PROVIDING FOR RURAL CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL ABILITIES IN NEW ZEALAND
ALISON AYR
Learning Enhancement Associates (NZ) Ltd.

"Each school and classroom [in New Zealand] is likely to have students with special abilities" (Education Review Office, 1998, p.43). Identifying and providing for these students in any school may be fraught with issues and problems; attempting to do so in a small rural school could transform these same issues and problems into seemingly insurmountable obstacles. In addition to the problems shared with their urban counterparts the rural school, on its own, has to also overcome a quite different set of problems due to the difficulties created by its geographical position. As a consequence New Zealand's rural children with special abilities are the forgotten 'poor relations' in our education system.

In the New Zealand education system National Education Goal 1 expects "the highest standards of achievement, through programmes which enable all students to realise their full potential as individuals, and to develop the values needed to become full members of New Zealand's society" (Ministry of Education, 1997). Further, the New Zealand Curriculum Framework (1993) states "The school curriculum will recognise, respect, and respond to the educational needs.. .of all students [including] students with different abilities" (p.7).

All schools therefore must make decisions about a number of issues in order to make provisions for children with special abilities. Each school must decide on the identification procedures it will use, the approach it plans to take, resourcing (financial and staffing), how it will ensure continuity of provision, what cultural considerations it needs to take into account, and how it will provide for teacher training (Education Review Office, 1998).

Schools in rural areas are just as obligated to identify and provide for children with special abilities as their urban counterparts are. The sad fact is, as the majority of researchers into this issue have noted, that children with special abilities in rural areas are less likely to be catered for at all than are their city cousins. As Spicker, Southern and Davis noted "despite some progress, education for the gifted in small rural schools is in its infancy, and most gifted children in rural schools are not served by appropriate programming" (1987, cited in Davis & Rimm, 1998, p.276).

In contrast to this commonly held view, according to Cross and Uixon (1998) rural gifted students experience simi lar opportunities and tribulations as those in urban schools. They believe that rural children with special abilities have more opportunities to participate in co-curricular activities, and are, understandably, also more likely to experience school as part ofa close-knit family or community than are students in urban areas. They maintain that what gifted students lose in academic development they may gain in character development. While it is certainly true that giftedness does not solely manifest itself in intellectual or academic abilities, this appears to be a pueri Ie viewpoint, smacking of the character building 'got to be good for you' philosophy, and avoiding the real issues almost, in fact, an argument for a 'laissez-faire' approach. This attitude would certainly appeal to those who believe that children with special abilities will be able to make it on their own, and are "already well served by the education system" (Education Review Office, 1998, p.7). Perhaps this is an attitude that would not be uncommon among the more conservative, traditional thinkers of the rural areas.

Russell and Eider (1997) examined the academic success of children from farm and non-farm families in the rural mid-west United States, focusing, in their study, on community integration as an important factor for education achievement. They found that children from farming families showed the highest levels of academic performance, owing largely to the high levels of parental involvement and leadership in the local community. It is worth remembering however that, while many families in New Zealand may reside in rural areas, only a small proportion of these may be farming families, and, in fact, many are low-income and very poor families e.g. in Panguru in the Hokianga which has an 83% unemployment rate (New Zealand Herald May 8-9 1999 p.J3).

As Davis and Rimm (1998) maintain "gifted students who live in rural areas may be greatly disadvantaged. Sparse populations, poverty, traditional rural values, small school size, and inadequate school finances all contribute to the paucity of gifted programming [in rural schools]" (p.274). In some rural areas of New Zealand (e.g. Northland, and the East Coast) all of these factors are heightened. Poverty is common: unfortunately, there is statistically a very low correlation between poverty and giftedness. dark's statement regarding this is particularly poignant when one reflects on the opportunities for children in these areas:

Adequate nutrition and appropriate stimulation are necessary to the development of intelligence - limitation of these factors inhibits such development. Too often such limitations are part of the syndrome of poverty. Add to these problems the attitudes of victimisation, hopelessness, and frustration, and any expression of intelligence can be seriously curtailed (dark, 1997, p.549).

Add to these problems too, the fact that many rural students are Maori. The issue of providing for Maori children with special abilities is a complex one, involving different cultural concepts and expectations, and, indeed, different notions of what may be considered as special abilities, and is best discussed separately, (see first article in this journal). However, it is worth bearing this group in mind when one considers the issue of catering for rural students with special abilities.

