Mitchell Excellence 2000 is the largest of these, described by the Center as:

‘The most comprehensive programme dealing with highly motivated and excelling students in the school system’.

From Grade 5 onwards, some 10,000 participating pupils in over 250 schools access enrichment classes focused on experimental sciences and mathematical thinking. They are taught by some 1,700 teachers who are trained through the Excellence Educators’ Institute (see below).

Skirball Excellence 2000 is designed for pupils in Grades 5-6 while the E2K High School is for Grades 10-11. Both were introduced in communities already served by the Mitchell Programme.

The School-Wide model is intended to: ‘enhance science skills and promote excellence throughout the entire grade level in selected schools’ so is not specifically a gifted programme. The City-Wide model is a community-wide extension of the whole school model. The website claims an extensive waiting list of cities waiting to join.

The website carries a 2006 evaluation by the Szold Institute which provides further insights into this family of initiatives.

It describes the overarching goals as:

‘(1) grooming excellence, encouraging creativity and educational leadership among students while providing equal opportunity to all segments of the population;

(2) grooming the student as a thinking, initiating and creating person;

(3) posing challenges to the students and encouraging depth and realisation of potential;

(4) providing the students with the tools for developing scientific and mathematical thought;

(5) enhancing student motivation to understand natural phenomenon [sic] through research and experiment;

(6) providing the students with professional tools and knowledge in the arts and encouraging and grooming self-expression;

(7) encouraging the student to strive for excellence and advance to higher academic levels;

(8) empowering teachers and assisting in changing teaching patterns so that research, experiment and teacher guided self-study are integrated; and

(9) strengthening the local school system as a result of strengthening and integrating the strive for excellence in students and teachers participating in the programme’.

There are four components: staff training, a learning programme focused on subjects not normally encountered in the school curriculum, supplementary enrichment activities and a residential summer camp at IASA for pupils completing Grade 8.

Excellence 2000 began in 1998, but originated in an earlier Discovery Programme which operated from 1988 in a smaller number of schools as a 3-year intervention for Grade 7-9 students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Discovery had four specific objectives

• ‘To create enriched environments in disadvantaged communities that will provide opportunities for the discovery and nurturing of talent potential that otherwise might not surface.

• To identify and nurture educationally students from disadvantaged communities who have potential for giftedness and leadership but have not had the cultural or educational advantages needed to develop their abilities.

• To make the striving for excellence a goal of local educational systems.

• To increase the pool of applicants for the Israel Arts and Science Academy.’

Participants were identified in the 7^th Grade through teacher nomination, standardised test data, academic performance, or other relevant evidence. Students were taught in informal groups of 12-16, undertaking two 90 minute sessions each week, one on mathematical thinking skills and the other covering a scientific topic. Between five and seven special activities in music and art were also offered throughout the year and also two day-long field trips were also included. By the end of the programme in Grade 9, participants would compete for admission to the Academy on an equal basis to other candidates.

At the time of the evaluation in 2006, Mitchell Excellence 2000 was operational in 150 schools involving some 8,000 students. At this stage the Skirball model was being piloted in 20 primary schools and the High School model in 10 upper secondary schools.

Participating pupils were originally identified by their teachers using five criteria: high achievement, high learning potential and willingness to face new challenges, curiosity and creativity, determination and motivation and commitment to complete the programme. However, a screening test and interview process was subsequently introduced. Around 10% of learners were taken into the programme, taught in classes of 15-20.

Courses are focused on science and maths, with two hours a week typically allocated to each. Half of the four-hour weekly provision is during the school day and half outside it. Standard study units have been developed. Participating pupils may also tutor other children in their school. Each participating school must undertake three wider enrichment activities annually.

Each teacher must undertake 56 hours of compulsory training annually including a three-day summer programme at IASA and 4 one-day sessions. The evaluation refers to a new experiment in school-based training to be introduced in 2007.

Some central activities have also been developed including the Ilan Ramon Space Team Programme, a series of online challenges and a competition to design and build an invention.

The evaluation also refers to the extension of Excellence 2000 to immigrant learners, particularly those from Ethiopia and the Muslim states of the former Soviet Union. In 2006 there were 11 groups nationally, with a plan to start up 13 more in 2007.

The programme has also been extended to the USA, via the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy and 100 other American schools are involved.

Though rather dated, this 2001 article offers some further insight into the pupil experience of E2K.

Other national programmes listed on the website reference some of these additional central initiatives:

• The Space Team Programme – an additional session of two hours a week covering astronomy and astrophysics with support from the Asher Institute for Space Research at the Technion.

• The Science Adventures Programme – a combination of field trips and school-based activities built around a theme. About 45 different themes have been developed and are offered annually.

• Young Detectives Club – enabling participants to work on real-life cases in Israeli Police forensic science laboratories and study electronic data protection in collaboration with Microsoft Israel.

• Gildor Family Projects and Inventions – participants address a real-life problem. The 2012/13 challenge is ‘Developing and constructing a ‘smart’ system for the prevention of train and motor vehicle collisions’. They compete to produce inventions that assess creativity, design, effort and functionality. An annual report on the competition is published.

• Summer Camps – week-long events blending small group sessions and workshop activities for pupils in Grades 7-8. An annual report is again produced, but the most recent dates from 2010.

• Opportunity for Excellence – which may be the evolution of the support for immigrant students mentioned above. It supports Ethiopian, Kavkaz and Bucharian pupils in lower secondary schools.

• The Science Maze – an interactive puzzle-based experience for children of all ages and adults.

.

Professional Development

The website says the Excellence Educators’ Institute has developed:

‘47 different training tracks spanning elementary through high school levels in the areas of experimental science, mathematical thinking, technology, leadership skills and more’.

The Institute offers national and regional workshops designed for new or experienced teachers, for those engaged in pilot programmes and those in international programmes.

National workshops are of 3-5 days’ duration and based at IASA. All workshops are accredited by the Ministry of Education. The most recent annual report outlines provision in 2011. Some 2,000 participants are recorded, but many are multiple registrations so the number of individuals involved will be far lower.

The Center also runs an Education Advisers Course in collaboration with the Davidson Institute and the Ministry of Education. The purpose is to secure a cadre of ‘School Excellence Advisors’ enabled to:

• ‘Lead the school team, particularly science teachers, in all excellence related issues, by creating and leading projects for the school’s outstanding and general student population.

• Serve as an advisor to outstanding students.

• Serve as a focal point for classroom teachers seeking guidance and enrichment in dealing with this special group of students.’

The 2006 Szold Institute evaluation once more provides further detail. Schools nominate a member of staff to undertake this role who then undertakes a two-year (168 hour) course.

The content includes: subject expertise and leadership skills but also:

‘development of regional excellence leadership teams, teaching and guiding excelling students, development of teacher excellence guidance skills, new models for running project in the school and tools for handling difficulties and obstacles.’

Curiously, subject expertise can only be in science – biology, chemistry or physics. This provision was introduced in 2005.

.

Special Initiatives

There is an ‘Annual Carylon Conference’ which:

‘brings together educators,members of academia, and world renowned specialists from Israel and abroad who share particular expertise in the field of education for highly able students.’

But the link takes one to a page headed ‘The Raphi Amram Center for Creative Excellence (RACCE):

‘One of the stated objectives of RACCE is to provide expertise in dealing with highly able, talented teenagers through special symposia and teacher training institutes. To serve that goal, the Center for Excellence, in conjunction with the Ministry of Education’s Department of Gifted Students, has hosted conferences for more than a decade.  Each conference since 1998 has included the Raphi Amram Memorial Lecture.’

And there is also another page referencing the Herzliya Conference on Israel’s National Strength, I think because it features a presentation to the 2008 Conference on Excellence as a National Value and to the 2007 Conference on Enhancing Excellence in Education (in Word).

A newspaper article provides further detail of the relevance of gifted education – and E2K specifically – to the 2007 Herzliya Conference. I can find no reference to any significant initiative emerging from the Conference, however.

This section also carries brief details of the Center’s online provision:

‘Virtual learning classes are broadcast live to all participating schools using basic internet infrastructures displayed on an overhead projector…Teachers in the Virtual Learning Programme go through intensive training presented by the Excellence Educators Institute. Within the framework of this training they gain on-line experience in orchestrating an on-screen classroom environment.’

Despite the reference to Virtual learning, it seems that this provision is deliberately low-tech.

.

International Activities

This section of the Center’s portfolio includes:

• The Illinois E2K programme, based at the Illinois Maths and Science Academy and operating in some 60 Illinois schools (where it has been renamed IMSA Fusion);

• The introduction of E2K into five Iowa districts via the Belin-Blank Center;

• E2K in 70 Jewish Day Schools in nine US states, operated by the Center for Initiatives in Jewish Education;

• E2K in 100 Singapore primary schools, overseen by the Ministry of Education; and

• E2K provision in Chennai India via HeyMath!

Some 45 E2K study units have been translated into English, while a training course has been developed for bodies undertaking a co-ordination role abroad and for trainers of local maths and science teachers who will run the programmes.

The ‘E2K International Learning Community’ encompasses online forums and the online learning outlined above. There is also an ‘international riddle of the month’.

.

Mediterranean Sea Apolonia Coast Israel courtesy of vad levin

.

The Israel Arts and Science Academy (IASA)

IASA accommodates some 200 students drawn from across Israel and claims to draw on all its communities, regardless of ethnic and religious background. The school first opened in 1990, located on a campus in Southern Jerusalem.

There is very little about the actual operation of the School on the Center’s own website, which concentrates on external activities. These include an Exploration Camp, enabling 100 Grade 8 students to experience IASA for nine days over the summer break. This Report on the 2011 Camp gives a sense of the programme.

There is a section about the Gildor Project Week, described as the highlight of IASA’s academic year, in which students undertake their own research projects. A Community Service Programme is also mentioned which takes place every Tuesday afternoon throughout the academic year.

The Academy has over 1,000 alumni. It runs a programme enabling immediate graduates to undertake a year of voluntary public service, taken up by almost 40% of those graduating.

A lengthy paper on ‘Learning Dilemmas of Curriculum Development at IASA and its Influence on Students’ Concepts of Learning’ appears in Volume 22(1) of Gifted and Talented International (June 2007) but, despite being co-authored by an ex-headteacher, provides relatively little tangible detail about the operation of the Academy. Even Wikipedia is little help.

Another source is more useful. It defines IASA’s objectives as:

• ‘To create a unique educational environment for the nurture of exceptional talent potential in science, mathematics, music and the graphic arts.

• To nourish cognitive, affective, social and creative excellence.

• To learn about curriculum, teaching, creating a learning environment and other elements of nurturing excellence.’

The Academy aims to offer four elements of learning:

‘1. First-class education in specific fields of talent. This element aims at nurturing students to become extraordinary performers and/or producers of ideas in their chosen field of specialisation.

2. General core studies and interdisciplinary studies. This element aims at broadening the cultural perspectives of students and enhancing mutual sensitivity and appreciation between science students and art students by providing ample opportunities for cross-fertilisation across these disciplines.

3. Opportunities to serve the community. This element pertains to the relationships between the students, the school and the community. It is designed to enhance a sense of responsibility and commitment to the community. In addition, the community provides a laboratory and resources for out-of-school enrichment.

4. Nurturing of values. This element emphasizes a general humanistic orientation and commitment to Israel and to the Jewish people’.

The Academy has a Curriculum Development Unit which has produced its own customised curriculum, taking full advantage of the flexibilities permitted by the Ministry of Education, and also specialises in software and multimedia learning units.

The interdisciplinary focus is important:

‘The Academy does not provide watered-down science courses for its arts students or low-level “appreciation courses” for science students. Rather, its curricular efforts focus on providing opportunities for high-level interdisciplinary experiences that bring out the basic, integral relationships of science and arts in non-contrived ways. In addition, the Humanities curriculum provides opportunities for intensive study and discussion of important moral, ethical and aesthetic issues.’

The staff includes full-time teachers in the core subject disciplines, part-time teachers who are specialists in their fields and counsellors who oversee the residential activities.

All students live in the Academy, even if their homes are in Jerusalem. The pupil population is said to be entirely representative by socio-economic background as well as ethnic/religious background.

The Center for Excellence through Education carries a survey of alumni undertaken in 2007 which, though it provides much interesting data, fails to confirm this statement.

A second source is a 2011 article in the Jerusalem Post penned by a history professor at McGill University whose daughter attended the Academy. He describes IASA as an ‘oasis of excellence’ within a desert of mediocrity:

‘Tragically, an Israeli epidemic of mediocre teachers, undisciplined students, unsupportive parents, unyielding bureaucrats and unchallenging curricula is spawning many dysfunctional classrooms and failing schools. Although we also see fabulous teachers, stimulating classrooms and well-run schools, the educational mediocrity my children have experienced has been our greatest disappointment in Israel. Shrieking teachers, wild classrooms and pointless tests demoralise students.’

In his view it is ‘a magical mix of Zionist summer camp and Harvard’. He confirms that fees are subsidised for those from relatively poor backgrounds and quotes the Chairman of the Board:

“This commitment to excellence in all dimensions is an expression of our Zionism…When we founded the school twenty years ago, excellence was a dirty word in Israel, considered elitist. Today, Israelis – and people around the world – look to us, and to Israel in general, as a centre of excellence.”

.

Photographer takes a photo on the shore of the Dead Sea courtesy of vad levin

.

Some other Key Institutions

 

Young Person’s Institute for the Promotion of Creativity and Excellence

YPIPCE (link is to a website entirely in Hebrew) was founded by Erika Landau and is based at Tel-Aviv University. Her approach emphasises motivation and creativity, which have not featured strongly in the Israeli process of identifying gifted learners until recently.

Landau’s website says her Institute was founded:

‘as a nonprofit association, about thirty years ago to help talented and gifted children to cope with their problems within a society that could not accept those who could not “conform”: those children who asked more questions, who got easily bored because they caught things easily and quickly’

Another source describes its role as:

‘To provide educational enrichment opportunities that augment the regular school programme. The aim is to provide a framework within which the child learns to enjoy the personal search for knowledge.’

The Institute provides a range of workshops – up to 100 per semester – in science, social science, arts and humanities. The sessions take place after school. About 800 learners are involved each semester. The Institute’s site also says that enrichment classes are offered in 80 subjects for children aged 5-15. Most teachers are lecturers, either at Tel Aviv University or the Academy of Art.

It also works with a cohort of between 350 and 500 Tel-Aviv children from culturally deprived backgrounds who attend workshops on creative, scientific and social thinking.

Over 35,000 learners have participated in Institute programmes (the Institute’s own site increases this to nearly 40,000 and says the institute was founded 43 years ago, so in 1969). Some 40% of teachers are former students. The annual budget is about US $400,000.

During the summer, the Institute offers a Creative Activity Month, involving visits, discussions, symposia and so on. The Institute also offers summer in-service training on the nature of giftedness and creativity and identification processes, as well as one-off lectures and seminars. Parental workshops are also provided.

.

Jerusalem Academy High School for Music and Dance

The Academy High School of Music and Dance is based on the Hebrew University campus in Jerusalem. Founded in the 1960s, it provides lower and upper secondary education through a curriculum which combines the standard curriculum and specialisation in either music or dance.

Students are taken from all over the country and there is residential provision for those living outside Jerusalem. There is a special course for the most outstanding learners which enables them to progress to the neighbouring undergraduate Academy in the final year of upper secondary school.

Within the dance programme, students learn about the history of dance, dance  music and anatomy. In the neighbouring Conservatory they practise classical ballet, modern and jazz dance and improvisation. Upper secondary students specialise in either classical ballet or modern dance.  All pupils undertake at least two performances on the professional stage annually.

The Department also provides two performances for other Jerusalem schools. Each class holds an open session annually for parents, friends and teachers.

Within the music programme, students pursue musical history, theory and analysis. The majority study an instrument or singing at the neighbouring Conservatory.

The Conservatory provides professional training in music and dance for 4-19 year-olds (so has many younger pupils who do not attend the High School). All together there are 700 enrolled.

It hosts a specialist centre for piano performance which runs the Young Piano Master Project (YPMP), designed to develop excellence in young pianists. Participants meet together fortnightly for three hours from 4.30-7,30pm for lectures, masterclasses and workshops.

.

Thelma Yellin High School of the Arts

This High School was founded in 1959. Named after a cellist who emigrated from England in the 1920s, it too draws students from throughout Israel to its campus in Givatayim, a small city east of Tel Aviv. Up to 15% annually are from immigrant populations, while others are from disadvantaged backgrounds or disabled. Students are selected on the basis of audition and interview.

They specialise in one of six areas: classical music, jazz, classical ballet and modern dance, drama, visual arts and film. The school has its own full symphony orchestra and big band, as
well as a range of smaller ensembles and troupes.

The website mentions:

‘plans to expand our academic and artistic programmes to include specially gifted students from other sectors of Israeli society: ultra-orthodox,  Arabs and Druze.’

But these are dependent on securing the necessary funding. It is clear that the buildings have some shortcomings and the school is heavily reliant on donations for its survival.

.

Wingate Institute

The Wingate Institute is located south of the city of Netanya. It is the country’s national centre for physical education and sport and was founded in 1957.

