Question from participant 2: Some students with [special] learning needs display an ability to understand abstract concepts have difficulties focusing and staying on tasks. How do we gauge if they are gifted?

students are selected for various competitions from the pool of identified students

-stretch programme inter-discipline (EL/MA/SC) - students selected based on P2 results (programme conducted in P3) after-school curriculum (end product: presentation)

-CWP

-IVP (P5) as organised by GEP branch (Innovation Programme)

-PMPC (Primary Mathematics Project Competition) selected students

-Appreciating literature programme (Fun with English)

-project work extension (self-directed research)

• Raffles Girls' Primary: Raffles Fiesta/Raffles Experience Day (whole day event for P4-P6 students, enrichment programmes conducted by PVs and vendors)

• Qihua Primary: InnoJoy Festival

• E2K Math and Science

• Words and Wits

• GEB's Creative Writing Programme

• Primary Math Project Competition

Question 2

• Selection based on Renzulli's enrichment model

• P4 EYE results

• P3 HAL checklist

Question 3

• Levels of Service

• Gagne's Differentiated Model

• core curriculum (layer 1) + differentiated programme (layer 2)

Model for programme design (e.g., Bloom's taxanomy)

Team in school for Pupil Talent development

Mostly, programmes are teacher-run, students are identified based on fitness to purpose (e.g., verbal talents, contest-based)

-development of cross-discipline programmes

In addition, some schools used an in-house testing and HAL checklist to determine the HAL students.

Q2. There is no framework and we only tried to select students who are more inclined to the area that they are strong in, on top of the curriculum.

Q3. LoS model (Levels of Service) : This could be applied across all subjects and all levels.

Some face issues when students are not interested and display challenging behaviour during the session.

Recommendation by peers to manage this include

1) teacher's recommendation

2) SEN support to HAL students with special needs + work with parents

3) provide milestone checks to ensure programme suitability

Good practices:

1) Track participation of students across the years to ensure continuity

• All schools: Math & Science E2K & Olympiad (selection based on results / P3 GEP results / HAL Checklist / Tr recommendation/ E2K for HAL classes)

• Springdale: Acad / PAM & CCA/ Leadership development tiers

  MA & SC STRETCH Programme at P3 & 4 for selected students (non-E2K Olympiad/ results at next lower band than E2K)

• SVPS EL: Reading circles advanced to debate (selection based on results & tr recommendations)

  Q2:

  • Most schools: Level of Service model

  • SCGS: Each student to focus on 2 areas to develop to avoid burn-out. Competitions based on sign-up.

  • Springdale: applies the Level of Service model in CCAs, PAM and Leadership

    
    

    Q3:

    • To look into non-academic areas

·       CWP

·       Reading Circles

·       E2K

·       Olympiad

·       In-house school-based programme

2.    What models (if any) were used to guide the planning and implementation of those provisions? If no model was used, what guiding principles were considered instead?

·       Do not really use a particular model

·       Teacher’s evaluation of pupil / loosely based on some elements of a model

·       HAL list

·       Academic results

3.    Which model(s) discussed here can be applied in your school’s future plans for Talent Development? How do you see it/them being used?

·       Renzulli's Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness – without even knowing – we probably already loosely based our evaluation on this

Most of our schools have yet to adopt a model; selection based on EYE, HAL checklist & Teachers' recommendation

Questions discussed:

1) revolving door strategy?

2) evaluation of the effectiveness of the programmes

3) how do we respond to parents' queries (teachers' observation)

4) how often do we engage our students due to limited resources

2) Identification of HALs using the checklists

3) Deconflicting between the HODs so that students have different HAL talent development opportunities especially when these opportunities are running at the same time.

4) Examples of talent development plans (current and future)

• E2K with student leadership as CCA or possibly ALP/LLP for the 3rd tier (selected students) for talent development

• E2k within HAL upper pri Math / Sci lessons (intentional integration) encouraging responses in the piloting programme

• Different enrichments to cater to students' passion and interest

• Identification through the GEP namelists shared with school

Selection of students is through GEP data, E2K checklist and students' results.

Some challenges we faced:

Time. Unable to fit in these programmes for students due to the many programmes in school.

For neighbourhood schs, teachers can consider working on individual HALs identified from previous tests

English - Wits & Words & in-house programmes

Math - E2K, Olympiad Training, mini projects

Science - E2K, Olympiad Training

All - Design Thinking (Innovation)

Students are selected based on the academic results, GEP list, aptitude checklist, teacher recommendation. Students might be selected for multiple enrichment, scheduling (across the 4 terms) will need to take place so that they will still be given the opportunities to develop their talents and not over-tax them at the same time.

Question 2

There is no specific model that our schools adhere to but Treffinger (LoS) seem to be the more prevalent one.

Question 3

We hope to apply the Treffinger Levels of Service more intentional in the planning of our HAL programme. We feel that the Renzulli model is more inclusive.

E2K (Math and Sci)

Olympiad training

Reading Circles

HMT starting at P3

P5 Creative Writing Programme (during curriculum time)

Most are organised by levels, usually for P3 - P5. Most are programmes provided by MOE or GEB except for the P5 Creative Writing which is done in-house for most schools.

