Daniel’s story: hearing the voice of the highly

able
Barry Darch

Introduction
It may be tempting to think that the most able pupils in a class are capable of progressing on
their own with little need for direct teaching or support or for opportunities of shared
learning with other children. Very able children may seem to tackle work effortlessly – with
little apparent consciousness of the strategies they use. And in a busy class it may not be
easy to find the time to attend to apparently well-motivated children who do not draw
attention to themselves. In addition, some highly able children may seem self-contained and
so perhaps less rewarding to teach and support than their less able peers.

Could it also be the case that school staff may be somewhat in awe of some children’s
prodigious abilities and be less confident in providing scaffolding in the form of challenging
questions that stimulate interest, probe understanding and open up possibilities for taking
the learning further? When reflecting on these points I began to consider what highly able
children themselves might think about how they best learn in their final year of primary
education when they can often be feeling the pressure of assessment.

Looking at some reports on provision for high ability pupils, I noted that such pupils are not
often asked for their views. For example, Ofsted concluded: ‘Pupils on schools’ gifted and
talented registers had few opportunities for discussing their needs with teachers’ (2009, p.
11). I wondered whether highly able Year 6 children might be able to identify what assists
them in making good progress and, if so, whether their insights could help inform how to
make effective provision for them.

The case study

The study examined the perspective of Daniel on how he had been helped to progress in
maths (and at the end of the year achieve Level 6 which he was keen to do, and did
subsequently achieve). It is based on an interview with Daniel and information from his
family. Daniel also made some comments about how he had been helped in literacy (in
which he did very well but not as well as in maths).

From a young age Daniel had been recognised by several teachers as having high ability, and
a keen interest, in number and other aspects of numeracy. He enjoyed mathematical games
and chess. He was sociable, an avid reader and keen on sport. While he was performing at a
high level in reading and writing in the final year of Key Stage 2, it was maths that he
regarded as his favourite subject (and the one in which he felt he was most capable): ‘I try
really hard in maths because I enjoy it. In literacy I don’t enjoy it, so I don’t try as hard as I
could.’
1 Different approaches
Daniel had three different teachers for maths in Year 6, one in a large school (with several
classes in each Year group), which he left part way during the year, and two in a small
primary school (which had mixed-age classes). Both schools were in England. Daniel was able
to compare the differences in teaching and assessment, perhaps because he had attended
several primary schools in Key Stage 1 and 2, not from parental dissatisfaction but because
of his family’s several house moves.

In the large school in which he was a pupil at the beginning of Year 6, children were set for
maths; and within the class they were sat in ability groups. Daniel appreciated being given
work suited to his ability, including differentiated homework: ‘This helped. The teacher gave
us higher work so they could stretch us. We had different maths homework.’

Daniel reports that when he moved school, he was given the same work to do as the other
pupils of his age in the class: ‘They didn’t stretch me in maths. I was doing the same as the
other Year 6s.’ Daniel’s parent asked for harder homework for him, but, according to Daniel,
little was forthcoming.

2 The new teacher

A new teacher took over the class, quickly assessed Daniel’s ability and provided classroom
work which Daniel regarded as appropriately challenging. ‘In the first few days he gave us
[Daniel and another very able pupil] some work to find out how good we were.’

Daniel’s teacher provided direct teaching of new topics (including algebra) to the class,
followed by carefully differentiated class work and homework. The teacher encouraged the
two pupils to be independent and use on-line materials at home when they found questions
hard to understand. Daniel liked how websites gave examples of how to work a problem
out: ‘I found a question about circumference difficult and the website showed how a child
would set it out.’

3 Assessment
The new teacher gave harder homework to Daniel and the other high-attaining pupil and
marked it with them while the class were working. Daniel was keen to know how he was
doing and found it motivating to be told the National Curriculum Level that he was
achieving.

Daniel appreciated the teacher’s formative assessment of his work: ‘He would tell us how we
could do it better if we got it wrong. If we got it right, he would put us on to harder work. He
wrote comments in our books, for example, “Next try making …”. He would get us to mark
each other’s work in maths, writing and comprehension to give us an idea of how he does it
and see if we could pick out the same information from it as he does.’ Daniel indicated that
the children marked each other’s work once a week in maths (and once a week in literacy).

In response to a question about whether he found such marking useful, Daniel said: ‘Yes,
because other children would feed-back and it would be easier to understand because you
get on with them and you like them.’ Daniel regarded the marking of his work by other
children as fair. He said that they highlighted parts of his work that they saw as good and
that they explained why they thought they were good. In writing this took the form of
comments about particular features of a genre of writing; in maths it focused more on the
setting out of the answer. The markers also made suggestions about what needed to be
done to improve the work. When asked why he thought that the children were able to make
such suggestions, Daniel replied: ‘Probably because we do it regularly.’

