THE 1998 ERO REPORT,
WORKING WITH STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL ABILITIES: IF ERO WANTS A DEBATE, LET'S START ONE!
TRACY L RILEY
Massey University

Think a minute. The year is 1972. It's a significant date in history. Can New Zealand' advocates for gifted children remember why? Perhaps you recall the following: the Munich Olympic Games were disrupted by Arab terrorism ... Northern Ireland' "Bloody Sunday"... Labour leader Norman Kirk unseated the National Party ... Nixon visited China and Russia... Britain entered the common market... French Connection won Best Picture... Best Actor and Actress were Gene Hackman and Jane Fonda... the Dallas Cowboys won the SuperBowl... Bobby Fischer beat Boris Spassky for the world chess title ... The Godfather was released ... Jesus Christ Superstar made it to the stage in Greece ... NZ's Equal Pay Act was passed... and the NZ Department of Education released its last report on gifted children!

Do you recall the report? Distributed to all primary schools, Children with Special Abilities: Suggestions for Teaching Gifted Children in Primary School (Department of Education, 1972), has been described as a mirror image of "the thinking of the sixties" (Reid & McAlpine, 1981 as cited in Moltzen, 1996a, p.6). Portrayed by Moltzen (1996a) as "neither innovative nor forward-looking" (p.6) it has remained the solo publication, the only such attempt by a government agency in this country to recognise gifted children. That is until 1998 when the Education Review Office (ERO) released a special report entitled Working with Students with Special Abilities.

The Education Review Office is responsible for not simply evaluating and reporting on education in schools, but also for examining educational policies and practices. The intent is to "supply a wide and varied audience with information on topical education issues, and form a basis for debate on what counts as quality in education policy and practice in New Zealand" (ERO, 1998, p. 1). Advocates of gifted children should applaud the Education Review Office for deeming the education of those with special abilities as worth undergoing such examination; we should also join in the debate!

The inside cover of the booklet states ... "Rurea, taitea, kia toitu, ko taikaka anake. Strip away the bark. Expose the heartwood. Get to the heart of the matter." I'd like to use this article to further explore the report, its strengths and weaknesses, and the directions we might seek in moving gifted education in New Zealand into the 21st century. Getting to the heart of the matter is a good place to start.

THE REPORT: FROM BARK TO HEARTWOOD

With the intent of the report being "to provide teachers and parents with information on good practice in working in schools with students with special abilities and on initiatives developed by schools to enhance students' skills and abilities" (ERO, 1998, p. 3) readers are first challenged to decide whether the aim is met. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, readers must determine whether the promise was fulfilled in a satisfactory manner. In other words, did they do it well?

The booklet gives a plethora of information, covering many key issues related to gifted education. Following an introduction, definitions and characteristics of giftedness are examined. The term students with special abilities is adopted for the purposes of discussion, a decision most teachers would probably support based upon McAlpine's (1990) examination of terminology preferences. Setting the document within a comfortable, acceptable, New Zealand-friendly environment from the start felt good to me ... until I read the definition put forward.

What before more wondering eyes should appear but the definition proposed by the United States Office of Education in a report to Congress in 1972? Referred to as simply "the Marland definition," the decision by ERO to take on board this concept of giftedness is flawed. Firstly, the US definition has been transformed over the years with further legislation and growth in the field. For example, in the more recent Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Act of 1995 the term gifted is dropped, with reference made to talented children and the necessity for qualified professionals to identify such talent is eliminated. Further, giftedness is recognised as being seen across cultures and socio-economic groups. Because of its multi-categorical approach to giftedness, the Marland definition set precedence throughout the world; however, as theory and practice in gifted education have changed and evolved, so too has this concept.