2. What models (if any) were used to guide the planning and implementation of those provisions? If no model was used, what guiding principles were considered instead?

Use models given by GEB branch (HAL Characteristics Checklist) --> Difficulties in identifying the students even with checklist to minimise awkward situations of having to remove the child from HAL.

Results are also used as a guiding principle --> issues with this is as mentioned the student can be high progress but not of high ability.

Teacher recommendation --> issue is that this can be subjective and child might not display the HAL characteristics in another setting

GEP results --> those who get into round 1 are included into the HAL programmes

3. Which models discussed here can be applied in your school's future plans for talent development? How do you see it/them being used?

   
   

Treffinger Model - Used in most of the schools in our group

Renzulli’s 3 Rings - We would consider using this model instead as it focuses more on character traits and also the student's interest.

Interesting point that we would perhaps consider in future: We are aware that some schools select a maximum of two areas for HAL students so that students are not overwhelmed by having to attend various HAL programmes especially those that are after school.

Is there any data to show/support that banding students by Math grades or having mixed ability classes produces better results for Math, or there is no difference?

*Students are not assigned based on interest but purely based on results. There weren't any interviews conducted. They should look at students' dispositions, teachers' feedback before assigning. Teachers to streamline the program with DSA.

Assumption:

*Young and enthusiastic teachers took were overly taxed and they may not have enough experience to be in-tuned with the lesson preparation. 1) Check if the teachers can be offloaded in any ways. 2) Senior teachers can be roped in to help. Should not be relying on teachers with more energy as it will not work in the long run when they run out of steam.

*Communication to 2 groups of parents can be better. Help the parents to see the value and benefit of long-term of the program. Help the other group of parents to understand how the program selects the students.

• Identification was purely based on academic results

• Getting beginner teacher to conduct programme (they should be given an opportunity to ease into teaching instead of having to cope with this additional load they are given)

• Why top 25 given Math (rationale?)

• Drop in participation rate over the weeks

2)

• Young teachers are energetic and have alot of creative ideas

• Academic Performance = High Ability Learners

• School would like to focus more on Math hence top 25 were allocated Math

• Student profile: highly competent in Math

3)

• Need a mentor or senior teacher to guide the beginner teachers

• Improved selection criteria

• Improved Communication to Parents (rationale behind programme etc.)

• Proper training

• Selection of teachers (although enthusiastic, maybe they need time to settle their core work)

• Students - needs and interest rather than assigned by using cut-offs and banding (perhaps also what do they consider according to the banding: Band acc to Math? EMS? This would impact the talents in the class and thus to cut-off students accordingly as they did is an area of concern) This perhaps has resulted in the decline in participation.

  
  

  Assumptions:

• Children will feel good about being chosen and thus be committed.

• Being in the top 2 classes, ss will be able to cope and excel in this

• Trs able to cope as they are enthusiastic and that the guide provided will be enough for them to carry out the programme.

  
  

  AFI:

• Better communication with parents

• Speak to the students rather then assigned

• Deployment of teachers (experienced trs perhaps). Looking holistically at the workload of the teachers.

• Structures and processes put in in identifying the students (other considerations other than grades)

  
  

(2) top students go by math/creative writing/science - not placed according to their gifts / interests; teacher readiness (BT load)

(3) processes for identification of HAL / design of HAL programme to consider individual student's strength/interest, parent engagement, task force / deployment of teachers to look into this

School could take students interests and aptitudes into consideration when allocating them to the programme. This would also increase the participating and retention rate across the weeks.

To manage teachers' workload and assignments in totality to ensure a balanced workload

To provide training and mentorship to young teachers if not already trained to ensure that they have the skills needed to handle the responsibility of teaching HAL students.

School can have clear rationale on selection guideline with student centricity and theoretical undergirding in order to ensure professional communication with stakeholders (parents)

Deconflict school scheduling to ensure whitespace for the students to attend and commit to these HAL programmes to avoid dropout due to need to commit to other programmes (CCA etc)

Clarify objective of programmes and what students can gain from it. A delivery or goal that they can work towards.

#1: New teachers are not coping well with the workload

#2: Inadequate Comms to Parents which caused misunderstandings

#3: Declining participation rate

Assumptions:

#1: New teachers have more free time as they are offloaded

#2: Grouping of students not based on interest or aptitude

#3: Parents know more about Olympaid compared to E2K

AFI:

#1: Include ET in the group for expertise

• Teachers feeling overwhelmed due to heavy workload

• Parents may be directing their demands and questions to them

• Drop in student's participation

(b) Assumptions made by decision-makers:

• Getting good grades mean that students have the readiness and interest to commit to these enrichment programmes

• Selected teachers want to and are able to conduct effective lessons

(c) AFIs:

• Students to choose what they are interested in

• Teachers to be trained and get equipped with the knowledge to conduct lessons. Mentorship will be helpful to younger teachers too.

