30 YEARS OF WHAT?
Reflections by the Director, Peter Carey

"We shall soon be celebrating our 30th Anniversary" I announced proudly to our new President, Dr. Ray Peacock. "Yes, but what have you got to celebrate?" he replied. He has a habit of asking awkward questions. That’s why he is our President.
The Association was incorporated on 1st May 1967 and an assessment of what has been achieved, and not achieved, can help focus future planning.

General Awareness
My impression is that the 30 years have seen an improvement in the attitude of people to the needs and potential problems of high ability children. During my three years with the Association I must have told hundreds, mostly on first acquaintance, what I do for a living. Rarely has it been implied that my work is unnecessary, and usually there has been some insight, or a personal anecdote or a comment that not enough is done.
Thirty years ago the overwhelming popular perceptions came from Mensa, an organisation that celebrated high intelligence in rather swaggering fashion. I still rarely get into a conversation with a Mensan without being told, usually in the first five minutes, that person’s IQ. This seems a bit like imparting annual income or vital statistics. Recently, however, Julie Baxter and others have formed the Mensa Foundation for Gifted Children with a very different ethos, -one we can relate to, and John Walker departed the Vice-Presidency to form Children of High Intelligence, where he battles formidably against injustice.

Publicity
For thirty years, NAGC and others have produced, or informed, scores of articles in magazines on parenting, teaching, house-keeping, life-styles and much else. These have been inestimably valuable in helping with the identification of problems and the creation of a general framework of understanding. An article in a single parents’ magazine mis-spelt my name, so it was easy to count the enquires that emerged: there were dozens. Most of the serious newspapers feature us well from time to time but the volume of response is nothing like as good.

A very private Association
Our real problem lies with the popular, more widely read section of the press. They will simply not publish anything about us without photos of our children and real-life stories with real life schools and officials. My last Newsletter asked you about that. Not even a responsible BBC 2 “Family Show” would tempt you out. “Are we being too private? Are there more of you out there who would be willing to be featured?” I asked. Your complete silence seems pretty final. Yet there need not be an impenetrable barrier. The Tyne and Wear branch was featured in a very good BBC film with the Explorers all being filmed from angles from which they would not be recognised. The Wilts. North branch was well covered in the Swindon local paper without pictures of children, -though the writer was a member. We must continue to probe for appropriate and acceptable ways of breaking into the popular media. It will not be easy. A recent News of the World featured a “bespectacled brainbox” settling down to bed with the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica. That little boy’s parents were not NAGC people, but NAGC sometimes has the task of breathing new life into teenagers who have been thus dealt with. One member, herself a celebrated media person, recently agreed to represent us on a morning TV chat show. When it became clear she would not be bringing her 6 year old daughter as “Phew, what a brainy boffin” fodder the invitation was withdrawn.

Local Education Authorities
It does not do to be out of step with government thinking, even more so if that thinking is endorsed by much both popular and informed opinion. The decline in power and influence of the LEA in the ‘80s and ‘90s created few protests. More money into schools and less on “bureaurocacy” sounds good to parents and more freedom for schools has the support of heads., teachers and governors. Our problem was that by the early ‘80s, our work, led by Henry Collis, NAGC’s first director, had led to the creation of Advisers in the majority of LEAs, large and small. The first World Conference, organised in London in 1975 by NAGC was both the intellectual and the practical springboard for this dissemination throughout the country. Specialist Teachers’ Centres grew up under expert direction to draw in teachers from all local schools. Awareness was raised and practical help with books, resources and classroom strategies was freely available. To our knowledge, only one such centre now remains. Three cheers for Lincolnshire and for Dr. Mike Stopper whose expertise on how to survive “cuts” ought to make him a millionaire. There are still “named” LEA personnel in a few areas responsible for high ability issues, but when we sent them a questionnaire to elicit the amount of time they now spent it rarely amounted to more than 10%. Most are doing OFSTED inspections to keep the LEA solvent. Gone are the days, too, when an LEA could require every one of its schools to train staff in the field of high ability children. Training decisions are now with the school. Hence our description of the national situation: “Its patchy”. Some schools are very commendably providing for our children. Others are not even aware of the issues. For high ability children, their own version of the Lottery has followed the emasculation of the LEA. Of course, there were LEAs who did not care for the things we expected of them. The national framework of LEAs could, however, have been used as the local means of developing and monitoring legislative requirements placed on schools. And the fact remains that the majority of LEAs were driving our cause forward.

