The delusional National "Gifted and Talented" Strategy

I just spent the good part of an hour in a "twilight session" with several other teachers. (I love the pretty names they give these things!) The Aim? To discuss the school's strategy on dealing with what we now refer to as our "Gifted and Talented" pupils. Earlier on in the year each department was asked to produce a list of what we imagined were "gifted and talented" pupils in our subjects. Of course various masses of "data" provided to schools (which includes information about a pupil's verbal, spatial and mathematical ability) already suggests that anyone with a score of above a 130 or so is automatically in the "gifted" category. We were told today that the approximate percentage of "gifted and talented" pupils we could expect was 10% (for each year group). That's up on last year by about 5%!

My theory is that having "Gifted and Talented" lists which are limited to 10% of students is a load of rubbish. (I'll explain exactly why and what the more excellent alternative should be). Our current national strategy on this topic sounds good in theory but I feel sure no one has bothered to look a little more closely into why it is we make these lists, if they are useful, and most importantly if they are in fact counterproductive...

In today's world there is nothing more important than getting Education right. Getting Education right involves catering for every single student to pass through the system. Catering for every single student who passes through the system is not just about getting the brilliant ones to take exams early, the average one's to work toward achieving high grades, and the under average pupils to perhaps scrape a pass. It's about much more than that. In fact, the fundamental we are getting wrong is our emphasis on academia that is limited to written and mathematical excellence. Students that excel in these two area's are often the one's to be put on "Gifted and Talented" lists, and while it is true that they are gifted in structured writing, or mathematics, surely there is more to being gifted and talented than that?!

From a Christian perspective and even from a purely humanist view-point, is it unreasonable to conclude that EVERY child has a unique gift and talent? I am confident that EVERY pupil, given the right opportunities, encouragment and time, has SOMETHING that they will be able to enjoy, excel at, and be on a "gifted and talented" list for. I would go so far as to suggest that if we CANNOT find a unique gift or talent for EVERY child as they pass through the system, we would have failed in our roles as educators. If 90% of our children have no gift or talent to call their own, what sort of future generation are we breeding? While it is true that many gifts are genetic, there are others that can be acquired. Furthermore there are gifts -as important, if not more -than academic intelligence. Natural abilities like empathy, oral communication, leadership and so on need to be recognized on par with any other talent. We already know that a highly intelligent individual with no emotional intelligence has little hope of success in todays society.

Of course, it is also necessary for Education to ensure pupils pass exams and jump the various hoops required to get through school, but if that is all it does, we have missed what was intended to be at the very heart of the process of learning and being at school. We would have missed its main purpose. The purpose that involves allowing each child to find the one thing he or she is excellent at. To focus on 10% and their gifts, and ignore the untapped talents of the other 90% isn't a strategy -it's a tragedy! Did "Every Child Matters" change to "90% of children with no obvious gifts matter less"?!

In conclusion, I would suggest that, if we are to keep lists at all, a new sort of list should come in to play. One that is inclusive of all students. A dynamic list that may change, that is monitored and that seeks to "find" and then "list" gifts and talents for every single child. I'm not saying it's easy, or even feasible with the workloads and responsibilities that teachers have already. What I am saying is that a strategy should be developed with the 'best possible outcome' in mind. A strategy should be about achieving (or at least aiming to achieve) a target of a 100%, not just 10!

If you're a teacher maybe you're thinking of a particular student who couldn't possibly have a gift or talent...

Maybe that's what Education is really about. Caring enough about those insignificant students (over and above getting them to achieve their target exam grades) and taking the time to help them find their purpose in life...

Friend or Foe? Getting the Balance Right

One of the hardest things about teaching is getting the balance right in a classroom. On a human level, one's gut instinct is to reach out, be kind, forgiving and eternally optimistic. My personal inclination is to simply be what they call a "push over", the sort of teacher who never gets angry, is always insufferably nice, the proverbial (or Dahlian) Miss Honey. In my first ever teaching role at Oxted School, my reputation preceded me. I was known and introduced (by students) as the "nice teacher". While this worked -to an extent, my teaching strategies inevitably changed. In my second year, my form group noticed the change. I remember overhearing one of them in conversation. "She used to be nice, but she's turned evil!"

When I look back at when I was in school and university, I find that the teachers I respected most -the one's that made the hugest impression -were the 'strict' ones. The one's I feared and liked in equal proportion. The one's that I wanted to impress. The one's who maintained a certain distance. Firm, Fair, but most of the time downright frightening.

I now know, after a few years of being in education, that the strict, sufficiently distant, appproach is undoubtedly the best. The only problem is with that approach, you don't always get to be...nice. And that's a shame. 99% of students in any given classroom don't have discipline issues and when we expend most of our energy focusing on behavioural strategies, this fact is often forgotten. Still, it's the only approach that works -unless you had a class that was 100% perfect and that, in my experience, is very rarely the case.

The key then (for me anyway) is to be downright frightening (in a firm, apporpriate, and perhaps even midly humourous manner) to the entire class, but kind, compassionate and understanding on a one to one.

The class as a whole cannot be treated as an individual. That's where most teachers go wrong. A Class must be controlled. A certain degree of fear (the sort of fear that makes one want to do their best) is necessary for control.

I sometimes am overcome with a wave of pity (love, nearly) for some of my classes. They sit there in absolute silence -if that is what I ask for -and it's hard not to want to 'favour' them a little. And so they are occasions, I let the discipline slack a little -allow them to talk, overlook it if they're a little late. But the moment you do that, you're setting yourself up for certain failure. Give an inch and they take a mile. Be consistent with discipline and standards. When students know the boundaries cannot be tested, they are content to cooperate within them. When you suggest that they (the boundaries) may in fact be flexible, they're going to want to know how far they can go...

So, in conclusion:

A Class, as a whole, cannot be treated as an individual. There must be rules, discipline, standards and a clear structure. When it comes to the individuals themselves the rules can be temporarily laid aside to make room for relationship. A relationship in which a student knows you secretly believe in them, that you aren't in fact evil, and that classroom fear aside, you would bend over backwards to help them should they need it....

Isn't that what God did for us? He laid aside the rules, to make room for relationship -a relationship with Him. Subsequently, in a relationship where there is mutual respect, the rules automatically come into play. God dealt with humanity in a similar manner. The old testament is about rules, rituals and structure. The new testament is about relationship and revelation.