2 The report and the Committee

This chapter presents the Committee and explains how it has worked on the report and the knowledge base. The Committee's interpretation of the mandate is presented, which comprises basic education in its entirety, and includes all students and apprentices/trainees, hereinafter referred to as students. The Committee has chosen the term students with higher learning potential, and this will be used throughout the report. In some cases, the term gifted children is used when we refer to research or quote directly from a source that uses this term.

The report is anchored in the Norwegian Education Act, the Regulations relating to the Education Act and the Knowledge Promotion curriculum.1

2.1 Background for the report

It is a mystery how caring adults, who would not dream of forcing a child growing faster than the average to wear too small shoes, would for some reason insist that a child whose intellectual development is growing faster than average should follow teaching programmes that are too “small” for the child's fantasy and intellect.

Ole Kyed 2015, p. 216, the Committee's translation

The background for the report, as presented in the mandate, is the Government's intention to establish a more long-term and holistic effort for

• students who achieve on a high academic level

• students with special abilities and talents

• students who have the potential to reach the highest academic levels

In the press release after the appointment of the Committee, the Ministry of Education and Research highlighted the following: “PISA 2012 revealed that Norway has a lower number of students on the highest levels (levels 5 and 6), compared to other countries which also score close to the OECD average. Countries scoring better than Norway in PISA, such as Finland, Germany and the Netherlands, have twice the number of students on the two highest levels.”2 There is no reason why Norway should not have more students on higher or advanced levels, and there is a need for differentiated and adapted instruction to achieve this.

There is little research-based knowledge on students with higher learning potential in the Norwegian context.3 The work on the report has shown that schools have inadequate knowledge about the students who come under the mandate, and the instruction is only differentiated to a little degree to the needs and abilities of these students. This may be explained by the fact that these students receive little attention in teacher training institutions, and additionally due to the fact there is a culture with insufficient knowledge about students with higher learning potential.4 Even if to begin with the students are well furnished to perform well in school, they will not perform well unless they have access to the correct teaching material, are acknowledged by the teacher and are given challenges on their level and according to their premises.5 All students must experience that their potential is appreciated, and the instruction must be differentiated so that all children and young people can develop and utilise their abilities and aptitudes.

2.2 The Committee

The Committee is composed of practitioners, education leaders and researchers who have experience and competence in the education field and in basic education in general:

• Jan Sivert Jøsendal, Tønsberg, Director of Education, committee chairperson

• Susanne Skeid Fossum, teacher, Asker

• Stefan Hermann, head of school, Copenhagen

• Ella C. Idsøe, professor, Asker

• Bjørn Tore Kjellemo, head of department, Oslo

• Terje Lohndal, professor, Trondheim

• Mona Nosrati, associate professor, Trondheim

• Mirjam Harkestad Olsen, associate professor, Alta

• Stein Erik Ulvund, professor, Oslo

2.3 The Committee's work

The Committee has had eight meetings and made a study trip to England and Wales to visit schools and attend meetings with researchers, the authorities and the National Association for Able Children in Education (NACE). In Norway, Committee representatives have visited schools and met students, teachers, school leaders and school owners. This has given insight into the challenges and opportunities that exist to give students with higher learning potential differentiated instruction and good school programmes.

The Committee has invited a number of organisations and experts to the meetings so they could offer input on key issues in the Committee's work. These include Elevorganisasjonen (the School Student Union), Faglig råd for PPT [PPT: Expert council for the pedagogic, psychological counselling service, PPS], the National Parents Committee for Primary and Secondary Education (Norwegian abbreviation FUG), KS (organisation for the municipal sector), Nasjonalt råd for lærerutdanning [Norwegian council for teacher training], NHO [Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise], Norwegian Association of Graduate Teachers (Norsk Lektorlag), Skolelederforbundet [Norwegian Association of Heads of School], Norwegian Union of School Employees (Skolenes Landsforbund), and Union of Education Norway (Utdanningsforbundet). Moreover, the Committee has met with and received input from NGOs, including the parental organisation for children who think faster than average Lykkelige barn [Happy children]. The Committee invited interested parties to an input conference in the spring of 2016 where various experts and organisations participated. This input has helped to make the Committee's work even more relevant.

