what works for gifted and talented pupils · what works for gifted and talented pupils vii ......

what works for gifted and talented pupils:a review of recent research

LGAresearch • Report 51

by Kerensa White, Felicity Fletcher-Campbell and Kate RidleyNational Foundation for Educational Research

LGA educational research programme

what works for gifted and talented pupils:a review of recent research

Kerensa WhiteFelicity Fletcher-Campbell

Kate Ridley

Published in December 2003by the National Foundation for Educational Research,

The Mere, Upton Park, Slough, Berkshire SL1 2DQThis edition printed on demand, 2006

© National Foundation for Educational Research 2003Registered Charity No. 313392

ISBN 1 903880 63 7

what works for gifted and talented pupils iii

Acknowledgements v

Executive summary vi

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 General educational policy in the UK 1

1.3 The review process 1

1.4 Analysis of the research literature 2

1.5 Setting the scene: definitions within the gifted and talented literature 2

1.6 General overview of the gifted and talented literature 2

2 Official policy 4

2.1 Policy concerning gifted and talented children 4

2.2 Local Education Authority (LEA) policy 4

2.3 Policy in one LEA: a case study 4

2.4 Insufficient policy – why was that? 5

2.5 National policy on gifted and talented children: a positive step forward 5

2.6 The importance of research-informed policy 6

2.7 Gifted and talented policy outside England. Scotland: an example 7

2.8 Summary 7

3 Personnel: the people who make a difference 8

3.1 Introduction 8

3.2 Collaborative partnerships 8

3.3 Role of the coordinator 9

3.4 The role of mentors 10

3.5 Teachers’ roles 10

3.6 Summary 11

4 Identification 12

4.1 History of identification 12

4.2 Identification – a wide talent pool 12

4.3 Methods used for identification 13

4.4 School level 14

4.5 National initiatives and identification procedures 15

4.6 Identification in the USA 16

4.7 Summary 16

Contents

iv what works for gifted and talented pupils

5 Differentiation 17

5.1 Introduction 17

5.2 Curriculum differentiation 17

5.3 Flexibility 18

5.4 Grouping 18

5.5 Gifted pupils’ independence 19

5.6 Differentiation in the USA 19

5.7 Summary 20

6 Enrichment 21

6.1 The need for an enriched curriculum 21

6.2 National and local enrichment activities 22

6.3 Enrichment activities within the USA 24

6.4 Summary 25

7 Acceleration 26

7.1 Introduction 26

7.2 Advantages of acceleration 26

7.3 Acceleration within the USA 27

7.4 Concerns about acceleration within the UK 28

7.5 Concerns about acceleration within the USA 29

7.6 Summary 29

8 Monitoring and evaluation 30

8.1 The importance of monitoring and evaluation 30

8.2 The need for monitoring and evaluation at school level 30

8.3 Monitoring and evaluation at a local level 31

8.4 Monitoring and evaluation of national initiatives 31

8.5 Monitoring and evaluation of the gifted and talented strand of Excellence in Cities (EiC) 31

8.6 Monitoring and evaluation of summer schools 32

8.7 Summary 33

9 Conclusion: lessons learnt from the review 34

9.1 Scope of the literature 34

9.2 Identification 34

9.3 Differentiation 34

9.4 Enrichment 34

9.5 Acceleration 35

9.6 Monitoring and evaluation 35

9.7 Personnel 35

9.8 Overview 35

9.9 Critical conclusion 37

References 38

what works for gifted and talented pupils v

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to anumber of people for their contributions tothe review of literature reported here. Theresearch team worked in close collaborationwith the NFER library. We were able to draw,in particular, on the expertise of PaulineBenefield. She was supported by AlisonJones, Lynne Harris and Chris Taylor. Wewould like to thank them all for theirdedication and commitment.

We would also like to thank other colleaguesat NFER, notably Adrian Woodthorpe foracting as an internal reader and AlisonBannerman for formatting the final versionof the review. Finally, thanks are due toCommunications, Marketing and InformationServices staff for production anddissemination of the report.

vi what works for gifted and talented pupils

Executive summary

This systematic literature review aimed toinform the Local Government Associationabout the findings from the literature thatfocused on implications for the practice ofteaching gifted and talented pupils. Thereview set out to suggest practicalrecommendations for the processes thatcontribute to gifted and talented education.From the literature it was identified thatthese processes included methods ofidentification, differentiation, enrichment,acceleration, classroom organisation,monitoring and evaluation as well as theroles and responsibilities taken on by variousindividuals.

About the study

The review was initiated by defining anumber of parameters, which establishedcriteria for the selection of material tocontribute to the review. It was decided toinclude only empirical research and literaturewritten by several prominent authors whohave been influential in the gifted andtalented field and shaped practice in the UK.The research was confined to literaturepublished between January 1990 and March2003. In terms of geographical coverage, weincluded studies carried out in the UK andthe USA. Other countries were not includedbecause of different policy contexts and theresources available for the present review.The review entailed a search of databasesincluding the Educational ResourcesInformation Center (ERIC), British EducationIndex (BEI) and the NFER library’s owndatabases.

Key findings

SSccooppee ooff tthhee lliitteerraattuurree

The literature related to policy and practiceat national, institutional and classroomlevels. At present, there is little internal

consistency among these three levels, it is notalways possible to track any one themethrough all levels and there is a lack ofmultidisciplinary studies that draw togetherrelevant expertise.

IIddeennttiiffiiccaattiioonn

While there is consensus that identificationof gifted and talented pupils must be bymultiple sources, there is still lack of clarityand understanding about the relativeadvantages and disadvantages of differentidentification procedures. Furthermore, it isnot clear how these multiple sources shouldbe brought together or their relative statusin different circumstances. There is anabsence of consensus or discussion, in theeducation literature, about thecharacteristics of ‘high ability’ in differentcurriculum areas. Again, the absence ofinformed multidisciplinary studies isnoteworthy – much of the literature islimited and the result of individual, albeitwell-motivated, practice.

DDiiffffeerreennttiiaattiioonn

The literature emphasises the need forcurriculum differentiation in order to meetthe needs of gifted and talented pupils inmixed-ability contexts. However, there isminimal research on coherent approaches todifferentiation for these pupils – as opposedto ‘shopping lists’ of ideas. There is also littleresearch on the opportunities afforded bydifferent types of differentiation in relationto enrichment and acceleration. Whileacceleration in a particular subject can be aform of differentiation, there may yet be aneed for differentiation within anaccelerated group, if all individual needs areto be met.

EEnnrriicchhmmeenntt

The literature highlights the importance ofenrichment in allowing gifted and talentedpupils to respond creatively and with

what works for gifted and talented pupils vii

imagination. Enrichment appears to be oneof the optimal means of providingopportunities for potential to be released.While the literature is clear that enrichmentactivities should be embedded within thecurriculum, rather than being ‘bolt-onextras’, so that skills are transferable to otherwork, there is little evidence of the long-term benefits of enrichment. There are alsofew criteria for evaluating the coherence ofenrichment activities in relation to the wholecurriculum.

AAcccceelleerraattiioonn

The literature gave evidence thatperceptions of the success of acceleration ofgifted and talented pupils are influenced bythe structure of any national curriculum inplace and the possibilities afforded by theparticular educational system. Therefore, inthe UK, where the National Curriculum hasin-built flexibility so that it can beappropriate for a range of abilities,acceleration in terms of advancing a pupil achronological year is rarer than in countrieswhere there are more fixed ‘end ofyear/grade’ tests that are necessary foradvancement. There is evidence that subject-based acceleration is more common in somesubjects than others, notably, mathematicsand modern foreign languages. There is littleattention to the rationale for this and littlediscussion of the relative appropriateness ofacceleration in such subjects or in subjectswhere greater maturity of response may be agoal for gifted pupils.

MMoonniittoorriinngg aanndd eevvaalluuaattiioonn

The literature is clear that feedback loops areimportant in enhancing the provision for giftedand talented pupils and that multiple means ofassessment are advantageous. But there isminimal research on the success of differentmeans of assessment or the relative statusthat different means of assessment may have.With regard to the evaluation of programmesand curriculum provision, longitudinal studiesare lacking and are mostly related to the effectof ‘hothousing’, rather than provisionembedded in ‘ordinary’ environments.

PPeerrssoonnnneell

There is evidence that assigningresponsibilities to a discrete post ensures thatthe needs of the gifted and talented pupilsare kept on the agenda and are attended to.The literature describes the functions ofrelevant coordinators but does not link theseto monitoring and evaluating the effects ofthese functions. The literature stresses theimportance of collaborative working forgifted pupils. However, this cohort is bothrelatively small and also represents a widerange of interests, expertise and experience.The importance of training practitioners fordiscrete posts is increasingly beingrecognised.

Conclusions

OOvveerrvviieeww

The literature reviewed indicated that therehave been relatively few empirical studies ofgifted and talented education and,consequently, evidence-based policy andpractice are scarce. Instead, much of theliterature reflects practitioner experience.While this is important and valuable, it isdifferent from rigorously conducted researchstudies. There is the danger that practiceremains limited by the particular ideas ofthose who are influential in the field and isself-perpetuating, and that other options arenot considered.

There is considerably more literature on‘gifted’ pupils (pupils displaying discrete orgeneralised ability in the ‘academic’curriculum) than on ‘talented’ pupils (pupilsdisplaying ability in practical activities orartistic fields). These terms are as currentlydefined and used by the DfES.

It may be speculated that there are well-trodden paths for ‘talented’ pupils, most ofwhich lie outside the regular curriculum onoffer and represent ‘specialised’ or ‘segregated’provision. For example, many local authoritymusic services have well-established structuresfor advanced instrumentalists or clubs fostering

viii what works for gifted and talented pupils

competitive sport, which provide for the needsof those talented in sports. Whether allrelevant young people have access to suchprovision should be considered.

CCrriittiiccaall ccoonncclluussiioonn

The main conclusion from the literature isthat the question remains as to theuniqueness of provision for gifted andtalented pupils. A potentially useful source ofevidence has been ignored (that of selectiveand specialist schools). Many of the themesidentified from the literature merely reiteratefactors in effective curriculum management(differentiation, pupil grouping, monitoringand evaluation, allocation of responsibilities).It is not immediately obvious that some of theliterature is discrete to gifted and talentedpupils. It may be that many of thesuggestions of successful strategies for giftedpupils would work effectively for all types ofpupil. Perhaps acceleration and enrichmentare exceptions but, even here, there aresimilar discussions about pupils with learningdifficulties who make atypical progress andmay not necessarily have to go through allthe ‘small steps’ in order to master a task orunderstand a concept (to whatever degree).

Recommendations

The present report suggests that a critical

look be taken at all the activity that goes on

within the broad umbrella of ‘gifted and

talented’ education in order to:

• distil what is unique – rather than an

application of practice found elsewhere

• identify evidence of effective practice

and the rationale for effectiveness

• explore the conditions under which

effective practice develops and the

transferability of these conditions

• consider the nature of any discrete

training that educators may need to

develop effective practice, as well as the

most effective way for this training to be

delivered.

It is suggested that progress will only be

made by a multidisciplinary approach that

draws on conceptual analysis, psychological

theory, practitioner experience, and expert

description of ‘ability’.

1.1 Background

A major strand of government policy in theUK, particularly that relating to education ininner-city areas, is provision for gifted andtalented pupils. An increasing number ofschools are now considering the needs oftheir most able pupils as seriously as theyconsider pupils with learning difficulties. Agreat deal of policy and practice hasdeveloped in a short time-scale, yet there is noresearch-based rationale for this policy andpractice.

The purpose of this review, commissioned bythe Local Government Association, is topresent findings from the literature that focuson implications for the practice of teachinggifted and talented pupils. The aim of thisreview is to suggest practical recommendationsfor the processes that contribute to gifted andtalented education. From the literature it wasidentified that these processes includemethods of identification, differentiation,enrichment, acceleration, classroomorganisation, monitoring and evaluation, aswell as the roles and responsibilities variousindividuals should take on.

1.2 General educational policy inthe UK

In the UK, the National Curriculum is intendedto suit all pupils across the spectrum andtherefore classroom practice should ideally bedifferentiated according to pupils’ needs. It isless common in the UK than in the USA forgifted and talented pupils to be acceleratedand separated from their peers for theirwhole time at school. Instead, it is morecommon for pupils to be accelerated inspecific subjects. Recently, policy and practicehas begun to consider gifted and talentedpupils’ needs and this will be discussed withinthe review.

1.3 The review process

The review was initiated by defining anumber of parameters, which establishedcriteria for the selection of material tocontribute to the review. It was decided toonly include empirical research and literaturewritten by several prominent authors whohave been influential in the gifted andtalented field and shaped practice in the UK.The research was confined to literaturepublished between January 1990 and March2003 as earlier literature would have relatedto past policy and educational contexts; it wasalso decided that recent studies would be ofmost interest. The literature related to pupilsbetween the ages of five and 16. In terms ofgeographical coverage, studies carried out inthe UK and the USA were included. Othercountries were not included because ofdifferent policy contexts and the resourcesavailable for the present review.

In order for the literature review to focus onpractical implications for the teaching ofgifted and talented pupils, certain areas wereexcluded from the search as they were felt toaddress slightly different issues. For example,we did not consider research that focused onunderachievement amongst gifted andtalented pupils, nor was research on ablechildren from ethnic minority backgroundsincluded. We also excluded research that wasprimarily concerned with psychological ratherthan educational issues related to able pupils.We did not focus on studies that discussedindividual subjects at length.

The main method used to identify relevantresearch literature was to conduct searches ofelectronic and online databases. Databaseswere searched using various keywords, suchas ‘gifted’, ‘talented’ and ‘highly able’.(Details of the research strategy are availablefrom the authors on request.) Searches of thevarious databases yielded approximately 580citations. The inclusion criteria were applied,

what works for gifted and talented pupils 1

1 Introduction

and as a result, approximately 200 articleswere requested (35 per cent). Approximatelyten articles were unobtainable and timeconstraints prevented access to them. As thebooks and articles arrived, the referencescited in them were checked and furtherarticles were obtained. Due to limited time,no hand searches were carried out.

1.4 Analysis of the researchliterature

All retrieved texts were subjected to apreliminary review in order to establish morefully the degree of relevance to the aims ofthe study or the opinion piece. At this stage,several pieces of work were rejected becausethey did not fall within the scope of thereview. Some were discounted due to theirdiscursive nature while others had weakmethodologies, or findings that werequestionable. The final sample reviewed was52 articles and 17 books.

Each article was reviewed using a standardframework that contained the followingfields:

• authorship, dates and full-source details

• focus of the article and relevance to thereview aims

• type of study and methodologicaldetails, including sample size andcharacteristics, where applicable

• overview of the findings, key conclusionsand recommendations

• reviewer’s comments.

1.5 Setting the scene: definitionswithin the gifted andtalented literature

This section sets the scene for the conduct ofthe review and the chapters that follow. Earlyon in the review period it became evidentthat there were several key words occurringin the literature and that various authors

interpreted them differently. According toGeorge (1992), there were over two hundreddefinitions of ‘giftedness’ and associatedterms such as ‘gifted’, ‘talented’, ‘more able’,‘exceptional’ and ‘marked aptitude’. Thisdiffering use of terminology has causedspecific problems to researching the able,since one has to ask whether the samplegroup of able children is typical (Freeman,1998). Consequently, if practitioners aredescribing different cohorts, how canappropriate provision be matched? Thereclearly needs to be some coherence in keyterms within ‘gifted’ education.

The terms ‘gifted’ and ‘talented’ have onlycome about with the introduction of theExcellence in Cities (EiC) initiative which aimsto revive education in urban areas. Prior tothis, teachers referred to pupils as ‘able’ or‘highly able’. Within EiC, pupils are consideredto be ‘gifted’ if they are in the top five to tenper cent of the cohort in their school inacademic subjects. Children are thought to be‘talented’ if they have exceptional ability insubjects such as music, art or sport. Thisinitiative is an important step forward as itrecognises the importance of identifyingtalented children in more vocational areas aswell as academically gifted children.Throughout this report, the words ‘gifted’,‘talented’ and ‘able’ have been usedinterchangeably, mainly to reflect how theauthors used them in the writing.

