A Comparative Review of Gifted Education Quality Standards: Part 2


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.

Table 1

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)
CPS Netherlands 2005 6 1
CQS England 2007 7 3 (Entry, Developing, Exemplary)
Welsh Assembly Wales 2008 10* 1
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)*
NAGC v2 USA 2010 6 1
IQS v2 England 2010 14 3 (Entry, Developing, Exemplary)

Notes

*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).

Table 2

IQS1 IQS2 CQS1 LAQS NAGC1 NAGC2 CPS TKI MSP Welsh Assembly
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.

Table 3

Purpose IQS1 IQS2 CQS LAQS NAGC1 NAGC2 CPS TKI MSP Welsh Assembly
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
Self-evaluation x x x x x x x x x
External assessment x x x x
Improvement planning x x x x x x x x x
Peer review x x x
Curriculum planning x
Professional development x x x x
Innovation x
Advocacy x
Cross-school collaboration x x x
Select schools into a partnership x
Accreditation of schools x
Structure guidance x x
Catalogue resources x x 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 English IQS (2005 and 2010)

Courtesy of Richard Croft

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 NAGC Standards (1998 and 2010)

courtesy AlaskaGM Photos

‘Non-negotiables’ include:

  • 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)

Courtesy of Tambako the Jaguar

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)

courtesy of etnobofin

   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)

courtesy of Saudi

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’.

Welsh Assembly (2008)

courtesy of Plaid

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.

GP

November 2011

A Comparative View of Gifted Education Quality Standards: Part 1

This post looks at the nature and purpose of gifted education quality standards, reviews the history of their development and draws lessons from a comparative analysis.

It is designed partly as background reading for those interested in developing state or national gifted education quality standards of their own. As far as I can ascertain, no such analysis has ever been published before, although one hopes that the authors of all quality standards produced to date have conducted their own private analysis.

Colleagues in Hong Kong are considering whether to proceed with such standards and this post is partly a spin-off from a consultancy and professional development package prepared specifically for them. In matters of gifted education, Hong Kong often leads where other states follow.

The post is organised into two main sections and a coda:

  • Part 1 sets out my idea of what constitutes a good quality standard, which differs somewhat from most of those in existence, offers a basic typology of quality standards and outlines the history of their development to date;
  • Part 2 is a comparative analysis of eight gifted education quality standards produced in five different countries;
  • The Coda will take a closer look at the many and varied purposes of a well-designed quality standard and will be published a little further downstream.

What is a Good Quality Standard?

There is a difference between describing the nature of extant gifted education quality standards and explaining what such standards should be like.

Paradoxically, the notion of a standard betokens a certain level of precision that does not necessarily coincide with my idea of best practice.

The august British Standards Institute has defined a standard as:

‘A published document that contains a technical specification or other precise criteria designed to be used consistently as a rule, guideline or definition. Standards help to make life simpler and to increase the reliability and the effectiveness of many goods and services we use. They are a summary of best practice…’

But, during several years creating and working with gifted education quality standards, the phrase I have found most neatly captures their fundamental essence is ‘a flexible framework’.

For effective quality standards must be precise enough to:

  • capture, clearly and succinctly, all the elements of effective practice in gifted education at a specified level in the education system; and so
  •  equip all stakeholders with a common language to describe effective practice, so they can communicate effectively with each other.

On the other hand, they must be imprecise enough that they can:

  • apply universally, to every setting, regardless of phase, sector, status, funding or any other variable;
  • reconcile into consensus the wildly differing perspectives of experts – be they practitioners, academics or policy makers – and the full range of other stakeholders; and
  • allow sufficient scope to meet widely varying circumstances, support divergent interpretation, promote innovation and allow for changes to the paradigm and the wider policy context (at least up to the point where they need to be revised).

Hence producing a quality standard should be a careful balancing act between these two conflicting priorities. One is not always convinced that this important principle has been grasped by those charged with their development.

Flexibility in Design and Development

This spirit of compromise is part of a bigger bargain between the centre – typically an educational arm of government – and the myriad of local settings to which the standard applies.

The centre has a vested interest in deploying the quality standards as a policy lever that drives improvement throughout the system – and also as an instrument to push particular priorities that it deems significant (though too many of these will overload the standard, so it needs to be selective).

Meanwhile, local settings are typically seeking a practical tool they can use to evaluate, improve and validate their own practice; an instrument that will support school improvement and professional development alike; and a platform for local partnership and collaboration.