Secondly, given the enormous growth and interest in gifted education since 1972, it is no wonder the number of definitions has increased exponentially. George (1992) reported 213 definitions of giftedness! And yes, among those are concepts with roots in New Zealand. McAlpine (1996a) cites thirty-six New Zealand ­based articles debating and discussing the conceptualisation of giftedness. From Parkyn's early work to the collective work of educators including McAlpine, Freeman, Havill, and Reid, which resulted in the 1986 definition proposed to the Department of Education (Moltzen, 1996a), New Zealand educators have not only reflected international trends but also developed concepts of giftedness unique to this country.

Part of this uniqueness is evidenced in the more recent research of prominent writers, including Bevan-Brown, Cathcart, Reid, and Doidge, who have begun examining Maori concepts of talent. Taking on board a definition from another culture completely overlooks the special abilities manifested within this country's indigenous people. The holistic nature of Maori concepts, as depicted in a rich tapestry of values and beliefs, is lost in what McAlpine (1996a) refers to as "western mainstream research" (p. 32).

Moltzen (1996b) perhaps best encapsulates my concerns over the ready acceptance of this definition in stating "... we are locked into the 1960s and 70s thinking, and I dare say it, but in this part of the world I think we are prone to be influenced by thinking from the United States that may just not be compatible with how we do things in the antipodes" (p. 1). Recognising that there is no quick, simple, even singular, answer to the question of "what is giftedness?" it seems unfortunate that this report reflects a lack of insight into contemporary, national concepts.

Interestingly, few New Zealand schools with which I have had association take such a narrow view. Policies and programmes do reflect trends in defining giftedness with multi-categorical, multicultural approaches. In fact, the definition proposed in 1986 by New Zealand educators and advocates of gifted children also mirrors these trends. While that definition could be criticised for being almost too inclusive, it takes into account distinctive cultural abilities. Had ERO done their homework in suggesting a definition of giftedness they would have found that many New Zealand schools either:

1. 1.Adopt or adapt the 1986 proposed definition;
2. 2.Adopt or adapt a variety of contemporary, international definitions; or
3. 3.Create a definition specific to the school population.

Presenting readers with a smorgasbord of possibilities, reflective of contemporary theory and practice in gifted education, as well as cultural considerations, would have better suited ERO's goal of providing valid, essential information.

PEELING BACK THE BARK ... RINGS WITHIN THE HEARTWOOD

McAlpine (1996a) describes the interrelationship between an array of factors which create "the total landscape of gifted education" (p. 25). At the centre, or core, lies the concept of giftedness being purported within a system. Stemming from that concept, an interplay begins with characteristics, identification, programming, and evaluation, forming, if you like, the concentric rings of a tree trunk. Fortunately, the ERO report, to varying degrees, portrays those interrelationships. Its structure is a good example of McAlpine's theory, taking readers immediately from definitions to identifying characteristics.

The discussion of characteristics, however, is not without drawbacks. Just as the definition is pulled from another time and culture, thus leaving the options rather limited, so too does the discussion of characteristics leave the reader wanting more. As opposed to a thorough overview of characteristics of giftedness, ERO presents the five areas of ability within the Marland definition, followed by a brief description of behaviours associated with each one. These descriptors are lifted basically from an ERIC digest, an informational report produced by an arm of the US Department of Education some twenty years ago. Almost word for word, the report regurgitates the document, "Giftedness and the Gifted: What's It All About?" ERO describes characteristics of giftedness, based upon a multi-categorical concept, in less than two pages. I found this fascinating, especially in light of the 18 pages of text Moltzen (1996c) utilises to describe the same issue!

I don't mean to sound scathing or antagonistic, but I must admit a huge sense of dismay having read the first two pages of the report. Given the tremendous amount of national and international research in the field of gifted education, it seems senseless that ERO would begin "stripping the bark" by lightly and inadequately addressing the foundation of anything we might do for New Zealand's gifted students.

