Focused Study - An exploration of the impact of gifted and talented policies on inner city scho

Introduction

Following the outline of the background to ‘gifted and talented’ initiatives and policies in Chapter 1 and the extensive literature review presented in Chapter 2, this Institution Focused Study (IFS) provides a context and background more specific to the main research study. The institution I have chosen to study is the local authority, within which the Case Study school of the research study is located.

Rationale and Purpose

The reason the local authority was chosen as an institution suitable for the IFS, was because the National Strategy for ‘Gifted and Talented’ Education (DCSF, 2007) and previous initiatives for ‘gifted and talented’ pupils relied heavily on the role of the Local Authority (LA) Adviser (Dracup, 2003). As a conduit from Government level to school level, the local authorities held a key role in implementing these, as well as other policies, such as the national Numeracy and Literacy Strategies. The training for the Gifted and Talented Co-ordinator (GATCO) in the selected school was provided by the LA Adviser, as was subsequent up-dating of policy initiatives and motivational support. The main research will address how successfully this has been done, in the view of the chosen school (introduced in Chapter 4), but this study will outline the perspective of the LA Adviser, and review her experience in trying to implement the range of strategies that have been in place since the inception of Excellence in Cities (DfEE, 1999) initiatives. This will provide a local context to the literature on the local authority role, making the focus more relevant to the main study. This focus also provides added depth to the main area of study.

The aims of the IFS, therefore, are to illuminate the link from policy to practice, as well as give context to the main research study. In order to demonstrate this, the duties of the LA Adviser were examined and some of the issues that have arisen from this have been explored. These duties have been placed in the context of the legal requirements of LAs for education, and also some of the political and financial

pressures that face LAs. An important part of this IFS was to learn about the impact of these on the LA Adviser, trying to implement government strategy in her local

borough. In this respect, it is of wider interest to draw parallels with other advisers’ experiences, especially those whose roles have been to deliver other government strategies, although the boundaries of this IFS are within the ‘gifted and talented’ education strategies in the borough chosen.

Whilst local authorities have had a key role in ensuring the success of the ‘gifted and talented’ initiative, much of the literature has focused on implementation at school level. There is a noticeable lack of research in this area. One reason for this has been the growing autonomy of schools, contrasting with the early 1990s (Audit

Commission, 1998, DfE, 2010). An early report into educating able pupils (HMI, 1992), indicated the relevance of what were then known as local education authorities (LEAs). They noted the impact of provision at this level, through policies and

guidelines as well as their enrichment materials and special activities. An interesting development observed at this stage (HMI, 1992), was the establishment of local support groups, which LEAs were ideally placed to organise. These embryonic beginnings were built on government initiatives over the previous decade (DfEE, 1999; DfES, 2007). However, in 1992 fewer than 10 per cent of LEAs had established provision for more able children (HMI, 1992), and very few had a designated person whose sole responsibility was for provision for the very able. That HMI report also identified that where an adviser had been allocated time to spearhead developments, more progress was made, and that this seemed to be a key factor in successful implementation if the policy. Therefore, despite the trend towards school autonomy, the local authority continued to play a major role in the implementation of ‘gifted and talented’ policy, and as such, requires attention.

This is a small scale exploratory study, but it is an attempt to begin to redress the lack of research in this area, whilst providing further illumination to the findings from the main Case Study. Background information on the role of the local authority is

discussed, as well as other factors common to all local authority education advisers, to understand the opportunities and constraints the local authority operated under, during the time ‘gifted and talented’ policies were in existence.

Sources of Information

Chapter 4 outlines the methodology underpinning this study and the same

philosophical stance and ethical principles apply to the IFS. Data came from two sources – interviews and documentation. The shortage of published research in this area has already been noted, and documentation on the role of the Local Authority Adviser’s role in this particular local authority was non-existent. Therefore sources of data other than documentation were required, which is why participants were sought to enrich the documentary information.

Interview data were gained from two sources - the Local Authority Gifted and Talented Adviser in the local authority of the Case Study school and a Director of Resources from a different local authority, as I was unable to gain access to the Director of Resources from this LA. This was not problematic however, as the information I required was not specific to the LA I was studying, but general to all LAs.

Interviewing the Local Authority Adviser, to some extent, addressed the lack of published literature about local authority practice in this field, as well as enabling me to link how policy has impacted on practice. It also gave an ‘insider’s view’ of the experience of an LA adviser. Data collection was through semi-structured interview. This method was chosen, because by structuring the interview somewhat, it focused on the relevant areas I was interested in, whilst still allowing the participant to explore the topics and discuss areas that I had not considered. During the interview, a number of issues that were present in the literature emerged, including the difficulties of identifying the cohort, teacher attitude to the policy and the difficulties that the term ‘gifted and talented’ had posed. In addition, the importance of the funding in creating both opportunities and obstacles was an important area which emerged. The Local Authority Adviser had worked in this position since 1999, when the ‘Excellence in Cities’ policy was first introduced. She had a wealth of experience in this area, and consequently had a key influence amongst other local authority advisers in the ‘gifted and talented’ field. The questions asked in the interview included how her role had changed over the years and the impact on her job, the obstacles she had faced and the opportunities the policies had given, the impact of variable funding and the activities

she introduced, how the work was evaluated, and her view of how the national provision assisted her in her work.