4 Shared learning
Daniel said that having another very able pupil to work with was ‘really useful’, adding, ‘If I
didn’t understand something, she would and the other way around.’

Discussion of Daniel’s views

Although the school in which Daniel was studying at the beginning of Year 6 had assessed
pupils’ ability and provided differentiated work as a consequence, it was to the ‘new
teacher’ in Daniel’s next school that Daniel seems to give especial credit for helping him
develop his abilities. The teacher was, of course, Daniel’s most recent one and operated
differently from the previous teacher in the same school. But Daniel’s ability and willingness
to identify particular characteristics of the provision made by the new teacher suggest that
Daniel saw the teacher as being a very significant part of his progress in Year 6.

Daniel seems to have quickly developed confidence in the teacher’s ability to meet his needs
in maths as a very able learner. He was impressed that very early on the teacher had gained
an accurate picture through assessment of what he could do and that the assessment had
immediately led to appropriate work (some of which, Daniel knew, the teacher had
assembled rather than using a commercially produced book). Daniel also appreciated that
the teacher had the knowledge to be able to specify the level at which he was operating and
that the teacher was willing to share this knowledge with him.

Formative assessment (Kay, 2013) played an important role in promoting Daniel’s learning.
The teacher was able to explain where Daniel had gone wrong when his answers were
incorrect; and Daniel appreciated the teacher’s suggestions for extending his learning.
Marking Daniel’s work with him enabled the teacher to have an ongoing dialogue with
Daniel about his learning. Freeman found that very able children wanted to have an
interactive relationship with their teachers and that they appreciated direct feedback on
their work. They liked teachers who were ‘willing to listen as well as talk’ (1991, p. 133).
Freeman believed (p. 132): ‘Successful teaching for learning helps children to a sense of
control over both the learning situation and themselves, and there is ample research
evidence to show that this involves guidance by the teacher. And the gifted children want it
too.’ Daniel’s readiness to work hard in class and do independent work at home suggests
that he had developed a sense of control and a perception of himself as a capable learner in
maths.

Another important aspect of assessment for Daniel was peer assessment. The classroom
atmosphere must have been conducive to pupils offering honest opinions conveyed
sensitively, perhaps a reflection of the teacher’s own approach to assessment. Daniel found
the comments of his peers helpful. He attributed the children’s ability to assess one
another’s work (and make suggestions for improvements) to the regularity of such
assessment, but it would be difficult to imagine that the teacher had not modelled the
assessment process and had not ensured that the children had a very clear understanding of
the learning objectives of activities and the criteria for assessment.
Peer assessment was part of how Daniel worked with other pupils to promote his learning.
He certainly did not operate in isolation. He appreciated having another highly able pupil to
work with and referred to how the two of them helped one another.

Daniel showed insight into how he learned, recognising that the extent to which he enjoyed
the subject influenced how hard he worked. He knew that he was stronger at some aspects
of maths than others but was aware of how he could find help for his weaker areas.

In terms of being able to assess how he performed in maths Daniel showed an awareness of
how he tackled questions. When asked how valuable he thought it was for children to think
about the strategies they used, he said: ‘Useful. Say someone was strong at division and not
multiplication, they could use the reverse operation to work the problem out.’

Daniel knew well that assessment helps a teacher recognise children’s individual needs as
learners. He had been disappointed that his first teacher in his second school in Year 6 had
not taken account of his abilities. Presumably, the teacher had not seen records of Daniel’s
previous attainment. When asked whether he thought it was important for a child to be
treated as an individual, Daniel saw individuality in terms of differences in ability, including
within a subject, pointing out that a child may be ‘good at, say, shape and not good at
handling data.’

Daniel’s use of the word ‘stretch’ several times in the interview indicates that he expected to
be find challenge in his learning. He may have picked up this word from hearing his family
commenting on the appropriateness of some of his homework. But Daniel had readily
applied the concept of being stretched in his learning to the classroom work that he was
given as well as to the homework he received.

Throughout my interview with Daniel I was conscious of how his feelings became evident
when he described his varying experiences of maths lessons; and it was not difficult to see
how the new teacher motivated him through his recognition of Daniel’s abilities and
potential and how that motivation fed into a productive circle of learning, assessment and
further learning.

Conclusion
From this short case study I have concluded that Daniel benefited from a stimulating
learning environment in which his particular needs were well recognised through ongoing
assessment. Daniel had a developed sense of his potential and how far he wanted to
progress in his final year at primary school. He expected to find challenge in his work and
was disappointed when it was not there. He knew that hard work was necessary, including
undertaking independent study at home. Daniel was able to admit that his enjoyment of the
subject influenced how hard he worked.