Quotations used in the report stem from visits and meetings held during the work process and from verbal and written input received by the Committee. We have made a point of giving voice to students, teachers and school leaders by using direct quotations from this input. We do this to raise visible individual voices that illuminate the daily life in school as it is for students with higher learning potential. The quotations are not attributed and are not listed in the Committee's reference list. Nonetheless, they constitute an important contribution to the total knowledge base.

To secure quality and to anchor the work, the Committee has engaged several external persons from relevant environments to read drafts of the report.

In the spring of 2016, the Committee established a website to make information about its work and mandate publicly available and to publish all the minutes from the Committee's meetings. Here, film clips from all the input given at the Committee conference are also available. The Committee has encouraged interested parties to supply input on the website, using the e-mail address josendalutvalget@udir.no.

Source www.josendalutvalget.no

2.4 The knowledge base

The Committee was asked to draw up a knowledge base founded on national and international research and experience to serve as the foundation for its assessments and recommendations. This knowledge base comprises relevant research from statistics, public documents, research reports, scientific articles, textbooks and reports. The Committee finds that there is little research and statistics relating particularly to students with higher learning potential in Norway. Experience-based knowledge from organisations, advisory bodies, the PPT (the pedagogic, psychological counselling service), local authorities, schools, students and parents have therefore been important knowledge sources in our work. An analysis of the Student Survey from 2013 and 2014 is highlighted to show how high achieving students experience and assess their learning environment in the Norwegian context.6 The responses are considered together with input received by the Committee.

To obtain an overview of research in an international context the Committee has cooperated with the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for Education, which has compiled a research summary. This describes some important qualities that must be present if students with higher learning potential are to have good instruction in school. The Committee has also looked at international studies to give a brief description of the results of Norwegian students in an international context. These studies also show some interesting characteristics of Norwegian teaching practice. This is dealt with in Chapter 3.

Due to the report's time frame, the Committee has been unable to dig in-depth into education policies and practices in many countries. We therefore chose countries with comparable school cultures, such as Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Scotland. England and Wales, with extensive experience in differentiating instruction for students with higher learning potential, have also been highlighted in the report. We also point out that several countries have extensive experience of educational measures for students with higher learning potential. Among these countries are the USA, Australia and the Netherlands.

2.5 Processes parallel to the Committee's work

Prior to and during the Committee's work, the national authorities have initiated a number of measures for students with higher learning potential. Here we refer to some examples of parallel processes and measures. The examples use different terms in dealing with this student group: students with higher learning potential, students with potential to achieve on higher levels and academically gifted students. The Committee wants the report to contribute to creating common terminology in the Norwegian context.

• In the spring of 2016 the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training launched a net-based resource bank for differentiated instruction where students with higher learning potential are a central theme.

• Tett på realfag [Closer to natural science] is a national strategy for natural science in day-care institutions and primary and secondary education and training (2015–2019). The goal is that more children and young people should achieve on a higher and advanced level in the natural science subjects. The strategy aims to help high achieving students to utilise their potential in natural science through differentiated instruction and the opportunity to speed up their schooling.

• As a stage in the Tett på realfag strategy, talent centres are being tested in four knowledge centres in Norway. This is a programme for students who want to study in-depth and be given greater challenges in the natural science subjects. The talent centres in Norway will initially be for students in years 7 to 10 in lower secondary school and students in the first two years of upper secondary education. The target group includes students who achieve on high levels and students who have the potential to achieve on a high level.

• The new strategy for language, reading and writing aims to strengthen the language, reading and writing skills of all children and students. The strategy aims to strengthen staff competence and applies to day-care institutions and primary and secondary education and training. The following target groups are especially in focus: 1) minority language children and students, 2) children and students with language difficulties, 3) students with reading and writing difficulties, and 4) boys and high achieving students.

• National centres have been assigned the task of developing learning resources in their assignment letters for 2015, focusing on academically gifted children.

