This is the second part of a post dedicated to a comparative analysis of gifted education quality standards.
As far as I can establish, a total of 10 standards have been developed in six countries since the publication of NAGC’s original district-level Gifted Program Standards in 1998. Two countries – England and the US – have updated and published revised standards. The other four – the Netherlands, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia and Wales – have each produced a single edition.
Part One set out a personal perspective on what constitutes a really good set of quality standards, summed up in the paradox of a ‘flexible framework’, offered a basic typology and concluded with the history of their development.
Part Two is a comparative assessment of the 10 standards, concluding with an in-depth review of the content of eight of them.
I will conclude the post in due course with a Coda which examines in more detail the multiple uses to which well-designed quality standards can be put and the significant benefits they can deliver.
Comparative Analysis: Structure and Purpose
We begin with an examination of the shape and structure of the 10 standards. Table 1 sets out the basic factual information, showing the standards in the order of their development.
|Standard||Country||Date||No. of elements||No. of levels|
|NAGC v1||USA||1998||7||2 (Minimum, Exemplary)|
|IQS v1||England||2005||14||3 (Entry, Developing, Exemplary)|
|CQS||England||2007||7||3 (Entry, Developing, Exemplary)|
|LAQS||England||2009||13||3 (Entry, Developing, Exemplary)|
|TKI||New Zealand||2009||9||3 (Entry, Developing, Exemplary)*|
|MSP||Saudi Arabia||2009||9||4 (Limited, Developing, Good, Excellent)*|
|IQS v2||England||2010||14||3 (Entry, Developing, Exemplary)|
*It could be argued that the TKI standard has five levels, because there is a column devoted to what it means to fall short of the entry level standard, while the improving standard contains two different columns
*The MSP standard explains that schools will be assessed on this 4-level scale but, additionally, one of the elements relates exclusively to schools aspiring to advanced partnership, whereas other schools need only to meet the standards in the eight other elements
*The Welsh Assembly standard divides two of its elements into three significant sub-elements, so it is arguable that it really comprises 14 elements.
The number of levels is typically either one or three, with just a couple of exceptions. In the MSP example, the four gradings are not actually built into the standard, but imposed on a single set of statements. Something similar is found in the Dutch standard, which invites schools to score themselves on a 1-5 scale against each statement.
The inclusion of a ‘not meeting the standard’ column is unique to the New Zealand example and is worthy of wider consideration. It could be helpful to settings considering whether or not they currently meet the entry level statements, giving them additional context for that judgement.
The number of elements within each standard ranges from 6 to 14, with the UK Standards at the upper end of the range and the US and Dutch examples at the lower end.
Table 2, below, shows that there is relatively little common practice in the division into elements or the order in which they appear. (This is also true of the placement of material within specific elements).
|Identification||Standards and progress||Conditions for learning||Leadership||Student identification||Learning and development||Organisation and policy||Professional learning||Student achievement||A whole school strategy/action plan|
|Effective provision in the classroom||Effective provision in the classroom||Development of Learning||Policy||Professional development||Assessment||Education and learning||Definition||Leadership and management||Identification strategies and criteria|
|Standards||Identification||Knowledge of subjects + themes||Ethos and pastoral care||Socio-emotional guidance and counselling||Curriculum planning and instruction||Support and counselling||Policies/procedure||School ethos||A target for improvement of school’s provision/pupils’ performance|
|Enabling curriculum entitlement + choice||Assessment||Understanding learners’ needs||Resources||Program Evaluation||Learning environments||Communication with parents pupil and environment||Resources||Teaching and learning||Learning styles, teaching approaches, organisational strategies Curriculum offers breadth, depth and flexibility Provision addresses pastoral care|
|Assessment for learning||Transfer and transition||Planning||Engaging with the community families + beyond||Program design||Programming||Quality improvement and assurance||Identification||Classroom management||Reviews to identify underachievement and support individual pupils|
|Transfer and transition||Enabling curriculum entitlement + choice||Engagement with learners + learning||Identification||Program administration and management||Professional development||Benefit to other pupils||Maori dimension||Student personal development||Improve the skills of all staff|
|Leadership||Leadership||Links beyond the classroom||Effective provision in the classroom||Curriculum and instruction||Cultural diversity||Parental involvement||Support for exceptionally able|
|Policy||Monitoring and evaluation||Learning beyond the classroom||Effective Teaching and Learning||Commitment to and evidence of||Resources including ICT|
|Ethos + pastoral care||Policy||Enabling curriculum entitlement + choice||Beyond the regular classroom||Advanced Partnership||Taking account of pupils views + encouraging them to take responsibility for learning Taking account of parents’ views + encouraging them to take responsibility for supporting their child’s learning; Working with partners to enhance provision|
|Staff development||Ethos + pastoral care||Transfer + transition||Monitoring action plan and effectiveness of school’s policy.|
|Resources||Staff development||Staff development|
|Monitoring and evaluation||Resources||Standards|
|Engaging with community families and beyond||Engaging with community families and beyond||Monitoring + evaluation|
|Learning beyond the classroom||Learning beyond the classroom|
There is no suggestion that those preparing the standards are drawing on a shared understanding of how gifted education practice should be broken down into its constituent parts. Nor is there any evidence to suggest a tendency towards consensus over the 12-year period.