It incorporates a training school for coaches and instructors, a centre for research, sports medicine and physiotherapy, a pedagogical centre, an elite sports unit and a Centre for the Development of Sport Giftedness.

The latter was established in 1991 and trains elite young athletes in judo, swimming, volleyball and tennis.

A document dating from 2007 adds table tennis to this list and gives the number of students as 90. Meanwhile, the Hebrew version of the website gives the number as 100 aged 12-18, adding basketball, triathlon and table tennis to the list of sports, making seven in all.

It is not clear from the English language pages whether these students also undertake their schooling at the Centre, but the Hebrew version suggests that, while students are resident at the Centre, they attend a nearby school. Students undertake about five hours of sports training daily. Part of the cost is borne by the Ministry of Science, Culture and Sport.

.

Havruta High School for Leadership and Culture

Havruta High School was founded by the Israel Center for Youth Leadership ICYL). The Center describes the High School as its cornerstone. It is a private day school, located east of Netanya, which opened in 2009. Its capacity is 600.

The School’s mission is:

To nurture leadership characterised by an outward growing sense of responsibility: responsibility for our own choices and actions, responsibility to our family, to the society in which we live, to our nation and to the world.’

An article dating from 2009 in the Jerusalem Post describes the project in development. Teachers were hired a year before the school opened so all could receive preparatory training. All have Masters degrees or Doctorates. Howard Gardner is a member of the School’s advisory board.

The School’s location is:

‘at the outskirts of Neveh Hadassah. A “youth village” housing upward of 300 children, Neveh Hadassah caters to children at risk, kids from broken homes, children who come to Israel as unaccompanied minors, along with various special-needs cases. Havruta officials hope that their students might begin honing their leadership skills by reaching out to the Neveh Hadassah children.’

It operates a needs-blind admissions process: one-third of the students admitted in the first year received scholarships averaging 75% of fees.

The 2009 article suggests fees will be around NIS 2,900 per month (£466) – a high level compared with other Israeli private schools. One of the school’s goals is that 50% of the intake will receive scholarships.

(However, the Hebrew pages of the website suggest the fee may have been reduced to NIS 2,330 a month exclusive of travel and meals; also that currently some 40% of the intake receive scholarships.)

The admissions process is described thus in the 2009 article:

‘Prospective students will complete and submit an application form. If their applications are successful, they will then be called in for the first of a series of interviews with school staff. If those go well, recommendations will follow. To round out this assessment – more qualitative than quantitative – grades and test scores will also be considered, but as the smallest piece of the overall puzzle.’

The curriculum follows national requirements but emphasises the development of thinking, learning and social skills. The School offers an ‘early college programme in the liberal arts, in association with Bard College’ in New York State, USA. This enables students to achieve an Associate in Arts degree.

It operates the Harkness Method and provides a four-year Social Engagement Programme. One day each week is dedicated to Israeli society. The students undertake fortnightly visits with alternate weeks used for planning and review. There is a four-year thematic cycle:

‘During the first year students become familiar at first hand with Israeli society, through a series of visits, involving encounters and dialogue with young members of the many Jewish and non-Jewish religious, cultural and ethnic groups in the country…. The second year is devoted to learning about institutions and centres of power that that affect us all; political and judicial institutions, the business community, mass media, local government and the non-profit sector…During the third year students follow in the footsteps of our rebirth as a sovereign nation – from the holocaust, through the pioneers and founding fathers of Israel, to the crucible events of our contemporary history. Through moving encounters with prominent figures and places of our recent history, students will be challenged to think about their own generation’s role in ensuring the continuity of our people. The final year of study, in similar experiential fashion, will focus on bridging differences and conflicts within Israeli society and in Israel’s relations with the Diaspora.’

Several other institutions are mentioned online but it is not always clear whether they still exist. Others provide relatively little information about their operations or offer it exclusively in Hebrew.

A recent news story covered the establishment of a new school for the gifted in Beer Sheva – the Saryl and Stephen Gross Maof School for Excellence.

The story says that the school will enrol 500 learners from Beer Sheva and the Negev, but will have the potential to double in size. The building cost NIS 8m and was:

‘initiated by Federation CJA Montreal, the Beer Sheva municipality, the Ministry of Education and the Rashi Foundation who managed the project. Saryl and Stephen Gross from Montreal provided more than half of the funding for the project’.

It becomes clear that this is not actually a school but an enrichment centre for children in Grades 3-10 drawn from 65 schools in the area.

.

Gordon College

Gordon College of Education in Haifa has already been mentioned for its long-standing role in teachers’ professional development.

It operates a Center for the Promotion of Giftedness and Excellence, providing training for teachers and a weekly enrichment programme serving over 450 learners in Grades 4-6. It also holds an annual conference on Giftedness and Excellence, though I have been unable to source any record of proceedings.

.

The RANGE Center

The RANGE Center – The Interdisciplinary Center for Research and Advancement of Giftedness and Excellence – is based in the Education Department at the University of Haifa. There are three staff: a Head of Center – Roza Leikin – plus an Academic and an Administrative Director.

RANGE comprises a research and a research implementation section. The former investigates giftedness and its cultivation. The only study mentioned is focused on ‘general cognitive abilities, neurocognitive activity and creativity related to exceptional mathematical ability’.

The implementation section is a collaborative venture with Haifa municipality, providing out-of-school programmes for learners in Grades 8-9, who undertake upper secondary courses in maths, science, art and neuroscience. The Hebrew website lists five current courses and a further 17 to be offered in the future.

The website mentions that the Education Department offers a Masters programme in the Education of the Gifted and Talented which includes courses in gifted education research, personal and affective characteristics, creativity and giftedness, social justice and giftedness, teaching the gifted and curricula for gifted students.

The course seems to exist (though the link is broken) but it is not clear from the English translation whether it remains a separate MA, or simply an option in part of a wider MA in Counselling and Human Development.

The RANGE website also mentions that, subject to funding, its future plans include personalised e-learning enrichment courses and a programme supporting students in Grades 11-12 to undertake their own research projects. The Center also plans a series of lectures for teachers and parents.

.

Gifted Expertise Center

The Gifted Expertise Center is a consultancy run by Hava Vidergor, a lecturer on the Certification Programme for Teachers of Gifted Students at Oranim College and a teacher at the Oranim Gifted Education Center.

The Center offers access to a team of international experts – Renzulli, Reiss, Sisk, Yamin, McCluskey etc – who offer support in designing gifted programmes, programme implementation and evaluation, professional development, tailored solutions for individual learners and the use of Renzulli Learning Systems. The website carries the ICIE logo, so is presumably an offshoot of that operation.

The professional development offer consists of seven 4 and 8 hour workshops to develop teaching strategies and five curriculum models workshops covering Schoolwide Enrichment, Integrated Curriculum, Parallel Curriculum and Vidergor’s own ‘Multidimensional Curriculum Model’.. These can be combined to provide a complete 60-hour programme.

The website advertises the imminent publication of a book ‘The Practical Handbook for Teaching Gifted and Able Learners’, edited by Vidergor, Harris and Yamin and again carrying the ICIE imprimatur.

.

Szold Institute

The Henrietta Szold Institute has already featured in this post by virtue of its involvement in the testing of gifted learners.

Its website also mentions two specific research programmes:

Eureka – the Cross Cultural Model for Enrichment and Talent Nurturance is designed to expose submerged talent in science, technology and the visual arts. Participants are selected from ‘a marginal cultural / socio-economic background’ and supported throughout primary education. There are two stages, called exposure and immersion.

All children in Grades 1 and 2 are:

‘Exposed to a supportive learning environment that provides them with hands-on experiences in science and art. Teachers receive in-service training on how to use the enriched science and art curricula in an experiential manner and on how to evaluate student behaviour and work’.

From Grade 3 onwards, the subset who have been identified as gifted ‘explore in depth their talent area in special programmes’, while the remainder continue as before. At the end of each school year, those whose performance and motivation improves sufficiently join the gifted programme until the end of primary school.

An in-depth review of Eureka (which is rather old, dating from 1997) is available here.

The Ministry of Education’s Mentoring Programme, which is undertaken by the Institute on its behalf and was referenced earlier in this post.

‘During this experience, students are exposed to cutting-edge knowledge and skills, develop new capacities and acquire tools for coping with challenges posed by their field of studies. This experience is intended to assist the students in consolidating a professional identity in preparation for choosing a future career. The programme’s goals are:

(1)  To fulfil highly gifted student potential in the areas of their interest.

(2) To familiarise students with the complexity of work carried out by professionals who are at the forefront of their fields.

(3) To foster an ethical and social awareness and responsibility in accordance with values of Jewish philosophy and tradition.

The programme’s implementation is monitored by a formative and summative evaluation, which concentrates on…progress and outcomes, as well as…talented students’ identity formation.’

.

Judean Desert 2 courtesy of chaim zvi

.

What is the Impact?

I have not unearthed a completely reliable estimate of the total cost of this enormous spectrum of activity, or even the proportion shouldered by the Israeli taxpayer. One 2010 OECD publication gives a figure of NIS 8.25m per year (about £1.3m) but this must be a significant under-estimate, unless it is the budget of the Ministry’s gifted education department.

The translated spreadsheets on this page appear to suggest that the Ministry alone commits some NIS 19.7m of its NIS 36bn budget to gifted education (there are two separate budget lines – one translates as ‘gifted children’ (NIS 13.641m); the other as ‘gifted youth’ (NIS 6.047m). If these figures are correct, then government expenditure alone is closer to £3.1m.

Since the Ministry’s website says that its programmes are benefiting 45,287 learners (12,895 gifted and 32,392 outstanding) this implies expenditure of roughly NIS 435 (£69) per learner.

Whether or not these figures are accurate, there is no doubt that Israel is thoroughly committed to investment in its human capital and – some might argue – actually concentrates disproportionately on its gifted learners.

Such investment should be generating a significant return, especially since it is so heavily focused on the STEM sector. Indeed, it is hard to escape the conclusion that STEM is over-dominant in Israeli gifted education, and that there is a clear ‘pecking order’ which favours those with mathematical and scientific ability over those with different talents to offer. This may be beginning to change, but is so thoroughly embedded that it will take some time to secure a more balanced offer.

Rather worryingly though, Israel’s performance in PISA 2009 would suggest that the impact of this enormous investment on student achievement has been fairly marginal at best.

The overall scores left much to be desired:

• Israel’s mean score in the reading test was 474, 19 below the OECD average, making it 36^th of 64 countries

• In maths it scored 447, 49 points below the OECD average of 496 and 41^st in rank order of countries

• In science it managed 455, 46 below the OECD average of 501, again finishing 41st in rank order.

One might expect the performance of high achievers to be significantly better, but this analysis from the Taub Center (p333) shows the average level of achievement across both the top 5% and the bottom 5% across all three tests in 25 OECD countries.

Israel comes last of all for the bottom 5%, but also no better than second last for the top 5%:

.

.

.

It is not as if this is a recent dip – a temporary aberration. Another Taub Center publication illustrates graphically that there is a longstanding issue, supported as much by TIMSS daya as by PISA.

.

.

And if we look at achievement on the separate PISA 2009 tests at the higher levels, it is clear that there is relatively little difference between those and the mean scores.

• In reading, 6.4% of Israelis achieved level 5 and 1.0% achieved level 6. The OECD averages were 6.8% and 0.8% respectively. This places Israel 18^th  of 34 OECD countries at Level 5 and 10^th equal of 34 at Level 6 (the latter is equal with the UK). So far, so good, but

• In maths, 4.7% achieved level 5 and 1.2% achieved level 6. The OECD averages were 9.6% and 3.1% respectively. This places Israel 31^st of 34 at Level 5 and 30^th of 34 at level 6.

• In science, 3.5% achieved level 5 and 0.5% achieved level 6. The OECD averages were 7.4% and 1.1% respectively. This places Israel 30^th of 34 at level 5 and 25^th of 34 at Level 6.

Ironically, given Israel’s disproportionate focus on maths and science gifted education, the best results comparatively speaking are in reading! This may serve to reinforce the existing imbalance in favour of STEM provision.

Although Level 6 rankings tend to be higher than those at Level 5, suggesting that the very top performers do slightly better comparatively speaking, the differences are small – and Israel is comfortably outpaced by the likes of Austria, Belgium, Chile, Estonia, Iceland and Slovakia.

While some of this disappointing performance can be attributed to the sizeable difference between the achievement of Israeli students from relatively advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds – and the underperformance of Arab students compared with Israeli students – it is inescapable that the overall figures are not a ringing endorsement of Israel’s gifted education.

This is of course only a single indicator with its own significant shortcomings – and one can point to alternative measures, such as Nobel Prizes per capita or the Global Innovation Index  which show that Israel punches well above its weight when it comes to adult achievement.

Nevertheless, the PISA results are so poor that there is an extremely strong case for an urgent root-and-branch examination of Israel’s support for gifted and talented learners – as part of its wider commitment to educational excellence.

I would expect that loud alarm bells are already ringing but, if the PISA 2012 results show negligible improvement, the clamour will surely become impossible to ignore.

.

GP

November 2012

Gifted Education in Israel: Part Two

.

This is the second of three instalments in an extensive review of Israeli gifted education.

.

Part One provided background on Israel and its education system before charting the development of Israeli gifted education up to 2006 or thereabouts.

This second part of the trilogy considers how Israeli gifted education has developed over the last five years and its condition today.

Part Three takes a closer look at some specific initiatives and institutions that play a prominent role in the Israeli national programme as it is now.

.

Implementation from 2007-2008

It is not straightforward to piece together the history of the subsequent implementation of the 2004 steering committee’s proposals, though interesting insights can be gleaned from a rich variety of sources.

.

The Official View

The Division for Gifted and Outstanding Students carries a link to a 2008 presentation in English by Rachmel .

This begins with an anglicised version of the Department’s vision:

‘The division for gifted and outstanding students aspire to lead a culture in which excellence is a central value. In our vision personal excellence and human commitment and sensitivity to community exists simultaneously. We are committed to the creation of flexible and dynamic learning environments, which will enable pedagogical conversation challenge and creation of new knowledge .The actualisation of “the environment to which we aspire” means that students and teachers are equal in their curiosity and in their commitment to repeatedly take each other to new fields of knowledge.  This will develop new possibilities for both teacher and pupil and create patterns of instruction and education that encourage continuous regeneration.’

The taxonomy of provision is now separated between gifted and outstanding students, as heralded by the steering committee’s recommendations (numbers participating in 2008 are included in brackets):

Gifted (13,692)

• 89 Special classes for the top 1.5% operating within normal schools, now in 24 primary and secondary schools in nine large cities (3,212)

• Pull-out programmes for the top 1.5% located in Gifted Centres in 52 cities and towns (6,733)

• Specialised secondary schools – the Israel Art and Science Academy (IASA) plus an unnamed ‘School combining Jewish and Science studies’ and academies of art and music (number not given)

• Afternoon enrichment classes in 30 cities and towns (2,947)

• The Virtual School, providing 10 semester-long online distance learning courses (350)

• Academic accreditation (450)

Outstanding (12,263)

• Special school-based programmes called ‘Amirim’ (see below) to nurture excellent students and develop a wider culture of excellence in schools (2,500)

• Special programmes conducted through regional Gifted Centres (number not given)

• Afternoon enrichment classes in 30 localities – for the top 5% only (3,803)

• Special community programmes ‘An anchor to community’ (Referred to as ‘NGO – Excellence- 2000’:(5,960)

The presentation runs through the new tripartite definition set out by the steering committee and provides a single pyramid diagram to illustrate the national implementation plan:

.

.

Continuing previous themes, the overall programme is once more characterised as a national network comprising regional, NGO, urban and school-based activities.

The forthcoming work programme, consequent on the new direction, includes:

• Expanding the existing frameworks and tracks (these are listed as concurrent enrolment, monthly youth seminars, personal mentoring, super-gifted provision, distance learning and annual seminars);

• Extending student screening for specialised schools;

• Developing new curricular units;

• Development of in-service teacher training (the 224 hour course requirement), training for expert professionals, student counsellors and local and district   co-ordinators;

The law for gifted education has not yet progressed beyond ‘the first hearing’.

Other sources add interesting context and detail to this official statement from the central government perspective.

.

Gaps in Professional Development

First there is a paper from September 2007 reflecting on the proposed development of a new course as part of undergraduate teacher education at Beit Berl College.

The writer, the Head of the School of Education, emphasises that he wants a course to equip teachers to work with gifted learners in mixed ability settings rather than in special classes for the gifted.

He notes that there are no full academic programmes of this kind ‘but only partial courses, usually within the framework of in-service training’, yet this is a universal training need.

His proposed course would:

‘not only open a unique department in an Israeli academic institution, but it would also broaden the scope of the Ministry of Education’s projects for gifted children, which mostly concentrate on one day a week of enrichment (outside their regular classrooms), or other programmes of this kind. For Beit Berl College, it was important for its identification with excellence, but most importantly, the programme we suggested was supposed to be a common department for the School of Education and the Arab Institute at Beit Berl.’