OFSTED Inspections
We have had good cause to criticise these. The training of inspectors is unbelievably brief, with no input on high ability issues. There has been no specific mention of our children in the tick-list for inspection after the first year when the word “gifted” was removed from the Equal Opportunities schedule. It is, again, pot-luck as to how closely our field is inspected.
However, as we say elsewhere in this Newsletter, more than half of primary schools and* of secondary schools inspected in the first year were found to be seriously deficient in their provision for able children. Given that, as a result of a mid-stream change by OFSTED, teaching is now judged according to children’s attainment, not their ability or potential, the real problem is likely to be worse. The inspectors do not ask if schools know the true ability and potential of their pupils because it is not in the schedule. Nor do they ask if they have a policy for high ability children.

Legislation
Given that OFSTED is revealing at least something of the size of the challenge, it is pertinent to look at the role of government. The attempt to include high ability children in the 1993 Special Needs legislation was doomed to failure. Nearly a quarter of all parents might have wanted their children “statemented” for high ability, a “Super-11 Plus”. It is possible to coach up a high IQ, unlike one that is average or below. Furthermore, IQ testing, though useful, is an inexact science. The rapport between child and tester is quite critical and can be “worth” several points.
Even if an identification procedure could be agreed on, there is little consensus on strategies for provision. NAGC and NACE have traditionally argued for differentiation within the chronological age group rather than acceleration, but there would certainly be a powerful lobby for the latter. Most critical, however, is the fact that no agreed schedule of costings has emerged for the appropriate special care of a high ability child of any age. Most learning difficulties statements are currently catered for by welfare assistant provision at £5-00 per hour maximum. An hour from a local university maths lecturer would be a very different proposition. None of the main political parties is of a mind to create legislative entitlement to such a blank cheque.
Either we work out all these difficulties and costings or we settle for a cheaper, interim solution. The latter, I proposed in the winter 1995 Newsletter.
The points focus on:
*more rigorous OFSTED probing (see above), especially the expectation of a whole-school policy on high ability pupils,
*improvements to teacher training (see elsewhere in this Newsletter),
*a review of the National Curriculum that takes account of the needs of pupils with high ability (see below),
*stronger LEAs with a mandate to monitor and support (see above).

The first three points would cost government nothing. The fourth would cost each LEA no more than £40,000 per year, though if schools purchased training from their LEA expert with funds from their training budget, it could well put the LEA in profit.

Research
Professor Joan Freeman wrote in our Summer 1996 Newsletter: “European money for high ability research is minimal”. This has also been our experience when trying to initiate a major piece of research into the lives and progress of high ability children in inner city areas. Government agencies have actively discouraged the idea. Far too dangerous to turn over that particular stone!
We need a more solid research base to support our case and more academics to join Joan and Catherine Clark in the higher education sector. The American, German and Australian universities all take this subject much more seriously.

The politicians
Recent discussions with politicians have produced the following conclusions:

*The Conservatives feel that they have done well for high ability children by introducing the Assisted Places Scheme. Presumably, the implication is that state schools are not worth developing in terms of such provision and the best that can be done is to get high ability children out of them and into the private sector.

*The Liberal Democrats see the need to intervene actively to develop provision in all state schools, but would leave it, as a cornerstone of Lib.Dem. philosophy, to each LEA to be convinced of the need to make the initiative a priority.

*The Labour Party has produced a commendable paper on the education of high ability pupils with our help and support. Yet all the major pronouncements on Labour education policy concentrate on standards of below average children, with a leading spokesperson recently remarking that the performance of our most academically able was amongst the very best in the world, whereas the performance of the average and below average was not.

Behind the views expressed by politicians lies the counsel they receive from civil servants, leading academics and political advisers. A few weeks ago it “emerged”, without any vestige of debate, that there were enough graduates produced each year and that the expansion of higher education would now stop. Out of the same mists has also wafted the view that we have enough very able children and there are already the 1st and upper 2nd class degrees and Ph.D.s annually to meet the nation’s needs. So why throw money at something we don’t need?

If Labour wins the forthcoming election and if their leaders have not already been totally imbued with this thinking, we must assert the fundamental that this is a great equal opportunities issue, both educational and social, in that gifted children from deprived backgrounds have an even slimmer chance of being identified and provided for.