1.6 General overview of thegifted and talented literature

The literature illustrated that there are veryfew empirical studies from the UK in the early1990s on educating gifted and talentedpupils, and because of this it is unclear whatconstitutes effective provision. During themiddle of the 1990s, a growing volume ofliterature emerged more from prominentauthors who have become very influential inthe field of gifted and talented (Eyre, 1997a,b and c, 2000, 2002; Freeman, 1991; Freemanet al., 1995; George, 1992, 1995; Montgomery,

2 what works for gifted and talented pupils

1996). These authors agreed that awarenessof gifted and talented issues was growing, yettheir work was still based on individualopinions, rather than rigorously conductedempirical studies.

Eyre (1997a) acknowledged that very little hasbeen written about educating able children inBritain, although she remarks that there is awide body of research outside the UK. Muchof this research has been from a psychologicalperspective. Although the psychologicalliterature was not included in this review, it isimportant to acknowledge that learningstyles and different cognitive responses areimportant considerations when teachinggifted pupils. In her work, Eyre (1997a)attempted to discuss these issues by drawingon research into the characteristics of ablechildren and effective provision. She alsodrew on her experiences within the classroomto provide a useful book to help educators ofable children in ordinary schools.

During the late 1990s, provision for gifted andtalented children was the focus of attentionboth in the UK and the USA and, thus, moreliterature was written. Much of the literaturedraws upon experience, and although this canbe recorded systematically and rigorously it isnot the same as well-designed empiricalresearch. A piece of research pertinent to thisreview was Freeman’s review for Ofsted,Educating the Very Able: Current InternationalResearch. Her aim was:

...to provide up-to-date research findingsabout the development and education ofvery able pupils, and so improvecommunication between researchers and

those who make and carry out practicaleducational decisions.

(Freeman, 1998, p. v)

Freeman (1998) offered a guide for those whomake and implement practical educationaldecisions, and her findings will be discussedthroughout the current review. She felt thatshe was unable to provide the hundreds ofreferences from which the information wasdrawn, so instead only chose references whichshe considered to be the most important. Thiscould be thought to be selective.

A recent article questioned whether teachingand learning practices are unique to ablechildren or whether the same principles couldbe applied to the education of children withspecial educational needs (Fletcher-Campbell,2003). The author believed that:

...a more fruitful way forward is to considerhow the specialness can be embedded in allactivities, using the widest repertoire at ourdisposal, developed through constantsharing of practice and reflection andwhether the enhancement, whatever itlooks like, ought not to apply to all pupils.

(Fletcher-Campbell, 2003, p. 5)

In the USA, empirical research on ablechildren’s education is also limited. As moreand more states develop their gifted andtalented programmes, it is likely that moreresearch will appear. Perhaps what is neededis a national evaluation of gifted provisionthat would indicate the most appropriatemethods. At the time of writing, we are along way from an agreed framework ofcriteria for effectiveness.


2.1 Policy concerning gifted andtalented children

The existence of official statements of policyabout a particular aspect of educationsuggests that, at the least, this aspect is on thepublic agenda even if the policy itselfindicates neither the way in which it has beenimplemented nor practice itself. Policy maydrive practice (usually a ‘top-down’ model) orresult from practice (usually a ‘bottom-up’model) and its link with practice may becircuitous. As regards to official policy relatingto pupils who are ‘highly able’, ‘gifted’ or‘talented’ (see Section 1.5 on definitions),there is evidence that it has developedincrementally. The policy is influenced byOfsted reports, interest groups such as theNational Association for Able Children inEducation (NACE) and the NationalAssociation for Gifted Children (NAGC), andindividual studies (Bonshek and Walters,1998; George, 1992, 1995), together withpressure from the wider educational policycontext - in particular, the Government’s driveto raise standards of achievement (GB.Parliament. HoC, 1997) and from economicnecessity (the need for competitiveness ininternational business).

At the beginning of the 1990s, there was verylimited research exploring policy at anational, local and school level, suggestingthat policy for this group of pupils was nothigh on the agenda for educators. Archer(1992) reflected on the position of the giftedin 1992 and came to the conclusion that,following the omission of able and talentedchildren from the Warnock Report and theEducation Act 1981, their needs were finallybeing recognised.

2.2 Local Education Authority(LEA) policy

In 1992, the Education ManagementInformation Exchange produced a brief

‘snapshot’ of what was being done at thetime by LEAs to meet the needs of gifted,talented and exceptionally able children(Cooke, 1992). A survey was returned by 72LEAs and the general conclusion was that:

...despite harsh financial constraints, LocalManagement of Schools (LMS), opting-outand many other heavy pre-occupations, asubstantial number of LEAs (predominantlybut by no means exclusively, county LEAs)have somehow maintained, and in a fewcases even enhanced, their specialarrangements to help gifted children.

(Cooke, 1992, p. 1)

The original ‘snapshot’ report was updatedtwo years later by Cooke (1994) since therehad been several government initiatives withregard to supporting able children. From the1994 survey, it was found that the LEAsdiffered tremendously in their provision forgifted children but, overall, LEAs had eithermaintained or increased their provision since1992. No LEA had discontinued provision andthe survey illustrated that, on the whole, LEAswere positive about gifted provision.

More recently the literature covering giftedand talented provision at LEA level hasfocused on EiC areas (Ofsted, 2001b;Goodhew, 2002; Warwick, 2003) and thus,gifted and talented pupils in non-EiC LEAshave been neglected in the reporting. Thus,more empirical research is needed in non-EiCareas.

2.3 Policy in one LEA: a casestudy

Only one research article illustrated that aparticular LEA had a long-standing interest inable and talented pupils (Clark, 1997).Cleveland LEA in its 1993 publication, restatedits commitment to ‘respect and nurtureindividual differences, needs, rights andresponsibilities’ and highlighted the point


2 Official policy


made in the report The Education of VeryAble Children in Maintained Schools (DES.HMI, 1992):

when specific attention was given to theneeds of very able children there was oftena general increase in the level of expectationfor all pupils and this was sometimes reflectedin improved public examinations.

(DES. HMI, 1992, p.78)

Cleveland supported teachers to undertakeaction research projects in their ownclassrooms and schools. The author reportedthat action research had proved to besuccessful in Cleveland, since it allowedteachers to observe and reflect upon teachingthat led to implementation in the classroomin several cases.

2.4 Insufficient policy – why wasthat?

Having reported that LEA provision at thelocal level was fairly positive, some of theprominent authors upheld that by the middleof the 1990s, provision at school level wasinsufficient, largely because very few LEAshad an able pupil adviser and most of theschools did not have a whole school policy(Eyre, 1997b; George, 1992). The literaturesuggests several reasons why able childrenwere ignored. Eyre (1997b) listed threeassumptions that explain why provision hadnot been provided in the past.

1. Able children always succeed andtherefore do not need extra help.

2. Able pupils are arrogant.

3. Able pupils are so different that it isimpossible to meet their needs.

Moreover, several authors remarked that theable were ignored in the past because provisionwas seen to be ‘elitist’ (Bore, 2003; Teare, 1997).

It has also been suggested that centralgovernment was slow to meet the needs ofthe able in one particular LEA, because itfailed to recognise that these children hadspecial needs (Bonshek and Walters, 1998).From the case study visits, which included

interviews and a questionnaire with staff andSpecial Education Needs Coordinators(SENCOs), the research also illustrated thatthe LEA was fettered by central government(Bonshek and Walters, 1998). There was theperception that the education system isconstructed to suit the needs of the majorityand does not cater for those with atypicalneeds (Eyre, 2002).

2.5 National policy on gifted andtalented children: a positivestep forward

Towards the end of the 1990s, there weremajor developments nationally, reflected invarious publications (Teare, 1997). Eyrebelieved that, between 1997 and 2000, theissue of education for able children moved‘from the margins of the educational arenatowards centre stage’ (Eyre, 2000, p. 15). Withthe dismantling of the Assisted Place Scheme,whereby grants were available to supportable children at independent schools, Eyre(2000) and Bonshek and Walters (1998)believed that the Government began to focuson the establishment of a national policy toassist gifted and talented children. Since NewLabour came to power in 1997, there has beenparticular concern about providing for giftedand talented pupils in areas of disadvantage.An advisory committee of experts in the fieldof gifted education was set up to give policyadvice and national initiatives such as thegifted and talented strand of the EiC initiativeand other grant-funded programmes wereestablished (ATL, 1998; Bonshek, 2002; DfEE,1999; Ofsted, 2001b).

The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s ChiefInspector of Schools 1999-2000 (Ofsted 2001a)reported on visits to 20 secondary schools inseven LEAs in the summer of 2000. The purposeof the visits was to explore the progress thathad been made in implementing the Strandsof the EiC initiative which had been in placesince September 1999. Ofsted found, that ingeneral, the progress made in implementingthe gifted and talented strand was satisfactoryand progress was found to be good in about athird of the schools.

The grant-funded programmes have includedmasterclasses (Ofsted, 2001b), summer schools(Pye et al., 2000) and independent/maintainedschool partnerships (Goodhew, 2002; Ofsted,2001b). Ofsted (2001b) evaluated each ofthese strategies by visiting ten pilotmasterclass projects, 31 summer schools in 18LEAs, four independent/maintained schoolpartnerships and 43 secondary schools in EiCareas. The methodology is not specified, but isassumed to be qualitative since teachercomments are cited. HMI found that the mainbenefit of these initiatives was the increasedamount of quality out-of-school activities, butcommented that more should be done insidethe classroom.

Most recently, Pocklington et al., (2002)carried out qualitative, empirical research onthe gifted and talented strand of EiC andconcluded that this strand was welcomed. Atlocal level, a descriptive article onStaffordshire’s individual summer school(Towne and Branson, 2001) has been writtenby the summer school adviser and co-organiser; it included findings from aquestionnaire given to the participants afterthe event. It concluded that the scheme wasvery successful and made severalrecommendations on the organisation,running and funding of future gifted andtalented summer schools.

There are other innovative programmeswhich have arisen from government policy.For example, in the White Paper, Schools:Achieving Success (England. Parliament. HoC,2001), the Government announced theestablishment of a National Academy forGifted and Talented Youth (NAGTY). Eyre, asthe first Director for the National Academy,explains that the aim is:

...to develop, implement, promote andsupport educational opportunities forgifted and talented children and youngpeople aged up to 19, as well as providingsupport for parents and educators.

(Eyre, 2002, p. 72)

She explained that a major reason forestablishing the Academy was that we still

know relatively little about how best tosupport and encourage the learning of giftedand talented pupils. Children who becomemembers of the Academy can then benefitfrom the Academy’s programmes that focuson learning in and out of the classroom. Animportant part of the initiative was toundertake research into these needs, yet thearticle does not specify any systematicresearch programme (Eyre, 2002). The articleillustrated that more rigorous empiricalresearch needs to be undertaken as these newventures with gifted and talented childrendevelop.

2.6 The importance of research-informed policy

The literature shows that educators arebeginning to recognise the importance ofpolicy informed by empirical research. Eyre(2000) discussed whether evidence-informedpolicy is a myth or reality in gifted andtalented education and focused on the EiCinitiative. She believed that two pieces ofresearch acted as a platform on which to baseEiC policy. The policy took into considerationFreeman’s 1998 work, which analysedresearch and practice on the identificationand education of able pupils, and also theHouse of Commons (1999) Select CommitteeReport No 3: Highly Able Children (GB.Parliament. HoC, 1999). Nevertheless, Eyreupheld that the EiC policy ignored otherresearch findings in some places.

Although evidence-informed policy isbeginning to emerge, several key authors feltthat relevant theory and research need to beconsidered when formulating policy (Eyre,2000; Freeman, 1998; Teare, 1997). And yetthe issue is that ‘the fundamental lack of agood research base remains’ (Eyre, 2000, p.21). The prominent authors agree thatresearch on educating able children needs tobe developed. George (1992) highlights theneed for more comprehensive studies lookingat classroom life. Montgomery is more specificand expresses that there needs to be moresystematic research, preferably long-term,which compares traditional methods of


teaching and learning with her preferred‘cognitive process teaching methods’(Montgomery, 1996, p. 262).

2.7 Gifted and talented policyoutside England. Scotland: anexample

Whilst UK government policy, andsubsequently also Scottish policy, in the 1990shad been pushing for more assistance for ablepupils, a Scottish research study suggests thatthere had ‘been very little local policydevelopment and only sporadic initiativeswithin individual schools’ (Hamilton, 1999, p.86). The research aimed to look at this byusing four case study schools, specifically tolook at teachers’ judgements on identification

of gifted pupils. The author suggested thatthe focus on equality of opportunities andreluctance to consider selection in the Scottisheducation system meant that the needs ofgifted and talented pupils had largely beenignored (Hamilton, 1999).

2.8 Summary

This chapter revealed that since New Labourcame to power in 1997, an increasing amountof policy concerning gifted and talentedpupils has developed, particularly in areas ofpoverty. Nevertheless, it is important that wemove towards evidence-informed policy whichconsiders practitioners’ and pupils’ views ongifted education so that more appropriatetargets are more likely to be created.


3.1 Introduction

There are several groups of people whom theliterature identified as being critical to theeducation of able children. These rangedfrom the external policy makers, LEA advisersand officers to individuals within schools, suchas teachers, gifted and talented coordinatorsand governors. It should be pointed out that,following the introduction of the NationalCurriculum in the Education Reform Act 1988,school management has increasingly beendistributed with a growing number of postsof responsibility, for discrete areas such asgifted and talented provision. This chapteraims to reveal what is written in the literatureabout the roles of these people and how toimprove them.

3.2 Collaborative partnerships

It is unsurprising, given all that is knownabout the beneficial effect of parentalinvolvement in the education of all children,that the literature on provision for gifted andtalented pupils highlights the need forparental involvement. Teare (1997) andGeorge (1995) are merely applying the needfor parental involvement to the particular areaof education in which they are interested.Ofsted (2001b), evaluating EiC and othergrant-funded projects, make the same pointbut with the added justification that theseprojects will be new to parents who must beinformed about these particular educationalinitiatives which affect their children.

Similar application of existing practice is seenelsewhere. For example, the educationalpsychology service has, traditionally, beenused as a source of support for pupils withlearning difficulties. Only relatively recently,and not commonly, has it been regarded as asource of support for able pupils. Gregor’s(1994) study is therefore noteworthy.

Schools are beginning to work together inpartnership in provision for gifted andtalented pupils. One study revealed that twomainstream schools in the UK came togetherwith help from their educational psychologistto discuss good practice in educating ablechildren (Gregor, 1994). The educationalpsychologist acted as a facilitator, organisinga self-help group which met three timeswithin two terms to discuss meeting theneeds of able children. The study found thatbecause the educational psychologist had agood knowledge of the two schools, trust wasable to develop, which allowed for increasedbrainstorming and creativity. The sessionsdeveloped a strong team spirit and a widerperspective. The schools did most of the workthemselves, which meant that they felt theyhad complete ownership of the project(Gregor, 1994). However, other evidencerevealed that pupils were not referred to theeducational psychologist. This source ofsupport may be underused.

The literature illustrated that new roles wereadopted by educators of the gifted in the USAin the 1990s (Schack, 1996; Westberg et al.,1993). ‘The Classrooms Practices ObservationStudy’, conducted by The National ResearchCenter on the Gifted & Talented (NRC/GT),examined the instructional and curricularpractices used with gifted and talentedstudents in regular elementary classrooms inthe USA. Systematic observations were carriedout in 46 third or fourth year classroomswithin four regions of the country. The studypresented evidence that individual teachersshould not have sole responsibility forproviding appropriate learning experiences. Itwas felt that administrators, gifted educationspecialists, reading consultants, mathematicconsultants, guidance personnel and parentsshould work together to change practices(Westberg et al., 1993).


