YOUNG, GIFTED AND LIVING IN NEW ZEALAND

ROGER MOLTZEN
University of Waikato

As we approach the end of the millennium it is obviously an appropriate time to review the education of the gifted in Aotearoa/New Zealand. This review focuses on a number of key issues that have characterised our attitudes and approaches to the education of gifted students in this country. How our society responds to these in the future will have a significant bearing on the place afforded gifted education in the next century. To those of us who have a commitment to advancing the cause of the gifted, it is important that we understand the attitudes and actions that have constrained our movement forward, and to take opportunities to challenge these in an informed and intelligent manner. However, it is equally important to identify and celebrate the positive changes that have occurred, especially in the last decade, and to constructively build on those.

Each of the identified issues is introduced by way of a case study, demonstrating how particular perspectives may translate into actual practice.

Case Study 1
Justine is 12 years old and attends a large urban intermediate school. Justine was identified as intellectually gifted during her first year at school. She has been out-of-step academically with her age peers from the time she first started school. The intermediate school she attends has never had a formal policy on providing for its gifted students, and generally it has been left to individual classroom teachers to provide any differentiation. However, due to pressure from a group of parents the school has made the decision to debate their future direction in this area. This debate has centred on a range of educational options for Justine and the others in the school of like ability. Majority opinion held that a separate class was the option that was in the best interests of this group of students, but it was rejected out of hand on the grounds that it was 'elitist' and represented 'academic apartheid'.

It is intriguing how many countries claim that a history of egalitarian attitudes underpins resistance to differentiated provisions for their gifted. There is certainly considerable evidence that in New Zealand egalitarianism is a 'cultural cornerstone', and such strong adherence to the notion is often cited as antithetical to achieving equitable educational provisions for gifted students. It seems there are two core interpretations of this ideology that have worked against the interests of bright young New Zealanders. The first is the oft-cited creed that all people are born equal. The second is a commitment to equality of educational outcomes.

The idea that all people are created equal in terms of social and legal justice, or even 'in the sight of God', would meet with little opposition. However, the belief that all people are created equal in terms of abilities, is simply absurd, and clearly naive in the extreme. Thomas Huxley called this, "An utterly baseless fiction". Oliver Wendell Holmes defined this type of equality as, "Merely idealising envy". The idea that we are all born equal in terms of potential across all areas of human endeavour is certainly appealing, and it may represent the world as we would like it to be, but it simply does not reflect the world as it is.

There is little doubt that in New Zealand we accept that not all people are created equal with respect to their physical capabilities. Most people recognise that some individuals are born with specific physical attributes that provide them with a disposition towards higher achievement in certain domains of physical activity.

Consequently, we have little difficulty as a society accepting that we need to provide differentially for those with such abilities. Our problem seems to be in accepting that some children are born with the potential for higher intellectual and creative performance than their peers. The idea that one group may have an innate 'advantage' over others in these areas seems antithetical to our collective value system.

The word gifted itself is often used apologetically. In fact, approaches that dilute the concept of giftedness are readily embraced. We have even invented an indigenous nomenclature to avoid having the word gifted pass our lips viz. Children with Special Abilities. Of course another way around this problem is to declare that every child is gifted, a claim commonly espoused by teachers (and often, it must be said, as a defence for providing nothing in particular for those who really are). Few would argue that every child is a gift, and that every child has a special ability. However, to claim every child is gifted is truly nonsensical.

In New Zealand we have a proud record of initiatives aimed at improving the educational outcomes for those who begin their schooling with some disadvantage. The resources dedicated to this end, especially more recently, have been considerable. Such efforts are justified and commendable. However, the converse side of this seems to be a belief that the gifted start school with an advantage, and for this reason it would be inequitable to add advantage to advantage by providing special programmes for them. To some the solution to achieving equality of outcome is to cut down the tall poppies, so we end up with an educational bed of flowers as uniform in height as possible. Critics of providing differentially for the gifted fear that it lays the foundation for a meritocracy, where the well-born and well-endowed become the ruling class.

It is difficult to estimate how widespread such thinking is, but there is little doubt that it is often articulated by those with power and influence, and as such continues to have a significant impact on attitudes towards the gifted and their education. It is important not to just dismiss such an ideology, but to confront and challenge it. We must continue to point out that the educational aims of equity and excellence are not incompatible. We must resist attempts at 'dumbing down' the curriculum by those who seek to ensure no child crosses any finishing line ahead of any other.