Yet, as I read the last line of the page I found a gem, and a sparkling one at that! The report quotes Le Sueur, a New Zealand educator, as stating "[The definition of] gifted is population specific; you must identify in terms of the school's population" (ERO, 1998, p. 5). Had the report begun with this statement, prior to suggesting the Marland definition and accompanying characteristics, my initial disappointment might have waned. This is a crucial point, as supported by McAlpine's (1996a) statement "There can be no single 'right' definition. The concept of giftedness and talent is sensitive to time and place - to cultural context and social values" (p. 28).

Bevan-Brown (1996) supports this view in discussing the factors which shape cultural perceptions of giftedness: beliefs, customs, needs, values, concepts, and attitudes. Just as each culture, in the purest sense of the word, perceives talent in unique ways, so too should individual schools cultivate gifts characteristic of their population. The so-called "character" of the school should be evidenced within any definition of giftedness proposed. Elements to take into account may be, but not limited to, the following:

1. strengths and abilities of the student population
2. the school's philosophy of education
3. community attitudes and values, including cultural considerations
4. curricular strengths and interests
5. teaching staff and resources

Fortunately the case studies described within the report reflect a wide variety of concepts of giftedness. For example, one reflects higher order thinking skills, another Te Reo Maori, and still another leadership. ERO's implicit pointing out of the importance of defining giftedness within a given context is a real strength of the report; however, a more explicit picture of the variety of ways giftedness is conceptualised would have enhanced ERO's discussion.

LOOKING DEEPER WITHIN THE HEARTWOOD

The notion of defining giftedness within a given context is just one of the positive aspects of the report. Moving on from conceptions of giftedness the report highlights the legislative requirements for schools in relation to gifted students. It is made clear that the onus for identifying and serving New Zealand's gifted children is frequently placed upon the regular classroom teacher, for as the document states "...students with special abilities are generally educated in mainstream classes" (ERO, 1998, p. 6).

The principles of the New Zealand Curriculum Framework which underpin this expectation are outlined with emphasis placed upon the statement, "The school curriculum will recognise, respect, and respond to the educational needs ... of all students [including] those with different abilities" (ERO, 1998, p. 6). This implicit legislative requirement is supported by some curriculum documents; however, as the report points out, others do not make specific mention of students with special abilities. The report also puts forth objectives within the National Education Goals related to high standards of achievement and equality of educational opportunity.

The rights of students to develop their individual personalities, talents, and mental and physical abilities within our education system are certainly not arguable. However, the catalyst for that development should not be limited to the regular classroom, as the ERO report initially implies is often the case. The responsibility for identifying and planning challenging educational programmes for gifted students is, as they later state, each school's responsibility.

ERO should be applauded for making such a statement, for as Moltzen (1999) states "Frequently recognition of the needs of the gifted in a school can be tracked to one or two concerned staff members, or one or two parent advocates ... So if you are young, gifted and living in New Zealand, the degree to which your needs are catered for in the classroom is very much a matter of chance. Such inconsistency... within a single school is really just a reflection of the patchiness of provisions for the gifted between schools" (no page given). For such inconsistencies to be overcome, I believe we must clearly examine a continuum of opportunities for gifted children ... spanning from regular classroom services to specialised programmes across classrooms, and perhaps even schools and communities.

This continuum may be easier envisioned than realised, for if we closely examine this country's history of gifted education, as shaped by governmental reports such as this one, a recurrent theme is played out. Beginning in 1955 with the Department of Education's The Gifted Child in the Regular Classroom until their most recent 1972 publication, Children with Special Abilities: Suggestions for Teaching Gifted Children in Primary School, the message sent to educators has clearly been: teach the gifted child in the regular classroom, the responsibility lies upon individual teachers.

Now I'd never even attempt to argue against regular classroom identification and provision for gifted children: you don't have to be a mathematician to calculate that indeed the majority of their time in school is spent in the mainstream classroom! But shouldn't we begin to move beyond the walls of a regular classroom, beyond the skills of one teacher charged with catering to the needs of a rather diverse population of students? If the 1972 publication" ...encapsulate(d) the thinking of the sixties..." (McAlpine & Reid, 1987, p. 330) what can be said for 1998? Perhaps a move forward? The ERO report not only recognises the legislative requirements of schools, as opposed to individual teachers, but also brings to light an array of the types of initiatives schools in NZ provide for gifted students... and beyond the regular classroom.