The elements provide a basic architecture for the standard that the authors believe will be logical and rational for the users. There is no particular merit in having a specific number of elements although one can see that the range we have probably marks the parameters of ‘useability’. Arguably, 14 is at the upper end of manageable while six is the barest minimum for such a complex set of processes.
Table 3 shows that the Standards and their supporting resources together identify some 20 underpinning aims and purposes that their gifted education quality standards are intended to address.
There is inevitably a degree of subjectivity in this analysis, since some objectives are more overtly stated than others – and different descriptions of purpose are sometimes provided in different materials, depending on the intended audience.
Self-evaluation and improvement planning by settings are by far the most common and almost ubiquitous.
|Define the shape and constituent elements of gifted education||x|
|Establish generic understanding across subjects and phases||x||x||x||x|
|Common language for discussion||x|
|Reflection by teachers on their own practice||x|
|Improve pupil and school level achievement||x||x||x|
|Improve gifted education locally, regionally and nationally||x|
|Set minimum expectations for schools||x|
|Select schools into a partnership||x|
|Accreditation of schools||x|
The table also demonstrates that, as far as public declaration is concerned, the English quality standards are relatively more ambitious in terms of the number of tricks they seek to take.
This is arguably because the design and development process was tied explicitly to the expansion of a national programme for gifted education and overseen by the body responsible for the country’s wider education policy. The standards were designed with a strategic function, rather than being produced for a specific project or subset of schools, or by an advocacy-driven organisation such as NAGC.
The ways in which the standard could support other aspects of the national programme – and vice versa – were at the forefront of our thinking, as were the opportunities to anchor the standards firmly in other areas of policy. To give an example, we tried very hard to persuade OFSTED, our schools inspectorate, that they should adopt the standards publicly as the basis for inspection judgements in schools.
We were only partly successful. Although the User Guide makes clear that the three levels of the IQS are explicitly aligned with specific OFSTED grades – satisfactory, good, excellent – and the standards are mapped against the self-evaluation framework OFSTED had in place for schools at the time, it was a bridge too far for the fiercely independent inspectorate to adopt entirely a quality framework developed through a process that they did not control.
The substantive point remains that, with the right degree of support and influence, gifted education quality standards can be embedded in the very fabric of education accountability measures, and indeed in many other dimensions of national or state education policy, so making them potentially a very powerful policy lever indeed.
No other country has come closer than England to achieving this outcome.
Comparative Analysis: Content
The remainder of this analysis considers eight of the ten standards (I have excluded the English classroom and local authority quality standards because they add relatively little additional value given their specialist focus. It is worth remembering their existence, however: they explain apparent omissions in the English IQS, which does not need to address in detail matters of pedagogy and supra-school administration because they are covered elsewhere.)
Rather than undertake an exhaustive analysis of every single similarity and difference between the eight examples, I have tried to highlight some of the more interesting variations.
I have also focused on the incidence of wording that appears to invite all settings to follow specific practice – even though this may not be supported universally as best or even effective practice – rather than giving them flexibility to implement the standards as they see fit.
