Study: England state schools rationing education for the gifted

[alp227]

From the http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/13/english-schools-hold-back-talented-students-to-fight-elitism/">blawg of Prof. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School:

A recent study found that as much as three-fourths of the state schools were holding back the most talented and brightest students because they wanted to combat the scourge of “elitism.” These students were not being given more advanced work even though they were not being sufficiently challenged by grade-level material.

Instead of being allowed to progress at their own pace, the students were often asked to simply mentor the other students. The Ofsted study found that the school treated academic gifts as “not a priority” for teaching and that allowing them to work to their full potential would “undermine the school’s efforts to improve the attainment and progress of all other groups of pupils.”

Wow...I can't decide what's worse...that or NCLB's rationing of education for gifted American students in public schools.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. This is rubbish

Turley says:

"We have previously discussed the dangers of a “nanny state” with our close cousins in England. This would appear another such example of those dangers."

Not spending extra time and money on the most advanced chidlren is not a 'nanny state'. It is, if anything, the opposite of a nanny state. It's not giving special attention; it's saying "if you want more, do it yourself".

Of course, Turley made the error of relying on the right-wing, state-bashing Dail Mail for his interpretation of the report. Here's the actual report:

Eight of the schools surveyed were well placed to respond to the proposed changes
in policy. Their focus on improving provision for gifted and talented pupils had a
positive impact on outcomes for all pupils. They had embraced key aspects of
national programmes, not only Assessment for Learning and Assessing Pupils’
Progress, but also the Institutional and Classroom Quality Standards.2 The teachers
had focused appropriately on matching their materials and activities in lessons to the
needs of all pupils to make sure they were challenged.
The 14 schools where their capacity to improve was judged to be adequate had
started to tackle the improvement points from their previous inspection, and all could
show some improvement in outcomes for pupils. However, many of the
developments in these schools were fragile and the changes had had limited success
in helping gifted and talented pupils to make appropriate and sustained progress.
Although most of these schools recognised that improving provision for gifted and
talented pupils was important, it was not a priority. They had only just started to
consider using the Institutional and Classroom Quality Standards for audit and
evaluation. To build their capacity to improve provision, they would benefit from
better guidance, support and resources from outside agencies and organisations.
In the four schools where the capacity to sustain improvements for these pupils was
poorly developed, lead teachers and coordinators did not have sufficient status to
influence strategic planning, and teachers had not been trained to meet the needs of
their gifted and talented pupils effectively. Although they complied with basic
expectations and requirements, for example, to identify such pupils and keep a
register, developing provision was not a priority. These schools did not sufficiently
recognise their own responsibilities to meet the needs of their gifted and talented
pupils.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/content/download/10576/126481/file/Gifted%20and%20talented%20pupils%20in%20schools.pdf

How much extra public time and money should be spent on pupils who, by definition, have the ability to do extra themselves?

[nashville_brook]

4. this is rubbish: pupils who BY DEFINITION have the ability to do extra themselves.

such ignorance in this statement. a gifted grade school child doesn't have the ability to do extra themselves -- and that crap is certainly not in anyone's "definition" of giftedness. well, lets say that's not in anyone's definition of giftedness who doesn't have a chip on their shoulder.

not only is it torture for a gifted child to have to sit through years of work below their level, it's a waste to society, b/c the lesson you're teaching them is that the goal in life is to ratchet down your ability so you don't upset other people or a rigid curriculum.

moreover, this is a deficit that lower/middle income gifted children have to deal with b/c private schools with progressive and individualized curriculum don't "mainstream" high achievers to the least common denominator.

[mzteris]

5. so Bernstein never needed

music lessons?

Michael Jordan coaching?

What a ridiculous thing to say. "Gifted" students DO need assistance - yeah, they're bright and capable, but they DESERVE JUST AS MUCH ATTENTION AND ASSISTANCE AS EVERY OTHER CHILD!!!! The fact that they are more intelligent and capable of accomplishing more does NOT mean that they should receive short shrift.

Besides, it is the gifted who will drive the direction of the future. They are our scientists, our politicians, our economists, and - hopefully - our teachers/professors. Do we really want them under-educated just because they're "smarter"?

[Adsos Letter]

2. The overall rationing that is occuring via tuition/fee increases is also alarming

Tuition/fees for the UC and CSU systems just levied substantial increases; UC's rose over 30%.

[nashville_brook]

3. those smart kids just need to learn how to STFU and be quietly bored into desperation

like the rest of us. don't they know that school doesn't exist to teach each according to their ability? no! school exists to keep you out of your parents' liquor cabinet until the afternoon, when you might be too broken-down to act out in any serious way. if they're so smart how come they haven't started their own internet company yet.

</sarcasm>.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. Under the old British system

children took a test called the 11+ test. Those who passed went to "grammar school," which consisted of rigorous academic work, while the rest (the majority) went to a so-called "secondary modern school," which was preparation for work or vocational training.

However, there was a huge quality gap between the two systems, and now most British youth attend comprehensive schools. However, a lot of parents think that the comprehensive schools are not as challenging for bright students as the grammar schools were.

[alp227]

7. So how can we accomodate everyone's needs rightly?

However, there was a huge quality gap between the two systems, and now most British youth attend comprehensive schools. However, a lot of parents think that the comprehensive schools are not as challenging for bright students as the grammar schools were.

DUers have been howling that Arne Duncan is planning to create a "two-tiered" public education system for American kids. I observe that apparently it was that way in our former colonists for quite a while. And now I see that the comprehensive school compromise didn't work. So if one size doesn't fit all, and two sizes creates class warfare, how many sizes do we need? I've seen mostly complaining but little compromise round here.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. There's the Japanese solution, which actually works quite well on the elementary school level:

Push everyone hard through the years of compulsory education, but not in an NCLB type of way. Few actually fall behind. (While teaching Japanese, I learned that low expectations cause students to slack off, and high expectations cause them to grumble but to find out that they actually can do what's assigned if they only try hard enough.)

After nine years, you know who has academic talent and who doesn't.

We might also look and see what the Scandinavian countries do. For all the talk about learning to read as early as possible, Scandinavian (and Russian) children don't start formal instruction in reading till age 7.

From what I hear and read, the problem with the current British system is that they try to get everyone to succeed by simplifying the content so that the standards are now closer to the old secondary modern level than to the old grammar school level.