While expert practitioners may be relatively inclined towards pragmatism and eclecticism when developing an understanding and appreciation of what works best in gifted education, expert academics in the research community may be more inclined to argue for a particular model, approach or paradigm in gifted education.

They need to be prepared for the possibility that their most cherished beliefs will not appear on the face of the standard (though the standard can nevertheless accommodate them).

To give an example, it may not be desirable for a gifted education quality standard to explicitly advocate grade-skipping, so making it in effect a universal requirement, even though grade-skipping may be perfectly permissible within the terms of the standard.

Sometimes researchers can take the opposite track. I well remember resistance to our classroom quality standards (see below) on the grounds that such a standard would be based by definition on one pedagogy, so preventing other pedagogies from being freely expressed in the classroom!

Such a criticism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the flexible framework paradox.

By virtue of being a consensual compromise, a single framework can support many different outcomes, whereas a more tightly-drawn document could not reconcile the very different objectives of stakeholders.

But, even with this principle of flexibility, quality standards have a limited shelf life. Once the gifted education paradigm has shifted significantly, or wider education policy has undergone radical reform – perhaps as a consequence of the election of a new government – they need to be revised and updated, given a new lease of life.

Otherwise they will ossify gifted education by holding practitioners to outdated assumptions of what constitutes effective practice.

Flexibility in Application

And a gifted education quality standard should be applied in a similar vein.

Because there is a need to break down provision into its constituent elements, often to define more than one level of performance and invariably to ensure that the resulting tool is readily accessible, quality standards are typically published as a grid.

The rows and columns might suggest precision and tight specification, but closer analysis should reveal a more elastic approach.

In constructing standards containing different levels, it is not imperative to maintain consistency of approach between the levels. Statements relating to the same element at a higher level can be cumulative – covering the same issue but with extra ‘demand’ built in – or they can add greater breadth by introducing another related issue, or they may do both simultaneously.

Settings should be encouraged not to apply the standards to their practice with a slavish ‘tick-box’ mentality. The process of discussing and agreeing which ratings apply in a particular setting is at least as important as the outcome, quite probably more important, because it invites communication and supports the building of consensus.

Moreover, reaching an overall judgement is not a matter of calculating an overall ‘score’ which determines a given category: settings should use discretion and professional judgement to reach a ‘best fit’ judgement which they can collectively agree and which is supported by the evidence.

Varieties of Gifted Education Quality Standard

Quality Standards can be categorised according to three key variables:

First, the layer of the education system to which they apply

Standards may be applied to:

  • learning settings (I am using this term in preference to ‘classroom’ in recognition that such a standard may be fully applicable to out-of-hours and out-of-school learning);
  •  institutions – most typically schools, but we opted to call our whole-school standards ‘institutional quality standards’ (IQS) in recognition that they should apply equally to colleges of further education, nursery schools, pupil referral units (PRUs) and so on;
  • local authorities, or school districts, or indeed any other grouping of several institutions, regardless of whether it is based on geography or some other relationship. So, for example, a ‘local authority quality standard’ could apply just as well to a chain of academies or charter schools;
  •  regional, state or national gifted education programmes and services. Although none exist as far as I am aware, I have argued before on this blog that the development of a national – more exactly an international quality standard – would be an important step towards effective international collaboration.

Second, the levels of performance that they specify

  • some standards have a single level, typically pitched to be reachable by all settings, or almost all settings, allowing for the fact that there will always be some outliers – such as failing schools – that we should not seek to accommodate;
  • others have two levels – typically a baseline standard and a standard for advanced or exemplary performance to which all settings should aspire and which some centres of excellence will be able to achieve;
  • others still have three levels, inserting a level for improving settings between the entry and exemplary levels, so providing an extra step in the ladder to support a process of steady but continuous improvement (though it should be possible for settings to continue working at their current level if they prefer and, certainly, there should be no ceiling on the top level, so even the very best schools can never say that they have ‘completed’ a standard).

I know of no gifted education quality standards with more than three declared levels, though a couple get close to specifying five, as we shall see later.

Third, the core purpose(s) of the standard

  • If a standard is intended primarily as an instrument for self-review, or external assessment, rather than the ideal of a multi-faceted instrument with several different purposes, it will look somewhat different;
  •  It is critical to understand that a quality standard cannot have as one of its purposes the assessment of personal competence. Personal competence frameworks are entirely different animals, necessary to personal training and development and to performance management.