• Den virtuelle matematikkskolen [The virtual mathematics school] is a programme for students in lower secondary school who need extra support or challenges, and for students who want to skip levels to move ahead in the mathematics subjects at a quicker tempo. The goal of the project is to test new forms of ICT-based instruction to generate a sense of mastering and motivation through differentiated instruction.

• Ungdomstrinn i utvikling [Lower secondary school in development] is a national programme offering support for local development activities in classroom management, mathematics, reading and writing. The programme features three key measures: school-based competence development, learning networks and educational resources. Some of the resources have examples of instruction that targets students with higher learning potential.

• Kompetanse for kvalitet [Competence for quality] is a national strategy for further education and continuing professional development (CPD) for teachers and school leaders up to 2025. The frameworks have been developed in cooperation with KS, the employee organisations, teacher training institutions and the Ministry of Education and Research. Differentiated instruction is one of the guidelines for the content of the further education and continuing professional development (CPD) programmes. High achieving students have especially been put on the agenda in connection with the development of the further education and continuing professional development (CPD) programmes in mathematics.

• In Report to the Norwegian Parliament no. 28 (Meld. St. 28 (2015–2016)) on the content and approaching renewal of the Knowledge Promotion curriculum, in-depth learning is highlighted as an important change of course for better learning for all students. The Report proposes that all subjects in primary and secondary education and training and the common core subjects in upper secondary education should be renewed. They should be less comprehensive and be given clearer priorities while the ambitions for students' learning will be raised. The Report proposes to renew the definition of competence: “Competence is acquiring and applying knowledge and skills to master challenges and solve tasks in known and unknown contexts and situations. Competence means understanding and the ability to reflect and think critically”.7

2.6 The Committee's interpretation of the mandate

In its interpretation and definition of the mandate the Committee attaches importance to terminology that makes it clear that all students have learning potential, but that some of them have higher or extraordinary learning potential. Input the Committee has received shows that many students are not given the challenges they need, while they want to use and develop their academic and creative abilities.

Teachers state that they would like to raise their competence in teaching strategies that can be used to promote students' metacognition, self-regulation and problem-solving strategies.8 School is obliged to give individual students differentiated instruction, and this also applies to students who are given inadequate subject and academic challenges, and who do not receive differentiated instruction which helps to maintain their motivation for learning in school. According to the mandate, the Committee shall propose measures which give students with higher learning potential better instruction, based on knowledge, input, analyses and assessments. The knowledge base shows that there is a need to examine in more detail key factors in the learning environment if students are to have the opportunity to develop their learning potential.

To provide the students with the opportunity to develop their learning potential, the learning environment of the school must have high ambitions for all students. Had the learning environment in practice been accommodating, rich and responsive, while also providing for the needs of all the students through differentiated instruction, then the categorisation and definition of terms would probably not have been necessary.9

Below an explanation is given of the following terms: students with higher learning potential,excellent learning environment and differentiated instruction for all students.

2.6.1 Students with higher learning potential

It's not only about how much we know and can do, but how we learn new things and how quickly this can occur. Some of us simply learn incredibly fast.

Input from SkoleProffene [the School Pros – the change factory, an organisation aiming to introduce change through input from young people]

More than 100 terms are used in international reports about students with higher learning potential.10 The variations of these terms appear in different combinations with the words giftedness, abilities, talent and intelligence. The many terms are related to their cultural context and which fora the research on the students has been published in.11 Moreover, research shows that we are talking about a heterogeneous group of students. Some students have high potential in one subject or in one area of a subject, while others have exceptional learning potential in several subjects and areas. In addition to a higher learning potential, some students may have emotional or social difficulties. They may have learning difficulties, ADHD, ADD, autism, or they may have a physical challenge (for example relating to vision or hearing). In research and literature these are called twice exceptional students.12 Some students may be extra sensitive, which means that they are more receptive to nuances and details others do not necessarily notice.13

