This post reviews ‘Unlocking Emergent Talent’, a recent publication about support for low income high ability students by the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) in the United States, and considers its relevance to other national settings, especially England.

summer of love 1967 by 0 fairy 0

Although not formally part of the ‘Summer of Love’ series, this is linked to those posts. It offers a useful comparator for an upcoming report on supporting high-achieving disadvantaged learners towards higher education, third of a trio of publications that are staging-posts in the sequence.

It also offers some basis for judgement whether the wider narrative devotes sufficient attention to the equity dimension of gifted education. My Gifted Phoenix Manifesto asserts that it is essential to maintain equity-driven gap-narrowing in judicious balance with excellence-driven efforts to raise standards for all gifted learners regardless of background.

I am particularly interested in the implications for the design of suitable policy interventions. But also in the application in England of the Pupil Premium, additional funding determined by the number of disadvantaged pupils which schools are expected to use to reduce the attainment gap between them and their peers.

The key issue is whether or not the Premium is being utilised effectively to tackle excellence gaps between high attaining learners – and the prospects for further improvement in that quarter, should it be needed.

The NAGC report does not help in this respect, but I have taken the liberty of introducing additional material relevant to the topic, because it is so pivotal to the equity strand of the emerging ‘Summer of Love’ narrative. Put crudely, understanding what constitutes an effective intervention is of limited value if there is no resource or incentive to implement it.

While ‘Unlocking Emergent Talent’ remains the centrepiece of the post, I have also factored in other recent and relevant material from a variety of US and English sources, especially where it seems to me that the argument in NAGC’s publication is guilty of elision, or needs tempering to enhance its relevance to English settings.

.

The Summit

‘Unlocking Emergent Talent’ made its appearance in November 2012, the product of a two-day National Summit on Low-Income High Ability Learners which took place from 30-31 May, with support from the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.

The NAGC Website retains a page dedicated to the Summit including biographies of many of the participants and a multitude of background reading. The supporting resources include a list of Summit Presenter Recommended Readings and an Annotated Bibliography. Other useful contributions have been linked into the text below.

According to the Agenda:

• The event began with an overview and expectation-setting session led by Paula Olszewski-Kubilius, Director of CTD at Northwestern University and current NAGC President;

• There was a presentation on The Effects of Poverty on Educational Opportunity by Josh Wyner, Executive Director of the College Excellence Program at The Aspen Institute. Three respondents subsequently shared their thoughts on how poverty-related issues present amongst different US populations.

• Paula Olszewski-Kubilius introduced the themes and rationale for an ensuing discussion focused respectively on school programmes and supplemental programmes that ‘work with promising learners from poverty’. Brief composite summaries of the featured school and supplemental programmes are provided. (Further links to each programme are supplied below.)

• Following small group discussion and a first stab at delineating an emerging research agenda, the next session focused on ‘Building a Psychological Entity that Supports Commitment to High Achievement/Psycho-social Skills and Issues with Promising Learners from Poverty’.  This featured Angela Duckworth from the University of Pennsylvania (whose presentation is here) and Frank Worrell, from the University of California.

• The second day kicked off with a session on ‘Research and Policy: Next Steps for Action/Reinventing the System for High Ability Learners from Poverty’ with inputs from Chester Finn, President of the Thomas B Fordham Institute and Jonathan Plucker, then Director of the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy at Indiana University (whose presentation is here).

• Finally ‘Overlooked Gems Then and Now: What’s Changed, What’s the Same’ – a comparison between the outcomes of an earlier NAGC venture into this territory and the current effort – was led by Joyce VanTassel- Baska from the College of William and Mary Center for Gifted Education.

The resulting publication ‘Unlocking Emergent Talent’ divides participants in a slightly different way, citing Olszewski-Kubilius, Duckworth, Finn, Plucker, Worrall and Wyner respectively as ‘Featured Presenters’, followed by 18 ‘Moderators, Panelists and Respondents’ and a further 35 ‘Participants’.

Of these 59, all are resident in the United States. Almost half are academics employed in US universities, a further 15 or so work in district, county or state education departments or state associations for the gifted. The remainder are associated with selected programmes featured in the publication or with the sponsors (whose programmes also feature).

It says that the Summit was intended to:

• Share recent research on the education and development of low-income high ability learners;

• Identify barriers that prevent them from reaching the highest levels of school achievement and ‘success in adulthood commensurate with their abilities’;

• Share details of successful school-based and supplementary programmes;

• Synthesise best practice for identifying and supporting low-income learners, ‘especially culturally and linguistically diverse students’; and

• Generate a research agenda to inform future practice.

It explains that the Summit and Report together were designed to build on the earlier publication ‘Overlooked Gems: A National Perspective on Low-Income Promising Learners’ dating from 2007. NAGC’s page on the Summit carries a shorter summary of the proceedings of the April 2006 conference that generated this report.

‘Unlocking Emergent Talent’ is divided into a series of short chapters which dart around the territory and include a fair degree of duplication. So, in undertaking this analysis, I have taken the liberty of reorganising the material to focus respectively on:

• The nature of the problem, as currently manifested in US education, including evidence of underachievement and analysis of the barriers to progress and participation by this target group. I have undertaken a good deal more ‘ground-clearing’ than appears in the report itself;

• The skills and attitudes that can inhibit progress by such learners (which the Report calls ‘Psychosocial Issues’);

• Effective policies, initiatives, programmes and practice – and the problems associated with replication and scaling (which are given rather cursory treatment);

• The identified research agenda, insofar as this throws further light on the material already presented.

I have introduced commentary on different but associated material throughout the analysis, wherever it seems to fit best. Much is concentrated in the first part of the post, which considers in some detail the issues that ‘Unlocking Emergent Talent’ is designed to address.

.

Park Fauna by Gifted Phoenix

Defining the Target Group

The report is rather remiss in not bothering to define with any exactitude what constitutes a ‘Low Income High Ability Student’ and in failing to engage with the issues that arise from the adoption of a definition.

The low income dimension is associated principally with eligibility for free and reduced-price lunches, the criterion applied to data published through the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The analysis also makes use of PISA data on the comparative performance of learners from different socio-economic backgrounds and how this varies between countries.

There is no comparison of these measures and no exploration of their good and bad points compared with alternative approaches to defining educational disadvantage.

Any treatment of these issues in England would be certain to include some commentary on the pros and cons of eligibility for free school meals (FSM) as a measure, compared with alternatives that utilise a localised geographical indicator, based on wards or neighbourhoods, or possibly even an alternative proxy derived from family background.

This analysis suggests that such issues are equally pertinent in the US:

‘Students are entitled to free lunches if their families’ incomes are below 130 percent of the annual income poverty level guideline established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and updated annually by the Census Bureau (currently $21,756 for a family of four). Children who are members of households receiving food stamp benefits or cash assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant, as well as homeless, runaway, and migrant children, also qualify for free meals. Students with family incomes below 185 percent of poverty are eligible for a reduced price lunch…

…Researchers often use free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) enrollment figures as a proxy for poverty at the school level, because Census poverty data (which is used at the state and district level) is not available disaggregated below the school district level and is not collected annually…

While FRPL data is generally a reliable poverty indicator in the elementary grades, it is less so in the high school grades. Because free and reduced price lunch is an opt-in program at the majority of schools, researchers believe that high school students are greatly under-represented in school lunch program enrollment. High school students may refuse to enroll in FRPL due to a perceived stigma attached to the program.’

The high ability dimension is comparatively muddier, in that the report relies principally on attainment measures – the Advanced Level on NAEP assessments and, on one occasion, ‘the highest achievement levels’ in PISA assessments of reading maths and science (for background on the latter see this previous post).

This introduces into proceedings the oft-encountered confusion between ability and attainment/achievement, which are of course quite different animals. Indeed the difference between ability unfulfilled and ability already manifested through high attainment/achievement is absolutely pivotal to this topic.

The problem is that much of the available data relates to high achievement, as opposed to high ability. The resulting bias towards achievement data reproduces at macro level an issue often encountered in identification for gifted programmes, where attainment evidence is  paramount, resulting in neglect of learners with unfulfilled potential, often attributable to disadvantage.

It is strange that no use is made of data about the composition of the population served by gifted programmes of different kinds and levels, even though there must be abundant evidence that many of these are heavily skewed against learners from disadvantaged backgrounds.

There may even be aggregated national data available. If there is a gifted flag and a FRPL flag in the national data collection, what is the problem in establishing the relationship?

Certainly the Office for Civil Rights publishes information (page 9) about the ethnic composition of gifted programmes nationally.

Their March 2012 summary notes that almost three-quarters of students enrolled in gifted and talented education (GATE) are either White (62%) or Asian (10%) whereas the overall enrolment rates for these populations in areas offering GATE programming are 49% and 5% respectively. Contrastingly, 16% of GATE enrolments are Hispanic and 10% Black, while the comparable overall enrolment rates are 25% and 19% respectively.

Across the sample, only 4% of African-American and 5% of Hispanic students are enrolled in gifted programmes.

This introduces a second problem, in that there is evidence throughout that the report is relying disproportionately on material – both data and research – about the under-representation of (and limited support for) learners from minority ethnic backgrounds in gifted programmes, as opposed to material that relates directly to learners of any ethnic background who are from low-income families.

This is understandable, given the prominent historical focus on minority provision in the US. There are signs that the focus is beginning to shift, given recent data about the increasing size of income achievement gaps compared with minority achievement gaps (see below).

England has already moved to perceiving this issue predominantly through the lens of financial disadvantage, an adjustment that also came about in recognition that some minority ethnic achievement gaps are narrowing (although others remain pronounced) and that financial disadvantage is apparently the core problem.

This approach is not without its critics, since other explanations of minority ethnic gaps may tend to be underplayed as a consequence.

On the other hand, the historical emphasis on minorities may have tended to obscure and even aggravate achievement gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged learners in majority populations. In England, white working class boys are a particular cause for concern.

While there is clear and significant overlap between minority ethnic and financially disadvantaged populations, whether in the US or England, they are by no means synonymous in either country, so prominent health warnings are necessary whenever such assumptions are made.

I have made similar observations in respect of New Zealand, where minority ethnic issues are so prominent in educational discourse – including discourse about gifted education – that they appear to overshadow the issue of financial disadvantage.

To give this report credit, it does point out quite clearly that, while poverty and ethnicity overlap, they are by not the same thing. Three general assumptions are expressed:

• ‘Poverty and minority status are not the same. Although there is overlap, poverty manifests differently based on geography, ethnicity, and race.

• Poverty is pervasive and includes students from rural, White, urban, African American, Hispanic, Asian, and other cultural backgrounds.

• Typical characteristics of gifted students may manifest differently in low-income, high-ability learners.’

Earlier in the report, 2010 Census data is quoted revealing that 38% of African-American, 32% of Hispanic, 17% of White and 14% of Asian children ‘live in low socio-economic circumstances’. (It is not stated whether this is defined by FRPL or some alternative indicator).

It might have gone further in clarifying that the broader construct of disadvantage reflects the complex interaction between these factors and several others, not least gender, parental level of education, incidence of special educational needs, English as an additional language and even month of birth. As in the UK, it is quite likely that social class may also be a factor.

The large number of variables that may impact on disadvantage in any one individual reinforces the danger of embarking on analysis that gives particular prominence to any single factor, even if evidence suggests that it is the main driver.

It is also a salutary reminder that the response to disadvantage – whether or not within gifted programmes – must be tailored to individual circumstances. The data and research evidence may point to significant trends, but programmes will stand or fall on their capacity to address each learner’s unique needs.

It follows that regular assessment of those needs and how they are changing over time is an essential element of effective practice (and one that is probably underplayed in Unlocking Emergent Talent).

.

Park Flora 1 by Gifted Phoenix

.

Analysis of the Problem

The initial Overview section of the report identifies these constituent elements of the problem it seeks to address:

• Relatively few US students of any description are achieving levels of excellence, whether defined in terms of NAEP Advanced Level or the highest levels of PISA assessment.

• Poverty has a negative impact on educational achievement. The report draws first on evidence of the impact of socio-economic disadvantage on achievement gaps in the US, compared with other countries, drawn from analysis of PISA 2006 and 2009. The point could have been illustrated pertinently by this diagram

Incidentally, the UK is close to the OECD average (14.0) on this measure

• Within the US there are also achievement gaps at every level, including ‘excellence gaps’ as evidenced by NAEP. Three different measures are cited:

‘Between 1998 and 2007, 1.7% or fewer of free and reduced lunch program-eligible students scored at the advanced level on the eighth-grade NAEP math exam compared to between 6% and 10% of non-eligible students.

Since 1998, 1% or fewer of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th- grade free or reduced lunch students, compared to between 5% and 6% of non-eligible students scored at the advanced level on the NAEP civics exam.

Since 1998, 1% or fewer of free and reduced lunch program-eligible students scored at the advanced level on the eighth-grade NAEP writing exam while the percentage of non-eligible students who achieved advanced scores increased from 1% to 3%.’

• Some evidence is also offered to support the argument that US schooling does not currently improve or sustain the performance of the top-achieving students compared with comparatively lower achievers, nor does it close the gap in performance between high- and low-income high-achieving students, as measured by attendance at selective universities, graduation and completion of a postgraduate degree.

• High ability students (as opposed to high-achieving students) are not perceived as a priority within US education policy. Moreover:

‘Success in closing achievement gaps amongst lower achieving students does not appear to impact gaps amongst groups of top students’.

This is compounded because efforts to address equity in education often fail to embrace those ‘who are already showing advanced ability and/or achievement’ while the overall commitment to supporting gifted education per se is described as ‘tenuous’. The level of support depends where one lives and remaining funding is often under threat.

.

A very recent US publication ‘Breaking the Glass Ceiling of Achievement for Low-Income Students and Students of Color’ from The Education Trust (May 2013) provides more in-depth analysis of the excellence gap data (though its coverage is frustratingly incomplete and it too is guilty of unhelpfully interweaving minority ethnic and economically disadvantaged data).

It also relies on NAEP advanced level data for FRPL-eligible students, examining trends from 2003 to 2011, particularly in maths and reading at grades 4 and 8 respectively.

• In 4^th grade maths, the percentage of low-income learners achieving the advanced benchmark increased from 1% to 2% between 2003 and 2011; meanwhile the percentage of high-income learners improved from 6 to 12%, thus widening the gap. A similar pattern was seen in 8^th grade maths.

• In 4^th grade reading, the percentage of low-income learners achieving the advanced benchmark remained at 2% between 2003 and 2011, whereas high-income learners improved slightly, from 11% to 13%. The gap also widened at 8^th grade.

Meanwhile, gaps were typically narrowing at the ‘below basic’ benchmark (though there was no significant change in 4^th grade maths at this level).

This study also analyses progress at the 90^th percentile of performance, so independently of the NAEP advanced benchmark, finding some evidence of gap-narrowing (which isn’t quantified for low-income students).

By 2011 there are wide gaps in performance between low-income and high-income learners: 21% for 4^th grade maths, 26% for 8^th grade maths, 24% for 4^th grade reading and 21% for 8^th grade reading. But these are invariably smaller gaps than apply at the 10^th percentile for low-achieving learners.

Only at 12^th Grade is this pattern reversed. At that age, the gap at the 90^th percentile in maths is 24%, compared with 18% at the 10th percentile; in reading the 90^th percentile gap is 21% compared with 19% for the 10^th percentile.

So the overall picture is perhaps somewhat less clear-cut than the selective facts provided in ‘Unlocking Emergent Talent’ would suggest.

.

The pattern is by no means identical in England. I included materials about England’s own excellence gaps in this recent post, which draws particularly on Jerrim’s work on PISA reading assessments.

His work reveals that, on this measure at least, countries display significantly different profiles when it comes to the relationship between background and achievement at different deciles of achievement:

‘He comments on the difference between the US – where the association between background and achievement is relatively strong across the achievement deciles – and Finland, where the association is comparatively weak.

In England there is a relatively strong link between socio-economic background and high achievement:

‘Socio-economic test score differences at the 80^th percentile are greater here than in 18 out of the other 22 OECD countries considered (and significantly so on 11 occasions). The same is not true, however, at the bottom of the PISA reading test distribution, where England is actually ranked above the median, having smaller socioeconomic test score differences.’

…He finds that, while the average gap has declined [over time] and that is repeated at the bottom end of the achievement distribution, this is not true at the top.

…He finds that the narrowing of the gap appears to have been driven by a relatively greater decline in achievement amongst those from advantaged backgrounds but:

‘Whereas the apparent decline in performance for the top SES quintile seems to have occurred quite evenly across the achievement distribution… the decline suffered by the most disadvantaged group is most apparent at the top end.’

It would be fascinating to pursue further the apparent disparities between the US and England that this amalgamation of sources begins to uncover, but we must content ourselves for the time being with the broader truth that both countries have significant issues with their socio-economic excellence gaps that urgently need addressing.

.

What can Education Contribute to Gap-Narrowing?

.

How much Difference Does Education Make?

There is nothing at all in ‘Unlocking Emergent Talent’ about the relative impact of educational interventions on disadvantage compared with other strategies, such as tackling the root causes of poverty by redistributing wealth. It seems to be taken for granted that the interventions described will address the problems identified, as long as such effective practice is more widely adopted.

The omission is curious, since Plucker’s presentation to the Summit is unfailingly explicit about the fundamental importance of reducing poverty to tackling the excellence gap.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Another recent publication, ‘Improving Performance of Low-Achieving and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students’, written by Ben Levin for the Global Cities Education Network, sets the context nicely:

‘The relationship between these social factors and school outcomes has been known for a long time. And at least since the Coleman Report (done in the United States in the mid-1960s), there has been a vigorous debate about how much schools can actually do to overcome these differences. That debate continues, with some contending that schools are rather powerless in the face of social disadvantage and others claiming that schools can do a great deal to overcome social inequities. According to various estimates in the research literature, anywhere from 50 to 80 percent of the variance in student achievement is due to factors outside the school, and anywhere from 20 to 50 percent of the variance is explainable” (in statistical terms) by factors inside the school.’

Levin goes on to point out that there is huge variance between schools’ performance at any given socio-economic level – and that there are similar disparities between countries, as revealed by the PISA data. Although system-wide improvement is feasible, significant achievement gaps remain in even the most successful countries.

The assumption that school factors may account for up to 50% of variance seems relatively optimistic from a UK perspective. For example, the 2010 BERA Paper ‘Social Equality: can schools narrow the gap?’ warns:

‘However, school effects must not be overstated, as they have sometimes been by national policy-makers. According to studies in the UK, typically between 10-20 per cent of the variance in attainment between pupils is related to school factors – though this does not mean all variance is down to school-level factors, since some will be attributable to teachers.’

In addressing the contribution that gifted education can make to reducing excellence gaps, we would do well to inject a dose of realism about the overall impact of such interventions, while not succumbing to the temptation to underplay their potential significance.

.

The latter position can be all too easy to reach in the light of some contributions to this debate. In recent months, significant attention has been paid to discussion of Sean Reardon’s comparatively pessimistic assessment.

In July 2011 he published The Widening Opportunity Gap Between the Rich and Poor: New Evidence and Possible Explanations which examines the changing relationship between family economic background and educational achievement since the 1970s.

He compares learners from families at the 90^th percentile of the income distribution (around $165,000) with those at the 10^th percentile (around $15,000). This is of course a significantly more polarised distinction than exists between those eligible for FRPL and those ineligible.

He notes that income inequality has become much more pronounced since the 1970s, such that a family with school-age children at the 90^th percentile in 1970 earned five times the amount of a family at the 10^th percentile. Nowadays, the multiple is 11. As a consequence, wealthy families now have a comparatively higher proportion of income to invest in their children’s development.

He argues that:

• The income achievement gap is almost twice the size of the achievement gap between black and white students whereas, in the 1960s, this ethnic achievement gap was almost twice as large as the income-related gap. Hence family income has become a significantly better predictor of success in school than ethnic background.

• The increasing gap does not seem attributable to differences in parents’ educational level – the relationship between these two factors has remained fairly stable since the 1960s. Consequently, family income is now almost as strong an indicator of children’s achievement as their parental level of education.

• The size of the gap is at least partly attributable to a significantly stronger association between income and achievement for families with above average incomes, where the effect is now some 30-60% larger than it was for children born in the 1970s.

• The gap is already sizeable when US children enter kindergarten but then remains relatively stable throughout the remainder of their schooling, neither increasing nor decreasing, so schooling appears to make relatively little difference (though Reardon appears to compromise this position slightly elsewhere.)

• Evidence suggests that the increase is partly associated with increasing parental investment in children’s cognitive development at the top end of the distribution. Children from wealthier families are better prepared to succeed in school when they enter kindergarten, and they retain this advantage throughout their subsequent schooling.

Reardon’s research has recently been given fresh impetus by an article in the New York Times which glosses his argument thus:

‘The most potent development over the past three decades is that the test scores of children from high-income families have increased very rapidly. Before 1980, affluent students had little advantage over middle-class students in academic performance; most of the socioeconomic disparity in academics was between the middle class and the poor. But the rich now outperform the middle class by as much as the middle class outperform the poor. Just as the incomes of the affluent have grown much more rapidly than those of the middle class over the last few decades, so, too, have most of the gains in educational success accrued to the children of the rich.’

He suggests that wealthier parents are increasingly focussed on the school success of their children because such success has become increasingly important in an environment where a university degree is no longer a guarantee of a good job. Upward social mobility is much harder to secure, so parents are increasingly competing to secure their children’s success.

The level of this investment is significantly higher amongst high-income families than amongst middle and low income families. The gap between the rich and the middle class – ‘upper tail inequality’ – is a new and unfamiliar condition and little thought has been given to addressing it.

Wealthier parents are gaining this advantage through:

‘More stable home environments, more time for parents to read to their children, access to higher-quality child care and preschool and — in places like New York City, where 4-year-old children take tests to determine entry into gifted and talented programs — access to preschool test preparation tutors or the time to serve as tutors themselves.’

It is this fundamental ‘opportunity gap’ that needs to be addressed, rather than the achievement gap evident in schools, which is partly a consequence of it.

Breaking the link between education and family background might involve replicating the behaviour of wealthy families, by investing heavily in the development of high-quality childcare and pre-school experience, paying relatively more attention to improving the quality of parenting than to improving the quality of teachers.

In the light of this there is arguably negligible benefit in investing in subsequent educational interventions that support low-income high-ability learners, because the damage has already been done and later investment is unlikely to level the playing field sufficiently to make a real difference.

But, as noted above, comparisons between the 90^th and 10^th percentiles by income – as opposed to eligibility and non-eligibility by FRPL or FSM – are bound to result in a relatively pronounced effect.

Moreover, it is not clear whether Reardon’s conclusions apply equally at all levels of achievement. There might be some reason to believe that the effects he describes are somewhat less pronounced in the case of disadvantaged learners who are relatively high attainers, or who have the potential to be so.

And some might argue that an intervention tailored to individual need, which also includes an explicit focus on parental education, might stand a better chance than most of having a positive effect at least commensurate with its cost.

.

Inter-school Variance Still Matters at the Micro-Level

Given the temptation to surrender to negativity, it is important that we do not lose sight of Levin’s point about inter-school variance (as well as inter-national variance). There must be scope for improvement if we can bring more schools (and more countries) up to the level demonstrated by the strongest performers.

This of course raises further difficult questions about the transferability and replicability of effective practice –whether between schools or between countries – that must be set aside as beyond the scope of this post.

Let us continue on the brave assumption that, given the right inputs and distribution processes, improved outcomes can be spread and embedded within a much wider range of settings – and that the right inputs and processes are understood and available to us.

Inter-school variance in support for high-achieving low-income learners has been discussed in another recent US publication. ‘A Level Playing Field: How College Readiness Standards Change the Accountability Game’ reports the findings of a three-year study of 35,000 high attaining learners in elementary and middle schools. The sample was drawn from the top 10% of achievers from each school.

The analysis compares the performance of high-achieving learners from high-poverty and low-poverty schools respectively (as defined by the top and bottom quartiles according to the percentage of learners eligible for FRPL).

It is important to note that high achievers in high-poverty schools are not necessarily from a disadvantaged background, though that is significantly more likely. The same goes for advantaged high achievers in low poverty schools. The study is rather quiet about this issue, though its findings are nevertheless significant.

Two measures are used: improvement in outcomes over time, measured through maths and reading achievement on Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) tests, and projected ACT College Readiness Benchmarks in maths and reading, which were derived from a study that linked MAP scores with these benchmarks.

Key findings were:

• The vast majority of middle school high-achievers were projected to achieve the ACT benchmarks – 95% in low-poverty schools in both maths and reading; and over 85% in maths and over 80% in reading in the high-poverty schools. So, on this measure, while there is a disparity, the gap between high and low poverty schools is relatively small.

• As for improvement in performance, the research finds that high- and low-poverty schools ‘produce roughly consistent rates of improvement over time in both reading and mathematics’. The achievement gap between the high- and low-poverty schools did not widen during the study period (though it didn’t narrow either).

• There is, however, very significant variation between schools on this measure, both in the low-poverty and the high-poverty samples:

‘For example, at the beginning of the study, the average high-achieving math student in a high-poverty school started out performing at about the 90th percentile relative to national (NWEA) achievement norms. But if such a student attended a school that produced 10th percentile growth, that student would enter middle school performing at only the 77th percentile, whereas a comparable student at a 90th percentile growth school would enter middle school performing at the 93rd percentile. For these two students, the differences in opportunities could be quite large.

In short, given the large variance in growth across schools, it is quite clear that factors other than poverty largely control the relative growth of high achievers generated by any given school. This trend is interesting because it is counterintuitive. Given the advantages in resources available to wealthier schools, many might expect that students attending such schools would show superior growth over time. This was not necessarily the case.’

It follows that transferring from a high-poverty to a low-poverty school will not necessarily produce a dramatic improvement in high achievers’ performance. And it is a mistake to assume that low poverty equates to high quality, or vice versa for that matter. Quality operates independently of the relative poverty of the intake.

• The study calculates that, if all high-poverty schools were able to produce the growth achieved by schools in the 75^th percentile of the sample, the college-readiness gap between high- and low-poverty schools would be eliminated. The Preface comments:

‘Perhaps the best news coming from this study is that many high-poverty schools meet and exceed that target. The top high-poverty schools show growth that not only equals the best low-poverty schools but also dwarfs the meagre returns achieved by the worst ones. In fact, the 22 high-poverty elementary schools with the best growth rates entirely erased and surpassed their achievement gap relative to the 27 low-poverty schools with the lowest growth rates. And the 13 high-poverty middle schools with the highest rates of growth closed and surpassed their achievement gap relative to the 16 low-poverty schools with the lowest growth rates.’

So, to sum up, when it comes to narrowing achievement gaps – including excellence gaps -education may not matter that much at the macro level when compared with other key variables, but which school matters considerably at the micro level for the individual gifted learner.

Moreover, if all schools could perform at the level of the best, that would have a significant effect within the relatively narrow limits of education’s contribution to the overall equation. So attention shifts to the optimal way of transmitting effective practice between settings (or it would had we not set aside the difficult questions about this). This issue is another missing link in the argument set out in ‘Unlocking Emergent Talent’.

In passing, it is worth noting that one of the policy recommendations in ‘A Level Playing Field’ would be very familiar to those involved in English gifted education:

‘Moving forward, this study encourages policymakers to reframe the national discussion about how to best serve high achievers by recognizing that the nation’s “elite students” should not be defined solely as the top 1%, 5%, or 10% in the standardized testing pool, and that each and every school has its own group of elite students.’

There is real value in framing policy to address the needs of the most able pupils in every school, even though this population would vary considerably compared with national norms. This takes one stage further the arguments in the report in favour of local norms.

Not only should interventions be tailored to the needs of individual learners, but they should also be sufficiently flexible to be adopted in every school, since no school should be allowed to assume that it has no gifted learners. If exceptions are permitted, it follows that high-ability learners within them who are held back by disadvantage will miss out on their entitlement.

This has been an extensive detour and it is high time that we returned to the substance of ‘Unlocking Emergent Talent’.

.

Park Flora 2 by Gifted Phoenix

.

Barriers to Overcome

The report identifies seven barriers to participation by disadvantaged learners in programmes suited to their educational needs which, it says, are particularly problematic for those catered for by public (as opposed to private) schools.

• Narrow conceptions of giftedness that perceive it as an inherited and fixed trait rather than malleable and potentially evidenced through unfulfilled potential. The Report speaks of ‘already-developed ability’ as opposed to ‘potential to achieve’, but this is inaccurate and confusing since the distinction is fundamentally between selection on the basis of achievement (which favours those from advantaged backgrounds) and selection on the basis of ability (which should not do so, assuming that ability is evenly distributed within the population). The report avoids confronting this issue of the distribution of ability head on (see below), though it does acknowledge the deleterious effect of limited exposure to ‘a literacy-rich home’ and ‘challenging curriculum and enriched learning opportunities’.

• Misconceptions about disadvantaged high-ability learners which boil down to low expectations and over-emphasis on what these learners lack by way of ‘economic, social and cultural capital’ rather than their strengths. These impact negatively on teacher nominations for gifted programmes, often dictated by poor identification practice that fails to utilise qualitative evidence and does not take account of learners’ different cultural backgrounds.

• Limitations of pedagogy and curriculum which do not foreground talent development but tend to underestimate learners’ capabilities, concentrating overmuch on tackling ‘perceived academic deficits’ through ‘drill to build up missing basic skills and content knowledge’. It is also suggested that US schools do not offer a sufficiently culturally responsive curriculum that reflects the experiences, heritage, language and values of minority ethnic groups as well as of ‘majority cultures living in geographically depressed areas’.

• Poor identification practice, including using a narrow range of evidence, failing to take account of the limited learning opportunities formerly made available to such students, perhaps by applying inappropriate national norms, relying overmuch on nominations from inexperienced teachers who have had no appropriate training, and failing to offer learners more than one opportunity to demonstrate their ability and to take proper account of improvement over time.

• Introducing obstacles to programme participation, such as expecting learners to travel outside their own area or expecting them to meet associated transport costs. Sometimes parents’ inability to press for appropriate educational adjustments or secure access to the best quality schooling can also prove problematic.

• The Gifted Label which can damage relationships between the learner and his peers, even resulting in rejection and/or bullying. Consequently, potential gifted learners may avoid the imposition of the label, or be dissuaded if their own background is under-represented in the gifted group.

• Limited access to out-of school opportunities, which – in the US particularly – have been used by parents to compensate for ‘the shortage, or absence, of advanced courses in their children’s schools’. There is an extensive tradition of such provision in the US, especially summer schools and shorter weekend and holiday courses, often linked to talent search procedures. But the vast majority require payment of tuition fees, so they are largely enclaves for the advantaged middle classes.

All of these are familiar in the English setting, though the last is somewhat less pronounced, simply because the range of opportunities of this kind is significantly more limited here, and there may be a stronger tradition of schools providing their own out-of-hours learning opportunities.

They are all perfectly valid, but they stand as proxy for the more substantial barrier that I have alluded to above: the assumption that ability (as opposed to achievement) is unequally distributed in the population, whether by ethnicity, gender or socio-economic background.

This issue is now so toxic that there is often a tendency to ignore it. There are continuing research traditions which make it their business to detect perceived differences in intelligence or ability, and to conclude that these impact significantly on educational achievement.

But, even if these arguments can be made to stand up (and they are open to challenge on a variety of grounds), the fundamental difficulty is that they serve to reinforce precisely the low expectations that lie at the root of the problem.

It follows that there is much virtue in starting from the fixed and incontrovertible assumption that, while the distribution of achievement is undoubtedly affected by gender, ethnic and socio-economic background, the distribution of ability is not.

Then the equity-driven side of the equation for gifted educators is far more straightforward to grasp and aim towards: it is simply to ensure that entry to gifted programmes is broadly representative and that success – whether demonstrated by a measure of high achievement, progression to selective higher education or any other outcome – is evenly distributed.

If too few low-income learners are admitted to a gifted programme, this may well be indicative that identification procedures are over-reliant on attainment measures, as opposed to evidence of hidden or emergent potential.

If too few low-income learners are successful within a gifted programme, this may well be indicative that the content and/or assessment is inappropriately weighted against learners from such a background.

This is not to argue for fixed quotas, or affirmative action, but simply to advance a straightforward corrective to the ‘deficit thinking’ that is outlined in the report.

It is only by following these arguments through to this ultimate position that we can effectively counter the hold of unfairly low expectations on our efforts to narrow and ultimately eliminate unhelpful excellence gaps.

.

Psychosocial Factors

The report poses two questions: which non-cognitive factors are most significant in determining the success of low-income high ability students, and which of these most lend themselves to improvement through education?

It calls for more research into the characteristics of successful learners with this background, which is perhaps tantamount to admission that the treatment subsequently offered is both provisional and potentially incomplete.

As a precursor to that treatment, it offers an outline drawn from research on African-American and Latino gifted students which may not be fully transferrable to the low-income population (the emphases are mine):

‘These students had high educational and career aspirations and were extremely motivated to accomplish them. They demonstrated a strong work ethic and commitment to study. Their families were emotionally supportive and they had extended family and other adults such as teachers, coaches, mentors, and church leaders to turn to for additional support and guidance. High self-esteem gave them the confidence to actively seek advice and assistance from adults outside the family when they needed it. They had a peer network of other students with similarly high goals and commitment to academic achievement who provided psychological, emotional and social support to remain on track despite setbacks or obstacles. They were confident in their own racial identity and open to multicultural experiences, including friendships.’

The subsequent text does not dwell on the importance of support networks within and beyond the family, concentrating exclusively on the learners’ own characteristics. Nor does it treat all of those, selecting instead the following list which it suggests are ‘especially critical and malleable’:

• Mindsets, or beliefs about intelligence and ability. Those who see their capability as fixed are disadvantaged compared with those who believe they can improve their performance through effort. This is allied with the concept of ‘grit’, or resilience, associated with recognition of the significance of persistent effort over time. Educational settings can encourage learners to appreciate the contribution to success made by their own effort and persistence.

‘Grit’ is currently receiving significant attention. Duckworth’s presentation concludes with an admirably brief summary of the conclusions from her research into this phenomenon

• Motivation, which is associated with students’ belief that they can do well in school, and that doing well is important to them and will contribute significantly to their life chances. Motivation is associated with high expectations from educators, who give learners opportunities to succeed, so building their confidence and motivation to succeed further.

• Some other factors are identified as particularly relevant to high achievers, though the commentary suggests that findings associated with minority ethnic groups are being applied here to low-income students without too much supporting evidence. Factors include: negative stereotypes of groups to which the learner belongs, which can impact on their engagement and performance; a perceived choice between achievement and affiliation with a group of friends or peers, and the risk that choosing the former lays the student open to isolation and bullying; and the capacity to develop ‘dual identities’ to reconcile conflicting expectations and norms.

There is a fairly extensive literature in England about the impact of aspirations and attitudes – whether the learner’s or their parents’ – on learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, though the extent to which these vary according to ability or prior achievement is relatively less explored.

It will be interesting to compare the findings from the forthcoming ‘Investigation of school and college-level strategies to raise the aspirations of high-achieving disadvantaged pupils to pursue higher education’ with other more generic material and also with the list above.

A 2012 study by Gorard et al: ‘The impact of attitudes and aspirations on educational attainment and participation’ offered a meta-analysis covering 13 different kinds of aspiration, attitude or behaviour (AAB), four of which were relevant to parents (parental involvement, parenting style, parental expectations and parental substance abuse).

Five more relate to a learner’s own attitudes and aspirations: self-concept or esteem (self- perception and evaluation of one’s worth or goodness), self-efficacy or locus of control (belief in one’s ability to achieve and that one’s actions can make a difference), aspiration (what one hopes will happen in the future), motivation (the reason for a decision and strength of purpose in carrying it out) and attitude (one’s feelings about school and education).

The remaining four are behavioural: engagement with extra-curricular activities, engagement with paid work, substance abuse and poor behaviour.

The survey sought evidence of a causal relationship between each of these and attainment/participation, having determined that such a relationship involves four aspects:

• There is an association, or correlation between the two variables;

• The AAB pre-existed any improvement in attainment/participation and can be used to predict subsequent changes;

• Controlled interventions have altered the level of an AAB, so producing changes in attainment/participation that cannot be otherwise explained; and

• There is a plausible account of how the AAB influenced attainment/participation.

The authors comment:

‘The evidence in most areas is generally too immature at present to estimate the effect sizes or the costs of any type of intervention. It is important, therefore, that future work moves towards estimates of both, which can then be broken down into estimates of cost-effectiveness for specific sub-groups of learners, such as low attainers and families of low socio-economic status (SES).

Much of the work found in this review on the causes of attainment was conducted in the USA. Its results are relevant to the experience on this side of the Atlantic, but it would be helpful to see more of this kind of work, concerning both participation and attainment, being carried out in the UK, and reflecting the country’s specific context and culture.’

This parallel summary report ‘The Role of Aspirations, Attitudes and Behaviour in Closing the Educational Attainment Gap’ concludes:

‘The existing evidence supports the use of interventions focused on parental involvement in children’s education to improve outcomes. The immediate focus should be on rolling out and closely monitoring such interventions.

There is mixed evidence on the impact of interventions focused on extra-curricular activities, mentoring, children’s self-belief and motivation. Further development of such interventions should be trialled alongside evaluations of their effectiveness.

There is little or no evidence of impact for interventions focused on things like addressing children’s general attitudes to education or the amount of paid work children do during term time. Such interventions might be pursued for other reasons, but the evidence does not currently support their use to raise attainment.’

While there are clear differences between the typologies adopted – and the English research relates to all disadvantaged learners rather than just high-ability learners – there is cause for caution.

While ‘psychosocial factors’ may be significant, the evidence base is thin and, without such evidence, we may be tempted to exaggerate their impact relative to other factors that may more readily explain achievement and excellence gaps.

.

Park Flora 3 by Gifted Phoenix

.

Effective Policies, Initiatives, Programmes and Practice

The report comes at effective provision in three overlapping chapters, devoted to programme models, policies and initiatives and best practices respectively.

Six effective practices are identified from analysis of a range of different school-based and supplementary programmes (one or two of which are called slightly into question by the analysis above):

• Gateway function: a focus on preparation for subsequent educational experience, often at critical transition points, so helping to ‘increase access, create additional entry points into, and address “leaks” in existing pipelines of talent development’.  Ideally provision should comprise ‘comprehensive talent development paths…that begin in pre-school (or earlier) and continue through Grade 12 and beyond.

• Selection criteria matched to level of developed talent: provision for younger learners is more inclusive and less selective than provision for older students. Selection criteria draw on multiple evidence sources to produce a holistic assessment, including quantitative data based on local norms rather than rigid national cut-off scores.

• A challenging enriched curriculum that requires higher-level thinking skills: learners with developing abilities can benefit from challenge as much as the highest-achieving students. This often demands professional development to raise teachers’ expectations and develop their differentiation skills.

• Significantly extended learning time beyond the school day: this may be as important in tackling underachievement amongst potentially high-achieving students as for those performing at lower levels.

• Components that compensate for the benefits enjoyed by more advantaged students: this might include tutoring, mentoring and counselling, internship opportunities and careers advice.

• Expanded student support networks: providing opportunities for learners to work with similar students from other schools or localities, so creating a stronger peer network. This might be complemented by mentor support and parental education, so as to strengthen family support.

This is followed by a series of seven ‘policies and action initiatives’:

• Increase expectations, by introducing and working towards clearer definitions of advanced levels of learning on state tests, focusing simultaneously on increasing the proportion of learners achieving those levels and narrowing achievement gaps. Similar goals should be set in respect of NAEP and PISA measures of advanced performance. Also ensure that high-quality teaching is available to these learners, especially in high-poverty schools.

• Support high achievement through a range of strategies including more specialist STEM schools, implementing a ‘gifted education pedagogy’, additional focus on gifted education in initial teacher education and subsequent professional development, extending access to Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses, improved access to out-of-hours supplementary programmes,

• Start early and sustain, by supporting pre-school and elementary school enrichment activity, identifying high achievers and then providing them with consistent support throughout their time in school. This will demand focus on instilling psychosocial skills ‘supportive of continued commitment to high achievement’.

• Provide additional support alongside the school curriculum, such as mentoring, tutoring, advice on university entry and access to role models.  Given the significance of family support, programmes must develop parents’ understanding and advocacy.

• Remove barriers to programme participation, ensuring that definitions and identification processes are inclusive of ‘marginalised and under-identified gifted students’, that information is translated into community languages and that districts and schools are supportive of learners progressing through the curriculum at their own pace.

• Focus wider school reform on high ability: ensure that efforts to address achievement gaps incorporate excellence gaps, that Response To Intervention (RTI) and grouping strategies address these learners’ needs and that success is measured in a way that incorporates high achievement. Effective practice must be shared, so that successful programmes can be replicated and adapted elsewhere.

• Invest in research to determine ‘the conditions under which interventions are effective and with whom’. It is critical that these are cost-effective and scalable. (There is a brief and not too helpful section on replicability and scalability which rather vaguely suggests exploration of distance education models and the development of ersatz supplementary education within school settings, possibly built on partnership between organisations offering supplementary programmes and school districts.)

Finally, there is a third series of ‘best educational practices’ which highlights material earlier in the text. In summary it advocates:

• Inclusive, culturally responsive and holistic identification practice, supported by teacher education.

• Culturally responsive programmes and services incorporating development of both cognitive and psychosocial skills.

• Positive cultures in schools that ‘exalt individual differences of all kinds and value and reward high academic achievement create [sic] contexts in which low-income, high-ability students from all backgrounds can thrive’.

There is also a final exhortation:

‘A list of best practices will remain just that unless it is coupled with a commitment to looking at low-income and culturally and linguistically diverse students from a different lens and from a perspective that emphasises strengths instead of weaknesses, differences rather than deficits, possibilities as opposed to limitations, and solutions instead of obstacles.’

The Appendix to the report provides separate summaries of eight different programmes featured at the Summit. This is both a small sample and a mixed bag, containing some very small programmes and some rather large ones. There are also two projects focused exclusively on supporting learners from minority ethnic backgrounds.