Quality standards are fundamentally school (institutional) improvement tools. They should align with personal competence frameworks, and both should inform professional development (because one is about the acquisition and demonstration of personal knowledge, understanding and skills; the other about the application of that knowledge and skills to bring about institutional improvement).

 This distinction is sometimes difficult to maintain, particularly when a quality standard is pitched at the level of classroom settings, but it is important to recognise that, even there, many other factors than personal competence will affect the quality of education provided, most obviously if there is one or more para-professionals present. A quality standard should reflect the cumulative impact of all inputs and processes, not just the single teacher.

The History of Quality Standards

This map shows the geographical spread and the historical development of gifted education quality standards taking account of all of which I am aware. All are available in the English language, which makes comparison that much easier.

1998: The first gifted education standards were produced, under the auspices of the US National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) by an 18-strong task force. They applied at the school district level and applied the following principles, which begin to embody some (but not all) of the ideas set out above:

  • Standards should encourage but not dictate approaches of high quality;
  • Standards represent requisite programme outcomes and standards for excellence;
  • Standards establish the level of performance to which all educational school districts and agencies should aspire;
  • Standards represent professional consensus on critical practice in gifted education that almost everyone is likely to find acceptable;
  • Standards are observable aspects of educational programming and are directly connected to the continuous growth and development of gifted learners.

2005: Originally conceived in 2003, influenced in part by the NAGC standards, but envisaged from the outset as a school-level tool, the original English Institutional Quality Standards were developed, trialled and consulted on by a small team of consultants working with the support of an expert advisory group and eventually published in 2005.

The original User Guide embodies much of the thinking that we developed from the initial idea, which first emerged from a series of discussions between yours truly and the first director of NAGTY’s Student Academy.

The IQS were updated in 2010 though changes were fairly minimal.

The institutional standards were followed by classroom quality standards (CQS) in 2007, which amplified the teaching and learning dimensions of the IQS and applied them to learning settings rather than to whole school practice.

The CQS were conceived as a scaffolded support tool with three different layers, each undertaking a subtly different function.

  • The first layer was designed as a set of prompts to encourage reflection and discussion by classroom teachers of the application to all learners of seven key features of challenge and support within teaching and learning.
  • The middle layer applied these features specifically to gifted learners and provided a basis for a more thorough self-evaluation process. This is initially conducted within a generic rather than a subject-specific context, but a subject-specific treatment was also provided for English, maths, science, ICT and PE.
  • The third layer was originally envisaged as a comprehensive online resource base containing exemplification, case studies, action research and interactive discussion, predominantly provided ‘from the bottom up’, not least to exemplify the ownership and shaping of these standards by the professionals using them.

In 2009, the set of English quality standards was completed with the introduction of local authority quality standards (LAQS) – analagous to the US district standards, but based on the assumption that the role of local authorities is, first and foremost, to support the improvement processes instigated by schools.

All subsequent standards developed outside the US were influenced to some extent by the IQS:

  • the Quality Standards in Education for More Able and Talented Pupils published in 2008. These weredeveloped by the Welsh Assembly Government in collaboration with NACE and based on NACE’s Challenge Award, a commercially available standard which emerged at about the same time as the IQS (each informed the other’s development). The Challenge Award materials cost £250 while assessment costs from £700 to £1,900+ depending on the size of the school;
  • the self-evaluation instrument published in New Zealand in 2009 (though this was also informed by several earlier versions developed in that country);
  •  the assessment instrument developed in Saudi Arabia for the Mawhiba Schools Partnership in 2009 (though it also drew on professional standards for teachers and research on school effectiveness).

NAGC radically revised and updated its US district standards in 2010.

A working group undertook the work, according to a new (and rather curious) set of principles:

  • ‘Giftedness is dynamic and is constantly developing; therefore, students are defined as those with gifts and talents rather than those with stable traits.
  • Giftedness is found among students from a variety of backgrounds; therefore, a deliberate effort was made to ensure that diversity was included across all standards. Diversity was defined as differences among groups of people and individuals based on ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area.
  • Standards should focus on student outcomes rather than practices. The number of practices used or how they are used is not as important as whether or not the practice is effective with students. Consequently, the workgroup decided not to identify acceptable versus exemplary standards. Moreover, such a distinction would be difficult to support with the research.
  • Because all educators are responsible for the education of students with gifts and talents, educators were broadly defined as administrators, teachers, counsellors, and other instructional support staff from a variety of professional backgrounds (e.g., general education, special education, and gifted education).
  • Students with gifts and talents should receive services throughout the day and in all environments based on their abilities, needs, and interests. Therefore, the Workgroup decided to use the word “programming” rather than the word “program,” which might connote a one-dimensional approach (e.g., a once-a-week type of programme option)’.