The writer proceeds to summarise the internal arguments for and against the proposal, demonstrating that discomfort with support for gifted education is very much alive in parts of the Israeli education system.

Although the programme was finally approved, the writer concludes:

‘Even though the programme for training teachers for gifted children was sent to the Ministry of Education in April 2007, to date (November 2007) we did not receive any comment or reaction from the Ministry. This is inductive [sic] of the entire situation.’

There is now a Department for Excellence in Education at Beit Berl which ‘provides professional development for teachers of children with high abilities and develops innovative programmes tailored to the unique needs of gifted pupils’.

.

Too Few Gifted Disadvantaged Learners

A further critical perspective is captured by a January 2007 newspaper article which claims that gifted education in Tel Aviv is ‘mostly for the rich’.

It notes that, of the 98 children in the primary school programme at the Graetz School – the only one in the City – 89 are from the city’s ‘well-off northern and central districts, while only nine come from the poorer southern and eastern districts’ – and five of the nine live in ‘relatively well-off neighbourhoods’. Meanwhile there is limited provision in the Arab sector.

The paper attributes this squarely to the test-based identification process:

‘Since 1984, the Henrietta Szold Institute (the National Institute for Research in the Behavioral Sciences) has been responsible for identifying gifted children in Israel. The findings published here indicate that the institution’s screening tests discriminate in favour of children from higher socioeconomic levels in communities with large gaps between rich and poor.’

The response from the Ministry suggests that the new policy will improve matters, but changes cannot be made under the current selection process:

‘”It’s not possible to institute affirmative action for children from south Tel Aviv,” the director of the Education Ministry’s Department for Gifted Students, Shlomit Rachmel, said. “We work in accordance with local norms, not on the neighbourhood level. If there is a big gap between groups of gifted students, a heterogenous [sic] group will be formed that will change the essence of the programme. We are preparing to develop a range of tools that will examine not only learning ability but also motivation and creativity, and using them, we will reach the population that is underrepresented in the gifted programmes.”’

It is not made clear how changing the means of identification will tackle the problem of heterogeneous groups however.

The article continues:

‘The Head of Tel Aviv’s Department of Primary Education, Hani Broderson, is not comfortable with the current situation… “The problem is that all of Tel Aviv is a single testing area, despite the great difference among the neighbourhoods. Together with the Education Ministry, we have considered ways to increase the representation of students from the south of the city. One possibility was to define the gifted students from the south separately from those of the north and to guarantee a place for them at Graetz, but then it turned out there were large gaps between the two groups.”’

The story suggests a rather inflexible approach to local identification, especially when one recalls that the steering committee suggested such distinctions might be made ‘in the school or the locality’.

.

Student Satisfaction

A 2008 study ‘Satisfaction With School Among Gifted Israeli Students Studying in Various Frameworks’ (pp39-50) by Vidergor and Reiter reports the results of a survey of 229 gifted learners studying in separate classes and pull-out programmes (including some who had dropped out) and 140 other students at the same primary and lower secondary schools.

The study was undertaken in the light of a recent increase in dropout rates amongst gifted students in lower secondary schools. It observes:

 ‘Dropping out of a gifted programme in Israel is mainly associated with pullout programmes at gifted education centres. There is a tendency for gifted elementary or junior high school students to choose to stop their studies at the centre and return to the regular classroom. From that point on they are not involved in any gifted programme. They can be identified in many classrooms around the country, but the exact number of pullout programme dropouts is not available.’

The results showed that students outside the pull-out programmes expressed the highest overall satisfaction with school, though only slightly higher than those within them. Not surprisingly, the dropouts expressed the lowest satisfaction. There were, however, variations in five identified dimensions of satisfaction.

Further analysis of the reasons for dropout showed that 80% had dropped out after 6^th grade, although 70% of those said that they were satisfied with the programme they had left. The most cited reasons were: too much work (‘school overload’) (50%) and lack of interest (37%).

The authors note that pupils experiencing pull-out one day a week find it hard to make up for the day of normal school they have missed while also performing well in the pull-out sessions:

‘This is exacerbated by the fact that there in [sic] no system or person in charge of facilitating or bridging the gap between the two…Thus, a situation where gifted students are forced back to the regular classroom and left with no programme to nurture their abilities and talents, affects their academic and general self-concept as they grow older…. measures should be taken to develop a suitable programme at the regular school to accommodate their needs.’

Such criticism suggests that Israeli gifted educators have fallen into the trap of loading more work – rather than more challenging work – on to their gifted learners. Moreover, the blend of pull-out and regular provision is not properly co-ordinated, while dropouts are assumed no longer to require gifted provision.

.

A Regional Illustration

A blog post from July 2008 offers a different perspective, outlining the development of a regional gifted programme in the city of Kiryat Malakhi. The centre, one of 51 says the post, replaces another which closed down a few years beforehand.

Given this situation, the organisers decided to begin recruiting in Grade 4, adding an additional grade each year. Pupils identified as within the top 1.5% of learners come to the centre for a full school day every Tuesday, followed by those in the top 5% who attend an after-school programme from 4.00-6.45 PM. There are 30 sessions a year.

Twenty-eight attended the former session in 2007 and, in 2008, 52 from Grades 4 and 5 are expected to attend. The after school session began with 40 Grade 4 pupils and will expand to at least 60 pupils for Grades 4 and 5.

The part-time director is a teacher from a local secondary school who spends about 25% of her working week undertaking the role. She co-ordinates a team of teachers who run the sessions, which focus primarily on science and creative thinking.

Some of the courses for the school-day cohort include marine biology, artificial intelligence, robotics and heroes in films through history. The after-school classes include astronomy, biochemistry, game theory and code-breaking.

The centre hopes to expand its provision to cater for the top 20% of learners over time.

.

Gender Imbalance

A final snapshot is provided by a report on gender imbalance in the gifted programme. The post reacts to the fact that the Ministry of Education is introducing new requirements for creativity and motivation into the screening process, which may serve to rectify the existing gender imbalance, in favour of boys, as selected through the current screening test.

It considers whether such a change is justified, noting that Rachmel has pointed out that:

‘Girls generally score higher than boys do in the advanced levels of Mathematics and Physics in matriculation exams, as well as in academic studies’.

It concludes that changing the admission criteria is not itself a case of positive discrimination but is intended to eliminate the need for positive discrimination which currently exists, by virtue of the fact that girls have previously been admitted with a slightly lower grade than boys.
.

Bethlehem Wide View courtesy of Jeff Cushner

.

Implementation from 2009 to 2010

I can identify two primary sources of information about progress in the final years of the last decade:

• A paper by Rachmel and Nevo called ‘Education of Gifted Children: A General Roadmap and the Case of Israel’ which seems to have been published in 2009 as part of a book called Creativity in Mathematics and the Education of Gifted Students; and

• A paper by Rachmel and Leikin called ‘Education of Gifted Students in Israel: General and Mathematics Education’ which appears in a 2009 volume of Gifted Education Press Quarterly.

The former is built around the assumption that:

‘When a nation or an organisation makes a strategic decision to establish a large-scale programme for the education of the gifted, it has to follow a certain roadmap that includes several crossroads; at each crossroad a choice must be made between several options.’

The first part of the paper sets out the different decision points in this roadmap.

Two interesting facts are communicated in passing: first, that the Ministry’s Department has been renamed again, this time to the ‘Division of Gifted and Excellent Education’; and second, that a team is still preparing that long-awaited legislation, which is now expected to be passed in 2010.

The treatment of decision points confirms that Israel:

• Defines the top 1% of each cohort as ‘gifted’, but the next 4% (ie the cut-off is at the fifth percentile) are now called ‘excellent’ rather than ‘outstanding’. This is applied ‘somewhat less stringently’ in rural and disadvantaged areas (perhaps suggesting that widening the identification process has had relatively little effect).

• The focus remains on ‘general scholastic aptitude (IQ)’ though there is expected to be future emphasis on mathematical, artistic, creative writing and IT-related ability. This again sounds much less developed than the 2005 steering committee recommendations might have suggested would be the case some four years on.

• Selection is still based on ‘performance on group intelligence tests’ – so the introduction of motivation and creativity criteria has yet to take place.

• Programmes are provided predominantly for 8-18 year-olds. Provision is offered in four formats recognisable from the previous descriptions: special classes, one-day-a-week enrichment, after-school enrichment and e-learning (ten e-learning courses are again mentioned). We learn that ‘In the future, gifted children will be accepted as “young” research assistants at the universities, working with the faculty in the laboratories’.  In addition, students can also attend university courses and receive academic credit for them. Apart from the Ministry’s courses there are also ‘deeper and/or accelerated and/or entirely new special courses’ (This reference is not explained.)

• Programmes are designed to nurture ‘independent thinking, creativity, critical thinking, and specific knowledge’. Moreover ‘Israeli policy makers in the area of gifted education declared repeatedly that the ideal gifted adult should demonstrate social commitment to the community, the country, and to human values. In all classes and centres for gifted children, the students are required to participate in community projects’.

• Most teachers of gifted learners are now said to hold the ‘teachers’ certificate with specialisation in the area of giftedness’ requiring 240 hours of study spread over two years.

• Surprisingly, ‘no advanced research and evaluation has been conducted in the area of education for gifted children in Israel. Efforts in this area will be doubled or tripled in the next five years’.

The second paper considers:

Recent trends in Israeli gifted education. The steering committee’s policy is outlined. However, the Ministry’s own expectations are also articulated:

‘The main expectations from graduates of gifted education programmes are in the achievement spheres relevant to students’ talents. These expectations include excelling as adults in philosophy, science, technology, art, literature, law, business and other fields. In each field the graduates of the programmes are expected to manifest perseverance, creativity and originality, curiosity, intellectual courage, intellectual or artistic integrity, the ability and desire to continually learn and develop, the ability to think under conditions of uncertainty, the ability for multidirectional thinking, efficient consumption of information, and a broad perspective and awareness of ethical implications. Graduates of programmes for these students should be socially committed people, with a high level of morality and humanity.’

Distinctions between the Israeli approach and that of other countries. This treatment of definitional issues varies from that immediately above, stating that the Ministry recognises:

‘General scholastic ability, usually determined by IQ test; artistic talent, including music, visual arts, dance, and writing arts; specific scholastic fields of excellence, including, for example, mathematics, computers, languages; and talent in sports’.

The text reverts to the former terminology when distinguishing between ‘Gifted’ and ‘Outstanding’ students. However, both the top 1% and the top 5% must ‘also meet the criteria of motivation and creativity above the cohort median’.

The top 5% are to be defined on a local basis again described in terms of  ‘the outstanding students in the school or the locality’(so contradicting some of the reasoning in the article about imbalance in the Tel Aviv gifted population above) while the top 1% are defined on a national basis. The super-gifted are also described in the terms used by the steering committee.

Identification is based on a portfolio approach involving: ‘questionnaires for preschool teachers; observation in preschool; questionnaires for teachers, parents and students; portfolios; achievement tests; school grades; intelligence tests; tools for evaluating motivation; and tools for evaluating creativity’. (So here we are also back to the newer approach.)

Provision is based on a combination of acceleration, extension and enrichment, depending on the needs of the learners, the nature of the programme they are undertaking and the skills of their teachers (this is the steering group’s formulation).

A section on Issues in Israeli gifted education outlines the various frameworks. We learn that:

‘The Ministry of Education sponsors several specialised secondary schools that nurture specific talents such as music, performing arts, visual arts, and sciences in unique programmes. These schools are selective, accepting students who possess an above-average general scholastic ability, and exhibit excellence in a specific field.’

There is also reference to:

‘interdisciplinary youth conferences which focus on concepts, such as time, changes, and relativism from different perspectives. These conferences are open to all gifted and outstanding students.’

It then moves on to discuss teacher training:

‘Unique pedagogical training is required for teachers who teach these students. Professional development programmes for the teachers of the gifted include treatment of the theoretical perspectives on giftedness and excellence, issues in identifying outstanding and gifted students, cognitive components of excellence and giftedness, social-emotional components of excellence and giftedness, issues in defining and identifying creativity, learning and cognition, models and methods of instruction and nurturing outstanding and gifted students, special populations among outstanding and gifted students, and instructing them as a unique profession. The objective is to reach a point where teachers who wish to teach in these unique programmes must receive in-service training which will grant them a certificate as a master teacher for teaching outstanding and gifted students.’

Finally there is a more general and discursive section on gifted education in mathematics.

The apparent contradictions and differences between these two approximately contemporaneous treatments suggests a system in transition between the old and the new – and perhaps also some confusion during the transition process.

As before a variety of secondary sources add useful detail to the official descriptions.

.

Hints of Internecine Struggle

A 2009 article in the Jerusalem Post bears the strapline ‘Pressure on the Education Ministry to expand its definition of child giftedness is only slowly bearing fruit’.

Following a potted history of gifted education this makes a distinction between ‘classic’ definitions of giftedness based on IQ and ‘multi-dimensional’ approaches embracing a wider range of abilities, proceeding to explain some of the confusion we see reflected in the documents reviewed above:

‘Interestingly enough, the debate between this side and the IQ-focused “uni-dimensionalists” has been going on within the Education Ministry itself. Aware of changes in gifted education elsewhere in the world, the ministry has twice accepted the recommendations of panels urging broader definitions of “giftedness,” in 1988 and 1995. For various reasons, including perhaps inertia, nothing came of the recommendations, and the ministry has continued to define giftedness solely by IQ. That may be about to change, though, according to Shlomit Rachmel, head of the Department for Gifted Children. “We are now on the verge of a big change. We have developed new screening tools that will include above-average motivation and creativity. Since 2005, we have been developing a new definition that defines the gifted student as one who has cognitive skills, motivation and creativity at the highest percentile.” Those changes, according to Rachmel, are set to be implemented in about three years.’

So, in 2009, following four years work, the Ministry predicts that the new system will be in place by 2012, having taken seven years to introduce. Slow progress indeed.

In the meantime, the IQ-based approach remains in force. As noted above, it is based on a process conducted by the Henrietta Szold Institute, Israel’s national institute for research in the behavioural sciences.

The first screening exam is administered to all children in their primary schools, usually in 2^nd grade The hour-long test contains multiple choice tests in maths and reading. The top 15% of scorers take a second battery of IQ tests at local centres administered by the Institute. This identifies the ‘gifted’ with IQs above 135 and the ‘super-gifted’ with IQs above 155. Students can take tests to enter programmes at a later stage.

Rachmel estimates that, by this point, there are about 15,000 learners in the Ministry’s programmes and explains how the three main frameworks are implemented:

‘All over the country, we have the same screening process, the same definition of gifted and the same frameworks. But there are localities that have their own preferences. But it’s always a dialogue with us. Some localities prefer the pull-out programme – the one-day-a-week enrichment programme. Other localities prefer the full programme – the self-contained classes. Pull-out programmes are most popular at the elementary levels, and self-contained classes are most popular for junior and senior high levels.’

The article also reveals that the 240-hour two-year in-service training provision for teachers selected to teach gifted classes by their principals, is conducted at five centres around the country: Tel-Aviv University, Ben Gurion University, the University of Haifa, Oranim College and Gordon College.

This training is also available to specialist teachers conducting the enrichment programmes, while non-teacher ‘experts’ appear to be trained locally.

Criticism of the gifted programme as a whole is summed up thus:

‘Perhaps the major bone of contention, as previously noted, has been the ministry’s insistence upon defining giftedness exclusively on the basis of IQ. Other criticisms are variously social, economic, political and cultural. The process of identifying and selecting gifted children has been attacked for the relatively high percentage of girls and low percentage of Arabs and “peripheral” groups, like Ethiopians. Other critics claim that while gifted education programmes may be scattered around the country, two-thirds of them are concentrated in Tel Aviv and the country’s centre. Gifted education has also been disparaged as education for the rich, with critics identifying a variety of programmes in affluent North Tel Aviv, while finding none in the city’s impoverished south.’

There is also criticism of the fact that the system focuses over-much on excellence in STEM subjects:

‘However multi-talented or multi-gifted a child might be when he enters the system, he tends to be focused on a very narrow range of technical fields when he comes out the other end.’

Objections to the terminology are articulated by Hezki Arieli, Director of the Israel Center for Excellence through Education (which runs the Israel Arts and Science Academy (IASA)):

‘Arieli says, “We deal more with ‘excellence’ than with ‘giftedness.’ We are talking about excelling students that are bright, motivated and highly-abled. We are not measuring it by IQ. For us it is much more about proven ability as well as high motivation and curiosity.”’

And also by Ra’anan Avital, CEO of the Israel Center for Youth Leadership, which runs the Havruta High School for Leadership and Culture:

‘”The Education Ministry’s definition of ‘gifted’ is an IQ of 135 and above. What we’re looking for are things like motivation, ability, leadership potential and other things that someone with a very high IQ wouldn’t necessarily have.”’

But the story ends on an upbeat note:

‘Despite the confusing and sometimes contesting variety of frameworks, programs, schools and educational philosophies, if your kid has the “right stuff,” there is probably something here for him or her. One thing is certain, though. If you grew up in a country where you were told “you’re too damned smart for your own good,” you have come to the right country to raise your smart children.’

