A report by the Sutton Trust social mobility charity recently made the rather sweeping claim that “there is no specific area where able children in Scotland really excel” (bit.ly/GlobalGaps). This assertion and others are based on a reanalysis of elements of the 2015 Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) results.
To us, and many other colleagues, the manner in which Pisa data is collected and the conclusions based on it are not without problems. Here, however, we want to focus specifically on the above claim and argue for the importance of taking a critical look at the evidence and arguments provided before moving forward with any of the recommended changes in policy and practice.
Data, including test scores such as Pisa, when used effectively and understood critically, can be useful in designing and enhancing educational provision. However, this kind of data only ever provides one part of the picture. It must be interpreted within the context it emerges from, not used for simplistic comparisons between countries with vastly differing demographics, educational systems and needs. It should never be treated as absolute fact that can be clinically isolated from the young person’s life experiences.
This kind of data only ever provides one part of the picture
Take, for example, the identification of highly able pupils - a complex issue. Historically, IQ-based tests have simply equated high scores to high ability. Psychologists, researchers, teachers, educators, parents and pupils alike have questioned this narrow approach. International research has demonstrated that those from low socio-economic backgrounds or from ethnic minorities are less likely to be identified, because their life experiences often mean that they do not perform well on standardised tests.
Abilities masked
Such tests are also limited in their ability to address the complexities of multiple exceptionalities, where a young person may, for instance, present with both dyslexia and high ability. As standardised tests generally focus on written performance, their abilities may be masked. These able underachievers, as a result of circumstance, ethnicity, race, poverty or disability, are unlikely to be able to demonstrate the areas in which they excel using these uni-dimensional measures. Basing policies and ring-fenced funding exclusively on the results of these kinds of measures can therefore mean that a range of highly able pupils are less likely to be offered appropriate learning opportunities.
Current legislation and policies - on, for example, additional support for learning, disability strategies and pupils’ educational records, and “getting it right for every child” - all reflect Scotland’s long history of comprehensive education, and are a recognition that pupils learn in different ways and at different rates. Within the Scottish Network for Able Pupils (Snap) at the University of Glasgow, our experiences with practitioners and parents suggest that there is considerable support for these principles of inclusion.
Data must be interpreted within context, not used for simplistic comparisons
We have seen schools, nurseries, individual teachers and educators respond in innovative and enthusiastic ways to create classrooms that include a wide range of learners, including challenging the highly able. Identification of ability within these inclusive contexts is multifaceted, drawing on the range of information available to educators, from parental, peer and self-reports to continuous assessment and test scores, providing a holistic picture of pupils’ abilities and needs. Pedagogy in an inclusive context becomes an essential tool for identification. If opportunities for challenge are embedded across the curriculum, then opportunities for identification are available for all on an ongoing basis.
This is not to claim that an inclusive approach is without issues. Educators’ beliefs about, and attitude towards, ability are integral to effective provision for the highly able. If we are to raise attainment for all, then we need to question the myth that highly able children are already advantaged and will be fine. They, too, need to be stretched and supported. Equally, we need to ensure that challenge is not inappropriately bound by inflexible age and stage structures.
Additionally, we need open and effective channels of communication between schools, nurseries and families. Parents and caregivers of highly able pupils are often unsure about what support they can ask providers for, and are reluctant to be dismissed as pushy parents. We know that if we do help highly able students from disadvantaged backgrounds to access higher education, this cannot be the end point. This academic achievement is just a first step and retention is as big an issue as access. Considerable social, emotional and financial support must be provided to make access meaningful and sustainable.
Education can be a powerful tool in addressing inequalities. However, issues of poverty and social deprivation cannot be solved by education alone - these require much wider societal responses. Such complexities of contexts, perceptions and relationships are not captured by the Pisa results or the recommendations within the Sutton Trust report.
There is no doubt that there are particular things we need to think about if our highly able pupils are to be supported and challenged appropriately. And there are indeed issues related to social justice and equity. However, focusing on merely raising test scores could end up being counterproductive.
Teaching to raise scores in a test such as Pisa may push a country further up a league table, but if we are serious about providing the best learning opportunities for our young people generally, and about challenging highly able learners, then we need to do much more than this.
Dr Margaret Sutherland is director of the Scottish Network for Able Pupils (Snap) at the University of Glasgow
Dr Niamh Stack is deputy director of Snap