The National Curriculum
How has this affected high ability children? Those directing it feel it can provide exciting opportunities. There is extension work and the opportunity to take, for example, Level 4 SATs (average 11 year old) at Key Stage 1 (7 year olds). Practical difficulties usually preclude the latter, however, and teachers’ attention to the former is often drowned under the pressures of getting as many of the class as possible through the basic benchmarks by which the school (and the teachers!) will be judged. In practice, the iron grip of syllabus and exam performance is now beginning to stifle the creativity and open-ended work that was once a feature of primary and early secondary education. No doubt, the basics were neglected by some teachers and some whole schools in the past. The remedy for this, however, may well have done far more damage, especially for the most able who need creative teaching, open-ended learning challenges, and, above all, a teacher with the time and imaginative energy to create enrichment and extension work that should be the essential enhancement of every classroom, even when grouping is by setting.

Divided, we just about stand
There was once a creative national curriculum development body, called the Schools Council. Being guilty of divergent thinking, it was abolished in the ‘80s, but the group concerned with able children in education stayed together, and, led by David George, Johanna Raffen and Kevin Lambert, formed NACE. It is sad that this group and NAGC did not merge during the 6 years they shared a building at Nene College, Northampton. Philosophical differences were minimal, but perhaps the practical problems would have been too great. NACE would have benefited from the fundraising and administrative backing of the larger organisation, whilst NAGC would be enhanced by NACE expertise in teacher education and research. Now NACE are at Westminster College, Oxford, under what promises to be the distinguished presidency of Deborah Eyre. Most can still be salvaged, however, if there is a true spirit of partnership in all that unites us. That spirit should also extend to the two smaller charitable organisations in the field, CHI and MFGC. The many commendable commercial/training organisations such as GIFT (Julian Whybra) and the Brunel University Centre (Valsa Koshy) always seem to work in harmony with us and can also play a part in presenting the united front that is essential if our influence is to bring about change.
If we let a situation arise whereby a civil servant can say: “You all want different things, criticise each other and refuse to work together” we are clearly damaging the cause we are working for. If, however, we meet together and very publically fall out on the major issues, that could conceivably be even worse. Neither situation is surely to be contemplated!

Sticking plaster
Without long-term solutions, enshrined in legislation, there has been sticking plaster. Head office answers between 20 and 40 calls each day. The volume is increasing. In-service training is rocketing as a result of mailing every school in the country. The team of Volunteer Counsellors is expanding to provide the in-depth, regular support to families that is sometimes necessary. Many of them, under the guidance of a new full-time professional at head office, will extend their work from families to teenagers and young people direct in order to meet a growing pressure on our helpline. The aspiration burns to instigate major research and to create a National Resources Centre of distinction. Membership is increasing and, supported by the Branch Training Day initiative, there is much inspirational voluntary leadership throughout the country. Yet still branches die because a leadership succession cannot be found or has not been cultivated. We still have work to do in this respect.
In terms of finances we also have much to secure. The admirable directorships of John Walsh and Michael Short were constrained by desperately tight funds, a problem stemming from a near collapse in 1984 which was a far cry from the sound footing laid down by Henry Collis in the ‘60s and ‘70s. Legacies in the autumn of 1994 allowed for modernisation of our administrative systems and an expansion of staff. We now have attractive new premises, nationally central and convenient.
Susan Gomme is the chairman who presided over the lean years and has now proved she can manage purposeful, creative expansion as well. She has kept the long-term vision as well as stressing the importance of the “sticking plaster”, the support, through advice and counsel, for parents, children and teachers to enable them to cope and manage.
The legacies are not a bottomless pool and long-term financial security is a major priority. The larger and stronger we are, the more scope will we have to put our case and be listened to.

What’s in it for me?
More than once I have been asked this by someone who has probably already had 40 minutes worth of help and advice, which could well cost £50-00 at a commercial consultancy. The answer is that you will derive back what you are prepared to put in. With the exception of the small professional staff, this is an Association of volunteers. The quality of the Explorers’ Clubs and the branch meetings for adults will be what the branch members make of them, remembering always the head office training and support. The quality of governance of the Association will depend on the quality and commitment of those willing to give of their time to serve on Council. So, too, with the Counselling Service and with the quality of teaching and learning in our establishment member organisations.
We must never forget to be modestly inspirational, to recruit with enthusiasm and to sustain fellow members, establishment, family and individual, with affirmation and support. And, to have real status as a national organisation, we must have friends, admirers, and supporters who are not members, but who nevertheless rate us well and want us to succeed.
Then, you can be proud to be part of a national movement that is changing the lives of a very important group of people and has the means and the vision to persevere until everything is as good as it can be.

Return to our Contents Page

Email: nagc@rmplc.co.uk