The second interview was with a Director of Resources as described, to assist my understanding of the organisation of local authority finances. This gave me up to date information about trends and policies in local authority financing. The Director of Resources has worked in the same outer London Borough for many years, again with a depth of experience and knowledge in local authority finance. Questions to him centred around the relative impact of ring-fenced funding on securing success in implementing education policy, and the likely impact of changes as a result of the (then) forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review (October 2010), following the General Election leading to a change of government.

The interview took place before the Comprehensive Spending Review of 2010 reported. Whilst he tried to anticipate the likely outcomes of this review, it is a

reminder that any study involving political issues tends to be a ‘snapshot’ in time, and that, in this dynamic environment, changes take place constantly, and priorities and concerns change concurrently.

These interviews yielded a rich source of information, as well as the varying

viewpoints of the participants. Analysis of the data was achieved by selecting themes that were evident in both the literature and the interviews, although as the participants spoke about different topics (given their different areas of expertise), they were not providing corroboration, or otherwise, with each other. In particular, quotations from the interviews are given as exemplars illustrating themes and ideas raised in the literature, which helps to achieve the previously stated aim of making links from policy to practice, as well as providing a context. Although the literature relates to nationwide issues, the focus and boundaries of this study relate to the specific local authority which is the context of the IFS and the main research study, and the interview with the Local Authority Adviser was invaluable in providing information about the local context.

The second source of data was published literature. Much of the information gathering has come from government reports and documents, although little of this relates to the Local Authority per se. These include policy documents such as

Excellence in Cities (DfEE, 1999), evaluative documents, from various Ofsted reports (Ofsted, 2001; 2009) and Parliamentary Select Committee reports (House of

Commons, 1999, 2010).

The Institution – the Local Authority

Background information about the institution is included here to provide a context to issues faced by this local authority. The institution is an inner London borough, and to protect the anonymity of the participants, it is referred to as Westford. Its population was 288,300 in 2011 (Office of National Statistics). These were the most up to date statistics available at the time of writing. Although there are some small pockets of affluence, the borough comprises mainly socially deprived areas. Fifty eight percent of the population is aged thirty five or under. This clearly has implications for

planning education services. The population is increasing (up from 275,400 in 2007), due to an increasing birth rate rather than mobility.

In terms of ethnic minority groups, in 2011, 75% of Reception children came from black and minority ethnic groups. 11% of households had no English speaking member, and one hundred and twenty languages are spoken in the borough. The largest ethnic minority group is Africans, who constituted 12.9% of the population in 2011, although Latin Americans are the fastest growing group in Westford.

The Council itself is Labour Party controlled, the last election being (at the time of writing) in May 2014, and the second biggest party is the Liberal Democrats. The Council is divided into four departments, and education comes under the umbrella Children and Adults’ Services. The council’s budget in 2014-15 was £323 million, and 31% of the budget was spent on children’s services. In the May 2015 General Election, all MPs in the Borough elected were Labour, with a long-standing Lib-Dem MP losing his seat.

The make-up of the schools in the LA of the Case Study school is constantly changing, but information accessed on the council website (January 2015) provides

the following information: There are 36 maintained primary schools, 6 primary

academies, 24 voluntary aided or controlled primary schools and 5 free schools. In the secondary sector, there are 14 secondary academies and 3 secondary faith schools and 1 free school. In addition, there are 6 schools solely for pupils with special needs, and a further 7 mainstream schools offering specialist provision. In May 2010 (DfE, 2010), the then new government invited schools, deemed by Ofsted to be outstanding, to apply for academy status. In November 2010 it extended this to schools rated good with outstanding features, and this undoubtedly had an impact on the number of maintained schools, particularly in the primary sector, from then on. In addition to the state schools there are 10 independent schools in the borough, of which 3 are

considered prestigious and attract pupils from all over London.

The borough is the 41st out of 326 most deprived local authorities in England

(English Indices of Deprivation, 2010), and the twelfth most deprived in London. This is an improving picture – in 2004 it was 17th and 6th respectively. In terms of income deprivation, it is also an improving picture, at 25th most income deprived in England (from 15th in 2004), and is up from 6th most deprived to 7th most income deprived in London. In terms of unemployment deprivation, this is also improving at fourth place, down from second in 2007.

In summary, the borough is facing the same challenges as many inner-city boroughs, where high levels of deprivation and unemployment are coupled with a rising birth rate. In addition, as more schools seek Academy status (where schools receive money directly from the government rather than through the local authority), the local

authority will have less money in their own pot to address the implications for education that these demographics suggest.