3 Personnel: the people who make a difference

Similarly, Schack (1996) believed that sharinggood practice and collaborative working arethe key to success, for example, viaconferences. The author stated that moreresearch on the effectiveness of thecurriculum for the gifted was vital and thatthis research should be shared by publishingwork in journals.

3.3 Role of the coordinator

The literature revealed that there needs to bean infrastructure in place to support teachersin educating the gifted. This should ideallyinvolve a discrete coordinator, seniormanagement team, governors and personneloutside school such as mentors and parents.The role of a coordinator, both in theeveryday needs of the gifted, as well asspecific enrichment events, is vital to ensuresuccess and is highlighted in the UK and USAliterature (Bonshek and Walters, 1998;George, 1995; Welding, 1998; Ofsted, 2001b;Warwick, 2003; Westberg et al., 1993).

In the early 1990s, George (1992) drewattention to the fact that a teacher is notsimply a ‘dispenser of information’ but ratheracts as a ‘facilitator of learning’ or a ‘managerof resources’ (George, 1992, p. 169). Hedeveloped this idea and believed there was aneed for a school coordinator to have beeninvolved from the beginning and with theinitiation of the school’s gifted and talentedpolicy (George, 1995). Effective LEA andschool coordinators are vital in supporting theEiC initiative and are often referred to asGATCOs (Gifted and Talented Coordinators).Warwick (2003) commented that:

...the most effective coordinators work quietlywith departments and schools offeringsuggestions often on a one-on-one level.

(Warwick, 2003, p. 19)

Thus, school and strand coordinators mustwork together systematically. Additionally,Warwick suggested that LEA networkmeetings are a good opportunity todisseminate good practice amongst school

coordinators. Coordinators have played apivotal role in some of the EiC initiatives thatinvolve enrichment activities. In their reporton gifted and talented programmes,including summer schools and masterclassprojects, Ofsted (2001b) reported thatcoordinators need to have a clearly definedrole, with the authority to carry it out andwith support from senior management.

Surveying comprehensive and primary schoolsin one LEA, Bonshek and Walters (1998)found that where a gifted policy was in place,it was the SENCOs who were involved withthe able. While the rationale is that SENCOsare skilled in differentiation and meetingindividual needs, it should be noted that theDfES states that SENCOs should not also act asGATCOs. GATCOs within EiC are expected toundertake a national programme ofprofessional development (Pocklington et al.,2002). Bonshek and Walters found that inthose schools with a gifted coordinator, thesurvey revealed they had very little time toundertake their role as coordinator. Theauthors recommended more time and trainingallocated to coordinators of the gifted.

The most recent study of the gifted andtalented strand, indicated that GATCOs werepresent in the majority of schools and weremost effective if they had previousmanagerial experience. GATCOs needed topossess a range of qualities which included:

good relationships with other staff; inter-personal skills and the ability to motivatepeople; good organisation, efficiency, andtime management.

(Pocklington et al., 2002, p. 12)

The literature revealed that the role of agifted coordinator within schools in the USAwas not as common as in the UK. TheClassrooms Practices Observation Study in theUSA revealed that even when a giftedprogramme was present in a school, theteachers did not provide differentiatedexperiences for the gifted learner (Westberget al., 1993). The authors recommended that


the gifted education specialist, who couldperhaps be regarded as a coordinator, orother staff development personnel, shouldsupport teachers in meeting the needs ofgifted students.

3.4 The role of mentors

The literature revealed that, in addition tocoordinators, mentors played an importantpart in improving the learning environmentfor gifted pupils and, consequently, otherpupils educated with them (George, 1995;Freeman, 1998; Montgomery, 2001). George(1995) upheld that it was the mentor’s role toengage able pupils in challenging, open-endeddiscussions in a supportive environment. Thisusually involves individual or small groups ofpupils after school at regular times. Mentorsusually give up their time voluntarily to helpgifted pupils in the classroom. The authorurged schools to approach potential mentorssuch as university lecturers, other teachers,individuals from societies, cultural institutionsand businesses; he stressed the need forcareful selection (George, 1995).

Mentors played an important role inSpectrum Connections in the USA (Cheng etal., 1998), a ten-year research project (1983-1993) aimed at developing an alternativeapproach to curriculum and assessment whichdeveloped diverse curricula for pre-school andfirst grade pupils. The idea was to create‘classrooms and learning experiences thatlook and feel more like the real world’ (Chenget al., 1998, p. 86). Mentors acted as a friendas well as a teacher to gifted pupils andworked with them on a one-to-one, weeklybasis. It was important that mentors weretrained for their role and interviews withpupils and mentors revealed that severalbenefits arose from mentoring, including:

• developing personal relationships

• fostering social skills

• helping pupils to recognise their ownstrengths

• gifted pupils acquiring skills in a specificdomain

• connecting school to the world.

Several disadvantages were identified, forexample, mentor absentees and withdrawingchildren from the ordinary classroom.

3.5 Teachers’ roles

The literature recommended that schoolshave coordinators and mentors for the giftedand talented pupils, but in manycircumstances this is not possible, and thus,class teachers are largely responsible formeeting the needs of gifted pupils. It is veryimportant to establish their role andresponsibilities as children spend most of theirtime within the classroom. The literaturerevealed a gap in empirical work on the roleof the teacher towards gifted and talentedpupils within the classroom.

Freeman (1991) followed up a studyundertaken in 1974, which investigatedattitudes to giftedness. She took a sample of70 children, aged between five and 14 livingin the north-west of England, whose parentswere members of the NAGC and comparedthem with equally able children whoseparents had not joined NAGC, as well as arandom sample of children from the samesocial circumstances. Ten years later, sheinvestigated what had happened to thechildren and their parents. She used in-depthinterviewing with young people to discoverwhat they had experienced and statisticalanalysis of their measurable progress. Thestudy revealed that communication betweenteachers and pupils was key and that giftedpupils appreciated teachers who were willingto listen as well as talk. One 17 year old giftedpupil expressed his feelings:

I talk a lot, and so I talk to the teacher aboutwhat I think… It’s much more fun thantalking to my peer group, because teachersknow so much.

(Freeman, 1991, p. 133)


Teachers need to be confident in theclassroom (Freeman, 1991) and sufficientlyhonest to admit ignorance in the face ofchallenges from highly able pupils and theyneed to seek to learn with the pupils asrequired (George, 1992).

One way of ensuring quality teaching is todevote individual time to listen and workwith gifted children. A project thatinvestigated year 6 teachers and more ablepupils in ten Oxfordshire primary schoolsinvolved interviews with teachers and seniormanagers, and classroom observations ofhigh-ability pupils. It showed that time shouldbe devoted to gifted pupils in order toencourage higher levels of understanding(Eyre and Fuller, 1993). The research showedthat able pupils rarely asked for help fromtheir teachers or were given one-to-oneattention. Eyre (2000), whilst working withteachers on in-service training, found thatteachers often felt guilty when they spenttime with able pupils.

In order to allow able pupils to work tocapacity, it is important that a positive schoolethos is created in which achievement isaccepted and acknowledged (Teare, 1997).Teachers should praise gifted and talentedpupils. Eyre (1997c) believed these pupilsneeded encouragement and rewarding asmuch as other pupils, perhaps even more ifthe climate in the school does not valueachievement or if they lack confidencebecause they set themselves very highstandards. Eyre (1997c) also believed that itwas helpful to reward able pupils withrecognition in some tangible form such ascertificates. As well as supporting theeducational well-being of pupils, it isimportant that teachers provide support andpastoral care for the children to ensure theiremotional well-being and development(Freeman et al., 1995; Teare, 1997; Eyre,1997c). Often gifted children feel frustratedbecause they feel ‘different’ from their peergroup.

A final point drawn from the literature is thatteachers should make good use of their ownspecific talents. This was highlighted in ProjectSpectrum in the USA where there was anexample of an artistic teacher using her skillscreatively. Teachers should also make time toextend their knowledge and talents byundertaking out-of-school activities such asvisiting museums and art galleries (Clark,1997). Teachers are also advised to make gooduse of the skills of other non-teaching adults.Eyre (1997a) illustrates this point by referringto a parent-helper who was a worker inOxfam. She came in to teach able childrenabout a project on third-world farmers. Thiswork was then presented to the whole of theclass for discussion and debate and, therefore,benefited others too.

The literature suggested that, as with otherpupils, teachers need to adopt multiple roleswith regard to able pupils, including acting asa role model (Feldhusen, 1998), somethingwhich several authors were concerned thatteachers found difficult. Teachers’ lack ofconfidence with able pupils may stem fromthe challenges which these pupils present toteachers’ own knowledge, understanding andskills. There was evidence that teachers wouldlike to acquire greater conceptualcompetence in areas in which they may be lessfamiliar (Eyre and Fuller, 1993; Freeman et al.,1995; Ofsted, 2001b).

3.6 Summary

The literature suggested that practice isinfluenced more by the people whoimplement policy and work directly withyoung people, than the policy itself.Confidence and effectiveness are enhanced ifteachers engage in collaborative partnershipswithin and outside the school. However, thedevelopment of practice is inhibited by thepresent lack of research to support thoseworking with gifted and talented pupils.


4.1 History of identification

The link between identification and provisionis critical but enigmatic. Any particular meansof assessment, for example, a cognitive abilitytest, will identify a particular cohort but thiscohort is not necessarily the same as thoseidentified by another means, such as teacherobservation, which suggests that there is acohort needing special provision. Furthermore,if the characteristics of a particular ‘specialness’– in this case, high ability in a particular area ofthe curriculum or discipline – are not known tothe assessor, then those with thesecharacteristics will not be identified. Again,there needs to be evidence that the cohortwith the particular characteristics requirespecial provision. Conceptually, what wouldseem to be necessary is a very cleardelineation of the characteristics of ‘highability’ in all logically different curriculumactivities, and valid means of identifyingthose manifest and embryonic characteristics.This is logically prior to delineating any specialpedagogy or provision that most effectivelymeets the needs of pupils with thosecharacteristics.

The policy context cannot be ignored. Forexample, the tripartite organisation followingpost-war reform represented in the EducationAct 1944 gave clear messages about ‘ability’being identifiable by one means at ageeleven. That context is a far cry from thecontext of the new millennium influenced bytheories such as Gardner’s ‘multipleintelligences’. However controversial thesemay be, they do at least draw attention to therange of activities in which individual pupilsmay excel and suggest that opportunities needto be given for such excellence to be observed.At the same time, the promotion of inclusionwithin the present policy context influencesidentification in that all teachers need to havethe skills and expertise to recognise latentability (even if only to refer a young person toan appropriate colleague) as a range of

abilities is likely to be present in any year groupin the average non-selective school.

A realisation has developed that theperformance of pupils is related to thecontext in which they are educated; schoolsmake a difference and the educationalexperiences to which children are exposedshapes their response to it. Therefore anyfixed identification of ability, talent orgiftedness becomes increasingly suspect –though redundant. Freeman (1998) perceivedthat education was moving:

away from the relatively static labelling ofspecific children as gifted towards a moreflexible developmental approach whichrecognised the learning context.

(Freeman, 1998, p. 15)

While it is important that all practitioners areclear on definitions, since it is only then thatthe relevant cohort can be identified, theliterature differs as to how these definitionsshould be determined, with some advocatingthat teachers make the decisions mostappropriate for school policy and context(Eyre, 1997a; Freeman, 1998) and others thatdefinitions should be given to teachers(Montgomery, 1996). The literature gaveevidence that there is a limited amount ofrigorous empirical research on identification.Much of the ensuing section focuses onopinion pieces, albeit pieces based onauthorial experience as educators.

4.2 Identification – a wide talentpool

The literature emphasises that a wide talentpool must be identified that incorporates notonly academic ability but also talents in othersubjects such as music, art and PE. (Bore, 2003;George, 1995). Bore, as director of the NAGC,believed that it is right that schools in the UKhave begun to celebrate achievement in all


4 Identification

subjects (Bore, 2003). He feels that flexibleidentification procedures, relative to eachschool, are more productive than a nationalIQ norm. He also feels educators need to lookout for all gifted children within theclassroom, especially those with latent ability.Teachers need to be able to identify potential,as well as actual, achievers (Bore, 2003;Welding, 1998).

A two-year participant observation study inthe USA investigated the role of educators inimproving the education of gifted pupils(Schack, 1996). The author found that it wasimportant to recognise that educators mustchallenge potentially gifted students fromdisadvantaged backgrounds, who may nothave developed their abilities in a way whichwould be recognised. This was a small-scaleresearch project in which the researchervisited schools weekly for a whole year andcarried out interviews with teachers andstudents. This study illustrated that allstudents must be challenged so that they canall reach their potential.

4.3 Methods used foridentification

The fundamental method of identification isproviding opportunities for all children todisplay their giftedness and ability throughchallenging activities (Freeman, 1998; Sizmur,1991; Teare, 1997). Teare suggested thatprovision for the gifted and talented is thebest identifier since, without this,identification cannot take place as pupils haveno opportunity to show what they can do.Several key authors within the literaturestressed that identification should be bymultiple criteria (Freeman, 1998; George,1992, 1995; Pocklington et al., 2002; Teare,1997; Welding, 1998). George said it is notsurprising that several identification methodsare used, given that there are several areas ofgiftedness and talents (George, 1992). Georgecategorised these methods into teacherappraisal, rating scales and checklists andstandardised tests (George, 1992). Drawing onthe past experiences of many professionals,Montgomery (1996) believed that it is quite

clear that one-dimensional methods and testsare not successful in identifying the able (seealso Eyre, 1997a). Teare (1997) upheld that themore methods of identification used, thebetter the outcomes. Bentley (2003) addedthat there should be a balance of strategies,and educators should not be reliant on onemethod, in particular testing (see also Teare,1997; Pocklington et al., 2002).

Welding (1998) in her study in onecomprehensive school in the UK, in which shesent a questionnaire to all staff andinterviewed able students, found that themost frequent method of identification wasteacher observation and judgement. A verysmall percentage of staff used subject-specificchecklists, a strategy which the authorbelieved to be appropriate. From thequestionnaire she also found that there was‘widespread uncertainty’ amongst staff aboutdefinitions, and half of the respondents saidthat they were not confident aboutidentifying most able pupils. This small-scalestudy illustrated that teachers in the schoolwere not confident with identificationprocedures involving teacher observation andjudgements.

George (1992) favoured teacher observationsince he believed that the best way to identifyan able child is by studying the work they doand this would be unproblematic forteachers. He did not favour IQ tests on thegrounds that they do not reveal all types ofability. In his practical resource materials forteachers, George provided a useful table thatassesses methods for an identificationprocedure (George, 1992, p. 7, Figure 2.1).Teare (1997) expanded on this, and assessedseveral methods of identification. Drawing onother literature and from personal experienceas a teacher and founder of NACE, Tearebelieved that general checklists are useful butthey must not create stereotypes – subjectchecklists are more practical.

Nomination from several groups of people,including teachers, parents and studentsthemselves, was identified in the literature asan important element in the identificationprocedure (George, 1992; Teare, 1997). Teare


gave practical advice and explained thatnominations from teachers can be donethrough a referral sheet; parental nominationcan be sought through written communicationand peer nomination can be obtainedthrough a pupil questionnaire. Freeman(1998) drew upon Treffinger and Feldhusen’s(1996) work which suggested that pupilsshould play a part in identifying themselves sothat they come to understand their ownpotential. George (1995) noted that self-nomination should be a continuous process,comprising a flexible, open-ended talentprofile that is regularly updated by pupils.Only one study recommended that pupils’past educational history should be included inthe identification procedure (Welding, 1998).This highlights the fact that presentattainment is not necessarily indicative ofability.