.

Haifa Port courtesy of Chris Yunker

.

Too Much STEM

The reference to an over-emphasis on STEM apparently originates in a study by Inbal Shani from the University of Haifa referenced briefly in another article. Shani surveyed 800 gifted and other students to assess psychological differences between them.

She found that, while gifted learners have higher self-esteem in respect of their academic achievement, they have lower self-esteem in relation to physical and social skills. Moreover:

‘“Society identifies the gifted child with high intelligence and is often hasty to identify this intelligence with specific subjects, especially exact or prestigious sciences,” says Shani. “The maturing children are quick to adopt this identity, renouncing the process of building self-identity.

“It is a paradox,” she adds. “It is the gifted – who are often multi-talented – who tend to limit the realization of those very talents into specific fields. Instead of selecting from many options open to them, they limit themselves to applied or prestigious subjects.”’

.

The Experience of Gifted Minorities

Another article focuses humorously on the experience of being parent of a gifted Arab girl in East Jerusalem:

‘The school year was getting closer, but attempts to locate the Department for Gifted Children in East Jerusalem proved futile…We learned that apparently there once was a programme for gifted children in East Jerusalem but it was discontinued and then renewed, but it’s not clear where it is and what exactly it does…In contrast to the Arabs, the gifted Jews have a school of their own, a detailed Web site listing the classes planned for the coming year, the names of the teachers, an adviser, a principal, a motto and above all an address…

Meanwhile, on the other side, those 20 Arab children will apparently receive a room for one day during the high-school vacations, on condition of course that the school isn’t destroyed before the beginning of the school year…

 I made a brief phone call to the school for gifted Jews and I received a polite and courteous response informing me that yes, Arab pupils who received the notice from the Ministry of Education can study with the Jews. Now as a mentally healthy father, I considered what would guarantee a better future for my daughter: gifted Jews or gifted Arabs? After all, what is the definition of a gifted Arab child from East Jerusalem? Someone who will be asked to show identification to the Border Police before he is of legal age? Jews and being gifted go together. No question about it. They probably test the Arabs a year later for security reasons. Probably during the year that the child missed they taught all the shits from third grade the secrets of the atom. Never mind, I thought to myself as I registered her for the gifted Jews’ programme, in the final analysis I have always been in favour of conventional weapons.’

On a similar theme an October 2010 article reveals that a new test is to be introduced to identify gifted learners of Ethiopian origin. Instead of the Szold Institute, the identification process will be undertaken by Feuerstein’s International Center for the Enhancement of Learning Potential (ICELP).

This is because:

‘The ministry has acknowledged that the tests generally used to identify gifted children are culturally biased as they depend on the students’ knowledge of Hebrew.’

The report says that the Education Ministry approached Rabbi Feuerstein’s Center a year previously to seek their help. The plan was for about 300 Ethiopian children in Grades 2-3 to complete initial tests, 130 of whom would then be assessed further with about 60 accepted into gifted enrichment programmes and, subsequently, gifted classes. However, although the project should have been underway, ‘the agreement between the ministry and Feuerstein’s centre has not been finalised’.

A subsequent article in December 2010 says that the Ministry of Education had planned a programme to identify ‘a few dozen’ gifted Ethiopian children from amongst 300 children in grades 2 and 3 spread across four communities.

The learners would then attend separate workshops and enrichment classes.

This article claims that the decision to go ahead had been taken six months previously (in Summer 2010). However, for some reason, this partnership with ICELP required ‘special authorisation’ which was unaccountably delayed. Testing was to have been undertaken in early September 2010, so the programme could begin after school holidays.

There is brief reference to a pilot programme on the Feuerstein Institute website, so it presumably proceeded eventually:

‘Pilot programme for the identification and empowerment of gifted Ethiopian pupils in the schools: This project is designed to identify gifted pupils from the Ethiopian community and provide them with suitable cognitive empowerment, thus enabling them to bridge the cultural differences and participate in the national programme for gifted students.’

This is not the only provision for gifted young Ethiopians. An organisation called the Ariela Foundation operates a MAOF programme provides personalised support for learners through to university entrance (described in Part Three).

.

Provision for the ‘Super-Gifted’

An article which appeared in October 2009 refers to the introduction of a programme for the ‘super-gifted’ cohort said to have been designed by the President of the Weizmann Institute.

Fifteen students from grades 10 and 11 receive personal training from a ‘world-renowned’ scientist provided on one day every two weeks at the institution at which the scientist is employed, and are brought together as a group three times a year. According to the report, the students were identified through teacher recommendation from amongst those with an IQ of 155+.

Also from this period, there is an Executive Summary of a study of the first cohort of the Legacy Heritage Mentoring Programme, a ‘national mentoring programme to identify and nurture highly gifted adolescents from all the regions of Israel’, supported by the Legacy Heritage Fund and administered by the Szold Institute.

This has some similarities with the programme described above and may indeed be the same. Mentors worked on their area of expertise with their allocated students for a five hour session every two weeks. Four conferences for all participants were also held during the year.

The first, held at Weizmann, enabled the participants to establish relationships with their mentors and agree a ‘contract’. The other three involved discussion of ‘difficulties and over-burden’ and subject-specific ethical dilemmas. A final conference will be held in December 2010, sponsored by the Minister of Education. Participants will present their work and parents and mentors will also relay their experiences of the project.

All participants developed a product, such as a research project or musical composition. The study reports that 14 of the 17 participants completed the programme. The three dropouts cited overload as the cause. Most of the 14 felt the programme had improved their knowledge and independent learning skills. The majority felt it had helped them to deal with related ethical dilemmas.Overall the programme is judged successful.

.

Professional Development Reforms

An article from 2010 by Vidergor and Eilam is available online within Volume 25(2) of Gifted and Talented International. Called ‘Curriculum Transformation: The Israeli Teacher Certification in Gifted Education’, it explores differences between the formulation of the training programme and its delivery.

The introduction reveals some of the thinking behind the planned legislation (which has yet to be enacted):

‘The steering committee…has asserted that teaching and education of gifted constitute a unique pedagogical domain that requires a special framework of training. Therefore, they stressed the need for a legislative procedure that will result in The Gifted Act, which will establish special certification and professional development programmes intended for both regular school teachers, and teachers who teach gifted students.  As a result, five centres were established in Israel (prior to completion of legislative procedure) offering a certification programme for the first time.’

The Ministry assigned nine coordinators (two per centre and one for the fifth) and, except in the final case, one was responsible for the first year of training, the other for the second year.

A co-ordinators’ forum, including an academic consultant and national programme co-ordinator, meets with the Ministry each month to monitor progress but ‘the Ministry has not yet worked out a role description for coordinators’.

The steering committee ruled that:

‘Training should focus on pedagogical knowledge to cater for the cognitive and emotional needs of gifted and talented children. Training will focus on teachers getting acquainted with theoretical issues in gifted education in general, as well as the specific Israeli experience.  It is suggested that working procedures would be devised bearing the unique needs of the gifted population in mind, and guided reflective practicum would be included in programmes.’

The programme is intended for teachers holding a first degree and is expected to provide additional certification, with ‘in the near future’ the option of a Masters degree. It will combine theory and practice in four distinct stages:

‘(a) acquaintance with theoretical aspects of teaching gifted like: definition of giftedness, identification, cognitive and social aspects, brain research and learning processes, characteristics and development of gifted child, curriculum planning, teaching strategies, assessment, and characteristics of unique frameworks;

(b) acquaintance with the field involving observations and interviews followed by discussions. This stage will be introduced while studying first stage theoretical aspects;

(c) designing and formalising suitable working strategies guided by professional and expert teachers focusing on  cognitive, social and emotional needs of gifted students; and

(d) supervised practicum followed by team and individual discussions reflecting on teaching experience.’

An interview with Rachmel confirms that the training was developed on the basis of a review of similar provision worldwide. The five programmes were established over a three year period and:

‘a decision was made in 2009 that completing a certification programme will be obligatory for new teachers of gifted, or those with less than 10 years of experience, by the year 2014.’

Monitoring through the forum led to programmes being ‘reviewed and changed constantly’. A number of findings follow about the difference between design and delivery and a series of practical recommendations are offered.

.

Bahai Garden courtesy of chaim zvi

.

The Current Position: 2011 onwards

The first substantive source about the current state of play is another English language paper on the Ministry’s website ‘To Which We Aspire: Unique Pedagogies for the Gifted and Excellent’ which is liked to a conference given in April 2011.

This begins with a description of the work of what is once more termed the ‘Division of Gifted and Outstanding Students’ (presumably having completed its flirtation with ‘Excellence’ as an alternative to ‘Outstanding’).

The Division’s vision and ‘image of our graduates’ repeats material above. This is followed by a set of six broad aims:

• ‘To instil and lead a culture which places excellence as a central value.

•  Providing a response to the special needs of the community of gifted and outstanding students, and to bring about a maximization and full expression of their talents and abilities within the framework of the public education system.

• Development of the cognitive aspect of the students – developing varied thinking skills at a high level, and the skills needed in the consumption of knowledge and its creation. In addition, instilling and developing modes of thinking for the purpose of handling complex problems and situations of uncertainty.

• Developing the emotional, value and social aspect amongst the students – development of tools for expressing feelings, assertiveness and self-esteem. Development of social involvement and leadership skills. Development of inter-personal communication, the ability to work in team and to recognise the value of the group. Development of personal and social responsibility and sensitivity to moral issues.

• Management of pedagogic knowledge including up-to date materials and professional literature and

• Initiation of practical research.’

The Division’s activities are divided into seven broad areas:

Operating a system for identification and referral of gifted learners

Operating the ‘frameworks’ for gifted learners – six are listed:

• Local and national centres for gifted and outstanding students
• Classes for gifted and outstanding students within normal schools
• A virtual school  for gifted and outstanding students in lower secondary schools, provided in Hebrew and Arabic
• Guidance by academic mentors for the ‘super-gifted’
• Symposia for students from classes for gifted and outstanding students
• National scientific conferences

Operating special programmes for outstanding students. Four of these are mentioned:

• ‘Amirim’ (see above) to foster learners in primary and lower secondary schools and develop school-wide excellence
• After-school enrichment activities
• Programmes to integrate ‘high school students in academic studies at university’
• School- based maths and science programmes

Professional development activity through ‘academic programmes’, ‘professional development programmes’ and ‘special training for students in teachers colleges’ plus publishing materials and running conferences

Programme design and evaluation and budgeting

Provision for ‘special populations’- described as involving coordination of the identification of immigrant and bilingual students and those with learning difficulties, and also developing programmes for Ethiopian children

Foreign relations, including collaborating with partners worldwide, offering courses on Israeli methods for overseas visitors and hosting study visits.

 Research and development, which mentions several new areas of work including:

•  Setting core curriculum guidelines for gifted programmes
• Developing social science programmes for outstanding with subject superintendents.
• Creating a database to support research into effectiveness of the overall programme
• Developing and piloting programmes for highly able children at  kindergarten
• Developing ‘pedagogic standards’ for programmes
• Supporting outstanding trainees in teachers’ colleges
• A ‘Future Scientists’ programme initiated by the Israeli President
• Creating ‘virtual databases’

The description of the virtual school makes clear that participants now select one course per semester consisting of 12 study units and a face-to-face meeting.

The options for integration of university study are provided either at Open University Branches or at Tel-Aviv University. Participants can secure credit for all or part of an undergraduate degree which, in the latter case, they complete following military service.

The ‘super gifted’ mentoring programme is the one we have encountered above: students are paired with ‘world-renowned mentors’ who guide their research and train them in ‘areas of knowledge ‘. Mentees meet mentors fortnightly and participants meet together three times a year.

Three specific types of enrichment programmes are mentioned:

• ‘Community Anchor’ – designed to support the top 20% in each primary school selected on their teachers’ recommendations.

• ‘Amirim’ again for participants selected by their teachers which utilises the  Enrichment Triad Model: ‘the students choose courses in various areas of knowledge, and an additional course in the social-value area. The courses are written by the teachers in the school and are taught by them. These teachers undergo three years of training in teaching outstanding students.’

• Special schools for the arts:

‘The fostering of gifted and outstanding students in the fields of the arts takes place in special schools in Israel that specialise in one of the arts: music, dance, plastic arts, cinema and theatre. The schools accept students from all over the country. The studies include focusing on the area of art in which the student excels, general studies mandated by the Ministry of Education, as well as enrichment studies combining the various disciplines. The study frameworks place emphasis on creativity, the development of artistic skills, giving personal expression and development of critical thinking. The students are also guided in additional areas, including: dealing with competition, the development of healthy ambitiousness, deepening social values and encouraging contributing to the community.’

A second key source is one of the chapters in ‘International Horizons of Talent Support 1’ published by the Hungarian Genius Programme. Israeli coverage is on pages 121-144.

A few interesting additional details are supplied about the wider development of Israeli gifted education. It is clear that identification is still undertaken almost exclusively through intelligence tests even though:

‘major efforts have been made over recent years by the Ministry to include motivation factors and other personality characteristics into the identification of talent’.

The second round of IQ tests – the test battery measures ‘linguistic, mathematical and spatial abilities, abstract thinking, memory, analytical and generalising skills’.

However, Arab students have undertaken different tests since 2009, designed and administered by the Karni Institute enabling them and other immigrant children to be tested in their mother tongues.

Because early identification is disadvantageous to those who are late developers, another assessment is also available before entry to upper secondary school – a cognitive test generated by the Karni Institute. The ICELP assessment of Ethiopian children is also mentioned.

A new statistic is provided:

‘Talent development managed by the state reached 12,538 children in 2009, 63% of them were instructed in pull-out centres, 21% in special classes, 8% in distance education and 3% via acceleration (e.g., university studies started earlier)’

But the chapter is devoted mostly to the work of the regional ‘pull-out’ centres providing enrichment activities. It says there are 53 of these (up from 52 on previous counts). Fourteen of these are solely for Arab learners. Altogether they support over 6,000 learners.

Classes at the centres are typically 75 minutes long. For the day a week in-school sessions, the day starts at 8.30am and involves three or four lessons. There are typically 12-18 learners per class.

Although there are no examinations, plans are afoot to accredit learning undertaken in the centres.

Centres are free to determine their own courses, but must observe the core curriculum recently introduced by the Ministry. Further details are not provided.

Most teachers are part-time and may work at several different centres. The Ministry issued a decree in 2010 requiring all teachers working in the centres or in gifted classes in schools to have the postgraduate qualification, with effect from 2014/15. Teachers with at least 10 years’ experience are exempt however. (This may be the long-awaited legislation referred to in previous sections.)

A ‘pull-out’ centre at Karmiel in northern Israel is reviewed in more depth. The centre serves 290 learners in Grades 3-9. Of these, 190 attend the school-time sessions for gifted children (including 50 Druze students taught separately in Arabic) while 100 come to the after-school sessions for outstanding learners. There is no transfer between these groups, unless fresh testing supports the case.

Karmiel is one of six centres in the Northern Region. There are monthly regional meetings and an annual 3-day training course for centre directors.

The gifted provision has been in place for 15 years but that for outstanding learners was introduced only in 2008. Funding comes principally from the state and the town, but parents pay a contribution fixed across all such centres.

Karmiel takes children from some 30 schools. It busses children to and from the sessions. Relationships seem stronger with parents than they are with the schools, though efforts are made by centre staff in both quarters.

.

A Presidential Programme

The Israeli President’s Future Scientists and Inventors initiative is briefly outlined in this document. It makes clear that the purpose is to increase the flow of talented young people into STEM-related careers. It was introduced in 2009 to:

‘Promote science and technology excellence in Israel, while contributing to narrowing the country’s social and economic gaps.’

Programme planning and development was undertaken by the Rashi Foundation

A 4-year pilot began in July 2009 with 50 students, but the intention is to reach 600 students, with 100 students at each of six academic institutions involved.

Participating students are recruited from the top 0.5% of students in 9^th Grade, identified through psychometric testing focusing on ‘scientific and cognitive skills’.

The document is not very clear about programme content, though it reveals that courses are being established at the Technion and Weizmann Institute of Science.

The steering committee for the Programme has established core objectives:

• At least 80% of graduates will be admitted to the Israeli Defence Force’s Academic Cadets or to one of its elite technology or intelligence units.

• At least 90% of graduates will successfully earn an undergraduate science or engineering degree while the remainder will graduate in other fields such as medicine and education.

• At least 90% of those who achieve a first degree will continue to complete ‘a graduate or post-graduate degree in a related subject’.

• Within ten years of completing the programme, at least 80% of participants will be employed as scientists, engineers or researchers.

• Within 10 years of completion, at least 80% of participants will be involved as a volunteer in a social or community project.

• Within 15 years of completion, at least 30% of participants will be ‘start-upentrepreneurs in the high-tech industry’.

More information is available on the Rashi Foundation website. There is a 4-year course beginning at the end of Grade 8 and continuing until the end of Grade 12. Each year there are 20 weeks of courses and workshops, holiday schools and a 3-week industrial placement during summer.