The links below are to project websites where these are available:

• Project M2 (Mentoring Mathematical Minds) and Project M3 (Mentoring Young Mathematicians) both elementary maths curriculum units developed at the NEAG Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development at the University of Connecticut.

• The International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme, as implemented at a Middle School in Montgomery County, Maryland.

• The Next Generation Venture Fund (NGVF) a programme that prepares talented students from minority ethnic backgrounds to enter selective higher education.

• Project Excite, a year-round out-of-school programme for minority learners in Grades 3-8 provided by Northwestern University and two local school districts.

• Project Nexus, a former programme of the Maryland State Education Department (2005-2008) helping to prepare low-income students for higher education.

• The Scholars Program, provided by Sponsors for Educational Opportunity (SEO), a year-round out-of-school programme supporting urban students in New York and San Francisco to progress to selective universities.

• The TEAK Fellowship, a year-round out-of-school programme for talented New York City students from low income families supporting admission to high school and university.

• The Young Scholars Program, operated by Fairfax County, Virginia to support low-income high ability learners in grades K-2, preparing them for subsequent gifted programmes.

.

Moving Forward

The report admits to ‘a lingering concern’ associated with the interaction of different variables – it specifies rural/urban/surburban, race and culture – and the implications for effective provision. This is welcome in light of some of the reservations expressed above.

It also quite rightly rejects ‘categorical designations’ because they ‘fail to capture the variation in levels of poverty, opportunity and education within the subgroups included in each category’. A one-size-fits-all approach will not work.

It proposes a research agenda that foregrounds our limited understanding of the characteristics of successful learners from low-income backgrounds since:

‘Although we can speculate on obstacles and impediments, there is not a deep understanding of how these intersect with race, culture, gender and domain of talent.’

There is surely a risk that the interaction of so many different factors – elements of disadvantage, as well as variations in background, schooling and personal attitudes – is so complex and individualised that it will not be possible to draw general conclusions that can be consistently applied across this population?

The research agenda proposes further work to investigate the characteristics of successful learners, the development of psychosocial skills, the removal of barriers (professionals’ perceptions and assumptions, identification, family and community beliefs) and effective provision (appropriate curriculum and instruction, the characteristics of successful programmes, scaling and replication and teacher education).

One cannot help feeling that, rather than providing a basis for extensive further work of this nature, any available funding might be better spent in devising cost-effective and scalable interventions that start from our current understanding of effective practice – and evaluating them formatively and summatively so as to refine that understanding and adjust the programmes accordingly.

But maybe this is the tension between giftedness and gifted education once more raising its ugly head. Or maybe it is my bias against research and in favour of policy-making; or perhaps a little of both.

Still, a focus on the tangible and immediate – on inputs and processes and their success in generating efficiently the right mix of positive outcomes – is likely to generate more substantive and more immediate returns than in-depth psychological study.

.

Apple Blossom by Gifted Phoenix

.

Drawing the Strands Together

.

Unlocking Emergent Talent and Elements of Effective Provision

Unlocking Emergent Talent is a helpful resume of what is currently understood as effective practice in identifying and meeting the needs of high ability low income learners, but it does not add conspicuously to our collective understanding of such practice.

It also displays some shortcomings, in substituting evidence about minority ethnic students to fill gaps in the evidence base for low-income students and, to a lesser extent, in not consistently differentiating findings about high-achieving students from findings about high-ability students.

It does not fully address, or else skips over, a series of substantive issues including:

• Different definitions of ‘high ability’ and ‘low income’ and the issues associated with selecting one of several alternatives.

• The wider evidence base on excellence gaps, which presents a rather more complex picture than that presented in the report.

• The range of factors that contribute towards disadvantage and the complex manner in which different factors interact and impact on the learner.

• The relatively limited contribution that education can make to tackling disadvantage and the correspondingly significant impact of poverty on educational achievement.

• Variation in the quality of support between settings, the impact of reducing this variance (and associated questions about our capacity to spread and embed effective practice).

• The distribution of ability within the population.

• The value of parental engagement compared with learners’ own ‘psychosocial skills’, and the significance of those skills relative to other variables.

• Cost and efficiency and their influence on the shape of interventions to support the target group.

• Identifying the right blend of in-school and out-of-hours provision.

• Considering the relative advantages and disadvantages of stand-alone provision for disadvantaged learners, integrated support for advantaged and disadvantaged alike, or a mixed economy.

All that said, it provides a helpful framework against which to assess current practice and from which to begin to develop new practice. From a domestic perspective it supplies a reasonable reference point for consideration of the relatively similar English publication we expect in September.

The read-across will not be perfect. The English report will be dedicated specifically to support for progression to higher education and its focus is exclusively 11-18 year-olds. It will adopt a relatively liberal definition of ‘high-achieving’ which is broad in terms of the range of achievement it embraces, but does not otherwise accommodate those whose ability is not yet translated into high achievement. It is likely to concentrate substantively on in-school and in-college strategies, as opposed to external programmes.

Nevertheless, my forthcoming review will undoubtedly be aided by this prior excursion into broadly similar territory on the other side of the Atlantic.

.

The Pupil Premium

That said, one further critical issue will not be assisted by the comparison: whether available funding, principally in the form of the Pupil Premium, is allocated in such a manner that high-achieving disadvantaged learners receive their fair share of support – and whether such funding is making a real difference to their expectations of progression to higher education, and especially to selective universities.

I have raised in at least one previous post the question whether:

‘Gifted learners from disadvantaged backgrounds will receive the same level of benefit from the Premium as other disadvantaged learners, notably those who are not likely to achieve national benchmarks at Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4.

For the Premium does not currently operate as an individual entitlement following the learner. The Government has issued no advice to schools to suggest that it should be deployed in this fashion…

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has argued that each eligible learner should receive a Pupil Premium Entitlement, so ensuring that the funding directly benefits those eligible for it. The IPPR argues that this should pay for:

‘extra catch-up tuition, small group tuition or one-to-one teaching to stretch the most able low-income pupils’.’

While there has been no apparent shift towards such an entitlement, other levers have been brought to bear to increase the general emphasis on gap narrowing. Ofsted inspectors will be monitoring the attainment gap in every school and will not rate a school outstanding unless it is closing that gap. Schools that are struggling will be required to appoint a head teacher from a successful school to advise them.

Ofsted has reinforced the message that schools should have:

‘Carefully ringfenced the funding so that they always spen[d] it on the target group of pupils’.

And, when it comes to high achievers, has expressed the desire that they have:

‘Never confused eligibility for the Pupil Premium with low ability, and focused on supporting their disadvantaged pupils to achieve the highest levels’.

One might reasonably expect that the imminent Ofsted report on provision for highly able learners, next in line for publication in the ‘Summer of Love’, will incorporate some further coverage of this kind, including some guidelines to differentiate effective and less effective practice. That messaging should then be traceable across to the third and final publication, where it should be an important feature.

It remains to be seen whether the other key accountability lever School Performance Tables, will be used to incentivise schools to support their higher achievers. The consultation on secondary school accountability – recently closed – proposed the publication of generic attainment data for pupils attracting the Premium, but did not commit to differentiating that by prior achievement.

We know that the current method of delineating such achievement, National Curriculum levels, is set to disappear in 2016 and, although there has been a commitment to a new system for grading high attainment in the core subjects at the end of KS2, we do not yet know how that will be done.

The Government has published a series of short case studies of effective use of the Premium, one of which features the gifted and talented programme at Paignton Community and Sports College. It doesn’t offer any startling insights into best practice, but it does confirm official endorsement for deploying some of the available funding in this fashion.

There is evidence elsewhere that the broad message has already been taken on board. A new scheme administered by the National College of Teaching and Leadership ‘Closing the Gap: Test and Learn’ supports school-based research into effective approaches to narrowing the gap. It is beginning with a consultation phase in which schools have been asked ‘which group of pupils should we be most attending to?’

The initial results make positive reading.

‘Options for reform of the National Scholarship Programme and other forms of student support, including a possible ‘HE Premium’, alongside other models… and whether we can give greater certainty of the support available to individuals at the point they are considering applying to university.’

summer of love 1967 by 0 fairy 0

This post is the first in a short series, scheduled to coincide with three publications – two yet to be published – that focus directly on provision for gifted learners in England.

Each Episode will foreground one of the publications, set within the emerging overall narrative. Each will assess the likely impact of the target publication and the broader narrative as it unfolds while also reflecting associated developments in educational policy anticipated during the next few months.

Episode One:

• Analyses the first publication, an Investigation of Level 6 Key Stage 2 Tests, already published in February 2013, exploring its findings in the context of current uncertainty about future arrangements for assessment in primary schools.

• Reviews the outcomes of the most recent Ofsted survey of gifted and talented education, conducted in December 2009, so establishing a benchmark for consideration of a new Ofsted survey of how schools educate their most able pupils, due for publication in May 2013.

• Sets out what we know about the third document, an Investigation of School and College-level strategies to raise the Aspirations of High-Achieving Disadvantaged Pupils to Pursue Higher Education, due for publication by mid-September 2013.

Future Episodes will scrutinise the new Ofsted Survey and the second Investigation respectively, linking them with other developments over the summer period, not all of which may yet be in the public domain.

By this means I plan to provide a kind of iterative stocktake of current issues and future prospects for their resolution. I am curious to learn whether I will be more or less positive at the end of the series than at the beginning.

For I enter the fray in a spirit of some world-weariness and pessimism over the continuing inability of the gifted education community to act collaboratively, to reform itself and to improve practice. This is seemingly a global malaise, though some countries stand out as bucking the trend. Many have featured in previous posts.

Will the Summer of Love provide the spur for trend-bucking reform here in England, or will the groundswell of energy it generates be dissipated in the long, languorous, lazy sunshine days ahead?

.

Publications in the Last Two Years and Associated Developments

Following a lengthy period in the doldrums, we may be on the verge of a rather livelier season in the evolving history of English gifted education.

It would be wrong to suggest that we have been entirely becalmed. Over the past two years we have digested a trio of key publications, all of which have been reviewed on this Blog:

• Policy Exchange’s ‘Room at the Top’ (2011) which I thought broadly positive, subject to some second order concerns.

• The Sutton Trust’s ‘Open Access: Democratising entry to Independent Day Schools’ (March 2012), which I criticised heartily, since it lays out a fundamentally unworkable strategy for diverting state-educated academically gifted learners into the private sector.

• The Sutton Trust’s ‘Educating the Highly Able’ (July 2012), which I took seriously to task for its over-emphasis on excellence at the expense of equity and almost entire failure to address the needs of underachieving gifted learners, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Given the sponsoring organisation’s raison d’etre (improving social mobility) that seemed, frankly, bizarre.

These documents may have had some limited positive impact, by maintaining gifted education’s profile within wider education policy, but I can find no evidence to suggest that they have reformed our collective thinking about effective gifted education, let alone improved the learning experience and life chances of English gifted learners.

Indeed, it is conceivable that the two latter publications have set back the cause of gifted education by taking us down two successive blind alleys.

I have made my own small efforts to refocus attention on a more productive direction of travel through The Gifted Phoenix Manifesto for Gifted Education.

I do not claim any great status or significance for the Manifesto, though there are encouraging early signs that it is stimulating productive debate amongst others in the field, at least amongst those who are not firmly wedded to the status quo.

The Sutton Trust promises further work, however:

‘Helping the highly able

Piloting programmes that support and stretch bright students from non-privileged backgrounds in state schools, and opening up selective state schools to bright children from low and middle income homes.’

This presumably includes the outcome of the call for proposals that it issued as long ago as July 2012, ‘with a view to developing the first project by the end of the year’ – ie 31 December 2012 (see attachment at the bottom of the linked page).

The call for proposals sought:

‘Cost-effective, scalable projects which support highly able pupils in non-selective maintained schools.  The Trust is particularly interested in initiatives which are based on sound evidence and / or which draw on proven models of intervention.’

It expressed interest in:

• ‘proposals that focus on those pupils capable of excellence in core academic school subjects’;.

• ‘various methods of defining this group – for example those attaining at the 90th percentile and above, the 95th percentile, or the new Level 6’ or ‘on the basis of school performance and local context’;

• Support for ‘“exceptionally able” pupils’ especially ‘imaginative ways of bringing them together’;

• Provision that is ‘integral to schools and not simply a “bolt-on” to mainstream provision’

• Programmes that start ‘in key stage three or four, but which may continue to support the students through their transition to FE and HE’.

There is some reasonable hope therefore that the Trust might still contribute in a positive way to the Summer of Love! If there is an announcement during the timeframe of this series I will of course feature the details in a future Episode.

But I plan to build the series around a second trio of documents which have the capacity to be somewhat more influential than those published from 2011 to 2012.

.

Kew once more 1 by giftedphoenix

.

Key Stage 2 Level 6

One is already with us: an ‘Investigation of Key Stage 2 Level 6 Tests’ commissioned by the Department for Education and published in late February 2013. (OK, so I’m stretching a point by extending Summer back into the Winter, but this study has so far escaped serious in-depth attention.)

The authors are Mike Coldwell, Ben Willis and Colin McCaig from the Centre for Education and Inclusion Research (CEIR) at Sheffield Hallam University.

Before engaging directly with their findings, it is necessary to sketch in a fair amount of contextual background, since that will be critical to the broader narrative we expect to evolve over the coming months.

 .

Background: Level 6 Tests

Level 6 Tests are by no means the first example of efforts to raise the assessment ceiling for high-attaining learners at the end of Key Stage 2 (KS2) (typically the final year of primary school when children are aged 11), but there is insufficient space here to trace the history of their predecessors.

The current iteration, optional Level 6 tests, was introduced in 2011 in reading, writing and maths. The tests were not externally marked, nor were results published.

QCDA was still in place. Its website said:

‘The tests provide the opportunity to stretch high attaining pupils and also provide a useful tool for measuring the ability and progression of gifted and talented pupils. You are advised to view the tests to make a judgement on how appropriate they are for your pupils.’

In June 2011, the Bew Report into KS2 testing, assessment and accountability reflected this experience:

‘We recognise that the current system of National Curriculum tests can appear to place a ceiling on attainment for the most able pupils. This has important implications for measures of progress, since a pupil who achieves level 3 at the end of Key Stage 1 can currently only achieve level 5 in the end of Key Stage 2 tests, and can therefore only make two levels of progress (currently the expected rate of progress).

Allowing pupils to attain level 6 at the end of Key Stage 2 would enable pupils with high Key Stage 1 attainment to make better than expected progress. Secondary schools receiving pupils who had attained level 6 would understand that these pupils would need to be particularly challenged and stretched from the start of Year 7…

It is important to challenge the most able pupils. We welcome the Government’s decision to make level 6 tests available to schools on an optional basis this year. We believe that these optional tests could allow particularly able pupils an opportunity to develop and fully demonstrate their knowledge and understanding.

However, we do have some concerns, in particular over the extent to which it will be possible for primary schools to cover enough of the Key Stage 3 curriculum to allow pupils to attain level 6. NFER, one of the few respondents who commented on this issue, suggested that it would be more appropriate to award a ‘high 5’ than a level 6.’

So Bew concluded:

‘We believe that the Government should continue to provide level 6 National Curriculum Tests for schools to use on an optional basis, whose results should be reported to parents and secondary schools.’

But there was also a rider:

‘If, following the review of the National Curriculum, any changes are made to the current system of levels, alternative arrangements should be put in place to ensure the most able pupils are challenged.’

More about that anon.

In the light of this, externally marked KS2 Level 6 tests were offered in 2012 in Reading and Maths. There was also an option to undertake internally marked Level 6 teacher assessment in Writing.

The 2012 KS2 Assessment and Reporting Arrangements Booklet offered a brief commentary:

‘These tests are optional and are aimed at high attaining children. Headteachers should take into account a child’s expected attainment prior to entering them for these tests as they should already be demonstrating attainment above level 5…

To be awarded an overall level 6 in a subject, a child must achieve both a level 5 in the end of Key Stage 2 test and pass the level 6 test for that subject. Schools can refer to the 2011 level 6 test papers in order to inform their assessment of whether to enter children for the test.’

The Investigation examines this 2012 experience, but is confined to the two externally marked tests.

Meanwhile – and skipping ahead for a moment – in 2013, the optional Reading and Maths tests are once again available, alongside a new optional test of Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling, in place of the teacher assessment of writing.

Reporting of Level 6 results in School Performance Tables has also changed. In 2012, Level 6 outcomes were used only in the ‘calculation of progress measures, Value Added,  percentage achieving level 5+ and average point scores’.

When it comes to the 2013 Performance Tables:

‘…the percentage of the number of children at the end of Key Stage 2 achieving level 6 in a school will also be shown in performance tables. The Department will not publish any information at school level about the numbers of children entered for the level 6 tests, or the percentage achieving level 6 of those entered for level 6.’

This change may have been significant in driving increased interest in the tests, though not necessarily for all the right reasons, as the discussion below will reveal.

Although the 2012 Performance Tables made limited use of Level 6 results some aggregated performance data was published, as my post on the outcomes noted:

‘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.’

Incidentally, we now know from DfE’s website that:

‘There will not be a Key Stage 2 science sampling test in 2013; a new, biennial (every other year), pupil-level sampling system will be introduced in 2014.’

And slightly more accurate performance data was supplied in an Appendix to the Investigation itself. It tells us that, across all schools (including independent schools that opted to take the tests):

• 55,212 learners were entered for Level 6 Maths and 18,953 of them (34.3%) achieved it; and

• 46,810 pupils were entered for level 6 reading and 942 (2.0%) achieved it.

That gives a total of 102,022 entries, though we do not know how many came from independent schools or, indeed, how many learners were entered for Level 6 tests in both Maths and Reading.

.

Background: The Future of National Curriculum Assessment

We have known since June 2012 that National Curriculum levels will be phased out and were informed, through a kind of policy aside in March 2013, that this would happen ‘from 2016’.

The new National Curriculum will be introduced from September 2014, so will be assessed through the existing assessment framework during its first year of implementation, despite the apparently strong case for keeping it and the associated assessment reforms fully synchronised.

It may be that this decision is associated with recent difficulties over the procurement of a contractor to undertake external marking of the KS2 tests from 2014-2016, or else progress on determining the new arrangements was insufficiently advanced by the time that contract came to be negotiated.

At the time of writing we still await a promised consultation document on primary assessment and accountability, some 10 months after the removal of levels was first communicated.

The issues discussed below will need revisiting once the Government’s proposals are safely in the public domain: the spectre of assessment reform hangs over this post as well as the Investigation it is supposed to be reviewing.

There are few clues to the direction of travel, apart from some suggestion that the Government has been influenced by Bew’s deliberations, even though his clarity on this point left something to be desired.

I quote the relevant sections fully below, to ensure that I haven’t missed any vital inflection or  hint of what Bew intended. The emphases are mine:

‘In the short term, we believe we need to retain levels as a means of measuring pupils’ progress and attainment… However, in the long term, we believe the introduction of a new National Curriculum provides an opportunity to improve how we report from statutory assessment. We believe it is for the National Curriculum Review to determine the most appropriate way of defining the national standards which are used to categorise pupils’ attainment.

We realise that, in order to measure progress, it is necessary to have an appropriate scale against which attainment and progress can be measured at various points. For example in Australia, a ‘vertical scale’ (where a movement along the scale between any two equally spaced points must reflect similar levels of progress) is created by testing several year-groups, using some common questions to link scores on each test together. A particular question might be considered difficult for a Year 3 pupil, but much easier for a Year 5 pupil. Although this is technically defensible, it does require tests at more regular intervals than we currently have in England.

In England, we currently use National Curriculum levels as a scale against which to measure progress. However, as stated later in this chapter, concerns have been raised as to whether the levels, as they currently exist, are appropriate as a true vertical scale. We recommend that, as part of the review of the National Curriculum, consideration is given to creating a more appropriate ‘vertical scale’ with which to measure progress.’

And, a little later in the Report:

‘In the longer term, we feel it may be helpful for statutory assessment to divide into two parts. All pupils could be expected to master a ‘core’ of essential knowledge by the end of Key Stage 2, concentrating on the basic literacy and numeracy which all pupils require if they are to access the secondary curriculum. This ‘core’ could be assessed through a ‘mastery’ test which all pupils should be expected to pass (only excepting cases of profound Special Educational Needs), providing a high minimum standard of literacy and numeracy at the end of primary education.

We recognise the risk that this approach may lead to ‘teaching to the test’, may set an unhelpfully low ceiling on attainment and would not reflect pupils’ progress. We would suggest two solutions. Firstly, it might be helpful to allow pupils to take ‘core’ tests in Years 4, 5 or 6 to ensure that able pupils are challenged. Secondly, we feel there could also be a separate assessment at the end of Key Stage 2 to allow pupils to demonstrate the extent of their knowledge and therefore to measure pupils’ progress during the Key Stage. This assessment could be designed to identify the extent of pupils’ attainment and understanding at the end of Year 6, spreading them out on a ‘vertical scale’ rather than being a pass/fail mastery test. Such an assessment should be as useful as possible to pupils, parents and teachers. It may be helpful for the results to report in greater detail than is currently provided by National Curriculum Test data, so they can identify more effectively the pupil’s attainment in key broad aspects of a subject.

We feel the combination of these statutory assessments could ensure that all pupils reach a minimum standard of attainment while also allowing pupils to demonstrate the progress they have made – which would indicate the quality of the school’s contribution to their education. It could provide a safety net in that all pupils should achieve a basic minimum, but would not impose a low ceiling on the able.’

And then finally:

‘A key criticism of the current Key Stage 2 tests is that pupils’ knowledge and skills over a four-year Key Stage is assessed via tests in a single specified week in May. Some critics have raised concerns that this approach causes stress for pupils, particularly those working at the lower end of a spectrum, and may have unfair implications for schools, whose overall results may be affected if for example a highly-performing pupil is absent on test day. In addition, criticism suggests there is little incentive to challenge the more able children, who may well be working at level 5 at an earlier point in the Key Stage or year.

We believe that our earlier recommendations address these issues. However, we also recognise the benefits of a system based on the principle of ‘testing when ready’. The proponents of such an approach argue that it would allow each pupil to be entered for statutory tests when he/she is ready, and then able to move on to more advanced learning. We believe that it would be possible for a statutory ‘testing when ready’ system to meet the statutory assessment purposes we have specified.

However, we are not convinced that moving to a ‘testing when ready’ approach is the best way of achieving the purposes of statutory assessment under the current National Curriculum. We suggest that the principle of ‘testing when ready’ should be considered in the future following the National Curriculum Review. We believe that the principle of ‘testing when ready’ may fit well if computer administered testing is introduced, making it easier for each pupil to sit his/her own personalised test at any point in time when teachers deem him/her to be ready.’

In summary then, Bew appears to suggest:

• Assessment of mastery of an essential core of knowledge that all should pass but which might be undertaken as early as Year 4, two years before the end of KS2;

• A separate end of KS2 assessment of the extent of learners’ knowledge and their progress against  a new ‘vertical scale’ that will judge their progress over time, this potentially incorporating reporting on attainment in ‘key broad aspects of a subject’;

• Consideration of transition to a universal ‘testing when ready’ approach at some indeterminate future point (which may or may not be contemporaneous with and complementary to the changes above).

Quite what learners will do after they have successfully completed the mastery test – and its relationship to the draft Programmes of Study that have now been published – is not explained, or even explored.

Are learners expected to begin anticipating the Key Stage 3 programme of study, or to confine themselves to pursuing the KS2 programme in greater breadth and depth, or a combination of the above?

In short, Bew raises more questions than he answers (and so effectively reinforces the argument for keeping curricular and assessment reforms fully synchronised).

At this point we simply do not know whether the Government is ready to unveil plans for the introduction of a radically new ‘test when ready’ assessment regime from 2016, or whether some sort of intermediate position will be adopted.

The former decision would be a very bold reform given the ‘high stakes’ nature of these tests and the current state of cutting edge assessment practice. Given the difficult history of National Curriculum assessment, the risk of catastrophic error might well be too great to contemplate at this stage.

Awash in all this uncertainty, one might be forgiven for assuming that an analysis of the impact of the introduction of Level 6 tests has been overtaken – or almost overtaken – by events.

But that would be unjustified since the Investigation addresses some important issues about gifted education in the upper primary years, effective management of the transition between primary and secondary schools and the role of assessment in that process.

.

Kew once more 2 by giftedphoenix

.

The Investigation: Key Points

The Report is structured around the sequence of events leading from a school’s decision to enter learners for the tests, proceeding from there to consider the identification and selection of participants, the support provided to them in the run up to taking the test, and the outcomes for participants, other pupils, the host school and receiving secondary schools.

It addresses five research questions:

• How have the tests affected school behaviour towards the most able pupils?

• What is the difference in behaviours between schools that do well in the tests and those which do not?

• What are the positive and negative effects of the tests, on schools and pupils respectively?

• Why did some schools enter pupils for the tests whereas others did not?

• How are schools identifying pupils to enter the tests?

It does so by means of a tripartite methodology, drawing on 20 case studies of schools undertaking the tests, 40 telephone interviews with schools that decided not to take part and 20 telephone interviews with secondary schools.

.

The Decision to Enter Learners

Schools that decided to enter pupils for the tests did so because:

• They wanted to provide additional challenge for able pupils and/or remove an unhelpful ceiling on their attainment. There was a perceived motivational benefit, for staff as well as learners,  while some primary schools ‘hoped that an externally validated exam might make secondary schools more secure in their views about primaries’ judgements’, as well as protecting learners from expectations that they would repeat work at their receiving secondary schools.

• They wanted to evidence positive performance by the school, by demonstrating additional progress by learners and confirming teacher assessment outcomes. Entry was assumed to assert their high expectations of able pupils. Some were anxious that failure to take part would be perceived negatively by Ofsted.

• Some were encouraged by the ‘low stakes’ nature of the assessment, identified entry as consistent with the school’s existing priorities, saw a positive marketing opportunity, or wanted to attract or retain staff ‘with sufficient confidence and expertise to teach level 6 content’.

Conversely, schools deciding against participation most often did so because they judged that they had no pupils for which the tests would be suitable (though there was recognition that this was a cohort-specific issue).

Many said they had received insufficient guidance, about the test itself and about the need to teach the Key Stage 3 programme of study, and there was related concern about the absence of dedicated teaching materials.

Some objected to the tests in principle, preferring an alternative approach to assessing these learners, or concerned at a disproportionate focus on the core subjects. ‘Quite a number’ took the reverse and negative position on secondary schools’ anticipated response, assuming that receiving schools would re-test and repeat the work pupils had undertaken.

.

Identification and Selection of Participants

Concern about lack of guidance extended to advice on selection of participants. There was widespread worry at the limited availability of past papers. Lack of confidence led to schools adopting very different approaches, some rather liberal and others much more conservative.

Some entered only those learners they believed had a very good chance of passing. Others extended entry to all those they believed had some chance of success, sometimes including even those they felt probably would not pass.

On average, case study schools nominated 41% of the subset of learners who achieved Level 5 in Maths, though some entered 20% or fewer and others 81% or more. Most fell between these two extremes. (The national figure is given as 26%.)

But, in Reading, case study schools nominated on average only 25% of learners who had achieved Level 5. Only a minority of schools nominated over 41%. (The national figure is given as 18%.)

Timing of selection varied considerably. Identifying potential entrants relatively early in Year 6 and confirming selection nearer the April deadline was a common strategy.

Decisions typically took into account several factors, foremost of which were learners’ own preferences. Few schools consulted parents systematically. There was generally less clarity and confidence in respect of Reading.

Schools typically utilised a mix of objective, quantifiable and subjective, value-driven measures, but ‘many schools struggled to convey coherently a specific selection strategy’ and it is clear that the probability of a learner being entered varied considerably according to which school they attended.

Objective evidence included formative assessment, tracking data, cross-moderation of work between partner schools and the outcomes of practice tests. Though schools felt secure in their levelling, only a handful stated explicitly that they had learners working at Level 6, either at the point of selection for the tests or subsequently. In reality, most made their judgements on the basis of performance at Level 5.

Subjective considerations – eg learners’ ‘wellbeing’ – were significant:

‘In certain instances possessing the raw ingredients of academic ability and a track record of high academic performance in isolation were not necessarily seen to be sufficient grounds for selection. Instead a number of schools also attached considerable importance to the particular pupils’ maturity, personality and, in some cases, behaviour.’

Many schools expected to tighten their selection criteria in response to low pass rates, especially in Reading. There was marked dissatisfaction with ‘the increased threshold marks (compared with those from the pilot tests)’ and a feeling that this had led schools to underestimate the difficulty of the tests.

The Executive Summary argues that ‘schools were largely effective in ensuring that the very top ability pupils were identified and put forward’, but the substantive text is not quite so bullish.

There was clear evidence of reticence on teachers’ parts in outlining the characteristics of learners working at Level 6. Reference was made to independence, tenacity and motivation and ‘an innate flare or capability to excel at a particular subject’.

Some schools struggled to pin down these traits, especially for Reading. Teachers mentioned ‘excellent inferential skills and capacity to access authorial intent’.

Maturity was also a key consideration:

‘The parameters of the Level 6 Reading test are just not compatible with the vast majority of pupils aged 11 (even the very brightest ones) – they simply do not possess the experiences and emotional maturity to be able to access what is required of them within the level 6 test.’

.

Support Provided to Participants

Limited guidance was a prominent issue, leading schools to use ‘an array of ad hoc means of support’ derived from their own research and experience.

Many adopted aspects of the KS3 Programme of Study, despite concern at the attitude of receiving secondary schools. Materials and support were much more evident in Maths than in Reading.

Lack of clarity over the relationship between Level 6 tests and the KS3 programmes of study was a significant issue. Most schools drew on the KS3 curriculum but a few preferred to emphasise breadth and depth at KS2 instead.

Schools were generally more confident in their support for Maths because ‘there appeared to be more internal and external expertise available’ and they found selection of participants less problematic.

Two aspects of support were prominent:

• Classroom differentiation, focused on specific aspects of the curriculum – though the tests themselves were not widely perceived to have had a material impact on such practice. Some form of ability grouping was in place in all schools in respect of maths and most schools in respect of reading (as part of literacy).

• Test preparation, mostly undertaken in additional booster sessions combining teaching with test-taking practice and the wider use of practice papers.

The Report characterises three broad approaches adopted by schools: outcome focussed (heavily emphasising test preparation); teaching and learning focused (with markedly less emphasis on booster sessions and test practice); and a composite approach marking the continuum between these two extremes.

Several schools reported an intention ‘to focus more on teaching and learning’ in the coming year.

.

Outcomes of the Tests

In Maths it was possible ‘to identify a small number of schools that performed particularly well and others that performed relatively poorly’.

The analysis focuses on the simple pass rate, the Level 5 to 6 conversion rate and a ‘top Level 5’ to Level 6 conversion rate across the 20 case study schools.

The simple pass rate was 40% (34% nationally), though this masked significant variation – from 0% to 100% indeed.

These outcomes correlated broadly with the level 5 to 6 conversion rates for which the case study school average was 17%, with variance from 0% to 50%.

However, when it came to the’ top Level 5’ to Level 6 conversion rate, the Report can only admit that, while there was some degree of correlation with the other two measures:

‘On this measure there was polarity: most schools either found that all of their ‘top level 5s’ achieved level 6 or that none of them achieved it. This is difficult to interpret, and the qualitative data does not shed a light on this.’

Even more problematically, only one learner in the entire sample was successful in achieving Level 6 in the Reading test – equivalent to a 1% success rate (the national pass rate was 2%).

The Report offers some rather approximate findings, wrapped around with health warnings, suggesting that better results were more typically found in schools with a combined approach featuring learning and outcomes (see above), as opposed to either of those two extremes.

Positive outcomes for schools have already been outlined above.

Benefits for learners, identified by teachers and learners alike, included the scope provided by the tests for learners to demonstrate (even fulfil) their potential. Wider personal outcomes were also mentioned including a positive impact on motivation (though there were also corresponding concerns about overloading and over-pressurising learners).

Secondary schools rather tended to reinforce the negative expectations of some primary schools:

• They were ‘generally ambivalent about primary schools’ use of L6 test and aspects of the KS3 curriculum…due to the fact that secondary schools in general felt that measures of KS2 outcomes were not accurate… Consequently, they preferred to test the children pre-entry or at the beginning of Year 7’.

• ‘Many of the secondary schools were concerned about primary schools ‘teaching to the test’ and thus producing L6 pupils with little breadth and depth of understanding of L6 working…Generally secondaries viewed such results as unreliable, albeit useful for baseline assessment, as they help to identify ‘high fliers’’

• While most noted the benefits for learners ‘some felt that inaccurate test outcomes made the transition more difficult’. The usual range of concerns was expressed.

.

The Investigation’s own Conclusions

The Investigation offers four main conclusions:

• ‘It is abundantly clear…that greater guidance on pupil selection and support and more practice materials are key issues’. This needs to incorporate guidance on coverage, or otherwise, of the KS3 curriculum. The main text (but not the executive summary) identifies this as a responsibility of ‘DfE with the STA’. It remains to be seen whether the Government will take on this task or will look instead to the market to respond.

• Schools adopting a strongly outcome-focussed approach were less likely to produce successful results than those adopting a mixed learning and outcome approach. Some schools seemed too heavily driven by pressure to secure positive inspection results, and

.‘responded to the direction from inspectors and policymakers to support the most able by a narrowing of the curriculum and overemphasising test preparation, which is not in the best interests of pupil, teachers or schools’

There is a ‘need for policy to aim to drive home the vital importance of pedagogy and learning to counteract the tendency’.

• Secondary schools confirm primary schools’ scepticism that they will not ‘judge the tests as an accurate reflection of levels’. There is therefore ‘a strong need to engage secondaries much more with primaries in, for example, curriculum, assessment and moderation’. This is presumably a process that is most easily undertaken through local collaboration.

• The very low pass rate in Reading, selection issues (including maturity as a key component) and secondary scepticism point to a need ‘to review whether the L6 Reading test in its current form is the most appropriate test to use to identify a range of higher performing pupils, for example the top 10%’. The full commentary also notes that:

.‘The cost of supporting and administering a test for such a small proportion of the school population appears to outweigh the benefits’.

.

My Conclusions

There is relatively little here that would be unusual or surprising to a seasoned observer of how gifted education is currently practised and of wider educational issues such as the impact of Ofsted on school practice and transfer and transition issues.

The study is rather narrow in its conceptualisation, in that it fails to address the interface between the Level 6 tests and other relevant aspects of Government thinking, not least emerging policy on the curriculum and (of course) assessment.

It entirely ignores the fact that a decision to abandon National Curriculum Levels was announced eight months prior to publication.

There is no attempt to analyse the national data in any depth, or to look at any issues concerning the gender, ethnic and socio-economic profile of learners entered for the tests and successful within it, even though there will have been some heavy biases, especially in favour of those from comparatively advantaged backgrounds.

It would have been particularly helpful to see how much bigger the FSM gap at Level 6 is, compared with Level 5, whether schools had focused on this issue and, if so, what action they had taken to address it. Was there any evidence of the positive use of Pupil Premium funding for this purpose?

The Investigation’s general point about the negative impact of Ofsted on schools’ practice may also be rather misleading, in that the negative influence of overly outcomes-focussed thinking is at least partly attributable to School Performance Tables rather than Ofsted’s school inspection framework.

In that guise it will probably also feature in Ofsted’s own upcoming publication (see below). Whether there is any reference in Ofsted’s report to the case for rebalancing schools towards pedagogy and learning, so they are more in equilibrium with the pursuit of assessment outcomes, is rather more doubtful. Quite how that might be undertaken is ducked by the Level 6 Investigation and so likely to be sidelined.

The issues relating to transition and transfer are longstanding and a heavy drag on the efficiency of our school system, both for gifted learners and the wider population. If the upcoming consultation affects the timing of Key Stage 2 assessment, that may provide the impetus for renewed efforts to address the generic problem. Otherwise this seems unlikely to be a priority for the Government.

The response to date to the call for additional guidance has been rather limited.

Certainly, a range of sample material has been posted to assist schools interested in taking up the new test of grammar, punctuation and spelling. But the information available to support the Maths and Reading tests remains relatively thin. I have found nothing that addresses substantively the issues about pre-empting elements of Key Stage 3.

Despite the limited support available, evidence has recently emerged that Level 6 test entries are significantly higher for 2013 than for 2012. A total of 113,600 pupils have been entered, equivalent to 21% of the relevant pupil population.

This is said to be an increase of 55% compared with the 73,300 entered in 2012 (though that figure does not seem to agree with those quoted in the Investigation and reproduced above).

Moreover, some 11,300 schools have registered for the tests, up 41% on the 2012 figure of 8,300 schools.

Given the issues associated with the Reading test set out in the Report, one might hazard a reasonable guess that the increase will be attributable largely to the Maths test and perhaps to schools experimenting with the new grammar, punctuation and spelling test (though the figures are not broken down by test).

Increased emphasis in the 2013 Performance Tables (see above) will also be a significant factor. Does this suggest that schools are increasingly slaves to the outcomes-driven mentality that the Investigation strives so hard to discourage?

.

More about KS2 L6 tests: bit.ly/XVJwc4: NB: a 21% entry rate seems excessively high; NC levels will disappear by 2016—
  (@GiftedPhoenix) April 24, 2013

.

The key point here is that it is unlikely to be wise or appropriate to enter over one fifth of all end KS2 learners for tests in which so few are likely to be successful.

One might reasonably hope that, incorporated within the design principles for whatever assessment instruments will replace Level 6 tests, there is explicit recognition that a basic pass/fail distinction, combined with an exceptionally high threshold for a pass, is not the optimal solution.

It is important to retain a high threshold for those with the capacity to achieve it, but other relatively strong candidates also need opportunities to demonstrate a positive outcome at a slightly lower level. A new approach might look to recognise positively the performance of the top 10%, top 5% and top 1% respectively.

It will also be critical to ensure an orderly transition from the current arrangements to those in place from 2016. There is a valuable window of opportunity to pilot new approaches thoroughly alongside the existing models. The reform need not be rushed – that is the silver lining to the cloud associated with decoupling curriculum and assessment reforms.

So, what is my overall judgement of the contribution made by this first publication to my wished for ‘Summer of Love’?

A curate’s egg really. Positive and useful in a small way, not least in reminding us that primary-secondary transition for gifted learners remains problematic, but also a missed opportunity to flag up some other critical issues – and of course heavily overshadowed by the primary assessment consultation on the immediate horizon.

Still, one hopes that its recommendations will be revisited as part of a holistic response to all three publications, and that those to follow will take full account of its findings, otherwise the overall narrative will be somewhat impoverished and will almost certainly fail to give due prominence to the critically important upper primary phase.

.

Kew once more 3 by giftedphoenix

The Ofsted Survey

.

Background

Next in line for publication is an Ofsted Survey, conducted using the Inspectorate’s rapid response methodology, which will examine ‘how state schools teach the most able children’.

Unusually, this was announced in January 2013 through a press briefing with a national newspaper. Given the political leanings of the paper in question, the contents of the story may be a somewhat biased version of reality.

There is no information whatsoever on Ofsted’s own website, with the sole (and recently added) exception of a publication schedule confirming that the survey will be published in May.

The newspaper report explains that:

• Despite being a rapid response exercise, this publication ‘will be the most extensive investigation of gifted and talented provision undertaken’ by Ofsted.

• It will focus predominantly – if not exclusively – on secondary schools where ‘children who get top marks in primary school are being let down by some secondary school teachers who leave them to coast rather than stretch them to achieve the best exam results’.

• It will examine ‘concerns that bright pupils who are taught in mixed ability classes are failing to be stretched and that schools are entering clever children too early for GCSE exams so that they gain only the C grades that count in league tables and are not pushed to the full extent of their abilities’.

• Ofsted will interrogate existing inspection data on educational provision for gifted and talented learners, as well as pupil progress data. They will also survey provision afresh, through visits to a representative sample of over 50 secondary schools.

HMCI Sir Michael Wilshaw is quoted extensively:

‘I am concerned that our most able pupils are not doing as well as they should be…Are schools pushing them in the way they should be pushed and are pushed in the independent sector and in the selective system?

The statistic that four independent schools and a very prestigious six [sic] form college are sending more youngsters to Oxbridge than 2,000 state secondary schools is a nonsense. When the history of comprehensive education is written people need to say that they did as well by the most able pupils as they did by the least able…

I am passionate about this, it will be a landmark report…I am as concerned as the next person on the issue of social mobility. Are our children and our children from the poorest backgrounds who are naturally bright doing as well as they should?

…I would like to see GCSE league tables reformed…The anxiety to get as many through those C boundaries have sometimes meant that schools haven’t pushed children beyond that.

We need sophisticated league tables which shows [sic] progress. Youngsters leaving primary school with level 5 should be getting A*, A or B at GCSE.’

It is arguable that the Government has already responded to the final specific point via its proposal – in the consultation on secondary accountability released alongside the draft National Curriculum – to publish an ‘average point score 8’ measure based on each pupil’s achievement across eight qualifications at the end of KS4 (though whether it has done enough to counterbalance other pressures in the system to prioritise the C/D borderline is open to question).

Otherwise there are several familiar themes here:

• whether gifted learners are insufficiently challenged, particularly in secondary comprehensive schools;

• whether they are making sufficient progress between the end of Key Stage 2 and the end of Key Stage 4;

• whether they are held back by poor differentiation, including a preponderance of mixed ability teaching;

• to what extent they are supported by schools’ policies on early entry to examinations, particularly GCSEs;

• whether more can be to done to support progression by state school students to the most competitive universities, especially by those from disadvantaged backgrounds; and

• whether there are perverse incentives in the accountability system that result in gifted learners being short-changed.

Given the puff generated by Sir Michael, expectations are high that this will be a substantial and influential piece of work. It follows that, if it turns out to be comparatively a damp squib, the sense of disappointment and frustration will be so much greater.

The Report will be judged by what new and fresh light it can bring to bear on these issues and, critically, by the strength of the recommendations it directs towards stakeholders at national, local and school level.

Just how interventionist will Ofsted show itself in backing up its leader’s passion? Will it take responsibility for co-ordinating a response from central government to any recommendations that it points in that direction – and what exactly will Ofsted commit itself to doing to help bring about real and lasting change?

Not to labour the point (though I fear I may be doing so) a limp effort that repackages familiar findings and appeals rather weakly to stakeholders’ better judgement will not display the landmark qualities of which HMCI has boasted.