Earlier, the Nordic countries have been reluctant to designate students according to academic abilities to avoid classification. The main idea underlying this has been to promote development for all students without categorising them into groups.14 In recent years, both Sweden and Denmark have chosen terms that build on the word giftedness (särskilt begåvade elever15[particularly gifted students] and højt begavede børn16[highly gifted children]). The Committee has deliberately chosen not to use the term giftedness as we believe the association with “gift” emphasises that it has been inherited. Internationally many countries have dropped the idea that intelligence is inherited, static and unchanging, and rather think of it as dynamic and fluid.17

The Committee considers achievement and intelligence to be derived from both inheritance and environment. Strength of will, motivation, stamina, self-control or impulse control are examples of variables which represent self-effort and the importance of the environment.18 We also base our thinking on a view of learning which emphasises growth,19 and that all students must have the opportunity to develop their learning potential through an excellent learning environment.

Students with special abilities or talents in sports and culture often have separate learning arenas outside school. This does not apply to the same extent to the five common core subjects (English, mathematics, natural science, Norwegian and social studies). The Committee points out that measures to improve the instruction for the students in both theoretical and practical-aesthetical subjects in the entire primary and secondary education and training learning path should be given priority.

Students with higher learning potential constitute a complex group of individuals and personalities with differing instruction and development needs; they are just as different from each other as other children and young people. In the assessment of the Committee, students with higher learning potential may constitute between 10 and 15 per cent of the school population.20 In our report we also use the construct students with exceptional learning potential. These students often show that they have good aptitudes or special abilities, and they often have an IQ of 130 or more. These students may constitute between 2 and 5 per cent of the student population, but there is not necessarily a causal link between IQ and school achievements.21 It is important to point out that the groups are dynamic, and that this is not a fixed group of students in Norway's student population.

The term students with higher learning potential in this report comprises those students who achieve on high and advanced levels and those students who have the potential to do so. School can use tests to obtain information about students who are high achievers, while other students with higher or extraordinary learning potential often show their strengths in other areas than what can be seen through grades and tests.

Students with higher learning potential

Some characteristics of this group are that they are most satisfied when they are in a stimulating and challenging learning environment with many and varied activities and opportunities. The earliest signs may be that they are curious and that they have early and rapid language development with more nuances in their language than their peers.22 Since many have very good memories and learn quickly, they may have a great need for attention and stimulation. In their lessons, they usually require less repetition and are quicker at understanding concepts within “their” area than their peers.23

Students with exceptional learning potential

Students with exceptional learning potential have special abilities, may learn extraordinarily quickly and may in many contexts be far ahead of their peers. They can think in complex ways, are very curious and good at problem solving.24 They generally also have better stamina and have better concentration over extended periods of time. Another feature is that they are better able to work from the abstract to the concrete compared to their peers, who often need to start with the familiar and approachable before expanding to the abstract.25

2.6.2 Challenges the students may encounter

Teachers often believe that we know everything, but that's not the way it is. We're not always good in all subjects, and besides, it's not what we know from before that is important.

Input from SkoleProffene

The challenges and misperceptions that students with higher learning potential may encounter may be due to a lack of sufficient knowledge about them and their needs when it comes to the people they are interacting with. The challenges may be academic and interpersonal, individual and societal. This means that these students in some contexts function well, experience well-being and are challenged academically, while in other contexts they may stagnate and give up.26 The social aspects are highlighted as particularly difficult, and some struggle to find common bonds and feel they are different.27

Of course, not all students with higher learning potential have serious social problems. While they might be different, the Committee has met students who function well and have no major challenges. What many of them have in common is that they have not been given sufficient academic challenges, differentiated instruction or understanding.

Students with high academic achievements are often acknowledged for this, but they may also have to deal with little supervision and at times an absence of instruction due to the widely-held belief that these students can cope on their own. This is also an attitude found in such countries as Finland, Australia, Germany, Austria and Switzerland.28 The lack of academic stimulation may lead to truancy, behaviour problems, frustration, unused potential, and on top of this, these students may be erroneously diagnosed. They may experience school as meaningless, and may be bored and unmotivated.29