Participants undertake:

• Additional advanced studies in physics, biotechnology, computer science, electronics, robotics, biology, chemistry, aeronautics, nanotechnology and applied mathematics.
  

• Practical training to develop innovation and invention skills including teamwork, creative thinking, project planning and management.
  

• Team work to solve real-world problems.

The aspiration to expand to 600 participants is scaled back here to adding ‘200 students over the next two years’.

This 2011 article covers the inauguration ceremony for the programme.

.

Flamingo in a Salt Lake 2 courtesy of Menashri

.

Further Support for Gifted Immigrants

Volume 26(1) of Gifted and Talented International contains a 2011 paper on Gifted Immigrants and Refugees in Israel by Rosemarin which focuses on those from Ethiopia and Russia.

It notes that, in 2005, just one of 32,000 Ethiopian students was identified as gifted. Hence in 2008 the Ministry announced a pilot programme after which new identification procedures would be established. However, the paper says such procedures are not yet in place. It notes that, by contrast, many more Russian immigrants are highly motivated and academically successful.

.

‘Super-Gifted’ Graduates

In 2012 a rash of stories appeared about the first graduates from the ‘super-gifted’ programme. This is an example. It provides little useful information other than that 18 students completed the programme.

Interestingly, the Summer 2012 edition of Gifted Education Press Quarterly (pages 7-13) features an article about ethical issues by Hanna David of Tel Aviv University (part of the Advisory Panel for this periodical) which criticises the exposure of participants in this programme to media publicity:

 ‘…The wide exposure of these “super-gifted” children included personal and familial private details of the 14 identified youths. Details were given about their parents’ marital status, many of which they would rather have kept unrevealed, the financial situation of the family, the religious views of each parent, or the ethnic origin of the children (all minors). These students were exposed not only unethically, but also to such a level that would have been considered illegal in most countries…

The misuse of the children’s names and photos, and the unexpected way in which some of their families were exposed in the media are unethical… Even the use of the term “super-gifted” is highly problematic… all researchers have been quite convinced that using this term might have a negative influence!’

This prompted a brief critical response from Rachmel in the Autumn 2012 edition which throws some further light on the operation of her Department:

‘The article is one sided, full of inaccuracies and does not reflect the policies and practices of identifying and nurturing gifted students by the Ministry of Education. For instance, the area of giftedness does have legal constraints and rules which are specified by the Director General of the  Ministry of Education and was revised in 2010.’

Furthermore, the policies of the Division for Gifted and Outstanding Students are designed together with a steering committee, comprised of experts from    the major academic institutions in Israel and professionals from the field, including experts in psychometrics (Professor Baruch Nevo), in counselling  (Professor Zipi Shechtman), and in various curricular areas. Furthermore,  every gifted programme has a psychologist or a counselor on staff who specialises in working with gifted students and their family.’

David’s counter response is interesting because of the suggestion it contains that drop-out rates from the Ministry’s programmes are unacceptably high:

‘In some of the gifted classes operating 6-days a week, less than 50% of the children invited actually participate. In the enrichment programmes, the dropout rate is quite high and increases every year. For example in my home town, Rishon Leziyon, about 200 grade 3 students participate in the class operating once a week for the gifted, but more than 80% of them drop out by grade 9.’

 

Translated from the Ministry’s Website

Because there is nothing in English on the very latest position, the information below is gleaned from the Hebrew pages on the Ministry’s website, as viewed through Google Translate. Given this source, some inaccuracy may have crept into the detail that follows.

The list of Divisional responsibilities is broadly unchanged, but there is one new addition – affirmative action programmes for gifted girls and associated research.

There is also reference to a pilot programme supporting talented children in kindergarten which operates in three locations. It seems that an evaluation is in progress which will determine whether such provision will be rolled out.

A statistical table is published showing participation in different elements of the programme, presumably as of 2012:

There are now 12,895 gifted learners within the programme (the table says 12,705 which may suggest that some learners are undertaking two or more different elements):

• 513 students  are in gifted classes in primary schools – there are 21 such classes located in five schools;

• 1,036 students are in gifted classes in lower secondary schools and 1,017 in upper secondary schools making 2,053 in all. It looks as though there are 26 classes in lower secondary schools and 43 classes in upper secondary schools;

• 966 pupils attend specialist arts schools – 576 attend the Thelma Yellin School of the Arts and 390 attend the Academy of Music and Dance (see Part Three);

• The number of Gifted Centres now totals 55 – there is a list here – 8,548 learners attend the centres – 6,711 attend 38 Jewish sector centres and 1,837 attend 17 Arab sector centres;

• 15 students are participating in the mentoring programme for ‘super gifted’ learners;

• 800 students participate in the virtual school, 680 divided between five courses in the Jewish sector, and 120 divided between two courses in the Arab sector.
  

There are 32,392 outstanding learners within the programme:

• 5,325 attend the gifted centres;

• 400 are involved in the pilot Kindergarten provision;

• 20,000 participate in the Amirim project and 108 in an associated Amirim ICT project (see Part Three);

• 5,800 are within an Excellence 2000 maths and science programme (see Part Three);

• 715 are in something called College for All (see Part Three);

• 44 a part of a project connected with Feuerstein (which may be the one for Ethiopian learners)

In addition, 184 teachers have undertaken the full gifted education training programme at six centres and a further 1,019 teachers and other staff have received training (the majority for involvement in the Amirim Programme).

 

Here ends Part Two of this post. Part Three outlines several initiatives, including those mentioned in the last section, which have not yet featured in this review, as well as several key organisations and institutions that deliver aspects of Israel’s national offer for gifted learners.

.

GP

November 2012

 

Gifted Education in Israel: Part One

.

This post is a full and detailed review of Israeli gifted education.

It is divided into three parts:

.

• Part One provides essential background on Israel and its education system before tracing the historical development of Israeli gifted education;

• Part Two examines more recent developments (over the last five years) and analyses the current state of Israeli gifted education;

• Part Three reviews key programmes, initiatives and institutions which contribute to Israel’s considerable national effort in this field. It also offers a brief assessment of overall impact

.

Introduction

Desirous of an update on Israeli gifted education, I attended a session at the 2012 ECHA Conference featuring Shlomit Rachmel Director of the Division for Gifted and Outstanding Students at the Israeli Ministry of Education.

Unfortunately the Programme erroneously calls her Rachmel Shlomit but, even more unfortunately for me, she failed to put in an appearance. We were told she had ‘gone home’.

.

.

Just arrived in this session to listen to Rachmel Shlomit of Israel alongside 2 other presentations, but apparently she's gone home! #echa12

—
  (@GiftedPhoenix) September 14, 2012

.

Perhaps she was in high dudgeon, mortally offended by the slip in the programme but, more likely, she had more pressing matters to address. We were never told.

So my curiosity was piqued but not fulfilled. This led me to trawl through the huge amount of information available free of charge online – even to struggle with the vagaries of online Hebrew-English translation – with a view to publishing this primer.

If you spot any factual errors in my treatment, please don’t hesitate to use the comments facility to set the record straight. Given the vast number of sources utilised in this post, it would be surprising indeed if one or two facts had not gone astray. For the most part, however, I believe this is an accurate and reliable record.

(Commentators may want to give me the benefit of the doubt over the next section however, since I’m aware that this is disputed territory – pun very much intended – and even the most careful choice of language inevitably favours one party over another. I have tried to interpret the facts as objectively as possible.)

Incidentally, I have anglicised the American spelling in the quotations that appear throughout this post.

.

Israel

Israel became an independent country in 1948.

It is situated on the south-eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, surrounded by Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Israel currently occupies the bulk of the Golan Heights and the West Bank including East Jerusalem. (Responsibility for governance in the West Bank is divided, while the relationship with Gaza is both complex and disputed: the two together are referred to as the Palestinian Territories.)

.

.

Israel gives its population as 7,993,200 at September 2012. Of these, 75.4% are Jewish, 20.6% are Arab and the remainder – some 318,000 – includes several small minorities including Ethiopians, Armenians, Assyrians and Circassians.

The national land area is variably defined, depending on the inclusion or otherwise of the occupied territories. Including the West Bank and Golan Heights, the total area is 2,799,000 km2. There are seven main administrative districts divided into 15 sub-districts (two of which are Golan and the West Bank).

Jerusalem is the largest city, with a population of 778,000 (but this includes East Jerusalem). Other large cities are Tel Aviv (393,900) and Haifa (265,600).

Israel is a Parliamentary democracy. A single chamber legislative body, the Knesset, has 120 elected members. The Prime Minister is the head of government and the President is head of state. In 2011, Israel was the world’s 40th largest economy, with the world’s 26^th highest per capita GDP of $30,975.

.

The Israeli Education System

There is surprisingly little information available in English online about the Israeli school system. The brief commentary that follows is gleaned from about six main sources.

Israel defines three tiers within its school system:

• Primary (aka elementary) schools, including grades 1-6 for ages 6-12

• Lower secondary (aka middle or junior high) schools, including grades 7-9 for ages 12-15

• Upper secondary (aka high) schools, including grades 10-12 for ages 15-18.

Schooling is mandatory and free from age 6 to age 18. High school graduates typically progress to compulsory service with the armed forces – three years for males and two years for females.

In 2011/12, there were:

• 2,459 primary schools (1,955 Jewish and 504 Arab) educating 922,252 learners (659,996 Jewish and 248,287 Arab);

• 708 lower secondary schools (549 Jewish and 159 Arab) educating 269,087 learners (190,294 Jewish and 78,793 Arab);

• 1,634 upper secondary schools (1,341 Jewish and 293 Arab) educating 373,749 learners (287,292 Jewish and 86,457 Arab).

Some 9% of middle and secondary schools are boarding schools.

There are four types, or ‘tracks’ for maintained schools:

• State schools (Mamlachti) which the majority of pupils attend

• State religious schools (Mamlachti dati) catering for Orthodox Jews

• Ultra-orthodox Independent schools (Chinuch azmai) which concentrate on the study of religious literature

• Arab and Druze schools which teach in Arabic and feature Arabic history and culture and Islam or the Druze faith.

In 2010, 57% of pupils in public sector schools were in state and state-religious schools, 16% in ultra-orthodox schools and 27% in Arab and Druze schools. There were also five integrated Arab-Jewish schools and a relatively small private sector.

There are nine universities: Ariel University Center of Samaria, Bar-Ilan, Ben-Gurion, Haifa, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Open University, Technion, Tel Aviv, Weizmann Institute of Science. In addition there are many other general and specialist higher education institutions, including over 20 teacher education providers.

The Ministry of Education lays down a broad national curriculum framework for schools but each:

‘may choose from a wide range of study units and teaching materials, provided by the Ministry of Education, which best suit the needs of its faculty and pupil population’.

One source says that, in primary schools:

• The first two grades focus primarily on reading, writing and arithmetic;

• Geography, history and science are introduced from grade 3; Arab schools also introduce Hebrew at this stage;

• Foreign languages are introduced in grade 6, typically English or French; and

• Religious education is compulsory throughout

Meanwhile secondary schools:

• Divide students into academic and vocational tracks;

• Within the academic track students follow a general course prior to specialising in the final two years;

• Within the vocational track students pursue ‘technical, maritime, domestic or business studies’

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs provides further detail on these vocational options:

‘Technological schools train technicians and practical engineers on three levels, with some preparing for higher education, some studying toward a vocational diploma and others acquiring practical skills. Agricultural schools, usually in a residential setting, supplement basic studies with subjects relating to agronomy. Military preparatory schools, in two different settings, train future career personnel and technicians in specific fields required by the Israel Defense Forces; both programs are residential, one open to boys only, the other is coeducational. Yeshiva high schools, mainly boarding schools, with separate frameworks for boys and girls, complement their secular curricula with intensive religious studies and promote observance of tradition as well as a Jewish way of life. Comprehensive schools offer studies in a variety of vocations, ranging from bookkeeping to mechanics, electronics, hotel trades, graphic design and more.

Youth not attending one of the above schools are subject to the Apprenticeship Law, requiring them to study for a trade at an approved vocational school. Apprenticeship programmes are provided by the Ministry of Labor in schools affiliated with vocational networks. Lasting three to four years, these programmes consist of two years of classroom study followed by one/two years during which students study three days a week and work at their chosen trade on the other days. Trades range from hairstyling and cooking to mechanics and word processing.’

For the majority of students however, the ultimate outcome of secondary education is the matriculation certificate or Bagrut. According to Fulbright:

‘The current list of subjects which all candidates for the Bagrut must be tested is as follows:

.

Desert Wildlife courtesy of yonajon

Required Subject	Minimum Study Unit Level Required
Civics	1
Bible	2
Hebrew Literature	2
Hebrew Grammar	1
Hebrew Composition	1
History	2
English	3
Mathematics	3
TOTAL – Required Subjects	15

.

Pupils may choose to devote more of their programme of studies to the above subjects and be tested at a level higher than the minimum required.

In addition to the required core subjects, each candidate for the Bagrut must be tested in one or more elective subjects, determined in keeping with the pupil’s interests and the course offerings of the high school in which he/she is enrolled.  Elective subjects are tested at the 3, 4, or 5 unit levels…

Pupils who intend to undertake academic degree studies at an Israeli university or college after graduating from high school need to prepare themselves to be tested in English at the 4 unit level, and in Mathematics at the 4 or 5 unit level. Typically students take at least one elective course at the 5 unit level. Entrance requirements vary depending on the field of study, and certain faculties require more than one course at the 5 unit level.’

A Taub Center Report adds:

‘As of 2009, 80 percent of Israeli 17-year-olds were enrolled in the 12th grade at State schools, with approximately 72 percent taking the matriculation exams. Forty-six percent earned a matriculation certificate upon graduation from upper secondary school, and 39 percent received a matriculation certificate that enables them to apply for further studies at institutions of higher education’.

Primary and lower secondary teachers complete a three-year teachers’ certificate or diploma, or a four year programme leading to a combined degree and teachers’ diploma. Upper secondary teachers must have an undergraduate degree and a teachers’ diploma. These can be obtained in a combined four-year programme or in succession, the diploma taking a year to complete.

Primary teachers are Ministry of Education employees, but secondary teachers are employed by their local authorities. In 2009/10 there were 49,717 staff employed in Hebrew sector primary schools and a further 17,844 employed in Arab and Druse primary schools. The comparable figures for secondary schools are 56,756 and 13,159 respectively.

.

The Historical Development of Israeli Gifted Education

The material that follows is a patchwork quilt compiled from a variety of different online sources. The sources do not always agree exactly, but rarely is there sufficient evidence to support triangulation, so on occasion I have had to exercise some judgement in determining the most reliable source and the exact meaning of ambiguous terminology.

.

From the 1950s to the 1980s

The education of gifted learners was being discussed within Israel’s education ministry as early as 1958. By 1961 the first residential programme for gifted disadvantaged teenagers had been established. By the late 1960s a variety of after-school enrichment activities were in place and, in 1971, a school for gifted learners was opened in Tel Aviv.

At roughly the same time a study commissioned by the education ministry recommended that it should have a Department for Gifted Children to steer national policy and development. The Department, established by its first director Dan Bitan, became fully operational in 1972.

Its immediate priority was to expand and co-ordinate the existing enrichment activities. By 1981 a network of enrichment centres was supporting over 5,000 students aged 6-17 (an estimated 30-40% of those eligible within Israel).

They offered courses in sciences, arts and humanities taught mostly by university lecturers and were funded by a combination of Ministry grant, support from the provider or sponsor and tuition fees charged to parents.

An expert committee appointed by the Ministry advised that the enrichment centre network should be further expanded and that the Department should also introduce separate pull-out classes for highly gifted learners within their existing schools, as opposed to separate schools for the gifted.

Initial pull-out classes were introduced in selected Tel Aviv and Haifa primary schools at grades 3 and 4 where learners accessed a specially constructed curriculum.

In the mid-1980s, the Department for Gifted Children was under the leadership of Blanka Burg. Its declared purpose was:

‘To identify the most able pupils on a countrywide scale, to develop teachers’ sensitivity for the needs of special pupils in their classes, and to provide proper framework and content, which will enable such development.’

By the late 1980s Israel had developed a separate programme of study for highly gifted learners throughout Grades 3-12. This incorporated elements of enrichment, extension and acceleration (though little early specialisation). Teachers were specially selected and trained.

A 1988 publication notes that the country had experimented successfully with in-school enrichment programmes which students attended for six hours a week.

• Over 15 institutions were providing after school enrichment at primary level – students attended special courses twice a week in the sciences, humanities and arts. These were provided by universities, museums, libraries and similar organisations.

• There were also 13 special classes for highly gifted learners. Admissions testing was undertaken in Grade 2 and successful learners required a mean IQ of 143. Classes began in Grade 3 and continue until either Grade 6 or Grade 12.

• The curriculum in special classes included topics such as astrophysics and electronics. There was also emphasis on ‘integrating the different domains of knowledge’ and divergent thinking. The curriculum was flexible and, although there was some acceleration, the Ministry did not encourage it.

• There was increasing emphasis placed on identifying disadvantaged and ethnic minority gifted students and there are boarding schools for able disadvantaged learners whose home circumstances are difficult.

