The Gifted and Talented in Primary Education

3 How to Organise the G & T for Learning and Teaching? Selection vs. Inclusion

When tackling this aspect, student teachers should probably examine in relation to the G & T:

• Research vs. government policy about setting and streaming.
• The advantages and disadvantages of streaming, setting, acceleration, within-class grouping and mixed ability teaching.
• The usefulness or otherwise of inflexible/flexible grouping methods.
• The benefits of withdrawal and extra-curricular activities for the G & T vs. those of mainstream provision.

So far, despite the DfES’ grouping preferences, research is inconclusive about the overall benefits within a ‘mixed ability’ school of rigidly separating high ability pupils from ‘mid’ and ‘lower’ ability learners, especially into different classes: while there seem to be benefits in giving able pupils the chance to learn with peers of equal ability, these are arguably counterbalanced – some might argue, ‘cancelled out’ - by the detrimental effects of isolating less able learners from them.

The DfES also urges closer attention to the possibilities for acceleration of individual pupils; however, while their learning needs may thus be served, it appears that, emotionally and socially, such children often find it hard to adapt to their new settings.

The activities outlined below are intended to address all four bullet-points above; to show that the considerations for pupil organisation are almost identical whether they are entertained across, beyond or within mainstream classes; and to highlight the conflicting factors in making such organisational decisions.

The government’s view, and key terminology:
preparation for the tasks below

As a starting point, student teachers need to know that the DfES and OFSTED favour setting and streaming of different ability groups at primary/secondary level: ‘Grouping students can help to build motivation, social skills and independence, and most importantly can raise standards; pupils are better engaged in their own learning’ (DfES,2005). The White Paper (DfES, 2005) stated as an aim ‘more grouping and setting by ability’ (Delete unless this actually happened and there’s a reference to it.)

Student teachers may need definitions of streaming (ability separation into different ‘classes’ for at least one subject, if not several, continuing from one year into others); and setting (ability separation into different ‘classes’ or large groups for at least one subject, e.g. English/literacy, one year at a time).

A potential complicating factor is the DfES’ current drive towards ‘personalised learning’, encouraging schools to tailor learning and teaching to each individual pupil’s needs, accompanied by teacher-pupil partnership in self-evaluation. Student teachers should be made aware at the outset that the personalised learning initiative can in practice be applied to any system of organisation of abilities and/or ages: ‘mixed’, ‘homogeneous’ (e.g. setting), ‘vertical’ (common in small primary schools), etc. However, they may need time to rehearse the logistics of how; they may also need reminders that age and ability do not necessarily synchronise in learners.

Student teachers can then be asked to speculate why the government and OFSTED urge setting and streaming, as they do (ignoring for the moment any research arguments). Among other ideas, student teachers might suggest that it could seem easier to track or boost pupils’ progress that way, or to target pupil resources, or to refine and apply appropriate methods of differentiation, or to manage behavioural or other learning problems.

Finally, it is important to establish before proceeding further that student teachers understand the terms ‘inclusion’ and ‘selection’, and something of the philosophies and political history that lie behind them.
School experience task
When in school, student teachers can audit grouping and withdrawal methods they see. English/literacy learning may be the focus, the checklist below a helpful tool.

The advantages and disadvantages of different systems of pupil organisation/grouping: question scripting task

Student teachers can prepare for the activity below by reading and making notes on one of five systems of pupil organisation based on ability, i.e. each student teachers tackling either:

• acceleration;
• setting and streaming;
• mixed ability teaching;
• withdrawal of the able; or
• within-class grouping.

(The most useful texts on these subjects, listed below, are DfES, 2005; Freeman, 1998; Hallamand Ireson, 2001; Hallam, 2002; Harlen and Malcolm, 1997; Kulik and Kulik, 1987; and Sukhnandanand Lee, 1998. Several of these include summaries, if time is short.) Student teachers should record from them any research evidence for/against the effectiveness of ‘their’ system (or the absence of conclusive evidence); ‘their’ system’s possible advantages; and its possible disadvantages.

