Ruth Hewston

PERSONALISED LEARNING: AMBIGUITIES IN THEORY AND PRACTICE

Abstract: This paper traces the origins of the concept of personalisation in public sector services, and applies it to school education. The original conceptualisation stressed the need for ‘deep’ rather than shallow, personalisation, if radical transformation of services were to be achieved. It is argued that as the concept has been disseminated and implemented through policy documents, notably the 2005 White Paper, it has lost its original emphasis on deep personalisation. The focus in this article is particularly upon gifted and talented students whose education provides the best case example of how the theory of personalisation might work in practice. Two examples of the lessons in a sixth form college are used to illustrate the character of personalised pedagogy in practice. The implications for theory and practice are discussed.

The social origins of students identified as gifted and talented in England : a geo-demographic analysis

The English education system has been shown over a long period to be catering poorly for the educational needs of gifted and talented students. In the last five years, however, a national policy and an associated strategy have been established, distinctively attempting to embed core provision for gifted and talented students in the mainstream school system. A major thrust of this ‘English model’ is to identify and support students from those lower socio‐economic groups, and ethnic minorities, which historically have been under‐represented in higher education. This social inclusivity dimension to the national policy raises substantive challenges for policy research and development. This paper provides a detailed geo‐demographic analysis of over 37,000 gifted and talented students admitted to the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth in England in 2003/2005. The analysis shows that the National Academy, whilst having a student membership skewed towards groups with high levels of cultural and economic capital, had nonetheless reached significant numbers of students in the poorest areas, something over 3000 students, and 8% of students identified as gifted and talented at this stage. Possible explanations for the profile of gifted and talented students’ social origins are raised, and an intervention project arising from the analysis is outlined.