The Gifted and Talented in Primary Education

2 Where to Start? The Issues around Identification

Among the themes surrounding identification of ‘the G & T’/’more able’, student teachers should probably investigate:

• The full range of methods of identification available to schools, plus the importance of ultimately using several.
• The issues involved in broadcasting identification within the school and wider community, and some solutions.
• The necessity for a realistic cycle of G & T identification, with implementation, monitoring, review and revision taking place regularly over the long term.

The following activities, undertaken with student teachers , will help them consider these aspects. Each activity aims to illuminate one aspect in particular.

2a Identification – who can contribute, and how?: in-school simulation

Student teachers need to be aware of:

• the full range of methods of identification available to schools, plus the importance of ultimately using several means, and several sources of information.

From activity 1d above, student teachers should have begun to perceive the limitations of formal assessment and testing in identifying ‘more able’ pupils: that they show only high attainment, not potential; give ‘snapshot’ views without necessarily tracking progression in useful detail; and focus on a limited range of types of ability. However, student teachers should be made aware that it is none the less with SATs, statutory and optional, and other kinds of formal assessment, e.g. published reading and spelling tests, that many schools begin. Student teachers should appreciate that this is understandable: such procedures are undertaken anyway in schools, consequently the data is readily to hand.

Here however is one way of highlighting the many other means of collecting information; the plentiful (human) sources of information; and the richer, more diverse profile of ‘more able’ children in a school that is likely to result. Ask student teachers to imagine that their mentor in school has asked them to help augment the school’s register of the G & T by means other than tests and formal assessment. A fictitious sample register is given here, for distribution to each student teacher if desired. Student teachers can also refer to the definitions in ‘extract v)’ from a fictitious school G & T policy, given for task 1d above.

They can be invited first, individually, to list all those in a school community who might propose further pupils for the G & T register if they used something like the descriptions in extract v), activity 1d, to help them. Student teachers can also note how such information might be sought, e.g. through informal conversation? by distribution of a letter, survey or memo? from structured or casual classroom observations? through an analysis of marked work? Next, they can pair up, study the sample G & T register below and decide what could head the four blank columns; for example, for one box headed ‘Other means/sources’ they might substitute the wording ‘Family nominations’ (opposite each child’s name, information could then be noted as supplied by parents, e.g. ‘read independently from age 2’). As student teachers do so, they should prioritise such suggestions, left to right: which means and sources might be most practicable and politic, and least controversial, to address first, second, third and fourth?

School register of G & T pupils (using the definitions in ‘extract v)’, activity 1d)

Year group	Via tests and formal assessments (undertaken by classroom teachers)	OTHER MEANS/SOURCES?	OTHER MEANS/SOURCES?	OTHER MEANS/SOURCES?	OTHER MEANS/SOURCES?
R/1	J. Black (E) E. Brown (M) H. White (M)
2	F. One (S) U. Two (E, H, RE)
3	R. Clouds (E) Z. Land (E) O. Sky (S, D&T, ICT) L. Steeth (Ga) P. Tree (S, G)
4	Y. Me (M) O. Them (E, M, S, H, G, RE) N. Yoo (A)
5	C. Clogs (all)
6	T. Ripley (Mu) A. Seaman (E)

Key: E: English/literacy, M: Maths, S: Science, G: Geography, H: History, Ga: Games, A: Art, Mu: Music. (Abbreviations can also be used for particular aspects of subjects and non-curricular subject areas; * can be added to indicate potential, beside pupil names.)