Although preparation for end-of-year assessments was clearly a part of the work that he was
given by the new teacher, Daniel’s comments show that the teacher was not preoccupied
with ‘teaching to the test’. The teacher’s broad approach is likely to have contributed to
Daniel’s success. Coldwell et al. (2013) found that schools taking a strong outcome-focussed
approach (direct test preparation) were less likely to have successful results than those that
took a combined learning and outcome approach.
Daniel’s class was of mixed age and ability, but the new teacher found time to work
individually with Daniel and to mark work with him. The teacher’s knowledge of the maths
curriculum combined with his good understanding of Daniel’s abilities seems to have
enabled him to provide effective scaffolding in the available time, including suggestions for
further work. Effective scaffolding depends on knowing well the extent of the child’s
experience and understanding, as Webster et al (1995) point out. Good teaching for the
most able is particularly dependent on the teacher’s subject knowledge (Ofsted, 2001).

While the teacher clearly had a good understanding of the maths curriculum, he was not
reluctant to encourage Daniel to find other sources of help on the internet. Daniel indicated
that he himself saw on-line resources as very valuable to children like himself. It may be that
school staff who lack confidence in working with high attainers in maths could also find
internet material useful in developing their own mathematical knowledge and
understanding. As well as accessing particular sites recommended by his teacher, Daniel had
used a search engine to locate the websites of schools that contained helpful material,
including mathematical problems and solutions.

Fundamentally, it was ‘good teaching’ that Daniel recognised as promoting his learning most
effectively, although he did not use the words himself. Good teaching, dependent as it is on
good assessment, helps children like Daniel reveal what they know, realise what they know
and become aware of how they can build on their strengths and improve on their weaker
areas. It also, of course, involves effective scaffolding (built on an active awareness of the
child’s knowledge and potential that the good teaching has helped to reveal), including, in
Daniel’s case, direct teaching of new concepts and individual guidance and encouragement.

It is not a surprise that the good teaching that Daniel valued contains a number of the
features of ‘respectful teaching’ (and ‘respectful assessment’) that Nutbrown identifies
(Nutbrown, 2001). Coldwell et al recommend: ‘There is a need for policymakers, school
leaders and Ofsted to make clear that meeting the needs of the most able pupils should
occur through a clear focus on teaching and learning’ (2013, p. 99). And Eyre argues: ‘High
performers need to be nurtured systematically in class every single day, not just in a
separate programme from time to time’ (2011, p. 21).

These endorsements of the importance of what happens in the classroom can perhaps be
seen as heartening against the backdrop of frequent changes in national initiatives. (‘The
past two decades have seen policy after policy intended to enable highly able children fulfil
their potential. But barely has an initiative begun before it has been abandoned’: Smithers
and Robinson, 2012, p. 44.)

Research also shows that remembering the needs of the most able does not lead to
neglecting the other children in the class. Inspectors in Wales found that ‘the teaching and
learning strategies that are having a positive impact on the more able and talented pupils
also improve standards for pupils of all abilities’ (Estyn, 2012, p. 2).

We should not be wary of very able children like Daniel or hesitant in promoting their
learning very directly. Like all children, they have feelings which influence how they learn,
they benefit from working with their peers and they need attention and support from
people who are prepared to get to know them well. We should listen to them more.
References
Coldwell, M., Willis, B. and McCaig, C. (2013) Investigation of Key Stage 2 Level 6 Tests,
London, DfE [online]. Available at:
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFE (Accessed 28
June 2015).

Estyn (2012) Supporting More Able and Talented Pupils in Primary Schools. Available at:
http://wales.gov.uk/docs/dcells/publications/110715estynsupportingablepupilsen.pdf
(Accessed 28 June 2015).

Eyre, D. (2011) Room at the Top: Inclusive education for high performance, London, Policy
Exchange.

Freeman, J. (1991) Gifted Children Growing Up, London, Cassell Educational Ltd.

Kay, J. (2013) ‘Assessment’, in Hancock, R., Collins, J. and Stacey, M. (eds) Primary Teaching
Assistants: Learners and learning, 2nd edn, London, Routledge.

Nutbrown, C. (2001) ‘Watching and learning: the tools of assessment’ in Cable, C. Cable, C.,
Eyres, I., Hancock, R. and Stacey, M. (eds) (2013) Primary Teaching Assistants:
Curriculum in context, 2nd edn, London, Routledge/Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Ofsted (2001) Providing for Gifted and Talented Pupils: An Evaluation of Excellence in Cities
and Other Grant-Funded Programmes, London, HMI.

Ofsted (2009) OfSTED (2009) Gifted and talented pupils in schools [online]. Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20141124154759/http://www.ofsted.gov.u
k/resources/gifted-and-talented-pupils-schools (Accessed 30 June 2015).

Smithers, A. and Robinson, P. (2012) Educating the Highly Able, Centre for Education and
Employment Research, University of Buckingham [online]. Available at:
http://www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/educating-the-highly-able-2/ (Accessed
28 June 2015).

Webster, A. Beveridge, M. and Reed, M. (1995) Managing the Literacy Curriculum, London,
Routledge.