In 1988, Goldring, Milgram and Chen produced a paper for the Ministry ‘Toward a coordinated educational policy for gifted and talented children’. This reviewed current provision and offered recommendations for the future direction of gifted education.

It proposed moving away from an identification process based solely on IQ testing, the introduction of a differentiated curriculum and personalised pedagogical strategies. Although these recommendations were accepted they were not implemented.

.

Rain in the Golan Heights courtesy of vad levin

.

The 1990s

By 1994, the Ministry’s Department for Gifted Education has acquired an extensive list of responsibilities:

• Testing children throughout the country
• Establishing unique enrichment frameworks
• Holding in-service training courses and seminars
• Instructing teachers and field-workers
• School visits and establishing supervision and guidance for programme coordinators
• Publishing guidance including a programme handbook and monthly bulletin
• Supporting the testing and placement of new immigrant children
• Support for Arab, Druze and Bedouin gifted children
• Contact with professional bodies in Israel and overseas
• Budgeting and allocating budgets against enrichment frameworks
• Providing committee membership and administrative support

A steering committee has formulated goals for the various subject-specific enrichment frameworks supported by the Department incorporating cognitive and affective dimensions as well as social values.

Three types of enrichment programmes are on offer: afternoon extra-curricular activities, weekly programmes and special classes within students’ regular schools.

• The afternoon extra-curricular activities are offered once a week, typically by a university, college or community centre. Learners choose two activities from a menu of options not normally encountered in the school curriculum. Such provision is targeted mainly at Grades 3-6, but programmes continue until Grade 9 in areas where there is no separate provision for lower secondary students. Access is for learners who score in the top 3% in examinations for their age group.

• The weekly enrichment programmes are provided in a district or regional centre and are also targeted at Grades 3-6 and continue until Grade 9 where there is no alternative provision. The nature of the programmes vary depending on the needs of the students, the area served and the teachers’ expertise. A committee of programme directors monitors the overall provision.

• The special school-based classes enable highly gifted learners to be taught in separate classes throughout primary, lower and upper secondary school. Students continue to participate in wider school activities and form relationships with peers outside their class. The curriculum is based on the normal school curriculum but with elements of faster pace, a variety of teaching methods and joint teaching with university staff. In some parts of the country such classes begin in Grade 7 and children access weekly enrichment programmes in the primary sector. But school-based classes operate in seven different regions throughout the country. They are open to those who score in the top 1% in examinations in their area (rather than the top 1% assessed on national norms). Students can enter and leave the class at any point, though the dropout rate is described as ‘quite low’.

The Department’s preference is to offer these frameworks across Israel to enable gifted learners to access them according to their needs, but there is not full choice between all three options in every locality because of organisational and budgetary constraints. An evaluative survey is currently under way.

There is no specific coverage of gifted children in normal teacher training so the Department provides in-service training for selected gifted education teachers. It offers one-day seminars, subject-specific and age-specific courses, courses on the social needs of gifted learners and training in new pedagogical techniques.

In 1995 the Ministry of Education’s Chief Scientist – one P Nesher – reviewed existing arrangements and recommended broadening identification processes, removing nationwide IQ testing and introducing identification of domain-specific abilities.

These recommendations were approved by the Ministry but headteachers and teachers were concerned whether they could be implemented in practice. In the event, the new methods were delayed and a transitional year was to be used to develop implementation tools and procedures. But this did not happen and so the old methods were once more retained.

An interesting footnote is provided by this record of a January 1999 meeting between Schlomit Rachmel (then Acting Director of the Department for Gifted Children) and the UK Parliament’s Select Committee on Education and Employment, which was conducting its own enquiry into Highly Able Children in England.

This reveals that:

• Israeli parents find the term ‘highly able’ more controversial than ‘gifted’; the Department for Gifted Children is reported to be critical of ‘the fashion of inclusion’ (ie differentiated provision within normal classes).

• All children in grades 2-4 are tested in maths and comprehension. Of these the top 15% take a series of five optional psychometric tests to establish the top 3% eligible for the enrichment programmes overseen by the Department. Schools can recommend that learners outside the top 15% should be put forward for psychometric testing. Parents receive letters about the tests and the results.

• The tests require improvements, currently in train. Amongst the 3% there is a gender ratio of 2:1 in favour of boys and few learners from disadvantaged backgrounds. This is corrected to some extent by setting a lower threshold for girls and varying the overall threshold by district, but relatively advantaged learners are still over-represented.

• Support for Arabic learners was introduced in 1993, with the introduction of Arabic-medium tests and 13 dedicated enrichment centres. Bedouin, Druze and East European populations are also supported.

• Enrichment programmes provided for one afternoon weekly are accessed by 37% of the identified top 3%. Participants benefit from peer relationships, receive greater stimulation and derive positive self-esteem, but the contrast makes their other four school-based days less fulfilling (actually they are “wasted”);

• In-school classes for gifted children can more accurately be described as ‘schools within schools’, since they typically cater for at least 100 pupils, divided into classes of 20-25 (compared with an average Israeli class size of 40. Fewer than one-fifth (20%) of the 3% gifted population attend such classes, which are perceived as more successful than the afternoon enrichment option.

.

Israel Landscape courtesy of AntoniO BovinO

.

From 2000 to 2004

In 2002, Rachmel and a colleague published an article in the Proceedings of ECHA’s 8^th Conference (pp 113-116) which describes some leadership programmes included in the menu promoted by her Department which serves over 12,000 gifted learners in Grades 3-12.

Primary school programmes include:

• One designed by the Hillel School in Ramat Gan (a central Israeli city) to  help gifted learners fulfil their academic and social leadership potential while promoting volunteering, accepting and respecting diversity, responsibility, personal and social commitment and empathy toward others. The aim was to match learners’ capabilities and interests with the needs of their local community. Activities included creating a library, designing learning games for peers and adopting a local special school.

• At Tel-Hai College in the north of Israel, pupils worked alongside older people in the community to develop dramatic activities and stage productions.

• Within Jerusalem’s Ofek programme, learners produced and broadcast a radio programme on the public broadcasting channel featuring youth-related themes such as ‘children of divorced parents, being different, and internet addiction’.

A lower secondary school in Petach Tikya engaged students in communities of enquiry to explore literary themes such as adolescence, fears, and the birth of a sibling. They produced a portfolio of their own stories, poems and videos.

The paper also describes projects in which educators support students to produce research papers for matriculation and others that tackle real-life problems in the local community.

Students at Jerusalem’s Israel Arts and Science Academy in Jerusalem (see Part Three) worked with community leaders to transform a nearby ravine into a public park. Meanwhile, students in ‘the High School Near the University in Jerusalem’ (probably the Hebrew University Secondary School) were working with two Arab schools in Nazareth on a project to reduce prejudice and increase tolerance towards others.

A second paper in the Proceedings, by two staff from the Gordon College of Teacher Education, reports on teacher training at this time. Key points include:

• The identified gifted population (3%) follow one of three learning frameworks: ‘classes for gifted children in regular schools, one day a week of enrichment outside the school or special enrichment groups after school’.

• But there is no framework for the preparation of gifted education teachers. Some students may undertake a one-semester course, but most receive no training at all and have no experience of teaching gifted children.

• Gordon College introduced a training course in 1998 intended for teachers with three years’ experience recommended by their principals. The 224-hour course was provided over one year, with eight hours of sessions per week.

• Topics addressed include:

‘The gifted child – cognitive, social and emotional aspects, giftedness and gender, stereotypes and the gifted, methods of identification and frameworks for the fostering of the gifted.

Curriculum development for gifted children – theoretical models for integrative approaches, demonstration and practice in the development of interdisciplinary programs for gifted children.

Information technology – developing skills in seeking, classifying and organizing information.

Creative and inventive thinking – developing thinking strategies, meta-cognition, technological aspects and initiatives.

 Developing imaginative resources and curiosity – learning via riddles – the question and problem as the center of learning and as a legitimate motivational technique (instead of solution and knowledge), creating interest and developing curiosity, and encouraging achievement.’

Participants also visit schools and work within the learning frameworks, typically via the enrichment groups supported at Gordon College.

• A survey showed that most participants were mid-career teachers aged 25-56. Some 70 % taught in primary schools. Two thirds said they took the course to ‘improve their teaching in the regular classroom or to teach gifted children in a normal school’. Some 10% said they wanted to teach in the gifted frameworks and 3% were simply pursuing ‘personal and professional advancement’.

• 40% of graduates from the course work on gifted children’s programmes in normal schools, 30% have developed such programmes in their schools while the remaining 30% continue teaching normal classes but report that ‘their lessons have become more challenging and are constructed with an interdisciplinary approach that emphasises thinking and creative aspects’.

A third paper describes support for gifted learners in ‘mixed ability’ classes provided at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University Secondary School. In fact, these arrangements involve: ‘Highly gifted children (IQ above 140) study[ing] together with talented pupils (IQ above 110) in a one to one ratio’

There are also some rather rambling ‘Meditations on the Realisation of an Educational Vision: Israel Arts and Science Academy’. They do reveal that:

‘During the 2001-2 school year, the school’s 207 students came from 112 communities. Almost 10 % of the students are Arabs, almost 10 % come from Orthodox junior high schools and over 20 % are immigrants…over 80 % of the students receive considerable scholarships through our needbased [sic] financial aid system…’

Finally there is a description of a series of activities offered by the Weizmann Institute:

• Math-by-Mail for learners throughout Israel in Grades 3-10. Mathematicians set problems at four different levels for learners to solve at home. Five sets of problems are issued each year, translated into Russian, English and Korean.

• A four-week international summer residential programme for 75 pre-university science students who work on research projects in twos and threes, supervised by postgraduates and scientists.

• A two-week residential National Science Workshop for outstanding Israeli upper secondary school students again built around research projects.

• A parallel two-week Science, Music and Art Programme for 60 14 year-olds with potential to excel in those fields. The purpose is to build connections between the three disciplines. In the morning there is interest-based study in groups; in the afternoon there are interdisciplinary workshops.

• Maths Olympiads for lower and upper secondary students respectively, plus a physics tournament for five-person upper secondary school teams.

• The Arrow (the Hebrew equivalent is an acronym for ‘young researchers’) for a group of scientifically talented learners in Grades 10-12. Those in Grade 10 receive ‘a broad overview of modern scientific research’ through five intensive two-day sessions. They subsequently undertake a long-term research project which can be submitted towards matriculation. This programme was piloted in Tel-Aviv High School and went national in 1999.

A more contemporary account of Weizmann’s provision is included in Part Three of this post.

Two further publications are available from around this time, both by Rachmel and colleagues within the Department for Gifted Students.

The first is called ‘Opportunities for Realisation of Potential in Science and Technology in Gifted Programs in Israel’.

This distinguishes three types of opportunity: acceleration, enrichment – provided in the curriculum and as extra-curricular activity – and utilising science and technology to serve the community.

Following a brief outline of gifted provision, the article lists the goals of Israeli gifted programmes as:

The cognitive dimension:

‘Developing specific skills and abilities in various talent areas, in line with individual needs and interests.

Enhancing the ability to consume information critically and effectively. Strengthening the tendency toward strategic thinking.

Encouraging divergent and inter-disciplinary thinking.

Developing the ability to cope with uncertainty and deal with complex problems.

Enhancing the ability to produce knowledge in various fields of interest’

The social dimension:

‘Enhancing moral decision making.

Developing awareness of moral and social dilemmas.

Strengthening sensitivity toward others.

Developing the ability to work in teams.

Accepting the need for autonomy, while maintaining reasonable limits for freedom.

Developing social interest and commitment to society’.

The personality dimension:

‘Developing persistence in performing tasks and postponing satisfaction.

Enhancing commitment to tasks.

Encouraging originality.

Enhancing curiosity.

Encouraging daring to express unusual, out of the way ideas.

Enhancing personal initiative.

Developing competency, which includes knowing what I am capable of, comprehending how I can make a difference and how I can cope with stereotypes.’

The paper reports considerable reluctance to pursue acceleration:

‘for fear that acceleration may cause difficulties in their social and emotional development by increasing the already existing gap between their social and cognitive development. Therefore, grade skipping and early entrance to the university for full academic studies are rarely performed and then, only in individual cases.’

Nevertheless, the Department introduced a programme in 2000/01 with the Open University in Israel for students in grades 9-12 who already study in separate gifted classes.

The course is designed to provide enrichment during the school day, develop independent learning and problem-solving skills, develop social skills through interaction with gifted peers and provide the opportunity to secure an undergraduate science degree while still in upper secondary school.

Participating students attend sessions at an Open University Campus, initially one course of 3-4 hours per semester and then two courses if they wish. These take place during the school day. They complete units of study during course time and undertake independent study tasks requiring 4-5 hours’ work. There is an examination at the end of each semester.

In 2000/01 97 students in Grades 9 and 10 began the course and 77 continued into the second semester. In 2001/02, 104 students enrolled in the first semester. Most opted for maths and computer science courses. In the first year the majority completed the course successfully but several organisational issues were identified.

The second course type described is interdisciplinary enrichment. A range of robotics courses are outlined , all involving the design, building and testing of a robot.

The third type is illustrated by:

• A ‘country of water streams’ project, developed with the Ministry for the Quality of the Environment. The aim was to monitor the air and water quality across Israel. Gifted lower secondary students undertook the work in their areas, sharing and analysing the information they had collected online. Students met together at intervals to learn about ecology and biology.

• The Young Entrepreneurs Project, built around establishing a company, developing and marketing a product. This operated in two self-contained gifted education classes.

• The I Can Also Do Project: a competition to develop models or prototypes of products to support people with disabilities.

.

Judean Desert courtesy of chaim zvi

.

The second paper is entitled ‘Science Education Programmes in Israel via Distance Learning’. It describes online science classes.

The introduction refers to the established gifted education frameworks and also ‘two special schools’ (one is presumably the Israel Arts and Science Academy).

But there are few enrolments in these frameworks in rural areas:

‘In these communities, the additional enrichment opportunities provided under the auspices of the Department are rather limited due to the distance from institutions of higher learning; and, in many cases, because of difficult economic conditions. Hence, there is a gap in learning opportunities offered to gifted students in large urban areas as opposed to those living in small, remote communities.’

Distance learning provides such learners – who may feel isolated in their schools – with the opportunity to connect with peers of similar ability elsewhere. It also ‘leads to higher quality work than in heterogeneous groups where gifted students are few and far between’

The courses were developed with three aims:

• To offer intellectual challenge, encouraging learners explore subjects in greater depth, and to demonstrate commitment and responsibility for learning.

• To provide distance learning ‘as a basis for future learning’ and

• To develop an enjoyable learning experience within the context of lifelong learning.

They were designed to stimulate independent learning and enable students to utilise a range of learning styles, to develop an interdisciplinary perspective on science and utilise university experts to expose students to unfamiliar methods of scientific investigation and analysis.

The report suggests that such distance learning options were first developed around 1994:

‘During the first eight years of operation of the internet site, we focused on scientific surveys and complex units in a broad variety of fields of knowledge which were written by academic experts and suited to gifted students, grades 7 and up. Subjects such as cellular telephones, the problem of the rain forests in Brazil, or a literary analysis of the Harry Potter series had a tremendous number of hits. Each survey was accompanied by questions for thought, links to additional sites dealing with the same subject, referral to relevant illustrations and animations. Likewise, the writer of the series facilitated discussion groups and answered questions for a period of two months from the date that the survey was placed on the site. Every month, we put a new survey on the site.’

….we made a decision in 2002 to change the concept of the internet site. It was clear that in order to meet the needs of the gifted students, especially in the periphery, the activities had to be organised systematically and a virtual school had to be established. Four courses were prepared by experts from academia and from the Department. We approached seventh to ninth grade students in the special centres and there was a great show of enthusiasm. The choice of relatively older students was based on professional considerations. These students usually master the necessary technological skills, know English well and are ready for independent learning. We limited the number of students in each course to 30, in order to facilitate feedback and formation of a virtual community.’

This later virtual school approach was piloted from 2002 to 2004 in partnership with Tel-Aviv University and Israel’s Center for Educational Technology.

The courses offered included the senses, artificial intelligence, the history of maths and environmental ethics. They were designed to stimulate divergent and higher order thinking, to examine scientific concepts from philosophical, psychological and social perspectives, to make inter-disciplinary connections and address ethical issues.

Each course was divided into 12 units, each published online on a weekly basis. Courses comprised an introduction, supporting texts, links to online resources and tasks for participants to complete. Instructors provided online feedback on the tasks with an additional 1-day face-to-face meeting per course. Following feedback after year one, the instructors set aside discrete time and offered extra support to learners who needed it. Student forums were introduced and students and their parents received progress reports and a final report card.

Initially the target group consisted of students from self-contained lower secondary gifted classes who undertook the courses during school time. In the second year, it was expanded to all gifted lower secondary school students from across Israel, with students participating on a voluntary basis.

In the first year of the pilot, 50% of 115 participants completed the courses. In the second year there were 155 participants, 71% completing the first semester courses and 88% the second semester courses (possibly as a result of the introduction of enhanced support for participants).