The Role of the Local Authority in implementing National Education

Policy

This section explores issues particular to the local authority in this study, in relation to implementation of national education policies, before focusing on ‘gifted and

talented’ initiatives. The role the LA plays in promoting national strategies and empowering schools is discussed and the obstacles they have encountered identified. It looks at the impact of the National Strategy (2007) and other ‘gifted and talented’

initiatives on Westford authority where the Case Study school is situated. The story may be different for different local authorities, particularly those that were not recipients of Excellence in Cities (DfEE, 1999) funding which only some authorities received until 2007, as described in Chapter 1, but common themes emerge from both the literature and interviews, such as the leverage this kind of targeted funding can give a government to ensure its policies are implemented, and reveals the impact of an ever-changing top-down policy approach by central government on a local authority, which very often is charged with enabling schools to convert policies into practice.

Although much of education policy is ‘national’ (i.e. English), and is set by the agenda of national government, there are many issues concerning the management of education that cannot practicably be managed at national level (Audit Commission, 1998). Also, there are a range of activities that cannot be handled by schools, such as planning provision for school places or auditing school performance. Thus there has been a need for a local tier to undertake these kinds of activities, carried out by local authorities.

However, the role of the local authority (LA) is a changing one (House of Commons Select Committee on Education and Employment, 1999), with schools gaining

increasing independence from LAs. Over the past decade, through initiatives such as the Fair Funding regime (DfE, 2011), funding has been increasingly devolved to schools, the most recent example of this increasing independence has been the opportunity for schools in England to achieve ‘Academy’ status (DfE, 2010). The current trend towards encouraging schools to become academies has been supported by both the former Labour government and the current coalition government. However, amongst those who do believe LAs have an important role, there is a broad consensus that this role

comprises four main components (Audit Commission, 1998). These are:

1) Articulating a vision, with a supporting strategy, for education in the area 2) Acting as a vehicle for improvement

3) Ensuring equity and an inclusive system of education

4) Managing trade-offs and dealing with the conflicts between the interests of different parties.

‘Gifted and talented’ education initiatives straddle all four of these components, as is highlighted in this IFS. The following are some of the ways I see the above components being realised within this policy.

1) Translating ‘gifted and talented’ policies into a reality for schools has been a key task for gifted and talented local authority co-ordinators. It is discussed

subsequently how this role has provided advice, assistance and training courses for schools, as well as enrichment activities for children within their authorities. Pocklington, Fletcher-Campbell and Kendall (2002) noted that some local

authorities have been very pro-active in urging head-teachers to embrace this strand of the ‘Excellence in Cities’ initiative.

2) A school which pays attention to the needs of the ‘gifted and talented’ students raises the achievement of all students (House of Commons Select Committee for Education and Employment, 1999, Renzulli, 1998). Improving the number of higher grades, such as the percentage of Level 5s at the end of Key Stage 2, when students are leaving primary school for secondary school, has been an increasing concern for schools in the borough and therefore the LA Adviser. This is a particular target for the Local Authority Adviser, who (referring to new government targets for pupils to achieve the higher level 5 in the Year 6 SATs tests) commented:

“Our level 5s are looking pretty grim – something like that might trigger me being offered to go into schools.”

3) Government papers in the last decade have emphasised the need for equity and inclusivity in the education system (e.g. DfEE, 1999; DCSF, 2003; DfES, 2004). Some writers (e.g. Bonshek, 2002; Haight, 2005) argued that the needs of ‘gifted and talented’ have been marginalised, with less importance placed on their needs than other groups of pupils. The Select Committee’s Third Report (House of Commons, 1999) is one of several national reports that state that ‘gifted and talented’ students have additional needs and that for too long it has been assumed that they will take care of themselves in the education system. Therefore part of the role of the Gifted and Talented Adviser in the local authority is to champion the

needs of the ‘gifted and talented’ students, and to ensure their needs are met in the spirit of equity and inclusion.

4) It is seen in this chapter, that the Westford Gifted and Talented Adviser had a restricted budget to manage and make decisions about how to distribute resources fairly, yet effectively. Some of these decisions are guided by government and local guidelines, but advisers needed to ensure that resources are not spread so thinly as to render the initiative ineffective.

The role of the Local Authority Adviser is a complex one. It is not merely “head office” (Audit Commission, 1998), but they must wear many hats, directing, advocating, judging. The adviser has to achieve the right level of balancing pressure and support. Since the 1998 Education Act introduced LMS (Local Management of Schools), the traditional relationship of the controlling local authorities and disempowered schools has been irrevocably altered (Audit Commission, 1998). A new balance has had to be found, which is best described as a partnership approach. This combines the objectives of empowering schools and a proactive LA. It is demanding, and has caused difficulties in its implementation as a result.

This is exemplified in the views of the Westford Adviser, when she speaks of how she tried to ensure policy is carried out whilst maintaining the partnerships approach:

“So it did happen with one primary and one secondary school, they were doing things like they didn’t have a leading teacher, or things weren’t happening that should have been happening. I did on one or two occasions threaten to withhold the money, but I never actually had to do it. Threatening to withhold money definitely has the desired effect.”

But also a more supportive relationship with some schools can be typified in the

In document An exploration of the impact of gifted and talented policies on inner city schools in England: a case study (Page 61-91)