• Check if the teachers can be offloaded

• Better communication with parents. To include rationale, guidelines etc

a.       Validity of selection (1 source – EYE grades)

            i.    Top 25 might not be the best performing for Math also. Likewise, 26-50^th might not be the best performing for EL, and the 51-75^th might not be the best performing for Science.

            ii.      High progress does not mean high ability.

b.       Reliability of selection:

            i.      1 source of data, captured at 1 point in time (EYE)

c.       Sustainability of selection – interest of students not considered.

d.       Resourcing issues –

        i.      high workload placed on teachers

       ii.      Teacher profile: BTs need to be provided with a lot of support (adequate training or desirable student-teacher ratio?) Are they the best profile of teachers to be in charge of such enrichment programmes? Could there be a buddy system i.e. experienced teachers pair up with BT?

2.       the assumptions made by the decision makers, and

a.       high progress = high ability = interest in stretch programmes.

b.       BTs

      i.      They are well-equipped.

     ii.      They are energetic and hence would welcome such challenging deployment.

3.       areas for improvement.

a.       Validity and reliability could be improved – multi-factor selection captured at multiple occasions.

             i.      HAL checklist, results, subject teacher input, student interviews, lesson observations.

b.       Sustainability of selection

             i.      can consider peer or self-nomination.

            ii.      Help students see meaning in the programmes by fusing / integrating them into the formal curriculum.

         iii.      Better communication with parents and other stakeholders.

c.       Resourcing issues:

           i.      Relooking at teacher workload and deployment issues.

1. Parental objections and difference in opinions

2. Selection of teachers, number of teachers too few? Consideration for BTs workloads (not overwhelming them)

3. Selection of pupils - rationale, ranking methodology?

4. Grouping - criteria for allocation into E, M and S

5. Limitations in terms of timeslots for students

6. Declining participation rate... pivoting to DSA related competitions - why is this so?

Assumptions made by decision makers

1. BTs assumed to be able to take on additional workload - assumed to be capable to plan and conduct HAL lessons - what are the grounds for this assumption

2. Students assumed to be best in Math (top 25) followed by English and Science

3. No consideration given for their interest levels or relative competencies in other subjects

4. What about students who have multiple areas of talent/giftedness?

5. Engagement of parents seem to be lacking - parents do not seem to have been consulted

6. More data could be gathered about student needs and interests before implementation - study, FGDs etc.

Areas for improvement

1. Gather more data about student profiles, readiness, needs etc

2. More process and structure - thought and deliberation should be given to tighten

3. Better engage parents - inform them about the rationale and canvas support and different perspectives through FGDs and engagement sessions

4. Provide platforms for non IP subjects down the line after structures are in place

5. Provide training/OJT for teachers assigned - perhaps select from those with passion/interest as a first cut to anchor

• Identification of suitable teachers

• Considering the workload of the teachers selected

• Ranking of students (according to subject or overall results) and deciding which HAL program to put them in

(b) Assumptions made

• Students who scored well can do well in enrichment classes - high progress does not mean high ability

• BTs have the energy and passion to teach HAL programs - not sure if they have undergone any trainings

  
  

(c) AFI

• Select teachers who have the passion and experience (trained) in teaching HAL

• Consider students' interest and giftedness before deciding which HAL program to put them in

• more robust system to identify students for HAL programs other than base on scores - interviews, student disposition/aptitude checklist

• Look into the workload of teachers (after school commitment) to avoid any burn out

• Lack of transparency on the selection of HAL students for the programmes

• The ranking of the students according to the results of Math, EL and Science respectively

• Did not consider the interest of the teachers and the learning disposition of the students in the different subject areas

• Did not consider the readiness of the teachers who are conducting the subject enrichment classes

B) Assumptions made

• Assumption that the students who are selected for the respective programmes are interested in the area of subjects and have the abilities to excel in the area respectively

• Assuming that the teachers are willingly to take on these groups of HAL students

• Assuming that these teachers are willing to take up the increase workload on top of their CCA etc.

C) Areas for improvements

• Having a clear framework on how the selection of the students are made, taking into account the interest of the students and their learning dispositions

• Allow for students to be in more than one programme (i.e. Both Math and Science)

• To buddy experienced teachers to the beginning teachers so that they could be guided on how to carry out the programmes better

• To offload the teachers (such as taking them out from their CCA)

• Selection process not sound and selection criteria is not clear / transparent.

• Teachers' deployment (Are BTs really suitable?)

• PD of the deployed teachers (Are the teachers competent to train the HALs?)

• Unclear coms with stakeholders (parents and students)

• Insufficient consideration of the teachers' workload thus resulting in fatigue in teachers.

2) Assumptions:

• Assume that students will be interested in what they have designed for HALs

• Young and enthusiastic teachers are passionate and can engage the students and handle the heavier load (as they have less teaching periods).

3) AFGs:

• Selection process to be reviewed to include more identification platforms and instruments. (E.g interviews, portfolio)

• To consider students' aptitudes and interests.

• Systemic reviews of the school programmes, esp for HALs

• Better communications with the students and also parents to keep them updated about the number of sessions, what they can look forward to explore, the showcase/sharing platforms with their peers or community

• Training or mentoring for the teachers