Students might suggest such ideas as:

• a survey of all school staff working with pupils, who could supply information gleaned from work they have marked recently or from informal pupil observations in class and around school (alternatively they could tick off statements on a checklist of skills and behaviours – see Dean, 2003, Department of Education, Victoria, 1996 and Iley, 2005 for suggested wording relating to English/literacy);
• information garnered informally from parents/carers/specialist helpers, e.g. during parents’ evenings and meetings, for instance about children’s hobbies, interests and frustrations with lessons (perhaps unexpectedly, educationalists’ experience shows that ‘parent nominations’ are usually accurate);
• an ongoing collection, during casual conversation, of children’s opinions of their peers (‘peer nomination’);
• the systematic collection by staff of pupils’ views of themselves, e.g. through autobiographical products or oral/written self-evaluations (‘self-nomination’); and/or
• the views of visitors or mentors, e.g. subject experts, during their work with children

— possibly in this order of implementation.

During feedback on this task, student teachers should be able to enumerate the advantages of such a ‘multi-faceted’ approach in the long term (e.g. its inclusiveness), while perceiving the wisdom of building up the resultant more detailed picture of the G & T in a measured, diplomatic and practicable way.

2b The dangers of ‘labelling’: school preparation exercise

Student teachers should appreciate:

• the issues in broadcasting identification within the school and wider community, and that there are some solutions.

To stimulate student teachers’ thinking, the following typical complaints on the institution of a ‘G & T register’ may be displayed on a board or flip-chart without initial tutor comment:

The fact can then be revealed that ‘Schools are required to make known whom they have identified as “G & T”/”more able”’ (in EiC/ Excellence clusters areas especially, although schools nationwide are also increasingly expected to do so). Then the question can be posed, ‘What damaging perceptions about this requirement, within school and the wider community, might need countering?’ The quotes supplied above should prompt student teachers to brainstorm and note down thoughts such as:

• An impression of selectivity
• Seeming exclusivity
• The appearance of constraint, with strict or unfair limitations
• An image of rewarding greater ability and penalising lesser
• The suggestion that school budgets will be weighted in the ‘list’s’ favour
• Connotations of ‘labelling’ that may prejudice others
• The perception that a school population consists of ‘groups’ more than individuals
• The idea that this is the latest in a line of shortlived initiatives
• A feeling of neglect elsewhere.

(It will help to start student teachers’ thinking if the tutor takes one bullet-pointed quote given in the box and talks through – models – his/her process of inference of some of the prejudices and false assumptions listed above that might underlie it.)
After feedback, student teachers will need to understand the importance (for a headteacher?) of communicating three key messages about their philosophy to a school community at large when announcing such a step:

1. A culture of celebrating achievement in all areas of learning (including, but not limited to, the National Curriculum subjects)
2. An ethos of seeking out, encouraging and celebrating potential (‘latent ability’) in all areas of learning, and
3. An emphasis on flexibility in the identification of, and the provision and budgets for, ‘more able’ children in school.

Student teachers can first be asked to brainstorm what steps and approaches would encourage messages 1 and 2. Their responses might include such suggestions as: assemblies that showcase pupils’ efforts, plus inviting in guests successful at a range of life skills; reward and marking systems, in classrooms and beyond, that recognise both potential and achievement; and mechanisms such as circle time and learning partnerships between pupils that encourage them to describe and praise each other’s potential and skills specifically.
They can then be asked to work in pairs on drafting an announcement to families and the school population about a new register of able, and potentially able, pupils. Coverage of what aspects, and use of what words and phrases, could help to reassure and explain this development? They should refer to the list they brainstormed earlier of the impressions that might otherwise be damaging.
Student teachers’ drafts could incorporate, among other points:

• The reminder that all children have ability, or potential ability, in some area.
• The fact that the step is a trialled initiative, subject to monitoring and review.
• Notification that a range of methods of recognition will gradually to be introduced, ‘starting with...’ (with family and self-nominations to be welcomed in due course).
• The assurance that it is intended ultimately to highlight the ability and potential in all pupils, in all areas of learning (and not just in NC subjects).
• The observation that pupils’ abilities change over time, and that while the skills of some may ‘level off’, the names of further pupils will be added to the register/list whenever possible.
• The promise of flexibility in the administration of the list, spreading resources and learning opportunities among as many pupils likely to benefit as possible.
• The explanation that most provision will not entail ‘bolt-on’ privileges or extras but will happen during lessons and learning opportunities, by refining current methods of ensuring stimulation and challenge for pupils who need it.
• That pupil grouping and teaching methods will continue to be subject to change, review and monitoring from lesson to lesson and from day to day, depending on the subject-matter and skills covered in lessons.