A future Episode in this series will be dedicated to assessing whether or not these inflated expectations have been satisfied, and what the consequences are for the Summer of Love.

.

Benchmarking the New Report

In the meantime, it is instructive to look back at the most recent inspection report on gifted education, thus supplying a benchmark of sorts against which to judge the findings in this new publication.

This will help to establish whether the new report is simply bearing out what we know already about long-standing shortcomings in gifted education, or whether it has important messages to convey about the impact – positive or negative – of the predominantly ‘school led’ approach adopted by successive Governments over the past three years.

The most recent report was published in December 2009, in the latter days of the previous government.

‘Gifted and Talented Pupils in Schools’ is based on a rapid response survey of 26 primary and secondary schools, selected because their most recent school-wide inspections had identified gifted and talented education as ‘an improvement point’.

The survey was undertaken shortly after the previous government had, in the Report’s words:

‘Reviewed its national programme for gifted and talented pupils and concluded that it was not having sufficient impact on schools. As a result, provision is being scaled back to align it more closely with wider developments in personalising learning. Schools will be expected to do more themselves for these pupils.’

Eight of the 26 schools (31%) were judged to be well-placed to respond to this new environment, 14 (54%) displayed adequate capacity for improvement and the remaining four (15%) had ‘poorly developed’ capacity to sustain improvement.

The schools that were well-placed to build their own capacity could demonstrate that their improved provision was having a positive impact on outcomes for all pupils, were making use of available national resources – including the critically important Quality Standards – and were making sure that all pupils were suitably challenged in lessons.

The majority of schools in the middle group could demonstrate some improvement in pupil outcomes since their last inspection, but ‘many of the developments in these schools were fragile and the changes had had limited success in helping gifted and talented pupils to make appropriate and sustained progress’.

Gifted education was not a priority and:

‘To build their capacity to improve provision, they would benefit from better guidance, support and resources from outside agencies and organisations.’

In the four schools with inadequate capacity to improve, lead staff had insufficient status to influence strategic planning, teachers had not received appropriate training and schools:

‘Did not sufficiently recognise their own responsibilities to meet the needs of their gifted and talented pupils’.

The Report’s Key Findings identify a series of specific issues:

• Many schools’ gifted education policies were ‘generic versions from other schools or the local authority’, so insufficiently effective.

• In the large majority of schools (77%) pupils said their views were not adequately reflected in curriculum planning and they experienced an inconsistent level of challenge.

• None of the schools had engaged fully with the parents of gifted learners to understand their needs and discuss effective support.

• The better-placed schools were characterised by strong senior leadership in this field and lead staff with sufficient status to influence and implement policy. Conversely, in the poorer schools, senior staff demonstrated insufficient drive or commitment to this issue in the face of competing priorities.

• In schools judged to have adequate capacity to improve, subject leaders had too much flexibility to interpret school policy, resulting in inconsistency and lack of coherence across the curriculum.

• Most schools ‘needed further support to identify the most appropriate regional and national resources and training to meet their particular needs’. Lead staff were seeking practical subject-specific training for classroom teachers.

• All schools ‘felt they needed more support and guidance about how to judge what gifted and talented pupils at different ages should be achieving and how well they were making progress towards attaining their challenging targets across key stages’

• Just over half the schools had established collaborative partnerships with other schools in their localities. Lack of such support was evident in the schools with limited capacity to improve. There was comparatively little scrutiny through local accountability arrangements.

• All the schools had developed out-of-hours provision though the link with school-based provision was not always clear and schools were not consistently evaluating the impact of such provision.

• There was little analysis of progression by different groups of gifted learners.

The Report offers the customary series of recommendations, directed at central and local government and schools, designed to help schools build the necessary capacity to improve their performance in these areas. It will be telling whether the new Report assesses progress in implementing those.

Rather oddly, they fail to endorse or propose arrangements for the ongoing application of the Quality Standards in a ‘school-led’ environment, although the Standards incorporate all these elements of effective practice and provide a clear framework for continuous improvement.

With the benefit of hindsight, one might argue that many of the problems Ofsted cited in 2009 would have been rather less pronounced had the Inspectorate fully embraced the Standards as their official criteria for judging the effectiveness of gifted education when they were first introduced.

The Standards are now growing significantly out of date and require an urgent refresh if they are to remain a valuable resource for schools as they continue to pursue improvement.

Ideally Ofsted might lead that process and subsequently endorse the revised Standards as the universal measure for judging the quality of English schools’ gifted education. I can think of nothing that would have a more significant impact on the overall quality of provision

But I suspect that will be an idea too interventionist for even the most passionate HMCI to entertain.

It will be fascinating, nevertheless, to map the shortcomings identified in the upcoming Report against the existing Standards, as well as against those flagged in the predecessor Report. But that’s a topic for another day.

.

Kew once more 4 by giftedphoenix

.

Raising the Aspirations of High-Achieving Disadvantaged Pupils

Thirdly and finally, DfE has commissioned an ‘Investigation of School and College-level Strategies to Raise the Aspirations of High-achieving Disadvantaged Pupils to Pursue Higher Education’.

This is still some way from publication, but the contract – including the specification – is available for public scrutiny (see documents section on this link).

The contract was awarded to TNS-BMRB (where the Project Lead is Mark Peters) working with the Institute for Policy Studies in Education (IPSE) based at London Metropolitan University (where the lead is Carole Leathwood).

IPSE is undertaking the qualitative element of the research and carries this outline of the project on its website.

According to the contract, the contractors must deliver their final report by 28 June and the Department must publish it within 12 weeks of this date, so by 20 September 2013 at the latest. The project is costing £114,113 plus VAT.

Its aims, as set down in the contract, are to discover:

• ‘What strategies are being used by schools across years 7-11 and in school sixth forms (years 12-13) to support high-achieving disadvantaged pupils in to [sic] pursue HE.

• If the pupil premium is being used in schools to fund aspiration raising activities for high-achieving disadvantaged pupils.

• What strategies are being used by colleges to support high-achieving disadvantaged pupils pursue HE and

• To identify assess [sic] any areas of potential good practice.

‘High-achieving’ is defined for these purposes as ‘pupils who achieve a Level 5 or higher in English and Maths at KS2’.

As reported in a previous post, some 27% of pupils achieved this outcome in 2012, up from 21% in 2011, so the focus is on the top quartile, or perhaps the top two deciles of pupils on this measure.

‘Disadvantaged’ is defined as ‘pupils eligible for free school meals’ (and, in the case of post-16 students, those who were eligible for FSM in Year 11). This is of course a somewhat narrower definition than eligibility for the Pupil Premium, even though the Premium is pivotal to the study.

The national proportion of pupils achieving Level 5 in KS2 English and maths in 2012 who are eligible for FSM is, I believe, 14%, compared with 32% of non-FSM pupils, giving a gap on this measure of 18%.

This data is not provided in School Performance Tables nor is it easily sourceable from published national statistics, though it does appear in schools’ Raise Online reports. (Incidentally, the comparable gap at Level 4 is somewhat lower, at 16%.)

The full set of objectives for the project is as follows (my emphases, but not my punctuation):

‘For Schools:

• To identify to what extent schools are supporting high-achieving disadvantaged pupils to raise their aspiration to go on to HE?

• To identify what activities take place in Years 7 -11 for high-achieving disadvantaged pupils to raise their aspiration to go on to HE and the Russell Group universities?

• To identify whether the Pupil Premium being used [sic] to fund specific activities to help pupils pursue HE?

• To identify what good practice looks like for supporting high-achieving disadvantaged pupils to pursue HE? (Focusing particularly on schools that have a high percentage of FSM pupils who go on to HE).

For FE colleges, sixth forms colleges and school sixth forms:

• To identify to what extent are colleges supporting high-achieving disadvantaged learners post-16 to pursue HE?

• To identify what strategies, if any, do high-achieving disadvantaged learners receive post-16 to pursue HE and more specifically Russell Group Universities?

• To identify what good practice looks like for supporting high-achieving disadvantaged learners to pursue HE? (Focusing in particular on the strategies used by colleges that have a high percentage of disadvantaged learners who go on to HE).

For schools and colleges

• To establish how schools and colleges are identifying ‘high-achieving, disadvantaged’ pupils/learners?

• To identify which particular groups (if any) are being identified as requiring specific support and why?

• To identify what extent schools/colleges engage in aspiration raising activities specifically designed to increase participation in Russell Group Institutions (rather than HE in general)?

• To identify what good practice look like in relation to different groups of pupils/learners?’

It is evident from this that there is some confusion between aspiration-raising activities and wider support strategies. But there is clearly interest in comparing strategies in the school and post-16 sectors respectively (and perhaps in different parts of the post-16 sector too.) The primary sector does not feature.

There is also interest in establishing approaches to identifying the beneficiaries of such support; how such provision is differentiated between progression to HE and progression to ‘Russell Group universities’ respectively; the nature of good practice in each sector, drawn particularly from institutions where a significant proportion of students progress to HE; and distinguishing practice for different (but non-defined) groups of learners.

Finally, there is some interest – though perhaps a little underplayed – in exploring the extent to which the Pupil Premium is used to fund this activity in schools. (Funding sources in post-16 environments are not mentioned.)

The study comprises 6 phases: pre-survey scoping; survey piloting; national school survey (a sample of 500 schools, including 100 that send a high proportion of FSM-eligible pupils to HE); national FE and sixth form college survey (a sample of 100 institutions); case studies (eight schools and two colleges); and results analysis.

The latter will incorporate:

• ‘To what extent schools and colleges are providing aspiration raising activities to high achieving disadvantaged pupils.’

• ‘What activities take place across different year groups.’

• ‘Analysis by school characteristics including region, school size, distance to the nearest Russell group university, proportion of FSM eligible pupils’

• Comparison of the 400 schools with the 100 sending a high proportion of their FSM pupils on to higher education.

• Whether ‘activities are associated with higher numbers of pupils progressing to HE and trends in what works for different pupil groups’

• Triangulation of data from different strands

• Analysis of ‘best practice’, incorporating ‘comparisons between schools and colleges’.

There is no overt reference to other Government policies and initiatives that might be expected to impact on institutions’ practice, such as the Destination Measures (which will be presented separately for FSM-eligible learners in 2013, as well as being incorporated in School and College Performance Tables) or the Dux Scheme. Nor is there any explicit reference to the outreach activities of universities.

One assumes, however, that the outcomes will help inform Government decisions as to the effectiveness of existing school and college level policy interventions that contribute towards the achievement of its Social Mobility Indicators, specifically:

•  Higher Education Participation by Free School Meal Eligibility (current gap between FSM and ‘others’ = 18%) and

• Higher Education Participation in the Most Selective Institutions by Type of School or College Attended which compares state and independent sector progression to the top third of universities ranked by their UCAS tariff score (State-Independent gap is currently 39%).

The Report is likely to result in arrangements of some sort for for disseminating effective practice between institutions, even if that amounts only to a few brief case studies.

It may even help to inform decisions about whether additional interventions are required and, if so, the nature of those interventions.

Previous posts on this Blog have made the case for a nationally co-ordinated and targeted intervention provided through a ‘flexible framework’ which would synergise the currently separate ‘push’ strategies from schools/colleges with the ‘pull’ strategies from higher education in support of the ‘most disadvantaged, most able’.

This would be a subset of the 14% achieving KS2 Level 5 in English and maths, defined by their capacity to enter the most competitive universities. It might incorporate a specific focus on increasing substantively progression to particular ‘elite’ targets, whether expressed in terms of courses (eg medicine, veterinary, law) or institutions (notably Oxbridge).

At the moment all the running is being made on the ‘pull’ side, spearheaded by joint OFFA/HEFCE efforts to develop a ‘National Strategy for Access and Student Success’.

A joint effort would:

• Passport funding on individual learners and support them through transition at 16 and 18, probably topslicing Pupil Premium for the purpose.

• Enable learners and facilitators to draw on provision offered via the (currently fragmented) supply side, drawing in third party providers as well as schools/colleges and universities.

• Provide for a menu of such provision from various sources to be synthesised into a personalised programme based on needs assessment and subject to regular monitoring and updating.

Although there is presently some ideological inhibition hindering the adoption of such scaffolded programmes, an intervention of this nature – targeted exclusively at a select cohort of ‘high ability, high need’ students – would be likely to result in much more significant improvements against these indicators, and do so much more quickly than generic system-wide reform.

In ‘holding the Government’s feet to the fire’ over social mobility issues, perhaps the recently-established Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission might see its way to making that case when it reports on Government progress in the Autumn.

.

Kew once more 5 by giftedphoenix

Drawing These Strands Together

So, as things stand at the end of Episode One:

• There is a decent, if relatively narrow report on the table which draws attention to longstanding transition and transfer problems and an outcomes-obsessed mentality at the top end of Key Stage 2, as well as a range of narrower issues associated with the effective delivery of Level 6 tests.

• We impatiently await a consultation document on primary accountability that should provide some clarity over the future assessment of high-attaining learners within Key Stage 2, so enabling us to complete the bigger picture of National Curriculum and associated assessment reforms across Key Stages 1-4.

• We also await a much-vaunted Ofsted survey report which – if it satisfies our high expectations – might provide the spur for real action at national, local and school levels, perhaps even inspiring the Sutton Trust to announce the outcomes of its 2012 call for proposals.

• Then in September the third report (the second Investigation) will ideally be sufficiently strategic and influential to cause some important joining up to be undertaken across that part of the agenda focused on progression to higher education by high-attaining learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, potentially at the behest of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission.

I am hopeful that this series of posts will support the process of distilling and synthesising these different elements to provide a composite picture of national strengths and weaknesses in gifted education throughout the continuum from upper Key Stage 2 to university entry. Some kind of audit if you will.

But the question begged is how to respond to the state of affairs that this ‘joining up’ process reveals.

As matters stand, at the end of this first post in the series, I have proffered unto the melting pot a cautiously provisional wishlist comprising three main items: a Manifesto that sets out some principles and arguments for a genuinely collaborative response, revised Quality Standards integrated within the accountability machinery and a targeted intervention for ‘high ability; high need’ learners designed to eliminate the fragmentation that bedevils current efforts.

This menu may well grow and change as the ‘Summer of Love’ progresses, not least to reflect planned and unplanned discussion of the issues . I would be delighted if some of that discussion were to take place in the comments facility below.

I believe one of the Manifesto principles must be to pursue an optimal middle way that is neither top-down nor bottom-up but a ‘strategy of all the talents’. That is reflected in my own version. Your comments are ever welcome about that, too.

But that principle presupposes a national gifted education community with the capacity and wherewithal to build on strengths and tackle weaknesses in a strategic, collaborative, inclusive and universal fashion.

For, if the next stage of reform is once more to be school-led, it is abundantly clear from the evidence presented above that schools will need our support to bring about real and lasting improvements in gifted education practice, for the benefit of all English gifted learners.

I was once optimistic about the prospects, but now I’m not so sure. Perhaps the Summer of Love is a chance in a generation – maybe the last chance – to galvanise the putative community into a real community and so make that happen.

.

GP

May 2013

This post:

• reviews the current accessibility of gifted education research and finds it sadly wanting;

• surveys and compares the nine leading gifted education journals; and

• proposes immediate action to make a far larger proportion of the research they publish available free of charge to all potential readers.

.

.

.

Background

One aim of this Blog is to make freely available to all readers the widest possible range of detailed, reliable and up-to-date information about the current state of global gifted education.

This effort is undertaken in the firm belief that – wherever they are in the world and whatever the nature of their involvement – everyone with an interest in securing effective gifted education can benefit considerably from knowing about provision and practice elsewhere.

While ‘policy tourism’ is highly inadvisable, ‘policy insularity’ is still more damaging, because it results in policy makers assessing their options from a position of comparative ignorance, without the benefit of information about how things are done in other countries.

Such myopia is outdated in a globalised environment. There is no advantage in – and much to be lost by – indulging a taste for policy xenophobia.

Unfortunately I am forced to ration the supply of this material, partly because a single human being with other responsibilities and commitments has limited capacity to devote to it, but also because many of the sources of information upon which these posts depend are severely restricted.

It is a matter of principle (and a source of some pride) that I avoid sources that are hidden behind paywalls and so only accessible to those who can afford to access them. I prefer to draw on material that is freely available online and, more often than not, to include hyperlinks to significant sources in my posts, so that readers can consult them if they choose.

.

Putting Some Preliminary Cards on the Table

Frequent readers will know that I am guilty of harbouring some resentment towards academic researchers, primarily because I believe they have for too long dominated efforts to organise international and global collaboration in the field of gifted education – yet with an all too conspicuous lack of success.

As I see it, they tend to operate a closed shop which primarily benefits other academic researchers, and which restricts the availability of their work to those outside their charmed circle.

As an ex-policy maker – and now a blogger with enough idealism intact to believe that free-to-access online writing can make a real difference – I heartily dislike the restrictive practices that seem to underpin so much academic research, seemingly aided and abetted by academic publishing, its bedfellow and partner in crime.

Of course I recognise that there are pockets of good practice – and nothing I say here should be taken as applying to particular organisations and individuals, especially those mentioned later in this post.

But still I find it hard to ignore an insistent negative internal voice which marshals a superficially convincing quiver of barbed arguments:

• The vast majority of gifted education research is only available to those who can afford the subscriptions, or else belong to an academic library, typically located in an institution of higher education, that will meet that cost on their behalves. Publishers typically charge over the odds for access to such material, so are likely to be making significant profits, out of all proportion to the relatively limited value they add to quality assurance and the dissemination process.

• The vast majority of keynote contributions at state/regional, national and international gifted education conferences are allocated to the academics that have produced such research. They use these opportunities to present their published arguments in outline to the small minority of consumers who can afford the hefty fees, travel and subsistence costs necessary to attend the conference location. More often than not, they seize the chance to advertise the priced publications that contain their research, as well as any other materials they endorse or services they provide.

• These researchers predominantly address each other, constantly engaged in an iterative, regenerative process whereby one research article begets another. The gifted education research industry is inherently self-obsessed, unhelpfully besotted with vacuous scholarship and research for research’s sake. Too few have anything substantive to say about effective practice or how to improve it. Too many are perpetually chasing citations, focused excessively on building their reputations and those of the institutions to which they belong.

• There is comparatively little effort to promote fruitful partnership and collaboration, even within this research community, and still less between researchers and other more important stakeholder groups such as learners, parents, advocates, practitioners, educators and policy makers. Too often researchers are complicit in making these potential partners feel like second class citizens, while publishers are almost entirely absent from this process.

Such factors militate against the full and free exchange of information and data, especially about effective provision (and comparatively less effective provision too), open access to which is an essential prerequisite if we are to work collectively and collaboratively to improve the scope and quality of global gifted education.

.

Salford Quays 1 by Gifted Phoenix

.

Rant over.

It is all too easy to spout these anecdotal, impressionistic views without properly examining the evidence base (and all too easy for researchers and their ilk to criticise bloggers for indulging in such opinionated hearsay).

So what is the true position on the availability and accessibility of gifted education research and, more to the point, what action can be taken to improve matters?

Several previous posts have offered some partial solutions:

• In December 2010 I proposed An International Online Network for Gifted Education Researchers.

• In September 2012, as part of a broader discussion of whether social media can overcome the problems we face in gifted education, I urged the introduction of an ‘observatory cum repository cum social learning environment’ which could:

.‘Give priority to effective dissemination of high quality research, the professional development of young researchers, and collaboration between researchers and with the other stakeholder groups in gifted education. It could provide the basis for an international think tank dedicated to solving the problems that we face in contemporary gifted education.’

• More recently I made clear my intention to host some open access gifted education research on this blog, alongside ‘An Evolving Gifted Education Key Documents Collection’ and in February 2013 I created a new section called ‘OpenGate Research’ inviting other gifted educators active via social media to send me links to open access research that might be considered for inclusion.

I soon discovered why the response was so muted. There is very little gifted education research freely available on open access terms. And what is available is also extremely difficult to locate.

So I determined to write this post, set against the broad backdrop of increasing advocacy for open access research, regardless of discipline, much of it driven by the academic research community, though not conspicuously so in the field of gifted education.

The first section analyses the contribution made by what I judge to be the nine leading specialist gifted education journals, taking them in alphabetical order.

Needless to say, I recognise that much gifted education research is published in other, smaller journals, typically with a national reach, or in different non-specialist journals. But broadly the same conditions apply, regardless of discipline. And where the international journals lead, the national journals follow.

I have attached an Appendix which contains full details of the current membership of review boards for all nine journals. Some names crop up again and again. Some journals maintain huge lists, but there is simultaneously a general sense of clique and narrowness which cannot be helpful to the field.

The mid-section of the post examines the rights allocated to authors of research articles by the publishers of these journals, as well as their emerging response to increased pressure for open access.

This provides a basis for the proposals in the final part of the post for making gifted education research much more accessible, entirely free of charge, to a much wider range of consumers

.

The Top International Gifted Education Journals

.

Comparison of Key Facts

The summary Table below summarises key information about the nine journals featured in this analysis. The subsequent text enlarges on this, providing further detail about editorial arrangements in particular.

.

Notes

For an explanation of the various acronyms go to the commentary below

*Most recent edition

^ membership subscription

#individual subscription only available in print format

@ individual rate for print issue

x only an institutional rate for a print issue is provided

.

What can be drawn from this initial comparison? On the face of it, Gifted and Talented International (GTI) seems particularly voluminous, but this was a special edition containing responses to a target article – the two editions produced in 2011 contain only 14 substantive articles between them, so a figure of seven per issue may be more typical.

If we divide the subscription cost by the number of articles it purchases, this gives a rough average cost per article of $5.00, equivalent to £3.25 in pounds sterling.

Applying this calculation to the other publications gives an approximate ‘value for money’ indicator for individual subscribers to each journal.

Average costs per substantive article are around: £5.38 (GEI); £5.87 (GCQ); £1.81 (GCT); £10.62 (HAS); £1.21 (JEG); £3.25 (JAA); £1.25 (RR) and of course 0 (TDE). On this measure, Talent Development and Excellence (TDE) is inevitably best value for money, while High Ability Studies (HAS) is clearly the worst.

The fact that four of the nine journals still appear only to offer individual subscriptions in print format, with no online option is, frankly, amazing. It would suggest that individual subscribers are forced to purchase the significantly higher individual subscriptions to secure online access.

Where they exist, these institutional subscriptions are more expensive in all cases, but the mark-up varies enormously. Institutional subscribers have to pay just £3 more for Gifted Child Quarterly (GCQ) but a whopping £224 more for HAS.

The cost of purchasing a single article from a journal archive is broadly similar across the subscription journals, ranging from around £13.00 for GCQ to £23.50 for HAS.

There is much more variation in the cost of access to an entire past issue, with HAS being three times more expensive than its nearest rival. However (with the exception of GTI and TDE which make online issues freely available), only HAS and the Roeper Review (RR) – both published by Taylor and Francis – seem to make past issues available in an online format, as opposed to print.

GCQ clearly has the best-stocked archive, covering a period of 56 years but, with the exception of newcomer TDE, all the remaining archives span a period of between 18 and 35 years. There is, therefore, a substantive back catalogue of gifted education research, some of it now very old and much of that almost certainly superannuated.

It is time to take a look at each journal in a little more detail.

.

Salford Quays 2 by Gifted Phoenix

.

Gifted and Talented International (GTI)

Gifted and Talented International  is the journal of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children (WCGTC).

It was first published in 1982 and typically appears twice a year, though the online archive contains a total of only 41 editions spanning this period of 31 years. There was only one edition in 2012 (August) and, at the time of writing (April), no 2013 edition has appeared.

Back in 2011 volumes did appear in August and December respectively, but the more recent publication history suggests that World Council members are currently not getting best value for their subscriptions.

The World Council says simply that the purpose of GTI is to:

‘Share current theory, research, and practice in gifted education with its audience of international educators, scholars, researchers, and parents.’

The online archive is described as available only to those with a membership subscription (currently US$75 per year) but open links can be found easily via a search engine, making GTI relatively more accessible than most of its competitors.

Owing to a printing error, the August 2012 edition omits the names of the editorial board, but the 2011 publications confirm that the Editor-in-Chief is Taisir Subhi Yamin of the International Centre for Innovation in Education (ICIE), lately President of the Council’s Executive Committee.

There are also five Associate Editors: Todd Lubart, Ken McCluskey, Peter Merrotsy, Trevor Tebbs and Dorothy Sisk (who edited the first edition in 1982).

A 34-strong ‘International Editorial Review Board 2009-2013’ includes several gifted education luminaries including Freeman, Gross, Persson, Renzulli, Subotnik, Treffinger, Gentry, Kaplan, Rogers, Shore and Touron. The dates suggest that the Board is refreshed every four years, with the next occasion scheduled for later this year.

More than a handful of the articles in the most recent August 2012 edition were written by members of this Board, suggesting that they are engaged to a significant extent in peer reviewing each other’s work. This is not atypical.

The submission guidelines say that:

‘Manuscripts submitted to the GTI should contain original research, theory or accounts of practice. Submission of a manuscript to the GTI represents a certification on the part of the author(s) that it is an original work, and that neither this manuscript nor a version of it has been published previously nor is being considered for publication elsewhere. If accepted by this journal, it is not to be published elsewhere without permission from the GTI.’

The sole exemption is for ‘conference papers included as part of conference proceedings’.

As we shall see, this requirement is not atypical either – none of these journals are interested in reproducing work that has been published already, presumably because they want to monopolise its supply in the market, at least in the short term, so as to maximise income.

There is apparently no demand from readers for recycled material, unless it is free of charge.

Publication seems to be handled in-house, or else sub-contracted to one of the organisations supplying the main editorial team.

As for copyright:

‘Authors of accepted manuscripts must transfer copyrights to the GTI which holds copyrights to all articles and reviews. Authors, may, of course, use the article elsewhere after publication, providing that prior permission is obtained from the WCGTC.’

Does this mean that authors are entirely free to re-use their articles whenever and wherever they wish, subject only to approval from the World Council, or does the Council adopt a set of standard permissions, similar to those operated by Sage and Taylor and Francis and set out later in this post?

If they do operate a set of standard rules, it would be helpful for them to be published. Conversely, if they do not, an explicit statement of that fact would be equally helpful.

.

Gifted Education International (GEI)

Gifted Education International is part of the Sage Publications stable.

Sage describes itself as ‘a world leader in our chosen scholarly, educational and professional markets’. Sage was founded in 1965 and has 700 employees based in offices in the US, UK, India and Singapore. It publishes over 400 journals per year covering some 40 different disciplines.

The Editor of GEI is Belle Wallace, Director of TASC International UK, who has fulfilled that role since 1981. A further nine Consultant Editors are named, six of them UK-based, including Barry Hymer, Hilary Lowe, Sue Mordecai, and Ian Warwick.

GEI is described as:

‘A peer-reviewed journal that provides support, information and guidance on all aspects of gifted education. It is essential reading for teachers, parents, lecturers in education, psychologists and social workers, administrators and anyone interested in the field of gifted education.’

The 19-strong Editorial Board features names such as Freeman, Landau, Maker, Moltzen, Renzulli and Jiannong Shi. There is significant overlap with the Review Board of GTI.

The statement of aims and scope emphasises: developing awareness of the needs of gifted learners; a focus on identification, especially of underachieving, disadvantaged and minority ethnic gifted learners; the production of curriculum extension materials; good practice in schools; guidance for teachers and parents on courses and activities; and reflecting ‘current national and international thinking’.

GEI is unique amongst the nine in appearing three times a year. Issues are scheduled for January, May and June respectively, but the recent publication history suggests a more flexible arrangement. Editions appeared in January, May and September in 2012, January only in 2011 and January, May, September and December in 2010.

A small selection of a dozen ‘Editor’s Choice’ articles are described as ‘free to access until 31 December 2012’ and the text promises that more articles will be added to this list ‘throughout the year’.

None of the articles seem free at the time of writing. If the page relates only to 2012, it is unclear why the publisher has left it online some three months after the offer has closed.

.

Salford Quays 3 by Gifted Phoenix

.

Gifted Child Quarterly (GCQ)

Gifted Child Quarterly is also a Sage publication described as ‘the premier scholarly journal of the National Association for Gifted Children’.

The home page tells us that GCQ has an Impact Factor of 0.750 and is ranked ‘38 out of 51 in Psychology, Educational and 23 out of 37 in Education, Special’. The source for this assessment is given as ‘2011 Journal Citation Reports® (Thomson Reuters, 2012)’.

Unfortunately, this service itself requires a subscription, so further information is not freely available to consumers. There is some irony in that.

On the face of it, the performance of GCQ is nothing to write home about, compared with other journals in its classes, though it does out-perform the only other journal in our sample that admits to inclusion in these ratings, namely High Ability Studies (see below).

GCQ has joint editors – Betsy McCoach and Del Siegle, both of the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut.  An Assistant Editor and Catherine Little, one of two Associate Editors are also based there; the remaining Associate – Gail Ryser – is at Texas State.

The Editorial Review Board is colossal – well over 100-strong. It features many of the most prominent names in gifted education, the vast bulk of them located in the USA.

The statement of the Journal’s aims and scope says that it:

‘publishes original scholarly reviews of the literature and quantitative or qualitative research studies… manuscripts offering new or creative insights about giftedness and talent development in the context of the school, the home, and the wider society. Manuscripts that explore policy and policy implications are also welcome.’

The information page on NAGC’s own website adds that it:

‘offers reviews and critiques of books and tests with an emphasis on scholarly texts, texts with policy implications, or instruments with potential use in assessing gifted children and youth. In addition, GCQ on occasion publishes special issues devoted to current topics of interest to the field.

GCQ also serves an archival function for the National Association for Gifted Children, publishing position papers and other official documents of the organization.’

Unless I have missed them, there are no helpful links to publishing agreements, so one assumes that the standard Sage provisions apply (see below).

GCQ appears on a quarterly basis – in January, April, July and October. The online archive covers the full publication history. Amazingly, 56 year-old articles from the very first edition are still not freely available, costing US$20 a pop to access.

The same price applies to the articles in the most recent April 2013 edition. This fixed pricing policy for already-published articles seems ubiquitous amongst our sample.

An institutional subscription for print and e-access costs £144.00 per year, while a print-only individual subscription is very similar at £141 per year. One assumes that many individuals pay the extra £3 per year to secure online access.

However, NAGC members have free access to the electronic archive. (It costs US$ 99 per year to be a member, though graduate students pay only $US 59).

Whereas the institutional subscription for GCQ is much cheaper than it is for GEI, the individual subscription is more expensive. (It may be that NAGC has negotiated its own prices with the publisher.)

NAGC runs a ‘GCQ Paper of the Year Award’ with detailed published criteria, the flavour of which can be conveyed by this extract embodying stylistic expectations:

‘The writing style of the article is engaging and appropriate for the topic and the GCQ readership using language that takes readers to a new level of understanding.  The writing is clearly focused, purposeful and leads to key points or conclusions. The article is technically sound, but results and discussion are accessible to a broad range of GCQ readers. Language and style make the article more elegant than one would normally expect.’

.

Gifted Child Today (GCT)

Gifted Child Today is also a Sage publication, though directed more at teachers, administrators and parents.

The blurb says it:

‘includes articles about topics such as teaching strategies in gifted education, building a more effective gifted and talented program, and working with gifted children with learning disabilities. The Journal also…features information about raising a gifted child, how to tell if your child is gifted, and effective strategies for parenting a gifted child…

As the leading resource on teaching and parenting gifted children, Gifted Child Today includes regular columns by the nation’s most respected experts in the field of gifted education.’

This suggests that it is designed primarily – if not exclusively – for US consumption.

The Editor is Susan K Johnsen, located at Baylor University. She is assisted by a Managing Editor and an Associate Editor, both also based at Baylor.

There are some 24 names on the Editorial Board, including luminaries such as Cross, Ford, Gallagher, Kaplan, Olszewski-Kubilius, Roberts, Siegle and VanTassel-Baska.

Rather confusingly, the notes on manuscript submission say that:

‘Authors of accepted manuscripts must give SAGE exclusive right to publish content’

which, if correct, may mean that Sage’s standard provisions do not apply and that authors retain no publication rights whatsoever. I cannot believe that this is what is intended.

The journal is quarterly, appearing in January, April, July and October. Like GEI, it offers an ‘Editor’s Choice’ collection, this time comprising some 30 articles. At the time of writing, these remain free to access and no time limit is given for the expiry of the offer.

.

High Ability Studies (HAS)

High Ability Studies is the first of two in our sample published by Taylor and Francis Online, part of the Taylor and Francis Group (which incorporates Routledge amongst others).

Taylor and Francis call themselves:

‘one of the world’s leading publishers of scholarly journals, books, ebooks and reference works’.

They publish over 1,700 journals per year, more than four times as many as Sage, and are part of a bigger multinational company, Informa, which boasts 7,000 employees.

HAS is described as ‘the official scholarly journal of the European Council for High Ability’ (ECHA).

As noted above, it also has a rating from Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports 2011. The 2011 Impact Factor is 0.417 and the Ranking in the Education, Special Category is 28^th of 37.

So the Impact Factor of HAS is much lower than the comparative score for GCQ, which is also five places higher in the Education, Special ranking.

ECHA’s site contains the strange (and poorly punctuated) claim that:

‘High Ability Studies is included in Social Sciences Citation Index this makes it the most important journal in Gifted Education’.

They appear conveniently to have forgotten the higher ranking attributed to GCQ.

The aims and purpose of HAS are described identically on the journal website and on ECHA’s own site:

‘It is a medium for the promotion of high ability, whether through the communication of scientific research, theory, or the exchange of practical experience and ideas.

…Far from being restricted to the traditional focus on high-level cognitive development, it also presents investigations into all other areas of human endeavour, including sport, technology, the arts, business, management and social relations.

…Consequently, the journal presents material which is relevant to researchers in the field, to managers who have highly able individuals employed, to policy makers who need to find frameworks by which to make the best use of high ability in society, to mentors, coaches, teachers, counsellors and parents of highly able children. Furthermore, the contents are not restricted to the study of manifest high level achievement, but include the identification and nurturance of unexercised potential.’

HAS also has an ‘Editor-in-Chief’, namely Heidrun Stoeger from the University of Regensburg, Germany. She is supported by an Editorial Assistant, also based at Regensburg.

ECHA’s own website (but not the Taylor and Francis website) mentions an Editorial Board, comprising Stoeger, Kurt Heller (Germany), Ernst van Lieshout (Netherlands) and Judy Lupart (Canada).

An International Advisory Board contains 37 gifted education luminaries from Europe and beyond, including Ericsson, Freeman, Gagne, Grigorenko, Heller, Moon, Sternberg, Subotnik, Tirri, Touron and Ziegler. The Editorial Board are also members of the Advisory Board.

HAS is published twice a year, in June and December. It was first published in 1996, but a predecessor ‘European Journal of High Ability’ was in existence from 1991 to 1995. The online repository contains both publications.

Although institutional subscription – print and online – cost £309.00 per year and print only individual subscriptions cost £85, ECHA members receive the journal free (presumably also in print mode). Individual membership costs Euros 60 per year.

The news and offers section of the website currently trails ‘free access to a selection of Inclusion and Special Educational Needs articles’. The initial link takes one to a page listing several articles, including three from HAS, but the links to these direct one back to the standard request for a payment of £23.50 per article.

There is however one small mercy for which to be thankful – a free-to-access ‘sample copy’, currently the July 2011 edition.

.

Salford Quays 4 by Gifted Phoenix

.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted (JEG)

Journal for the Education of the Gifted is another Sage title described as ‘the Official Publication of the Association for the Gifted (a Division of the Council for Exceptional Children)’.

The Editor of JEG is Tracy Cross of William and Mary College, who is also one of CEC-TAG’s Board of Directors. The Managing Editor is Jennifer Riedl Cross (presumably his partner) and the Assistant Editor is Lori Andersen. Both are William and Mary staffers.

Unusually, there is an Editorial Board – of 16 – and a parallel Advisory Editorial Board containing a further eight names. Amongst the 24 are: Yun Dai, Ford, Johnsen, Roberts, Mendaglio, Monks, Neihart, Olszewski-Kubilius, Robinson and Subotnik.

The description of the journal on the Sage website says it:

‘publishes articles that present:

• original research with practical relevance to the education of the gifted and talented,
• theoretical position papers,
• descriptions of innovative programming and instructional practices for the gifted and talented based on existing or novel models of gifted education,
• reviews of the literature in areas pertinent to the education of the gifted and talented, and
• historical perspectives.’

It addresses:

‘topics such as the characteristics of gifted children, effective schools for gifted children, gifted children with learning disabilities, the history of gifted education, and building successful gifted and talented programs.’

JEG first appeared in October 1988 – and the first edition is included in the online archive even though the Sage home page unaccountably says the earliest edition dates from ‘January 1993’.

It is published on a quarterly basis, in March, June, September and December. While Sage is up-to-date, carrying the most recent volume 36(1) from March 2013, CEC-TAG is stuck in a timewarp meanwhile, offering as a sample of its wares the abstracts from Volume 34, now two years old.

Subscriptions to JEG cost £111 for institutional print and e-access and a competitive £39 for individual print and e-access. However, all individual articles, from the oldest to the newest, cost US$25 to access. (Why one price is shown in sterling and the other only in US dollars is not clear – but this seems to apply to all Sage publications.)

Members of CEC-TAG get access to the four annual issues of JEG plus the online archive. Membership seems to cost around US$ 140-170 per year depending on location, though the site is not entirely clear about fees.

The author’s terms are presumably the standard Sage offering (see below), though there is no link to these from the page covering manuscript submission.

There is however an additional note:

‘Submission of a manuscript implies commitment to publish in this journal. Authors submitting manuscripts to the journal should not simultaneously submit them to another journal, nor should manuscripts have been published elsewhere in substantially similar content. Authors in doubt about what constitutes prior publication should consult the editor.’

.

Journal of Advanced Academics (JAA)

The Journal of Advanced Academics  is yet another Sage production. It too is quarterly, appearing each February, May, August and November.

The statement of aims and scope says that the JAA:

‘publishes articles that feature strategies for increasing academic achievement, programs that promote high levels of academic achievement and engagement, and programs that prepare students to engage in high-level and rigorous academics.

…articles may include the following topics:

• Curricular and instructional differentiation
• Programs and strategies for closing the achievement gap
• Programs that provide enrichment or acceleration in advanced content areas.
• Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and Honors Programs.
• Advanced mathematics and high-level reading strategies.’

The Editors are Michael Matthews, of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and Matthew McBee of East Tennessee State University.

The Assistant Editor is an MA student also based at East Tennessee and there are two Associate Editors – Elizabeth Shaunessy of the University of South Florida and Jill Adelson of the University of Louisville.

Another long list of academics appears on the Editorial Review Board. Several seem to be younger, less established dons, but the more august representatives include: Callahan, Ford, Gentry, Gubbins, Moon, Olszewski-Kubilius, Piirto, Rimm, Rogers, Tieso, Tomlinson, VanTassell Baska and Worrall.

Almost all of the Review Board are USA-based although, somewhat queerly, in this list Matthew McBee’s East Tennessee employer has been relocated across the border in Canada!

The Journal’s stated publication policy says explicitly that it:

‘prohibits authors from submitting the same manuscript for concurrent consideration by two or more publications… prohibits as well publication of any manuscript that has already been published in whole or substantial part elsewhere.’

Subscriptions are identical to those for the JEG. An institutional subscription – both print and e-access – costs £111 per year, while an individual subscription on the same basis costs a respectable £39 per year. In both cases, the print-only alternative for individuals is much higher at £109, suggesting that these publications are atypical in seeking to encourage online access while reducing the production of hard copies.

According to the home page, the Journal was first published in August 1999, but the archive goes back a further four years to August 1995. Either way this is a relatively recent addition to the fold. All articles cost US$ 25 to access. A note on the archive says there are issues missing however.

.

Roeper Review (RR)

The Roeper Review is the second Taylor and Francis publication in our selection.

Its aims and scope are explained thus:

‘The Roeper Review is an international, quarterly, refereed journal publishing scholarly articles that pertain to practice, policy, applied research, and theory in all dimensions of gifted education. Articles are thought provoking and often interdisciplinary. The Roeper Review aims to enhance the development of gifted individuals and the improvement of the world through more attention to giftedness, talent development, and creativity guided by ethical awareness. Diverse topics include: theories and philosophical analyses pertinent to giftedness, talent, and creativity; gender issues; curriculum studies; instructional strategies; educational psychology; elementary/early childhood/secondary education of the gifted; emotional, motivation, and affective dimensions of gifted individuals; differentiating instruction; teacher education; tests, measurement, and evaluation; and program development.’

The Editor is Don Ambrose of Rider University in New Jersey. The Managing Editor is Ann Ambrose, who is presumably related. There are also two Editorial Assistants and a Book Review Section Editor – Anne Rinn, from the University of North Texas.

A seven-strong Editorial Advisory Board includes Cross, Neihart and Tirri, while a much larger list of Contributing Editors names, amongst others: Borland, Delisle, Ford, Gagne, Olenchak, Piirto, Robinson, Rogers, Silverman, Smutny, Subotnik, VanTassel-Baska and Worrall.

The instructions for authors say that:

‘Each manuscript must be accompanied by a statement that it has not been published elsewhere and that it has not been submitted simultaneously for publication elsewhere. Authors…are required to sign an agreement for the transfer of copyright to the publisher. All accepted manuscripts, artwork, and photographs become the property of the publisher.’

This Journal also appears on a quarterly basis. A personal subscription is only available in print format and costs £40 per year. An institutional subscription – print and online – costs £94 per year. The online repository stretches back to 1978. Individual articles cost £23 to access (with permanent access to the issue charged at £26).

The section of the website called ‘News and Offers’ carries links to two separate priced publications written by Ambrose, the Editor. There is however, a section called ‘Featured Articles’ giving access to the full text of six articles dating from 2011. Free access is also given to the journal’s top-cited article, originally published in 2000.

.

Talent Development and Excellence (TDE)

Talent Development and Excellence is different to its rivals in that it is already fully open access and published online by the International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence (IRATDE).