4.4 School level

Several articles recommended that schoolsshould construct an identification frameworkthat they can add to and develop whencircumstances change. Bore (2003) believedthat educators should use the key features onthe framework to create a list of keyquestions to support self-review andmonitoring of identification strategies. Theframework needs to be relative to eachschool, rather than some national IQ norm(Bore, 2003). Eyre (1997a) explained that it isvery important that identification systemsshould fit in to existing structures and systemsso identification can be an integral part of theschool’s activities, since only then does ithave an impact on classroom practice. Themost recent research carried out on giftedand talented strands within schools,illustrated that all but one of the 14 schoolsin the sample maintained a central registerof gifted and talented pupils (Pocklington etal., 2002). Schools differed in opinion as towhether this list was made available topupils. Increasingly schools are becomingmore open and in one school, thecoordinator explained this as follows.

Pupils are informed as a group and on ayear basis. It is explained to them why theyare on the register, and they areencouraged to make the most of the extraopportunities that will be coming their way.


However, there was a failure amongst somekey authors to refer to identificationprocedures in their writing. For example,Freeman (2000) mentioned no specific criteriafor identification in her article that describesdeveloping a school policy for gifted andtalented pupils. In Feldhusen’s (1998)description of programmes and services atelementary level in the USA, the subject ofidentification is bypassed.

Another key issue that emerged from theliterature was the need for training inidentification techniques and methods (Eyre,1997a; Hamilton, 1999). Head teachers andsenior managers should recognise thatteachers may need support and training onidentification methods (Eyre, 1997a). Thisgives a reminder that provision for gifted andtalented pupils must be a whole-school issueand acknowledged as such by seniormanagers. Training need was also identifiedin Hamilton’s research in four secondaryschools in Scotland where she investigatedthe extent of available provision for ablepupils (Hamilton, 1999). While teachers feltconfident about teacher judgment as part ofthe identification procedure, there wasevidence that they used different methods,which led to problems of decategorisation.

In comparison, a study by Welding (1998) inone comprehensive school in the UK, showedthat teachers were not confident aboutidentification. When asked to define highability, definitions differed betweendepartments suggesting the need fordifferent definitions of able children for eachsubject (Welding, 1998). Welding comparesTilsley’s (1995) two alternative models ofeducational practice, the Definition-Identification-Provision (DIP) model and theProvision-Evaluation-Provision model (PEP).


On the basis of her research, Weldingpreferred the PEP model, requiring eachdepartment to produce a subject-specificchecklist for identification purposes. In orderto consider levels of ability, educators woulduse several methodologies. Each gifted childshould have his/her own file with the collatedresults which the coordinator could circulateto teachers to aid more effective planning(Welding, 1998).

4.5 National initiatives andidentification procedures

The current DfES concept of ‘giftedness’incorporates a wide range of meanings. Thegifted and talented strand of EiC aims to helpidentify a large cohort of pupils and, thus,procedures for national initiatives have had toreflect this. With regard to identification ofable children for national policy, Eyre believedthat:

national policy should balance test data withsystematic opportunities for the recognitionof ability in class – not just the teacher’shunch but rigorous qualitative data.

(Eyre, 2000, p. 19)

4.5.1 Excellence in Cities (EiC)

Schools are still not confident in applyingidentification procedures to the gifted andtalented strand of EiC (Bentley, 2003;Pocklington et al., 2002). Bentley believedthat identification impacts at three levels,each of which must be identified by eachschool if provision is to be effective:

• individual pupil level – it is importantthat all gifts and abilities are recognised

• teacher level – there needs to beappropriate planning and provision

• whole-school level – there needs to be aclear menu of identification procedures.

Bentley believed it is ‘worth putting time andeffort into developing a thoughtfullyconstructed and well-managed framework’within the EiC, gifted and talentedprogramme (Bentley, 2003, p. 14). Another

issue with identification procedures withinthe gifted and talented strand is thateducators are still trying to achieve a balancebetween identifying gifted and talentedpupils as a very different cohort, whiletreating them just like all the other pupils(Jennings and Dunne, 2003). Thus, theliterature implies that identificationprocedures at all three levels still needed tobe improved.

4.5.2 World-class tests

The World Class Arena is a British governmentinitiative to assess and develop the skills ofgifted and talented children. The research ofRichardson et al. (2002) on this initiativeinvolved interviewing and observing 24 giftedand talented pupils from seven secondary andseven primary schools in the south ofEngland. They asked the children for theirviews on the computer-based tests used toidentify gifted and talented students. Thesetests were for nine to 13-year-olds andfocussed on problem-solving. The studyprovided evidence that a computerenvironment is an effective means ofassessing the problem solving skills of highlyable children and identifying these children toteachers (Richardson et al., 2002).

4.5.3 Sutton Trust-funded summerschools

In a report on the DfEE/Sutton Trust-fundedpilot summer schools for gifted and talentedstudents 1999, Pye et al. (2000) recognisedseveral issues concerning identification. Thestudy involved reviewing documentation,conducting case studies of good practice infive schemes, visits to the other 27 pilotschools and monitoring summer schoolstudent attitudes. The study found that theproject coordinators were generallyimpressed by the calibre of students, butthere was concern that non-host schools hadselected students who did not meet thecriteria. This was largely because of thecomplex selection procedures and short time-scale for selecting and confirmingparticipation of pupils (Pye et al., 2000). Theresearch illustrated that identification for


enrichment activities such as summer schoolsneeds to be to be well planned and thoughtout (Pye et al., 2000).

4.5.4 The National Academy for Giftedand Talented Youth (NAGTY)

As Director for the National Academy, Eyre setdown clearly the aims and objectives of theNational Academy (Eyre, 2002). In order to beidentified and participate in this initiative,students were invited to apply formembership with a portfolio of evidence oftheir ability. The aim was to find the top fiveper cent of pupils nationally in terms ofacademic ability within the 11-16 age range.The talent search recognised that no perfectmethod exists for identifying the top five percent, however, they recognised that they mustestablish some defendable criteria formembership. Eyre explained that the NationalAcademy will also set up an ‘Expert Team’ in2002/2003 on assessment to explore ways inwhich the talent search can be improved.Once registered, pupils can stay members ofthe National Academy throughout theirschool career. This article does not explainhow talented pupils will be identified and anyproblems which may arise (Eyre, 2002).

4.6 Identification in the USA

In the USA, Renzulli specified that enrichmentclusters are an excellent means of identifying

students. As Director of the NRC/GT, Renzullistressed the importance of using enrichmentclusters for performance-based identification.Although his suggestions are based on nospecific research, he used an example of aspecific enrichment cluster to illustrateparticular points. The enrichment clusterapproach was designed to identify thosegifted pupils who may not have beenidentified through tests. For example, ateacher identified three students who hadexceptional interest and talent in variousaspects of video production. These studentswould not have been identified throughtraditional techniques for special services in aprogramme for gifted and talented. Byworking with the school’s enrichmentspecialist, these individuals went on to takepart in after-school internships (Renzulli,2000).

4.7 Summary

The literature shows that identification isbeginning to be recognised as a key issue inprovision for able children. It is importantthat multiple criteria are used and thatteachers do not become too reliant on onemethod. It is worth putting time and effortin at the beginning to develop identificationprocedures, and once identification procedureshave taken place, they must be recognised andnurtured if they are to be effective.


5.1 Introduction

Differentiation is an increasingly usedteaching approach as schools become moreinclusive and orientated towards individualneed and, therefore, applies to the educationof able pupils, both in the UK and the USA.The literature revealed that differentiation isinterpreted quite differently in the twocountries and even within countries. Therange of definitions is considerable. In the UK,the definition is broad and the approach isdefined in the gifted and talented literatureas ‘recognizing individual differences andtrying to find institutional strategies whichtake account of them’ (Eyre, 1997a, p. 38). Itmainly refers to differentiating thecurriculum within mixed-ability classrooms(Montgomery, 1996). In the USA, althoughdifferentiation can occur in the ordinaryclassroom, some studies describeddifferentiation in terms of full-time, self-contained special classes for gifted children(Feldhusen and Sayler, 1990; Moon et al.,2002). This chapter aims to explore theliterature on the use of differentiation in theteaching of able pupils and the differentmethods that can be used.

The general context in which gifted andtalented pupils are educated is, of course,important. In the UK, the context is shaped bythe National Curriculum. One study soughtpractitioners’ opinions on the opportunitiesafforded by the National Curriculum in oneEiC school (Kerry and Kerry, 2000). Bothteachers and coordinators felt that there wereseveral disadvantages of the NationalCurriculum since it lacked emphasis oncreative thought, was prescriptive andrestrictive, and was obsessed with contentand exams. It should be pointed out that thisstudy drew upon teachers’ perceptions, ratherthan rigorous analysis of the curriculum.

There has been little empirical research in theUK on differentiation for gifted children. Thisis something that needs to be addressed,because gifted children spend most of theirtime within the ordinary classroom. Much ofthe literature on differentiation from the UKrepresents influential authors’ opinions. It hasbeen widely acknowledged that adifferentiated curriculum is important tomeet individual needs (Eyre, 1997a and c;Freeman, 1991, 1998; George, 1992, 1995).George believes that differentiation ‘becomesthe lynchpin of the entitlement curriculum’because differentiation is beneficial to bothgifted pupils and disaffected pupils (George,1995, p. 67). The literature identifies aspectsof differentiation – curriculum differentiationas well as more practical measures such asgrouping and flexible teaching methods.

5.2 Curriculum differentiation

The most recent research on differentiationand gifted education is the study of the giftedand talented strand in EiC (Pocklington et al.,2002). The research identified four mainforms of differentiation in the schools visited:‘by task; by outcome; by the resourcesemployed; by delivery’ (Pocklington et al., p.32). Key authors have discussed thesemethods previously and they havecommented that differentiation is difficult toreview since it is often dependent onindividual pupils’ needs. However, the lack ofillumination is unhelpful to the developmentof practice.

The first method of differentiation identifiedby Pocklington et al. (2002) was ‘differentiationby task’. Within the fourteen schools in an EiCstudy, there was evidence that carefulthinking and planning by teachers enabledextension material to be embedded within


5 Differentiation

schemes of work and lesson plans. Extensionmay mean that pupils progress through thescheme of work at a faster pace, that they arepresented with more challenging content, orthat they are given the opportunity to decidewhat they are going to study. One of thegifted and talented coordinators commented,‘Teachers are coming round to the realisationthat extension doesn’t mean more of thesame thing’ (Pocklington et al., 2002, p. 33).Not all schools believed that EiC had openedup the way for a differentiated curriculum.One headteacher interviewed, commented,‘It [EiC] has raised people’s awareness but notreally made a great difference in theclassroom’ (Pocklington et al., 2002, p. 33).

‘Differentiation by outcome’ is where allpupils take part in the same tasks, yet theteacher expects more sophisticated outputsfrom gifted and talented pupils (Pocklingtonet al., 2002). Montgomery (1996) felt that thismethod was regarded as too simplistic andthat it was not beneficial to gifted pupils. Shefelt that this may lead to underfunctioning ofable pupils since it does not stimulate pupilsenough. The most recent research in EiCschools indicated that differentiation byoutcome was, in fact, very common withinschools (Pocklington et al., 2002). The methodwas viewed positively since it enabledteachers to develop students’ thinking andreasoning skills, which were evident in thework they produced.

The third and fourth methods,‘differentiation by the resources employed’and ‘differentiation by delivery’, were clearlyevident in the EiC schools studied byPocklington et al. (2002). Teachers had begunto use learning materials with moresophisticated language and greater challenge,as well as ICT resources such as graphicspackages and CD-ROMs designed to enhanceand extend coursework (Pocklington et al.,2002). Several authors have acknowledgedthat teachers need to have training on how todifferentiate the curriculum for gifted andtalented pupils, the sort of materials topurchase and how to deliver them mosteffectively (Freeman, 2000; Teare, 1997).

5.3 Flexibility

Within the literature, one of the mostimportant characteristics of teaching giftedand talented pupils was a flexible teachingstyle, so that all pupils can benefit within theclassroom (Freeman et al., 1995; Freeman,2000; Montgomery, 1996). This is particularlyimportant in mixed-ability classrooms.Flexibility within the classroom, with the useof higher-order thinking skills for able pupilsand communication with all, will enhanceclassroom practice. It is also important thatgifted children are motivated through the useof exciting lessons which are not simply ‘slowand leisurely’ (Eyre, 1997c, p. 61).

5.4 Grouping

Grouping within the classroom is somethingthat is discussed within the literature, yet littleempirical research has been carried out onoptimal grouping. There is no agreement asto whether gifted and talented pupils shouldremain in mixed-ability groups, be put intosets or be put into special classes, comprisingwholly of gifted pupils. In the past, influentialauthors have simply described these differentmethods and stated the advantages anddisadvantages without having hard evidencefrom research. Reviewing the literature onstreaming, setting and grouping by ability,Sukhnanden with Lee (1998) found that themethods have no differential effect on pupilachievement, at primary or secondary level,within different subject areas or at any levelof pupil ability (Sukhnandan with Lee, 1998).

5.4.1 Mixed-ability classes

Eyre (1997a) favoured a mix of opportunitiesfor gifted children to work in various ways.She favoured the mixed-ability classroomsince, she argued, this set up allows giftedpupils to move onto extension activities aswell as allowing a social mix with otherchildren. Freeman et al. (1995) felt thatmixed-ability classes are appropriate as longas the teaching is flexible. Other authorsbelieve that teachers find mixed-abilityclassrooms difficult to deal with and


consequently able pupils may not bestretched (Teare, 1997). One small study in theUSA involved a researcher going to twoschools for one year to investigate the roleeducators of the gifted can play to improvethe education of the gifted. Of the 26 giftedstudents surveyed and eight gifted studentsinterviewed, most of the students wereopposed to the idea of homogenous groupscomprising only gifted pupils, since they didnot want a competitive atmosphere in theclassroom and had friends in other classes. Oneof the teachers interviewed believed that itwas important for gifted students to mix withothers: ‘they have to function and socializewith … everyone’ (Schack, 1996, p. 192).

5.4.2 Setting

Setting has been controversially discussedwithin the literature. From her own researchin the UK, Eyre discovered that settingchildren was appropriate since it entitledgifted pupils to a real challenge by beingsurrounded by like-minded children (Eyre,1997a). Teare (1997) pointed out thatalthough setting can make teachers feel moresecure, pupils may end up in the wrong set ifallocation methods are too rigid. Morerecently, educators have emphasised theimportance of specially created top sets ofgifted and talented pupils (Teare, 1997;Pocklington et al., 2002). Recent research inschools within EiC areas has showed thatthese gifted and talented sets are becomingmore common, allowing more individualattention and a faster pace (Pocklington etal., 2002). Setting or extraction classes areoften favoured for specific subjects such asmathematics or foreign languages (Sizmur,1991; Pocklington et al., 2002).

5.5 Gifted pupils’ independence

The literature also raised the importance ofallowing gifted pupils to becomeautonomous learners who are able to directtheir own learning (Feldhusen, 1995;Freeman, 2000; Montgomery, 1996;Pocklington et al., 2002). It is important thatgifted pupils are able to work independently

on investigative or problem solving work thatchallenges them and allows them to thinkcreatively. The work rate of able pupils wasalso discussed within the literature and raisedconflicting views. Freeman (2000) believedthat practitioners should allow able pupils towork at their own rate, whereas Eyre (1997a)argued that this is not effective with somegifted pupils who become too concernedabout one issue and do not move on to thenext topic.

5.6 Differentiation in the USA

The literature revealed that differentiationwithin the USA is common and several recentstudies have been carried out, usually withinindividual schools or schools within one state.The use of the term ‘differentiation’ variedwithin US literature and some researchersreferred to it as differences within thecurriculum, whereas others regarded it as self-contained classrooms which provide achallenging learning experience (Feldhusenand Sayler, 1990; Moon et al., 2002; Sheehan,2000; Tomlinson, 1995; Westberg et al., 1993).The literature also revealed that practice andpolicy for gifted and talented children differedenormously between regions and states.

In the early 1990s, the Classrooms PracticesObservational study, conducted by NRC/GTrevealed that little differentiation was used ininstructional and curricular practices, groupingarrangements and verbal interactions forgifted and talented children (Westberg et al.,1993). Systematic observations in 46 schoolsrevealed that for the majority of the time,gifted and talented participants worked withthe rest of the pupils and a differentiatedcurriculum was scarce.