It is a myth that students can acquire knowledge without help from others, and that they have no further need for differentiated instruction according to their abilities and potential.30 Students tell the Committee that they have not been taught useful work habits or basic learning strategies. These students may then later encounter problems when tasks in lower secondary school, upper secondary education or higher education become more complex.31 For some students this may lead to underachieving, and their performance will dip below what they have the ability or potential to achieve. The absence of differentiated instruction and academic stimulation, as well as negative relationships to teachers and co-students, may cause these students to lose their motivation for learning. At the same time, they do not want to stand out as different from the other students and may be reluctant to show what they can do. Under such circumstances, these students may begin to perform poorly.32

Misperceptions may impede their academic development and create unnecessary challenges and irritation in their daily life in school, in their continuing education and in their mastering of life.33

Mathisen and Olsen (2016) have followed three students with higher learning potential and examined the perception of being included in the instruction of a subject. The students state that they were in a way set apart by the teachers because they were given a role as assistant teacher for their co-students. They would have preferred to work with co-students who were on the same level as themselves so they could learn from each other and work at their own pace. The study concludes that the practice of having students serve as teachers for other students is not a good approach. The students felt that the role was forced on them by the teacher, and they felt stigmatised. Input to the Committee from some younger students shows, however, that there are many sides to this picture that emerges in this study. For example, some of the students felt it was rewarding and academically enlightening to help co-students with tasks, provided that this was not the only approach to differentiation they experienced.34

Some students may feel that their learning potential is overlooked. These are students who in some areas show achievements and competence on high levels, but who at the same time encounter problems in other areas in a learning context. Such an uneven subject profile may mean that these students do not receive help, or that they are not acknowledged as having higher learning potential in some subjects or parts of subjects.

Some students may have asynchronous development, which means that the emotional, social, motor and cognitive aspects do not develop at the same speed.35 This means that a student who has very high linguistic and mathematical abilities may be struggling in other areas (motor skills, socially or emotionally), making days in school difficult, or the student achieves below his/her potential. The higher learning potential of some students will then not be discovered due to learning difficulties or other impediments.36

2.6.3 Excellent learning environment

In this report the Committee introduces the term excellent learning environment. Characteristics of this environment are school staff who motivate and stimulate learning for all students through teaching of high quality, differentiated instruction and high ambitions for student learning.

Research, literature and input to the Committee show that many students with higher learning potential experience that the school's learning environment is less than optimal. This is also confirmed by the analyses from the Student Survey (Elevundersøkelsen) from 2013 and 2014.37

Creating a quality learning environment means more than what the teacher does in the classroom. It means working systematically with student learning through professional cooperation in school. All planning, all work and all decisions made in school must support the students' learning and development.38 The teachers must reflect on their own and the school's teaching practice and compare this to defined quality descriptors. For this to be done in a good manner, the Committee believes that more knowledge is needed with respect to what characterises an excellent learning environment. Quality descriptors are needed so teachers, school leaders, school owners and the national authorities can use them to obtain insight into what is typical of such a learning environment. This is examined in more detail in Chapter 7.

A learning environment will always be dominated by the people belonging to the environment, how they behave and how they interrelate. School leaders, teachers, other employees, students and their parents together develop the school's learning environment. The development of the learning potential of all the students requires that the school leaders and staff understand that the group of students is heterogeneous. The students learn in different ways, and they may have widely different needs. Bearing this in mind, the Committee has looked closer at which principles promote learning for all students, and examined the extent to which the learning environment can support this.

Figure 2.5 describes the principles the Committee finds should be highlighted as important for the learning of all students,39 in addition to some educational measures that are particularly important for students with higher learning potential. These measures of course do not only apply to students with higher learning potential, but research and input to the Committee has pointed them out as particularly important for this group of students. With more knowledge about the academic situation and potential of the students, teachers gain a better point of departure for providing instruction that addresses individual needs. The Committee believes that school must work purposefully and systematically to differentiate for all students to learn in accordance with the learning principles. Each of these principles must be deconstructed and made part of the profession's continuous work with quality and improved learning for the students.

Students with higher learning potential require educational and organisational differentiation with well-thought out programmes which attach importance to creativity, the students' interests and in-depth learning.40 To this the Committee adds identification and acknowledgement of the students as a condition for the work on differentiation and adapted instruction in an excellent learning environment.