The results demonstrated that:

‘with adequate individualised support, distance learning can provide a challenging, yet rewarding independent learning experience to gifted students, especially to those in the periphery who do not have access to many other resources. In line with the objectives of the courses, further consideration is needed on how to enhance intellectual meeting and team work among students from different schools who communicate via the internet. In line with the findings concerning in-depth study, another issue to consider is whether to promote more exposure to various content areas, or to in-depth investigation in specific areas of interest, supported by mentors.’

.

The 2004 Reforms

2004 marked a watershed in the development of Israeli gifted education. The key source of information is a lecture given by Rachmel in Korea in June 2005 ‘The Policy For Promoting Gifted Education in Israel 2005’.

The purpose of the lecture is to:

‘Present the new policy for promoting gifted education in Israel, as set out by a steering committee, whose recommendations were adopted by the ministry administration in September 2004. These serve as part of the general reform that is planned to take place in the education system in Israel over the coming five years.’

The lecture includes a taxonomy of existing provision which is slightly different to those above. It references:

Three ‘unique morning frameworks’ – special classes in schools, weekly enrichment days and now a residential school – for the top 1-1.5% of performers in  national tests. Learners are selected by age group and locality (so not according to national norms).

• Special classes operate in five primary and 15 secondary schools. The curriculum, though based on the standard curriculum, includes elements of enrichment, extension and acceleration. In secondary classes students undertake an additional option involving academic study at higher education level (concurrent enrolment).

• Weekly enrichment days are pull-out sessions offered at regional centres. Organised transport is provided. Some provide for Grades 3-6, others for Grades 3-9 and some for Grades 3-11. Some centres have mixed populations while others provide separately for Jewish, Arab or Druze learners. Content does not feature in the normal school curriculum. The framework is permissive and provision varies widely, depending on the number of pupils and their needs, the location of the centre and the skills and preferences of the leader and teachers.

• The residential centre is the Israel Arts and Science Academy which, though established by a private foundation, is part funded by the Government. Entrants must demonstrate ‘an above-average general scholastic ability, excellence in a specific field and the necessary social skills’.

Afternoon enrichment classes for those in the top 3% of performers on universal national tests administered in Grades 2 or 3. These are after-school programmes for Grades 3-6. Pupils take two classes a week selected from a menu.

Private frameworks not administered by the Government. They provide in-school enrichment or after-school enrichment classes and ‘operate (almost) exclusively in affluent residential areas’. Such frameworks have not been mentioned in previous descriptions.

A steering committee, chaired by Baruch Nevo of Haifa University, was appointed in January 2003 and reported in July 2004. It was asked to consider all aspects of support for gifted pupils from first principles and made a series of fundamental recommendations.

The steering committee is supportive of a diverse range of providers while noting that:

‘Without government aid it will be impossible to identify gifted and talented children in peripheral areas, underprivileged neighbourhoods, new immigrants and more.’

It therefore recommends

‘Placing these frameworks under government pedagogic supervision and extending budgetary assistance to them according to criteria that are to be established.’

This should help to secure equality of access, so countering social inequality, while introducing quality assurance across the full range of provision, so improving the overall quality of state education.

.

Principles

The committee established five basic principles to underpin future gifted education:

• ‘Israel’s human capital is the primary quality resource at its disposal in facing the challenges of the 21st century. Investing in developing the talents of gifted pupils serves as a vital component in preparing the future generation of scientists, artists and trailblazers.

• Equal opportunity in education requires differential investment of resources in accordance with the characteristics and needs of each and every pupil, so that each pupil will be able to optimally realise his potential. Gifted pupils have special characteristics and needs, similarly to pupils with other unique characteristics (slow pupils, pupils with learning disabilities and more).

• The world of human talent is diverse. Giftedness can be manifested in general cognitive skills, in high achievements, in artistic or sports-oriented skills.

• High intelligence and other human talents are dynamic qualities that can be advanced and shaped. Neglecting the potential for unique talent impairs the gifted pupil’s ability to contribute in the future to himself and to society.

• The special characteristics and needs of gifted pupils require a unique learning environment and unique study tracks, with respect to the pedagogic method, suitable teachers and curricula.’

The lecture proceeds to expand on these principles. It identifies the characteristics that gifted education programmes should seek to develop in participants as:

•  Achievement in their areas of talent and expectations for them to excel as adults;

• Development of ‘determination and task commitment, creativity and originality, curiosity, intellectual courage, intellectual or artistic integrity, the ability and desire to continually learn and develop, the ability to think under conditions of uncertainty, the ability for multidirectional thinking, efficient consumption of information, a broad perspective and awareness of ethical implications’;

• Becoming part of a ‘serving elite’ displaying social commitment, morality and humanity.

.

Definitions

When defining its target population, the committee decided to use the term ‘gifted’ to denote all types of excellence, whether in academic study, sports or arts. A distinction is made between ‘general scholastic ability/general level of intelligence’ and a ‘specific scholastic field of excellence’.

It defines giftedness in statistical terms, distinguishing between:

• Gifted pupils – ‘The top percentile of the population in each cohort, in each of the spheres of giftedness as defined above, on condition that they also meet the criteria of motivation and creativity…In terms of IQ, this refers to an IQ of 135 and above’.

• Outstanding pupils – ‘The top 5% of the population in each cohort, in each of the spheres of giftedness as defined above, on condition that they also meet the criteria of motivation and creativity…In terms of IQ, this refers to an IQ of 125 and above’.

The additional criteria are defined in these terms:

• ‘Level of motivation (perseverance, determination) above the cohort median.

• Level of creativity (originality) above the cohort median.’

The commentary observes that the number in each cohort cannot be quantified because it is not known how many satisfy the motivation and creativity criteria – and because some individuals will feature within more than one category of giftedness.

Because the spheres of giftedness are counted separately:

‘The committee estimates that according to its definition, and considering all the spheres together, there are in Israel 3-4% gifted pupils and an additional 8-12% outstanding pupils.’

There was clearly disagreement within the committee over whether national or local norms should be imposed:

‘The pool of talents is not uniformly distributed throughout all cities and schools in Israel. A uniform, nationwide definition of giftedness (a “national norm”) could lead to a situation where in certain localities or geographical regions, very few (or very many) gifted pupils will be found.

This fact sparked a severe debate within the committee, between those who argued that resources should be invested in nurturing gifted pupils at a national level in order to advance this group in particular, and those who argued that it is necessary to promote the top percentile relative to their place of residence, so that they can serve as a catalyst that will promote all pupils in the locality. The latter also argued that this should be done in order to operate unique programmes spread all over the country, rather than concentrating on a number of centres alone.’

It was ultimately decided to adopt a mixed policy with regard to the definition of gifted children.

• Outstanding pupils (the top 5%) would be defined on a local basis – the outstanding pupils in the school or the locality.

• Gifted pupils (the top 1%) would be defined on a national basis.

This is very similar to the approach adopted in England, though the Committee also separately distinguishes ‘super-gifted’ children, which it defines as those with an IQ above 155, of which there are only 10-15 per cohort (see below).

.

Identification and Provision

Identification should be undertaken using a variety of sources and instruments, rather than solely through IQ tests as previously occurred in Israel (at least the third time this recommendation has been made).

Support should ‘start as early as possible – depending on when talents emerge and can be identified – and go on continuously until the end of Grade 12’.

Moreover:

‘An affirmative action policy should be employed in favour of girls and in favour of outstanding and gifted pupils from lower socioeconomic strata, as long as the rate of affirmative action does not place the candidates in an inferior position relative to other gifted children in the nurturing frameworks.’

Gifted education should be based on acceleration, extension and enrichment. The choice between these, or their combination, should depend (as before) on:

‘the nature of the specific programme, the capabilities and tendencies of the gifted pupils taking part in it and the skills of the teachers in the programme’.

The main forms of provision should include:

• Separate schools for gifted learners – the committee suggests three supra-regional schools in north, central and southern Israel respectively;

• Separate classes for gifted learners, drawing pupils from a given region, as already exist;

• Concentrated enrichment days, when outstanding and gifted learners are transported to a designated centre for one day a week, as already exist;

• Afternoon enrichment classes, as already exist;

• A range of new study units for gifted and outstanding learners;

• ‘Mentoring tracks in regular schools and in summer courses, with the aim of enabling empowerment and a solution to unique needs, through experts who will undergo special training’;

• School-based resource centres to support learners in undertaking research and extension of subjects they study in school;

• New acceleration tracks developed in partnership with universities for learners in gifted classes;

• Recognition and accreditation of such courses as an alternative to matriculation exams.

.

Support

Each school should have a special co-ordinator responsible for gifted and outstanding pupils. Each ‘super-gifted’ pupil should also have a ‘special salaried coach/guide’.

Special teacher training provision should be developed:

‘The objective is to achieve a situation where each teacher who wishes to teach in the unique programmes must take part in a track consisting of 224 study hours, which will grant him a certificate as an expert qualified teacher for teaching gifted pupils.’

These arrangements should be governed by legislation which will:

‘guarantee the right of every gifted and outstanding pupil to study in a supportive and empowering environment, in order to realise his skills and capabilities. The law is intended to define the institutions and programmes recognised for budgeting by the Ministry of Education for advancing these pupils’ .

The steering committee proposes to transform itself into a permanent committee that will convene every two months to monitor and support implementation.

The lecture concludes with a statement that a two-year operational plan has been developed to implement the first phase of reform in accordance with these recommendations.

.

Dome of the Rock courtesy of laika slips the lead

.

This treatment is repeated, almost verbatim, in a chapter of a 2007 publication ‘Science Education: Models and Networking of Student Research’ (Ed Csermely et al), the only addition being a few numbers included within the description of existing provision:

• Within the ‘morning frameworks’ the special classes operate in five primary and 17 secondary schools (so two more than before) attended by 2,583 pupils during the 2006 school year;

• In 2005-06, 320 students benefited from concurrent enrolment opportunities with Tel Aviv and Haifa Universities;

• Weekly enrichment days are held in 52 regional centres and attracted 6,667 learners in 2005-06;

• 980 students attended ‘specialised secondary schools’ (this version includes music, visual and performing arts schools, so presumably more than just the Israel Arts and Science Academy);

• 4,200 learners attended after school enrichment classes in 2005-06;

• 170 teachers currently attend four university-based training courses for intending ‘master teachers’ of gifted and outstanding students.

This version also references the online provision already described above, as well as university enrichment programmes, science days and youth conferences (though no numbers are attached to these).

It describes part of the response to the steering committee’s recommendations as:

‘developing programmes for outstanding students in a nationwide network…The role of the [Ministry’s] Division of Gifted and Outstanding Students will be to initiate the development of the network, to devise the network’s “communication protocol”, and to determine the norms and standards for the programmes by using means such as performance standards for the programmes and their staff. The division will also encourage the formation of new network intersections and connections, while maintaining the network’s professional and administrative infrastructure…Limited additional resources will be invested by the Ministry of Education in the development of the network, while local authorities will finance most of the project.’

It also reports that the law proposed by the steering committee has ‘passed its first hearing’ but is not yet statute. The two-year implementation plan remains under consideration.

One of the concurrent enrolment options is briefly described on the Haifa Foundation website. The ETGAR (Challenge) Project was established in Spring 2006 to provide a 4-year University of Haifa Bachelor of Science course to secondary pupils who spend one and a half days a week at the University taking computer science courses taught by lecturers. They complete three years of the degree by this means and return to the University after compulsory army service to complete the final year.

In 2006, 44 participants formed a pilot group; the 2007 group comprised 68 students and the web-page refers to plans to increase the cohort to 90, producing an overall group of 200. Altogether, 15 computer science and maths courses are to be offered and lecturers specially selected and trained.

Ten scholarships are to be provided to support participants from disadvantaged backgrounds. There is more information on the project website (in Hebrew only), though an example of a computer programming course is also available in English.

Further information about a raft of similar provision, as it now operates, is set out in Part Three.

Also dating from this period, an article on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Mashav) website records special courses provided for Korean Teachers by Mashav on Education for Gifted Children in 2004 and early 2005.

This tells us a little more about the pre-reform Israeli testing regime:

‘The search for such children is currently conducted in the 3rd grade. The annual testing process is two-stage – the first in the school, the second in special testing centres. At the school level, reading comprehension and maths abilities are evaluated in tests administered by local teachers. Those scoring in the top 15% are sent to national second-stage testing. The second stage is similar to psychometric tests, although changes are being planned in this regards. The top 1.5% from each geographical area in the second stage of testing are enrolled in gifted programmes; the top 3% in each area are eligible to participate in extra-curricular programmes in the afternoon. Thus the most talented children in every locality participate. There are special tests for Arab, Druze and Bedouin children to eliminate language and cultural bias. New immigrants and children with learning disabilities, hyperactivity and ADHA are tested individually.’

The range of Israel provision is briefly outlined and this comment is offered:

‘What makes the Israeli programme unique is its development of material for all three programmes by a State entity; its scope – operating throughout the country; its pluralism – allowing local school boards to choose among various models; and its character – that all three programmes are based on a holistic approach – addressing both scholastic, and social and emotional growth.’

A November 2006 newspaper report summarises the steering committee’s recommendations prior to their consideration within the Ministry. Interestingly it notes uneven participation in existing gifted programmes:

‘The selection process for special programmes has been criticised due to the relatively high percentage of girls and low percentage (10 percent) of Israeli Arab children. The number of children of Ethiopian immigrants participating in the programmes is also very low.

Two-thirds of the schools with classes for gifted pupils are in Tel Aviv and the country’s centre.’

The membership of the steering group is given as:

‘Professor Zamira Mevorah of Bar Ilan University headed the steering committee, which included Nobel laureate Professor Aharon Chehanover of the Technion, Safed College President Professor Baruch Nevo, and the Director General of The Society for Excellence through Education, Hezki Arieli’.

This contradicts other sources that put Nevo as Chair of the Committee.

A Committee source is quoted:

‘According to our plan, an excellent pupil will be one in every 20 children, and a gifted [pupil] will be one in 100…This is a significant increase in the number of pupils, but it is still unclear whether there is available funding for the programme.’

.

Here ends Part One of this post. Part Two takes the development timeline up to the present day and examines the contemporary Israel national programme in all its glory, while Part Threetakes a closer interest in some of the many initiatives and institutions that form part of the complex web of Israeli gifted education provision.

.

GP

November 2012

Review of the European Council for High Ability (ECHA) Conference 2012

 

This post contains my reflections on the European Council for High Ability (ECHA) Conference 2012 which took place from September 12-15 in Munster, Germany.

From 2004-2008, I attended three ECHA Conferences in succession – Pamplona (2004), Lahti (2006) and Prague (2008) – but missed the next event in Paris (2010). I hadn’t intended to be in Munster either, until Javier Touron suggested I might chair a Symposium on Social Media and Gifted Education.

There is a commentary on that session below, but I begin with a review of the wider Conference. I have also included some observations drawn from my experience of live tweeting the event.

All these comments are set in the wider context of what I said about gifted education conferences in the post I wrote for the Symposium.

My argument is that face-to-face academic conferences of this kind are fundamentally inefficient, whether as a vehicle for professional development or the wider dissemination of research.

Careful use of social media offers one way to improve efficiency by ensuring that:

• more people derive more benefits and

• there is a better, closer fit between the flow of benefits to each individual and their particular needs.

My earlier post added, with some acerbity:

‘Conference keynotes are invariably dominated by the pantheon. They tour the circuit dispensing the ideas on which they built their reputations, while more junior researchers and other stakeholders compete for tiny audiences much further down the bill. Conference audiences are complicit in this since they are drawn to attend conferences by the big names, apparently regardless of whether they have something new to say. Consequently, old ideas are slow to be challenged and replaced, different models are regarded as mutually exclusive and the gifted education community makes no real effort to achieve broad consensus.’

I was interested to discover whether the Munster Conference would change that perception.

I conclude this post by offering some  suggestions for improvement and reform ahead of the next ECHA Conference in Slovenia in 2014.

.

The Conference Location

There was upside and downside to Munster as a location.

On the downside, it wasn’t the easiest location to reach. The conference website  referred potential delegates to ‘the International Airport Münster-Osnabrück’, but the airport’s website reveals that travellers from London must first fly to Munich! (Ironically, a direct connection to London City Airport is being introduced next month.) The easiest and fastest way I could find to get to Munster was to fly to Dusseldorf and take a two hour train journey.

On the upside, Munster is an attractive, small and relatively compact city with some 270,000 inhabitants. It is pleasant to walk around the city centre, provided one successfully avoids the superabundance of bicycles – there are said to be almost two for every resident. I would very happily revisit as a tourist.

Three of the University of Munster’s buildings were used to host the Conference, which ran alongside a parallel German-speaking ICBF NationalConference. The organisers were supported by a core team and an ever-helpful host of student volunteers who helped us to navigate between and inside the venues.

Where we held the Symposium (courtesy of Javier Touron)

It was announced that over 1,000 delegates attended the Conference from 43 countries, though the first figure must account for both conferences rather than ECHA’s alone. I estimate the number registered for the ECHA event at between 200 and 300.

A quick review of the ECHA Conference programme suggests that there were speakers from 38 countries, including 26 in Europe, so slightly over half of all European countries were represented in this fashion.

