{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029082774049217, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01029082774049217, 'mean_word_length': 5.22841225626741, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
How can I work within the government’s perspective of ‘Gifted and Talented’ but still remain true to my own living values?

I am in the unique position as headteacher to develop policy in my school, influencing the experiences of staff, parents and children, as well as a wider audience through my essays and published work (Mounter, 2008). This essay will be in the form of a narrative using the living theory action research approach (Whitehead and McNiff, 2006). It will weave together my previous work, relating my own ontological living values and the development of my talents as an educator, in relation to creating an enriching learning ‘space’ that responds and helps to develop the talents of my pupils as they produce their own gifts. Rayner (2008: 8) explores the ‘space’ we create and discusses inclusionality, the flow form of dynamic inclusion, a fluid continuum within a co-creative energy flow. My intention through this article is to contribute to the professional knowledge-base of education by exploring my relational and responsive talents as an educator (which form my ontological values) and the educational relationships I have with my pupils. The voice of my pupils will also form part of this exploration, helping to examine and demonstrate my educational influence on the pupils’ development and understanding of their own gifts and talents as ‘knowledge creators’ and ‘proactive learners’. Through the Master’s group, led by Jack Whitehead and Marie Huxtable, and my accounts being available on the Internet as well as presentations to colleagues, I have shared my writings, video extracts and work by the children, as well as my living values and developing living theory. I have considered comprehensibility, truth, rightness and authenticity of my accounts, testing the criteria for validity (Habermas, 1976) of my research and findings through the understanding of another person and developing a shared understanding by the discussions, developing and enriching my own embodied living theory and values. As Habermas says, ‘Moreover, communicative action can continue undisturbed only as long as participants suppose that the validity claims they reciprocally raise are justified.’ (Habermas, 1976: 2–3)