2.6.4 Differentiated instruction

All children are different. I cannot treat the students in the same way because they are all different. Some need more time, some learn instantly, and therefore they need to be given different teaching plans.

Input from teacher

“Adapted education” is what school must supply to ensure that all the students have the best possible outcome of the teaching. It may be connected to organising the teaching, educational methods and progression, work with the learning environment and follow-up of local work with subject curricula and assessment. A good learning environment and good systems for local work with subject curricula, assessment and feedback are important requirements for promoting teaching that is adapted to the abilities and aptitudes of the students.41

The provision on adapted teaching, what we call here differentiated instruction, is one of the key principles that apply to the comprehensive school, and it applies to all students.42 Other core learning principles that must be considered together with differentiated instruction are inclusion and the equality principle. The principle of differentiated instruction includes both regular teaching and special-needs teaching. Differentiated instruction is not a goal in itself, rather it is a measure aimed at helping students to experience greater learning outcome.43

The core curriculum contains guidelines on how to work with student learning which must be seen in conjunction with differentiated instruction, and these are relevant when the teacher plans, implements and assesses the teaching. The students can satisfy the same competence objectives in different ways, and the subject curricula provide room for choosing differentiated instruction through

• varied work tasks

• different subject material

• learning strategies

• work methods

• different learning aids

• variation in the organisation and intensity of the teaching44

The instruction must therefore be adapted to the students' age and development level, their differing abilities and potential and the composition of the student group.45

Even though the principle of differentiated instruction has been in force in the Norwegian school for around 40 years, the research-based knowledge we have about the effect of differentiated instruction is relatively limited, and it varies as to what is actually meant by the concept. There are few clear guidelines dictating how differentiated instruction should be given, and the politicians have generally left the decisions on the practical implementation of differentiated instruction to each school.46 Some European countries have developed special instruction programmes for students with higher learning potential, but Norway has acted according to the assumption that these students will manage on their own without special supervision. This has been the case even though section 1-3 of the Education Act states that school is obliged to differentiate the instruction for the abilities and aptitudes of the individual student. Students with higher learning potential need instruction that responds to their needs, and school must contribute more than the regular instruction because these students require differentiation.

The education programme must be organised and planned so that it is perceived as inclusive for all the students. Inclusion is in this way seen as a subjective experience. An inclusive learning environment is an environment focusing on four elements: cultural, social, academic and organisational aspects.47

Figure 2.7 illustrates that the academic, cultural and social aspects must form the core of an inclusive learning environment. Culturally, this is done by opening for diversity, different learning styles and an environment reflecting the different identities of the students. Socially, this is done through building relations and the reflected use of the interaction between students. Academically, this is done through enrichment, mastering experiences and adapted challenges. All the three dimensions have an effect for the students, but with differing degrees of emphasis depending on the learning situation. How the three academic, social and cultural inclusion dimensions are perceived by the students depends on how school has organised the learning environment, which is indicated by the circle. Organisational inclusion occurs through accessibility and a high degree of flexibility. It comprises various activities, group compositions and forms of assessment. It also includes tuition period schedules and use of resources.48

The Committee sees that the combination of identification, acknowledgment, educational and organisational differentiation may give students with higher learning potential better opportunities to feel culturally, socially, academically and organisationally included.

Differentiated instruction is not an individual right as is the case with special-needs teaching, and does not require the preparation of an individual learning plan for the students.49 Differentiated instruction is a principle schools must satisfy by filling it with educational content.50 Nonetheless, this is an obligation the school owner has and must act on. Starting in year 1, all students have the right to formative assessment which is to be used as a tool in the learning process and as the basis for differentiated instruction. Formative assessment is also called assessment for learning in the national programme Vurdering for læring [Assessment for Learning].51

Four principles are especially important for good formative assessment. These principles are research-based and take Chapter 3 in the Regulations relating to the Education Act as their point of departure.