TDE’s statement of purpose says that:

‘The articles contain original research or theory on talent development, expertise, innovation, or excellence. The Journal is currently published twice annually. All published articles are assessed by a blind refereeing process and reviewed by at least two independent referees. Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles.’

This is the only reference to an expectation that the material to be published is original, so TDE is noticeably less insistent on this point than its peers.

The Journal was first published in 2009 and has appeared twice a year since 2010.

There are two Editors in Chief – Albert Ziegler of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg and Jiannong Shi of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

The remainder of the Editorial Board comprises Bettina Harder of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Wilma Vialle of the University of Wollongong, Australia and Xiaoju Duan of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Ziegler, Shi and Vialle are also members of IRATDE’s Executive Committee, as is Stoeger, the Editor of HAS.

TDE has an International Advisory Board with 15 members but also lists a further 21 ‘Ad Hoc Reviewers’. The Advisory Board includes: Grigorenko, Merrotsy, Porath, Sternberg, Touron and Vialle. Ad hoc reviewers include Heller, Rindermann and Urban.

While TDE articles are easily and freely accessible, the instructions for authors do say that:

‘It is a condition of publication that authors assign copyright or licence the publication rights in their articles, including abstracts, to the International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence.’

However, this is open enough not to inhibit authors from making parallel use of their own work, since the license granted may presumably be of the Creative Commons variety. Some further clarification would be helpful.

.

Salford Quays 5 by Gifted Phoenix

.

More About the Rights of Authors Published in these Journals

As noted above, there is some lack of clarity about the rights enjoyed by authors published in the two independent journals in our sample and – even in the journals published by Sage and Taylor and Francis – it is not always entirely clear that the standard provisions apply in all respects.

But what are those standard provisions? The two publishers set out broadly similar arrangements, but they are not identical. In both cases they seem unnecessarily complex and are difficult to interpret.

I stop short of suggesting that this complexity is deliberate; nevertheless, it is highly likely that it hinders the full exploitation by authors of the flexibilities granted to them.

.

Sage

Sage’s policy is that authors of articles sign a funding agreement:

‘under which the author retains copyright in the work but grants SAGE the sole and exclusive right and licence to publish for the full legal term of copyright.  Exceptions may exist where assignment of copyright is required or preferred by a proprietor other than SAGE. In this case copyright in the work will be assigned from the author to the society.’

This may be the source of the statement I drew attention to in respect of GTC, above, but – as we shall see – there are several exemptions to this apparently blanket statement.

Somewhat ironically, the primary justification Sage offer for this practice is that ‘we seek to bring your article to the widest possible readership’.

A secondary justification is to enable Sage to ‘ensure adequate protection against infringement of copyright’.

Author’s rights can vary according to the journal. Sage advises that authors check for any journal-specific policies (though, as we have seen above, these are not always clear and explicit). In the absence of such arrangements, one must assume that the standard provisions apply.

These are summarised in the general statement of policy, but the detailed version is squirrelled away in a Word document available from the penultimate hyperlink on this page.

Contrary to my expectations before I researched this topic, authors already enjoy a fair amount of flexibility under current ‘closed access’ arrangements.

Permission is not required for an author to:

• Distribute photocopies for teaching purposes or to supply an article ‘on an individual basis to research colleagues’ provided this is on a ‘not-for-profit basis’.

• Circulate or post on any repository or website the original version of the article – so without any amendments consequent upon peer review – and to do this at any time.

• Post the final version of the article, as accepted for publication, on any repository or website at least 12 months after publication. However, the repository must be ‘non-commercial’ (which presumably means that no charge can be made for access).

• Republish the article in a printed publication that the author, has ‘written, edited or compiled provided that this is at least 12 months after publication and ‘reference is made to first publication by SAGE/SOCIETY’.

In all these cases, Sage requires a hyperlink to the online journal where the article was first published and a standard acknowledgement. Any other requests must be forwarded for consideration by Sage.

Several restrictions are specified:

• ‘The SAGE-created PDF of the published Contribution may not be posted at any time’. (Why this must be the case is not explained. It seems an arcane distinction when the text is likely to be identical to the version as accepted for publication. Presumably there is nothing to prevent the author creating his own PDF using SAGE’s style guide and templates.)

• Each time the article is used – or indeed any part of it – it must include ‘the copyright notice that appears on the issue of the Journal in which the Contribution is first published and a full bibliographic citation to the Journal as published by SAGE’.

• Copies of the article, or any part of it, cannot be ‘sold, distributed, or reproduced for commercial purposes’ – a term explained in this context as exploitation for monetary gain, whether by the author or a third party, or ‘for indirect financial gain by a commercial entity’.

• ‘The Contribution, or any part of it, shall not be used for any systematic external distribution by a third party (e.g., a listserve or database connected to a public access server).’

The distinction between ‘systematic external distribution by a third party’ and posting the article on any repository or website is not explained.

It is not clear whether providers of repositories fall within or outside the definition of ‘third party’ (see Taylor and Francis’s alternative formulation below).

The distinction between a repository and a database is fine indeed and may simply be a matter of terminology. Greater clarity on this matter would be highly desirable.

It does seem though that the author has to place the article rather than a third party.

.

Taylor and Francis

Taylor and Francis’s policy is even more extensive, and supported by a detailed Q and A, but is ultimately very similar.

The section on copyright says:

‘We recommend that authors assign copyright in journal articles to Taylor & Francis or the journal proprietor (such as a learned society on whose behalf we publish). Our belief is that the assignment of copyright…allows Taylor & Francis… to properly manage both an author’s and proprietor’s intellectual property rights (IPR) associated with the article, and to act on an author’s and proprietor’s behalf when resolving allegations of plagiarism, abuse of moral rights, or infringements of copyright…Most importantly, we believe assignment enhances the reputation and prestige of the journal, its proprietor, its editors and editorial board, its peer review processes, and the added value we bring.’

Quite how assignment of copyright enhances the reputation of a journal is not explained.

The rights retained by authors allow them to:

• Share the original version of the article – prior to peer review – in either print or online format, provided that this is undertaken on a non-commercial basis.

• Post this original version on the author’s ‘own website for personal or professional use, or on your institution’s network or intranet or website, or in a subject repository that does not offer content for commercial sale or for any systematic external distribution by a third party’, provided it is accompanied by a standard acknowledgment carrying a link to the relevant Taylor and Francis journal. (This is a slightly different take on ‘systematic external distribution by a third party’ to that adopted by Sage, in that it suggests that the third party is someone not linked to either the author or the author’s institutional intranet/website or any subject repository, regardless of whether that belongs to the author’s institution.)

• Post the accepted version of the article – subsequent to peer review – ‘on your own website for personal or professional use, or on your institution’s network or intranet or website, or in a subject repository that does not offer content for commercial sale or for any systematic external distribution by a third party’, as long as this is not the pdf version prepared by the publishers and provided that ‘you include any amendments or deletions or warnings relating to the article issued or published by us; in compliance with the embargo periods detailed below’ and that there is a specific acknowledgement carrying a link to the relevant journal. The publishers will even deposit the article in ‘any designated institutional repository with which Taylor & Francis has a Deposit Agreement’.

• The embargo periods which must expire before the accepted version is made available are 12 months for science, engineering, behavioural science and medicine and 18 months for arts, social sciences and humanities. (It is not entirely clear where gifted education journals sit, since many include material originating in behavioural science as well as social science traditions. However, there is a list of embargo periods by journal which, although it appears to relate only to open access routes – see below – specifies an 18- month embargo in the two cases in which we are interested.)

• ‘Share with colleagues on a non-commercial basis copies of an article in its published form as supplied by Taylor & Francis as a digital eprint or printed reprint’. It is not clear what distinction there is, if any, between T&F’s ‘digital eprint’ and SAGE’s ‘SAGE-created PDF’. On the face of it, T&F’s seems to be granting additional rights here, compared with its rival. (Moreover, there seems to be no restriction on the number of colleagues, who constitutes a colleague and how the article in this form is to be shared.)

• Make printed copies for ‘lecture or classroom purposes’ or include the article in a thesis or dissertation if it is not to be published commercially, or present the article at a meeting or conference and distribute printed copies to attendees, or use the article ‘in personal compilations…or other publications of your own articles’, or ‘expand an article into book-length form for publication’, or ‘facilitate the distribution of the article on a non-commercial basis if the article has been produced within the scope of your employment, so that your employer may use all or part of the article internally within the institution or company’.

These provisions are chock-full of subtle distinctions, clearly subject to (legal) interpretation and not at all straightforward for any intelligent layperson to understand.

But it is clear that all authors of articles that appear in the seven journals published by Sage and Taylor and Francis are free to post the pre-peer review version elsewhere, in a place where it can be openly accessible, entirely free of charge. Moreover, they can also post the peer reviewed version on the same terms following an embargo period that is, at most, 18 months from the date of publication.

These rights exist now and, it would seem, entirely independent of any progress towards open access publishing of the green and gold varieties. Unfortunately, though, it seems that they are honoured more in the breach than the observance.

.

Emerging Practice on Open Access Publishing

Open access arrangements are even more obtuse and convoluted and there is space only for a brief summary which may be misleading in some respects. I have to admit that I don’t fully understand some of the distinctions set out below.

On the Taylor and Francis side, both HAS and RR carry a badge saying ‘Routledge Open Select’. This means that they are ‘hybrid open access journals with gold open access option’.

Under gold open access:

‘You can choose to publish in a subscription journal and pay a charge [£1,788] to make your article freely available online upon publication via our Open Select program. The majority of our journals offer this option – those that do have the Open Select logo on the journal’s home page. If you don’t wish to pay the APC [the charge] then you can take up the green open access option (available on all of our titles).’

Under green open access:

‘You can make your work freely accessible by posting your Author Original Manuscript (AOM) (PDF) or Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) (PDF) into your institutional or subject repository…You may post the AOM at any time, and you may post the AAM after an embargo period, following publication of the Version of Record (PDF) of your paper.’

These provisions can be applied retrospectively to any author who has signed a copyright agreement. Moreover, from 1 April 2013, Taylor and Francis are offering a range of Creative Commons licenses for articles published on an open access basis:

‘The author is asked to grant Taylor & Francis the right to publish her or his article as the final, definitive, and citable Version of Scholarly Record. In turn, Taylor & Francis will make the article in its entirety freely available on Taylor & Francis Group’s online platform, Taylor & Francis Online, immediately on publication, with no subscription fee or article pay-to-view fee or any other form of access fee or any publication embargo being applied. Reuse conditions will be subject to the license type chosen by the author.’

Meanwhile SAGE say that all their journals ‘offer Open Access options which are compliant with major funder mandates including RCUK, NIH and Wellcome Trust.’

They already publish some journals that are fully open access while – in the case of others:

‘Authors can choose to make their article immediately available as Open Access for an Article Processing Charge in otherwise subscription-based journals – the SAGE Choice program. Authors can also deposit articles published non-OA in any SAGE journal in their own institution’s repository (the Green OA route)’

The second option is confusingly described as both ‘non Open Access’ and ‘Green Open Access’. Are these two options really identical? If they are, then, what advantage exactly is being secured by virtue of a Green Open Access arrangement?

Under the Taylor and Francis rubric there is at least the newly-added advantage of a Creative Commons license, but I could find no reference to that in Sage’s arrangements.

‘Sage Choice’ is the alternative (so-called ‘gold’) open access route requiring authors to pay an upfront fee to the publishers:

‘For the majority of journals published by SAGE the fee per article is $3,000USD/£1600GPB in Science, Technology and Medical fields, and $1,500/£800 in the Humanities and Social Sciences. ‘

Such payment will:

‘enable articles to be immediately available on SAGE Journals to non-subscribers…as well as to subscribers to that journal…

Those authors who do not wish to use this service will be under no pressure to do so, and their article will be published free of charge, in the usual manner. All existing policies on author posting of the final version will then apply.’

It seems more than likely that, in future, an increasing proportion of open access articles is likely to appear on the publishers’ own websites and/or in repositories elsewhere, but the impact to date on the seven gifted education journals produced by these two publishers seems negligible.

I could not find on Taylor and Francis’s website a handy list of those HAS and RR articles published under the ‘Routledge Open Select’ Badge, which might suggest that few authors have yet taken up the option. Nor could I find any repository on Sage’s website containing a tranche of open access gifted education research.

So, pending the eagerly awaited open access revolution, what steps might the global gifted education community take now to radically improve access to the stock of gifted education research, before the grass grows any longer under our feet?

.

Salford Quays 6 by Gifted Phoenix

.

A Way Forward

I cannot pretend to have conducted an exhaustive exercise, but preliminary efforts suggest that very little of the gifted education research which appears in these nine journals – or any other gifted education research for that matter – is currently also stored in repositories that are accessible to potential readers outside the institutions that house them.

Yet, as we have seen, even before the introduction of more widespread open access, there is already provision for all articles published by Sage and Taylor and Francis to be made accessible in such fashion.

Assuming that other journals have adopted broadly the same terms – and those without clear terms do not stand in the way – we already have the makings of a system-wide solution.

How might that work?

The most obvious solution would be to set up a dedicated gifted education repository to collect all gifted education research (or to use a generic education research repository to undertake that task).

Several precedents already exist, but there would be running costs that could not be met by charging for access to the service, since that simply replaces one paywall with another (and would anyway be prohibited by the standard terms outlined above).

It might be possible to fund a free repository by topslicing, say, a 10% fee from subscription and other charges levied by the paywalled journals, though that would mean passing the cost on to subscribers in practice, since the publishers and their partners would simply raise fees to ensure that their margins weren’t affected (assuming they could be got to agree to the levy in the first place).

It is impossible to estimate the income that such a levy would generate because there is apparently no information in the public domain about the number of subscribers to each journal.

(Incidentally, such data really ought to be released by publishers and refreshed on an annual basis, since authors have a reasonable right to information to help them assess how many readers a given journal is likely to attract to their article, and which is therefore likely to be the better option.)

Without a levy of this kind – whether on journal subscriptions, or membership fees for organisations such as the World Council and ECHA, or both – a repository would be dependent on sponsorship and so not financially sustainable in the longer term.

An alternative and more sustainable approach might just work, but it would require the full commitment of all parties and a degree of flexibility and goodwill from publishers.

It would operate as follows:

• Journal publishers might henceforth deposit the final version of any articles over five years old (so published in 2008 or earlier) in their own open access repositories, subject only to the right of any author to opt out within a prescribed period. Those opting out would need to good reason, rather than simply choosing to retain a paywall around their work. The URL from which each article could be obtained would be included in the ‘access options’ listed alongside the article in the archive of the relevant journal. (Publishers might want to negotiate a period longer than five years, maybe 10 at most, but the nearer to five the better. The fundamental justification is that articles of a certain age have limited marketability, so the income publishers can derive from them is comparatively marginal.)

• All authors of gifted education research articles published since 2008 might be requested to ensure that those articles have been deposited in an open repository of their choice. Authors could choose the publisher’s repository or a different repository. There would be no right to opt out. In the case of articles less than 12/18 months old (whichever applies), the pre-peer review version would be deposited, to be replaced by the post-review version as soon as the embargo has expired. Journal publishers would require authors to deposit with them the URL from which the relevant article could be obtained, which they would include under the list of ‘access options’ within their archive. These actions would be encapsulated in the publishing agreement – ie they would be a condition of publication. The publisher would be responsible for monitoring links and securing from authors new links when old ones expire. Once any article is five years old, it automatically falls into the first category above and is (also) housed in the publisher’s own repository. At that point, authors can remove it from their own chosen repository if they wish.

• All new articles submitted for publication would be subject to agreement that the author in question would store their article – initially the pre-peer review version and subsequently the post-review version – in an open repository. As before, this could be the publisher’s repository or another of the author’s choice. As before, journal publishers would include the URL in the list of access options when they publish the edition of the journal containing the article. The publisher would once more be responsible for monitoring links and securing new ones from authors. These provisions would be incorporated in the publishing agreement.

• It would be open to any party to publish a cross-repository database of links to such documents, or a comprehensive search engine, but only on a non-commercial basis. This would ensure that articles could found easily and free of charge regardless of where in cyberspace they are located. Publishers might wish to invest in such a project as a way of drawing consumers to their priced services.

The limited additional costs to publishers attributable to the extra work involved in these arrangements would be drawn from their profits. They could, if they wished, increase subscriptions to meet those costs.

It cannot really be argued that this strategy would deprive publishers of any significant income as a consequence of declining demand for their journals, because they are essentially ensuring that existing permissions, already available to authors, are universally acted upon. But instead of those rights being optional, they now become largely compulsory.

Besides, their only substantive loss would be attributable to the removal of their capacity to sell access to articles and issues more than five years old (which must surely be limited, since relatively few will be paying the current rates). Any loss beyond that should already be built into their business planning assumptions, albeit as a worst case scenario.

Yet these comparatively slim financial losses for publishers would buy universal free access to a vast library of gifted education research ending, once and for all, the harmful and divisive practice of restricting access to those who can afford to pay.

.

Gilding the Lily?

While we are about it, several additional but complementary reforms might be introduced.

Here are some ‘starters for ten’:

• First, publishers should offer a guarantee that the information they publish about a journal on their website is fully up-to-date and 100% accurate. Any failure to satisfy the guarantee would result in a fine, the value of which would be used by publishers to offset the costs of administering the service outlined above.

• Second, publishers should be fully transparent about subscription and purchase rates, providing annually updated data showing the number of subscriptions in different categories and the countries from which they originate. This should extend to the number of purchases of archived articles and issues of each journal. Authors and readers can then understand more clearly the reach and likely impact of each journal and the level of interest in their (currently paywalled) archives.

• Third, no individual should be allowed to serve on the editorial/review board of more than one international gifted education journal and every board should be fully refreshed every three years. The peer review process would thus be opened up to a wider range of academics and other stakeholders, and ideally established as part of the professional development process for younger, relatively more inexperienced academics. The old guard would need to step aside.

• Fourth, every journal should ensure that no more than 10% of the articles it publishes are authored by any member of its editorial/review board, thus opening up publication to a wider range of individuals. Journals should go out of their way to attract work from new authors in the field and should be less precious about contributions being never-before-published, particularly if the material has appeared previously in a different format, such as a dissertation or blog post.

• Fifth, a new open access online ‘overlay’ journal should be established which would republish annually a selection of the most influential gifted education research, dissertations and the most influential posts from the blogosphere. The choice would be made by a representative committee from nominations made to them in the course of the year.

• Sixth, further efforts to break down unhelpful distinctions between blog posts and research articles should also be actively explored, including proper citation of blog posts in research articles and the development of more open social media-driven versions of peer review, based on peer-to-peer discussion between writer and reviewers, rather than traditional assessment of a text by one or more reviewers deemed to be (more) expert in the topic.

You may have further suggestions to add to this list!

.

Taken together, this basket of reforms would remove at a stroke one of my two excuses for failing to be a more productive blogger.

It would help to improve the quality of gifted education research, opening it up to wider scrutiny by a more inclusive audience with a different set of expectations, more closely attuned to meeting the needs of gifted learners, their parents, carers and educators.

And it would also establish the reputation of publishers and researchers alike as more significant, more active collaborators in our collective efforts to improve radically the global incidence of high quality gifted education.

.

GP

April 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

Moves are afoot to establish a ResearchED Conference:

‘for teachers and researchers who are interested in evidence-based education’

to take place for the first time in September 2013.

I suggested that bloggers might be involved:

.

@researchED2013 Your conference is for teachers and researchers: bit.ly/Zsgyg8 – How about a fringe event for educational bloggers?—
  (@GiftedPhoenix) March 29, 2013

.

@researchED2013 Perhaps a strandette then? There's significant crossover, but bloggers have a unique perspective on much of this territory—
  (@GiftedPhoenix) March 29, 2013

.

and was invited by the organiser to put the case

.

@GiftedPhoenix DM me your thoughts, Sir/ Madam—
researchED (@researchED2013) March 29, 2013

.

This very brief post does just that.

.

Social media are becoming increasingly significant in the generation and dissemination of education research. Microblogging (Twitter) can be used to share research and discuss its findings, but the character limit does not support deeper engagement.

Most in-depth interaction with research is undertaken on specialist blogs. The UK education blogging community is growing and becoming increasingly influential but, as far as I’m aware, has never been drawn together, whether for discussion between themselves or for interaction with teachers and researchers.

Some bloggers are teachers, some are researchers, but many are neither teachers nor researchers. Teachers may distrust bloggers who are not current classroom practitioners; researchers in particular may distrust bloggers because they are not subject to the rigours of research practice (including peer review). Bridges need to be built between these groups.

.

.

Most serious education bloggers are engaged in a process of analysis, synthesis and mediation. They convey knowledge and understanding of educational issues to a community of readers, adding significant value in the process. Some blogging deserves to be recognised as a serious contribution to educational research in its own right. It is much more than mere journalism.

This community of readers will include teachers (or other educators) and researchers, but also learners, parents/carers, advocates and policy makers. Bloggers create important connections between these subgroups.

Bloggers have very different specialisms and perspectives but those operating outside the HE education research community (including teachers) face a set of common issues, including:

• Establishing blog posts (and other social media) as a ‘respectable’ frame for educational discourse (as opposed to a journalistic vehicle for advertising more serious research papers published in academic journals).

• Gaining a foothold in an environment dominated by the HE research community, which operates a whole range of restrictive practices.

• Gaining access to education research (without climbing a steep paywall or belonging to a university library) and being able to share that research with their readers.

A discussion of education research issues would be greatly enriched by the inclusion of a cross-section of the UK edublogging community and might also provide the impetus for a new national network.

.

If an invitation is not forthcoming, perhaps other bloggers might join me in establishing the network anyway.

What are the potential benefits of an edubloggers’ network? Here are some ‘starters for ten’.

It might:

• Enable experienced bloggers to support comparative novices, including student bloggers – and encourage new bloggers to add their voices to the network.

• Enable bloggers from different parts of the spectrum to collaborate on joint projects, bringing their very different expertise and experience to bear on some of our more intractable educational problems and issues.

• Provide a basis for bloggers to push collectively for greater respect for – and recognition of – what they do, so that blog posts are more often cited in mainstream educational research and bloggers have more opportunities to present their work at conferences and similar educational events.

• Give bloggers a platform from which to advocate for issues of concern to them, to provide each other with professional and technical advice and support, and to build connections with educational bloggers in other countries so achieving a global reach and reputation.

• Allow them to support the further and faster development of blogging as an educational tool and to help cement its place as an integral element in social media’s potentially enormous contribution to education, advocacy, policy-making, research and professional development.

Is that worth doing fellow bloggers? Is that worth sponsoring anyone?

 .

GP

March 2013

Andrey Kolmogorov courtesy of Svjo

Written on the eve of the 2013 Budget, this post is a progress report on the development of a network of selective 16-19 maths free schools, set in the wider context of the economic arguments for investment in gifted education.

I don’t anticipate a postscript detailing substantive new policy announcements within the Chancellor’s Budget Statement tomorrow. Nor is it likely that further support will be directed towards this existing initiative, given that little of the existing budget has been used up to date.

I set out below the information currently in the public domain and offer a provisional yet constructive assessment of how the 16-19 maths free school project is shaping up.

.

Announcement of 16-19 Maths Free Schools

Back in November 2011 I devoted a post to the announcement of the introduction of a cadre of selective 16-19 maths free schools in England, as outlined in the Chancellor’s 2011 Autumn Statement.

A proportion of a £600m allocation to meet the capital costs of 100 free schools was notionally earmarked for ‘New Maths Free Schools for 16-18 year-olds’ to be ‘supported by strong university maths departments and academics‘.

The announcement suggested these would be:

‘Exactly what Britain needs to match our competitors – and produce more of the engineering and science graduates so important for our longer term economic success.’

Well-informed press reports prior to the announcement suggested that there would be at least 12 schools and the resulting network would serve as a model that might be extended to other subjects.

It was suggested that the first would be located in major cities. Some might focus solely on maths and others on a wider STEM curriculum but they would all prepare students to excel at top universities and in subsequent IT, academic or entrepreneurial careers.

Assuming a network of 12 schools and £6m per school, the capital funding notionally set aside for this purpose amounts to £72 million. This is presumably available until the end of the current spending review cycle, so would have to be allocated by Spring 2015 at the latest.

.

Progress since the Announcement

We are now some 16 months on from the announcement and, with almost exactly two years until the end of the spending review period, we are probably about 40% through the project as currently funded.

So it seemed timely to review progress to date.

A handful of 16-19 free schools with a STEM specialism are in the pipeline – including what is now called the Sir Isaac Newton Sixth Form in Norwich and STEM6 in Camden, London. But these are slightly different animals, falling outside the project under discussion because they are not supported by university maths departments.

We know from a FAQ briefing published by DfE that:

‘The common feature of all specialist maths Free Schools is significant involvement from a university maths department. Universities can apply to set up a specialist maths Free School on their own, or in partnership with another strong education provider. Similar specialist maths schools, with significant input from universities, already operate in the United States, Russia and China.’

The development of these institutions is described as ‘a pathfinder programme’, which explicitly implies that the model may be extended if successful.

Interested universities are invited to submit brief proposals to a specialist support team whose home page says:

‘Maths is a strategic priority in education and is at the heart of improving our society and economy. This country has some brilliant university maths departments and world-famous mathematicians, but they have become disconnected from schools, school curriculums and exams.

The new specialist maths schools aim to bridge the gap between school and university maths, and in doing so, demonstrate how new approaches can bring dramatic improvements in performance that can be applied more widely.’

Applications are invited to open further schools ‘in September 2014 and beyond’.

I say further because a January 2013 press release celebrates the first two successful applications, submitted by King’s College London and the University of Exeter in the South-West.

This tells us that:

‘The ultimate aim is to create a network of schools that operate across England which identify and nurture mathematical and scientific talent. This is similar to the Russian model, which includes the renowned Kolmogorov School in Moscow, established by Andrei Kolmogorov – one of the 20th century’s most respected mathematicians.’

The shift from discussion of a network to a single Russian school is something of a logical non-sequitur, and it is not clear why Kolmogorov is singled out when there are so many alternative models worldwide.

The Kolmogorov theme is further developed in a TES story from February 2012 which reports that:

‘The DfE has hosted a consultation meeting on the new free schools with interested parties from the mathematical community in order to outline its plans.

Professor Alexandre Borovik, an expert on selective maths schools who teaches at the University of Manchester, attended the meeting and was encouraged by the government’s plans.

“So far, it has been only independent schools that have been able to produce mathematicians on anything like a similar scale, but there has been nothing like it in the state sector,” Professor Borovik said. “To see whether it can be done, you really have to be very selective and go down the route of what was successful in Eastern Europe and Russia.”’

The press release also places this initiative in the context of ‘the government’s strategy to increase universities’ involvement in what pupils learn before applying for a university place’ and wider plans ‘to boost maths education’.

The mid-section of this post draws together currently available information about the two live projects.

.

From Kew Gardens courtesy of Gifted Phoenix

 .

King’s College London Mathematics School (KCLMS)

 .

Press Release

King’s College (KCL) published a press release on 14 December 2012 confirming that it had received a development grant for its planned school which would open in September 2014.

I note in passing that the Department’s FAQ briefing contains the following Q and A:

‘Is there financial support available to develop our plans?

Not at the beginning. Once we have approved a proposal, we do offer some support to cover the costs of project management, and recruiting some staff before the school opens, in the same way we would for any Free School.’

which would suggest that the development grants made available for the first two projects are not available to support new proposals.

KCL’s press release suggests that the school will contribute to the Government’s plans:

‘to improve mathematics education in the state sector and increase the number of mathematically talented young people with the right levels of attainment to study STEM subjects at top-rated universities…

…It will aim to cater for students who have both exceptional ability in Mathematics and an intense interest in the subject, and to allow them to study with a critical mass of students with a similar passion for Mathematics.’

There is a quotation from Secretary of State Michael Gove:

‘I am delighted that King’s College London is going to open a specialist maths Free School. If we are to find a future Fields Medallist in our schools, we have to raise standards in maths teaching and create an environment that allows the most gifted to flourish…’

The release explains that:

• The Project involves KCL’s Department of Educational and Professional Studies as well as its Department of Mathematics and is led by Alison Wolf, Professor of Public Sector Management, perhaps best known as author of the Wolf Review of Vocational Education, commissioned by the Government shortly after it came to power.

• KCL has also been awarded ‘an outreach grant’ by DfE ‘to support work with mathematically talented 14-16 year-olds in schools without high levels of specialist Mathematics teaching’. This builds on an existing programme called The King’s Factor  targeted at Years 12-13. It implies that the outreach programme will be used to ‘talent spot’ potential candidates and act as a feeder for the new free school.

• The school is likely to be located close to KCL’s Waterloo Campus ‘a transport hub easily reached from a very large part of the greater London area. The school will therefore be able to draw on a wide catchment area in which there are large numbers of prospective high-attaining students.’

.

Web Pages

KCL’s website also has a set of pages devoted to the new School which adds a few additional snippets of information.

It says the University announced the new school on 14 November, a month before the date of the press release. I think this must be an error.

The ‘initial setting up’ is being undertaken by KCL’s senior management team (which does not seem to contain Alison Wolf, previously named as the project lead).

Several potential sites in and around Waterloo are under consideration by KCL and DfE.

(The location and securing of suitable sites has been a particular problem for new free schools in London, though the final report of the Mayor’s Education Inquiry proposed action to address this.)

All students attending the School will take the same three A levels – Maths, Further Maths and Physics. They will also be expected to take STEP papers and ‘may take another AS level’ (The range of available options is not specified, but a subsequent FAQ section suggests the choice will probably be confined to the Extended Project.)

Otherwise students:

‘will continue with a broad general curriculum, including other sciences, social science, humanities and languages, and have opportunities for sport and the visual and performing arts. Some of these subjects will be delivered through existing King’s facilities.

Through this broader curriculum and learning to see the world through different disciplinary perspectives, the school will foster intellectual curiosity, clear and independent thought, creativity and a sense of social responsibility.’

Exactly how these additional elements will be fitted into the timetable is not explained.

The school roll will be 120 students – 60 per year. In the first year of operation there will be only one intake, so full complement will not be reached until AY2015/16.

The KS4 outreach programme began in September 2012, so has a full two years of operation before the School opens, enabling it to pick up promising candidates at the start of Year 10.

It is:

‘designed to have a positive effect on the people involved, even if they do not wish to apply to KCLMS or are unsuccessful in the selection process.’ [my emphasis]

The FAQ makes clear that graduates of the school will not necessarily be expected to continue their undergraduate studies at King’s (though the project is clearly attractive precisely because it should help to provide them with a richer pool of applicants).

There is no suggestion that graduates of the School will have preferred status in admission to the University (though that might have been an option, especially for those from disadvantaged backgrounds).

It is also clear that the School will not be suitable for intending medical students:

‘In the main, we expect students to go on to study Maths, Physics, Engineering, Statistics or Computer Science.’

Potential students are invited to apply online from 30 September 2013.  They must have at least 5 GCSE grades A*-C including A*/A in both maths and physics or maths and dual award science. Oddly, GCSE English is not a requirement but ‘will normally be one of those grades’.

These are not particularly demanding requirements, potentially hard to reconcile with the reference to ‘exceptional ability’ above and the comparison with Kolmogorov. Further comment on the pitch of these selection criteria is provided below.

Other admissions criteria are not finalised but will probably include a school reference, ‘our judgement about how much difference attending the school will make to your future based on a number of factors, including the results from an interview’ and the results of a maths aptitude test that will assess problem-solving and mathematical thinking.

Every student will have a maths mentor, either an undergraduate or ‘a junior member of the maths department’. It is not clear whether this is one-to-one provision.

A headteacher will be appointed in April 2013, to take up post in September 2013 and there will be open evenings for prospective students and their families in October and November.

A ‘latest news’ section contains links to various pieces of media coverage about the School. Some are behind paywalls but those that are accessible repeat the information set out in the press release and summarised above.

.

Headteacher Job Pack

Further details are however available in the job pack for the Headteacher vacancy.

This explains that KCLMS:

‘will be run by a Trust, which the College expects to establish in late March 2013; and by a Board of Governors. This appointment is being managed by King’s College London pending the formal establishment of the trust and the signing of the Funding Agreement between the King’s College London Mathematics School Trust and the Department for Education. The person appointed to this position will be employed by the trust.’

It says that ‘students will be recruited from a wide variety of backgrounds’ adding that:

‘The school will also be committed to recruiting a significant proportion of students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, and to an outreach programme… to further this objective.’

But this ‘significant proportion’ is not quantified. Unless it is truly significant – perhaps  a third of available places – the School could very easily become monopolised by the ‘sharp-elbowed middle classes’ or even by students transferring from the independent sector.

The curriculum will not be accelerative:

‘The aim will not be to cover A-level mathematics rapidly and then start on first year university material, but to teach mathematics which includes the A-level material in a way which develops mathematical thinking and an understanding of the logical connections within the subject….

Thus the material covered will be close to that in A-level maths, but the style of study will be different to that in most schools. Particular features will be:

• Much greater mathematical rigour, and a general supposition that statements must be proved and methods justified;
• An intellectual approach, putting work in mathematical and historical contexts;
• Applications informed by current use of mathematics;
• Integration of methods and ideas used in computer science.
• Examinations being seen as hurdles to be taken in the students’ stride, not high jumps to intimidate and confound.’

More on this below.

The provisional timetable is based on a 40-hour working week, including independent study.

This will not be an autonomous institution – the University will be very much ‘hands on’:

‘The Mathematics department of King’s College London will be closely involved in curriculum development for the school, both before and after opening, ensuring strong intellectual foundations and insight into developing applications of mathematics’

Academics will also have ‘regular timetabled contact’, potentially via masterclasses.

There will be strong emphasis on collaboration ‘with other schools and teachers who are interested in developing new pedagogies.’ In addition to continuing the existing outreach programme, it is intended that there will be further engagement for students and teachers alike.

There is reference to a network of schools that ‘could provide a valuable means of sharing expertise and good practice, supporting the professional development of teachers at KCLMS and elsewhere.’

Moreover:

‘In the longer term, the school intends to seek independent funding for a larger CPD programme associated with the school’s curriculum and pedagogy, and to offer it to a wide range of  schools and students, using school premises out of hours. This will contribute directly to schools’ teaching quality (and results), and is an important direct benefit that can be offered in return for schools’ collaboration in identifying potential students.’

.

From Kew Gardens courtesy of Gifted Phoenix

.

Exeter University’s Specialist Maths Free School

There is much less information so far in the public domain about the parallel institution at Exeter.

We know from the University’s press release of 21 January that the project is a partnership between the University and Exeter College, a tertiary institution providing a range of post-16 and higher education courses.

The new institution will be based in Exeter and is also scheduled to open in September 2014.

The number on roll will again be 120 – 60 in each year group, but 20% of places (so approximately 24) will be boarding places, with students staying at the University from Monday to Thursday in term-time. This will enable students from across the region to attend and implies a compacted four-day timetable, perhaps complemented by independent study on Friday’s journey home and over the weekend.

The new School is described as ‘a regional centre of excellence’ supported by the mathematical strength of the University and the College’s ‘curricular and pastoral support’. These partners have also received a development grant to underwrite their project (see comment above about that provision apparently being removed for subsequent proposals).

Few further details are provided, other than that:

• Students here will also be encouraged to take STEP papers.

• The University will provide a proportion of the teaching: ‘at least 13 hours of maths, physics and computer science teaching a week’ and ‘students will be exposed to mathematical problem-solving’.

• The University will also offer:

.‘An enrichment and critical thinking programme. The emphasis will be on applied maths, with students given the opportunity to work with academics to apply mathematical concepts to scientific research on subjects like advanced engineering.

• Students will also benefit from ‘one-to-one “maths mentoring”’.

• The Met Office ‘hopes to involve the Free School students in its work’. (The Met Office College is based in Exeter.) This sounds highly provisional.

• There is also agreement ‘in principle’ from DfE to pay an outreach grant which will ‘support the teaching of maths in schools in the region, running maths workshops and to identify potential applicants’. The University’s existing outreach effort seems fairly limited

DfE’s press release contains identical information and little more is revealed in the wider press coverage.

These plans are obviously still at a very early stage – although there must have been significantly more detail in the papers submitted for DfE approval – and there has been no update since the announcement.

From the information so far published, the Exeter project seems very close conceptually to the one at King’s, indeed almost a clone. It would have been good to have seen evidence of a fundamentally different approach.

We do not know whether the University’s School of Education will be directly involved (though, interestingly – and perhaps tellingly – its news section makes no reference to the free school, preferring to highlight instead an entirely different initiative).

.

The Level and Source of Interest from Universities

Sixteen months on from the announcement, initial confirmation of just two projects – both of them still subject to approval of their funding agreements – is arguably indicative of limited interest from potential host universities, despite the very generous capital and recurrent funding available.

There may be some ideological opposition to free schools in some universities, but that is unlikely to be the principal cause of their apparent hesitancy to come forward.

Part of the problem is that the Government is fishing in a small pool. References to ‘leading university maths departments’ and ‘world class institutions’ is rather transparent code for the Russell Group, an organisation comprising 24 universities, just 20 of them in England.

Ministers have been criticised for focusing their policies exclusively on this subset of universities, on the assumption that membership defines higher education quality, when in practice there are weaknesses in some Russell Group provision and exceptionally strong provision in most if not all universities outside the Group.

Even in maths, some universities outside the Russell Group are placed highly in national rankings.

In this example the top 20 includes the Universities of Bath (7), Lancaster (12), Southampton (16), Surrey (18), Loughborough (19) and Kent (20). None are members of the Russell Group.

In comparison, King’s and Exeter are ranked 22 and 25 respectively.

Moreover, each has regional competitors placed higher up the rankings than they are. In London there is Imperial (6), LSE (8) and UCL (11). In the South-West there is: Bath (7), Bristol (9) and, arguably Southampton (16).

These are not idiosyncratic results. If we apply an alternative ranking, Exeter is placed 17th and King’s 18th. In the South-West, Bath is 7th and Bristol 11th. In London, Imperial is 3rd, LSE 14thand UCL 15th. (Non-Russell Group institutions outranking Exeter and Kings include Bath, Lancaster, UEA, Loughborough and Surrey.)

Both Kings and Exeter are therefore likely to be attracted to this initiative because they anticipate that it will help them in future to secure a relatively larger share of the best students, so enabling them to compete more effectively with their better-placed competitors.

On this evidence, the scheme is most likely to attract other Russell Group institutions with a similar mid-table profile in other regions – maybe the likes of Liverpool (35 and 41), Birmingham (32 and 26), York (30 and 21), Sheffield (29 and 26) and Manchester (26 and 30).

It might help the Government to spell out explicitly that they are not interested solely in Russell Group institutions, recognising that excellent maths provision exists elsewhere. It might also help to offer some explicit guidance on the thresholds that they expect such maths departments to exceed.

The trouble is that there is a bewildering array of alternative models already being pursued by universities:

• Many universities already sponsor academies of various kinds and several more are engaged in projects under development.

• Many are involved in the development of a subset of University Technical Schools (UTCs) – the current list of projects is also available from this link.

• A few are interested in another project which has so far attracted relatively limited interest: University Training Schools. This model was originally set out in the 2010 Schools White Paper but, as far as I can establish, only the University of Birmingham and the Institute of Education have so far taken this path. The latter project seems rather under wraps and this is the only explicit link I can find on the IoE’s own website, though it is also mentioned in this TES article. (I found a reference in Paragraph 43 of Oxford University’s Access Agreement for 2012/13 to ‘development of a University Training School as a laboratory school, once the procedures for developing these schools are clarified’ but this seems to have fallen out of the latest 2013/14 Agreement.)

It is quite likely that many potentially interested and eligible universities have already backed a different model and are reluctant to expand their portfolio at this stage.

Some – such as Warwick University – will be relying on other initiatives to secure a stronger share of the best undergraduates. In Warwick’s case that role is fulfilled by IGGY.

This comparatively limited interest is despite the fact that a capital budget of approximately £6m is available for each project, plus annual recurrent costs of around £4,000 per student in Exeter and £5,115 in Lambeth, London (according to the DfE’s ‘ready reckoners’) not to mention the unspecified sums available in development and outreach grants, or any other supplements made available.

It is not clear how much of a university’s own money would be needed for such a project but one might expect that any cost would be attributable mainly to the staff resource needed to develop and launch the project and then provide steady-state input, including the specified contribution to the teaching and support of students.

That would be a tidy sum no doubt, but surely covered substantively by a development grant and the recurrent funding available. (Set in this context, the apparent decision to withdraw a development grant from new applicants seems rather puzzling.)

.

From Kew Gardens courtesy of Gifted Phoenix

.

Assessment of the model

Selection

16-19 maths free schools are based on the twin pillars of selection and specialisation.

The arguments for and against selection are well-rehearsed and I will not repeat them here. It seems that selection at age 16 is somewhat less contentious than selection at age 11 (with selection at 14 a largely untested assumption).

Nevertheless, most of the arguments against (and for) selection remain in play regardless of the age at when that selection takes place. We can see this writ large in current debate about fair access to university and its impact on social mobility.

It seems unlikely, therefore, that selective universities would harbour an ideological opposition to selection at age 16.

The pitch of the selection is critical. The description of the Government’s policy intention would suggest a cadre of highly selective institutions, though of course that depends ultimately on the number of candidates who apply and, of those, what proportion can satisfy the admissions criteria.

Some aspects of those requirements are currently unclear, even for the school at the most advanced stage of development. For example, we know nothing of the planned aptitude test at KCLMS.

It is clear that their GCSE requirements are not as exacting as they might be, in that they do not require A* grades in maths and physics or a compulsory pass in English.

The latest 2011/12 statistics suggest that 20.2% of students achieve an A*/A grade in mathematics while almost 47% manage this in physics. Given the similarity between the subjects, it is fairly likely that the proportion achieving this level in both subjects (or in maths and combined science) is also likely to be fairly close to 20%.

This places the pitch of selection on a par with the traditional assumption for grammar schools (though the reality is now far different and highly differentiated).

There is an obvious trade-off here between excellence and equity. If selection is pitched too highly, it will become impossible to recruit sufficient students from disadvantaged backgrounds, because high attainment is found disproportionately amongst those from comparatively advantaged backgrounds. As I have suggested, this could mean that the provision is unfairly monopolised by the middle classes.