Some studies have investigated schools thathave ‘special classes’, where gifted andtalented children are taken out of ordinarylessons and learn in groups of pupils of similarability. One study suggested that these classesallowed instruction which matched pupils’achievement level and went at a faster pacethan mainstream classes (Feldhusen and


Sayler, 1990). The self-contained classesallowed the pupils to be challenged and tointeract with other gifted children. Theteachers felt that gifted pupils could stillinteract with other pupils in subjects such asart, music and PE as these did not have specialclasses. Some teachers disagreed with theprinciple of special classes on the grounds thatby withdrawing gifted children from theordinary classroom, role models to motivateand stimulate children of average and lowability were taken away. The authors agreedthat further research needs to be carried outon the effect of special classes on the socio-emotional development of gifted children.

Another study recommended discrete classeswhere there were sufficient numbers ofgifted pupils (Moon et al., 2002). The researchrevealed that gifted and talentedprogrammes can have different effects onindividuals and future evaluation studiesshould investigate this. For example, theemotional effects on some gifted pupils werenegative since they missed friends, found thespecial classes hard work and no longer feltthe brightest in the class. Some pupils felt thelarge amounts of homework and commutingto the classes had a damaging effect on theirlife outside school. These are all aspects whichneed to be carefully considered whendeciding upon special classes or, indeed,setting for particular subjects. In an ActionResearch study of an advanced history class,Sheehan (2000) found that when gifted pupilsworked together, they were able to reach a

higher level of understanding andperformance, than would have been possiblein a mixed-ability class.

Overall, the literature from the USA revealedthat while differentiation was becoming thenorm in many classrooms, practice in someschools needed to be developed further.Special classes for gifted pupils werebecoming popular; nevertheless furtherresearch needs to be carried out to investigatethe socio-emotional implications of thisapproach.

5.7 Summary

The literature revealed that there is a greatdeal of uncertainty on how best to achievedifferentiation which meets the needs ofgifted pupils, especially with the differencesamongst educators in the UK and those in theUSA. More research needs to be carried outon the different methods of differentiationand different applications within differentsubjects. Although national initiatives such asEiC and the National Academy are beginningto coordinate appropriate differentiationmethods, it is thought that these initiativesneed to place more emphasis on teachingwithin the classroom rather than enrichmentactivities. In order for practitioners to provideappropriate consistent pedagogy, moreempirical research needs to be carried out todiscover the practicalities of able pupils’needs. For this to be a success, views fromteachers and pupils should be considered.


6.1 The need for an enrichedcurriculum

There are several ways in which the termenrichment is applied, ranging fromopportunities outside school hours, to thosewithin the classroom, which allow pupils toexplore a subject in greater depth. Within theliterature, it was found that enrichment is animportant part of able children’s educationboth in the UK and the USA. Nevertheless,Montgomery (2001) explained that there waslittle evidence to suggest that ‘bolt on’enrichment activities such as masterclassesand summer schools are effective. Within theUK, although Freeman (1991) discussed theconcept of enrichment at the beginning ofthe 1990s, it is not until the mid-1990s thatthis teaching approach is discussed in greaterdetail within the literature. Studies in the USAalso began to appear in the mid-1990s. Thischapter aims to discuss the different conceptsof enrichment found within the literature.

Freeman (1991) upheld that enrichmentshould be available to all. Nevertheless:

...for the gifted it is a particularly importantaspect of their developing mental life.Enrichment is the vital stuff of a trulyenhancing education for those who havethe capacity to grasp the gist of the subjectthey are learning, relate it to other areas,and play with ideas in the processes ofcreativity.

(Freeman, 1991, p. 215)

Freeman explained that allowing ablechildren to work intensively at their own pacemay require the teachers to supervise moreclosely. Her longitudinal study of 70 pupils,aged between five and 14, showed that out-of-school enrichment activities were also veryimportant since they provided opportunitiesfor gifted children to be with like-mindedchildren. She described them as:

an enriching opportunity for the gifted tobe with other people like themselves, sothat they can relax and drop the energy-consuming defences which they normallyuse for support.

(Freeman, 1991, p. 215)

Freeman acknowledged the problemsassociated with enriched learning as well asthe benefits. First, is the problem of increaseddisparity between able children and the restof the class. Freeman suggested that thiscould be overcome by arranging outside-school meetings for gifted children. Second,she acknowledged that although it is difficultto ascertain whether enrichment enhancesacademic improvement, it is neverthelessclear that it gives an opportunity for sociallearning and improves interpersonalrelationships.

George (1992) stressed the importance of anenriched curriculum but also noted that therewere various interpretations of enrichment.He believed that it is important to considerenrichment and differentiation together,since enrichment leads to differentiatedwork. George stressed that enrichment ismore than just providing pupils with moredemanding materials since it requiresteachers to be both flexible and sensitive intheir judgement of an individual’s needs. Healso acknowledged that ‘enrichment’ and‘extension’ are often used interchangeably,though they should not be regarded as thesame thing. Enrichment allows pupils’horizons and experiences to broaden whereasextension allows them to move on to higher-order skills and concepts.

In an update to his 1992 work, George (1995)explained that, up until recently, enrichmentof the curriculum had involved teachingchildren in mixed ability classrooms. From theauthor’s experience, he believed that this was


6 Enrichment

normal classroom. Although influentialauthors have upheld these views, enrichmentin the form of out-of-school activities havebeen, and still are, very popular in the UK.These occur as one-off events, on a nationalor local scale, or as daily activities that occur inschools, each of which are described below.

6.2 National and localenrichment activities

6.2.1 Excellence in Cities (EiC)

Enrichment is an important part of the giftedand talented strand of EiC. The most recentresearch concluded that enrichment activitieswere one of the most common developments.These activities were designed to broadenpupils’ experiences, either at lunch time orafter school, through a regular activity or aone-off event such as a summer school. Theseactivities were:

...proving very popular with pupils, not leastbecause of the generally more relaxedatmosphere which was seen to prevail,combined with the obvious dedication ofthe members of staff involved.

(Pocklington and Kendall, 2002, p. 11)

Ofsted (2001a) found that after the first yearof the EiC initiative most schools with giftedand talented funding ‘…were beginning touse it effectively to extend the normalcurriculum through supplementary activitiesand resources’ (Ofsted, 2001a, p. 69).However, in all schools, the changes broughtin by the initiative were restricted to only afew subjects in the mainstream classroom.

Ofsted’s (2001b) evaluation of EiC and othergrant-funded projects found that the mainbenefit of the programmes was the increasedlevel of high quality, additional out-of-schoolactivities. They found pupils had respondedwell to these activities since they had apositive impact on motivation and self-esteem, yet the long-term benefits were stilluncertain since evidence was limited onincreasing attainment levels. However, severalissues arose with the organisation of thesummer schools. In some cases, organisation

declining and it was more usual to find settingin comprehensive schools. He maintained thateffective enrichment should be well plannedand designed and should consider thefollowing objectives:

• content beyond National Curriculum

• exposure to a variety of subjects

• student-selected content

• high content complexity

• maximum achievement in basic skills

• creative thinking and problemsolving

• motivation.(George, 1995, p. 51)

The reader is reminded that the NationalCurriculum should be enriched by additionalsubjects, cross-curricular themes, dimensionsand skills as well as extra-curricular activities.

Montgomery (1996) argued that all means ofadjustment for the able are forms ofenrichment, pointing out that in the last 25years, enrichment has become the mostwidely developed strategy in Britain foraiding able children, with the aim ofextending their learning beyond the NationalCurriculum. Montgomery pointed out thatprogressive educators regard enrichment as anecessary part of any child’s education, notonly that of the able.

Recently, it has been acknowledged thatenrichment activities as part of gifted andtalented provision have dominated provision,and educators are beginning to realise thatmore emphasis needs to be placed onenrichment within the classroom (Eyre, 2002;Teare, 1997). This has been taken intoconsideration with the formation of theNational Academy since the most importantaspect of provision relates to day-to-dayclassroom activity (Eyre, 2002). Montgomery(1996) also believed that enrichment must notonly comprise bolt-on activities, but mustform part of the mainstream curriculum. Frompast experiences, Teare (1997) also felt thatenrichment activities have a role, butprovision should be mainly based in the


was poor due to short planning time and lackof communication between LEAs and schools,for example, about identification ormonitoring. This led to discrepancies in theprocedures relating to, for example,identification or monitoring. Another mainfinding from Ofsted (2001b) was thatprovision for gifted and talented pupils stillneeds to be increased within the classroomand perhaps too much emphasis has beenplaced on enrichment.

In one specific gifted and talented summerschool in Staffordshire, respondents from astudents’ post-course questionnaireconsidered the summer school a success. Inthis study, several recommendations were alsomade for future gifted and talented summerschools (Towne and Branson, 2001). Theauthors recommended that organisers take athemed approach that would capture pupils’imagination. In this instance, they took‘Media Matters’, involving communication inthe twenty-first century. The authors alsorecommended that sponsorship be sought tostrengthen links with the wider community.Several of these recommendationscorroborate those of Pye et al. (2000) whoevaluated the DFEE/Sutton Trust-fundedsummer schools.

6.2.2 The National Academy for Giftedand Talented Youth (NAGTY)

Eyre’s (2002) outline of the National Academyfocused on enrichment activities outsideclassroom hours, although she explicitly statedthat enrichment within the classroom is themost important aspect of the NationalAcademy. She described the National Academy’sprogrammes for students, which include anoutreach programme involving Saturdaymasterclasses, university-based conferences andtwilight taster events. These would be regularevents provided by the University of Warwickand the National Academys partner universities.Eyre admitted that:

internationally very little work has beenundertaken to evaluate the effectivenessof outreach provision for gifted andtalented students or to establish criteria

for designing out-of-hours learningopportunities.

(Eyre, 2002, pp.76–7)

Online learning opportunities also form animportant part of the National Academy’senrichment programme since they offer anopportunity for innovation and development.Members of the National Academy are able toaccess online learning in their own time. Theyare also supported by well-trained, online,postgraduate members. Schools canincorporate this resource into their curriculumdelivery. Summer schools are the third type ofenrichment activity offered by the NationalAcademy. Eyre comments that evaluationsfrom students showed that overall the onehundred pupils who took part in the 2002,three-week summer school at the Universityof Warwick, valued the event. The 2003summer schools involved 900 students at fivedifferent locations.

6.2.3 DFEE/Sutton Trust-funded pilotsummer schools (1999)

Pye et al. (2000) evaluated the DFEE/SuttonTrust-funded pilot summer schools for giftedand talented students in 1999. Each of the 32summer schools, had 30 to 60 gifted andtalented pupils from years 6, 7 and 8, whowere generally in the top five per cent of theirage group or gifted in a particular subject. Arigorous methodology was used to evaluatethe summer schools which included reviewingdocumentation, case studies of good practicein five schools, visits to the other 27 schools aswell as monitoring student attitudes. Visitscomprised interviews with project leaders,staff and pupils.

The evaluation indicated that students enjoyedworking with like-minded peers and staff in asupportive atmosphere, different from that ofschool. It was found that students’ attitudes tolearning became more positive and they wereable to produce high quality work. Studentsfelt they had gained academically and socially.Schemes raised self-confidence and self-esteemand increased interpersonal skills of students.Some students were concerned that thescheme focus was too narrow.


The research led to several recommendationsfor schools and LEAs to consider whendeveloping summer schools (see Pye et al.,2000, pp. 5–6). These suggestions includedorganisation around a central theme orsubject and flexibility within scheme plans. Itis the coordinator’s responsibility to ‘ensurelinkage between summer schools for giftedand talented students and other summerschool provision’ (Pye et al., p. 5). Coordinatorsshould also ‘make explicit the complementarityand continuity of summer school activity andnormal term-time work’ (Pye et al., p. 5). Thus,students were encouraged to use the skillsdeveloped on summer schools in their work inthe classroom. Overall, the research illustratedthat enrichment in the form of summerschools was perceived to be beneficial to themajority of students.

6.2.4 Enrichment activities on a locallevel

Examining provision of very able children atcentral government, LEA and school level, inone particular LEA, by using surveys andinterviews, Bonshek and Walters (1998) foundthat primary schools had made little use oflocal authority resources, residential days andenrichment days. The authors were surprisedthat schools with whole-school policies forgifted pupils were not involved with localauthority enrichment days and, indeed, raisedthe question as to the effectiveness of the LEAin alerting schools to such activities.Nevertheless, with the introduction of thegifted and talented strand, one-off learningactivities have become very popular atpartnership level. Schools came together andshared provision such as summer schools,theme-based days or events and masterclasses(Pocklington et al., 2002).

6.2.5 Daily enrichment activities

Enrichment within the classroom has notattracted attention in the literature, up untilvery recently. Previously, schools without apolicy for able children did not have specialenrichment provision in place. Eyre (1997b)explained that extension and enrichment are


key activities within the classroom since theyencourage breadth and greater depth withina subject. She believed that teachers need toencourage able pupils to ‘think deeply forthemselves’ (Eyre, 1997b, p. 18). Teachers whodo this well constantly ask pupils for theirviews and ideas. There are very few studiesfrom the end of the 1990s that describeschools with enrichment provision within theclassroom. Naisbett (1997) carried out someresearch in her own 11-16 comprehensive inorder to draw up a school policy for more ablepupils. This action research project involvedinterviewing heads of faculty and heads ofdepartments. She found that specificenrichment material must be incorporatedinto all schemes of work.

One research project showed that schools alsoprovide daily enrichment activities such as‘problem solving clubs’ and a ‘challengegroup’, which the pupils enjoyed (Bonshekand Walters, 1998). The latter was run by theSENCO and allowed pupils to take part inindividual or group projects, nationalcompetitions and independent self-studyskills. Overall, the research showed that giftedand talented coordinators need to be givenmore time to produce enrichment materialsand activities.

6.3 Enrichment activities withinthe USA

6.3.1 Enrichment clusters

The literature revealed that more studies inthe USA than the UK discuss the importanceof enrichment, both inside and outside theclassroom. The most influential writer on theuse of enrichment in the USA is Renzulli (1997,2000). In her review of current internationalresearch, Freeman (1998) discusses theschoolwide enrichment model, used fortwenty years in Connecticut by its designerRenzulli and his colleagues. It avoids the labelof gifted and its underlying philosophy is touse provision geared to the children’s owninterests.

Authentic enrichment clusters should involvenon-graded students coming together, ideallyhalf a day a week, to work cooperatively onsomething that interests them. Ablechildren should focus on a problem theywant to pursue since it allows them to haveownership of the project. The cluster focusesstudents’ attention on authentic learning,applied to real-life problems. It is similar tolearning in real-life situations such as researchlaboratories, business offices or film studios.Some individuals have criticised the conceptof clusters, explaining that they are ‘nothingmore than “fun and games”’ and they are‘soft on content’ (Renzulli, 1997, p. 7). Theauthor defends this, since each teacherorganises a cluster around ‘authentic andrigorous content’ (Renzulli, 1997, p. 7). Hebelieved that authentic learning is a fun partof school, which allows for ‘intelligent,creative, and effective learning’ (Renzulli,1997, p. 12).

6.3.2 Enrichment programme models

Feldhusen (1998) outlined several of thesystematic enrichment programme modelsthat have been developed in the USA over theyears, which include the enrichmenttriad/revolving door model advanced byRenzulli and Reis (1986), the individualizedprogram planning model (IPPM) of Treffinger(1986) and the Purdue three-stage modeladvocated by Feldhusen and Kollof (1979,1986). Feldhusen suggested that:

the Renzulli model is possibly the mostcomprehensive in its extensive treatment ofidentification, administration, staff training,and program delivery structure.

(Feldhusen, 1998)

Feldhusen (1998) upheld that there werethree types of programme experience:

• Type I enrichment involvesexperiences which allow children tohave new exploratory experiences.These activities include field trips,speakers and museum programmes.