Source: ‘Frequently Asked Questions about the 2010 pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards’

Most of these are unexceptionable, though the last two are perhaps a little prosaic to be regarded as ‘principles’ in their own right. The section in bold is the most problematic.

For, while the new standards quite reasonably include student outcomes, they continue to include a whole range of practices alongside. There is nothing on the face of the standards – or in the guidance available on NAGC’s website – to suggest that the practices are intended to be illustrative rather than binding.

Indeed, the Q and A explains that:

‘The revised standards will elucidate the next steps toward excellence in gifted programming by helping school districts move beyond the focus on practices alone to the relationship between certain practices and desired student outcomes’

It is as if the group developing the standards has been persuaded of the case for a flexible framework, has considered offering maximum flexibility by basing its framework on student outcomes alone, only to decide that ‘evidence-based practice’ must be included alongside so that users of the standards can anchor their effective practice in inputs and processes as well as outcomes.

The two-fold justification for removing the exemplary level is even more puzzling. Presumably, had they wished to, they could have defined ‘exemplariness’ entirely in terms of student outcomes.

There is no explanation of why ‘the research’ would not easily support the exemplary distinction. One can only conclude that the researchers engaged on this project found it impossible to agree, on the basis of aggregated research findings, a framework to define flexibly what constitutes exemplary practice in gifted education.

If so, that is a sad indictment of the contribution of the gifted education research community. It suggests to me that researchers may have had too much control of the revision process relative to other stakeholders.

The documentation does not say whether the working group examined international examples of quality standards before revising their own.

Let us hope that they did, for neglecting to review and learn from other models would not be consistent with good research practice – and also runs counter to the fundamental principles upon which this blog rests!

Actually I think the 2010 Standards are rather good, though some way from my idea of perfection…

GP

November 2011

Are Leonardo Schools a Good Model of Gifted Education?

I have been monitoring the development of gifted and talented education in the Netherlands for several years now. The Dutch have invested significantly in developing their provision – their ideas and practice deserve to be more widely appreciated.

I will soon renew my acquaintance with the bigger picture for one of a series of articles I am writing for G&T Update taking ‘A Global Perspective on G&T Education’ [subscription required].

But I wanted to focus this post specifically on Leonardo schools, partly because they are attracting much attention – occasionally sparking controversy – within Holland’s gifted education community. Also because the way Leonardo has developed is interesting in itself, and because these Dutch disagreements are a microcosm of those that exist within global research and practice.

The emerging network of Leonardo schools is active on Twitter and, courtesy of my Tweetdeck translation tool, I like to retweet some of their messages under the #gifted hashtag, so feeding information about the Dutch experience into the wider network.

Online translation tools have improved significantly in the past few years, but they are not infallible, providing clues to meaning rather than the full sense. So I apologise if some of my interpretation during background research proves to be not quite correct – and I look to the excellent English language skills of my Dutch readers to help correct the record!


The Origins of Leonardo and Progress to Date

The originator of the Leonardo model is one Jan Hendrikx, a former teacher and primary school principal who spent some 12 years of his career working with gifted children in mainstream settings.


He became convinced that teachers faced great difficulty in meeting the needs of their gifted learners in a mixed ability environment. Despite their best efforts to provide enrichment and faster pacing, many gifted pupils were insufficiently challenged and motivated.

The Dutch education inspectorate estimates that almost one-third of their students with an IQ of 130 or above are underachieving relative to their potential. This rises to six in ten for those with an IQ of 145 and above. Hendrikx points out the tremendous waste of human potential that this represents, and the loss to the Netherlands in terms of wasted human capital.

Hendrickx began to shape the Leonardo project in 2005, launching the first Leonardo classes in 2007 with 31 pupils in a primary school in the town of Venlo in Limburg.

The first secondary Leonardo College followed in August 2008, located in Zwijndrecht in South Holland.

According to the Leonardo Foundation website, there are currently 54 Leonardo primary schools (ages 4-12) fully operational, three just opening and three more in development. Sixteen are in South Holland, but there is now at least one school in each of the 12 Dutch provinces.

There are also seven fully operational secondary sector Leonardo Colleges and three more in the exploratory phase. These are located in five of the 12 provinces.

The Foundation has articulated different targets for expansion, but it aims to have a mature national network in place by 2012 (within five years of the launch of the first school) providing a continuum of provision for children and young people aged 4-18. Some suggest this might comprise up to 120 primary schools and 60-80 secondary colleges.