Davis and Rimm (1998) continue the litany of problems faced by communities and teachers endeavouring to provide for rural students with special abilities, stating that "many problems impede the development of gifted programmes in rural areas, for example, sparse populations, smaller budgets, and fewer support personnel" (p.277). These problems are very real in New Zealand rural schools, who are often coping with these every day in their endeavours to provide quality education for all their students, not just those with special abilities.

dark (1997) is also of the opinion that"... [there are] a number of other factors inhibiting the development of quality gifted programmes [in rural schools]: poor community understanding, teacher/administrator hostility, and logistical and organisational problems" (p.223). It could also be said that often there is a poor level of acceptance and understanding of exactly what special abilities are, and how they may best be provided for, among teachers. This can be directly attributed to a lack of easily accessed professional development and training for teachers. Coupled with this, because rural schools are usually small, teachers, of necessity, have to carry many responsibilities in addition to their role as classroom teachers, and are often reluctant to assume the additional responsibilities, which a Children with Special Abilities (CWSA) programme would entail.

The prospect of the logistical and organisational problems becomes so daunting that, in fact, "problems with access to resources, from transportation to materials, may inhibit cultural and intellectual development [of rural gifted students]" (dark, 1997, p.223), and may forestall any initiatives.

Spicker, Southern and Davis noted the following problems in providing education for rural children with special abilities:

• Resistance to change makes it difficult to initiate new offerings for gifted students. Also there is much less parental pressure for gifted programmes in rural areas.
• A smaller budget precludes expensive programme additions, particularly if such additions are seen as benefiting only a small number of students.
• Teachers in rural secondary schools have more preparations across several different subjects, making it difficult for them to keep up with newer, specialised content knowledge.
• There typically are fewer counsellors, school psychologists, and curriculum specialists to assist the faculty in building adequate programmes for the gifted.
• A belief in self-sufficiency and local control make it less likely that rural districts will seek outside assistance from state agencies or universities to develop programmes to meet the needs of gifted students (Southern, Spicker, & Davis, 1987, cited in Davis & Rimm, 1998, pp.274-275).

These problems, when viewed either singly or as a whole, paint a very gloomy picture for the prospects of any rural school successfully implementing a CWSA programme, and there is no evidence to suggest that the situation is any different in New Zealand. However, there are ways in which these problems can be resolved.

In suggesting solutions there is disappointingly little that can be done on a local scale to address such complex issues as poverty, or to reshape traditional rural values. Poor community understanding and resistance to change however may be overcome through a strong community education programme. Increased community involvement, and an understanding of the concept ofgiftedness are two solutions suggested by Davis and Rimm (1998) who cited the following example: "Attempts to identify giftedness among a rural Mexican population in the south west United States were successful in terms of increasing community involvement and enhancing a culturally relevant understanding ofgiftedness" (Reyes, Fletcher, and Paez, 1996, cited in Davis and Rimm, 1998, p275). The community, parents, and teachers identified characteristics ofgiftedness, which would be relevant to any community, but also included characteristics that are culture-specific e.g. "understands the importance of nature in relation to farming" (p.275). This approach could perhaps serve as a basis for a model for a school that has a high proportion of Maori students.

A school may have to compromise its belief in self-sufficiency and local control in order to overcome the difficulties created by the sparse population and small school size common to rural areas. Co-operatives, consortia of districts, summer programmes, and mobile services are suggested by Freehill (1977) as possible solutions (dark, 1997). Davis and Rimm (1998) also suggest co-operation among several small districts as an option worth considering. For example, in the United States, "a consortium of school districts brought Purdue University and seven rural public schools together to provide comprehensive training for their teachers, a resource centre, and a broad range of effective programming for gifted and talented students" (Ruckman and Feldhusen, 1988, cited in Davis and Rimm, 1998, p.275). It may not be possible to involve tertiary institutions in the consortia but the idea is certainly one of merit, particularly in making the most of inadequate school finances and small CWSA budgets.

Organising a consortium of rural schools to provide CWSA programmes would also be reasonably easy to set up as many are already grouped into local cluster groups e.g. for principals' meetings, and sports interchanges. It would spread the workload of teachers, and also draw on a wider pool of expertise. It would also, hopefully reduce teacher hostility towards the development of a CWSA programme, and allow the schools more scope when accessing support personnel.