• Type II enrichment involves activitiesdesigned to develop cognitive andaffective processes.

• Type III enrichment comprisesindividual or small-groupinvestigations of real problems.

He listed appropriate activities, and, althoughhe does not specifically call them enrichmentactivities, they could be classed as these. Theyinclude seminars, cultural experiences such asmuseums, concerts, plays and art exhibits, andforeign language learning.

The US literature revealed that several studieshave been carried out to investigateenrichment activities, which describe theseactivities positively. One distinct difference isthat in the US literature there is much lessconcern on the disadvantageous effects ofenrichment activities.

6.4 Summary

The literature highlights that it is importantthat the curriculum is enriched in order toallow a pupil to explore a subject in greaterdepth. It is also vital that gifted pupils takepart in enrichment opportunities out-of-school hours to work and interact with like-minded peers. Within the UK, up untilrecently, the gifted and talented strand of EiChas focused on one-off enrichment activities,and it is now time to develop an enrichedcurriculum within the classroom.


7.1 Introduction

Acceleration appears to be one of the mostcontroversial issues within the gifted andtalented literature. Acceleration has beenstudied extensively yet there remains a hugedebate within the literature about whether itis beneficial or potentially harmful for giftedpupils (Freeman, 1991, 1998; Freeman et al.,1995; George, 1992, 1995; Montgomery, 1996,2001). George defined acceleration as ‘anyteaching strategy that results in advancedplacement beyond a child’s chronological age’(George, 1995, p. 59), which is largely the viewheld in the UK. In the UK, acceleration in theform of acceleration classes or express streamsis becoming more popular in subjects such asmathematics and modern foreign languages.In the USA and on the continent, accelerationis largely thought of in the sense of a childadvancing an academic year at school or‘grade-skipping’ (Eyre, 1997a, 2000; Freeman,1991, 1998, 2000; Montgomery, 1996, 2001).

Some key authors revealed that they feltacceleration incorporated several otherfactors which included early entry,individualised provision, vertical grouping,classes with a wide age range, out-of-schoolcourses, compacting studies, self-organisedstudy and mentoring (George, 1992;Montgomery, 1996). Perhaps there is so muchcontroversy surrounding the subject ofacceleration since individuals interpret itdifferently. In this chapter the aim is toexplore these differences in the literature andreveal the advantages and disadvantages ofacceleration.

In her examination of current internationalresearch, Freeman (1998) stated that in theUK highly selective schools for theacademically gifted, which are now almost allprivate schools, are another means ofaccelerating the gifted. Most of these schoolswere originally direct grant schools, some of

which became specialists for the intellectuallygifted in terms of academic success andOxbridge entrance. These schools often teachwhole classes a year ahead of the normal age-related programmes of study.

Within EiC, there are now two strands,Beacon and Specialist, which incorporateschools known for good practice overall or inone particular area. A small percentage oftheir intake is related to pupils’ ability orinterests, and so they are possibly more likelyto attract gifted and talented pupils. Magnetschools aim to attract, rather than select,talented pupils, in subjects such as music.These schools can work like specialist schools,entitling children to work at their own speedand accelerating the children in an exceptedschool environment. Freeman (1998) reportsthat no research has been done on these‘unofficial’ highly selective schools or magnetschools and the search for this reviewrevealed that nothing has been written morerecently. Research has been carried out onBeacon Schools (for example Rudd et al.,2002) but nothing has been written from agifted and talented perspective within theseschools. From the evaluation of Beaconschools, it was revealed that of the 531Beacon schools in existence, 79 (or 15 percent), identified ‘Gifted and Talented’ as anarea of good practice. Perhaps further specificresearch on this needs to be carried out?

7.2 Advantages of acceleration

Several influential writers agree thatacceleration is the most cost-effective andeasiest teaching method for able pupils, butthere are several discrepancies in the use ofthe term. First, the literature revealed thatthere were several positive aspects ofacceleration found within the UK and USAliterature. George (1992) favouredaccelerated learning within the classroom,


7 Acceleration

rather than acceleration in the form ofskipping a year, because it allows children tobe challenged and should improve motivationand, thus, lack of effort or underachievement.Compacting the curriculum within theclassroom allows children to work at theirown pace rather than do repetitive tasks.

There have been very few studies in the UKthat explore the practice of acceleration.However, one small-scale UK study followedthree able pupils who had been accelerated inmathematics within a small, suburban juniorschool (Sizmur, 1991). Interviews revealed thatalthough two children had a low sociometricstatus, their needs were being met. Oneparticipant retained her own age friendshipgroup and met with these at break, whereasthe other had formed a small, but close, circleof friends within class. The accelerated pupilssaw class time as the time to work and theyboth felt accelerated learning was animprovement. The author acknowledged hislimitations with the small scale of the projectand recommended that the same effects ofacceleration could be achieved throughvertical enrichment. One of the childrensuggested that teachers should ‘weed out allexcept a core of essential activities, whichcould be completed in a small fraction of thetime normally expected’ (Sizmur, 1991, p. 3).This study illustrated that acceleration in theUK usually only occurs in specific subjects.

The most recent research that explores thepractice of accelerated learning is a report onthe impact of the gifted and talented strandwithin the EiC initiative (Pocklington et al.,2002). Interviews with key respondentsshowed that acceleration classes or expressstreams were a feature in well over half theschools. This was evident in several subjectsand most common in mathematics andscience. As the schools were fairlyrepresentative of EiC schools, it may besurmised that the practice is fairly common inEiC schools. Gifted and talented pupilsdominated these classes which allowed themto cover the same study programme as otherpupils but in a shorter time period. This oftenresulted in early entry GCSE and,

subsequently, an early start to AS courses.Other research has revealed that accelerationis favoured with specific subjects such asmathematics, foreign languages (Sizmur,1991; Montgomery, 1996), music, ballet orsport (Montgomery, 2001). Montgomery(2001) felt that acceleration, in the form ofsegregation, worked for talented pupils inareas such as music, ballet and sport becausethey could offer special provision for the moreable.

Pocklington and Kendall (2002) alsoinvestigated gifted and talented pupils’ viewson the gifted and talented strand of EiC. Thestudy revealed early entry GCSE wasbecoming much more prevalent. Pupils weregenerally positive about this procedure andsaid that it increased their self-confidence andself-esteem. However, some pupils felt thatthey would feel rushed:

I wouldn’t want to cram the syllabus of anysubject into a smaller unit than two years. Iwould rather take a measured approachover two years and achieve a good grade. Idon’t like to rush things!

(Pocklington and Kendall, 2002, p. 10)

Overall, in the UK the literature revealed thatacceleration can lead to a positive attitude tolearning, particularly in specific subjects suchas mathematics, modern foreign languagesand in sport.

7.3 Acceleration within the USA

The literature revealed that at the beginningof the 1990s there was a clear divide amongsteducators in the UK and educators in the USAas to whether acceleration was favourable.Archer (1992) believed that acceleration wasmost controversial in the UK, whereasinternationally, acceleration was morefavoured. Freeman’s report on currentinternational research on gifted pupils,revealed that:

...almost all the research evidencepromoting the benefits of acceleration isbased on studies within the American


educational system, where teaching isslower and less differentiated than that inEurope.

(Freeman, 1998, p. 38)

This illustrates that context is important sincepractitioners need to know what the pupilsare being accelerated from and whether it isreally necessary. In the UK, the NationalCurriculum is intended to cater for all pupilsthrough differentiation and, thus,acceleration in the form of grade-skipping isnot as common as in the USA.

Shore and Delcourt (1996) investigatedeffective curricular and programme practicesin gifted education within the USA, includingacceleration. They reviewed advice from onehundred widely available books on giftededucation and came to the conclusion thatresearch showed that acceleration is ‘uniquelyappropriate to gifted education’ (Shore andDelcourt, 1996, p. 138). Shore and Delcourtcited previous work and explained that manyforms of acceleration are widely advocated inthe USA since they do not require anycurriculum adaptation or differentiation(Shore et al., 1991).

7.4 Concerns about accelerationwithin the UK

The literature revealed that there seem to besome studies which indicate that accelerationshould be favoured, yet there was alsoliterature which cautioned educators aboutthe concept of acceleration. In the UK, severalauthors, who took acceleration to meanadvancing an academic year early, expressedtheir concern that gifted pupils may not beable to cope socially and emotionally(Bonshek and Walters, 1998; George, 1992,1995; Freeman, 1991; Hymer, 2003). Freeman(1991) was also wary of acceleration andbelieved it should only be for the emotionallystable child since it can disrupt a child’s socialdevelopment (Freeman, 1998). She concludedthat the focus should not be on accelerationbut, rather, the development of problemsolving (see also Montgomery, 2001).

In a study on the structure of provision forvery able children in one LEA, Bonshek andWalters (1998) found that ‘only cursoryreference has been made to acceleration inthe LEA guidelines’ (Bonshek and Walters,1998, p. 25). The LEA cautioned teachersabout acceleration, since they wereconcerned that many pupils may not be ableto cope socially and emotionally. The LEAdevelopment officer considered thatacceleration can only be used when a pupilexpresses ‘both social maturity andexceptional ability’ (Bonshek and Walters,1998, p. 26).

More recently, Hymer (2003) in an articleentitled, ‘Included not Isolated’ also explainedthat educators must think about theemotional and social influences of a student’sdevelopment when considering acceleration.They must be aware of:

[a] child’s sense of personal involvement intheir schooling; changes in friendshipgroups; need for peer acceptance; time toplay/mess around; opportunities to developcrucial trans-intellective capacities such asresilience, reflectiveness, resourcefulness,empathy and the quality of relationshipwith staff.

(Hymer, 2003, p. 34)

Freeman (1998) commented that research onacceleration has not really examined theemotional effects of acceleration but, instead,has focused on achievement. Freeman upheldthat more research needs to be carried out onthe socio-emotional adjustment ofaccelerated pupils. She recommended thatmultiple measures of self-esteem could beused in a developmental context, includingfamily and peers. She believed that‘behavioural observation is valuable’ andideally ‘matched groups of equal ability andachievement should be compared, onestaying in the normal classroom and the otheraccelerated’ (Freeman, 1998, p. 43). Sheproposed that researchers should examinethe emotional development of the childrenbefore and after acceleration. The studiesmentioned above illustrate that since


Freeman’s (1996; 1998) comments, researchhas begun to explore the implications ofacceleration and how it can affect a child’s socialand emotional well-being. Nevertheless, thisclearly needs investigating further on a largerscale.

Following research in Oxfordshire, Eyrerevealed that caution must be taken withgrade-skipping because of the socio-emotional effects. She even explained thatgrade skipping could be a sign of a school’sfailure to provide for able pupils since gradeskipping occurs where differentiation isabsent in classrooms (Eyre, 1997a).Montgomery (2001) also upheld thatacceleration was not beneficial to able pupils.She explained that for the large numbers ofmore able pupils, a segregated educationwhich used to operate in the UK for the top20 per cent, was found to have disadvantagesboth socially and emotionally, and was alsofound to be no better an offer than a goodcomprehensive system. It is very unclearwhether Montgomery has based thisassumption on research or her own opinion.In some research, which used national valueadded datasets to explore whethercomprehensive or selective educationproduced the best overall results, it was foundthat at GCSE level ‘there was little differencebetween comprehensive and selective LEAS,

in terms of value-added performance’(Schagen and Schagen, 2002, p. 2).

7.5 Concerns about accelerationwithin the USA

In the USA, although acceleration is favouredby many educators, some of them make itclear that that there are several factors totake into consideration. Shore and Delcourt(1996) were not in favour of grade-skippingas a means of acceleration since ‘the process isad hoc; it does not differentiate thecurriculum; and it is not necessarilyappropriate for all children’ (p. 140).

7.6 Summary

The literature has revealed that acceleration isvery controversial as a means of educating theable. In the past it appeared that accelerationwas favoured more in the USA rather than theUK, but this may have been because ofdifferent teaching approaches. The mostrecent research in the UK on the gifted andtalented strand of EiC revealed thatacceleration within particular subjects isbecoming more prevalent as a means ofeducating the gifted, so perhaps fears of thesocial and emotional well-being of giftedchildren are becoming less of a concern.


8.1 The importance ofmonitoring and evaluation

Discrete monitoring and evaluation systemsfor reviewing pupil progress, school policiesand national initiatives are scarce within thegifted and talented literature. The reviewrevealed that influential authors have begunto recognise the importance of monitoringand evaluation, yet it is unclear what is beingdone about this. There were very few studieswhich examined the way in which monitoringand evaluation effects provision for giftedand talented pupils. Nevertheless, morerecently, literature has focused on twodiscrete aspects; monitoring pupil progressand monitoring and evaluating nationalinitiatives such as EiC, summer schools and theNational Academy for Gifted and TalentedYouth (Eyre, 2002; Ofsted, 2001b; Pocklingtonet al., 2002; Pye et al., 2000). Within the USA,studies investigating monitoring andevaluation were very scarce and this is clearlysomething that needs to be addressed. Thischapter explores monitoring and evaluationat three levels: school level, LEA level andnational level. Key factors which lead to asuccessful monitoring and evaluationprogramme are described.

8.2 The need for monitoring andevaluation at a school level

In the past, experts in the field of gifted andtalented education have expressed the needfor a monitoring and evaluation programmewithin schools and at a national level (Eyre,1997a and c; Freeman, 1998; George, 1992,1995; Teare, 1997). Following in-servicecourses to teachers that George (1995)presented, teachers commented that anassessment system should be put in place toreduce underachievement. George alsorecommended that an evaluation of thecurriculum should be made to assess itsappropriateness for gifted and talented

pupils. Eyre (1997c) also believed it wasimportant that pupils monitor their ownstrengths and weaknesses and need ‘clearassessment of their abilities’ (Eyre, 1997c, p.63). Teachers should set aside time to talk togifted pupils about their work and theirprogress, because through appropriatediscussion and questioning, gifted childrenwill be pushed towards the next conceptuallevel (Eyre, 1997c). With regard to assessinggifted children’s ability, Eyre explained thatsimple assessments only show a child’sunderstanding of the National Curriculumcontent, and therefore assessment needs tobe at a more complex level. Scaled or tieredassessments allow pupils to demonstrate theirlevel of ability. Several prominent authorsbelieved that the role of the coordinator iscrucial in overseeing the monitoring andevaluation of a gifted scheme and pupilprogress (Eyre, 1997a; Freeman, 1998; George,1992; Teare, 1997).

Teare (1997), emphasised that monitoring andevaluation of policies and procedures iscrucial in understanding not only what workswell, but also what needs to be improved.Monitoring and evaluation aims to generateconfidence in the policies; strengthen anyweak areas and inform future planning andaction. Teare explained that monitoring andevaluation needs to take place at aninstitutional level to ensure that policies andschemes operate in the same way, but also ata personal (pupil) level to monitor progress ofindividual children. Progress can bemonitored using information from multiplesources including value-added data, individualeducation plans and reviews, and individualpupil data. Teare (1997) also believed thatseveral individuals should be involved withthe process of monitoring and evaluation andshould include the school coordinator forgifted and talented pupils, teachers, parentswho can assess the pastoral as well ascurricular effects, and pupils themselves.


8 Monitoring and evaluation

The few empirical studies that discussmonitoring and evaluation strategies all implythat these strategies are worthwhile. Oneteacher carried out a study of the practicalimplications and issues involved withupdating policy documents and improvingidentification procedures in hercomprehensive school in the UK (Welding,1998). Welding preferred an identificationmodel that prioritised the importance ofevaluating provision. Coordinators wereresponsible for collating and circulatinginformation. The model also valued students’responses to the changed curriculum and thequality of each individual department’sprovision by comparing it with a subject-specific checklist.