.

Content

.

Keynotes

Eight keynote speeches were included in the programme, but two sets of two were originally scheduled simultaneously. In the event, one of the European keynoters did not appear and was substituted by one of the previously parallel events. This gave a total of seven keynotes, although with one pair still scheduled simultaneously.

The majority – four of the seven – were given by American speakers (Colangelo, Feldman, Renzulli and Subotnik). Even allowing for the absence of one European speaker, it struck me as questionable policy to draw half of the keynotes for a European conference organised by a European organisation from a single country located outside Europe. Can you imagine that scenario ever happening in reverse?

But no doubt the organisers had gone for members of  the pantheon to attract more delegates. The majority of the pantheon is located in the United States.

I attended five of the seven surviving keynotes, missing Feldman and Tirri (the latter being scheduled against Subotnik).

Of the American contingent, Colangelo and Renzulli turned in their usual polished performances – a variety of edutainment – but neither had anything terrifically new to communicate.

I thought Subotnik did a very good job of conveying lucidly the main thrust of the lengthy and complex papershe recently produced with Olszewski-Kubilius and Worrall.

The European keynotes were provided by Peter Csermely and Heidrun Stoeger. Peter covered the same ground he visited at the 2011 EU Talent Day Conference in Budapestand in his TEDx talk. Heidrun Stoeger discussed her work on self-regulated learning.

All five keynotes I attended were pitched to those in the audience who had never heard these ideas before, including many who do not have English as their native language. It follows that they were not quite so satisfactory for delegates who did not meet this description.

Of course I recognise the difficulties, but I would have been impressed by a more strenuous effort on the part of the speakers to differentiate their material – to offer greater stretch and challenge to those amongst their audience who would benefit from it. There was a certain irony in this shortcoming given the topic we had all assembled to consider!

Some of the keynoters were offering additional ‘in-depth workshops’ and may have deliberately whetted our appetites, reluctant to impart too much and so duplicate the content of those sessions. But this is not of itself a strong enough justification for the relatively low pitch of their keynotes.

I was reminded of references made by Joan Freeman during our Symposium to the relative superficiality of social media compared with other forms of interaction. I do think that this criticism may be justifiable – see for example my comments below about our Symposium – but it can also be levelled at the typical academic conference keynote.

My contention is that, by combining traditional forms and social media – and by planning for a continuum of interaction between expert and audience – one can more easily provide the differentiation that is otherwise lacking.

.

Other Presentations

There is a rigid hierarchy to ECHA conferences. I attended three of the nine sessions by invited speakers – basically second division keynotes – but found them rather disappointing. Maybe I was unlucky, but they seemed rather thin. Each could have been accommodated comfortably in one of the 20 minute slots allotted to the standard third division presentations. (I never found the posters that made up the fourth division.)

The third division had been divided into triads – so three presentations taken together in a one hour session – on the basis of a logic that often escaped me. Sometimes I could spot different groupings that would have made more sense but, on other occasions, one could see that the organisers had no option but to force at least one square peg into a round hole.

A more flexible structure – perhaps permitting presentations to be grouped in twos, threes and fours – might have been preferable. I do not underestimate the timetabling difficulties caused by several presenters offering multiple presentations, although those could be reduced if some sessions were used to accommodate two or more contributions from a single presenter (ie the organising principle becomes the presenter rather than the theme).

Invariably there is a single presentation one wants to hear and a supporting cast comprising two rather less valuable offerings. And of course several sessions of this kind are blocked against each other, which causes one to miss many interesting presentations, especially if one is unwilling to be impolite and disruptive by flitting constantly between sessions.

In one case, two of the three presenters did not turn up, leaving a solitary speaker to fill up the hour available. One had scratched before the conference began but the other had reportedly ‘gone home’. The optimal choice would have been to leave and join the next best session, but how could we treat the last surviving presenter so brutally?

Some such timetabling arrangement is clearly necessary if the organisers are to fit the proceedings into the limited period available, but this perfectly illustrates the point I made in my blog post about the fundamental inefficiency of conferences organised in such a fashion.

The quality of these presentations was also highly variable. It seems unfair and unreasonable of a native English speaker to complain, but a few of the presenters did not have the requisite standard of spoken English to undertake the task.

Perhaps there is already some simultaneous translation software good enough to tackle this problem. Perhaps the answer lies in posting a multimedia online presentation instead (as opposed to the ‘fourth division’ poster, which has surely had its day).

Some of those with a much stronger command of English also had relatively little of significance to convey, and the very worst examples exemplified both of these shortcomings simultaneously.

Several of the better presentations I attended were largely descriptive of particular localised interventions. Yet this information could also have been conveyed much more clearly and efficiently online. We could not get beyond the description to consider in detail the strengths and weaknesses of the models being described.

There was very little indeed that dealt with gifted education at a strategic level and spoke to the (ex-) policy-maker.

I live tweeted from most of the sessions I attended and, in several cases, found the source material available on websites that I could have consulted from the comfort of my home, incurring much less expense in the process.

I don’t want to give the impression that all the presentations were unremittingly poor. Some were very good. Something akin to the Pareto Principle was in operation, in that I derived 80% of my learning benefit from 20% of the presentations I attended. Unfortunately that was a relatively small return on the outlay of time and money I had expended.

I am not for one moment suggesting that the content of this Conference was any worse than others I have attended. In many respects it was significantly better. But I believe that, as 21^st Century conference-goers, we should actively question whether we get real value for money from events that cling to a 20^th Century format and, if not, we should begin to request more substantive fare.

.

An Aside About Networking

Faced with recognition that a conference does not quite live up to their expectations, many conference-goers will rationalise their disappointment by observing that the formal proceedings are far less significant than the peer-to-peer networking that takes place in the margins of the event.

I could not undertake much of that on this occasion owing to ill-health. I had no energy left to spare after a full day of conference sessions and retired to my hotel room to rest. I don’t know how I would feel about it if I had been healthy. (For the introverted amongst us, the peer-to-peer element can be by far the most difficult and tiring to undertake, even when we are fighting fit.)

From a purely mercenary perspective I find that face-to-face networking at conferences is rather over-rated. Pleasant though it is to spend some time socially with people one has not seen since the last event – and I really enjoyed renewing my acquaintance with several delegates that I already knew – the professional and business benefits that one realises by establishing brand new contacts are rarely worth the effort invested.

I understand the importance of making connections to establish a bigger, stronger network. After all, my blog post on the benefits of social media is based on that very principle. I recognise that face-to-face conferences offer significant potential to build such connections, but too often those interactions prove fleeting and transitory.

It requires sustained follow-up to translate them into something more lasting and meaningful – and that is where social media comes into its own. New contacts made face-to-face can be developed and sustained via Twitter and Facebook, but only if both parties are active users. Social media is the glue that can extend and build those initial relationships into something more substantive and valuable.

Which is a neat transition to…

 

Our Symposium on Social Media and Gifted Education

I did not have high expectations of the Symposium. Past experience has confirmed that such events suffer typically from three shortcomings:

• If the session is reliant on technology, something is bound to go wrong.

• There is too little time to accommodate all the speakers and, partly as a consequence of that, plenary discussion is desultory at best.

• Rarely if ever is there substantive agreement about the outcome of the discussion or the immediate next steps that should be taken. The leap from the theoretical to the practical and immediate is somehow too daunting to contemplate.

On this occasion the speakers surprised me by their collective willingness to fit their contributions into a ten-minute slot. It may have helped that all presentations were already in the public domain and that all the presenters were highly-experienced. Despite an exceedingly tight timetable we started on time and even finished slightly earlier than planned

However, the technology let us down. We could not get the projector to give sufficient magnification to the Twitterwall, so it was far too small for the room and only a few of the participants could follow the Twitter conversation by that means. The wall did not scroll automatically either, so our willing helper had to move it on manually throughout the session.

The plenary discussion inside the room did not exactly catch fire, though some interesting and valuable statements were contributed.

Although we had uploaded all presentations ahead of the session, so that everyone could internalise the key messages and frame questions in the light of them, there was negligible interaction of that kind from the Twitter audience. It seemed that they were satisfied with the capacity to ‘listen in’ and were much less inclined towards vigorous discussion.

There wasn’t too much in the way of high quality interaction between those tweeting from inside the Symposium and those following online. The number of people overtly involved via Twitter was also lower than I would have liked (but we have no way of knowing how many were lurking).

A handful of us managed to provide the lion’s share of live tweeting from inside the Symposium. (I am very grateful to @SilverDay and @Kariekol in particular for their help.)  A few other audience members were also active, but not too many.

Participants took photographs of all the speakers in action, which really helped to convey a better sense of the proceedings to those following on Twitter. I particularly liked this close-up of one of the graffiti-covered desks.

Overall I felt we successfully demonstrated how Twitter can be used as a simple tool to open up conference sessions to a much wider audience, but we were markedly less successful in generating active discussion and developing a way forward. Because of that, our session did not always manage to pull itself out of the superficiality that is associated with negative perceptions of social media.

So we exceeded my expectations but fell somewhat short of the fully interactive ideal. I’d grade us at B- or thereabouts.

Perhaps I am being over-critical. Our experienced moderator – @gtchatmod, aka Lisa Conrad, from #gtchat – was much more positive about the event from her Twitter perspective.

@GiftedPhoenix Fantastic experience! Storify transcripts show close to 350 tweets during session! Social.media.rocks! #gtchat #ECHA12—
gtchat (@gtchatmod) September 13, 2012

.

Lisa has very kindly uploaded a full transcript of proceedings so you can judge for yourselves.

I have also published a somewhat shorter version with most of the repetitious retweets removed. Both are on Storify, so include the pictures that were taken at the event.

It remains to be seen what if anything will change as a consequence of the Symposium. I would like to see the open development of a Europe-wide social media strategy for gifted education which takes in ECHA and the European Talent Centre in Budapest, but is not owned or dominated by either of those entities.

The strategy should be consulted on widely, and revised in the light of that consultation, with every effort made to secure buy-in and commitment from all parties.

The guiding principle must be to build connections for the mutual benefit of every European engaged in supporting gifted education – the individuals as well as the local, regional, national and international organisations – rather than creating an exclusive membership-based network which benefits some at the expense of others.

And if the strategy is devised with the understanding that gifted education is on the verge of becoming globalised (as I argued in my previous post), it follows that it cannot relate solely to Europe but must adopt a worldwide perspective.

 

Live Tweeting from the Conference

There was a good deal of live tweeting from the Conference, with substantial contributions in Dutch, English, German and Spanish. Unfortunately, there are relatively few reliable free options for archiving the full record. Some I tried did not work particularly well.

You will find what I believe is a full record of the #echa12 feed at Twubs.

As ‘belt and braces’, there is also an Excel file containing all of the tweets found by SearchHash.

The latter is less visually attractive but perhaps more permanent, given the relatively short shelf-life of some Twitter-related services.

This was the first conference I have live tweeted. I would have been far too slow on the tiny keyboard of a mobile phone, so I decided to take my full-sized laptop for the purpose. I had to make use of the sockets in the smaller rooms used for normal presentations so I had enough battery juice to make it through the keynotes.

I ran out of battery only once – towards the end of the Subotnik keynote – and had to resort to notebook and pen. I converted these notes into Tweets later that evening.

Live Tweeting became my replacement for personal note-taking (since I could not do both simultaneously). So my record of proceedings is permanent but it is also public. I have published a Tweetdoc which captures my personal contribution for posterity! (The PDF file is here in case Tweetdoc also disappears.)

I had in mind Twitter followers who wanted to know the substance of what had been said during any given presentation, but also people attending the Conference who were following the Twitter feed too.

It struck me that the latter in particular would benefit from quick access to supporting material rather than near-verbatim summaries of the arguments being advanced by the speaker. So, during the presentations, I researched the background of speakers, their websites and publications. This enabled me to post a number of links to useful attachments

I have no idea whether anyone actually used the service I was providing in the manner I intended. I couldn’t help feeling that the provision of such a potentially valuable service ought not to depend entirely on the voluntary services of Twitter users providing an unofficial conference backchannel. There is a case for an ‘official’ Twitter feed to provide at least some of this material.

 

What are the Learning Points for ECHA 2014?

 

Principles

The next ECHA Conference takes place in two years’ time, in Ljubljana, Slovenia. What lessons could the organisers learn from the Munster experience and how can they best utilise social media to make their conference successful?

I would urge them to start from the principle that their face-to-face event in September 2014 is part of a continuum of provision spanning the period between the event just finished in Munster and the conference that will follow them in 2016.

• How can they maintain contact with the delegates who attended in Munster, sustaining and building that network through social media in the run-up to 2014?

• How can they design a conference in 2014 that serves as a key-staging post in this continuum, adding significant value for those who attend as well as those who participate from a distance?

• How can they support the next organising committee in the parallel transition to their face-to-face event in 2016?

They might plan with the specific objective of providing the best possible online access to those who cannot attend the Conference in person.

Rather than supply this service through social media tools and an aggregation of stand-alone services, they should explore delivery through a single learning platform. They should contemplate developing a fee structure that will enable them to recoup the cost of providing the service.

As far as content is concerned, the conference should be designed explicitly to fill gaps in our collective knowledge of gifted education and/or tackle collective problems we face in the design and delivery of gifted education programmes. In other words, there should be a significant, positive, tangible outcome for the gifted education community as a whole.

The conference should also be differentiated throughout, to ensure that participants from different stakeholder groups and with different levels of experience are well provided for. That should apply as much to world-leading experts as to novices in the field. Every participant should have a means of contributing significant value to the conference and of receiving commensurate benefit in return.

.

Practice

At the same time, the organisers should take practical steps to harness the power of social media to deliver an improved conference experience for all participants, whether they come to Ljubljana or access the event online.

• It is good that the 2014 Conference organisers have already established a Twitter Feed as well as an embryonic website. This might usefully be complemented by a Facebook page and possibly a blog too. A steady flow of information about developing plans for the Conference will help to engage prospective delegates, especially if there are opportunities for them to contribute to the conference design.

• Once the conference programme starts to take shape, social media could be deployed to build discussion around the key themes that emerge. Potential presenters could develop their contributions to address the issues that surface from such discussions, or to illustrate how their policies and practice might be adapted to inform provision elsewhere in the world.

This would help us to move away from conference sessions that are mere reportage – whether of programmes underway or research undertaken – and so to concentrate on identifying gaps in our knowledge and understanding and how best to fill them. There would be much more discussion and much less presenting.

• A week or so before the conference, all presentations could be uploaded on to the conference website, so that delegates and others could read them and reflect on points to raise in discussion. Wherever possible presentations would carry hyperlinks to all the documents and materials they reference.

• Instead of preparing a fat and heavy conference brochure, including the programme, abstracts and biographical detail, all this information could be supplied online, in the form of a searchable database. Such a database should also be made available as a mobile app. Delegates could download it before they attend, or – if they preferred – receive it on a flash drive. (They would no longer need a conference bag, so the savings on bags and folders could be redirected to pay for the flash drives, or a sponsor might supply a batch as support in kind.)

• There should be a multimedia conference blog to supply news, report on highlights and generally capture the spirit of the event. Short snippets of film could be prepared and edited for this purpose as an alternative to the conference film that was shot at Munster, which was said to have required excessive work to complete.

• The organisers should arrange an official conference Twitter feed, linked to the blog, to carry news and highlights of the main sessions. Other Twitter users should use the stream as a back-channel to pose questions and points to be addressed during discussion. This would enable those not physically present to engage directly in the debate. There should be a prominent Twitterwall in each session and in the main meeting areas where conference delegates assemble.

• Rather than publish a set of ‘proceedings, whether as a hard copy or a DVD, the Conference website should preserve the database of presentations and supporting material, with authors given the option of uploading further material relevant to the issue at any point after the Conference. Responsibility for maintaining this database would either be handed over to the next conference team at an appropriate point or passed back to ECHA. Either way it should be free for everyone to access.

.

Conclusion

Ljubljana Dragon courtesy of Arbo Moosberg

It cost me about £750 all told (about 936 Euros currently) to attend the Munster Conference and I am really not sure whether that investment was justified by the benefits I have derived from doing so. It is probably too early to judge.

Were the reforms I have suggested to be introduced, participants would have available a cheaper means of access to much of the conference proceedings. They would be able to exercise choice over how to interact with the event, with cost as one factor influencing their decision.

Effort would be invested in ensuring that the flow of benefits from the event is personalised to meet the very different needs of participants – and that the collective benefit to the gifted education community is significant and tangible.

We would have made a valiant effort to shift an outdated and inefficient format into the 21^st Century. We wouldn’t get everything right first time, but we would learn from our evaluations and continue to refine our strategies, taking full advantage of new and more sophisticated technologies as they emerge.

Or else we could gloss over the shortcomings of the current model and persuade people to attend such conferences as we have always done – by holding them in attractive places that people want to visit. The closing ceremony at ECHA 2012 offered us filmed advertisements for the glories of Antalya, Auckland and Ljubljana respectively.

They all looked very pleasant, but that’s not really the point, is it?

.

GP

September 2012