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...
No comments:
Post a Comment