On the other hand, if it is pitched too low, students will be admitted who are not the very highest achievers and so are relatively less likely to achieve the A level grades they need to secure places in the most competitive university maths departments.

Gifted educators know that this issue boils down to the critical distinction between attainment and ability.

These schools need to find the right blend of admissions arrangements such that they can recruit:

• A critical mass of the highest achievers from a variety of backgrounds, ideally giving preference to those whose current institutions do not offer high quality post-16 maths education, rather than the products of selective and independent schools; and

• An even more critical mass of students with demonstrated mathematical ability which may not yet have been translated into high achievement, especially those whose underachievement is attributable – at least in part – to a relatively disadvantaged background.

KCLMS’s aptitude test will be critical in achieving this outcome, as will their decision whether or not to give priority admission to recipients of the Pupil Premium. It will be important that they and Exeter subject their draft admission criteria to proper ‘stress testing’ before they are adopted.

.

Specialisation and Acceleration

The debate over specialisation is less polarised. Historically there has been argument that the typical A level student experiences a rather narrow curriculum compared with his peers in many other countries, including several of those perceived to have the most successful education systems.

The trade-off between breadth and depth is discussed in Ofqual’s Report on International Comparability.

But the Consultation on A level reform did not enter this territory other than in relation to AS levels, arguing that the majority view is that A levels are broadly ‘fit for purpose’.

The specific issue in this context is that students attending these schools are likely to have an even narrower curricular experience than their peers in other English schools and colleges.

If the KCLMS precedent is followed, they will have an extremely constrained choice of A levels – indeed no choice at all – compared with what would be available in a typical sixth form, even in a small rural school.

There are references to curricular provision beyond maths and physics in the KCLMS plans, but it is not clear how they will be implemented in practice, beyond the option of an AS Extended Project.

It has to be open to question whether a small sixth form containing 60 students in each year group, all taking the same three A level choices, is the optimal solution for many students who, as a consequence, will not be exposed to ideas and perspectives from peers experiencing an entirely different subject context.

There will be limited opportunity to bring out the inter-disciplinary connections that are so often of interest to gifted learners, to undertake cross-curricular collaborative learning with peers who can bring to bear strength in other subject areas.

This seems an artificial constriction which may make the KCLMS option unattractive to some students, especially those who are ‘all-rounders’ with strength in maths and other subject areas. It is not necessarily a given that these students will be weaker mathematicians than peers with just that one string to their bows.

Moreover, the KCLMS proposal is guilty of a different kind of narrowness in that it is avowedly anti-acceleration, so ignoring opportunities to utilise the close relationship with a university to enable school-age students to pursue undergraduate study.

This reflects a strong strand of thinking in parts of the UK maths education community which believes that acceleration is most definitely not in the best interests of students.

It is not the position I would take, which is that acceleration (faster pace) done properly can be combined effectively with enrichment (greater breadth) and extension (more depth; more problem-solving), and that the proportions of each should reflect different students’ needs. (There is not space here to unpack what ‘done properly’ means, but most gifted educators will be familiar with the arguments.)

The KCLMS approach will probably be unattractive to some of the very highest achieving young mathematicians, who will see this as placing an artificial cap on their progress. It will also mean that KCLMS is very different indeed to some comparable institutions in other parts of the world where accelerated study is actively encouraged.

(I note in passing that it is as yet unclear whether these schools will admit already-accelerated students aged under 16.)

.

A Network of New Schools or a Broader National Network?

One might reasonably question whether setting up a tranche of a dozen or so schools at a capital cost of £72m and an annual recurrent cost in steady state of approximately £6.5m (assuming 12 schools with 120 students each and an average annual per student recurrent cost of £4,500) is the most efficient strategy for increasing the supply of high achievers in maths.

Especially since the benefit under this model is largely confined to an annual cohort of around 720 students (12 x 60) assuming there are 12 schools all the same size as the first two.

In order to roll out the same model, further funding tranches of this magnitude would be required for every additional 12 schools added to the network – there would be few if any economies of scale.

It is likely that this model was adopted because: the Government wanted to increase the stock of free schools; the available capital funding could not be diverted to cover running costs; and it was felt that the infrastructural work involved in building the new schools would itself have a positive impact on economic growth.

Also, perhaps, because, it is ideologically committed to a ‘bottom-up’ distributed model rather than a ‘top down’ prescriptive model – and is reluctant to entertain the possibility that there might be an optimal ‘middle way’.

It would be quite wrong to criticise the current programme at this early stage because we have no evidence of its impact, other than on the grounds that the number of beneficiaries will be comparatively small.

It may eventually be demonstrated that the positive impact on students is so marked that the programme is good value for money despite the heavy outlay.

But, if we were given a development budget equivalent to the cost of one school (£6m), an identical annual running cost budget of £6.5m per year and a blank sheet of paper, what design principles might we establish to underpin a more efficient and fully scalable approach?

One might begin with the core purpose of creating and sustaining a national network designed to support all students in state-maintained schools and colleges with the potential capacity to achieve, say, at least grades AAB in three of the target A level subjects plus a STEP paper grade of 1 (very good) or S (outstanding).

Such support would be available from Year 9 at the latest and ideally from Year 7. From Years 7 to 9 it would be light touch and provided to a relatively broad cohort, in recognition of the difficulty of predicting future performance at such an early stage.

But, from Year 10, it would be concentrated on a smaller group of future high achievers. This would include existing high attainers, but would also give priority and additional intensive support to learners whose potential is significant, but is unfulfilled as a consequence of socio-economic disadvantage.

This national network would need to draw on the co-ordinated strength of the many national bodies already active in this field, including the likes of Nrich, the NCETM and MEI’s Further Mathematics Support. They would be drawn into a powerful coalition, prepared to sink their differences in pursuit of this common cause. (Those receiving Government funding might have it made conditional on their constructive involvement.)

The network would aim to reach every state-maintained secondary school and post-16 institution, and to draw directly on the expertise within the widest range of institutions which have it to offer, including specialist academies, outstanding schools with an old-style maths specialism, national teaching schools, independent schools and post-16 institutions.

It would be developed on ‘flexible framework’ principles, combining a set of challenging common core expectations and light touch accountability with sufficient autonomy for participating institutions to innovate and to meet the very different needs of their students.

The services provided and co-ordinated through the network might include:

• Outreach by the strongest university, college and school maths departments in each region, regardless of the categorisation of those institutions.

• Extensive online learning provision, for use in class and via independent learning, again drawing on the combined expertise of all national, regional and local partners. This would be free at the point of delivery and would be designed on social network principles, encouraging students to learn with and from each other.

• Support from an undergraduate of postgraduate mentor, provided face-to-face in the case of those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

• Additional support to raise the aspirations of students from disadvantaged backgrounds and to equip them with the social and cultural capital necessary to compete for places at the most competitive universities.

• High quality professional development and support for host schools and colleges and lead mathematics and physics teachers within them

In addition, a small core of schools and colleges – some academies and free schools, some not, some independent – might be identified as post-16 centres of excellence and funded to admit the most promising students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

In the short term there would be ‘quick win’ interventions in the form of direct support for disadvantaged learners across Years 12 and 13.

The Government would ensure that all appropriate policy connections were made – whether with wider support for maths education, academically able pupils, fair access to higher education and so on – to ensure that all are mutually supportive and that benefit from the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

And of course the whole caboodle would be rigorously evaluated, both formatively and summatively. Success would be judged against achievement of a few rigorous performance measures.

.

The Bigger Picture

As we approach the 2013 Budget, there are many signs that we have emerging consensus on the importance of investment in human capital. Witness, for example:

• The Prime Minister’s Speech on national competitiveness and the ‘global race’;

• The Heseltine Report on growth ‘No Stone Unturned’, the bulk of which has been accepted by the Government

• The CBI’s report ‘First Steps: A new approach for our schools’ (which even recognises the importance of support for gifted learners);

• A new SMF report ‘In the Balance: The STEM Human Capital Crunch’

No doubt there are many more.

But, with the honourable exception of the CBI (which is not as explicit as it might be on the point) none of these recognise the substantial benefits that would accrue from more targeted investment in our school-age high achievers.

To give the Government credit, the 16-19 maths free schools programme shows that they are alive to these arguments, even if only in a relatively narrow STEM-related context.

But it is worth pausing to consider whether a network eventually built around a small set of selective post-16 institutions is the optimal approach.

Assuming that new free schools are a ‘non-negotiable’ it might be preferable to start with the network and drop the schools into it, rather than starting with the schools and waiting for them to build the network from the bottom up.

There are lessons to be learned from the careful study of similar provision in jurisdictions like Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Israel, all of them featured in earlier posts on this blog. In these jurisdictions, the ‘elite’ schools are typically nodal points in a much wider mesh of provision rather than ‘stand-alone’ providers with outreach capacity.

An evaluation of the maths 16-19 free schools pathfinder project might usefully incorporate that comparative dimension, while also reflecting the current predilection for randomised control trials.

Given the recent designation of the Education Endowment Foundation as a more generic ‘what works centre’ for education, it may now be for that body to commission the appropriate study.

.

GP

March 2013

This post examines recent developments in what I have termed ‘the economics of gifted education’.

It follows up a commitment I made to revisit the topic in The Gifted Phoenix Manifesto for Gifted Education which relies significantly on the economic case for investment in gifted education:

‘There is a strong economic focus because that is a current predilection – and because the economic arguments are too rarely advanced and often underplayed. They deserve to be paramount in our current financial predicament.’

Photo Credit: Leo Reynolds via Compfight cc

Discussion of the Manifesto shows that this view is not unanimous amongst the global gifted education community. Some believe that the economic arguments detract somehow from the educational case for meeting the needs of gifted learners, and results in them being perceived as nothing more than a convenient tool to generate economic growth.

Some are also wary of the economic arguments for education per se, because they are perceived to distort and over-ride the case for education as an end in itself, worth pursuing for its intrinsic benefit alone.

I believe neither of these things. I firmly uphold the educational case for supporting gifted learners and fully recognise the intrinsic benefits of education, but I believe that each can be complemented and enhanced by the economic case rather than being threatened or undermined by it.

It is this which drives me to understand the economic case, as encapsulated in recent research, to synthesise from various sources and to present the result for readers’ consideration. Advocates for gifted education are of course free to use these arguments or to ignore them, entirely as they wish.

.

I feel it incumbent on me to warn readers that this is a long and complex piece. The meat in the sandwich is academic research – barely digestible at the best of times – but I have tried to make the bread on each side as nourishing as possible. You should be able to get a good sense of the basic argument by consuming the bread alone.

The Gifted Phoenix Premiss

I want to begin by unpacking the basic premiss I advanced in the Manifesto. The case I am advancing has eight distinct steps and runs as follows:

• Effective gifted education involves maintaining a balance between excellence – raising standards for all – and equity – raising standards relatively faster for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

• At national level, excellence might be measured by increasing the proportion of learners achieving the high achievers’ benchmarks in international comparisons studies such as PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS. This can be described as increasing the ‘smart fraction’.

• Similarly, at national level, equity might be measured through a country’s success in narrowing the excellence gap between the performance of high achievers from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds. This helps to increase the ‘smart fraction’ as more disadvantaged learners reach the high achievers’ benchmarks.

• Taken together, these two actions contribute significantly to national efforts to increase the supply of highly skilled human capital which has a significant positive impact on economic growth.
  

• Efforts to increase the ‘smart fraction’ and narrow the excellence gap must begin during – and be sustained throughout – compulsory schooling, through a dedicated and coherent national programme. This should link seamlessly with continuing efforts within the national higher education system, and beyond.

• The cost of this programme can be offset against the much greater benefits that will accrue through stronger economic growth, so justifying the initial investment, even during a period of austerity.

• This national investment will also generate several highly important spillover benefits, not least stronger social mobility as more learners from disadvantaged backgrounds compete on a level playing field with their advantaged peers. There are also cultural, sporting, political and ‘feel-good’ benefits. (These include improving the quality of political leadership which seems increasingly impoverished in many countries at this time, including my own.)

• It would be wrong to focus investment disproportionately in areas such as STEM and IT, partly because other fields can make a substantive contribution to economic growth, and partly because of the important spillover benefits outlined above.

I wanted to see whether I could find any research evidence to support this premiss since I last discussed the economics of gifted education in June 2010.

There is some evidence and I have drawn together a selection of material that goes some way towards supporting my argument.

But I can find no similar statement of the complete argument. There are bits and pieces here and there, but no perceptible effort to draw the different strands together.

Nor can I find any work that systematically analyses the costs and benefits of a national investment in gifted education, so serving as an exemplar of the Gifted Phoenix premiss.

The economics of gifted education is nascent merely, but still I find this profoundly disappointing. Gifted educators could make a much more convincing case to policy makers with such evidence at their fingertips.

Maybe there is such work and I have failed to find it. Perhaps it is written in languages other than English, possibly to persuade those who have invested so heavily in gifted education in some of the countries I have featured on this blog.

If so, it richly deserves to be translated and disseminated in the English-speaking world.

.

Flickerings of Interest Since June 2010 (and my own involvement)

I flatter myself that I know something about gifted education but I am certainly not an economist.

A quarter of a century ago I spent two years studying the economics of education as part of a postgraduate diploma at London’s Institute of Education. So I have some basic grounding but I am very rusty indeed.

Nevertheless, I like to think I invented the term ‘the economics of gifted education’. I recall using it in discussion from around 2008 or thereabouts.

If you Google the term most of the references are to my work, especially the two posts dating from June 2010 that appear on this Blog:

• The Economics of Gifted Education and

• The Economics of Gifted Education: Smart Fraction Theory

As far as I can establish, there is only one other contender writing in English, one Pam Clinkenbeard, Professor of Educational Foundations at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater in the US.

A biography on the NAGC Website is attached to details of an event due to take place in April 2010, so before I wrote my posts. It says Clinkenbeard:

‘Is working on research projects related to the economics of gifted education and scientific reasoning in diverse gifted preschoolers’.

So maybe I didn’t invent the term after all.

Unfortunately I cannot find further details of Clinkenbeard’s research, though I am aware of a brief article she published in 2007 ‘Economic Arguments for Gifted Education’ which explains the concept of human capital and advances the economic arguments for investment in gifted education from a gifted educator’s perspective.

The article refers to a paper presented at the World Council Conference in 2007, but I can find no record of that online. Further searches on Google Scholar reveal no subsequent publications from Clinkenbeard in this field.

After I wrote my 2010 posts, there were signs of interest elsewhere. The IRATDE considered devoting an edition of its online journal to the topic and I was even offered the chance to serve as joint editor.

Unfortunately the call for manuscripts elicited little interest amongst the academic gifted education community. So I approached Eric Hanushek for some advice about how best to tap in to economics of education networks. He didn’t deign to reply. There will be more from Hanushek later in this post

The abortive IRATDE Conference scheduled for November 2011 in Saudi Arabia included amongst its themes ‘Research in the Economics of Education’, though none of the keynote speakers was scheduled to address the topic. I heard that Hanushek had been invited to speak, but presumably he turned down the opportunity. So did I.

I was originally slated as an ‘invited speaker’ – precise topic to be confirmed – but I took umbrage at my second class status, shared with just one other unfortunate. Moreover, the research I had undertaken to write a post on gifted education in Saudi Arabia led me to conclude that it was definitely not a place I wished to visit.

Also in 2011, the California Association for the Gifted subtitled one edition of its journal, Gifted Education Communicator ‘The Economics of Gifted Education’.

Unfortunately, this sits behind a paywall and, equally unfortunately, the contents list on Amazon is rather oblique, mentioning only:

‘The Most Economical Program for Gifted Learners Lanny Ebenstein… The Economy of Gifted Education U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley)… Economy of Giftedness Carolyn Kottmeyer’.

I have not been able to find out what these contributions add to our understanding of the issue.

Then in June 2012, the World Council’s Newsletter included a report from the outgoing President, which began:

‘During the last month, I was invited by Todd Lubart (Université Paris Descartes) to meet with a number of European scholars. This meeting aimed at discussing the role of creativity in developing business, in addition to the economics of education. This meeting motivated us to talk about the importance of gifted education, and to start working on a special issue of Gifted and Talented International (GTI) concerned with the Economics of Gifted Education.

Based on the outcomes of this discussion, the Editor-in-Chief has invited one of the top leaders in the field of economics of education to write the theoretical framework that will be the target paper. Consequently, a number of scholars will be invited to write their critiques and response articles.’

Needless to say I wasn’t one of those ‘European scholars’. But evidently the World Council had borrowed the idea of a dedicated volume from IRATDE.

I don’t know whether this production is still in the pipeline – there was only one edition of GTI in 2012, though it is supposed to appear twice a year.

The December 2012 newsletter made no reference to it, though it did explain that the outgoing President is himself ‘the Editor-in-Chief’ and it discusses his take on the development process for special issues of GTI in general terms:

‘The success of a special issue depends upon getting the right scholar to write the target paper and the concluding section at the right time, and on the right people to comment, critique, and edit. I will work with the editorial board to develop candidate themes for a number of special issues. We are open to ideas from the members of our community.’

Does this mean that the promised edition featuring the economics of gifted education will not materialise? Certainly I have not been troubled by an invitation to comment on a target article, but perhaps I’m not on the list.

.

Topicality and Relevance

This is not simply an arid theoretical matter. It strikes to the very heart of many countries’ strategies for extricating themselves from economic stagnation and recession.

Human capital arguments have long been part of the political rhetoric, though they seem to fade in and out of fashion and are often applied in very specific contexts and settings.

In the UK as I write, parts of the Government are beginning to make the case.

A year ago infrastructural investment seemed to be the only game in town (though the Government’s published ‘Plan for Growth’ was admittedly far broader), but now the rhetoric has shifted. There is overt support for human capital arguments:

‘Set out well by the LSE Growth Commission, that long-term growth involves a major and sustained commitment to skills, innovation and infrastructure investment.’

Unfortunately, the Growth Commission has a relatively narrow view of human capital investment.

They recognise that:

‘Improving the quality of compulsory education is the key to achieving these gains [in growth]’

and they cite evidence of the impact on growth of ‘increasing UK school standards’ to the level achieved by some competitors.

But their proposed solutions – while focused on the necessity of improving the quality of human capital – are entirely generic, insufficiently differentiated to support (potential) high achievers.

Their recipe for success consists of across-the-board solutions such as more semi-autonomous academy schools and improvements to teacher quality. Even when they make the case to ‘help to develop the talent of disadvantaged pupils’, their focus is on generic accountability measures and Pupil Premium funding. No sign here of any conception of the smart fraction or the excellence gap!

Yet when it comes to post-compulsory education they readily acknowledge the case for ‘improving the maths and language ability of…post-16 vocational students’ and the need ‘to attract the best students…from around the world’ into our higher education institutions since:

‘There are potential advantages to the UK from having the world’s leaders in economy, society and government educated here.’

English Education Ministers are also seized of the importance of human capital investment and sometime even couch this in differentiated terms. Witness this recent speech from Elizabeth Truss:

‘LiLanqing, the Vice Premier of China from 1993 to 2003…grasped the fact that every country, even if they are among the most powerful, is in a global race. His observation that “We are striving for modernization at the dawn of a knowledge economy and in the midst of intensifying global competition” could have been uttered by me or one of my ministerial colleagues…

…I have no idea what the jobs of the future will be – and nor does anyone else. But we do know that they will demand people with even greater powers of thought, innovation and skill. As the middle is squeezed from the hourglass economy, it will no longer be enough to be able to process – instead much more flexibility and greater cognitive skills will be required.

And along with this ability to think, the demand for specialist skills is rising, particularly for quantitative and mathematical skills and for effective communication skills – ideally in more than one language.’

The Government is advancing a series of actions to tackle this need – some system-wide and some focused specifically on mathematics – but they too stop short of systematic and concentrated effort to increase the supply of high-achieving learners through interventions targeted specifically at them.

.

The Economic Case for Supporting High Achievers in Maths

The flow of the argument causes me to introduce at this point some recent work by John Jerrim. He richly deserves his position at the top of the bill since he is probably the nearest thing we have to an economist of gifted education in England today.

Jerrim recently published ‘The mathematical skills of school children: how does England compare to the high-performing East Asian countries’ (2013) which examines:

‘Whether the gap between the highest achieving children in England and highest achieving children in East Asia widens (or declines) during secondary school. This is a particularly prominent policy issue, as having a pool of very highly skilled individuals is vital for technological innovation and long-run economic growth.’

The study uses TIMSS and PISA maths test data to identify learners at the 90^th percentile of the achievement distribution (so the top 10%) and compares their progress in different countries between the end of primary school and the end of secondary school.

The graph reproduced below compares the performance of this group in England with the same population in various Asian countries that perform particularly well on TIMSS and PISA maths assessments. The subsequent table gives test scores at the 90^th percentile for a selection of other countries too (expressed in terms of standard deviations above the mean).

.

. 

.

So there is a tendency for the gap between the highest achieving pupils in England and the highest achieving children in the high-performing Asian countries to increase between the end of primary school and the end of secondary school.

The paper also examines the excellence gap, noting that:

‘No country has a significantly bigger socio-economic achievement gap than England at either age 13/14 or age 15/16.’

And the overall gap increases between ages 10 and 16. Jerrim argues that:

‘The most pressing issue is to ensure that the curriculum stretches the best young mathematicians enough, and that they are motivated (and incentivised) to fully develop their already accumulated academic skill. Evidence presented in this paper has suggested that the gap between the highest achieving children in England and the highest achieving children in East Asia widens between ages 10 and 16 (at least in mathematics). This is something that needs to be corrected as highly skilled individuals are likely to be important for the continuing success of certain major British industries (e.g. financial services) and to foster the technological innovation needed for long-run economic growth.’

The paper explores whether the East Asian predilection for private tuition helps explain the difference. But:

‘While a large proportion of East Asian families are willing to personally finance such activities through the private sector, the same is unlikely to hold true in the foreseeable future within England. Consequently, the state may need to intervene. Gifted and talented schemes, a shift of school and pupil incentives away from reaching floor targets (e.g. a C grade in GCSE mathematics) and enhanced tuition for children who excel in school are all possible policy responses.’

But there is a caveat – cultural change may also be needed:

‘Consequently, the implementation of some of the characteristics of the East Asian educational model may imply the need for a cultural shift towards greater belief in the value of education amongst all and the importance of a hard work ethic. Indeed, it is important for academics and policymakers to recognise that East Asian children vastly out-perform their English peers even when they have been through the English schooling system. This is perhaps the clearest indication that it is actually what happens outside of school that is driving these countries superior PISA and TIMSS math test performance.’

It is worth emphasising that a well-designed gifted education programme and effort to bring about cultural change need not be mutually exclusive. A gifted programme can be designed to improve the motivation, aspirations and attitudes of the learners who participate (and their immediate families) as well as improving their achievement.

Indeed, given the range and size of out-of-school effects on socio-economic achievement gaps, that is arguably an essential component of any effort to narrow the excellence gap.

.

Where Had We Got To In 2010? Defining Terms

.

The Economics of Gifted Education – The Smart Fraction

Before reviewing other key documents published in the last three years, I must briefly reprise the nub of the argument I advanced in 2010, through the two ‘economics of gifted education’ posts already referenced.

I shall also reference another relevant post called ‘The Transatlantic Excellence Gap: A Comparative Study of England and the UK’ published in August 2010.

In ‘The Economics of Gifted Education’, I confined myself to explaining:

• Human capital, which I described as ‘the collective term for the knowledge, skills, understanding and personal attributes that equip a person to generate economic value’, much of which is typically acquired through education.

• Endogenous growth theory, which suggests that ‘investment in human capital brings about innovation, improves the efficiency of production and results in better products and services. This generates increasing returns and so brings about continuous long-term improvement in economic growth.’

• The OECD’s categorisation of human capital as: know-what (knowledge), know-why (scientific knowledge), know-how (skills) and know-who (networks).

• The evolution of Knowledge-Based Economies (KBEs) in which ‘the generation, application and dissemination of knowledge is seen as the principal driver of economic growth. Education is key to the development of a successful KBE and most national plans focus heavily on strengthening the education sector.’

• Florida’s concept of the Creative Class ‘a socio-economic group, comprising some 40 million creative and knowledge-based workers in the US, destined to play a key role in future economic growth’.

In ‘The Economics of Gifted Education: Smart Fraction Theory, I outlined the development of this concept, beginning with a description of the impact of cognitive ability on economic growth.

This drew on two papers by the aforementioned Hanushek and his colleague Woessmann: ‘The Role of Cognitive Skills in Economic Development’ (2008) and ‘Do Better Schools Lead to More Growth: Cognitive Skills, Economic Outcomes and Causation’ (2009).

The first of these explained the benefits of setting aside the quantity of schooling as a measure of human capital in favour of a qualitative measure, ‘cognitive skill’, which takes into account environmental and genetic factors and may be demonstrated and measured by performance in international comparisons studies such as PISA.

It suggested that, were countries performing at the mean in PISA and TIMSS maths and science assessments to achieve the level of the highest performing countries, they would secure a 5% improvement in GDP over 20 years.

It also noted (my summary) that:

‘Improvements in top end performance and in average performance have separate and complementary effects on economic growth.’

The second study developed this point further (my summary again):

‘Were countries to secure an improvement of 10% in the proportion of students scoring at 400+ points and 600+ points respectively, each would have a positive impact on economic growth – and the intervention at the top end of the ability range would have 4 times greater impact than the intervention at average ability levels…

…Providing better basic education for all and also pushing significant numbers to very high achievement levels is the best policy for economic growth.’

I proceeded to give a brief account of the development of smart fraction theory, which has its origins in the correlation between national average IQ and per capita GDP.

I explained how these two research strands had been synthesised in a paper ‘The Impact of Smart Fractions, Cognitive Ability of Politicians and Average Competence of Peoples on Social Development’ by Rindermann, Sailer and Thompson (2009).

I summarised their argument:

• There are strong links between findings in the economic tradition (human capital) the educational tradition (literacy) and the psychological tradition (intelligence) suggesting they are measuring ‘the same underlying latent factor’ of cognitive ability.

• The smart fraction should be pitched similarly to Hanushek and Woessmann’s higher level, defined here as the 95^th percentile on TIMSS, PISA and PIRLS tests of comparative academic performance, which is said to be equivalent to IQ125.

• There is a much stronger correlation between high national GDP and the smart fraction than high national GDP and average cognitive ability.

• The positive impact on GDP can be isolated mainly to STEM-related achievement as opposed to achievement outside the STEM fields, suggesting the former are the main drivers of national affluence.

Their ultimate conclusion: ‘our results emphasise the importance of nurturing the highly gifted’.

.

The Excellence Gap

I began a sequence of posts on the Excellence Gap in August 2010, with one reviewing evidence from the USA, drawing especially on ‘Mind The (Other) Gap: The Growing Excellence Gap in K-12 Education’ by Plucker et al (2010).

The authors applied the term to differences between the achievement of advantaged and disadvantaged students performing at the highest levels, in this case on NAEP reading and maths assessments for Grades 4 and 8 respectively.

They considered the impact of gender, ethnicity, socio-economic background and English language proficiency, recognising the complex interaction between these factors.

They found socio-economic gap between advantaged and disadvantaged high achievers had not been narrowed by NCLB, though there was no substantive evidence that NCLB’s focus on lower achievers had actually increased the gap.

They also concluded that federal involvement in reducing the excellence gap was negligible. The Javits Scheme – then in operation – did not bring about any substantive improvements.

Moreover:

‘In some cases where the excellence gap appears to be shrinking, this is attributable to a dip in performance at the higher level – rather than all achievers improving their performance, with lower achievers improving at a relatively faster rate.’

Plucker et al recommended that:

• The US Government should make closing the excellence gap a national and state-level priority – and should consider the effect of all new policies in addressing this priority.

• It should also determine the optimal blend of national, state and local interventions to narrow the gap; this would involve more research into effective strategies.

• There should be financial incentives to encourage states, districts and schools to tackle the excellence gap and realistic targets for them to aim at.

• High achievement ceilings should be built into the assessment processes supporting the Common Core Standards then under consideration.

I also made a connection between this study and an earlier report by McKinsey ‘The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America’s Schools’ (2009) which defined two types of ‘top gap’, one based on ethnicity and the other on the gap between top performers/performance in the US and in other countries.

Unfortunately, McKinsey stopped short of quantifying the economic value of reducing either version of the ‘top gap’.

Part Two of this post examined the evidence for a corresponding excellence gap in England, while Part Three discussed the relationship between the excellence gap and fair access to higher education in the UK.

.

Progress Since 2010

So far as is possible in this paywall-restricted context, I want to explore how these different strands of thinking have evolved since 2010.

In order to make the post manageable I have confined myself principally to the writings of the four key protagonists we have already encountered, namely messrs Hanushek, Jerrim, Plucker and Rindermann (as well as their various co-authors).

I have been fortunate to find all the papers referenced below freely available online. I sincerely hope that they will remain so, because they deserve to be widely read.

As you proceed through the remainder of this post, imagine a dartboard. I will try to show where these leading thinkers have brought forward material that is relevant to the argument I have advanced above. Each paper contributes a score on the board by inserting a dart in one or more segments.

.

Photo Credit: mags20_eb via Compfight cc

.

Extending the metaphor, imagine that a bullseye is a full economic justification for the investment in gifted education. How close do these contributors get?

If we piece their contributions together, how far away are we from achieving a bullseye-equalling score from the various darts that have hit the board? Which segments have our selected players failed to hit?

I will tally up the score at the end of the post.

We begin with the excellence gap, drawing principally on work from Plucker and Jerrim, before moving on to consider Hanushek’s more recent work on the impact of high cognitive skills on economic growth and Rindermann’s approach to cognitive competence.

The Excellence Gap

.

Work in the US

It seems that, in the USA at least, further work on the Excellence Gap since 2010 has been rather limited..

‘Mind the (Other) Gap’ said that:

‘A forthcoming report by CEEP will provide evidence that certain state education policies may have a small but positive relationship with shrinking excellence gaps.’

There is a complete set of ‘State profile reports’ but these are exclusively descriptive, failing to establish which state policies are most effective.

It seems that the forthcoming report must still be forthcoming (but meantime Plucker has moved from CEEP, based at the University of Indiana, to the University of Connecticut).

A 2012 publication: ‘Trends in education excellence gaps: a 12-year international perspective via the multilevel model for change’ by Rutkowski, Rutkowski and Plucker is hidden behind a paywall

The abstract suggests that the study uses TIMSS data to examine international trends in excellence gaps focusing particularly on the gender and immigrant status of learners:

‘Specifically, we found evidence of shrinking sex-based excellence gaps in both science and mathematics. With respect to immigrant status and excellence gaps, small gaps in the proportion of advanced achievers persist over time. In the context of large demographic changes worldwide, we argue that these findings are generally encouraging.’

A 2012 presentation by the same authors seems to cover much the same territory and suggests that the analysis utilises the TIMSS advanced international benchmark in maths and science. Conclusions relate to gender and immigrant status only: there is no treatment of socio-economic gaps.

Other presentations are also available at the link given above. One, by Burroughs and Cogan of Michigan State University, also refers to further work on ‘which (if any) state policies mitigate excellence gaps’.

The list it provides of ‘policies associated with smaller SES excellence gaps’ is unsurprising:

• Share of school districts with gifted education administrators
• Requirement of certification for gifted education teachers
• Dedicated gifted education funding
• State approval of district gifted education plans

Another presentation, by Plucker himself, uses the TIMSS Grade 8 maths data to highlight stark international comparisons.

.

.

Using NAEP data, Plucker examines excellence gap trends, concluding that:

‘At the present rate it would take decades (if ever) for the gaps to close’.

He highlights the fact that excellence gaps are distinct from more general achievement gaps:

‘Although achievement gaps are somewhat larger than excellence gaps, there [sic] are also closing more quickly and consistently’.

Moreover:

‘There is no evidence that ANY state has figured out a way to address Excellence Gaps, and many states have laughably low criteria for what constitutes an Advanced student.’

This presentation also references a range of further work:

• ‘Second edition of report in March 2012
• Special report on science excellence gaps in near future
• Special report on the experiences of gifted black males around August 2012
• Report on NAEP excellence gaps in major urban areas around this time next year [ie early 2013]’

Little if any of this seems to have materialised.

Interestingly, a final presentation from June 2012 fails to include the slide containing details of further work. The CEEP website at Plucker’s former University has no further information and Plucker’s page at UConn is similarly coy.

Meantime, the NAGC in the United States has published ‘Unlocking Emergent Talent: Supporting High Achievement of Low-Income High-Ability Students’ (2012). I will review this in more detail in a separate post. It draws on the excellence gap research above and identifies a research agenda for the future.

But conspicuously absent from this, as from all the research I have found, is any effort by economists of education to quantify the cost of the excellence gap and the savings that would accrue from reducing it. Since McKinsey apparently ducked that calculation in 2009, no-one else seems to have attempted it.

.

Important Work in the UK

In the UK Jerrim has also undertaken some work on the excellence gap. In March 2011 he and Vignoles published ‘The use (and misuse) of statistics in understanding social mobility: regression to the mean and the cognitive development of high ability children from disadvantaged homes’

This study revisits the contention that young able learners from disadvantaged backgrounds are subsequently overtaken by their more advantaged peers. The contention seems to originate in work by Feinstein.

He assessed children at 22 months, 42 months, 60 months and 120 months respectively. Learners with high ability were defined as those in the top quartile at the first assessment. Socio-economic background was defined on the basis of parental occupation. Feinstein then traces progress by learners from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds with high and low ability respectively, producing this now famous chart.

.

.

Though the high ability children begin at the same level, those from disadvantaged backgrounds subsequently fall behind their more advantaged peers, and appear to be overtaken by low ability learners from advantaged backgrounds somewhere between the third and fourth assessment.

Jerrim and Vignoles argue that this effect is attributable to regression towards the mean, which can be caused by selection:

‘Regression to the mean due to selection is a statistical phenomenon that occurs when taking repeated measures on the same individual(s) over time. Due to random error, those with a relatively high (or low) score on an initial examination are likely to receive a less extreme mark on subsequent tests. In the context of the results presented above, children defined as ―high ability‖ based on one single exam are not necessarily the most talented in the population. Rather assignment to this group is actually based on children‘s true ability and the “luck” that the child happened to have when sitting that particular assessment (i.e. random error).’

Such regression can also be attributable to lack of comparability between the tests Feinstein used at different ages.

The authors set out findings from their own studies before concluding:

‘There is currently an overwhelming view amongst academics and policymakers that highly able children from poor homes get overtaken by their affluent (but less able) peers before the end of primary school. Although this empirical finding is treated as a stylised fact, the methodology used to reach this conclusion is seriously flawed. After attempting to correct for the aforementioned statistical problem, we find little evidence that this is actually the case Hence we strongly recommend that any future work on high ability disadvantaged groups takes the problem of regression to the mean fully into account.’

One assumes that other work by Jerrim himself – and by Plucker and his associates – manages not to fall foul of this statistical bear-trap. I apologise if any of my selected pieces have been caught by that trap: it should be clear that I do not have the expertise to judge.

The following year, Jerrim published a further study ‘The socio-economic gradient in teenagers’ literacy skills: how does England compare to other countries?’ (2012).

This examines the strength of the relationship between socio-economic background (as measured by parents’ occupation) and reading skills at age 15, based on the PISA 2009 assessment of reading.

It considers the size of the socio-economic effect at different points of the achievement distribution, using nationally defined deciles. This means that the deciles are pitched at different levels in different countries, (but Jerrim notes that his findings would also hold had he used generic deciles instead).

Comparisons are made between the UK and five other countries: Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany and the US, with a view to exploring whether the most able children from disadvantaged backgrounds can match the performance of their advantaged peers. Jerrim explains the relevance of this in terms of social mobility:

‘This has important implications for those concerned with widening access to higher education (particularly to ‘elite’ institutions) and the top professions. In particular, socio-economic differences towards the top of the achievement distribution need to be sufficiently narrow to make such pathways a viable option for disadvantaged groups. If this is not accomplished, then England is unlikely to foster the ‘top-end’ social mobility that many see as a desirable goal.’

Jerrim begins by considering average differences between advantaged and disadvantaged learners in different countries on the basis of PISA 2009 reading test scores. He finds that:

‘By the final year of compulsory schooling, the reading skills of English children from disadvantaged backgrounds are (on average) two-and-a-half years behind those from the most affluent homes.’

But this difference is relatively similar to most other developed countries: England sits comfortably mid-table. This contrasts with the findings of earlier studies suggesting that the socio-economic gap is particularly large in England.

Jerrim next considers the achievement gap for different deciles of the achievement distribution. In the graph below, these deciles are plotted against the gap between the results of advantaged and disadvantaged learners in the six countries named above.

.

.

Jerrim draws out a particularly interesting comparison with Germany. The gradient is steeper in Germany than England at the bottom end of the distribution, representing the lowest achievers. However, the reverse is true in the case of the highest achievers.

In discussing the reasons for this, he suggests that it may be because policy in England is focused disproportionately on ‘the long tail of low achievement’ with comparatively less attention paid to the excellence gap. Another reason might be the relatively greater segregation in English schools, where more advantaged learners are concentrated disproportionately in the better schools. However, the differences in England remain large ‘if one also includes a school-level fixed effect’.

Jerrim next includes a table showing how the socio-economic gap impacts on different deciles of the achievement distribution in a wider range of countries.

.

.

He comments on the difference between the US – where the association between background and achievement is relatively strong across the achievement deciles – and Finland, where the association is comparatively weak.

In England there is a relatively strong link between socio-economic background and high achievement:

‘Socio-economic test score differences at the 80^th percentile are greater here than in 18 out of the other 22 OECD countries considered (and significantly so on 11 occasions). The same is not true, however, at the bottom of the PISA reading test distribution, where England is actually ranked above the median, having smaller socioeconomic test score differences.’

Finally Jerrim considers whether the socio-economic gap has declined since 2000. He finds that, while the average gap has declined and that is repeated at the bottom end of the achievement distribution, this is not true at the top.

.

.

In discussing why this is the case Jerrim draws attention to the impact of the national literacy strategy and criticism that:

‘Initiatives targeting more able children in England (for example, the Gifted and Talented scheme) have, on the other hand, been criticised in the media for not reaching those from lower socio-economic groups.’

But this is somewhat simplistic since it assumes that the resources allocated to these two initiatives were broadly comparable when there was in fact a huge difference between their relative scale and reach.

Jerrim does not rule out the possibility that these changes can be attributed – at least in part – to a decline in academic standards He finds that the narrowing of the gap  appears to have been driven by a relatively greater decline in achievement amongst those from advantaged backgrounds but:

‘Whereas the apparent decline in performance for the top SES quintile seems to have occurred quite evenly across the achievement distribution… the decline suffered by the most disadvantaged group is most apparent at the top end’

He ultimately fails to answer the question whether these differences are relatively more attributable to Government initiatives or to falling standards (which might in part be attributable to Government policy).

However, he concludes that improving the educational achievement of the most able learners from disadvantaged backgrounds should be a priority in England:

‘The key question for policymakers is, of course, ‘How do we reach this goal?’… schemes to raise academically able pupils’ aspirations during secondary school may be important if these have a causal influence on their later attainment. Alternatively, a targeted gifted and talented’ scheme could be introduced, where high-potential children from poor backgrounds are identified at the start of compulsory education and receive sustained investment throughout their time at school.

Much valuable research has suggested that it is most efficient to invest early, but also that inputs are complementary (i.e. that later investment is most effective when it builds on earlier investment). Disadvantaged children who have reached school age doing relatively well should thus be in a particularly strong position to benefit from a period of such sustained investment.

Schemes of this nature could be piloted in the most deprived parts of the country and undergo a thorough evaluation before being rolled out on a national scale. Despite the fiscal limitations that governments are acting under, such investment may be needed in order to reduce England’s comparatively strong association between family background and high achievement, and thus to make pathways to elite higher education institutions and the top professions a viable option for more children from disadvantaged homes.’

As I have said before, aspiration-raising and support for gifted learners need not be mutually exclusive activities.

.

Another (MoreTypical) Perspective

Before I leave this topic, I want to draw attention to the bias that still operates in this territory.

Also in 2012, the IPPR (a UK-based think-tank) published ‘A Long Division: Closing the Attainment Gap in England’s Secondary Schools’

This favourably references Hanushek and Woessmann’s argument that ‘concentrating on both lower level attainment and high performers is complementary in terms of raising skill levels and economic growth at a national level’. But, quite unaccountably this is glossed by the statement:

‘This evidence challenges the popular logic of ignoring those who are struggling for fear of holding back those at the top’

when surely the ‘popular logic’ involves focusing disproportionately on the lower achievers!

This report also examines the proportion of students at different PISA benchmarks in the 2009 reading assessment. The table below shows the percentage at each benchmark for the UK, compared with the OECD average and a set of named ‘key competitors’

.

The Report draws attention to the significant difference in the volume of pupils failing to achieve level 2, compared with the much smaller volume at the higher levels.

While acknowledging that the UK faces ‘a two-horned challenge’ at the top and bottom of the attainment distribution, it uses another calculation – the number of learners who would have to achieve one level for England to have the same distribution as its key competitors – to advance its arguments for concentrating disproportionately at the lower end.

.

.

The text says:

‘It is clear that the biggest challenge – both in terms of the proportion and absolute number of students that need to improve – is raising the achievement of lower performers. Over 80 per cent of the pupils who would need to improve by one level to ensure the UK matches competitor countries come from attainment levels 3 or below.’

But, as we have seen from Jerrim’s research, the story is markedly different when socio-economic background is factored into the equation. Contrary to the IPPR’s suggestion, the excellence gap is important!

Later on the Report goes some way towards acknowledging this:

‘The government is right to be concerned about the low proportion of FSM pupils achieving top grades at GCSE. Ensuring bright pupils from disadvantaged homes are stretched will be important for narrowing the achievement gap. This will require a number of these pupils to raise their performance by the equivalent of one grade in each of their subjects. We estimate that around half of the FSM pupils that currently achieve straight-As would need to achieve straight-A* grades in order eradicate the achievement gap at the very top of the distribution. ‘

But once more this is immediately undermined:

‘While raising achievement at the top is important, it is only a small part of the picture. It is apparent…that there is also a long tail of underachievement among FSM pupils that needs to be tackled.’