An Overview of the Leonardo Model

At its most basic, the Leonardo model is very simply stated: a separate mixed-age class for gifted learners within a normal school.

The gifted pupils enrol through the host school. Although they are taught separately in smaller classes of about 16 pupils, they mingle with the rest of their school during breaks, and sometimes for sports, musical and dramatic performances. They are in essence a school-within-a-school, making use of the host’s facilities and run by its management but otherwise leading a largely separate existence

This ‘pull out’ provision originates in Hendrikx’s conviction that ‘within class’ education is not in the best interests of gifted learners or their teachers. The arguments are familiar: the standard educational experience in Dutch schools is not sufficiently differentiated to meet the needs of gifted learners. They are typically several years ahead of their peers, but they also tend to think and learn differently.

The Leonardo Foundation calls this ‘top-down learning’, which I interpret to mean a synthesising approach, beginning with the wider concept and then breaking this down into its components. It argues that Dutch education is typically engaged in a ‘bottom-up’ process through which learners explore separately the different elements of a concept before finally knitting them together.

The example given is the treatment of the metric system in mathematics. The standard Dutch curriculum is said to take four years to address all aspects of the topic, gradually building up understanding by drawing together building blocks of knowledge and understanding. Conversely, the Leonardo approach is to explore first the nature and purpose of the metric system and then to move on rapidly to cover the constituent measures.

The Foundation also argues that most Dutch teachers are ill-equipped to meet the needs of gifted learners, referencing a national survey of 2,700 primary school teachers conducted in 2008, which concluded that five of every six were insecure in their ability to identify gifted pupils or to effectively meet their needs.

This, it is suggested, reinforces the underachievement of gifted learners, causing deviant behaviour in some and, at the extreme, causing psychiatric disorders and suicidal tendencies.

The Foundation cites research undertaken at the Centrer for the Study of Giftedness (CBO) and the Institute for Applied Sociology (ITS) at the University of Nijmegen, (Hoogeveen, in Hell, Mooij, Verhoeven: Education Adaptations for gifted students, meta-analysis and overview of international research, 2004) which is said to conclude that the most effective educational adjustments for gifted learners involve pull-out provision for at least part of the time .

Having read the document in translation this does seem, at best, a partial interpretation of its findings, which are much less clear-cut than the statement above would lead one to believe.

These arguments are all too familiar, as are the counter-arguments in favour of integrated provision for gifted learners. One yearns for a ‘third way’ that secures the best of both worlds, but it remains to be seen whether this will evolve in the Netherlands, or whether the two constituencies are too firmly entrenched in their views.


Further Dimensions of the Leonardo Model

The core principles of educating gifted learners in separate mixed-age groups through ‘top-down learning’ lie at the heart of the Leonardo approach, but other dimensions include:

  • Curriculum compacting, enabling gifted learners to move beyond their age peers and potentially engaging with parts of the secondary curriculum while still in primary school. This does not extend to traditional acceleration or ‘grade-skipping’ which is rarer within Leonardo classes;
  • Departures from the standard curriculum which, in primary schools, entails greater emphasis on modern foreign languages (English and Spanish), philosophy, metacognition, entrepreneurial skills, science, communication and ‘dealing with giftedness’. There is a deliberate emphasis on the development of competences rather than knowledge, on stimulating creative thinking, including through problem-solving, and on arts, culture and sports;
  • Regenerating gifted pupils’ motivation for learning, which may have been undermined by their past experience as underachievers in mainstream classrooms; and an emphasis on ‘co-creation and sharing of knowledge’, supported through enrichment projects and online learning.
  • Partnership and collaboration with local businesses which provide guest lecturers, host workshops and company visits and provide internships, as well as offering financial support. (The Leonardo Foundation has agreements with the Rabobank Foundation, Apple, Steinberg and Yamaha Technologies). This is now being extended through collaboration with colleges and universities.

These principles have recently been drawn together in the Leonardo Primary Curriculum, which is being rolled out through a training programme for teachers.

We know that the curriculum is built around three-year cycles, each consisting of 15 interdisciplinary themes, all embracing science, humanities, arts and culture. The first theme is entitled ‘professions’. Further detail is hard to find online. I suspect it is being kept behind a password given the potential income that might be generated from training and wider application beyond the Leonardo network.