IDENTIFICATION, POLICIES, PROGRAMMING, AND MORE...
UNEARTHING THE ROOT

The report also examines "schools' responses to students with special abilities" (ERO, 1998, p. 9), featuring identification, policies, and programme initiatives. It is at this point in the report that I read with mixed emotions: sighs of relief, a puzzled brow of a perplexed "huh?", smiles of "good on ya." For as Moltzen (1999) points out, while there are many positives within the booklet, "...it has to be said that some of the material is questionable and some of it quite dated" (no page given). And I'd have to agree. Which takes me back to my rather mixed emotional response: for as Moltzen goes on to state, "in the absence of any 'official' direction, it is imperative that publications of this kind are up-to-date, reflecting the most relevant and recent research in the area, and that the material is applicable to New Zealand schools" (no page given).

Now I'll give ERO some credit here, for the report is written as if the information presented came directly from schools; however, the sources of the methods of identification and policy and programme examples given remain ambiguous. For example, though a multi-method approach to identification is implied and a range of options given, how often in New Zealand are the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking or the Ravens Progressive Matrices utilised? I'm not arguing that they aren't in vogue, for they may well be, I'm simply stating I want to know more. Teacher observation and nomination, as I recall and McAlpine supports (1996b), is the".. .most commonly used method or approach to identification..." (p. 73); however, the report vaguely mentions such, failing to recognise the use of teacher rating scales. Does this simply overlook the work of McAlpine and Reid (1996) in the development of the Teacher Observation Scales for Identifying Children with Special Abilities?

And what of the work of Taylor (1996, 1997) in the development of school policies? She suggests that policies include a rationale followed by a set of purposes and guidelines. Policies need to be clear and concise, yet comprehensive, in order to ensure potential success when implemented into practice. For if not, as Williams (1991) retrospectively states "some schools made real efforts to address the needs of these pupils but failed to give guidance ... schools ... defined the population but failed to provide guidelines to help teachers identify such pupils in their midst" (p.5).

The ERO booklet presents readers with "some examples of policy statements developed by schools" (1998, p. 10). But they are poor examples lacking scope, depth, and the guidance to which Williams refers. To reiterate Moltzen (1999), it is absolutely critical that the messages being sent to schools regarding the education of gifted students be current and reflective of both sound theory and practice. I beg to ask the question, did ERO do such in regard to policy development?

So let's see what recommendations are made regarding programmes for gifted students. Firstly, praise to ERO for recognising the merits of both enrichment and acceleration. Townsend (1996) states that "In spite of the overwhelming evidence of the positive effects of acceleration it remains relatively unused in educating gifted children in New Zealand" (p. 361). I was delighted to see that while this report seems to celebrate the use of enrichment, it does not negate the possibilities of acceleration. Both are featured via in-class intervention, withdrawal programmes, and ability grouping.

The report describes a number of educational options for gifted students; however, had ERO done their homework readers might have been presented with a more succinct and accurate picture of gifted education. The terms used and definitions given are confusing. For example, the term extension is described as being either lateral or vertical, adjectives also used to define enrichment and acceleration (Townsend, 1996). A dichotomy is made between primary and secondary withdrawal programmes; yet in definition a withdrawal programme is a withdrawal programme is a withdrawal programme. While a continuum is offered, it is blurred by inaccuracy in both terms and definitions.

Finally, this section of the report presents a series of eight case studies, intended as examples of good practice. A variety of approaches are offered with coverage of primary, intermediate, and secondary school programmes. Fictitious names are given to the schools but demographics are stated to be "real contextual information" (ERO, 1998, p.18). Though I was pleased to see reference to school programmes within a New Zealand setting, I couldn't help but wonder as I read them "are these intended as recipes for educating the gifted?" For if they are indeed recipes, I fear some of the cuisine offered to New Zealand's gifted students may be half­ cooked and lacking sufficient nutrients for growth. It must be recognised that the ingredients of a programme for gifted students are far more important than the recipe!