Jerrim published his paper in June 2012 while the IPPR report appeared in September. What a pity that the IPPR failed to take account of Jerrim’s critically important findings.

.

The Impact of High Cognitive Skills on Economic Growth

It is high time we shifted our attention from a comparatively narrow focus on the excellence gap to consider wider work by Hanushek and Woessmann on the relationship between high level cognitive skills and economic growth.

Following the trajectory in Hanushek’s own work is comparatively easy since he helpfully provides links to most of his publications (all of the papers below can be accessed from this page).

Back in 2007 in a World Bank publication ‘Education Quality and Economic Growth’, Hanushek and Woessmann asked the question ‘Education for all or rocket scientists – or both?’ or, in other words:

‘Does educational performance at different points in the distribution have separate effects on economic growth?’

Drawing on the now familiar evidence in international comparisons studies, they conclude that there are separate and significant effects:

‘Importantly, the relative size of the effects of performance at the bottom and at the top of the distribution depends on the specification, and further research is needed to yield more detailed predictions. Even so, the evidence strongly suggests that both dimensions of educational performance count for the growth potential of an economy…. In sum, different dimensions of the quality of education seem to have independent positive effects on economic growth. This is true both for basic and top dimensions of educational performance and for the math and science dimensions. Because of the thin country samples, however, one should trust the pattern of results more than the specific estimates’.

We have already seen from my previous posts – summarised above – how this thinking had developed by 2010, but what further progress has been made since then?

In a 2012 paper, a small additional gloss is added, which is nevertheless useful:

‘Many countries have focused on either basic skills or engineers and scientists. In terms of growth, our estimates suggest that developing basic skills and highly talented people reinforce each other. Moreover, achieving basic literacy for all may well be a precondition for identifying those who can reach “rocket scientist” status. In other words, tournaments among a large pool of students with basic skills may be an efficient way to obtain a large share of high-performers.’

Unfortunately, although Hanushek and Woessmann can readily quantify the economic impact of improvements in cognitive skills as measured by international comparisons studies, this is always in generic terms.

In an October 2010 study called ‘How Much Do Educational Outcomes Matter in OECD Countries?’ they use PISA test data and GDP data from the Penn World Tables to map the relationship between these two variables in 24 OECD countries.

They find that an increase of one standard deviation – equivalent to 100 points on the PISA scale – ‘yields an average annual growth rate over 40 years that is 1.86 percentage points higher’.

They go on to consider whether basic skills or ‘top skills’ are more significant for developed countries. They begin by discussing a theory attributed to Vandenbussche et al suggesting that countries should prefer to invest in high skills when ‘close to a technological frontier’ whereas the reverse should be true for countries some distance from such a frontier. However they are not convinced, suggesting that arguments for the opposite effect are at least as strong.

Two analyses are offered, one based on differences between those educated at school and higher education level respectively; the other on the distribution of cognitive skills as measured by PISA test scores of at least 400 and at least 600 (so replicating the earlier study mentioned in my 2010 post).

The commentary below refers to the second analysis which is encapsulated in this table

.

.

The associated commentary notes that:

‘Both skill dimensions enter the model significantly, but the point estimate on the top-skill dimension is substantially higher. A 10 percentage point increase in the basic-skill share is associated with 0.3 percentage points higher annual growth; a 10 percentage point increase in the top-skill share is associated with 1.3 percentage points higher annual growth.’

This is the familiar ‘four times as much from top skills’ conclusion.

But the authors warn that this should not necessarily be taken to signal the relative significance of top skills compared with basic skills, because one has to factor in the feasibility of securing such improvements. It may prove somewhat easier to increase the share of basic skills than the share of top skills. This is particularly likely to be true of countries that are already performing relatively well at the top end.

This may help to explain why these results are not replicated when the analysis is confined solely to OECD countries:

‘When estimating the same model on the OECD sample, though, the point estimate on the top-skill share is only a fourth of the one estimated in the full-country sample and loses statistical significance…By contrast, the point estimate on the basic-skill share is slightly larger than in the full-country sample, and remains highly significant. The…difference in the estimate on the top-skill share between OECD and non-OECD countries is statistically significant.’

But this otherwise surprising disparity is not further explored, as the authors move on to consider the economic value of different education reforms. None of the reforms involves targeted support for high-achieving learners. There is apparently no place for gifted education in the education production function.

Nor do they consider explicitly the economic value of increasing the number of learners who achieve the higher benchmarks on the international comparisons studies.  Instead they use much less specific proxies including:

• improving average student performance by 0.25 of a standard deviation or 25 PISA points;

• bringing all countries to the level of the top performer in PISA (Finland); and

• improving all students to a minimum proficiency level – defined as the 400 point marker on the PISA scale.

None of these is directly relevant to our argument. The broad conclusion is that:

‘Independent of whether the underlying economic model is specified in endogenous-growth or neoclassical terms, improved educational achievement is projected to have a large impact on future economic well-being of OECD countries.’

The same methodology is applied in another study:  ‘The Economic Benefit of Education Reform in the European Union’ (2012) which considers how GDP in the EU and its member states might increase as a consequence of improved educational achievement.

They estimate the impact of bringing each country to the average level achieved by students in Finland (556 points in PISA 2006). Assuming an endogenous growth model:

‘On average, annual EU growth rates would be about one percent higher, reflecting the fact that the average gap with Finland is slightly more than one-half standard deviation on the PISA tests. Across the whole EU, the present value of this educational reform would amount to Euros 95 trillion, or more than 7 times the current GDP of the EU and about 17 percent of the discounted future GDPs over the same time span.’

Alternatively, assuming a neoclassical growth model, the present value of such an improvement amounts to Euros 72 trillion.

The comparable figures for England only are Euros 10,961 billion (endogenous) and Euros 8,393 billion (neoclassical).

It is disappointing that Hanushek and Woessmann seem to have focused their attention on national efforts to reach average levels of high performance in PISA and other international comparisons studies, rather than pursuing their initial distinction between top skills and basic skills.

.

From Intelligence to Cognitive Capitalism

One further Hanushek and Woessmann publication provides a useful link between their work and the parallel efforts of Rindermann.

In 2011, in a Chapter of a Handbook of the Economics: Economics of Education called ‘The Economics of International Differences in Educational Achievement’ the authors draw on many of the findings from their earlier work, but they also include a commentary on parallel models, in the psychological tradition, which seek to explain variations in economic growth through national IQ differences.

These seem to me fundamentally flawed for three reasons. First, they assume a single measure of intelligence (g); second, they appear to rest on the assumption that intelligence is exclusively heritable; and third, there are issues with the data.

Hanushek and Woessmann deal with the second and third of these (though not, apparently, the first):

‘The potential difference from the preceding analysis is the common view that IQs are fixed and not subject to schooling or environmental influences…This fixed-factor view, often related to ideas of the high degree of heritability of IQs, of course is not the uniform view of researchers in the area. Indeed, in the economics literature, Goldberger and Manski (1995) and Heckman (1995) have clear analyses showing that families and schools have strong effects on measured IQ…

The real question with these analyses is what exactly is being measured. The underlying IQ scores by country come from an idiosyncratic collection of national data that relies on specialized samples for specific cohorts and subsets of the population. Thus the question that arises is how much measurement error there is in an underlying skill dimension….

The conclusion from the various models of the impact of national IQ scores on economic outcomes is that IQ provides another potential measure of cognitive skills…Nonetheless, most of the analyses would suggest that this measure is noticeably more error prone than the international test data stressed here.’

The penultimate sentence is perhaps a little more generous than the evidence warrants.

.

Tracing the Evolution of Cognitive Competence Through Rindermann’s Thinking

Before the Smart Fraction

Some of Rindermann’s early papers sought to get round this problem by insisting that achievement – as measured by PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS – and intelligence are fundamentally the same entity.

This is evident in a 2007 paper: ‘Relevance of education and intelligence at the national level for the economic welfare of people’.

This acknowledges that research about intelligence at national level faces problems over the quality of data (so agreeing with Hanushek above) but such issues do not apply to the international comparisons studies like TIMSS and PISA.

Since national IQ results:

‘correlate so highly with the results of international school assessments that the two types of tests appear to measure the same or at least a similar construct’.

Rindermann develops an argument that intelligence tests and international comparisons studies are ‘indicators of one common cognitive ability’.

• At national level the correlations between IQ tests and international comparisons studies are very high (r = 0.80-0.90)

• They both assess thinking and knowledge. Though there is a theoretical difference between these two concepts these ‘two intertwined ability components are difficult to separate. Knowledge is always required to solve the kinds of task that individuals are confronted with in everyday life or that are used in cognitive ability tests. And thinking ability helps to increase and use knowledge.’

• Therefore the two types of test ‘are alternative measures of an homogenous construct’ so one can reasonably generate a composite score from the two combined.

• This will provide a ‘concise measure of knowledge-reduced intelligence, of (as valuable and true estimated) knowledge and of thinking skills that are needed to make use of this knowledge’.

The paper proceeds to demonstrate the international distribution of such a composite score and its correlation with other variables, as well as the impact on GDP.

The average score is derived from a complex aggregation of Lynn and Vanhanen’s IQ database and a vast range of international comparisons studies (IEA reading, TIMSS, PIRLS and PISA for various years).

Rindermann points out close correlations between the results and the evidence of the quality of national education systems as well as various attributes of society. The correlation with GDP stands at (r = 0.63)

Another 2007 paper, ‘The g-Factor of International Cognitive Ability Comparisons: The Homogeneity of Results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-Tests Across Nations’ makes a similar argument, acknowledging my first reservation above – that this position rests on an understanding that there is a single measure of cognitive ability – the g factor – which correlates with student achievement.

Rindermann discusses the term that should be used to describe these competences assessed through IQ tests and international comparisons studies alike:

‘The sum value of different student assessment scales or of student assessment and intelligence test scales represents a combination of intelligence and knowledge. Knowledge itself has to be assessed normatively by its truthfulness and relevance. Pure knowledge questions (about true and important content) are only indirect measures of intelligence. A term that encompasses both intelligence and knowledge could be general complex (individual and national) cognitive ability.

In a subsequent study dating from 2009 ‘Educational Policy and Country Outcomes in International Cognitive Competence Studies’, Rindermann and Ceci investigate the  extent to which national differences in this composite ‘cognitive competence’ measure are explainable by different aspects of their education systems.

They explore six ‘paradigms’ to explain such differences:

• Culture – the support that different cultures give to ‘cognitively stimulating education, rationality in thinking and everyday behaviour, reading, diligence, and thinking oriented toward reasonable standards (vs. rote learning, authoritarianism and traditionalism)’.

• Genes – the controversial idea that there are genetic differences operating at national level (which is explored extensively elsewhere in the psychological research literature).

• Wealth – the notion that wealth originates in factors such as engagement in trade and colonialism and improves cognitive competence through improved health and nutrition. (Rindermann and Ceci clearly favour the argument that intelligence drives wealth rather than vice versa.)

• Politics – the impact of democracy, the rule of law, political liberty and suchlike.

• Geography – through the impact of genetic theories, or the transmission of effects between geographically proximate countries which ‘learn more often from their near and related neighbours than they do from those living in regions far away. They adapt their customs and they benefit from their neighbours’ progress in education and wealth by imitation, by migration, through investments, or by melding their cultures and peoples.’

• Education – ‘Not only is education an important source of within-country cognitive competence differences, it is probably also an important source of between-country differences. Although evidence for the importance of education on cognitive development does not rule out the importance of non- educational factors (culture, genes, wealth, politics, and geography) as determinants of cognitive development and the possibility of reciprocal causation… a focus on education allows researchers to formulate suggestions for the improvement of educational policy with the probability that they will result in higher cognitive competences that ultimately will contribute to increased wealth, democratization, and better health for society.’

The study examines 16 educational factors that research has associated with positive student outcomes and their correlation with Rindermann’s cognitive competence measure, derived from a blend of intelligence and international comparisons studies.

The overall finding is that:

‘Across the several analyses that we conducted, six important predictors of national competence emerge: (a) the general educational level of adults, (b) kindergarten attendance, (c) discipline (school appropriate behaviour), (d) amount of education of students in given age (including the amount of instruction per year, attendance at additional schools, and attendance of high grades at a young age), (e) use of high-stakes exit tests and central objective exams, and (f) early tracking. In addition, some evidence also points to beneficial effects of early school enrolment, small classes (including high teacher–pupil ratio), direct instruction, and a low rate of grade retention.’

The reference to early tracking (aka setting) is particularly interesting given that the OECD takes a contrary view in its analysis of PISA outcomes.

Rindermann and Ceci argue that:

‘Tracking appears to be valuable when it is oriented toward competences measured by objective exams and not used to limit one’s final possible educational degree at a young age, as seen in systems that stream students into pre-collegiate or vocational tracks at a young age. One benefit of early tracking systems could be meeting the special educational needs of intellectually gifted students… But if high-ability students are adequately challenged in non-tracked school systems (e.g., by streamed classes within schools, by acceleration or skipping classes, by maintenance of ambitious learning goals for all students, or by enrichment courses), tracking between schools would not be necessary.’

.

After the Smart Fraction

These studies predate the work I described in my previous post on the smart fraction, but where did Rindermann’s thinking move to following that study?

In 2011, Rindermann and Thompson published ‘Cognitive Capitalism: The Effect of Cognitive Ability on Wealth, as Mediated Through Scientific Achievement and Economic Freedom’

This discusses the various origins of an ‘Intellectual Class Hypothesis’ in a manner highly redolent of my own blog post:

‘The intellectual-class hypothesis posits that individuals who are cognitively highly competent should have a positive effect on affluence, politics, and culture in their society. Several authors have referred to this phenomenon implicitly or explicitly; for example, Florida (2002) refers to the “creative class,” Hanushek and Woessmann (2009) speak of “rocket scientists,” Pritchett and Viarengo (2009) refer to “global performers,” and La Griffe du Lion (2002) calls the intellectual class the “smart fraction” of the population (see also Gelade, 2008; Weiss, 2009). Unlike with other forms of capital, there are no diminishing returns for cognitive ability: The higher the cognitive ability and the more persons at higher cognitive levels, the better. Performing research at the level of individual differences, Park, Lubinski, and Benbow (2008) found that even among the top 1% of cognitively competent persons, the upper quartile (rank 99.75) unambiguously outperformed the lower quartile (rank 99.25) in scientific and technological fields, as measured by science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) publications and patents.’

Different definitions of the smart fraction are discussed – those exceeding an IQ or student assessment threshold, and those defined in statistical terms, eg at the 90^th, 95^th or 99^th percentile. The authors select the latter option.

They discuss limitations of the Hanushek and Woessmann approach and of Rindermann’s own 2009 paper.

The latter fell short because: it used GDP as an indicator of wealth rather than ‘log GDP’ which would give relatively more value to increased wealth at lower levels than at higher levels; 42 of 90 countries were missing from the analysis; the three cognitive ability levels deployed were highly correlated with each other, so exposing them to ‘unstable path coefficients and suppressor effects’; it failed to explore the impact of other possible determinants of wealth; and, finally, it did not explore ‘the hypothesis that the development and functionality of economic institutions themselves could depend  on cognitive ability, especially on the cognitive ability of an intellectual class.’

On this occasion the authors compare three ability levels – the mean, 95^th and 5^th percentiles. TIMSS, PISA and PIRLS data is used to calculate ‘mean ability values’ for 90 countries. The results are aggregated and standardised on a common scale with UK at 100. (This they call the ‘Greenwich IQ’).

The three ability levels are correlated with several different variables:

• Scientific and technological excellence measured through patent rates, Nobel prizes in science, number of scientists, and high technology exports, with all results adjusted for population size.

• Economic freedom, including ‘property rights, rule of law, low customs, taxes, government-spending ratio and trade restrictions’.

• The education level of society, a composite derived from adult literacy rates, graduation from secondary school and years of school attendance.

• Excellence in science, maths and technology from 800BC to 1950 ‘as measured by the eminence and number of important scientists in a country’.

The results are presented in the charts below. The first uses Rindermann’s percentiles; the second adopts Hanushek and Woessmann’s approach of utilising PISA scores of 400+ and 600+ respectively.

.

.

. 

The study concludes:

‘In modern society, the cognitive level of the intellectual class and its relative size are more important for economic development than are the mean cognitive level or the cognitive level and relative size of lower-ability groups. STEM achievements depend on the level of cognitive ability of the intellectual class; additionally, the intellectual class’s ability level positively influences wealth by increasing economic freedom. We confirmed this result using different measures of the ability and percentage of intellectual classes, different country samples, different time intervals and historical periods, and different statistical methods. The results underscore the relevance of human capital for the wealth of nations, more particularly, the relevance of the intellectual classes, as mediated by high accomplishment in STEM and by economic freedom.

In concrete numbers, an increase of 1 IQ point in the intellectual class raises the average GDP by $468 U.S., whereas an increase of 1 IQ point in the cognitive ability of the mean raises average GDP by $229 U.S….

… Wealth in modern times is the result of cognitive capitalism. Cognitive capitalism refers to the idea that the cognitive ability of society as a whole, and of its cognitive elite in particular, is the prerequisite for the development of technological progress, for the historic development of modern society with its increasing cognitive demands and complexity, and for the wealth furthering norms and institutions that form the core of the capitalist system (economic freedom, free markets, rule of law, property rights). In effect, cognitive ability is crucial in creating and sustaining a high-achievement milieu leading not only to economic growth and wealth, but also to a democratic and free society.’

The concept of cognitive capitalism is further developed in a 2012 study called ‘Intellectual classes, technological progress and economic development: The rise of cognitive capitalism.’

This considers whether intelligence leads to wealth or vice versa, whether other factors are involved and, assuming that intelligence produces wealth, how that is achieved.

Unsurprisingly, Rindermann concludes that intelligence does indeed produce wealth. There are reciprocal effects but these are relatively weaker. He suggests that:

‘Each IQ point increase in the nineteen sixties has raised wealth in 2000 by US $279. Each $1000 GDP increase in 1970 has increased cognitive competence in2000 by 0.23 IQ points.’

He proceeds to advance a more refined theory of cognitive competence to explain how this happens. It is partly attributable to the aggregated effect of the relationship between individuals’ intelligence and their performance at work, but there are several more significant national effects in play:

• The cognitive ability of the political class, which is critical to the competence of government;

• The quality of various national institutions – government and administration, courts, companies, police, armed services, schools and universities.

• Social factors – ‘as cognitive development benefits from the intelligence level of one’s social environment…intelligence of others is important for nurturing individuals’ intelligence. During youth the intelligence of parents, teachers and classmates is important, in adulthood that of colleagues and neighbors, at the level of society the competence of politicians, entrepreneurs, scientists, and intellectuals’.

• Impact on the political orientations and behaviour of individuals – ‘Intelligence contributes to a general pattern of cognitive rationality including the formation of more reasonable worldviews.’ Intelligence also helps to shape culture and impact on the development of ‘democracy, political liberty and rule of law’

Perhaps aware that some of this sounds a little grandiose – a touch hyperbolic – Rindermann offers an important health warning:

‘However, cognitive ability is not the single determinant of all these outcomes. There are additional factors behind and beneath ability, and between ability and the positive outcomes. And of course, intelligence has no deterministic effect, in the sense that intelligence always leads to the aforementioned results. Intelligence only increases the probability of these outcomes.’

Then he factors the smart fraction into his argument, however that might be defined:

‘Highly able intellectual classes are necessary to manage growing complexity in technology, economy and everyday life. Especially in modern times, wealth depends mainly on technological progress…and this depends on cognitive ability – in particular of the smartest members within a society. Hanushek and Woessmann…found that the level of ‘‘rocket scientists’’ is more important for growth than the mean level of a society or the percentage of people above a low threshold (around IQ 85). But ‘‘rocket scientists’’ as category would be too narrow because for a functioning society not only exceptional scientists and engineers are necessary, but also ‘‘normal’’ scientists and engineers maintaining daily business, also officials, politicians, teachers, and – as Schumpeter (1939) mentioned – entrepreneurs and their primarily cognitively based abilities of economic process innovations and economically successful use of inventions shifting the conventional ways of production, trade and consumption.’

Intriguingly, he begins to expose a new dimension which suggests that this is not simply a matter of individual cognitive competence: there is also a ‘network dimension’:

‘Here it is less the individual’s cognitive competence which is relevant, but more the cognitive competence of social networks, institutions and societies in their interplay (engineers and entrepreneurs, scientists and engineers, politicians and officials, consumers and producers, scientists and editors, universities and companies…Cognitive competence increases with use, and becomes the main capital in the modern production process…’

He then presents a reanalysis using data from Hanushek and Woessmann’s previous study, though the results seem somewhat less convincing than one might have hoped.

.

.

Nevertheless Rindermann draws the conclusion that:

‘Scientific-technological excellence and economic freedom depend more on the size of a smart fraction. Wealth depends more on scientific-technological excellence than on economic freedom…. Economic freedom, the rules and institutions enabling a free economy, depends also on an intellectual class. It seems that not only wealth, but even capitalism depends on the size and cognitive level of a high ability group within society. Capitalism in modernity is a cognitive one!’

.

Reviewing the Dartboard

We come to the end of a lengthy and intellectually demanding review of a body of research from several different sources, each of which contributes something to our emerging understanding of the economics of gifted education.

It is not straightforward to sum up the key points in a set of bullet points, but here is my best effort. I’ve set out the points in the order they appear above. Imagine each bullet as a dart somewhere in my imaginary dartboard:

• The pool of high achievers in schools feeds the human capital pipeline which provides the critical mass of highly-skilled employees in the workforce necessary to drive innovation and economic growth.

• There is a gap between the supply of high achievers we produce in England and the supply of high achievers generated by the Asian countries that dominate international comparisons studies. The gap tends to increase between the end of primary school and the end of secondary school.

• Even if this is attributable to cultural factors (such as willingness to invest in private tuition and devote extra time to learning) that cannot be replicated here, the Government may need to develop suitable education policy responses.

• In the US, although excellence gaps are smaller than achievement gaps, they are closing more slowly and less consistently. There is no evidence that any state has identified a solution to its excellence gap.

• In England, some of the evidence that high ability learners from disadvantaged backgrounds are subsequently overtaken by lower ability learners from advantaged backgrounds is undermined by the statistical effect of regression to the mean.

• On the evidence of PISA test scores in reading, socio-economic achievement gaps in England are higher than comparator countries at the top end of the ability distribution, whereas the overall gap is broadly similar and, at the bottom, England has a gap smaller than the median. This may be because attention is focused disproportionately on the ‘long tail of low achievement’.

• While the average gap in England has declined since 2000, as has the gap at the low end of the achievement distribution, the opposite is true at the top end where the gap is widening. This may again be attributable to the relative reach, scale and effectiveness of different policy interventions. It may also be attributable to a decline in standards which, at the top end, has impacted disproportionately on those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

• A targeted gifted and talented programme is one appropriate policy intervention to address the excellence gap which could be piloted locally and rolled out nationally. Such investment may be necessary despite the fiscal limitations that currently apply

• There are separate and significant effects on economic growth from the bottom and the top of the achievement distribution. Developing basic skills and highly talented people are mutually reinforcing (and the latter probably depends on the former). There is evidence that improvements at the top end have a bigger impact on growth, though these may be harder to secure.

• There is a significant research literature suggesting that national IQ differences have a significant impact on economic growth, but this is undermined by the assumptions upon which that research depends.

• Attempts have been made to suggest that intelligence tests and international comparisons studies are essentially measuring the same ‘cognitive competence’. There is certainly a strong correlation between them (but this is not quite the same thing as seeing them as fundamentally the same construct).

• Some educational factors are more associated with ‘cognitive competence than others’, yet no work has been found that positions gifted education programmes within the education production function, either generally or for the top end of the achievement distribution.

• There is evidence to suggest that the cognitive level of the smart fraction and its size are more important for economic growth than the mean cognitive level or the cognitive level and size of low-achieving groups.

• Growth is the product of cognitive capitalism which is vested disproportionately in the smart fraction. This also impacts positively on the political class and a wide range of national institutions. Countries need ‘rocket scientists’ but the level below this is even more significant. There may be a network dimension to cognitive capitalism, where the value is derived from groups working collaboratively, rather than solely from the individuals.

When it comes to mapping those conclusions against my initial premiss, which of the elements have been addressed and so how close are we to the ultimate objective I proposed?

It seems to me that:

• This evidence base reflects the balance between excellence and equity in gifted education.

• It incorporates the smart fraction and the excellence gap, though none of the studies links the two concepts and looks systematically at the relationship between them.

• That said, there is abundant evidence that each of these concepts contributes to the supply of human capital and impacts positively on economic growth.

• There is recognition that both must be tackled systematically during schooling and some support for doing so through a dedicated programme that would be rolled out nationally.

• The evidence base is confined to reading, maths and science – the focus of the leading international comparisons studies – and there is particularly strong emphasis on STEM. There is no reference within this evidence base to the benefits accruing from talent in, say, arts and sports.

• There is some focus on additional benefits from the smart fraction in areas such as political leadership, governance and national institutions and on the positive impact on social mobility from reducing the excellence gap. However, wider spillover benefits are not addressed.

• Finally, there is no attempt within this evidence base to calculate the costs and benefits of a national gifted education programme, so demonstrating that the flow of benefits substantively exceeds the cost.

All of which suggests that there remains a huge agenda to address in this emerging field I have called the economics of gifted education.

There is still a pressing need to bring economists of education and gifted educators together to explore this territory, even though it would appear that some of the initial advances from gifted educators have been spurned.

We really need a champion in the economics of education to act as a conduit on that side of the fence. Step forward volunteers!

.

Final Thoughts (and the Gifted Phoenix Equation!)

Having regaled you recently with a Gifted Phoenix Manifesto and a Gifted Phoenix Premiss, I feel compelled to inflict on an unsuspecting world the third leg of a self-promotional hat-trick: the Gifted Phoenix Equation!

This applies only to the criterion-referenced method of determining the smart fraction, as opposed to the norm-referenced method which assumes that the fraction is a fixed proportion. (The former incorporates a quantitative as well as a qualitative dimension, whereas the latter is confined to the qualitative. That is a significant distinction which is not discussed extensively in the papers I have reviewed.)

Is it the case that:

Minimising the Excellence Gap  [Equity]

plus

Maximising the Smart Fraction (the size of the fraction and its average level of achievement)   [Excellence]

equals

Maximum impact from high achievers on National Economic Growth?

.

Min EG + Max SF (Number + Av score) = Max EG impact?

.

Is Rindermann right when he says there are no diminishing returns on investment in high level human capital, or can a country have too much of a good thing?

Isn’t it possible to generate too large a smart fraction, creating an over-supply of under-employed highly-skilled labour that might then find occupation in dissent, or even crime?

In which case, is there an optimal size for the smart fraction that should be incorporated into the Gifted Phoenix Equation?

Assuming there is not already an answer to that question, I hereby lay down the Gifted Phoenix Challenge – to find one!

.

GP

March 2013

I woke last night with the conviction that I should draw up a basic credo, setting out some core principles derived from the experience of writing this blog.

I have set aside all questions of terminology, definition and identification because they are inherently divisive and attract disproportionate attention. Let us suspend disbelief for a moment and assume that we can work together through broad consensus on such matters.

There is a strong economic focus because that is a current predilection – and because the economic arguments are too rarely advanced and often underplayed. They deserve to be paramount in our current financial predicament. I plan to revisit soon the economic case for gifted education. [NB: That post appears here.]

So…What do you support? Where do you disagree? What have I missed?

 .

.

Why Invest in Gifted Education?

Gifted education is about balancing excellence and equity. That means raising standards for all while also raising standards faster for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Through combined support for excellence and equity we can significantly increase our national stock of high level human capital and so improve economic growth.

High achievers are needed to feed the STEM pipeline and contribute to other areas of the ‘knowledge economy’ which is becoming increasingly important as a consequence of globalisation.

While STEM and IT have an obvious value, it is a mistake to assume that some fields do not contribute to human capital. There are important spillover benefits to society from many fields where the contribution to economic growth is less pronounced. We should avoid the temptation to prioritise STEM above all else.

Excellence in gifted education is about maximising the proportion of high achievers reaching advanced international benchmarks (eg PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS) so increasing the ‘smart fraction’ which contributes to economic growth

Equity in gifted education is about narrowing (and ideally eliminating) the excellence gap between high achievers from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds (which may be attributable in part to causes other than poverty). This also increases the proportion of high achievers, so building the ‘smart fraction’ and contributing to economic growth.

Countries that invest systematically in developing high level human capital recognise that this process begins in compulsory education or even in pre-school education. It cannot be delayed until higher education and employment. They have well-developed national gifted education programmes to secure system-wide engagement in maximising high achievement.

We can estimate:

• The financial benefits of narrowing the excellence gap and

• The impact on economic growth (GDP) of increasing the smart fraction

The cost of gifted education can be offset against these significant benefit streams to justify the investment and quantify the net value.

There are also microeconomic benefits to gifted education – the personal rate of return on high achievement – as well as a potentially significant contribution to social mobility on the equity side. There are many other strong arguments in favour of investment in (potential) high achievers built on educational, ethical and personal development grounds.

.

What Needs Doing? How?

What form should a national investment in gifted education take?

There should be integrated support for learners, educators and parents/carers, to maximise the benefits from synergy between these streams.

Five areas of engagement should also be synergised: learning, professional development, advocacy, research and policy-making.

System-wide solutions should not be exclusively ‘top down’ because they tend to be overly prescriptive, demotivating and inhibit innovation.

But neither should solutions be exclusively ‘bottom up’ because they tend towards competition (rather than collaboration), fragmentation, patchiness of provision and the recycling of mediocrity.

Solutions must draw on the best of both top-down and bottom-up strategies through a middle way that:

• Provides a universal, unifying ‘flexible framework’ that sets common standards and applies to every setting;

• Nevertheless gives settings sufficient autonomy within a common framework to innovate, develop and implement diverse approaches;

• Effectively promotes and supports system-wide collaboration, within and across the three populations and five areas of engagement mentioned above.

A Twenty-First Century learning environment is multi-faceted and multimedia. Whether we are learning in school or as adult lifelong learners, we no longer rely exclusively on didactic teaching in a classroom environment.

School teachers are facilitators, helping gifted learners to synthesise different strands into a coherent learning package. Out-of-school learning must be fully integrated with the school experience; bolt-on enrichment has limited value.

Enrichment, extension and acceleration are overlapping concepts. All three can be combined effectively in different proportions according to learners’ needs. Gifted learners have relatively little in common and widely different needs. It follows that personalised provision is essential.

Social networking and social media can play a very important part in efficiently supporting system-wide collaboration by linking together the wider gifted education community – not just educators but parents/carers, learners, governors, researchers and so on.

Open access to research helps ensure that our collective stock of knowledge about effective gifted education can be shared freely, rather than being rationed or confined to subsets of the community. The existing stock of research must be made more accessible.

Freely available learning opportunities and professional development resources should also be systematically curated and disseminated. Different parts of the gifted education community can develop new learning, knowledge and understanding through their interaction with these resources. Service providers can advertise their wares to potential customers and identify opportunities for partnership and collaboration.

It is not always necessary to develop solutions specific to gifted education if effective generic solutions are already in place. There are strong arguments in favour of integration rather than silo-based provision.

But generic improvements to the education system – eg raising the quality of teaching, investing in school improvement – will not inevitably bring about improvements in gifted education, or such improvements may be less significant or take longer to accrue than those achieved through targeted intervention.

Success depends on active engagement across the system. It involves confronting ideological resistance and striving to find mutually acceptable ways forward. Support for gifted learners must never be at the expense of other learners within the system but, equally, gifted learners have an equal right to such support.

Success also depends on inclusive collaboration amongst the gifted education community. We must set aside fundamental disagreements over the nature and direction of gifted education to achieve the common purpose outlined above.

We must move away determinedly from the disagreements, factions, cliques, petty rivalries, self-promotion and empire-building that characterise the community and work co-operatively together for the benefit of all gifted learners. Everyone’s contribution must be welcomed and valued.

Despite the benefits for national economic growth, this is a global endeavour. We must work across national boundaries, avoiding the temptation to focus exclusively in our own jurisdictions. No country has a monopoly on good practice; every country can learn learn from the experience of others.

The gifted education community is a very broad church, but there is greater strength in unity than in a fragmented approach.

.

Kew Gardens courtesy of Gifted Phoenix

.

.

Postscript 1: A Vision for Delivery

A few weeks have passed and I have been reflecting again on how we might bring about improvements in line with the Manifesto. The following material was prepared with an eye to the UK (GT Voice) but should hopefully be relevant to other countries, as well as to continents (EU Talent Centre) and the global context (World Council).

It is the current iteration of an argument I have been promulgating since 2010, but it is still very much a ‘work in progress’.  I’ve even been tinkering with the words since I first published it!

My vision, set in the UK national context, is one in which:

• All learning settings and providers of gifted education need ready access to a universal national network that supports their efforts to continuously improve their quality of service, making it the best that it can be. There should be a ‘one stop shop’ where they can go for help to diagnose their strengths and weaknesses, to build on the strengths and rectify the weaknesses.

• Learning settings need this network to collaborate in developing effective practice and sharing it as widely as possible. But it should be equally inclusive on the supply side. All providers of gifted education services should be strongly encouraged to join it, in recognition that remaining outside will weaken our collective, collaborative effort to meet fully the needs of all gifted learners. The network should be equally welcoming to, and inclusive of, learners themselves, parents/carers, researchers and policy-makers.

• The network should be developed on ‘flexible framework’ principles as set out above. A set of universal core standards would be drafted, consulted on and adopted. All parties would commit to them. They would be framed so as to embody the essential underpinnings of effective practice at all levels of the system, across all learning settings and up to national (and even international) engagement. They would be deliberately flexible, to permit innovation and adaptation or adjustment to meet particular needs and circumstances. Subsets of the network would be able to develop and promulgate their own badged models, but all would need to comply with this core framework. It would be kept under review and adjusted as necessary on a cyclical basis. Negotiation of the framework would be a critical exercise in consensus-building across all stakeholders.

• In the initial stage of development, the network would support a primarily market-driven approach. Providers of services would advertise their wares and settings their needs. The purpose of the network would be to match-make between the demand and supply sides, giving the demand side access to more choice and the supply side access to more potential customers. (The model recognises that the demand and supply sides are not mutually exclusive, in that many learning settings will also be providers of services to others outside those settings.)

• Collaboration would involve the elimination of existing ‘closed shop’ arrangements whereby some settings can only choose from specified providers, and the restrictive practices that mean many smaller providers are frozen out by larger organisations’ use of  ‘approved’ consultants and sub-contractors. It would no longer be acceptable to rig the market in this way.

• Over time, the network would transition towards a more coherent approach, enabling settings with common issues to learn with and from each other without any geographical or sectoral restrictions and service providers to offer a seamless package of high quality support to all regardless of their sector or location (while also protecting a degree of choice for settings when selecting providers).

• The network might develop a core administrative function that all service providers could draw on in return for an annual  subscription. This would enable it to have its own staff resource, which it would need to set up and maintain the network. (These functions cannot be managed without a dedicated human resource.) This income flow could generate savings for providers by eliminating duplication and generating economies of scale.

• Over time the network might also develop a small tranche of its own core services, such as an annual conference, publications for sale outside the network, consultancy services to third parties (eg abroad). These should cover the network’s costs, so that it can become entirely self-sufficient, but should not be developed beyond this point, otherwise the network becomes a direct competitor to the service providers it exists to serve.

• Such a network would have significant development and running costs, up to the point where it achieved self-sufficiency. Initial development costs would have to be secured through a combination of fundraising, sponsorship, advertising revenue and/or bids for support from appropriate funding pots.

• In the first instance, prior to establishment of an administrative core and network services, running costs might be met by a small annual subscription paid by each learning setting and each provider belonging to the network. The annual flow of benefits to every member should be greater than the cost of this subscription.

• Light touch monitoring would be needed to ensure that all settings receive the quality of service to which they are entitled and all providers avoid the temptation to carve up the market for their own benefit. Sanctions would need to be agreed. Any escalation would be handled within the network rather than by a third party.

• The network would operate on a ‘blended’ basis combining a sophisticated online dimension – conducted on social networking principles – with a more traditional face-to-face element. The social networking component is critical to sustaining a fully national network at relatively low cost.

• The network would also operate as a vehicle for collaborative advocacy, research and policy development. One early project might be to draw together the full range of stakeholder interests to develop a ‘gifted curriculum’ which English school settings might introduce in place of the national curriculum (if they have that freedom) or alongside the prescribed programme of study (if they have not). This would define what the very strongest learners might achieve and then strive to bring as many learners as possible as close as possible to that outcome. 

This is admittedly an idealistic vsion. It should be achievable, but only through sustained and determined collaborative effort. Providers with an existing market niche would need to be prepared to abandon all protectionism. The biggest potentially have furthest to fall, so vested interests are powerful and will be hardest to overcome.

All of us would need to be aware that, if the network was perfectly successful, there would no longer be any need for separate fiefdoms in the territory. Some organisations might go to the wall, but the overall quality of gifted education would improve almost immeasurably as a consequence.

.

Postscript 2: Comments on the Original Text

I am most grateful to colleagues who have taken the trouble to comment positively on this text, whether via the comments facility below or via Twitter and Facebook.

We have also had some interesting discussions on Facebook about the economic justification for gifted education which I have reproduced below for ease of reference.

.

.

Postscript 3: #gtie chat on the Manifesto, Sunday 24th March 2013

The original text of the Manifesto has been featured on the Gifted and Talented Ireland Blog and on Twitter in a #gtie chat on Sunday 24th March 2013.

.

#gtchat The most important statement on Gifted education this year bit.ly/Yd1wBi @GiftedPhoenix—
Peter Lydon (@peter_lydon) March 21, 2013

.

The full transcript of the chat can be found here.

I have also published my own selective transcript on Storify, with the Tweets reordered so the conversation is easier to follow.

It is unfortunately no longer possible to embed a Storify product on a wordpress-hosted blog, but here are a few contributions to give you the flavour of the discussion. Apologies if this doesn’t cover everyone’s contribution to what was a really helpful discussion.

For further reflections on the chat, including some very kind words about this Blog, please see:

• this Review on the Gifted and Talented Network Ireland Blog and

• this post on the Irish Gifted Education Blog.

I really am very grateful for their positive feedback and support.

I’m going to reflect awhile before attempting another edit of the Manifesto. Please don’t hesitate to use the comments facility below if you have further views, suggested contributions or ideas for how the Manifesto might be put to good use.

.

#gtie Welcome 2 chat on giftedness from Ireland; Topic tonight is 'The Gifted Phoenix Manifesto for Gifted Education' bit.ly/Vr6dou—
Peter Lydon (@peter_lydon) March 24, 2013

.

I thought the gifted manifesto was brilliant. What are you guys looking for it to do? #gtie—
Paula White  (@paulawhite) March 24, 2013

.

@GiftedPhoenix Masterful job. #gtie—
Jerry Blumengarten (@cybraryman1) March 24, 2013

.

@peter_lydon I suppose I wrote it as a potential programme for change. A text that might attract broad consensus which advocates… #gtie—
  (@GiftedPhoenix) March 24, 2013

.

@GiftedPhoenix As an ex-policy maker, do you think they really are "persuadable"? #gtie—
Catherine Riordan (@Frazzlld) March 24, 2013

.

@Frazzlld We in the UK are currently searching for the answer to sluggish economic growth and I'm convinced gifted ed's part of that #gtie—
  (@GiftedPhoenix) March 24, 2013

.

Has anyone linked gifted with the needed changes in mental health, teen suicide, etc…? Existential crises, depression, anxiety. #gtie—
Heidi Hass Gable (@HHG) March 24, 2013

.

I think the manifesto is very timely. with common core standards in states, much concern about common standard students #gtie—
Tami (@yesteach) March 24, 2013

.

#gtie @GiftedPhoenix Ideas in the Manifesto such as open research and a one-stop shop are excellent ideas—
Peter Lydon (@peter_lydon) March 24, 2013

.

@peter_lydon Thanks. The hiding of research behind huge paywalls is probably my biggest frustration. It just seems crazy to me… #gtie—
  (@GiftedPhoenix) March 24, 2013

.

#gtie @GiftedPhoenix You're based in the UK and I know you warn against policy tourism; Does the Manifesto have a global fit?—
Peter Lydon (@peter_lydon) March 24, 2013

.

@peter_lydon I've tried to make it so. The first postscript is focused more on England but the main text is hopefully global in reach #gtie—
  (@GiftedPhoenix) March 24, 2013

.

@GiftedPhoenix how does your manifesto not fit all kids? I see it as a way to bring attention to GT–but if you took out "gifted"? #gtie—
Paula White  (@paulawhite) March 24, 2013

.

@paulawhite Maybe it does, though I'm particularly interested in the economic case for investment at the 'top end' – 'smart fraction' #gtie—
  (@GiftedPhoenix) March 24, 2013

.

#gtie @GiftedPhoenix Can I ask how you think the 'gifted industry' will respond over time to the Manifesto?—
Peter Lydon (@peter_lydon) March 24, 2013

.

@peter_lydon There's been loads of interest outside the UK, but next to nothing here. Part of the problem imho is that the manifesto.. #gtie—
  (@GiftedPhoenix) March 24, 2013

.

@peter_lydon …is critical of the cliques and empire-builders that are so dominant in our field. They'll naturally resist it #gtie—
  (@GiftedPhoenix) March 24, 2013

.

You've given me some good leads about ways in which I might strengthen the Mnaifesto. But is anything else missing? #gtie—
  (@GiftedPhoenix) March 24, 2013

.

@GiftedPhoenix #gtie I think you could build the economics argument into it stronger – as in the Economics post.—
Peter Lydon (@peter_lydon) March 24, 2013

.

@GiftedPhoenix also liked the suggestion in the comments to make an abstract/ 250 word synopsis. #gtie—
Paula White  (@paulawhite) March 24, 2013

.

@paulawhite I couldn't manage it. Thought for a while but decided it would impoverish the argument. Tried to weigh every word. #gtie—
  (@GiftedPhoenix) March 24, 2013

.