The selection of such ‘non-negotiables’ throws a particularly interesting light on the priorities of the standards’ authors. It is a perfectly valid aim for a quality standard to embed such practice universally, across all settings, though an excessive number of ‘non negotiables’ will inevitably compromise a flexible framework approach.
Some – the Welsh Assembly example springs to mind – contain quite a few of these apparent requirements, others – notably the Saudi MSP standard – are almost bereft of them. Sometimes of course it is hard to tell, for there are several different ways to promote aspects of provision on the face of quality standards while stopping short of absolute compulsion.
I have divided this treatment into sections headed by the name of particular standards, though I have taken the two IQS standards and the two NAGC standards together. Each section also addresses specific themes, so readers will find that they are flitting constantly between standards. I could find no other way to organise the material short of a huge and unreadable grid.
The IQS contains an explicit requirement for a co-ordinator or lead teacher in each school with overall responsibility for gifted education. In fact this requirement is common to all the standards except the two NAGC versions, which may be explained by their status as district standards. (The 1998 edition does include an oblique reference to a district co-ordinator, specifying that such a post-holder should have appropriate qualifications).
Other ‘non-negotiables’ in the IQS (though they may only apply at certain levels) include:
- securing through identification a gifted and talented population representative of the whole school population (something similar can be found in the later NAGC standards but this is otherwise unique;
- supporting those with multiple exceptionalities and the exceptionally able (2005 only). With the exception of NAGC (2010), the former do not seem to get the same positive treatment in any other standards, but the latter feature even more significantly in the Welsh Assembly standards (though nowhere else). Significantly, both references are dropped from IQS 2010. Support for pupils of different cultures and backgrounds is also referenced in the 2005 edition but dropped in the later version;
- links with local and national providers of out-of-school gifted education (2005 only) replaced in the 2010 edition by a reference to collaboration with other schools. It is as if provision offered by universities and voluntary organisations has become irrelevant given a policy change around this time that shifted English gifted education towards being more school-led.
The English standards are also notable for incorporating expectations about the academic performance of gifted learners. These change subtly between the two editions: the earlier focuses on standards relative to gifted learners in similar schools; the later switches to national averages and also introduces expectations for pupils’ progress. Both refer exclusively to high attainers, who are of course only a subset of the gifted population.
There is nothing as explicit in the later NAGC standards, even though they are built entirely around pupil outcomes. They seem to address every dimension of competence except academic achievement. Students are to demonstrate ‘important learning progress’ but nowhere is this quantified, whether in relative or absolute terms.
The MSP standards do refer to high student achievement , but only in general terms. The Welsh Assembly Standards demand targets for students’ performance as well as for the improvement of the school’s provision, though without setting any kind of benchmark for either.
It may be that the authors of these standards decided to do without such a reference because it was impossible to find a formulation that would apply equally to all gifted learners. But, if we accept that high attainers are a subset of the gifted population, it seems rather absurd for standards (especially those based on outcomes like NAGC 2010) to exclude some sort of expectation relating to their academic achievement.
Conversely, the English standards are typically coy about funding, referring only to ‘appropriate budgets’. The Welsh opt for a similar reference to the school governors ‘allocating appropriate resources’
The first NAGC standards are slightly better, calling for gifted education to be equitably and adequately funded compared with other programmes, and for funding to be tied to programme goals (and adequate to meet them at exemplary level). Similar terminology is retained in the 2010 edition. The other standards are almost silent on this critical issue.
- the evidence base supporting identification should draw on multiple assessments ‘including off-level testing’ and make use of ‘culturally sensitive checklists’ (2010);
- a personalised assessment profile must be developed for each student (1998);
- gifted programmes must be ‘an integral part of the general education school day’ (1998);
- flexible grouping and, ‘suitable adaptations’ which are specified at exemplary level as early entrance, grade-skipping, ability grouping and dual enrolment (1998); by 2010 this is modified to: ‘educators regularly use multiple alternative approaches to accelerate learning’;
- students interact with educators who meet the national teacher preparation standards in gifted education; educators participate in ongoing professional development to support students’ social and emotional needs (2010).