8.3 Monitoring and evaluation ata local level

Empirical research in one LEA illustrated thataction research, involving observation,reflection and implementation, allowedteachers to monitor their teaching andlearning (Clark, 1997). The LEA supported agroup of teacher-researchers to undertakeaction research projects related to workingmore effectively with gifted pupils. Theoutcomes of the research were:

• a more coherent framework for decisionmaking with regard to policy, provisionand practice

• an innovative approach to professionaldevelopment

• a self-sufficient school with a researchcommunity.

It was found that action research is a usefulmonitoring tool that enables teachers tounderstand how to raise standards for theable and talented.

8.4 Monitoring and evaluation ofnational initiatives

At a national level, several pieces of literaturerecommended that discrete monitoring andevaluation techniques should occur (Hunter,2003; Ofsted, 2001a and b; Pye et al., 2000).

Ofsted (2001a) examined how 20 schools hadprogressed in implementing the gifted andtalented strand of EiC after its first year.Ofsted found that the:

…most evident weakness of the initiativewas in schools’ systems to monitor whatpupils identified as gifted and talentedwere achieving through the activitiesprovided, whether supplementary orotherwise.

(Ofsted, 2001a, p. 69)

Similarly, one of the main conclusions fromOfsted’s (2001b) evaluation of EiC and grant-funded programmes is that there needs to beimproved monitoring since:

most of the schools visited in this surveyhave not yet developed effective systems tomonitor the additional improvement theprogrammes are intended to promote.

(Ofsted, 2001b, p. 43)

Ofsted advised that senior managers need tointerpret data on attainment and behaviourto find out which groups of pupils aresuccessful and in which departments.Systematic monitoring forms a good basis forevaluating the effectiveness the provisionmade. Ofsted also stressed the importance ofmonitoring pupils’ performance inenrichment activities such as gifted andtalented summer schools and masterclassesbecause they must not be regarded as bolt-onactivities that do not need monitoring. Ofstedrecommended a simple system should be setup to ensure the coordinator can informpupils’ regular teachers of their achievementsin summer schools and masterclasses.

8.5 Monitoring and evaluation ofthe gifted and talentedstrand of Excellence in Cities(EiC)

More recently, Pocklington et al. (2002)reviewed the monitoring and evaluationtechniques of 14 schools involved with EiC.The authors found from the interviews that:

the extent and quality of monitoring andevaluation of the gifted and talented strand


varied between schools, and twoheadteachers felt that this was a weaknessin their school.


The task of monitoring and evaluation wasusually left to the GATCO but teachers werebecoming more involved with this process.Monitoring involved looking at pupilattainment, together with ‘softer’ qualitiessuch as pupils’ self-confidence and self-esteemin their motivation.

Only a handful of schools stood out for ‘rigourand thoroughness’ of their monitoring andevaluation (Pocklington et al., 2002, p. 42).For example in one school, the gifted andtalented coordinator asked all able pupils tofill in a questionnaire asking them about theirprojected exam grades, the GCSEs theyplanned to do and their post-16 plans. Thiswas then discussed in the pupils’ termlyinterviews with the coordinator. Coordinatorsmonitored resources that were allocated by astaff bidding process. The research alsoshowed that there was relatively littleevidence of monitoring and evaluationhaving a serious impact on practice. Thus, theauthors concluded that ‘a strong and effectivesystem of target setting and performancemonitoring for pupils’ is needed (Pocklingtonet al., 2002, p. 61). Monitoring and evaluationshould influence practice.

Hunter (2003) presents a case study of themonitoring and evaluating techniques withinthe gifted and talented strand of EiC at oneschool. EiC funding allowed monitoring andevaluation techniques to be strengthened. Itincluded a review of individual educationplans using Microsoft Access, looking atinterviews with pupils to assess their views ontheir progress and tracking of resources. Theschool found that monitoring:

has been a ‘fit-for-purpose’ exercise – ratherthan follow some rigid model we allow asystem to emerge that will give us the

information we require to makemanagement decisions.

(Hunter, 2003, p. 57)

This worked well and the deputy headteacherwas confident that using quantitative andqualitative data, he could account for thespending and the impact it had had on pupilsat any point throughout the year. Heprovided a useful checklist of processes tomonitor the gifted and talented strand,including initial personal interviews, target-setting and action plans. The ten per centcohort’s end-of-year results should be relatedto expected outcomes that have been derivedfrom key stage entry scores.

8.6 Monitoring and evaluation ofsummer schools

Research on DFEE / Sutton Trust-funded pilotsummer schools for gifted and talentedstudents in 1999 revealed that at all 32summer schools, evaluation of progressoccurred on a daily basis. The majority ofsummer schools used several methodsincluding attendance registers, student andparent questionnaires, staff reviews andlogbooks for recording individual targets (Pyeet al., 2000). The summer schools were keento promote self-review amongst the studentsand they were encouraged to set personaltargets. The evaluation actually had an impacton practice because many schemes wereadapted in the light of feedback on individualand group progress.

Nevertheless, Pye et al. (2000) recommendedthat:

...projects should agree detailed arrangementsfor the monitoring and evaluation ofstudent progress and attainment followingsummer school participation both withinand outside of host institutions.

(Pye et al., 2000, p. 17)


Evaluation and monitoring needs to extendbeyond the summer school period into thefollowing academic year to assess the impactthe summer schools had on gifted pupils’future attainment. The research team alsorecommended that ‘summer schools shouldaim to maximise parental involvement inschemes in relation to monitoring andevaluation of student progress’ (Pye et al.,2000, p. 18). Parents could monitor andevaluate out-of-scheme activities completedby their child, which would give coordinatorsan additional source of information on whichto base future practice. Thus, althoughmonitoring and evaluation of the schemeitself was evident, clearly this needs to beextended to the monitoring of pupils’progress after the summer schools.

8.7 Summary

The literature revealed that monitoring andevaluation of schools’ gifted and talentedpolicies and practices, as well as nationalinitiatives such as EiC and summer schools,needs to become an important part of allschools’ agendas. Monitoring and evaluationis beginning to become an important aspectof more recent initiatives, yet there needs tobe more research to see the impact of theseprocesses. It is also important that severalevaluation techniques are used so that awhole range of views can be accounted for.Monitoring and evaluation needs to be anongoing process so that educators can assessthe impact of an initiative even after it hasfinished.


This final section will summarise the mainpoints from each section of the literature. Weshall then provide an overall summary thataims to set the main points within the widereducational context and identify any gaps inthe literature. Finally we present a criticalconclusion and suggest a future researchagenda.

9.1 Scope of the literature

• The literature relates to policy andpractice at national, institutional andclassroom levels.

• At present, there is little internalconsistency among these three levels andit is not always possible to track any onetheme through all levels. For example, atpresent, it is not clear as to what is themost effective classroom preparation forworld-class tests.

• There is a lack of multi-disciplinarystudies that draw together relevantexpertise – for example, within thephilosophy of education, educationalpsychology and professional musicians/sports trainers.

9.2 Identification

• While there is consensus thatidentification must be by multiplesources, there is still lack of clarity andunderstanding about the relativeadvantages and disadvantages ofdifferent identification procedures.Furthermore, it is not clear how thesemultiple sources should be broughttogether or their relative status indifferent circumstances.

• The literature does not discuss thedifference between the identification ofrelative higher ability (for example, within

a particular school) and the more objectiveidentification of higher ability (forexample, when looked at nationally). Theformer allows for schools to ensure thatthere is adequate provision for the mostable pupils on the school roll. The latterallows for the most talented young peopleto be brought together for a specific,highly focused, expertly staffed activity.

• There is an absence of consensus ordiscussion in the education literatureabout the characteristics of ‘high ability’in different curriculum areas. Again, theabsence of informed multi-disciplinarystudies is noteworthy – much of theliterature is limited and the result ofindividual, albeit well-motivated, practice.

9.3 Differentiation

• The literature emphasises the need forcurriculum differentiation in order tomeet the needs of gifted and talentedpupils in mixed-ability contexts.

• However, there is minimal research oncoherent approaches to differentiationfor these pupils – as opposed to‘shopping lists’ of ideas.

• There is also little research on theopportunities afforded by different typesof differentiation in relation toenrichment and acceleration. Whileacceleration in a particular subject can bea form of differentiation, there may yetbe a need for differentiation within anaccelerated group, if all individual needsare to be met.

9.4 Enrichment

• The literature highlights the importanceof enrichment in allowing gifted andtalented pupils to respond creatively and


9 Conclusion: lessons learnt from the review

with imagination. Enrichment appears tobe one of the optimal means ofproviding opportunities for potential tobe released.

• While the literature is clear that enrichmentactivities should be embedded within thecurriculum, rather than being ‘bolt-onextras’ (so that skills are transferable backto the classroom) there is little evidenceof long-term, benefits of enrichment.

• There are also few criteria for evaluatingthe coherence of enrichment activities inrelation to the whole curriculum.

9.5 Acceleration

• The literature gave evidence thatperceptions of the success of accelerationof gifted and talented pupils areinfluenced by the structure of anynational curriculum in place and thepossibilities afforded by the particulareducational system.

• Therefore, in the UK, which has aNational Curriculum with in-builtflexibility so that it can be appropriate fora range of abilities, acceleration in termsof advancing a pupil a chronological yearis rarer than in countries where there aremore fixed end of year/grade tests whichare necessary for advancement.

• There is evidence that subject-basedacceleration is more common in somesubjects than others, notably,mathematics and modern foreignlanguages. There is little attention to therationale for this and little discussion ofthe relative appropriateness ofacceleration in such subjects or in subjectswhere greater maturity of response maybe a goal for gifted pupils.

9.6 Monitoring and evaluation

• The literature is clear that feedback loopsare important in enhancing the provisionfor gifted and talented pupils and thatmultiple means of assessment are

advantageous. But there is minimalresearch on the success of differentmeans of assessment or the relativestatus which different means ofassessment may have.

• With regard to the evaluation ofprogrammes and curriculum provision,longitudinal studies are lacking and aremostly related to the effect of ‘hot-housing’, rather than provisionembedded in ‘ordinary’ environments.

9.7 Personnel

• There is evidence that assigningresponsibilities to a discrete post ensuresthat the needs of the gifted and talentedpupils are kept on the agenda andattended to.

• The literature describes the functions ofrelevant coordinators but does not linkthese to monitoring and evaluation ofthe effects of these functions.

• The literature stresses the importance ofcollaborative working for gifted pupils.However, this cohort is both relativelysmall and also represents a wide range ofinterests, expertise and experience.

• The importance of training practitionersfor discrete posts is increasingly beingrecognised.

9.8 Overview

9.8.1 Lack of empirical research

The literature reviewed indicated that therehave been relatively few empirical studies ofgifted and talented education and,consequently, evidence-based policy andpractice are scarce. Instead, much of theliterature reflects practitioner experience. Whilethis is important and valuable, it is differentfrom rigorously conducted research studies.There is the danger that practice remainslimited by the particular ideas of those who areinfluential in the field and is self-perpetuating,and that other options are not considered.


9.8.2 Imbalance between ‘gifted’ and‘talented’

There is considerably more literature on‘gifted’ pupils (pupils displaying discrete orgeneralised ability in the ‘academic’curriculum) than on ‘talented’ pupils (pupilsdisplaying ability in practical activities orartistic fields). These terms are as currentlydefined and used by DfES.

It may be speculated that there are well-trodden paths for ‘talented’ pupils, most ofwhich lie outside the regular curriculum offeredand representing ‘specialised’ or ‘segregated’provision. For example, many local authoritymusic services have well-established structuresfor advanced instrumentalists or clubsfostering competitive sport (which provide forthe needs of those talented in sports).Whether all relevant young people haveaccess to such provision should be considered.

The challenge of the academically gifted pupilis one which faces ordinary teachers in theirday-to-day lives and if not addressed, couldlead to disaffection and underachievement.

9.8.3 Lack of connection between

‘giftedness’ and ‘talent’

The literature does not discuss therelationship between giftedness and talent –in particular, exploring the possibilities ofdeveloping the talents of academically giftedpupils as an alternative to acceleration, whichmay compromise their social and emotionaldevelopment.

9.8.4 Contextual limitations of the

literature

The literature is mainly confined toconsideration of gifted and talentededucation in the normal educational context– that is, the comprehensive school (or non-selective primary school). While this isunderstandable given that this is the locationin which most young people in the UK areeducated and most teachers work, it doesignore the possibility of exploring theexperience and expertise resident in schoolsthat have traditionally provided for gifted

pupils, and which often have a reputation fordeveloping excellence. These schools includethe grammar schools in those local authoritieswhich retain a degree of selection, and aproportion of independent schools nationally.Regardless of arguments about the ‘value-added’ offered by these schools, theirselection procedures or the fact that theeducation that they offer may be limitedbecause their pedagogy may beinappropriate to pupils of ‘average’ ability,there is, to date, no research evidence aboutthe relevance and appropriateness of practicein these schools to the pupils they select. Forexample, how much of the policy and practicecan be transferred to a non-selectiveenvironment? What can be said about thesocial development of pupils in selectiveschools and their attitudes to other, less able,peers?

9.8.5 Professional limitations of the

literature

It was made clear in the introduction that thisreview focused on educational literature anddid not include articles in which the principalfocus was psychology. However, it isnoteworthy that those advocating certainapproaches for gifted and talented educationdo not generally refer in any way to thepsychological literature nor use it to justifycertain professional practices. There wasevidence in the review that some schoolswere using the educational psychology serviceto support provision for gifted pupils but it isnot clear as to how widespread this practice is.It is suggested that, in terms of learning styles,some theoretical input might usefully developpractice. There was minimal exploration ofwhich types of presentation are mostappropriate to particular activities; instead,the emphasis is on types of presentation perse, and discussion was divorced from thecontent of the presentation.

9.8.6 Criteria for ‘meeting needs’

While the literature constantly refers to‘meeting the needs’ of pupils who are highlyable in various fields, it does not offer help toteachers in identifying how they know whenthese needs have been met. This is similar to


the literature on monitoring and evaluationthat, is very general, referring to multiplemethods and the need for tracking but notproviding a framework for assessment.

9.9 Critical conclusion

The main conclusion from the literature isthat the question remains as to theuniqueness of provision for gifted andtalented pupils. A potentially useful source ofevidence has been ignored (that of selectiveand specialist schools). Many of the themesidentified from the literature merely reiteratefactors in effective curriculum management(differentiation, pupil grouping, monitoringand evaluation, allocation of responsibilities).It is not immediately obvious that some of theliterature is discrete to gifted and talentedpupils. It may be that many of the suggestionsof successful strategies for gifted pupils wouldwork effectively for all types of pupil. Perhapsacceleration and enrichment are exceptionsbut, even here, there are similar discussionsabout pupils with learning difficulties whomake atypical progress and may notnecessarily have to go through all the ‘small

steps’ in order to master a task or understanda concept (to whatever degree).

The present report suggests that a critical lookbe taken at all the activity that goes on withinthe broad umbrella of ‘gifted and talented’education in order to:

• distil what is unique – rather anapplication of practice found elsewhere

• identify what is evidence of effectivepractice – and the rationale foreffectiveness

• explore the conditions under whicheffective practice develops – and thetransferability of these conditions

• consider the nature of any discretetraining, which educators may need todevelop effective practice, as well as themost effective way for this training tobe delivered.

It is suggested that progress will only bemade by a multidisciplinary approach thatdraws on conceptual analysis, psychologicaltheory, practitioner experience and expertdescription of ‘ability’.


ARCHER, M. (1992). ‘Young, gifted and back’,Special Children, 59, 13–15.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS(1998). Achievement for All. London: ATL.

BENTLEY, R. (2003). ‘Issues of identity:selecting the right pupils’, CurriculumBriefing, 1, 2, 11–14.

BONSHEK, J. (2002). ‘Postcode provision: acase study of provision for able sociallydeprived school pupils in GreaterManchester’, Support for Learning, 17, 2,80–7.

BONSHEK, J. and WALTERS, B. (1998). ‘Thestructure of provision for very able children: acase study of one LEA’, Gifted & Talented, 2,23–31.

BORE, K. (2003). ‘A matter of definition’,Curriculum Briefing, 1, 2, 3–5.