I've really enjoyed getting back into the swing of a Twitter chat – and you've given me some real food for thought. #gtie—
  (@GiftedPhoenix) March 24, 2013

.

.

GP

March 2013

Do you ever get engaged with an educational issue, try to interest and involve others and find you are flogging a dead horse?

It’s difficult to know whether you alone can see the significance of the issue in question, or whether you have identified an imaginary problem, or something which has no real importance to others, perhaps because they understand things better than you; can see their way through more clearly.

I feel that way about assessment under the new National Curriculum. So, in an effort to clarify – for myself as well as others – whether or not there is a real point to address, let me restate the case.

I have been worrying away against this bone (of contention?) for some time. Consequently I feel rather less secure about some of this argument than normal so, if I have got something seriously wrong, do please help me to understand what it is!

.

The National Curriculum Expert Panel

Back in December 2011, the National Curriculum Expert Panel published its Report ‘A Framework for the National Curriculum’

Chapter 7 of the Report is about The Form of Programmes of Study and Attainment Targets. (For ease of reference I shall adopt the shorthand ‘PoS’ and ‘ATs’ other than in direct quotations. The emboldening in those quotations is mine.)

The Chapter begins by distinguishing between the two:

‘Programmes of Study highlight the focus of teaching and learning activities and how they might be developed. Attainment Targets are intended to make clear the learning outcomes that are expected as a result of experiencing the Programme of Study. Whilst the former describes what should be taught (‘recommended routes to attainment’), the latter confirms the standard expected (that ‘one has arrived’).’

After highlighting the importance of precision in ATs – and a lack of precision in the level descriptions within the current National Curriculum – the Panel opines that:

‘Attainment Targets in the presently established level descriptor form should not be retained…Instead, and consistent with separating ‘what is to be taught’ from ‘statements of standards’, we suggest an approach in which the Programme of Study is stated as a discursive statement of purposes, anticipated progression and interconnection within the knowledge to be acquired. Attainment Targets should then be statements of specific learning outcomes related to essential knowledge. This approach has the benefit of greater precision – both in orienting teaching and giving a clear rationale for teaching content – and in respect of assessment, since the Attainment Targets would be both detailed and precise.’

They suggest further consideration is given to the idea (attributed to Paul Black) that PoS could be:

‘Presented in two parallel columns. A narrative, developmental description of the key concept to be learned (the Programme of Study) could be represented on the left hand side. The essential learning outcomes to be assessed at the end of the key stage (the Attainment Targets), could be represented on the right hand side…

Taking this approach has much greater technical and practical integrity, and is likely to improve both learning and assessment. The key challenge will be to write Attainment Targets that are as few and concise as possible in the choice and expression of ‘essential’ learning outcomes. We do not want to encourage the promulgation of huge numbers of atomistic and trivial statements of attainment that characterised earlier versions of the National Curriculum.’

In the next Chapter, on Assessment, Reporting and Progression, the Expert Panel expresses concern at the use of National Curriculum levels in assessment.

They propose a ‘mastery model in their place:

‘We have therefore opted to recommend an approach to pupil progression that emphasises ‘high expectations for all’ – a characteristic of many high-performing jurisdictions. This conveys necessary teacher commitment to both aspiration and inclusion, and implies the specific set of fundamental achievements that all pupils should attain. The anticipated outcome remains that pupils are ready to progress at the end of each key stage, having mastered the knowledge identified in relevant schemes of work and/or Programmes of Study.’

Under this model, the ‘threshold criterion’ of summative assessment becomes the judgement of whether pupils are ‘ready to progress’:

‘The approach to progression that we are proposing carries implications for assessment, since the purpose of statutory assessment would change from assigning a ‘best fit’ level to each pupil to tracking which elements of the curriculum they have adequately achieved and those which require more attention.

For the reasons we set out in the previous chapter, the focus of ‘standard attained’ should be on these specific elements, rather than a generalised notion of a level. In plain language, all assessment and other processes should bring people back to the content of the curriculum (and the extent to which it has been taught and learned), instead of focusing on abstracted and arbitrary expressions of the curriculum such as ‘levels’. We believe that it is vital for all assessment, up to the point of public examinations, to be focused on which specific elements of the curriculum an individual has deeply understood and which they have not. As the research on feedback shows, summary reporting in the form of grades or levels is too general to unlock parental support for learning, for effective targeting of learning support, or for genuine recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of schools’ programmes. In line with Early Years Foundation Stage reporting, this suggests more detailed profiling of students’ attainment. There must be great care to avoid the problems of the past regarding development of highly cumbersome and bureaucratic assessment and reporting arrangements. However, we believe that constant assessment to levels is itself over-burdensome, obscures the genuine strengths and weaknesses in a pupil’s attainment, obscures parental understanding of the areas in which they might best support their child’s learning, and likewise, weakens teachers’ clear understanding and identification of pupils’ specific weaknesses or misunderstandings.’

The Panel adds that reporting:

‘Could be based on a ‘ready to progress’ measure broken down into key areas of subjects’

while Performance Tables:

‘Could be constructed on the basis of the proportions of pupils in any cohort having reached the ‘ready to progress’ level at the end of the key stage.’

.

Response to the Expert Panel

In June 2012, the Secretary of State published his response to the Expert Panel Report, in the form of a letter to its Chairman, also publishing initial draft PoS for Key Stages 1-2 in the core subjects of English, maths and science.

The letter says:

‘In order to ensure that every child is expected to master this content, I have, as the panel recommended, decided that the current system of levels and level descriptors should be removed and not replaced.

As you rightly identified, the current system is confusing for parents and restrictive for teachers. I agree with your recommendation that there should be a direct relationship between what children are taught and what is assessed. We will therefore describe subject content in a way which makes clear both what should be taught and what pupils should know and be able to do as a result.

I have considered carefully the panel’s suggestion that, in primary schools, all pupils should be expected to have grasped core content before the class moves on. The international evidence which you provided on this issue is indeed both interesting and important.

I do agree with the panel that there needs to be a relentless focus on ensuring that all pupils grasp key curriculum content. The removal of level descriptors and the emphasis in the new Programmes of Study on what pupils should know and be able to do will help to ensure that schools concentrate on making sure that all pupils reach the expected standard, rather than on labelling differential performance.

In terms of statutory assessment, however, I believe that it is critical that we both recognise the achievements of all pupils, and provide for a focus on progress. Some form of grading of pupil attainment in mathematics, science and English will therefore be required, so that we can recognise and reward the highest achievers as well as identifying those that are falling below national expectations. We will consider further the details of how this will work.’

The FAQ briefing accompanying the announcement makes clear that the draft core primary PoS have been set out on a predominantly year-by year basis:

‘to give sufficient clarity in the progress pupils are expected to make from Year 1 to Year 6’

But this does not compromise schools’ flexibility:

‘Maintained primary schools are required to teach a Programme of Study by the end of each key stage. Schools will however continue to have the flexibility to move content between years, so long as they cover all the content by the end of the key stage. They will also be able to move on to the content covered in the next key stage early if they believe it is appropriate to do so.’

The briefing explains that there will be further announcements about how the new National Curriculum should be structured including ‘issues such as the nature of attainment targets’ and there will be further consultation ‘on how attainment should be graded as part of the statutory assessment arrangements’.

The initial draft PoS in the primary core each have a single generic AT:

‘By the end of each Key Stage, pupils are expected to have the knowledge, skills and understanding of the matters taught in the relevant Programme of Study.’

This might suggest that the Government is taking the view that the sole purpose of the AT is to form a connection between the PoS and an associated end of KS assessment, whether a statutory test or teacher assessment. In all other respects, it is relying on the PoS to define subject-specific learning outcomes, contrary to the advice received from the Expert Panel.

To date I have seen no commentary on whether the draft PoS are sufficiently specific and outcomes-focused to support this expectation, but there must be some cause to question whether all of them consistently manage to be so, especially given the necessity for precision emphasised by the Expert Panel.

.

Second National Curriculum Review Announcement

On 7 February 2013, the Secretary of State made a second announcement, simultaneously publishing a slew of documentation including draft PoS for KS1-3 in all subjects and draft PoS for KS4 in some subjects including initial drafts in the three core subjects.

Other documents included a National Curriculum consultation framework document and associated Consultation Document and a consultation on Secondary School Accountability.

The latter says:

‘Accountability for primary schools and post-16 providers will be considered in separate consultation documents, which will be published shortly.’

The National Curriculum consultation document has this to say about ATs:

‘Legally, the National Curriculum for each subject must comprise both programmes of study and attainment targets. While programmes of study set out the curriculum content that pupils should be taught, attainment targets define the expected standard that pupils should achieve by the end of each key stage. Under the current National Curriculum, the standard is set out through a system of levels and level descriptions for each subject. The national expectation is defined as a particular level for the end of Key Stages 1, 2 and 3. At Key Stage 4, GCSE qualifications at grade C currently define the expected standard.

The Government has already announced its intention to simplify the National Curriculum by reforming how we report progress. We believe that the focus of teaching should be on subject content as set out in the programmes of study, rather than on a series of abstract level descriptions. Parents deserve a clear assessment of what their children have learned rather than a ‘level description’ which does not convey clear information.

A single statement of attainment that sets out that pupils are expected to know, apply and understand the matters, skills and processes specified in the relevant programme of study will encourage all pupils to aspire to reach demanding standards. Parents will be given clear information on what their children should know at each stage in their education and teachers will be able to report on how every pupil is progressing in acquiring this knowledge.

We are currently seeking views on how to improve the accountability measures for secondary schools in England. The consultation can be accessed here

Approaches to the assessment of pupils’ progress and recognising the achievements of all pupils at primary school will be explored more fully within the primary assessment and accountability consultation which will be issued shortly.’

This is accompanied by a single broad consultation question: ‘Do you have any comments on the proposed wording of the attainment targets?’

The associated Framework Document shows that the generic AT has been extended to all draft PoS but the wording has been slightly revised:

‘By the end of each key stage, pupils are expected to know, apply and understand the matters, skills and processes specified in the relevant programme of study.’

There is no reference to arrangements for grading pupil assessment as heralded in the June letter. The inference is presumably that this will be addressed in the still-awaited consultation on primary assessment and accountability (which leaves a big question mark over KS3 assessment.

Shortly after publication, however, it was confirmed that there would be a new grading system at the end of KS2. This news reached us via a Westminster Education Forum event which was open only to those who paid, and was publicised in a press report hidden behind a paywall:

‘The Department for Education is to announce plans for new grades that will rate pupils’ attainment at 11, form the basis of league tables and be used to identify under-achieving schools. Ministers must also decide whether to order extra tests for the most able children, or have a single set of tests with some questions designed to challenge the brightest pupils.’

I noted how odd it was that no explicit reference was made to this in the National Curriculum Review documentation itself, especially given the reference in the June 2012 letter.

.

So there will be a new grading structure for KS2: bit.ly/Z1G3qQ – Queer that wasn't mentioned in the NC review documentation…—
  (@GiftedPhoenix) February 15, 2013

Where Does this Leave Us?

The key inferences that I draw from this history are as follows:

• The Expert Panel’s suggestion of a two-column approach to the NC, with ATs appearing alongside the PoS, has been set aside in favour of the PoS plus a single generic AT which applies solely to overall achievement at the end of each Key Stage.

• The Government’s response to the Expert Panel’s suggestion that mastery and readiness to progress should form the basis of assessment is so far unclear. One might expect the upcoming consultation to clarify exactly how this will be squared with a grading system that will:

.‘Recognise the achievements of all pupils, and provide for a focus on progress…so that we can recognise and reward the .highest achievers as well as identifying those that are falling below national expectations’

• We know that there will be a new grading system in the core subjects at the end of KS2. If this were to be based on the ATs as drafted, it could only reflect whether or not learners can demonstrate that they know, can apply and understand ‘the matters, skills and processes specified’ in the PoS as a whole. Since there is no provision for ATs that reflect sub-elements of the PoS – such as reading, writing, spelling – grades will have to be awarded on the basis of separate syllabuses for end of KS2 tests associated with these sub-elements.

• This grading system must anyway be applied universally if it is to inform the publication of performance tables. Since some schools are exempt from National Curriculum requirements, it follows that grading cannot be derived directly from the ATs and/or the PoS, but must be independent of them. So this once more points to end of KS2 tests based on entirely separate syllabuses which nevertheless reflect the relevant part of the draft PoS. The KS2 arrangements are therefore very similar to those planned at KS4.

• We know that there is discussion about whether or not to adopt a ‘core plus extension paper’ model for end of KS2 tests, to stretch the highest attaining learners. The decision on this point may also offer clues about the eventual shape of the grading system (If there is an extension paper it might be more likely to lead to the award of a ‘starred grade’ rather than a higher grade, for example.)

• Pending the promised consultation, there is uncertainty about what happens to grading and reporting before the end of KS2. One imagines that the Government will wish schools to continue to undertake a separate end of KS1 teacher assessment, so as to provide a basis for a separate measure of progress across KS2 as a whole. It would be helpful if that used the same grading scale as end of KS2 assessment. End of KS3 assessment remains shrouded in mystery.

• Once we move beyond end of Key Stage assessment to consider end of year assessment it becomes even harder to read the runes. It is conceivable that all such reporting could be grade free and based on the Expert Panel’s suggestion of ‘more detailed profiling of pupils’ attainment’, although – in schools still following the National Curriculum – that would have to be built upon the PoS in the absence of more specific ATs. Schools might choose to incorporate into profiles their own internal grading systems but, in practice, there is likely to be pressure to align end-of-year grading with the end of Key Stage grading arrangements. Parents will obtain greater clarity that way.

• Those that still follow the National Curriculum might be able to utilise the year-by-year breakdown of the core PoS – ie basing their judgements on whether the learner has the knowledge, skills and understanding of the matters skills and processes specified for the year in question – but that is rather undermined by the statement in the FAQ briefing that schools have full flexibility to move content between years if they wish. And of course it does not apply outside the primary core and some schools will not follow the National Curriculum at all.

.

What Kind of Grading Scale?

All of which leads us to consider the design of a suitable grading scale.

It would seem to need two separate components, one reflecting attainment, another progression (These could be maintained as two entirely separate scales if necessary, but it seems more informative to link them together).

How many points should there be on each of the two sub-scales?

The current Primary Performance Tables focus principally on three levels of achievement at the end of KS2: ‘Levels 3 or below’,’ Level 4’ and ‘Level 5 or above’. However, the recent introduction of Level 6 tests suggests that greater differentiation is required, if only at the top end. That would suggest a four-point attainment sub-scale, or a five-point scale if there is a case for additional differentiation at the bottom as well as the top to maintain symmetry.

The Government might choose to move to a letter-based sub-scale A-E to put distance between the new arrangements and the old National Curriculum levels. Grade A would represent ‘well above grade expectations’; Grade E ‘well below grade expectations; Grade B ‘above grade expectations’; Grade D ‘below grade expectations’ and Grade C ‘at grade expectations’

As for progression, under current arrangements the key distinctions for Performance Table purposes are based on low, middle and high attainers, defined in terms of their KS1 performance and whether or not they have made the expected two levels of progress across KS2 (eg a Level 3 high attainer to Level 5+).

Under the new arrangements, if we assume that the same five-point A-E attainment scale is deployed at the end of KS1 as at the end of KS2, it would be possible to adopt a straightforward three-level progression sub-scale: 1 – an improved grade compared with KS1; 2 – the same grade as at KS1; 3 – a worse grade than at KS1.

This would produce some very similar to the Aunt Sally I published last June.

.

.

Schools could be rewarded in Performance Tables for the proportion of their pupil cohort making good progress. In June I suggested a system of credits and double credits as follows:

.

.

I also suggested that an additional credit might be awarded for any pupil receiving a tick in receipt of the Pupil Premium.

Should this grading system be applied to end-year in-school subject-specific assessment, I proposed a broad equivalence between the attainment grade awarded and curricular performance which draws on the concept of mastery as proposed by the Expert Panel.

It was expressed in terms that apply only to schools still following the National Curriculum, but nevertheless adding significantly to the prescribed PoS in each subject. (I called these additions ‘the school’s supplementary curriculum’):

• Well below: Has mastered the core National Curriculum requirements with difficulty; at significant risk of falling short of mastery; requires continued targeted challenge and support to maintain it.

• Below: Has mastered the core National Curriculum requirements with support and made some progress with the school’s supplementary curriculum.

• At: Has mastered the core National Curriculum requirements and the school’s supplementary curriculum.

• Above: Has mastered the core National Curriculum requirements and the school’s supplementary curriculum with ease; beginning to anticipate the next stage of the National Curriculum programme of study;

• Well above: Has mastered the core National Curriculum and the school’s supplementary curriculum with ease and is already mastering the next stage of the National Curriculum programme of study; requires continued targeted challenge and support to maintain this level of progress.

.

I find it conceptually difficult to think about such issues, needing constantly to remind myself of the implications of a scenario where National Curriculum levels are no more and a substantial proportion of schools (admittedly fewer in the primary sector) are not following the National Curriculum.

So do I have this analysis correct, or have I made a wrong turning at some point above? Are there alternative, better outcomes than the one I have proposed and, if so, what are they?

.

.

Postscript

Following publication of Warwick Mansell’s post on the same topic, plus a brief Twitter exchange, I’ve been re-examining some of the argument above. Most of it still stands, though it seems most likely that – rather than creating an entirely new and parallel framework of AT-like outcome statements on which to build the preferred suite of KS2 tests – the final version of the core PoS are likely to be used for that purpose.

Such a decision would reinforce the importance of incorporating within the core PoS the set of tightly-drawn outcome statements that the Expert Panel advocated. In the absence of further clarification – and pending release of the primary consultation document – we must assume that scrutiny of the draft PoS during the current consultation process should take on board this added dimension.

If the KS2 tests are to be based on the PoS, rather than a separate set of ATs derived from them, the relationship between the tests and National Curriculum coverage becomes even more intimate. Whereas it might have been possible to define a different PoS that nevertheless satisfied a separate set of National Curriculum ATs, that option now seems closed. It follows that academies will have little choice but to follow the core PoS rather closely.

So closely, in fact, that it might have been preferable simply to vary academies’ funding agreements to make adoption of the core NC compulsory. But that would have all the makings of a major U-turn. Schools might object that they had been led to adopt academy status on false pretences.

There would be relatively less negative reaction if such a variation was confined to the primary sector, but that would raise the difficult question why primary academies should enjoy less curricular freedom than their secondary counterparts.

(That said, one could point to the same primary-secondary distinction amongst state-maintained schools still bound to the National Curriculum, since there is considerably more detail in the primary core than in the secondary equivalent.)

Even if this funding agreement route towards compulsion of primary academies to follow the core is deemed a bridge too far, a decision to link tests to the PoS may itself create something of a backlash, at least to the extent that primary academies have taken the academy route to buy themselves freedom from the relatively prescriptive requirements for English, maths and science.

What happens in the foundation subjects remains unclear. In many of those the draft PoS are much slimmer and it must be open to question whether they can sustain the weight of any assessment process. It may be left to schools to devise ATs that cover their own ‘supplementary content’ as well as the PoS.

.

.GP

February 2013

 

This is the latest in my regular series of periodic records of @Gifted Phoenix activity on Twitter.

These now appear on a quarterly-cum-termly basis and this edition covers the period from 21 November 2012 to 22 February 2013 inclusive.

The post includes almost everything I have published about giftedness and gifted education, as well as most of my coverage of wider education policy here in England (where that is relevant in some way to gifted learners).

I have organised the material as follows:

• Giftedness and Gifted Education Around the World: there is a global section and one for each continent;

• UK Gifted News and Developments;

• Gifted Themes, including Intelligence and Neuroscience, Creativity and Innovation, Twice-exceptional,  Gifted Research, Gifted Education Commentary and Giftedness Commentary;

• English Education – Related Issues, including Curriculum, Assessment and Accountability, International Comparisons, Social Mobility and Fair Access, Disadvantage and Narrowing Gaps, Selection and Independent Sector, Miscellaneous Issues and Research

As always I have had to use some discretion in placing tweets into categories. Some would fit in two or more different sections (and, on odd occasions, I have included the same tweet under two categories).

I have tried to preserve a fairly chronological order in each section, but have grouped some tweets that are obviously linked. There is a handful of retweets and modified tweets originated by others but, otherwise, these are all my own work. I have not included tweets of mine which have been modified or retweeted by others.

I have not checked if all the hyperlinks remain live, but apologies on behalf of the source if any prove moribund.

The photographic counterpoint is provided by pictures taken at Kew Gardens on a perfect early Spring day.

.

Kew Gardens February 2013 by GiftedPhoenix

.

Giftedness and Gifted Education Around the World

Global Gifted

Strong European presence amongst the keynotes for the rearranged World Conference plus Tracy Riley from NZ: http://t.co/ynNPSfDJ

But much of World Conference keynote programme is replication of ECHA 2012 and other recent events. Little new http://t.co/ynNPSfDJ

There don’t seem to be any direct flights from London to Louisville: http://t.co/xtYvVS3p – in case you’re determined to attend

The current World Council Executive Committee and link to details of nomination process: http://t.co/Xnn5jkyx

IYGC 2013- On Celebrating International Year of Giftedness and Creativity (WCGTC) http://t.co/Y9qo36t3

Latest World Council Newsletter: http://t.co/H94HHBqK

Khan Academy shifting towards talent ID: http://t.co/J0UO7VJ8 Big message there for specialist gifted education providers

@JonathanLWai in conversation with Khan about (inter alia) how Khan Academy can support gifted education http://t.co/cl23FA1h

Will 2013 see the launch of more ‘MOOCs for kids’? http://t.co/Vum9MqXI

International Conference on Giftedness and Creativity (ICGC) 2014 in Lebanon (new website) http://t.co/LxbWsxO7

On the Linguistics Olympiad: http://t.co/5SPTgb5h

.

Africa Gifted

Brief report on a gifted education workshop organised by the Nigerian National Mathematical Centre: http://t.co/wixtK3si

No. Kencelebs are new to me too. More information here (but very few names): http://t.co/YlOM9beP

.

Americas Gifted

Derek Browne of Entrepreneurs in Action is busy in Barbados: http://t.co/CdNXZHKF It aims to be world’s top entrepreneurial hub by 2020

Identifying gifted students in Canada: http://t.co/PoB1FLTt

New report on the Status of PE in the USA: http://t.co/kAQ6AJGv – recommends 225 minutes per week in middle and high schools

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

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

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

Day 3 of the US NAGC convention: http://t.co/hnzw25Rl

Another review of the US NAGC Convention of recent memory: http://t.co/fvf5In8k

Assouline will replace Colangelo as Director of the Belin-Blank Center at University of Iowa: http://t.co/P6G3HPk0

Tennessee Governor’s School faces a 26% budget cut but survives: http://t.co/92V09PnC

Review of a new book on PEG at Mary Baldwin College: http://t.co/JVKZpJxB

This blog is publishing weekly round-ups of gifted education news and resources: http://t.co/GAnbkkrR

Another feature on the Renzulli  Gifted and Talented Academy in Connecticut: http://t.co/N6VKXfVF

Criticism of NYC’s gifted testing regime continues: http://t.co/WuodMPau

Duke TIP signs collaborative agreement with Shiv Nadar University to develop Indian gifted education: http://t.co/4sj5WXxW

Duke TIP and Shiv Nadar University to co-host a February 2013 Conference for Indian gifted educators: http://t.co/r6gj0k0c

More on the US-Indian collaboration between Duke TIP and Shiv Nadar University: http://t.co/ZcjQq50d

New blog up – My experience at TAGT 2012 – http://t.co/1p6njBx4

Blogpost offering extended interview with a college counsellor from the IEA: http://t.co/ULf3Q4Yd

Downward mobility in US: http://t.co/TmADZJWq – reinforces case for gifted education focused more on equity issues

What is your understanding of the Measures of Academic Progress? http://t.co/OF2h5Hke

Gifted jobs: University of Northern Colorado seeks an Assistant Professor: Gifted and Talented – http://t.co/D17clRgO

US Office for Civil Rights Report 2009-12: http://t.co/azEgrfU8 – includes securing fair access to gifted programmes

Colangelo retrospective on his imminent retirement: http://t.co/I1MLXpbz and my assessment of Belin-Blank: http://t.co/qjmYb45s

Colangelo signs off at Belin-Blank: http://t.co/v1JgvrUA

Denver Post article: Are gifted and special-needs students being left behind?: http://t.co/pWXDwLGO

“#Gtchat at the TAGT Conference 2012″ Blog post with pictures!  http://t.co/D7jsLh9Y

You can revisit the great resources @brianhousand shares at conferences on his website http://t.co/KJtbNvDW

New Yong Zhao essay on TIMSS and PISA: http://t.co/LhpexO4r

NYC U-turns on sibling preferences in gifted programme: http://t.co/fJZpIO5e and http://t.co/8bvYID9e  and http://t.co/ewJFDUDG

Overcoming Underrepresentation in Gifted Programs – Ken Dickson: http://t.co/4yfTcMbw

Gifted Education in the United States: http://t.co/nWuuIH6y

More grist to the mill for those concerned about gifted education in NYC: http://t.co/GwtaPOO7

Critical commentary on that NY Times article about gifted education in NYC: http://t.co/e4CBDG2X

Chester Finn misses the point over identification processes in NYC’s gifted programme: http://t.co/nJjDh17A

It’s Gifted Education Month in Alabama: http://t.co/SAhuaREP

What do International Tests Really Show About US Student Performance? http://t.co/aMrZjgyn  -Edweek on same:http://t.co/IYCGQabo

New Year, New Sustainability Strategy: New blog post from the Asynchronous Scholars’ Fund http://t.co/PllTaOdp

Sheldon will develop You Tube’s ‘Prodigies’ for TV: http://t.co/Ndv3bFSy – well the actor Jim Parsons will!

Georgia spends 300 times more on gifted education than Alabama: http://t.co/aOkvBzpY

More about gifted education in Alabama: http://t.co/3TKKgdrQ

‘Why are our gifted and talented classes full of Asians?’ http://t.co/cufkRdro

‘Gifted, Talented and White’ (from Santa Barbara, California): http://t.co/VEfpLWoX

More about the Renzulli Academy Hartford, Conn (USA) and plans for expansion elsewhere in the State: http://t.co/6J50zPkx

Big list of upcoming gifted education webinars stateside: http://t.co/kVsF3yQ7

Davidson Institute eNews Update January 2013: http://t.co/CiFJKWzD

Overcoming under-representation in gifted programmes part 2: http://t.co/lsDUMBcW

(US) States Differ in Defining, Supporting Gifted Students: http://t.co/hqMCdY9m

THE report on affirmative action in US university admissions:  http://t.co/DjjsXvVg

Imbalance in gifted education programmes in Denver Colorado: http://t.co/Z6Jo1y9v

How segregated gifted programmes are hurting America’s poorest students: http://t.co/mpaWKojz

A new bill to improve the quality of gifted education in Missouri: http://t.co/kb8q0ru6

MT @teachfine: Are you ready for our social media blitz to advocate for gifted? It’s today! http://t.co/Qbi1EDZp

US districts experiment with partial homeschooling for gifted learners: http://t.co/AVHpM99D

Details of Wenda Sheard’s SENginar: ‘Bootcamp for Determined Advocates’ on 16 March: http://t.co/qMW0nzJR

NYT article about the ongoing debate on (gifted education) testing and coaching in NYC: http://t.co/Nix0fDHc

News from Belin-Blank: http://t.co/f2yp97DG

You can download several presentations from the California Association for the Gifted 2013 Conference here: http://t.co/HgKjQb24

New Jersey’s gifted programmes are feeling the squeeze: http://t.co/wxcDXkoY

US NAGC seeks a Parent Services and Communications Manager: http://t.co/ZB29umUx  - JD refers only to monitoring social media

NYC’s Gifted and Talented Dilemma: A Window into the Utility of Psychometric Testing: http://t.co/9xDrtcxm

Direct link to US Excellence and Equity Commission Report: ‘For Each and Every Child’: http://t.co/uFYpUOPLX9

.

Kew Gardens 2 February 2013 by Gifted Phoenix

.

Asia Gifted

Israeli Gifted education parts One: http://t.co/uE9Hn2fJ ;Two: http://t.co/rhS2TW6A ; and Three: http://t.co/ESoUbNjE

Feature on the Technion Sparks programme supporting Israel’s gifted Druse students: http://t.co/gFp37ORk

Shortish feature on young ballet dancers from the Korea National Institute for the Gifted in Arts: http://t.co/uhZMdEOK

Singapore will no longer identify the top scorers in the PLSE and public examinations: http://t.co/UzgSmITP

HKAGE’s 2013 Hotung Lecture features Yun Dai and Yan Kong on Chinese + Western approaches to gifted: http://t.co/r0ISAQ02

HKAGE Research Note: Towards a Multifaceted Understanding of Gifted Underachievement: http://t.co/630KpW08

Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education (HKAGE) annual Hotung Lecture features Yun Dai and Yan Kong: http://t.co/QHNlkOCK

Report on the Malaysian Gifted Education Conference 2012: http://t.co/n9ZmjC8m

Poor TIMSS results in Malaysia: http://t.co/4mBzOxQF – this blogger says the Government is strangely silent

Memory and Cognitive Strategies of High Ability Students in a Rural (Malaysian) Secondary School: http://t.co/28RhrNQS

Malaysian Nobelist Mindset Programme via @noorsyakina http://t.co/VxtOLLkQ and http://t.co/NfmEm7AS and http://t.co/JwIvjgM1

SABIC is sponsoring scholarships for Saudi Mawhiba participants to pursue undergraduate study abroad: http://t.co/6Px5TnNc

The Saudis have been back to WKU: http://t.co/GmrcW6JF

Last in a tetralogy of Asian Tiger posts, here’s Taiwan Parts One: http://t.co/1iLfqA4A and Two http://t.co/hPCEAdi9

.

Australasia Gifted

Feature on gifted education in New Zealand, especially the NZAGC: http://t.co/OYDvw1wl

The Kiwis also agonise over TIMSS and PIRLS: http://t.co/WRgWhrns – ‘wake-up calls’ the world over!

Feature on giftedness and gifted education out of Otago, New Zealand: http://t.co/6hOTvNZp

The gifted label should be permanently retired according to Otago IT entrpreneur (and ex-dentist!): http://t.co/UMu0ioD6

Brief article about upcoming NZAGC Annual Conference: http://t.co/RFHg12RD

NZ research survey: top students uncomfortable being called “gifted”: http://t.co/wX9jjurn

Gifted Resources November Newsletter No2 can be read online at http://t.co/ZTZmgnkS

Gifted Resources December Newsletter has been posted at http://t.co/5U966EQl

Gifted Resources January 2013 newsletter can be read online at  http://t.co/pXvb6y0e

Gifted Resources February newsletter can be read online at http://t.co/G4AfGS5a

Re-cataloguing Gifted Resources library 2 http://t.co/SQiCInto

PWC has estimated the effect on Australian national productivity of educational improvement to Finnish level http://t.co/QkFpLpJw Aus$ 3.6tn

Early entry to university expands in New South Wales: http://t.co/7XaKBFWK

Victoria Australia will accept most of the recommendations in critical report on its gifted education http://t.co/uKbLlH5W

Government response to Victorian Inquiry into Education of Gifted Students http://t.co/dRDyoJBU

Article from Australia on the Victorian Government inquiry into gifted education: http://t.co/3YDSVssd

That was the year that was 2012 for Sprites Site: http://t.co/6RYrASKq – Many thanks Jo!

Did you miss: In Memoriam Edna McMillan from @LesLinks: http://t.co/vvxRCJwm

Notre Dame University in WA has been running a Cultural Decoding programme for the state’s gifted students: http://t.co/eQcCLNHC

Our obsession with national talent is harming students – Australian-based discussion: http://t.co/i5wEMI50

Mathematics Challenge for Young Australians has extended its reach to Hong Kong: http://t.co/XOdlUVqW

Australian Curriculum gifted students’ guidance: http://t.co/Gw7qEnX8 – A useful comparator for English National Curriculum

Article on NSW’s Best Start Gifted and Talented Kindergarten Resource  Package: http://t.co/zgZjyQDA  - Here: http://t.co/ymAdE7N1

.

Europe Gifted

If you live in an EU country do please lobby your MEP to sign this declaration on talent support:  http://t.co/apdpV3vW

Written Declaration on Supporting Talent in the EU: http://t.co/apdpV3vW so far signed by 84 MEPs: http://t.co/NmyvGE52

84 signatures on that Written Declaration on Supporting Talent in EU http://t.co/c6AlBEr0 -Time for MEPs to pull their fingers out!

New post (as promised) examining progress in the European Talent Initiative: http://t.co/Yj9zqqkk

Help to discover and develop talents in Europe http://t.co/UC6GrQyh

Reminding all MEPs to please sign the WD on European Talent Support: http://t.co/apdpV3vW – deadline 19 February

You can petition your MEPs about European Talent Support here: http://t.co/QY6z6RwW

Looks as though the Written Declaration on supporting talent in the EU (0034) will lapse: http://t.co/c6AlBEr0

It’s official: European Parliament Written Declaration on Talent Support has lapsed (it got 178 signatures): http://t.co/c6AlBEr0

Just found online an agenda for a public hearing last month on the Written Declaration on talent: http://t.co/AZKnV823

@jtoufi has blogged today about this new Opinion on gifted from the European Economic and Social Committee: http://t.co/4m67PQm3

@jtoufi ‘s original post (in Spanish) is here http://t.co/yIhIvur7  Link at end of EESC page to full Opinion http://t.co/4m67PQm3

Here’s a short summary of the European Parliamentary Hearing on gifted education I mentioned recently: http://t.co/2QHvInsL

Tumbleweed’s also blowing at European Talent Centre http://t.co/h3PrStDo dormant since my December post http://t.co/Yj9zqqkk

An interview with Peter Csermely largely about ECHA: http://t.co/vy2YTq3G

Csermely inteview from Gifted and Talented Ireland http://t.co/o7LmYi3s – Will the 2013 EU Talent Conference be there or Lithuania?

Lykkelige Barn: http://t.co/uE974cba – a Norwegian parent’s experience courtesy of @Kariekol

Danskene vil vite mer om evnerike barn. Vil ikke vi? (from @Kariekol in Norway): http://t.co/SwJ88xCI

Ogg tak for det gamle: http://t.co/WtSFz4DM (review of 2012 from @Kariekol in Norway)

Todo esta escrito. http://t.co/bDUY1uhY

No te pierdas esta entrada, puede ser importante http://t.co/eJsXtpLU

Talento y Educacion :: Javier Touron: El modelo de los tres anillos http://t.co/fs9kh4aV  e

El Revolving Door Identification Model http://t.co/H9xkPYUH

No estan todos los que son… pero donde estan? http://t.co/APywbAGr

Que pasa cuando identificamos en un centro educativo? http://t.co/N1odrpEx

Las escalas de rendimiento en PIRLS-TIMSS: mas alla de la media (I) http://t.co/TEsC9oSq

Las escalas de rendimiento en PIRLS-TIMSS: mas alla de la media (y II) http://t.co/ikUSq1dj

El modelo de identificacion Talent Search: una introduccion http://t.co/2VJPwQj9

Los principios pedagogicos del Talent Search: http://t.co/JbFj2fsT

El corazon del Talent Search: el “Out of Level” http://t.co/qSS46OCM

Todo esta escrito. Enero 2013 http://t.co/21DevppX

El Talent Search: un mensaje para las escuelas http://t.co/727lSPAJ

Es el Talent Search un modelo americano? La experiencia en Espana http://t.co/HnWZPWNT

El Talent Search a traves de los anos http://t.co/mP0OGS0I

KhanAcademy. Una revolucion a coste cero! http://t.co/O29fZtBt

Feature on the Maximilianeum in Munich, Bavaria: http://t.co/wf1seXWH

Good news: Our center will lease out virtual offices for other gifted centres around the world. http://t.co/Fwyiae9O

Report on progress in gifted education in both Turkey and Kosovo: http://t.co/y08uss6k

Congratulations to @Dazzlld and @Frazzlld for making it into the Guardian! http://t.co/Tzegj0rA

An ‘Offtopicarium’ on gifted education with a Polish complexion: http://t.co/3DEdAI3S

How to Help a Gifted Child? article in French magazine, Journal des Femmes : http://t.co/QvxaYzno

Support and Education of Gifted Students in Poland: http://t.co/yIE0UNTm

How Finland Serves Gifted and Talented Pupils: http://t.co/8fIDDxoV

Gifted Education In Ireland: http://t.co/aY5vuuLj

The Gifted and Gifted Education in Hungary: http://t.co/iYTgaRn8

“Gifted Education in the Netherlands” http://t.co/UxTE9yr

Acerca superdotacion y talento (Scoop.it page): http://t.co/IGSEnMTg

Hai sa facem si noi ceva!.Maria si Paul vorbesc clar (supradotati in Romania) http://t.co/TJjGRq0e

Young, Gifted and Roma (podcast): http://t.co/hMZcfCfW – from the Council of Europe

The Slovenians also knew about that European Parliamentary Hearing: http://t.co/YIF2egdG

The Austrians have published an English translation of their 2011 White Paper: Promoting Talent and Excellence http://bit.ly/ZuORto

.

Kew Gardens 3 February 2013 by GiftedPhoenix

.

UK Gifted News and Developments

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

Direct link to CBI’s First Steps Report: http://t.co/Bu7A9gIo – demands stronger focus on individual needs, including gifted

CBI report complains of insufficient challenge for able children from disadvantaged backgrounds: http://t.co/Bu7A9gIo (p 22)

CBI: competitors like Singapore ‘have a clearly articulated approach towards gifted and talented’ (p 25): http://t.co/Bu7A9gIo

Can’t find anti-bullying report re hiding talents cited here: http://t.co/IoBpwbgq but questionnaire is here: http://t.co/Iw8i7kEI

Making progress with my blog’s key documents library: http://t.co/mgsNgTaT – all help and feedback gratefully received

Pro-gifted parental rant against phonics: http://t.co/jFxZjE1g – though last time I checked Joan Freeman wasn’t a ‘literacy expert’

Laws to LGA: ‘We now need to move to a system…That includes stretching the most able’: http://t.co/A6kok5CM

Musical chairs at IGGY: the erstwhile content adviser’s now MD; previous incumbent looks after ‘partnerships’ http://t.co/zmkAqGiR

And IGGY’s staff complement is now 19. Add in the Guardian adverts and that’s a lot of income to generate: http://t.co/zmkAqGiR

IGGY is advertising free trial memberships for Warwickshire students: http://t.co/f2UGrCsY

When I last checked it was FULL free IGGY membership for all in Warwickshire/Coventry schools: http://t.co/aVQohIph

Final post of the year is an in-depth review of IGGY, the International Gateway for Gifted Youth http://t.co/aVQohIph

@naceuk says it’s a partner of @iggywarwick – but IGGY only admits to a water company and the National Grid http://t.co/W4ux6ioB

IGGY is running a better conference this year: http://t.co/0p30xPQ0 – but sadly @GiftedPhoenix is still frozen out of proceedings

I haven’t been invited (again). I presume that @iggywarwick have ‘sent me to Coventry’ (ha ha): http://t.co/XZL2DUA6

Undeterred by Milburn, DfE continues Dux Awards Scheme in 2013 – http://t.co/6Rozafqz – some 20% of secondaries took part in 2012

New Dux Scheme Press Notice: http://t.co/isQcgBWI – Laws now in the lead and the 2013 target’s to involve 2000 schools

The OU-led Future Learn MOOC press release/briefing note: http://t.co/4VCNTvoH – excellent news for school-age gifted learners

DfE Pupil Premium case study features support for Paignton Community College’s gifted and talented programme: http://t.co/VDdgjWk4

Here’s a short but timely new post on High Attainers in the 2012 Primary School Performance Tables: http://t.co/yfzIfAsT

My analysis of high attainers in the Primary League Tables: http://t.co/yfzIfAsT Can anyone source national KS1APS data defining this group?

Gifted Phoenix Blog: 2012 Review and Retrospective: http://t.co/FkqTeBUs

You might have missed: The MENSA ‘carrot’ moment: http://t.co/FPxyBStY plus apology:  http://t.co/I4ar9gVW

Her Majesty gives gifted teenager the Complete Works: http://t.co/aa0wEWDp – Apparently a ‘surreal’ and ‘bizarre’ one-off

Realities and myths of children with high learning potential http://t.co/fsCccc5W

Sutton Trust planning support for gifted disadvantaged with UCL and Kent academies says @conorfryan: http://t.co/1nrcbFuF

Martin Stephen’s doing a gifted education talk in Milton Keynes: http://t.co/sU4hHJjg – when will his research study be published?

The role of technology in gifted education: http://t.co/Tzegj0rA Can you help me to pin down the core issues?

Just completed the Guardian Chat on technology and gifted education, see the record here: http://t.co/hidpNX3r

SSAT is getting back into gifted and talented: http://t.co/6JDH1HD1 – doesn’t say who’s leading the sessions

GT Voice Bulletin February 2013 Edition: http://t.co/97SoK2jJ – Announces upcoming meetings on future of gifted education

“The Department does not collect information about gifted and talented young athletes in schools”: http://t.co/gkct9mPw (Col 332W)

No pictures yet but some fascinating data (I hope) in my new post on High Attainers in the Secondary Performance Tables http://t.co/MqJYgvyJ

More on Ofsted’s upcoming report on our most able pupils: http://t.co/pVytGhNi – and my analysis of the data: http://t.co/MqJYgvyJ

Yesterday’s super-timely blog post looking at the secondary/KS5 performance table data for high attaining students: http://t.co/MqJYgvyJ

I’ve added a brief postscript on Ofsted plans for an imminent gifted survey to the end of this post: http://t.co/MqJYgvyJ

Registration open for 2nd round of Dux Award Scheme: http://t.co/28SHuQSJ – Haven’t yet seen any response to Milburn’s sideswipe

References to inadequate progress by more able pupils are peppered throughout Estyn’s Annual Report 2011/12: http://t.co/y9HozqXk

Elite young footballers burn out before they leave school: http://t.co/ZQzyLQ6w

Koshy and Casey on English Gifted Education: http://t.co/BkyVrvsY – I’d say 80% good and accurate

The very British shame of having a clever child http://t.co/mA1FontH

Whatever happened to Sutton Trust support for highly able

learners? http://t.co/fTuEhAZb (see end). Have I missed an announcement?