The US standards are typical in devoting significant attention and space to professional development, although this is clearly an input rather than an outcome.
At exemplary level, the TKI standards require that all teachers in the school have undertaken relevant professional learning, that an induction process is available for new staff, and that gifted education specialists have specialist qualifications.
Similarly, Saudi schools must ensure that a differentiated professional development programme is available for all teachers which incorporates some work on the theory and practice of giftedness and creativity.
In Wales, staff training must cover a range of bases including identification, formative assessment, strengthening pupils’ self-esteem, differentiation, learning styles, thinking skills and problem-solving. Support staff must also receive appropriate training.
While the English standards maintain a curious separation between identification and the assessment of gifted learners, the later US standards sensibly take the view that identification is integral to assessment.
Identification is subsumed within ‘support and counselling by the Dutch, but is almost entirely absent from the MSP standard, presumably on the grounds that it is undertaken external to the school.
The 1998 NAGC standards places heavy emphasis on what they call ‘socio-emotional guidance and counselling’ devoting an entire element to this. All learners must receive guidance to support their socio-emotional development, on top of dedicated guidance and counselling for vulnerable learners.
The phrasing is redolent of a ‘deficit model’ approach, consistent with a strand of US gifted education thinking built on the assumption that gifted students typically have social and emotional ‘issues’. This is redressed somewhat in the 2010 standards where emphasis is rightly placed instead on developing all students’ personal, social, cultural and communications competence, as well as their leadership skills.
There is also another element called ‘Learning and Development’ which addresses students’ personal development, including: self-knowledge and understanding; understanding of and respect for similarities and differences within their peer group; and understanding of their own cognitive and affective development.
Such ‘soft skills’ are almost entirely lacking from either version of the IQS, which merely contain brief references to support for learners’ social and emotional needs and action to combat bullying and stress. The Welsh also tend to concentrate on the more tangible issues within this spectrum, such as careers education and guidance and pupils’ attitudes to learning.
The pastoral support dimension is slightly better developed in the Dutch CPS standards but only the Saudi version rivals the coverage in the later NAGC standards, covering students’ self-esteem, resilience and perseverance, as well as their tolerance and respect for each other.
CPS – Netherlands (2005)
The Dutch standards are amongst those with relatively few ‘non-negotiables’ other than expectations that there will be a school co-ordinator, partnerships with higher education and business and links into a regional and national network of schools.
There is some emphasis placed on action planning for improvement, a feature that is also found in the English IQS and, in pronounced fashion, in the Welsh Assembly standards.
But, whereas this tends to foreground SMART targets and data, the Dutch begin a stage earlier, with an expectation that schools with have articulated a vision for gifted education and defined the model of provision they will follow. Only then can an action plan be produced.
New Zealand incorporates something similar: entry level involves developing an appropriate definition of gifted and talented which recognises different types of giftedness.
The CPS standards are particularly noteworthy for the inclusion of an element called ‘Benefits to Other Pupils’ which does not appear in any of the other examples (although there are briefer references to a ‘rising tide lifting all ships’).
TKI – New Zealand (2008)
The TKI standards are again more tightly specified:
- entry level identification must involve more than two sources of information (eg parents, teachers, peers) and more than two types of information (eg tests, observations, interviews). A register and individual profiles are required at improving level;
- exemplary teaching and learning involves the co-construction of differentiated work modules by students and staff, something similar also features in the Welsh standards and in NAGC 2010;
- out of school provision in improving schools will include the deployment of expert coaches, tutors or mentors.
But the tightest level of specification is reserved for schools’ response to diversity. The TKI standards devotes an entire element to The Maori Dimension and another to Cultural Differences.
Under the former, all schools are expected to demonstrate an understanding of the Maori world view and consultation with Maori staff. At the middle level, Maori theories and conceptions of giftedness should be acknowledged and respected, while exemplary schools should reflect Maori beliefs throughout their provision.
This progression is repeated in the Cultural Differences segment, which causes some unnecessary duplication. It as if inclusion of a separate Maori element of the standard was itself a ‘non-negotiable’, even though a single section could have covered both quite comfortably.