Having read out and appraised each others’ drafts, student teachers can be asked how the difference in any register might be denoted between a 5–10% ‘core’ of ‘G & T’ pupils who will probably need constant challenge, support and ‘special’ provision and an identified group of those who could benefit from these at least some of the time. (Suggestions might include a two-colour code or similar, intelligible only to appropriate school staff, with the entire list – undifferentiated – published to all.)

2c Two cycles of identification: pros and cons assessment

Student teachers should perceive:

• the necessity for a realistic cycle of G & T identification, with implementation, monitoring, review and revision taking place regularly over the long term.

Student teachers can be shown two models of a cycle of identification of the G & T, both discussed and evaluated by Joan Freeman and shown below (Freeman, 1998).

It should be explained that the first, the Definition-Identification-Provision model, begins with a school’s definition of the ‘G & T’ then proceeds to the other stages in turn until eventually it becomes a cycle; it is commonly adopted in schools. The second Freeman nicknames ‘the sports model’, making the useful and telling analogy that an athletics coach can identify the abilities of a high jumper very effectively by setting the bar higher and higher (provision). It is seen by many as a continuous cycle, alternating between identification and provision, rather than a chronologically sequenced model. G & T specialists tend to urge schools ultimately to adopt and use both at once – although, until they are more confident, they often favour the former.

Student teachers can be asked, in small groups, to jot down in two columns the pros and cons of each model illustrated (e.g. DIP may ensure clarity of definitions within a school community (pro), but equally (con) may result in staff getting ‘lost’ for too long in the business of definition). Feedback should emphasise that provision for the G & T should not be overly delayed by debates on definitions, a pitfall of the DIP model. Hopefully trainees will see that a combination of the two models is probably the ideal within a school; they should perceive that, after a certain amount of discussion about definitions and once some systems have been established (e.g. some initial G & T identification through testing), teachers can proceed with provision of challenge when teaching (while such discussions continue if necessary), as provision should help them to identify the able, and potentially able, successfully in any case (the PIP model).

School experience task

When they are next in a school, student teachers can be briefed to inquire of the G & T co-ordinator how far its G & T identification cycle has progressed.

• Has it established at least a working definition, or definitions, of ‘the G & T’/’more able’?
• Has it begun a register of identification (and does this yet include those with latent ability, those with ability in particular aspects of subjects and those with ability outside the curriculum)?
• What means does it use to collect ‘G & T names’?
• Does it ‘code’ types/levels of ability in different ways on any existing register?
• How has it explained and publicised identification processes to its staff, children and the wider school community (governors, families etc.)?
• To what extent is it using methods such as informal observations, marking etc. linked to provision of challenge (PIP model) in order to flesh out any list over time?

References and Further Reading

• Dean, G. (2003) Challenging the Able Language User, 2nd edition, London: NACE/David Fulton
• Denton, C. and Postlethwaite, K. (1985) Able Children: Identifying them in the classroom, Windsor: NFER-Nelson
• Department of Education, Victoria (1996) Bright Futures: Resource Book – Education of Gifted Students, State of Victoria: Department of Education
• Eyre, D. (1997) Able Children in Ordinary Schools, London: David Fulton
• Freeman, J. (1998) Educating the Very Able: Current International Research, London: OFSTED/The Stationery Office
• Iley, P. (2005) Developing Thinking Skills in Literacy for Ages 5–7, London: NACE/David Fulton
• Iley, P. (2005) Developing Thinking Skills in Literacy for Ages 7–11, London: NACE/David Fulton
• Montgomery, D. (1996) Educating the Able, London: Cassell