Davis and Rimm (1998) are of the opinion that the use of itinerant consultants and volunteer community members could supplement the work being done by teachers. Witters and Vasa (1981, cited in dark, 1997) also found the itinerant consultant model to be effective in providing services to rural gifted students. Again, a consortium could appoint an itinerant teacher to this position, similar to the model of Resource Teachers of Learning and Behaviour that is currently being introduced into New Zealand schools. Dettmer and Lane (1989) also advocate an integrative model for educating very able students in rural schools, utilising a consulting teacher approach to educational programmes. They recommend this approach as it has the advantage of offering enrichment opportunities to a broad range of the student population. They believe that it also providesthe alternative learning environments very able students need in order to fulfil their potential.

In addition to this. Witters and Vasa (1981, cited in dark, 1997, p.223) consider "the most important task in providing educational opportunities for rural gifted students to be the selection and training of teachers who work with these students." Birnbaum (1977) also emphasises the need for well-trained teachers, dark (1997) recognises that "continuous and assertive leadership is necessary to change a number of factors..." (p.223). Principals of schools should not only lead by example, but should also be constantly encouraging teachers (and communities) to update their knowledge and understanding of children with special abilities, and should be making every effort to ensure that the school fulfils the requirements of National Education Goal 1. Howley (1988) studied the characteristics of rural students with special abilities, explored rural family and community attitudes, and investigated the school conditions relevant to these students' under-achievement. As a result, she too recommends active administrator support for CWSA programmes.

Pitts (1986) makes seven suggestions for administrators and principals on developing CWSA programmes for rural schools. He believes that advanced planning is a necessary first step that might not be given proper emphasis. He suggests that the school (or consortium) must first define what it means by 'children with special abilities'. At this stage also the general goals of the programme should be set, its content decided, and an identification procedure selected.

Because he believes that the best teachers are often called upon for any new project and undoubtedly will be asked to participate in this programme, Pitts recommends that, as a second step, the teachers involved must understand the amount of time and energy the planning process will take, and be prepared to take on this new commitment.

Third, he cautions those planning the programme to be aware that identification procedures are particularly delicate and critical in a small town or rural area. In his recommendations a blind review of the screening data is suggested that, in the New Zealand context, could be done by a committee which oversees the CWSA programme for the cluster group (consortium).

Fourth, he feels it is important to start small, and fifth, to use existing resources as much as possible. Sixth, programme planners must consider the need for adequate transportation, and finally, they must remember that a local programme is to meet local needs to the extent allowed by local resources, and not attempt to duplicate programmes designed for other larger, urban, or more affluent communities. Even though planning and implementing a CWSA programme in a rural community may need extra care to succeed, Pitts believes that such a programme can produce a sense of community pride, can open doors of career opportunity and greater academic success for students, and can stimulate enthusiasm and renewed commitment on the part of the teaching staff which make the hours of planning and programme development worthwhile (1986, cited in dark,1997).

These solutions may go some way towards addressing the major problem of logistics and organisation, and lack of access to resources, faced by rural schools in developing CWSA programmes.

Yoder (1985) also offers suggestions for CWSA programmes in rural schools, based on practices used in some eastern Iowa rural school districts. Programme planning, programme implementation, and programme staffing are all basic considerations when preparing to cater for these students. Expanding or supplementing the regular curriculum is suggested, as is facilitating interaction among participating children with special abilities, which would be possible using the consortium approach. Bull (1987) also urges development of programmes appropriate to rural schools, and emphasises the importance of peer and community involvement. She examines groupings, curricula, technology, and differentiated education as alternatives for rural schools.

Howley (1988) suggests the use of acceleration as an equitable, effective, and cost-efficient strategy for education of rural children with special abilities. In the New Zealand context this could be easy to implement in those small rural schools where vertical grouping and multi-level classes are the norm. Jones and Southern (1992) investigated attitudes and practices, in rural schools, towards grouping and acceleration, and found that they are less likely to use ability grouping and acceleration, and are more likely to use sporadic extra- curricular activities. In their 1994 paper they then offered suggestions for providing accelerative options for rural gifted students, as well as discussing such strategies as incorporating telecommunications, co-operating with other districts, in-service days, and community mentoring programmes. Unfortunately, in an education system such as New Zealand's where school roll size dictates the funding received by the school, and where the salary of the principal is linked to the number of students, this may be neither a popular nor a feasible option.

Davis and Rimm (1998) promote the use of telecommunications, as do others. Silverman (1980) suggests that "in addition to [normal] programming possibilities, those planning for gifted learners in rural areas may want to consider mobile enrichment vans, independent study 'hot lines' (access to mentors through a telephone system), itinerant teachers, correspondence courses, summer seminars followed by monthly meetings, and residential summer institutes" (Silverman, 1980, cited in dark, 1997, p.223). Lewis (1989), who suggests the use of technology networks such as tele-learning, backs this up. The use of electronic bulletin boards, and videotape exchanges as promoted by Southern and Spicker (1989) has been successful in providing opportunities for rural gifted students to exchange information and to receive advanced course work (cited in dark, 1997).