The potential of students and apprentices to learn may be strengthened if they:

• Understand what they are to learn and what is expected of them

• Are given feedback informing them about the quality of their work or performance

• Are given advice on how to improve

• Are involved in their own learning by assessing their own work and development52

Individual guidance that points out the goals, provides feedback and opens for personal reflection is often highlighted as particularly important for students with higher learning potential. The students need concrete goals which motivate them because they are based on their interests. They should have an active role in the instruction and in choosing subject matter, and they need specific feedback focusing on their individual learning process and development.53

In Norway, differentiated instruction has generally been perceived as an individualisation process, with individual work, individual guidance and the students' choices, with the absence of teaching that involves the entire class.54 This unilateral focus on individual work that tones down other methods may affect all the students, particularly those with higher learning potential who often need other challenges through cooperation and in-depth work. Several countries55 have moved in the direction where differentiated instruction focuses on personalised learning. The aim of such an approach is to determine how teachers and schools can best facilitate for student learning, where the point of departure is students' interests, ways of learning, how they best work together with others and what other potential the students have. For students with exceptional learning potential, it is particularly important to differentiate the instruction where importance is attached to their personal learning processes.56

The Committee believes that differentiated instruction which considers the students' different aptitudes and abilities does not mean that the students are to sit individually and work with their own plans, but that the instruction is adapted through pedagogical and organisational differentiation in a flexible manner.

2.6.5 Special education

Differentiated instruction applies to those who follow the regular instruction and those who are given special-needs instruction. Within the regular classroom, the student does not have the right to any particular type of differentiation beyond the basic framework. Special education is, on the other hand, an individual right the student has in those cases where extra assistance is found to be necessary for satisfactory learning outcome.57

Source www.udir.no

In the preparatory work on section 5-1 of the Education Act, a proposition to the Odelsting58 states that the right to special education does not comprise students with the potential to learn more quickly or more than the average. Students who learn quickly are comprised by the general principle that the education must be adapted to individual needs, cf. section 1-3 first paragraph of the Education Act 1-3 (“Education shall be adapted to the abilities and aptitudes of the individual student, apprentice and training candidate”).59 As understood by the Committee, this statement in the preparatory text for the provision in the Act means that speedier progression in itself does not constitute the grounds for special education. Such a right might be triggered if, for other reasons than progression, the student does not achieve satisfactory learning outcome from the regular instruction.

Input received by the Committee shows that it may be unclear as to which right students with higher learning potential have when it comes to special education support. According to section 5-1 first paragraph (“Students who either do not or are unable to benefit satisfactorily from regular teaching have the right to special education”), students with higher learning potential have the same right as all other students to special teaching if they are unable to achieve satisfactory learning outcome from the regular instruction. This may refer to one or more subjects. Students with higher learning potential cannot be excluded because they learn more quickly than others if they need special adaptation. These students may, as other students, have difficulties which prevent them from gaining learning outcome from the regular instruction, for example social difficulties or specific learning difficulties which prevent them from exploiting their learning potential. The student may need greater challenges in one subject, but may have completely different challenges in another.

A practice which excludes students with more rapid progression from receiving the necessary support precisely because they progress more quickly, is deemed by the Committee to be an erroneous understanding and application of the Proposition to the Odelsting (Ot.prp.). The PPS needs resources and competence to undertake expert assessments and guide the school on students with higher learning potential and learning challenges.

2.6.6 Examples of barriers to differentiation

We have a large gap in terms of skills in the classes. In my class I would estimate a gap of four or five years' difference in skill levels, and then it's difficult to reach them all. It's about planning and knowing about the seven in the class who are outstanding. Then I need a plan for them too, not just for those who are struggling. Therefore, we now need tools to determine how to get the best out of the students.

Input from teacher

Realisation of high ambitions and expectations for the students' learning requires that the school differentiates the instruction to the student's level and potential for learning. The Committee has experienced that many schools see differentiated instruction as a vague goal and something that is difficult to implement in practice. Student input to the Committee reveals that in some cases differentiated instruction has consisted of self-study of a textbook from a higher level without guidance or teacher support. We have received input from students who describe many hours drawing in extra books, making their own workbooks, doing tasks over again, copying for the teacher, watering plants or simply waiting. This may cause students to lose their motivation for learning.