CHENG, J.Q., KRECHEVSKY, M. and VIENS, J.with ISBERG, E. (1998). Building on Children'sStrengths: the Experience of Project Spectrum(Project Zero Frameworks for Early Education,Vol 1). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

CLARK, C. (1997). ‘Raising standards for moreable and talented pupils in Cleveland’,Support for Learning, 12, 2, 78–80.

COOKE, G. (1992). Gifted Children: Help fromthe LEAs. Slough: NFER.

COOKE, G. (1994). Gifted Children: Help fromthe LEAs – an Update (EMIE Snapshot).Slough: NFER, EMIE.

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION ANDEMPLOYMENT (1999). Excellence in Cities.London: DfEE.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE.HER MAJESTY’S INSPECTORATE (1992). TheEducation of Very Able Children inMaintained Schools: a Review (EducationObserved Series). London: HMSO. Cited in:

CLARK, C. (1997). ‘Raising standards for moreable and talented pupils in Cleveland’,Support for Learning, 12, 2, 78–80.

ENGLAND. PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OFCOMMONS (2001). Achieving Success (Cm.5230). London: The Stationery Office.

EYRE, D. (1997a). Able Children in OrdinarySchools. London: David Fulton.

EYRE, D. (1997b). ‘Able children in ordinaryschools’, Special Children, 100, 17–19.

EYRE, D. (1997c). ‘Teaching able pupils’,Support for Learning, 12, 2, 60–5.

EYRE, D. (2000). ‘Evidence-informed policy:myth or reality in gifted and talentededucation?’, Education Today, 50, 4, 15–22.

EYRE, D. (2002). ‘The National Academy forGifted and Talented Youth’, EducationReview, 16, 1, 72–9.

EYRE, D. and FULLER, M. (1993). Year 6Teachers and More Able Pupils: a Look at theIssues in Providing Appropriate Challenge inthe Nine National Curriculum Subject Areas.Oxford: National Primary Centre.

FELDHUSEN, J.F. (1995). TIDE: TalentIdentification and Development in Education.Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.

FELDHUSEN, J.F. (1998). ‘Programs andservices at the elementary level.’ In: VANTASSEL-BASKA, J. (Ed) Excellence in EducatingGifted and Talented Learners. Denver, CO:Love.

FELDHUSEN, J.F. and KOLLOFF, P.B. (1979). ‘Anapproach to career education for the gifted’,Roeper Review, 2, 2, 13–17. Cited in:FELDHUSEN, J.F. (1998). ‘Programs andservices at the elementary level’. In: VANTASSEL-BASKA., J. (Ed) Excellence inEducating Gifted and Talented Learners.Denver, CO: Love.


References

FELDHUSEN, J.F. and KOLLOFF, P.B. (1986).‘The Purdue Three-Stage Model for giftededucation at the elementary level’. In:RENZULLI, J.S. (Ed) Systems and Models forDeveloping Programs for the Gifted andTalented. Manfield Center, CT: CreativeLearning Press. Cited in: FELDHUSEN, J.F.(1998). ‘Programs and services at theelementary level.’ In: VAN TASSEL-BASKA., J.(Ed) Excellence in Educating Gifted andTalented Learners. Denver, CO: Love.

FELDHUSEN, J.F. and SAYLER, M.F. (1990).‘Special classes for academically gifted youth’,Roeper Review, 12, 4, 244–9.

FLETCHER-CAMPBELL, F. (2003). ‘The giftedand talented: who are they and does it matterwho they are?’ TOPIC, Issue 30, Item 5.

FREEMAN, J. (1991). Gifted Children GrowingUp. London: Cassell.

FREEMAN, J. (1998). Educating the Very Able:Current International Research (OFSTEDReviews of Research). London: The StationeryOffice.

FREEMAN, J. (2000). ‘Developing a schoolpolicy for gifted and talented pupils’,Education Today, 50, 4, 40–4.

FREEMAN, J., SPAN, P. and WAGNER, H.(1995). Actualizing Talent: a LifelongChallenge. London: Cassell.

GEORGE, D. (1992). The Challenge of the AbleChild. London: David Fulton .

GEORGE, D. (1995). Gifted Education:Identification and Provision. London: DavidFulton.

GOODHEW, G. (2002). ‘Gifted and talentedprogrammes: are they working?’, SpecialChildren, 145, 26.

GREAT BRITAIN. PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OFCOMMONS (1997). Excellence in Schools (Cm.3681). London: The Stationery Office.

GREAT BRITAIN. PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OFCOMMONS. EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENTCOMMITTEE (1999). Highly Able Children.Volume 1: Report and Proceedings of the

Committee (Third Report). London: TheStationery Office.

GREGOR, A. (1994). ‘“When are we going toget our extension, Miss?” – a team approachto meeting the needs of the very able child inmainstream’, Educational Psychology inPractice, 10, 2, 93–7.

HAMILTON, L. (1999). ‘Teachers and the veryable: case studies of four Scottish schools’,High Ability Studies, 10, 1, 85–96.

HUNTER, J. (2003). ‘Keeping a check onprogress’, Curriculum Briefing, 1, 2, 55–7.

HYMER, B. (2003). ‘Included not isolated’,Curriculum Briefing, 1, 2, 31–4.

JENNINGS, S. and DUNNE, R. (2003). ‘Historytour of G&T developments’, CurriculumBriefing, 1, 2, 6.

KERRY, C.A. and KERRY, T. (2000). ‘School timeand the education of the most able’,Education Today, 50, 4, 7–14.

MONTGOMERY, D. (1996). Educating the Able(Special Needs in Ordinary Schools). London:Cassell.

MONTGOMERY, D. (2001). ‘Teaching themore able: an update’, Gifted EducationInternational, 15, 3, 162–80.

MOON, S.M., SWIFT, M. and SHALLENBERGER,A. (2002). ‘Perceptions of a self-contained classfor fourth and fifth grade students with highto extreme levels of intellectual giftedness’,Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 1, 64–79.

NAISBETT, A. (1997). ‘Policy and provision formore able pupils: the Nunthorpe experience’,Support for Learning, 12, 2, 83-9.

OFFICE FOR STANDARDS IN EDUCATION(2001a). The Annual Report of Her Majesty’sChief Inspector of Schools: Standards andQuality in Education 1999/2000. London: TheStationery Office.

OFFICE FOR STANDARDS IN EDUCATION(2001b). Providing for Gifted and TalentedPupils: an Evaluation of Excellence in Citiesand Other Grant-Funded Programmes.London: Office for Standards in Education.


POCKLINGTON, K., FLETCHER-CAMPBELL, F.and KENDALL, L. (2002). The Gifted andTalented Strand of EIC [online]. Available:http://www.nfer.ac.uk/research/documents/EIC/04(1)-2002.doc [3 September, 2003] .

POCKLINGTON, K. and KENDALL, L. (2002).The Gifted and Talented Strand of EiC: thePupils’ Voice [online]. Available: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/research/documents/EIC/04(2)-2002.doc[3 September, 2003].

PYE, D., MASON, K. and GOULD, K. (2000).DfEE/Sutton Trust Funded Pilot SummerSchool Schemes for Gifted and TalentedStudents 1999: an Evaluation of 32 PilotSchemes. Full Report Summary. London: DfEE.

RENZULLI, J.S. (1997). How to Develop anAuthentic Enrichment Cluster. Storrs, CT:University of Connecticut, The NationalResearch Center on the Gifted and Talented[online]. Available:http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/semart01.html [4 April, 2003].

RENZULLI, J.S. (2000). ‘Using enrichmentclusters for performance based identification’,Gifted Education International, 15, 1, 22–8.

RENZULLI, J.S. and REIS, S.M. (1986). ‘Theenrichment triad/revolving door model: aschoolwide plan for the development ofcreative productivity.’ In: RENZULLI, J.S. (Ed)Systems and Models for Developing Programsfor the Gifted and Talented. Mansfield Center,CT: Creative Learning Press. Cited in:FELDHUSEN, J.F. (1998). ‘Programs andservices at the elementary level.’ In: VANTASSEL-BASKA, J. (Ed) Excellence in EducatingGifted and Talented Learners. Denver, CO:Love.

RICHARDSON, M., BAIRD, J.A., RIDGWAY, J.,RIPLEY, M., SHORROCKS-TAYLOR, D. andSWAN, M. (2002). ‘Challenging minds?Students’ perceptions of computer-basedworld class tests of problem solving’,Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 6, 633–49.

RUDD, P., RICKINSON, M., BLENKINSOP, S.,McMEEKING, S., TAYLOR, M. and PHILLIPS, N.(2002). Long-term External Evaluation of theBeacon Schools Initiative 2001–2002 [online].Available: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/research/downloads/ SLBFinalReport.doc [8 September, 2003] .

SCHACK, G.D. (1996). ‘All aboard or standingon the shore? Gifted educators and theeducational reform movement’, RoeperReview, 18, 3, 190–7.

SCHAGEN, I. and SCHAGEN, S. ‘Using nationalvalue-added datasets to explore the effects ofschool diversity.’ Paper presented at theBritish Educational Research AssociationAnnual Conference, Exeter University, Exeter,12-14 September 2002 [online]. Available:http://www.nfer.ac.uk/research/conference_list.asp [24 September, 2002].

SHEEHAN, B. (2000). A Study of Maximisingthe Learning Potentials of ExceptionallyGifted Eleventh Grade Students in anAdvanced Track Class. Illinois, IL: Saint XavierUniversity and Skylight ProfessionalDevelopment.

SHORE, B.M., CORNELL, D.G., ROBINSON, A.and WARD, V.S. (1991). RecommendedPractices in Gifted Education: a CriticalAnalysis. New York, NY: Teachers CollegePress. Cited in: SHORE, B.M. and DELCOURT,M.A.B. (1996). ‘Effective curricular andprogram practices in gifted education and theinterface with general education’, Journal forthe Education of the Gifted, 20, 2, 138–54.

SHORE, B.M. and DELCOURT, M.A.B. (1996).‘Effective curricular and program practices ingifted education and the interface withgeneral education’, Journal for the Educationof the Gifted, 20, 2, 138–54.

SIZMUR, S. (1991). ‘Exceptionally ablechildren: educational provision in a suburbanjunior school’, TOPIC, Issue 6, Item 7.

SUKHNANDAN, L. with LEE, B. (1998).Streaming, Setting and Grouping by Ability: aReview of the Literature. Slough: NFER.

TEARE, B. (1997). Effective Provision for Ableand Talented Children. Stafford: NetworkEducational Press .

TILSLEY, P. (1995). ‘The use of tests and testdata in identification or recognition of highability’, Flying High, 2, 43–50.’ Cited in:WELDING, J. (1998). ‘The identification of ablechildren in a comprehensive school: a study ofthe issues involved and their practicalimplications’, Educating Able Children, 2, 3–10.


TOMLINSON, C.A. (1995). ‘Deciding todifferentiate instruction in middle school: oneschool’s journey’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 2,77–87.

TOWNE, D. and BRANSON, P. (2001). ‘Giftedand talented summer schools’, SpecialChildren, 134, 19–21.

TREFFINGER, D.J. (1986). ‘Fostering effective,independent learning through individualizedprogramming.’ In: RENZULLI, J.S. (Ed) Systemsand Models for Developing Programs for theGifted and Talented. Mansfield Center, CT:Creative Learning Press. Cited in: FELDHUSEN,J.F. (1998). ‘Programs and services at theelementary level.’ In: VAN TASSEL-BASKA, J.(Ed) Excellence in Educating Gifted andTalented Learners. Denver, CO: Love.

TREFFINGER, D.J. and FELDHUSEN, J.F. (1996).‘Talent recognition and development:

successor to gifted education’, Journal for theEducation of the Gifted, 19, 181–93. Cited in:FREEMAN, J. (1998). Educating the Very Able:Current International Research (OFSTEDReviews of Research). London: The StationeryOffice.

WARWICK, I. (2003). ‘Policy matters:coordinating coordinators’, CurriculumBriefing, 1, 2, 19–21.

WELDING, J. (1998). ‘The identification of ablechildren in a comprehensive school: a study ofthe issues involved and their practicalimplications’, Educating Able Children, 2,3–10.

WESTBERG, K.L., ARCHAMBAULT, F.X.,DOBYNS, S.M. and SALVIN, T. (1993). ‘TheClassroom Practices Observation Study’,Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16,120–46.


The LGA Educational Research Programme is carried out by the NFER. The research projects covertopics and perspectives that are of special interest to LEAs. All the reports are published anddisseminated by NFER, with separate executive summaries. The summaries are available free of charge both on paper and on the NFER website – www.nfer.ac.uk

For further information on any of the above projects or the publications, please contact:

Publications Unit, The Library, NFER, The Mere, Upton Park, Slough, SL1 2DQ.

Tel: 01753 637002 Fax: 01753 637280 email: [email protected]

A selection of recent publications arising from the LGA Educational Research Programme

School Phobia and School Refusal: Research into Causes and Remedies (LGA Research Report 46)Tamsin Archer, Caroline Filmer-Sankey and Felicity Fletcher-CampbellThis study considered the causes of school phobia and school refusal and what Local Education Authorities (LEAs) and schools can do to supportaffected pupils. It focused specifically on identification and assessment, causes of school refusal and phobia, provision for pupils who appear tobe school refusers and school phobics, and training and monitoring structures.

Published in 2003 ISBN 1 903880 59 9 Price: £8.00

School Attendance and the Prosecution of Parents: Perspectives from Education Welfare Service Management(LGA Research Report 43)Sally Kendall, Richard White and Kay KinderThis research is the first stage of a three phase study and provides an overview of the prosecution process within LEAs from interviewswith 122 Principal Education Welfare Officers (PEWOs) or equivalent, and data on prosecutions provided by nearly 100 Local EducationAuthorities (LEAs) between September 2001 and July 2002. It gives an in-depth study examining the effects and effectiveness ofprosecuting parents as a strategy to combat non-school attendance.


Using Research for School Improvement: The LEA’s Role (LGA Research Report 42)Rebekah Wilson, Jane Hemsley-Brown, Claire Easton and Caroline Sharp

Schools and teachers who use research gain new challenges, insights and levels of understanding – and find it enhances the quality of teachingand learning. This report provides LEAs with information on good practice in the use of research to support school improvement. Examples ofprojects supported and/or initiated by LEAs are identified and show that much is being done to promote and facilitate research use.


Saving a Place for the Arts? A Survey of the Arts in Primary Schools in England (LGA Research Report 41)Dick Downing, Fiona Johnson and Satpal KaurThe report reveals a degree of commitment and determination to secure the place of the arts in the face of what are perceived to beconsiderable threats. It further identifies perceptions of a significant mismatch between the views of school staff and the views of policymakers concerning the value of the arts in primary schools. While recent national changes in the approach to the arts have brought aboutsome developments, schools themselves are seeking a climate change.


Effective Interagency Working: A Review of the Literature and Examples from Practice (LGA Research Report 40)Kathryn Tomlinson

Although the value of interagency collaboration is widely recognised, and the factors that facilitate or inhibit such work are becoming wellknown, concrete examples of success are frequently buried in literature covering other issues and are not immediately accessible to practitioners.This report provides policy makers and practitioners with a bank of examples from which they may draw in the development of effectiveinteragency collaboration.


For further information, please contact theLocal Government Association at:

Local Government House, Smith Square,London SW1P 3HZTelephone 020 7664 3000Fax 020 7664 3030E-mail [email protected] www.lga.gov.uk

or telephone our general informationhelpline on 020 7664 3131

LGA

rese

arch

•Re

port

51

Special edition printed on demandPrice £7.00 (including postage)

For further information on the research or to purchase further copies, contact:Publications Unit,The Library,National Foundation for Educational Research,The Mere, Upton Park, Slough,Berkshire SL1 2DQTelephone 01753 637002Fax 01753 637280

ISBN 1 903880 63 7Code No. SR103

what works for gifted and talented pupils · what works for gifted and talented pupils vii ......

Documents