On meeting, they can work in five groups: one on acceleration, one on setting/streaming, etc. First, the themed groups can be asked to imagine that a placement takes them to a school that uses ‘their’ method of organisation alone. Referring to their notes, student teachers should script three (tactfully worded!) questions designed for that school’s G & T co-ordinator in order to elicit the rationale behind using that one particular system – and perhaps to prompt a thoughtful debate amongst permanent staff about its limitations.

Examples of question design might usefully be given as models. For instance, student teachers considering acceleration might discover that there is ‘patchy’ evidence that accelerated pupils themselves benefit; accordingly they might script one of their questions for the G & T co-ordinator in the form, ‘Would it be useful/interesting to survey accelerated children about how the experience feels and how it has benefited them?’ The group studying setting might find that teachers of ‘lower’ sets tend to enjoy teaching them less and to say that they encounter more problems, e.g. with behaviour; this could prompt the question, ‘How do you ensure that teachers of all sets feel equally motivated and expert in their roles, and as supported if there are problems?’

Each group can take it in turns to read out its scripted questions, while others (who have not studied the same theme) may make constructive suggestions. Listeners can also be encouraged to speculate about why a school might choose a particular organisational system: what reasons might it give, and what rationale for rejecting other methods? Finally, each group can summarise the research evidence so far about ‘its’ theme. At the end of the task:

• A list of conflicting considerations when it comes to ‘selection vs. inclusion’ can be drawn up for display with the tutor’s help, for instance what benefits the most able may not benefit ‘others’: the least able may lose out on modelling from able learners; what benefits a learner in the case of some subject matter or types of learning experience may not benefit them in others, e.g. concentrated work with one partner may help during writing but not during planning writing; and some types of organisation may solve some learning problems, e.g. stamina, while exacerbating others, e.g. boredom.
• Finally, all student teachers should consider how much flexibility in organisational systems is possible in a busy, possibly heavily timetabled, school. To stimulate their thinking, they can first read DfEE, 2000, p.4 (‘Considerations’ column, ‘Variations on setting’, and ‘More flexible alternative’ under ‘Placing in older class (acceleration)’; also Eyre, 1997, p.42, ‘Who should do extension?’ They can then brainstorm and feed back as many alternatives to one rigid organisational method as they can think of, e.g. setting for some aspects of a subject or only on some days of the week. Hopefully they will see that multiple organisational systems in a school, if well administered and regularly reviewed and revised, are likely to benefit all pupils (and teachers) at least some of the time.

References and Further Reading

• Dean, G. (1999) The National Literacy Strategy: Supporting and challenging more able pupils in the literacy hour, Cambridgeshire: Cambridgeshire Advisory Service
• DfEE (2000) National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies: Guidance on teaching able children, London: National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies, ref: LNGT; www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/publications/inclusion/63377/nlns_ableguidance_lngt.pdf
• DfES (2005) The Effects of Pupil Grouping: Literature review, www.dfes.gov.uk/research
• DfES (October 2005) Higher Standards, Better Schools for All: More choice for parents and pupils, White Paper, London: DfES; www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/schoolswhitepaper
• 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
• Hallam, S. and Ireson, J. (2001) Ability Grouping in Education, London: Paul Chapman Publishing
• Hallam, S. (2002) Ability Grouping in Schools: A literature review, in Perspectives in Education Policy Series, London: Institute of Education, University of London
• Harlen, W. and Malcolm, H. (1997) Setting and Streaming: A research review, London: SCRE
• Kulik, J.A. and Kulik, C-L. (1987) ‘Effects of Ability Grouping on Student Achievement’, in Equity and Excellence23, 1–2: 22–30
• Lee, J. and Kroll, P. (1995) ‘Streaming and Subject Specialism at KS2: A survey in two local authorities’, in Educational Studies, 21 (2), 155–65
• www.spring-project.org.uk, website documenting large-scale research into how KS2 children can work in groups most effectively; Improving the Effectiveness of Pupil Groups in Classrooms, publication available through website
• Sukhnandan, L. and Lee, B. (1998) Streaming, Setting and Grouping by Ability: A review of the literature, Slough: NFER