This heavy diet of diversity puts into perspective claims by the authors of the 2010 NAGC standards that they give significant attention to the same issue. The 2010 standards are certainly a big advance on their predecessors, but do not begin to match the Kiwi approach.
One can appreciate the distance between the two by replacing ‘Maori’ with ‘African American’ or ‘Hispanic’ and parachuting the TKI element into the NAGC standards…
MSP – Saudi Arabia (2009)
We have noted already that there are few ‘non-negotiables’ in the Saudi standards. Perhaps the only substantive example is the reference to a school co-ordinator – a post for a committed key professional working within the school’s senior leadership team who is supported with the time and resources to model best practice, be the resident expert in teaching and learning and act as a key driver in bringing about ‘deep’ change.
The MSP standards are strong on teaching and learning, encompassing much of the material that is covered by England’s separate CQS. They advocate a wide repertoire of teaching strategies, the development of subject knowledge and an understanding of how to use and apply it, student involvement in negotiating their work, collaborative learning, higher order questioning, problem-solving, independent research and a risk-taking culture.
Parental engagement is strongly featured relative to most other standards, and is probably only matched by the Welsh document. A flavour is given by the expectation that:
‘parents are helped to understand the complex nature of ability and and the importance of opportunities and personal motivation in the fulfilment of a child’s potential’
Maintaining a positive school ethos is also prominent, exemplified by a reference to the school community working:
‘together in harmony, upholding a shared set of values such as respect, honesty, courage and responsibility’.
The Welsh standards seem rather paternalistic compared with most of the others. The list of ‘non-negotiables’ is relatively extensive, encompassing several of the themes addressed above, such as providing a school co-ordinator, staff training and development, support for the exceptionally able and careers guidance. It even extends to a requirement that learners can school library and IT facilities out of school hours!
This is not in itself an unreasonable expectation, but it is surely too insignificant to feature on the face of the standards.
As one might expect, these standards are very much consistent with NACE policy. There is no reference to accelerative practice or a faster pace of learning, even in the section about supporting exceptionally able learners. Whereas the US standards may seem a little too ready to embrace acceleration, the Welsh are very much the opposite.
Welsh schools should also have:
‘a clear rationale for identification that is inclusive and encompasses all children who have abilities and talents above those normally found in the school’.
There is very strong emphasis on multi-faceted progress monitoring against the required action plan. Alongside the priority placed on parental engagement, a sub-element is also devoted to pupil voice, which is much more developed in these standards than any of the others.
Schools must listen regularly to pupils’ views about the experience of being a gifted and talented pupil, including feedback about their aspirations, what helps them to learn and what barriers exist to their achievement. They must also demonstrate that they have acted on such views.
What Lessons Can We Draw?
It is not my purpose to produce a league table of gifted education quality standards. They must be judged against the objectives set by those who designed them and considered in the very different educational contexts to which they apply.
None of the standards is head-and-shoulders above the rest. All have outstanding features; all have shortcomings. This reinforces the importance of taking a global perspective and reviewing all existing standards whenever a new one is produced. Insularity is never the route to best practice.
But I very much prefer those that come closest to the ‘flexible framework’ ideal, rather than those which seem overly prescriptive and over-detailed.
This optimal approach, while it encompasses the full span of what is important in gifted education, is relatively sparing in its insistence on specific practice, confining such prescription to fundamentally significant issues and a handful of policy priorities.
It is otherwise all too easy to devise standards that become a straitjacket, serving only to constrict the divergence and innovation that is always necessary to improve our shared understanding of what works.
For the fundamental purpose of quality standards must be to support and release the creativity and commitment displayed in every single setting, harnessing it – though loosely – for the ultimate benefit of all gifted learners.
As indicated above, this post will conclude with a Coda dedicated to reviewing the multiple purposes of gifted education quality standards and how these can be pursued simultaneously without compromising each other.
We will look at the score or so which feature in Table 2 above but my own work suggests that there are several others besides. I am at 25 and counting…
Whenever I am asked which gifted education reform has had most impact I always reference quality standards. Six countries to date have understood their power and value. Let’s hope that many more will follow their example.