Potential Plus (ex NAGC) launches under its new name today http://t.co/oP0uCHHi

Interestingly, Gove’s SMF speech includes a lament that the Dux Scheme has been unpopular: http://t.co/pStqvYp0

Delighted Ofsted’s challenging failure to use Pupil Premium with disadvantaged high attainers http://t.co/L3RW32bU but can’t find the report

Congratulations to Potential Plus UK: http://t.co/8yRj4wGr

Ofsted to prepare landmark ‘rapid response’ report on English gifted and talented education: http://t.co/Oa15N1Ul Wonderful news!

My blog post concludes that upcoming Ofsted survey on highly able will need to look carefully at NC reforms: http://t.co/ZHq7ombE

Can any Ofsted readers explain why there’s been no official announcement of your gifted education survey? http://t.co/Oa15N1Ul

Eastleigh Tory candidate says state schools can’t educate her gifted son: http://t.co/4XAvQY0y and: http://t.co/oNIlvjXQ

More on the ‘son too smart for state school gaffe’: http://t.co/Dkg0oFUl – There’s been a storm on Twitter apparently

Liberals more worried whether Hutchings row will rebound on Clegg http://t.co/JII18Mep while Dale plays the autism card http://t.co/WlYD9pE1

Hutchings gaffe gave Libs/Lab a great platform to set out gifted education policies, but the cupboard is bare http://t.co/Uz5Mt1BJ

Really important reminders in Ofsted’s Pupil Premium Report to target gifted disadvantaged learners: http://t.co/mW1lVIOt

.

Kew Gardens 4 February 2013 by Gifted Phoenix

.

Gifted Themes

.

Intelligence and Neuroscience

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

Willingham urges caution in the application of neuroscience to education: http://t.co/bzeLKnLM

A blogpost on metacognition: http://t.co/5XHpIZyp

Neuroscience fiction: http://t.co/Az9VOXav

The Neuroscience of Creativity (featuring Greenfield’s work): http://t.co/UPZgi4Jk

Daniel Willingham has begun a week-long series on how neuroscience can be applied to resolve educational problems: http://t.co/WeunWerI

Second in Willingham’s series about positive uses of neuroscience in education: http://t.co/AODoR4VZ

Third of five in the Willingham Neuroscience series: http://t.co/VMNljwqf

4th and penultimate episode in Willingham’s Neuroscience series: http://t.co/YLT3S2Fw

Part 5 and coda to the Willingham neuroscience series: http://t.co/UVwYSe1O and http://t.co/wj86xsH0

On Brains and Brilliance: http://t.co/qFdOD8WS

Math ability requires crosstalk in the brain: http://t.co/8m6m54U9

How education hijacked brain research http://t.co/VGE0xLwv – some governments already considering brain training programmes

Working memory is a better test of ability than IQ: http://t.co/2n43AOqT

Fractionating Human Intelligence (courtesy of @sbkaufman): http://t.co/jej2TNUh

Independent’s summary: http://t.co/Ped8sWza of the Fractionating Human intelligence paper:http://t.co/jej2TNUh

New intelligence-related articles on top-end Flynn effect: http://t.co/6pl4lJEZ and nature of intelligence: http://t.co/DzieZPFW

Are we more or less intelligent than in the past? http://t.co/vdM7x5mF

More on motivation, IQ and maths: http://t.co/w6TDWyBQ

Can Everyone Become Highly Intelligent? (thanks to @SurrealAnarchy ): http://t.co/j9Al6ngN

The Future of Intelligence: http://t.co/h3Da8gtw

On Neuroscience in Education via the OUP Blog: http://t.co/Xx0OCGCI

Csikzentmihalyi – don’t go with the flow! http://t.co/UR4N1IL3

Working memory training does not live up to the hype: http://t.co/zcc1Ok3i

A Genetic Code for Genius? http://t.co/UfD9Zmmy via @WSJ

.

Creativity and Innovation

PISA’s Schleicher: ‘schooling now needs to be much more about…creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving’ (TES): http://t.co/xiow0aL2

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

Current state of play on the Science of Creativity: http://t.co/Kf6TKzdO

The Characteristics of Highly Creative People: http://t.co/0hrdQgjW

Creative Intelligence: http://t.co/XS301wmY

OECD working paper by Lucas, Claxton and Spencer on the assessment of creativity in schools: http://t.co/aviWvXDg

.

Twice-exceptional

SEN Magazine feature on dual and multiple exceptionality by Denise Yates of NAGC: http://t.co/9K9MDRoy

Aspie cult goes underground: http://t.co/BdxzpYIv – who wants to be part of a spectrum when you can have your own syndrome?

TES report on segregation of SEN learners: http://t.co/mRzksHcP and link to the new IoE Report it references: http://t.co/9lXq3EuN

Education Select Committee has published uncorrected oral evidence on SEN: http://t.co/NIAea1fV

.

Gifted Research

Extensive Gifted Education Research round-up from Ireland: http://t.co/QehveYTd and with a perfect final paragraph!

Full working paper: Conscientiousness Education and Longevity of High Ability Individuals – Savelyev: http://t.co/sGIYiMAf

The impact of motivation (relative to IQ) on achievement in maths: http://t.co/Yhh6kMy7  (summary only)

The impact of high self-esteem on educational achievement is limited at best: http://t.co/5vem3b9u

A pretty definitive study on relationship of self-esteem, academic self-concept and attainment: http://t.co/8mx0KInH

The full text of the Marsh/OMara paper is available free at the bottom of this page: http://t.co/zaUWXRKK

Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education: Vol 2.2, December 2012 edition: http://t.co/suECf9AW

Willingham on measurement of non-cognitive factors: http://t.co/M2F4D1nN

Lots more on the assessment of non-cognitive variables (Sedlacek): http://t.co/jHW37J63

“High Ability & Learner Characteristics” International Journal of Instruction 2013 http://t.co/arWuGKpF

Willingham on ‘How to Make a Young Child Smarter’: http://t.co/4QEQjEjt and the full article via @sbkaufman http://t.co/e3ND6ZD2

I’m building an open access gifted education research repository on my blog called OpenGate http://t.co/RBeVRW2W Tweet me some links

How friendship networks can influence academic achievement: link to full paper by Blansky et al: http://t.co/r65gUZMg

Does Athletic Success Come at the Expense of Academic Success? http://t.co/m9aHcsIq

The Shift from Cohorts to Competency (Digital Learning Now paper): http://t.co/RYD6csjF

.

Gifted Education Commentary

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

G&T Policy Choices for Schools: http://t.co/i8GXOEAa – Transcript of last night’s #gtie chat

How You Can Help the Genius in the Classroom: http://t.co/Q3kk41Yo

Gifted Exchange encourages discussion on use of gifted learners as peer tutors: http://t.co/nQSQNoxH

Homework torture for some gifted students: http://t.co/dPIAGxDz

Transcript from tonight’s chat, Dear Teacher, My child is gifted and… http://t.co/5EvNn6DZ

Review of last week’s #gtie chat: http://t.co/TURFYnzy – this week’s tonight (Sunday) at 21.00 UK time

G&T School Policy Choices for Schools: http://t.co/Wmql7MDb

A bunch of strategies (13 actually) supporting academic motivation: http://t.co/I86PflCB

New post at GPS: “Teachers Partnering with Parents”: http://t.co/RGu5BiMk

Reading “Gifted Education and New Year’s Resolutions” on Smart Girl Politics: http://t.co/jU1S1Gzx

Interested in gifted education? Some great info in the last few #gtie chats of 2012: http://t.co/A3UgS6mm

Mindsets and Gifted Education: Transformation in Progress: http://t.co/2sipUcnx

The Quill Guy has been posting about gifted and talented writing projects: http://t.co/hVcBBcku

#gtchat transcript of “Special Guest – Rebecca McMillan Director of Online Education at GHF” at http://t.co/PfOt4peI

New blog: ‘Gifted Mathematics – Learn How to be Successful in Mathematics Competitions Worldwide’: http://t.co/8wK2tnch

Advice for New Gifted Education Specialists http://t.co/W0FhNykr

The Gifted Elementary Pupil. How to spot and how to support them: http://t.co/baxUZ5gW

#gtchat transcript: Instructional Strategies for Gifted Education http://t.co/jTzjRoXR

‘Calculating the Return on Investment in Gifted Education’: http://t.co/kM1QNS6p

Using creating challenge and mindmap to consider 2013 activities for Gifted Resources http://t.co/0MszA7Rf

Storify record of #gtchat: Guest, Dr. Joy Lawson Davis and “Diversity in Gifted Education http://t.co/0d2qfoYT

New Post – Differentiating for Gifted students http://t.co/sR4uZUPv

Join the Gifted Education Outreach Corps: http://t.co/AJwVNnzD

What’s Wrong With Being Smart? http://t.co/D5akXKVN More squabbles over the excellence/equity balance in gifted education

STEM is Gifted Education: http://t.co/MsK1Glew

Another scoop.it page: ‘Methods and Materials for Gifted Education’: http://t.co/vpfe9TIX

RT @cybraryman1: My Identifying Gifted sites (see NAGC What is Giftedness): http://t.co/k6SSMgvp

Building a Gifted Education PLN:  #gtchat transcript: http://t.co/ZljpIwc8 and associated blog post: http://t.co/P53zHTkn

Yesterday’s PBL #gtchat transcript: http://t.co/GDxCNQJ4 and blog post: http://t.co/8l9V2mY1

.

Giftedness Commentary

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

Transcript of When Parents Push Too Hard http://t.co/qWjlA1vp

Gifted children: How to know if we are pushing too hard: http://t.co/NIdDLVE2

New post at GPS, “A Disturbance in the Force” http://t.co/v39hjkI6 – including reference to UK NAGC name change

Being Gifted is Something to Celebrate: http://t.co/f4FfziWj

Missed our last #gtchat, “When Parents Push Too Hard”? Check out our blog, http://t.co/NOj98yCA

Why Your Gifted Teen May Act Anything but Gifted: http://t.co/dPOUXPK6

Defining giftedness and its goals (from Duke): http://t.co/CU1Zak9s

First-time gtchatters: Check out the the transcript from ‘Building Connections with #gtchat ‘ http://t.co/cyY0bkKf

Transcript for tonight’s #gtie chat. Scroll to 21:00 for start: http://t.co/Ufwhx02F

Gifted, talented: Entitled to be Exceptional (@DouglasEby): http://t.co/8o92TevQ

Why Some Gifted Individuals Don’t Love a Party: http://t.co/iWkqjGrU

Mythillogical: Belief versus the reality of giftedness: http://t.co/rqyJ4Bjt

Global #gtchat – the Year Ahead Storify Transcript http://t.co/OBUURm8n

New post @ our blog! ‘Global #gtchat – the Year Ahead’ http://t.co/tWFiBhIO

Transcript for last night’s #gtie chat:http://t.co/IpwnPdDb  Summary to follow later in the week, I hope!

Gifted Kids at Risk: Who’s Listening? http://t.co/DG4Glhkx

Learn about #gtchat from our guest blog post at MyTownTutors http://t.co/lS0hNzc2

Parenting Gifted Children: http://t.co/zPx5S91J

The Norm Can Blow It Out Its Ear http://t.co/F6IPMd2R #gtie discusses gifted adults

Lance the Myths of Giftedness http://t.co/JQrN3NF7 A response by @peter_lydon to @davidmcw’s piece on talent

Gifted Children and the Growth Mindset http://t.co/kWsufCcW

Can’t join #gtchat at our current time? ‘Like’ our Facebook Page to stay in the loop! http://t.co/pypUZPeK

Transcript for tonight’s #gtie chat: http://t.co/Ib8s8mgP

Transcript of last night’s #gtie chat: http://t.co/5oZf41ZD

When It’s Time to Cut your Gifted Child Some Slack: http://t.co/h6D70pcF

If it’s Wednesday it must be breakfast that makes kids smarter: http://t.co/qXDYrSUx

Do Gifted Kids Want to be Zuckerberg Rather Than Einstein? http://t.co/Yr2YY3uT

‘Let’s Not Call Them ‘”Gifted”‘ from a what looks to be a new Blog on the scene: http://t.co/hOhlpFwP

#Gtchat transcript: Fostering Parent Awareness http://t.co/pdtH8jqX

The term “gifted” sucks in so many ways: http://t.co/pLJifAwt

If Not ‘Gifted’, What? http://t.co/8K1B3NNh

TED conversation on the challenges facing gifted and creative individuals: http://t.co/JOw4YT8q

.

Kew Gardens 5 February 2013 by Gifted Phoenix

.

English Education – Related Issues

.

Curriculum

Government response to Lords Science and Technology Committee Report on STEM: http://t.co/cIejjXH3 deemed inadequate: http://t.co/KJumAHD2

Outcomes of consultation on primary MFL in the national curriculum: http://t.co/9Mqx9HKt  - classical Latin and Greek are new options

Direct link to Chance to Shine school sports survey http://t.co/9ID7CbZP 54% of parents said children got less than 2 hours PE/sports a week

Continued campaign in reaction to marginalisation of dance: http://t.co/y0iGWZDk

Lords Oral PQ on arts in schools: http://t.co/I2Wwi6e1 (Col 1613): Hill says National Cultural Education Plan is delayed until New Year

Pollard bemoans imbalance in new National Curriculum. Cynics might say primary prescription promotes academisation: http://t.co/QE7ibMic

Ofqual Report on 2011-12 National Assessment Arrangements: http://t.co/7wlloAWV – Interesting commentary on new L6 tests at p26ff

Catholic bishops have decided that exclusion of RE from the EBacc affects parents’ human rights: http://t.co/MM3f3JdV

Direct link to Teaching About Christianity in religious education: a review of research – by Nigel Fancourt: http://t.co/8PwmLWnf

The accusation that the Coalition is pursuing a narrow, utilitarian curricular agenda is fertile territory for Labour: http://t.co/RXX2C7xQ

Progress report on school-club sports links: http://t.co/4M9BBqRd (Col 53W)

DfE has let a contract worth £515K to Poetry Archive to run a National Poetry Recitation Competition for Years 10-13: http://t.co/AqGfN0tD

An item on school music notable principally for the author’s pseudonym: http://t.co/Ij8wLrsU – explained here: http://t.co/jbm3SjgH

It’s a moot point whether children’s authors are best placed to decide the National Curriculum Eng Lit canon: http://t.co/WEMcIia8

I assume the Burghes report for Politeia on primary maths will appear here shortly: http://t.co/7D1dGLXe – It’s not there yet

Yesterday’s Burghes paper for Politeia on primary maths: http://t.co/h8aBHgPJ – comparisons with Finland, Japan and Singapore

Story on error-strewn primary NC drafts once more calls into question the process (and people?) used to draw them up: http://t.co/zSYgzxp9

This is a really neat website mapping the NSW curriculum: http://t.co/dG7BIj71 – Can we have one of those?

Summary of new Engineering Council report – wants 100% increase in numbers taking GCSE physics/triple science: http://t.co/qoINAQUT

New DfE/Wellcome evaluation of the Science Learning Centre Network: http://t.co/rblXpZYL – positive but warns against removing core funding

Sounds from Gove increasingly like the draft secondary NC programmes of study won’t issue until the New Year: http://t.co/pGnDi0Oh

No sign of the APPG history report though clearly all the papers have seen it. Sigh. I assume it will be published here http://t.co/pR4wiVsi

National Plan for Cultural Education won’t now be published until 2013: http://t.co/c7PxJ93B (Col 134W)

ACME’s new Maths Report repeats the same old ACME themes: http://t.co/2b4ZEW5h – but where is it? (they’re not the acme of early risers)

Though ACME has managed to publish a KS4 reform consultation response: http://t.co/HzB5Dcud – no tiering is ‘neither feasible nor desirable’

ACME’s Report from yesterday ‘Raising the Bar: Developing Able Young Mathematicians’: http://t.co/RLPhuwys – a ‘critical situation’

Labour’s about to release a new School Sports Action Plan: http://t.co/3O2errSv – the talent development section will be key

Full sport-by-sport breakdown of whole sport plan funding for 2013-2017 including talent development: http://t.co/sD7Qvqxk

“We are putting competitive sport at the heart of the new school curriculum” What does that refer to? http://t.co/hW287h5L

Government’s school sports strategy delayed until New Year by ministerial disagreements: http://t.co/NBqRTVO0

Ofsted School Sport Survey delayed until at least February 2013 by ‘redundancies’: http://t.co/V86nPSYV

Mr Gove’s and Mr Hunt’s Party Games – on PE and school sports (courtesy of @DrDickB): http://t.co/dk8GqYr3

At last some common sense on Seacole: http://t.co/2Lby1vWJ – or else convert to academy status!

Direct link to Nuffield Foundation comparative study: Towards Universal Participation in Post-16 Mathematics: http://t.co/Zu0ZkjA 7

Is this a last ditch effort by Forgan to secure a halfway decent Cultural Education Plan? http://t.co/QmN71XE8 – we’re still waiting for that

Twigg: ‘we’d extend the academies’ freedoms on the national curriculum to all schools’: http://t.co/4kpaQU99 – New? So no NC under Labour?

Ofsted expects to publish its Report on ‘PE in Schools 2008-12′ in February 2013: http://t.co/H5BDhJCT (Col 805W)

Truss’s N of E Conference Speech http://t.co/KrZW7zoz eliminates some lacunae. Commissions Imperial to run 1 year A level teachers’ course

History Curriculum Association promotes its own curriculum to exempt academies and private schools http://t.co/EkWVdsSR

There’s no Ministerial Statement on National Curriculum Review today: http://t.co/O3duSWi4 – so Government misses its self-imposed deadline

TES Editorial is on the Government’s Janus-faced curriculum policy: http://t.co/7BIbFKrP – exactly why we’re still waiting for the PoS!

I do think the SMF speech tippietoes rather unconvincingly past the curricular freedom/content prescription conundrum http://t.co/pStqvYp0

@EducationLabour Could you confirm if my reference to your NC policy here is correct? (Late Skirmishes section) Thanks: http://t.co/BzOaYl6X

Is it official Labour policy that academies’  National Curriculum freedoms would be extended to all schools? http://t.co/BzOaYl6X

Pending imminent National Curriculum announcements here’s Part 1 of a new post retrospecting on June 2012 to yesterday: http://t.co/BzOaYl6X

My blog post from last night tracing the National Curriculum review/EBC story from June 2012 to yesterday: http://t.co/BzOaYl6X

School sports announcement expected in next 2 weeks: http://t.co/deDanhXc – new funding, no ringfence but maybe a ‘recommendation’

During today’s EBC statement debate Labour must clarify whether they would extend academies’ NC freedoms to all schools http://t.co/4kpaQU99

Ofsted on PE: all teachers should raise expectations of more able; offer challenging competitive activities: http://t.co/leEjsReQ

OFSTED on PE: few schools have a balance ‘between increasing participation and generating elite performance’: http://t.co/leEjsReQ

New Education Committee inquiry on School Sports post Olympics: http://t.co/a5DuVNb7  -submit evidence via new portal: http://t.co/0SzrxOWD

Science and Technology Committee Report ‘Educating tomorrow’s Engineers: impact of Government reforms on 14-19 education’: http://t.co/TFHmx13Y

British Psychological Society will shortly publish a report on psychology in schools: http://t.co/RxXAeNdj

.

Assessment and Accountability

@warwickmansell fisks this memorandum on the EBC: http://t.co/SkQaWnSw here: http://t.co/rk905N7t chokes on his tea and predicts a car crash

KS Teacher Assessment and Reporting Arrangements (TARA) 2013: http://t.co/pUiWOvLA

If techbac is a performance table measure, doesn’t that pre-empt the upcoming consultation on secondary accountability? http://t.co/BqVceSqO

Ofqual’s EBC letter yesterday: http://t.co/D157XyNI – is likely to delay the promised December consultation on secondary accountability…

Given Ofqual’s EBC intervention: http://t.co/D157XyNI – the case for sorting accountability BEFORE sorting exams becomes much stronger

I wonder if Ofqual’s EBC letter presages adoption of explicitly PISA-linked tests for accountability purposes: http://t.co/D157XyNI

TechBacc proposals = Diploma with a new name http://t.co/vnxSt6ax While we’re on names, check out the working group…

Support materials for the KS2 English Grammar Punctuation and Spelling Level 6 test: http://t.co/az99ksHM

The Baker/C&G Tech Bac and the Government’s performance table Tech Bac http://t.co/Xx80UzDT – Nothing more than a recipe for confusion (TES)

‘Imminent’ secondary accountability consultation likely to feature more focus on KS4 average points scores: http://t.co/vfOGn0an (TES)

Another post-GCSE maths option will shortly be added into the mix: http://t.co/G7z7g9Q7

Secondary accountability consultation also postponed to January: http://t.co/4aSbeuOZ – but is it to be ‘best 8′ GCSEs or EBacc plus?

Evaluation/consultation Report on Key Stage 4/5 Destination Measures, setting out planned changes in 2013: http://t.co/ckiy0zqe

Education Commitee recommends Government takes expert subject-specific advice on removal of tiering from EBC http://t.co/hu5JSl8c (para 61)

Education Committee “We have serious concerns about the proposed timetable for reform”: http://t.co/hu5JSl8c

Introduction of challenging extension papers sounds U-turnish ie exactly the opposite of untiered EBCs http://t.co/lK17XDcq

Updated EBacc FAQs (post reclassification of computer science): http://t.co/2TxRHeYr – interesting to reflect on impact on ‘triple science’

My blog post from last night tracing the National Curriculum review/EBC story from June 2012 to yesterday: http://t.co/BzOaYl6X

TES reports ‘more challenging extension papers’ in GCSE maths and science for A*/A candidates: http://t.co/lK17XDcq

Strong interest in my old post about implications of removing NC levels: http://t.co/Ns1W7cts  - grading’s still an unresolved issue tonight

Summary of KS4 reform consultation responses says 56% thought impossible across all EBC subjects: http://t.co/6INpiWn3

Reports pre-empt A level reform announcement: http://t.co/oV1YUMWc – stand alone AS levels and Russell Group advisory board/annual reviews

Interesting to note 12 month delay on A level reforms: http://t.co/oV1YUMWc – that may suggest same for EBC

Classic UUK press release on A level reform: http://t.co/MQUwnv0K – we agree changes are needed but these aren’t quite the right ones

Gove’s letter on A levels to Ofqual now published: http://t.co/Twsgr4we – but there is as yet no accompanying FAQ on the implications

Interesting idea that A level students should get separate absolute and relative grades: http://t.co/G7VEMoWK

1994 Group is furious too “very little consultation with the sector” AS reform “extremely concerning” http://t.co/4raPlgIv

Number of students from maintained schools and sixth form colleges achieving 3+ A*/A grade A levels by year: http://t.co/gkct9mPw (Col 327W)

The Ministerial Statement on A level reform: http://t.co/sEVMzNur (Col 315) – AS will ‘have same content as A levels but half the breadth’

Direct link to Secondary Performance Tables 2012, just published: http://t.co/DnoiGwyl

SFR02/13: GCSE and equivalent results in England 2011/12 (Revised): http://t.co/uolSYtCw

SFR05/2013:  A level and equivalent examination results in England (Revised): http://t.co/CHrZWpVw

SFR04/2013 – GCSE and Equivalent Attainment by Pupil Characteristics in England: http://t.co/yVesH7KO

Uncorrected transcript of Education Select Committee oral evidence session with HMCI  on 13 February: http://t.co/JFLNCd6IUo

Basically Derby seems to have been doing a reasonable job: http://t.co/M9rAk3fDHc  - did Ofsted expect it to be less successful?

.

International Comparisons

You can download Pearson’s Learning Curve Report or read online at dedicated website here: http://t.co/DryiiQmj

Can’t find any evidence that Pearson’s Learning Curve report takes account of high (or low) level achievement: http://t.co/DryiiQmj

Conor Ryan digs beneath the surface of Pearson’s Learning Curve report and rankings: http://t.co/48GFbJB7

Sutton Trust Report on the limitations of international comparisons studies: http://t.co/4G32c8Vv and TES on same: http://t.co/wUMsZ4Dj

Nor does latest Sutton Trust effort on PISA/TIMSS etc properly credit my source blogpost here: http://t.co/1bCZcnq4 Grump, grump

Pleased Sutton Trust is debunking the ‘UK’s problem is solely a long tail’ myth. But footnote ref to my post is wrong: http://t.co/1bCZcnq4

This is the page to store in readiness for publication of TIMSS/PIRLS data at 09.00 UK time on Tuesday 11 December: http://t.co/HS3STosL

Schleicher’s explanation of differences between PISA and TIMSS/PIRLS results is a bit of a punt, to put it mildly: http://t.co/ZDdO5NHH

A reminder that it’s TIMSS and PIRLS publication day – results appear here at 09.00 UK time: http://t.co/HS3STosL

The IEA’s TIMSS and PIRLS reports: http://t.co/XaUH2Bfu

The TIMSS/PIRLS press notice  for completeness: http://t.co/R4QGaEgh – a very mixed bag indeed, so it’s hard to make any political capital

DfE’s Research brief on TIMSS for good measure: http://t.co/7LSsqRok and NFER’s national report: http://t.co/RvzLe8Ii

NFER’s National Report on PIRLS in England: http://t.co/3RjyRjqj – and DfE’s research brief: http://t.co/IP1sAbai

Interesting to compare Duncan: http://t.co/fn93ykfQ and Truss: http://t.co/Lv5PYEnV on TIMSS and PIRLS

Here’s my new post examining the Performance of High Achievers in TIMSS, PIRLS (and PISA) http://t.co/1bCZcnq4

Did you know that England outperformed Finland at the high achievers’ benchmarks in TIMSS and PIRLS? http://t.co/1bCZcnq4

Didn’t look at widening gap evidence, but Asian Tigers have many more high achievers at advanced benchmarks, see http://t.co/1bCZcnq4

Informative article about the impact of PISA on different national qualifications: http://t.co/vcIjiK4Y

.

Kew Gardens 6 February 2013 by GiftedPhoenix

.

Social Mobility and Fair Access

BIS press notice links to new Sutton Trust research: tracking decision making of high-achieving HE applicants: http://t.co/bj3scGW4

Sutton Trust is also investing in social mobility via employment in ‘Real Estate’: http://t.co/2ioOT1D3  - An unfortunate Americanism imho

Stupid social mobility article: http://t.co/LGinUX72 – wants to substitute WP for fair access rather than pursuing both

A new Sutton Trust publication celebrating its 15^th anniversary: http://t.co/ivcRNCfL

Sutton Trust’s new report on the education of top people: http://t.co/mFLxkTgx and associated press notice: http://t.co/9stidiFS

HEFCE’s revised qualifications list for the ABB high grades quasi-market in 2013-14: http://t.co/UjTACGWQ – Even AAC counts!

Contexualised admissions set to become universal in Scotland: http://t.co/3EPtGeqD – Makes OFFA seem toothless by comparison

TES projects a false dichotomy between Gove’s and Ebdon’s views on fair access http://t.co/z7a9D19d They’re not irreconcilable

Careers England Survey of the Impact of Education Act 2011: http://t.co/RTFSrVOq

A HEFCE/OFFA progress report on a ‘national strategy for access and student success’ http://t.co/u7K4IGa9 – Now you’re talking!

St Andrews says only 220 of 5,572 5th years from Scotland’s deprived areas managed 3 Higher A grades in 2011: http://t.co/aYkcGPBt

What St Andrews actually said about fair access (as opposed to the versions in this morning’s papers): http://t.co/4iwKidYS

Independent careers guidance will be extended to 16-18 year-olds in colleges and Year 8 in schools. from Sept 2013: http://t.co/DN3Mkkjd

Indy’s Lampl fan club attend the 15th anniversary shindig: http://t.co/JQqlmqsf – ends with some U-turn scepticism about open access

Adonis has a point, but perhaps fair access should focus a little more on elite courses rather than elite universities: http://t.co/e2B0mPry

Percentage achieving 2+ A levels at A*/A by ethnic background and by local authority 2008-11: http://t.co/BHnAqnAQ  (Dep 2012-1781)

Gibb and Gove continue the unfair campaign against OFFA’s Ebdon at Oral PQs, prompted by Adonis: http://t.co/oISvurer (Col 580)

‘Not every aspect of the open access scheme necessarily recommends itself to the Government’ (Gove): http://t.co/oISvurer (Col 587)

Uncorrected transcript of Hancock evidence to Education Select Committee on Careers Guidance: http://t.co/Qj3rlnZq

Direct link to the Sutton Trust’s new personal statements research: http://t.co/4Gijd0JM

Ebdon response to Adonis, Gibb et al: http://t.co/EZe0cFkb

Sutton Trust expands its US Summer Schools: http://t.co/V19eno4A – but how do they impact on fair access here?

The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission still doesn’t have its full quota of members: http://t.co/ldjDg8w6 (Col 102W)

Direct link to the UCAS End of Cycle Report 2012: http://t.co/XYZzf2ij – looks positive from fair access perspective

What proportion of top students taking up degree courses in the US will return to the UK on graduation? http://t.co/Vjw7svoG

Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission Members finally announced; Gillian Shephard is new Vice-Chair http://t.co/QJVef3vw

Series of four HE outreach for WP/fair access toolkits plus supporting material: http://t.co/bxedR5XB

Higher feature on the fragmented nature of HE outreach for fair access: http://t.co/bTo6flR6

Coded praise from Milburn for Gove: http://t.co/WxxswrEp – He’s on the right track provided he acts on my Social Mobility Commission Report

Anonymous insider criticism of Independent v State element of Government’s own social mobility indicators http://t.co/mEn0nrHi

Sutton Trust blog: Moving Up the Great Gatsby Curve: http://t.co/IC7ioPsz

Willetts stresses gender alongside ethnicity/class in fair access: http://t.co/uoH5CyBe but socio-economic disadvantage is the common factor

THE draws attention to new flexibilities in ABB policy to support fair access: http://t.co/lloRPnLr

The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission Framework Document: http://t.co/15saYkUC (Dep 2012-1939)

McGhee HE access for white working class males article: http://t.co/fRFr8qKI – rather lets selective universities off the hook

Geraint Jones QC is OFFA’s newly-appointed Statutory Reviewer: http://t.co/vCWpaGuQ

Time on Oxbridge attempts to recruit more students from poorer backgrounds http://t.co/YIcjsYMh (via @dlknowles)

HEFCE Grant Letter 2013-14 confirms ‘unrestrained recruitment’ extended to ABB A level grades: http://t.co/XNUkJXvH

Sutton Trust on outcomes of its US summer school: http://t.co/qvF3Cm8x and  http://t.co/DNJgE1vD – You too can attend Oglethorpe University!

HEFCE announces timetable for integrating its Widening Participation Strategic Statements with OFFA’s Access Agreements http://t.co/1xpCwwn9

The fair access debate unfolds in Scotland: http://t.co/aUqzosRX

You can at least read OFFA’s press release: http://t.co/skcnAwCR plus Ebdon commentary in THE: http://t.co/fzjGTkeD

Well OFFA has tried to publish its Access Agreement Guidance for 2014-15, but this link isn’t yet working: http://t.co/yTkZ7K1j

Link to OFFA Access Agreement Guidance for 2014-15 finally working: http://t.co/CLYoHXk5

HEFCE guidance on National Scholarship Programme 2014-15: http://t.co/2qBx4mwD

This postgraduate’s case against St Hughes College Oxford has all the ingredients of a cause celebre: http://t.co/rfaTzYq L

Mail previews the AAB measure due in the Secondary Performance Tables on Thursday: http://t.co/uYv4UpXA

“within the colleges and…managerial hierarchy there remains an undertone of elitism, privilege and exclusivity”: http://t.co/JaqtMUPX

His children’s education was always a ticking timebomb for Clegg given he’s the self-styled champion of social mobility http://t.co/wszD6lBS

Btw, the facilitating subjects A level performance measure must have been shaped to feed this social mobility indicator http://t.co/7sxBg2k9

A second take on the social mobility impact of AS level reform: http://t.co/MavKJODf

Will AS level reforms have a negative impact on fair access and social mobility? http://t.co/l75kNKIO – Conceivably

Russell Group cautions on the facilitating subjects measure in KS5 league tables http://t.co/7BE45tmI – still studiedly silent on AS level?

Sutton Trust adds to calls to a national co-ordinating body for fair access to HE: http://t.co/yPcqu66I – Spot on

HMC’s chair-elect believes only independent schools provide social mobility: http://t.co/R1ic0nTm  I’ve seen some warped logic in my time…

Touche Sutton Trust! John Jerrim questions reliability of international comparisons of social mobility: http://t.co/RskOLdcw

Two elements of the bigger social mobility production function: resilience: http://t.co/A3oqQYhH and cultural capital: http://t.co/RiJmtdlX

Sutton Trust Report on The Postgraduate Premium: http://t.co/45KimL6w and associated Press Release: http://t.co/iJu1sGXC

Since reintroduction of a Cambridge entrance exam won’t help fair access, will OFFA be challenging that?: http://t.co/mEksGmxs

It must be driven by the associated social mobility indicator. Don’t know who ‘invented’ that: http://t.co/7sxBg2k9

The latest UCAS data: http://t.co/Ejg4RBW3 and OFFA’s comment on same: http://t.co/ULtLsUpf

OFFA provisionally estimates Access Agreement support for disadvantaged students at £386.5m in 2011-12: http://t.co/ghqbZW9f (Col 691W)

Free Enterprise Group paper which calls for OFFA to be scaled back: http://t.co/gBuL7MIR

Lampl blogpost alongside the new Postgraduate Premium Report: http://t.co/fj7vTncm

Whatever happened to the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission? http://t.co/QJVef3vw – No website, remit or publications timetable

Adjournment Debate on the Oxford postgraduate access case: http://t.co/ICmwzcxM (Col 431)

Education Select Committee has published uncorrected oral evidence on SEN: http://t.co/NIAea1fV and careers: http://t.co/FHVIj4ur

Direct link to Education Select Committee’s deeply critical report on careers guidance http://t.co/k6gWPNoX

Media coverage of OFFA’s as yet unpublished 2014-15 guidance: http://t.co/SJzZpwdl  and http://t.co/Aw2PF7Iw – advocates long-term outreach

OFFA’s 2014-15 guidance apparently announces National Scholarship Programme reforms: http://t.co/bk7mW5dC

UUK responds to OFFA’s 2014-15 Guidance before OFFA has even published it: http://t.co/M9Ac3H3m – someone needs to pull their finger out!

.

Disadvantage and Narrowing Gaps

Table showing Grammar School FSM eligibility by school: http://t.co/3jRMXqXK (Col 356W) – almost all are below 5% – scandalous

The EYFSP Attainment by Pupil Characteristics data mentioned earlier: http://t.co/6XJ8Twnx – FSM gap at 19% largely unchanged since 2010

Work and Pensions Select Committee Report on Universal Credit covers progress on FSM passporting at paras 184-195: http://t.co/XBcnmqYJ

As far as I can establish this is all DfE has published about prioritising FSM admissions to maintained schools: http://t.co/c5rKB0Rx

The FSM priority admissions pilot for maintained schools comes out from under wraps: http://t.co/iSgKUEOO

Consultation on Improving Educational Outcomes for Children of Travelling Families: http://t.co/JiZ8Puw9 – but it isn’t really that

Marginally better looked after children attainment gaps: http://t.co/vlpDKIGn don’t yet warrant a Pupil Premium Plus: http://t.co/hu8mkeVr

New series of Pupil Premium evidence notes and case studies from DfE: http://t.co/tOIrgti1

Sounds like FSM in FE are once more off the table, because the cost is prohibitive: http://t.co/pK5vqDS7 (Col WA291)

In 2012-13 1,924,920 pupils attracted the Pupil Premium including 52,370 attracting the Service Premium: http://t.co/RmshihlH  (Col 841W)

Estimated costs of FSM for all families entitled to Universal Credit and those with incomes under £16K: http://t.co/Tvjxplzu (Col 341W)

ASCL call for Pupil Premium funding formula undermined by strange notion of weighting to reflect attainment gaps (TES) http://t.co/flAaErUt

EEF T&LTooklit relaunch: http://t.co/pv9IpMB3 – see ‘latest updates’ tab for what has been added: http://t.co/Y7fhpb1U

.

Selection and Independent Sector

Defensive speech from president of the GSA: http://t.co/JWMI3IGx – basically the message to Government is ‘we’ll only co-operate if you pay’

DfE can’t say how many/which schools can select on basis of aptitude in each of the permitted specialisms: http://t.co/yMV3KSjL (Col 373W)

Times incorrectly reporting KCL will open first 16-19 maths free school. Brief (free) Russian report here: http://t.co/CSwe0KwR

KCL release on its 16-19 maths free school http://t.co/llu79Jmf Wolf leads; DfE’s paying development and ’14-16 outreach’ grant

Update http://t.co/isW4kDec  and FAQ http://t.co/qc5gH6vv on 16-19 maths free schools. Now maths only with ‘significant’ HE input

Allegations of cheating in London 11+ examinations: http://t.co/lvUNsYuH

Bucks grammar schools reveal new 11+ designed to to tackle the issue of private tutoring http://t.co/5zujTkUc

So we now have 16-19 maths/STEM academy projects in Norwich, London and Exeter: http://t.co/vNqqUnjt – but there’s funding for 12

Apropos Exeter 16-19 maths specialist school: http://t.co/5v9MNJ2j – my (oldish) post on the planned network: http://t.co/tCZac6YB

DfE press release on Exeter 16-19 specialist maths free school: http://t.co/5v9MNJ2j  -  Unclear why they cite only Kolmogorov as the model

Delighted Boyle’s pushing fair access to GS/faith schools http://t.co/YBMKOhGU  Gatekeepers’ resistance must be overcome http://t.co/9YlNtApA

Direct link: Barriers to Choice in Public Service, calling for support for poor students to enter grammar/faith schools http://t.co/9YlNtApA

DfE wants more bids from universities to open specialist 16-19 maths free schools – it now has a dedicated team: http://t.co/isW4kDec

.

Miscellaneous Issues

Here’s Labour’s online policy hub – education and children page: http://t.co/kF6xmWtQ  (Labour list gave out the wrong URL this morning)

Just 3.85% of 1,920 converter academies have sponsor arrangements to raise performance in another academy: http://t.co/Eo0xIg7Y (Col 325W)

I was surprised at how anti-sets this DfE webpage is: http://t.co/8LtuOWi7 – compared with my analysis http://t.co/z6sEtY1e

I strove to find the middle ground here: http://t.co/z6sEtY1e – most of the ‘gifted’ literature is avidly pro-setting…

Feature on ability-based vertical grouping in Y9-11: http://t.co/rMZvMzlG – doesn’t really bring out the downside of ability groups

300 FE colleges to start competing for 14 year-olds: http://t.co/udybYwNi Will that remove early entry barrier?

FAQs on 14-16 enrolment in colleges: http://t.co/lk9ssdL3

A post that asks some serious questions about Futurelearn, the OU MOOC endeavour: http://t.co/NE8uPeGP

Updated FAQ on 14-16 enrolment in colleges: http://t.co/lk9ssdL3 – bit vague on the curricular implications

TES reports on progress towards 14-16 admissions in FE: http://t.co/PdYXAtVW – slow start but could be a big deal in future

New OECD analysis of the Social Benefits of Education: http://t.co/3N86kYXN  Be good to check how recession has impacted on life satisfaction

Updated details of the Dance and Drama Awards (DADA): http://t.co/3yRg9GnM

This LSE Growth Commission report focuses entirely on the ‘long tail’ in discussing human capital investment in schools http://t.co/7V53xnpN

Direct link to new Education Select Committee Report on Home Education: http://t.co/pUuzFV1p

DfE has finally published information on free school proposers here http://t.co/Hfnam8Om  and here http://t.co/XPUfmGB1

FoI response listing academies that have received pre-warning notices and warning notices: http://t.co/ylHKQQW8

Announcement of 3rd year of teachers’ National Scholarship Fund: http://t.co/KeQTOC0Z

The Handbook for the new round of the National Scholarship Fund for Teachers: http://t.co/aNGLEA0G – application deadline is 25 April

Plans to open The Free School Norwich (High School): http://t.co/xlIMM9wE – by the same people that brought you the primary school

Gove letter to Information Commissioner on release of free school data: http://t.co/DLoD5BCz  - not quite giving in gracefully…

A new set of FAQs about Advanced Skills Teachers (ASTs): http://t.co/7jBong8h

.

Research

DfE review of Research Evidence on Writing: http://t.co/WU7rRALW – concludes that there are still huge gaps in the evidence base

DfE is seeking EoIs in the Evaluation of Teaching Schools: http://t.co/fYPjWijc

New DfE research on Pupils Not Claiming Free School Meals: http://t.co/tOq9uKwR – estimates 200,000 (14% of those eligible) don’t claim

There’s an interesting new Eurydice comparative report on Developing Key Competences at School in Europe: http://t.co/2F8kEHQz

Some of new Education Endowment Foundation grants seem rather bloated: http://t.co/WXvsdO2j – many beneficiaries are the usual suspects too

New DfE research too on the impact of pupil behaviour and well-being on educational outcomes: http://t.co/z7kAhYlB

New DfE research on students taking gap years: http://t.co/ddQyNH5w – they get better degrees but earn less at 30

Final report of DfE-commissioned research into L6 tests is due tomorrow. Contract here: http://t.co/Qys5dWDb

DfE research contract for study of progression of high-achieving pupils to HE also now published: http://t.co/Iz7CA6Bj

New DfE research review of literacy and numeracy catch-up strategies: http://t.co/6qRhxd6x

Direct link to new Jerrim/Vignoles paper: University Access for Disadvantaged Children: http://t.co/S89lyIXI and PN: http://t.co/YycW9neV

CERP article by McNally on detracking plus link to full paper on impact of opening up NI grammar schools http://t.co/7XqevAov

Interesting new DfE research report on the impact of family circumstances and ‘stressors’ on pupil outcomes: http://t.co/NyLJooyO

NEPC’s Annual Bunkum Awards for Truly Rotten Education Research (plus links to their reviews of the winners): http://t.co/8rrQ27ovU3

.

GP

February 2013