Contact Us | Print Page | Sign In | Register
Perspectives on more able
Blog Home All Blogs
While the education policy landscape changes, those who work in schools will agree on one constant. All young people – regardless of their background, context, attainment levels or any other labels they may acquire – can benefit from and deserve to have their specific needs catered for. This is no less the case for the more able than for any other group. We must ensure that these learners experience high-quality challenge and support to develop their abilities.

As Sir Michael Wilshaw stated in 2016, “if provision for the brightest children is good, it is likely that other groups of learners are also being well served.”

Education is concerned with enhancing learning. Our evidence base is evolving, as we learn from one another, from other countries and increasingly from other disciplines. In this “Perspectives on More Able” series, NACE aims to shine a spotlight on effective policy and practice for the more able, providing a forum for views, opinions and debate.

 

Search all posts for:   

 

Top tags: research  myths and misconceptions  book reviews  identification  disadvantage  perfectionism  wellbeing  aspirations  cognitive challenge  collaboration  disadisadvantage  feedback  gender  member offers  metacognition  mindset  neuroscience  parents and carers  questioning 

Book review: Boys Don’t Try? Rethinking Masculinity in Schools

Posted By Neil Jones, 22 January 2020
Book title: Boys Don’t Try? Rethinking Masculinity in Schools (2019)
Authors: Matt Pinkett and Mark Roberts
Reviewed by: Neil Jones, Lead Practitioner for Most Able Students, Impington Village College, Cambridgeshire

Synopsis: 

The book aims to draw teachers and school leaders into subtler thinking about how and why boys, as a group, can fail at school. It also provides tips on how to improve the situation, pastorally and academically. There are different ways of being a boy, just as there are different ways of being a girl, when learning to manage one’s experience as a learner. Indeed, the authors argue that gender is a less important lens through which to view underachievement than are class perception, views of what constitutes mental health, curriculum and pedagogy. The book urges all teachers and school leaders to focus on making meaningful achievement possible for all students; and to avoid ‘what’s not wanted’: essentialist, low expectations of any group.

Why should NACE members read/be aware of this book?

Members should read this book as the dominant theme running throughout its 10 chapters is the need for challenge for all students. The authors take the firm view that cultures of underachievement are not transformed by ghettoing more able and talented learners away from the others. Challenge needs to run through every aspect of a school community. The authors argue from first principles and give examples to demonstrate that a culture of challenge and excitement works by infection. Divide-and-rule on the basis of baseline ability, on the other hand, reinforces failure in lower-achieving groups, and it is boys as a group who tend more to be negatively categorised, and who end up fulfilling teachers’ and leaders’ prophecies of failure.

What’s new?

Rhetorically, the authors carefully unpack how their views on ‘the boy problem’ have changed. With humility, but not the masochism that sometimes goes with teachers’ blogs, they trace the changes that experience has required of their thinking and practice. What is new for teachers thinking about more able and talented provision is the urgency with which we are persuaded to be gender-blind in our judgements, which should make our assessments of need and ability more responsive.

Key takeaways:

  1. There are no specific techniques for teaching boys well.
  2. Teachers’ high expectations of themselves and their students, in subject knowledge and behaviour for learning, trump gender considerations (such as single-sex classes, or male students being taught by male teachers) every time. 
  3. Setting by ability is more counterproductive than productive. The implication is that it should be avoided wherever possible. (For more on this, see NACE Trustee Liz Allen CBE’s review of Reassessing ‘Ability’ Grouping: Improving Practice for Equity and Attainment.)
  4. Pastoral care should acknowledge that some boys swallow cultural stereotypes of masculinity, and schools should challenge these.
  5. We need to change the negative labelling of ‘masculinity’. The phrase ‘toxic masculinity’ is counterproductive and highly charged. Instead, the authors advocate language such as ‘tender’ and ‘non-tender’ masculinity. Tenderness carries with it connotations of sincerity, vulnerability, openness and strength. Too often, anti-social behaviour is described away as being ‘toxically masculine’, whereas it is simply anti-social.

Final thoughts:

Written in 2019, the polemic of the book is of interest in the context of the culture wars in North Atlantic cultures following the financial crash of 2007/8. Gender is a point of contention in wider polarisations in identity politics, between, at the extremes, a pessimistic and anxious liberalism and a boorish and know-nothing authoritarianism. These authors know their purpose and appear to hold both sides of this shrill argument in equal contempt. Their focus is on getting the best out of all young people in schools.
 
At times, this is a flaw. I would have welcomed the authors’ views on how the British educational establishment has viewed this issue, and how this might overlap or differ in other countries. This is a pretty a-historical account, and there is much written elsewhere on the issue of boys in education, from at least Socrates on! But, taking the book on its own terms, as being the fruit of two excellent teachers’ research and day-in, day-out practice in schools, this is an invigorating call to break out of gender stereotyping and fight hard for every learner to go as far and fast as they can.
 
Read more… Attainment and the gender gap: understanding what works – case study from Impington Village College
 
Before you buy… For discounts of up to 30% from a range of education publishers, view the list of current NACE member offers (login required).
 
Share your own review… Have you read a good book lately with relevance to provision for more able learners? Share it with the NACE community by submitting a review.