Those ingredients include identification, policies, and programme options. New Zealand theory and research (McAlpine, 1996b) supports the notion of multi-method approaches to identification and this report appears to as well.

Schools should have policies in place which clearly spell out the definition, identification, programmes, resources, professional development, and evaluation procedures.

Programme options should encompass both enrichment and acceleration as spelled out by Townsend (1996) who states"... these two approaches are not mutually exclusive and ... it is essential for us to adopt an integrated approach to the education of gifted students" (p.361). An assortment of opportunities both within individual classes and entire schools is optimal. The ERO report endorses all these notions; yet it is questionable as to whether the endorsement is adequate, much less reflective of contemporary theory and practice.

GETTING TO THE ISSUES: SOMETIMES IT TAKES A TREE SURGEON!

The report takes readers straight to key issues related to the education of gifted children in New Zealand: critical success factors, issues related to provision, cultural considerations, and professional development. These are the real nitty-gritties of gifted education that should be woven into the fabric of what is offered to our students with special abilities. Each constitutes a crucial thread as recognised by ERO through their inclusion in the report.

Yet, each of these issues, when thoroughly examined, may well require specialist knowledge, experience, and skill in order to adequately strip back the bark and get to the core B or heartwood. While ERO does address them, it is unfortunate that some aspects weren't tackled in a deeper discussion embedded in the previous section related to policies and programming. It's almost as if these serious considerations were tacked on; for example, a discussion ensues of identification issues long after the introduction of identification tools and methods. The discussion is shallow, only addressing peer identification and the need for a mix of both objective and subjective data gathering in order to create student profiles, with later mention of cultural issues. Why weren't these points made earlier in the piece and more fully?

For the first time in the document it seems that New Zealand educators were strongly relied upon, with reference made to the works of Bevan-Brown, Reid, and McAlpine; however, justice is not fully done regarding their contributions to the field. Some of the information given seems almost to be taken out of context, skimmed for easy reading, bent and shaped to fit ERO's purposes.

As an example, following the discussion of cultural issues, only two points are labelled "paramount" (ERO, 1998, p. 38): identification and provision. However, at the conclusion of Bevan-Brown's (1996) chapter on a Maori concept of giftedness, she describes and supports five recommendations: consultation with Maori, strong school-whanau networks, culturally appropriate and challenging identification methods and programmes, encouragement and development of Maoritanga, and teacher training to increase knowledge of Maori culture, and particularly Maori children with special abilities. While each of these to some degree encapsulate identification and programming for Maori children with special abilities, they remain relevant pieces of an entire puzzle and deserve recognition of a greater degree than given.

And such is the case with other "considerations" addressed. Acknowledgement of the necessity for teacher training is indeed given, but again, in a superficial manner. While I wholeheartedly support the professional development of teachers in the parameters described by ERO, I still question how a school is expected to successfully provide such support based upon the information given. Simply put, its not enough. Not when, as I stated in a presentation earlier this year, "…all teachers are in fact teachers of gifted children" (Riley, 1999, no page given).

If all teachers are teachers of gifted children then ERO is right on target when it states that "Professional development can provide teachers with increased awareness and understanding of the support and advice they can offer such students" (1998, p. 39). But where do teachers go for such support? Who gives the advice? What and where are the resources? The intent is good, but the pathway isn't given.

LET'S START THE DEBATE!

The previous sentence perhaps sums up my view of ERO's report on gifted children. I was pleased by their initiative to address policies and practices in gifted education, but disappointed in the result. The final picture given lacks focus upon the wealth of knowledge and resources available to New Zealand educators in the establishment of policies and programmes for our gifted children. The "know-how" is here, in the people and history of Aotearoa, yet ERO failed to provide an avenue between kiwi ingenuity and the real world pragmatics of our education system.

