THIRD REPORT
The Education and Employment Committee has agreed
to the following Report:—
HIGHLY ABLE CHILDREN
Overview
In recent years, education policy has concentrated
on ensuring that all children reach at least a minimum level of
competence. However, the Government and those involved in education
are now taking a greater interest in the education of highly able
children. Why should we be concerned about provision for highly
able children? Because the commonly-held view that they can "get
by on their own" is not borne out by the facts: they are
entitled to have their needs addressed as much as any other children.
There is also evidence of an association between good provision
for the most able in a school and for all the children in the
school.
Our report discusses possible definitions of the
highly able and the percentage they represent of the school population,
but concludes that, for many reasons, a precise definition of
the nature of high ability and the numbers of highly able children
cannot be determined. Evidence suggests that the group of children
concerned is large, with smaller, overlapping groups within it.
If we consider children who are in the top 20 per cent as regards
all-round ability, or ability in a particular area (or 'intelligence'),
we might find that up to 30-40 per cent of pupils in a school
are included. Within this figure, teachers tend to think of the
very able as being five per cent and the exceptionally able maybe
two per cent or even only one per cent.
Much evidence noted that provision for the highly
able was not satisfactory in the majority of English schools.
Our report sets out five general principles regarding provision
for the highly able:
— The development that would make the most difference
in the education of the highly able is a change in attitude among
teachers and LEAs, but perhaps even more importantly among the
public and society at large;
— The emphasis must be on improving provision
in mainstream schooling;
— There is no single 'best way' to meet all
these children's needs;
— Highly able children must be allowed to enjoy
their childhood;
— There is already good practice in a range
of areas.
We do not believe that introducing a system of funding
linked directly to individual pupils is the best way to met their
needs. We believe a better way forward would be to make funding
available for the needs of highly able children at the school
level.
There needs to be a more coherent national strategy
for the education of the highly able. We welcome the fact that
the Government has highlighted the needs of the highly able in
the "Excellence in cities" action plan, but believe
more should be done to entrench the needs of highly able children
in the work of the DfEE and other national agencies, including
for instance OFSTED and the Teacher Training Agency. We were told
that "getting the teaching right" is the key to good
provision. A higher priority must be given in initial and in-service
teacher training to effective teaching and classroom organisation
strategies for the highly able.
At the local level, LEAs should have a policy on
the education of highly able children, and every LEA should appoint
an adviser, at a senior level, with responsibility for them. Schools
should also have a clear policy for the education of the highly
able, and should appoint a senior staff member as coordinator
for highly able children. There needs to be sensitive partnership
between schools and parents, especially at the point of entry
to school and during the primary years
The DfEE is right to ensure that teachers pay proper
attention to literacy and numeracy through the development of
the Literacy and Numeracy Strategies, but we believe that there
should be a greater degree of flexibility in the way the Literacy
Hour is delivered for the highly able.
Good practice by schools in the provision of well-integrated
enrichment and extension activities should be recognised and supported.
Though we do not rule out accelerating highly able children from
one year to another, as it can be the best solution for particular
individuals, it should not be regarded as a simple solution to
the needs of the highly able. The right balance must be struck
between meeting their intellectual needs and supporting their
social and emotional development. It is also wrong to assume that
the only way of satisfying the intellectual demands of highly
able children is through linear progression up the ladder of examinations
and qualifications.
Overall, the evidence showed that different types
of schools—selective and non-selective —suit different
kinds of pupils. Given the disparate nature of the highly able,
this it is not surprising. We note the contribution that specialist
schools can make to the education of the highly able, and welcome
the increase in their numbers proposed by the Government, but
they are part of the answer to meeting the needs of the highly
able, not the whole of it.
Partnerships between schools, and between schools
and others, are of great benefit to the highly able. More can
be done—for instance, all universities should become involved
in partnerships with local schools that include an element specifically
directed at the highly able. Highly able children could undertake
mini-dissertations, involving independent research overseen by
a university-based mentor.
We welcome the commitment by the Government to support
the development of 'masterclasses' for highly able children. However,
while agreeing that all specialist schools should seek to become
involved in the provision of masterclasses, we do not think that
all masterclasses should be in specialist schools. We therefore
welcome the Government's proposal that schools with a track record
in working successfully with the highly able should also be involved
in establishing masterclasses and similar activities. In supporting
such activities, we do not wish to suggest that this provision—however
good—can compensate for poor provision in school.
The benefits of information and communications technology
for highly able children are potentially great. It can be a teaching
resource as well as a means of enhancing communication between
pupils and between schools. However, we also sound a note of caution
about regarding ICT as a panacea.
Highly able children need to be sufficiently challenged.
Partly, this will be achieved through appropriate teaching and
expectations of pupils. But it can also be achieved through the
curriculum and its assessment. We hope that the revised National
Curriculum will allow schools greater flexibility in adapting
the Curriculum to meet the needs of the most able.
There is a dearth of research in the UK about effective
provision for highly able children. We wish to see an increase
in funding both for academic research into this subject and for
practical work carried out with schools.
| 