Use is also made of the Correspondence School in New Zealand to provide advanced course work; however, given the present fragile state of this school's reputation and its uncertain future prospects, teachers may have to seek alternatives. In New Zealand the opportunities for using technology as an aid to rural school education are huge: students may make use of the Internet, e-mail, audio-conferences and satellite links. This is an area in which many schools are experimenting at present for their mainstream classes. The use of telecommunications in the future to provide for our children with special abilities may, in fact, be the most accessible, cost-effective and flexible option available to rural schools - provided that the funding is adequate, and teachers are suitably trained.

The solutions outlined clearly suggest two approaches that should be considered by rural schools when catering for their students with special abilities. Firstly, a school needs to have the basic ingredients in place: strong, quality leadership; committed, well-trained teachers; a supportive and informed community; and a budget adequate enough to provide cost-effective access to resources.

Once these vital components are in place then the school can address programming options; these may include acceleration or the use of telecommunications. Alternatively, or as an adjunct to this, programming provisions could also involve the school co-operating with others in a consortium (local cluster group) to access and provide resources.

The problems encountered by rural schools may initially appear insurmountable, but, if a clear and sequential approach is taken in seeking resolutions to them, then they may eventually appear inconsequential. Rural schools must be pro-active. Despite the lack of guidelines in national policy and practice they have a responsibility to, individually and collectively, develop initiatives to ensure that their children with special abilities are identified and provided for.

REFERENCES

Bimbaum, M. (1977). Educational problems of rural education for the gifted. In B. Johnson (Ed.), Ideas for urban/rural gifted/talented. Ventura, CA: Office of the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools, National / State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted / Talented.
Bull, K. Gifted education in rural schools: An examination of alternatives. [On-line] Journal of Rural and SmallSchools. 2 (nl), 29-35, Fall 1987. Abstract from ERIC database: Accession Number: EJ376744. Clark, B. (1997/ Growing up gifted. Developing the potential of children at home and at school. (5th ed.) New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Cross, T. and Dixon, F. (1998). On gifted students in rural schools. [On-line] National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. 82 (n.595), 119-24, February 1998. Abstract from ERIC database: Accession Number: EJ 558184.
Davis, G. and Rimm, S. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented. (4th ed.) Needham Heights, MA: Allyn& Bacon.
Dettmer, P. and Lane, J. An integrative model for educating very able students in rural school districts. [Online] Educational Considerations. 17 (nl), 36-39, Fall 1989. Abstract from ERIC database: Accession Number: EJ397460.
Education Review Office. Working with students with special abilities. (Report No. 4 Autumn 1998). Wellington: Education Evaluation Reports, 1998.
Hewitson, M. (1999, May 8-9). Disaster town waits for Winter. New Zealand Herald, p.J 3.
Howley, A. gifted students in rural environments: Implications for school programs. [On-line] Rural Special Education Quarterly. 8 (n4), 43-50, 1988. Abstract from ERIC database: Accession Number: EJ380695.
Jones, E. and Southern, W. Opportunities for rural gifted students: Improving educational options through acceleration. [On-line] Journal of Secondary Gifted Education. 5 (n4), 60-66, Summer 1994. Abstract from ERIC database: Accession Number: EJ494711.
Jones, E. and Southern, W. Programming, grouping, and acceleration in rural school districts: A survey of attitudes and practices. [On-line] Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (n2), 112-117, Spring 1992. Abstract from ERIC database: Accession Number: EJ450028.
Ministry of Education. Governing and managing schools. Wellington: Learning Media, 1997.
Ministry of Education. The New Zealand curriculum framework. Wellington: Learning Media, 1993.
Pitts, M. (1986). Suggestions for administrators of rural schools about developing a gifted program. Roeper Review, 9(1), 24-25.
Russell, S. and Elder, G. Jr. Academic success in rural America: Family background and community integration. [On-line] Childhood, 4 (n2), 169-81, May 1997. Abstract from ERIC database: Accession Number: EJ544945.
Yoder,J. Gifted education is for rural students, too. .[On-line] National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 69 (n482), 68-74, September 1985. Abstract from ERIC database: Accession Number: EJ325262.