The presence of differing opinions on which students are eligible for differentiated instruction is an example of a barrier preventing students with higher learning potential from receiving the assistance they need. Even if the provision in the Education Act is clear, the Committee has learnt that schools and teacher organisations would like to see a clarification of the extent to which school has the right to prioritise low performing students over high performing students if there are inadequate resources to provide good programmes for all. Some schools are uncertain as to whether students with higher learning potential should be given differentiated instruction at all, or they state that this only applies to students who perform poorly or have learning difficulties.60 The Committee would like to make it clear that the provision relating to special education includes all students regardless level of achievement and learning potential.

Input from teachers and teacher organisations reveals that schools find it impossible in practice to implement differentiated instruction for all students. They point out that a classroom may house developmental differences of up to six and seven years and question how differentiated instruction can be implemented. The student organisation asks whether it is feasible for a teacher to implement differentiated instruction in a class with many students. Teachers often find that they should first address the students who for various reasons do not have satisfactory learning outcome from the regular instruction, thus the question remains: how can the instruction be differentiated for the other students in the same class at the same time?61

Other input to the Committee indicates that the impediment to implementing differentiated instruction of good quality is limited resources and the absence of didactic tools. An example of this is input concerning budget cuts in the current and coming school years resulting in fewer extra teaching hours. The school leaders want to see an allocation of teacher resources that can make it possible to have quality in the differentiated instruction.

The evaluation of the Knowledge Promotion curriculum showed that the textbook has a strong position and governs the planning and implementation of the instruction,62 and this may serve as an impediment to differentiated instruction. Getting through the textbook becomes a goal in itself, where it takes precedence over the competence objectives of the curriculum.63 Dependency on only one learning resource makes differentiated instruction an impossible task. Several schools indicate that teachers first determine what they want to do in the textbook, and only then find a point in the competence objectives to tie it to.64 The textbook in itself is not the problem as long as it is not the only learning resource,65 and as long as the teacher is the one who is making plans for the instruction and is in charge of the teaching.

On the one hand, schools are free to choose varied learning resources, and on the other hand, schools have a responsibility for choosing methods and content anchored in the objectives for the teaching. Students shall, for example, be allowed to “have the opportunity to be creative, committed and inquisitive”.66 The values underpinning the objectives clause must have impact on the methods used in the planning and implementing of the instruction. Using only one learning resource may undermine the ideal of variation and the choice of content and methodology in working with the competence objectives.

Teachers have not acquired sufficient knowledge from their teacher training about what differentiated instruction means in general, and they have little competence in differentiating for students with higher learning potential.67 This does not, however, release them from the duty to differentiate for this group of students. Teachers, school leaders and school owners have a shared responsibility for ensuring that all students, also those with higher learning potential, will be given good instruction in school. To accomplish this, further education and continuing professional development (CPD) will be required, along with competence-raising of teachers, both in terms of increased in-depth studies of the school subjects and more knowledge about principles of learning and differentiated instruction.

2.7 Summary and assessment

The Committee believes that schools must be equipped to manage what on paper appears to be a simple principle – differentiated instruction for all – but which in practice is highly challenging to accomplish. For this to be implemented properly, schools must obtain knowledge about and practice differentiated instruction in accordance with the intention of the Education Act, and the amount of educational resources available must be sufficient to allow differentiated instruction to be viable. More knowledge about students with higher learning potential is needed, and schools need didactic measures and tools to enable them to satisfy the needs and learning potential of all students.

The Committee recommends that the national authorities must ensure that differentiated instruction for students with higher learning potential is included as a topic in national projects and guidance material.

The Committee also recommends an amendment to the text in section 1-3 of the Education Act. The provision in force states that “Education shall be adapted to the abilities and aptitudes of the individual student, apprentice and training candidate.” We propose the following formulation: “Education shall be adapted to the abilities and aptitudes of the individual student, apprentice and training candidate so that each individual is able to develop and utilise his or her learning potential.” The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear that differentiated instruction also includes students with higher learning potential.