Yet, all flaws aside, Working with Students with Special Abilities clearly started a debate. It is my theory that ERO's initiative sparked the Ministry of Education into action. In 1998 they established a Gifted Education Advisory Group, resulting in the development of national guidelines in 1999, with release to schools in 2000. Just last week, the Government released in its Next Steps initiatives a provision for professional development in gifted education to develop "top teachers" in New Zealand. Gifted education appears to be back in the spotlight - receiving at last the attention it deserves.

ERO must be credited for starting the debate. The time has come for advocates and educators to respond. And will we? Will we ride the wave toward getting to the heartwood... or crash upon the beach? For gifted education in New Zealand to move forward, we must embrace, celebrate, become an essential ingredient in the debate. As educators and advocates of New Zealand's gifted children we must recognise that in the heartwood we won't find individual theorists or practitioners, but the gifted child.

And if we work together, rely upon one another, share ideas, then the centre of the tree will encapsulate all the other concentric rings, finally branching out. A gifted child is there, just waiting to blossom into the springtime of his or her education, bearing not just beauty, but fruit, for the people of our country. "Rurea, taitea, kia toitu, ko taikaka anake. Strip away the bark. Expose the heartwood. Get to the heart of the matter."



REFERENCES

Bevan-Brown, J. (1996). Special abilities: A Maori perspective. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds.), Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (pp. 91-110). Palmerston North: Massey University ERDC Press.
Education Review Office. (1998). Working with students with special abilities. Wellington: ERO.
George, D. (1992). The challenge of the able child. London: David Fulton Pub Ltd.
McAlpine, D. (1996a). Who are the gifted and talented? Concepts and definitions. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds.), Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (pp. 23-42). Palmerston North: Massey University ERDC Press.
McAlpine, D. (1996b). The identification of children with special abilities. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds.), Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (pp. 63-90). Palmerston North: Massey University ERDC Press.
McAlpine, D. (1990). Spotting the silent achiever: Identifying children with special abilities. Education Today, 1(3),23-26.
McAlpine, D. & Reid, N. (1996). Teacher observation scales for children with special abilities. Wellington: NZCER & Palmerston North: Massey University ERDC Press.
McAlpine, D. & Reid, N. (1987). The gifted and talented. In D.R. Mitchell & N. Singh (Eds.), Exceptional children in New Zealand. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Moltzen, R. (1999). To be young, gifted and living in New Zealand. Invited keynote address at Inside­Out: Understanding the Needs of Gifted Children, national conference of the Christchurch Association for Gifted Children, Christchurch.
Moltzen, R. (1996a). Historical perspectives. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds.), Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (pp. 1-22). Palmerston North: Massey University ERDC Press.
Moltzen, R. (1996b ). Shaking off our inferiority complex. Paper presented at the conference of the Australian Association for Gifted Children.
Moltzen, R. (1996c). Characteristics of gifted children. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds.), Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (pp. 91-110). Palmerston North: Massey University ERDC Press.
Riley, T.L. (1999). It takes two to tango: Creating and maintaining positive partnerships between parents and teachers. Invited keynote address at Inside-Out: Understanding the Needs of Gifted Children, national conference of the Christchurch Association for Gifted Children, Christchurch.
Taylor, S. (1997). Writing school policies for gifted children. Paper presented at Gifted Vision, national conference of the Otago Association for Gifted Children.
Taylor, S. (1996). A school or early childhood centre policy on children with special abilities. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds.) Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (pp. 111-120). Palmerston North: Massey University ERDC Press.
Townsend, M. (1996). Enrichment and acceleration: Lateral and vertical perspectives in provisions for gifted and talented children. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds.) Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (pp. 361-376). Palmerston North: Massey University ERDC Press.
Williams, B. (1991). A glance back and a glimpse ahead: Some recollections and recommendations of a former senior inspector of schools. APEX. , 4(3),3-9.