Tags:  book reviews  gender  myths and misconceptions  research 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

Book review: Reassessing ‘Ability’ Grouping: Improving Practice for Equity and Attainment

Posted By Elizabeth Allen CBE, 08 January 2020

Book title: Reassessing ‘Ability’ Grouping: Improving Practice for Equity and Attainment
Authors: Becky Francis, Becky Taylor, Antonina Tereshchenko
Reviewed by: Liz Allen CBE, NACE Trustee

Synopsis:

Combining the outcomes of a large-scale research project with a thorough literature review and international practice, this book is a must read for all engaged in education policy and practice.

It considers how “ability grouping” is more accurately defined as attainment grouping, with the consequent limiting impact on classroom practice and on pupils’ chances of achievement. Compelling evidence is presented to show that misallocations reinforce “gendered, classed and racialised patterns of inequality”, especially when schools attempt to use more criteria than evidence of prior attainment.

The challenges of setting are explored, as are the opportunities of mixed ability grouping – a practice that calls out for deeper research. The impact of grouping practices on young people’s attainment and on their perceptions of themselves as learners is evidenced in depth.

The concluding reflections and recommendations are food for thought for primary and secondary school leaders, subject leads and practitioners.

Why should NACE members read/be aware of this book?

The research tests the contention that setting by ability improves outcomes for the more able.

The small, short-term benefits for “top set” pupils come at a high price. Six factors – including misallocations, lack of flexibility between sets, setting by groups of subjects and inequality of teaching – result in a “self-fulfilling prophecy” of underperformance, loss of self-confidence and social exclusion. There are issues for “top set pupils” – a fixed ability mindset; a sense of superiority, entitlement, disdain; or a sense of guilt, ambivalence, discomfort. The research draws the conclusion that “comprehensive” schools are fostering social division by attainment grouping.

The research findings require consideration by all practitioners who are committed to providing all young people with the best grouping in which their abilities can flourish.

What’s new?

Research into the impact of mixed attainment grouping is welcome. The practice is misunderstood and underused; this book explores the reasons why and looks in depth at the high-attaining schools who are committed to mixed ability grouping.

Each type of setting is analysed and its impact on equality of learning opportunities and achievement is presented. Insights into the best setting and all-ability practice provide schools with excellent starting points for in-house research-informed professional conversations.

Key takeaways and next steps for schools:

  • Give mixed ability advocates the opportunity to demonstrate that it is an equitable alternative, even for maths.
  • Take warning that inflexible attainment grouping can “widen the gap”. The evidence suggests this is pronounced in primary schools’ in-class grouping, especially when the naming of groups is hierarchical (e.g. from moped to Ferrari).
  • The literature review, record of methodology and suggestions for next steps provide schools with a robust approach for in-house research.
  • Setting needs to have high integrity and is most equitable when it is by subject.
  • Chapter 9’s “dos and don’ts” are essential reading for research-led schools.

Additional reading:

The book builds on Carol Dweck’s work, providing invaluable evidence on how grouping practices impact on mindset.

As the book draws attention to the consequences of misallocation, Making Data Work (Becky Allen, November 2018) is a helpful report for schools to consider when they revise their grouping strategy.

Inappropriate pedagogical practice and non-specialist teaching are identified as key factors in widening the gap. What Works? (Lee Elliot Major and Steve Higgins, Bloomsbury 2019) offers evidence of what works in primary and secondary schools to transform pupils’ progress.

Before you buy… For discounts of up to 30% from a range of education publishers, view the list of current NACE member offers (login required).

Share your own review… Have you read a good book lately with relevance to provision for more able learners? Share it with the NACE community by submitting a review.

Tags:  book reviews  research 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

Book review: Rosenshine’s Principles in Action by Tom Sherrington

Posted By Hilary Lowe, 08 January 2020

Book title: Rosenshine’s Principles in Action
Author: Tom Sherrington (2019)
Reviewed by: Hilary Lowe, NACE Education Adviser

Synopsis:

Barack Rosenshine's Principles of Instruction are widely recognised for their clarity and simplicity and their potential to support teachers to engage with cognitive science and education research. In this book, Tom Sherrington takes Rosenshine's original 10 Principles of Instruction and condenses them in a succinct and very readable digest into four strands – sequencing concepts and modelling; questioning; reviewing material; and stages of practice – accompanied by guidance on how to use them to develop classroom practice at all key stages.

Why should NACE members read/be aware of this book?

In the context of learning for the more able, the four strands can be adapted to encompass the depth, breath and pace needed to challenge this group.

What’s new?

While the 10 Principles already bridge research and classroom practice, this book makes them even more accessible to teachers through Sherrington’s synthesis of the Principles into major synoptic strands, together with underpinning guidance on how to use them.

Key takeaways and next steps for schools:

  • Take time to understand the underlying model for Rosenshine’s Principles.
  • Consider to what extent each of the four strands already forms part of the school’s main teaching repertoire for all, and for more able learners, and the gaps.
  • Reflect on what is distinctive for more able learners.
  • Try out and review in several curriculum areas to illustrate the application of the principles, and share with other colleagues.

In summary:

This book fits well with much of the evidence-based pedagogic repertoire many schools are developing and merits strong consideration for further exploration in practices for more able learners.

Before you buy… For discounts of up to 30% from a range of education publishers, view the list of current NACE member offers (login required).

Share your own review… Have you read a good book lately with relevance to provision for more able learners? Share it with the NACE community by submitting a review.

Tags:  book reviews  research 

PermalinkComments (0)