Eligibility and Admission

There are standard criteria for admission to Leonardo classes. Admission is through the host school and typically requires an IQ test and a personality assessment by a psychologist or approved expert in giftedness. Other than in exceptional circumstances, candidates must demonstrate an IQ of 130 or above. The admissions board also receives a report from the prospective pupil’s current school and there is a parental interview

The IQ cut-off means that some 2-3% of the Dutch pupil population is potentially eligible, which equates to 30,000-50,000 pupils from a national pupil population of about 1.5 million.

Although the criteria permit other children to be admitted in exceptional circumstances, the heavy emphasis on IQ does not fill well with the view that identification of gifted learners is most appropriately a ‘best fit’ process utilising quantitative and qualitative evidence from a variety of sources and making use of ‘identification through provision’ where appropriate.

I can find no data to support the supposition but I can confidently predict that the Leonardo criteria tend to ensure that their intake is drawn predominantly from those with relatively privileged backgrounds. If this is the case, it is a major problem for the initiative and reveals the likely source of some of the tension with the advocates in Government of a more inclusive approach.


Funding
This situation is likely to be compounded by the funding arrangements for Leonardo classes. The low pupil-teacher ratio and use of trained specialists mean that the unit cost of educating pupils in Leonardo classes is significantly higher than the comparable cost of educating their peers.

It is also significantly higher than the per pupil subsidy paid by the Dutch Government, which is around Euros 5,000 per annum. The annual cost of a pupil in a Leonardo class is around Euros 7,000, meaning that the balance of Euros 2,000 has to be found by the parents, or through sponsorship and charitable donations.

The online evidence suggests this is an average figure: whereas some schools need to ask parents for only Euros 1,000, others – presumably those with higher costs and negligible sponsorship – are having to ask for Euros 3,000.

A parental contribution at this level – averaging 40% of the annual per pupil subsidy from Government – will surely discourage applications from poorer families. The cost may be reduced for those facing particular hardship but only if wealthier parents take the financial hit.

It is not clear from the evidence I have seen whether such hardship funds exist, but the overall sense is of a programme without Government funding struggling for private contributions.

The Foundation is lobbying the Government to provide an extra subsidy for pupils in Leonardo classes arguing that the children should be recognised as having a special need, but the Government does not accept this.

Although it is making available Euros 30 million to support a national action plan for gifted education, expected by 1 March, it is sticking to the line that that this funding should be used to support gifted learners in mainstream education.

Questions have been asked of the Minister of Education who has recently confirmed this position, stating that Leonardo schools are free to utilise less expensive mainstreamed provision. The answers provide no hint of compromise on the Government’s part, suggesting that the action plan will exclude Leonardo classes entirely.


What is the Future for Leonardo?

If the Government position is as entrenched as the Minister’s answers appear to suggest, the Leonardo Foundation faces an uphill struggle in the years ahead.

To maintain its success to date, the Leonardo schools will need to produce incontrovertible evidence of their effectiveness relative to other forms of support for gifted learners available in the Netherlands.

I can find reference to several research studies under way at the Universities of Utrecht, Groningen, Nijmegen and Twente , but I have been unable to track down the specifications for these evaluations or any interim results.

The Leonardo Foundation will need to ensure it is armed with hard proof that the additional expenditure secures commensurate benefits for the gifted learners and no significant disbenefits for their non-gifted peers. Hopefully the studies are methodologically robust and include comparable control groups. Unfortunately, such studies are inevitably longitudinal and take some time to give reliable results.

The hard line taken by the Minister is perhaps unfortunate, for the most productive way forward surely lies in arrangements for cross-fertilisation between Leonardo provision and other approaches, potentially allowing hybrid models to develop.

There are signs that the Foundation would not be averse to this – its website acknowledges the potential for Leonardo approaches to benefit a wider range of learners who are educated in different settings – although its first priority is to secure financial sustainability for the purist Leonardo methodology.

If the Dutch Government could be persuaded to negotiate a role for the Leonardo Foundation in supporting integrated gifted education, that might generate sufficient income for separate Leonardo classes to continue alongside.

But if the Government has evidence that such separate classes are to the detriment of other pupils they will not wish to proceed along these lines.

The future is no doubt tied up with the position of the various Dutch political parties which I do not pretend to understand. It may be that Leonardo’s star will be in the ascendant if the balance of power swings in a different direction.

I shall continue to follow the development of Leonardo classes with interest. Such an approach would not be out of kilter with current developments in England and, who knows, we may see a Leonardo class established in a new free school before too long.

Maybe I shall approach the Foundation to request the UK franchise!

GP

February 2011