Provisions for the gifted and talented

No post last week due to writing an essay. If anyone really wants that I could post it. Looking at provisions for the gifted this week and I have focused on groups. There seems to be a lot of evidence that ability, not result, grouping is a valid and powerful tool in learning. I have heard otherwise many times, but never with supporting evidence, so I know which was I am leaning.

Provisions for the gifted and talented

I feel I am starting to get repetitive. The idea that gifted students should not have the opportunity to participate in an education that provides the scope for them to express their abilities is discriminatory. It is equitable to provide for the needs of all students. This might start with provisions and grouping.

As usual when sifting through the topic readings, I found myself reflecting upon how these ideas might impact my own teaching practice and/or how I might use them to begin conversations with colleagues. My first thought, from the first reading, was ‘der’. Not terribly insightful perhaps, though neither was the final line of the abstract from Vogl and Preckel (2014) on full time ability grouping. Apparently “children in gifted classes”, so a homogenous grouping with, it can be assumed an enthusiastic teacher, are more interested in school and have better teacher relationships. I have seen, this year at my school, the same thing work with strugglers in English, who were given the opportunity to work closely with a teacher whose passion is such students.

These students were chosen for their potential to respond to a focused program and all were seen to have success, also reporting greater satisfaction with their class. The fear of discrimination often puts a halt to programs that group students due to ability. Fielder, Lange and Winebremer (2002) highlight the myths around grouping, identifying that there is a distinct difference between grouping and tracking. The first has a subjective element, requiring the facilitators of the grouping to make a number of observational judgements. Tracking is simply looking at grades. In my context, the addition of particular students to year 10 extension English classes is an example. We have been asked to utilise a level of insight to gauge student potential, at times seeing past effort and behaviour.

The idea behind these classes is providing the opportunity for capable students to engage in a level of higher order thinking, not always achievable in a more mixed ability class. While not specifically for gifted and talented students, they are able to more readily learn the critical literacies that will be required in senior English. One of the more exciting things this week, is starting to see how I might better differentiate these particular classes. I will return to this in a paragraph or two. Maybe three.

Whether we group by the class load or simply within the class, it is important to consider why we should do so. We know there are gifted and talented student in our classrooms, but choose, or are forced, to ignore the fact (Page, & Keith, 1996). Largely this comes back to the fears discussed earlier or simple anti-elitism. Neither of which would be apparent if we were talking about a school based sport program.

Another, perhaps more valid, concern is that students from differing cultural or socio-economic backgrounds may be left out of such groupings. If we are considering students on ability shown by standard testing and class assessment alone – tracking – this may be a real issue. Such assessment may indeed be biased in nature due to the background of the student. This bias is not in the grouping but in the inflexibility of the way students are judged. So the issue is one of identification rather than grouping, provisions or programs.

I have read and heard the concern that less gifted students may miss out on benefitting by being with their gifted peers. Such an argument has been presented many times as an argument against the extension English classes mentioned earlier. Bailey (2004) and many a coaching manual identify the most powerful role models are peers that are “similar or just a little better.” Students pick up more in an homogenous groupings. Another concern is the idea that grouping on ability makes the less gifted feel even less capable. This myth is dispelled by the fact that students exhibit “higher self-concepts when ability grouped than in mixed ability classes” (Bailey, 2004). There are no feelings of superiority or incapability when compared to peers if they are at a similar level.

So back to my own class. Continuing with the Bailey (2004) reading, the idea of cluster groups is rather appealing. Within the classroom it is possible to organise seating to facilitate grouping based on potential. Thinking of this year’s extension class, there would have been a nice little group of five or six that could have facilitated higher level thinking and discussion, rather than my having to have the same conversation many times. Used well, these groups could be effective in reducing forced choice – ‘do I dare show my talents?’ – issues. Part of a dynamic seating plan, in the English classroom groups might change depending on the unit: analytical versus creative for example.

Considering enrichment models, an idea that does appeal to me is the breakdown of problem/solution types by Dr June Maker (Rogowski, 2012). It identifies that certain tests favour certain types of thinkers. Problems and solutions range from closed to open, structured heavily to freeform. I am left wondering how difficult it might be to create a test based on a short text that encompasses all question types. This might help in structuring lessons to cater for the differing thinking styles within the classroom and therefore grouping.

In regards to the other models identified, my inner cynic comes to the fore. Both Betts Autonomous Learner model and Renzulli’s Three Ring model (I want to say circus. A poor choice of name.) offer some great ideas (Bannister-Tyrrell, Merrotsy, Jones, & Gunn, 2016), but seem to fall into the same trap that programs of all types do: ‘this is the way to paradise, there is no other’. A slight over-statement perhaps, it is never said as clearly as that, but the sentiment is common. It is funny how there is almost always a catchy program title and money to be paid for such things.

There is no one solution to any goal, rather some common philosophical points that provisions must fall under. This is as true in the classroom as on the running track. It is bewildering to me why education departments are not flexible in the way that teachers are expected to be flexible in the classroom. Buying in to a program is great, however when evidence points to another proven direction, or the results are not as advertised, persisting is foolhardy. Just as a teacher needs to be constantly seeking knowledge and improvement, so do our departments.