Case Study 2
Hugh is 11 years old and his favourite activity is reading. At lunch time he can be found in a corner of his classroom reading a book; until a teacher on playground duty finds him and orders him outside to 'play'. During classroom discussions Hugh wants to share ideas, often derived from his reading, but these usually draw rounds of mirth and ridicule from his classmates. If they are intimidated by his intellectual superiority, they take the opportunity to point out the inadequacies of his physical skills whenever they are exposed. Hugh is the person no group wants in their sports' team. Not only is he lacking in eye-hand coordination, he has absolutely no interest in sport, and would gladly exempt himself from any such activity. The difficulty is that this is what 'counts' amongst Hugh’s peers, and consequently he is always on the outer. The social outlook for Hugh into adolescence looks increasingly bleak.

In New Zealand we have a history of admiration of physical prowess, but almost a disdain of intellectual ability, and to a slightly lesser extent of creative flair. In Pakeha society at least, this attitude can be traced back to our pioneering heritage, where the land was harsh, and the most valued abilities were those of muscle and brawn. It is interesting that the most popular pastimes in this country are not in music or the arts, but sport. Of these, our most popular is a game that is extremely physical. There is little doubt this works against our gifted youngsters, especially males, who have little interest and/or ability in physical games, and who prefer intellectual or creative pursuits. These children are often the victims of the negative stereotyping associated with anti-intellectualism. They frequently find themselves socially isolated because they fail to meet a prerequisite for admission to the peer group.

If you are young, gifted and also good at sport, your chances of being accepted by your peers are greatly enhanced. At school you will be recognised for your sporting achievements and high performance in this area will be cause for celebration. Similarly high achievement in academic areas is unlikely to attract the same recognition, and consequently many students mask their performance because they know such achievement does not equate with peer group popularity. It appears schools themselves have become less and less comfortable with honouring high academic achievement.

It is clear that such attitudes reflect the broader values of our society. There are some very subtle ways this value system is inculcated into our young people. For example, if an ex pupil of a high school wins selection to a national sports team, and particularly if this team is the All Blacks, there will almost certainly be a framed picture of that individual hanging in a prominent position in the school. It is much more rare for a high achiever in science, or mathematics, or literature, or even in art or music to be afforded such recognition. It is important that our children's role models are not dominated by sporting heroes. Our schools need to develop a culture where outstanding academic and creative achievement is celebrated without apology.

Case Study 3
Mai is seven and is extremely able interpersonally. Her teacher reports that she seems to accurately interpret the feelings and intentions of others in a manner more characteristic of children much older then she is. Not only does she accurately interpret these feelings, she displays high levels of empathy and is frequently arguing issues of justice and fairness on behalf of her classmates. She also demonstrates the ability to anticipate potential conflict situations and find ways to diffuse these before they develop further. Although of average ability intellectually, Mai is considered gifted in her school. She is one of a small group identified as 'interpersonally" gifted, and opportunities and experiences are deliberately planned for Mai to exercise and develop this special ability.

Giftedness is commonly seen as a social construct. Such a perspective holds that those who are considered gifted are individuals who possess abilities in domains that are valued by a particular community at a particular point in time. In ancient Sparta, for example, military skills were highly valued and giftedness was seen in terms of fighting skills and leadership. In Renaissance Europe the creatively gifted were esteemed, and certainly well rewarded materially. In traditional Maori society qualities, such as humility and aroha were prized, alongside abilities such as leadership and artistic skill (Bevan-Brown, 1996).

In New Zealand schools, definitions of giftedness have changed considerably over the past 30 years, and many, like the one Mai attends, have readily embraced a more inclusive approach to the concept. Arguably, this is compatible with our egalitarian attitudes. Up until the 1960s giftedness was viewed as equating with high intelligence, and the latter it was held, could readily be ascertained from the results of intelligence testing. Consistent with developments in other countries, the 1970s and 80s saw a broadening of definitions of giftedness. The more conservative of these retained a category of intellectual giftedness, but were expanded to include special ability in the arts, specific academic subjects, leadership, creative and productive thinking and physical activities. Some more liberal definitions were based on the view that the categories of endeavour from which giftedness could be considered were almost unlimited, and the proponents of such models maintained that many more children should be viewed as gifted than was the case previously.

Most recently Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences has become the preferred model of many schools to defining giftedness (see Gardner, 1998). Gardner proposed seven, then eight, and now nine different categories of ability: logical-mathematical, linguistic, musical, spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, bodily-kinaesthetic, naturalist and existential. There is not space here to explore these and their application to defining giftedness, but one only has to search the internet to find multiple examples of how schools are using this approach.

So where does that leave you if you are young, gifted and living in New Zealand? Certainly there are many children who would be considered by their schools to be gifted today, who would never met the group's entry criteria 20 or 30 years ago. As noted earlier, some schools have expanded their interpretation of giftedness to include the entire school population. The proponents of this approach argue that everyone wins. In reality, the gifted child loses.

There is no universal definition of what constitutes giftedness, and certainly we have no national definition. If giftedness is viewed as socially constructed, then arguably the lack of a prescribed definition is a positive thing. It means that interpretations of giftedness can be adapted to reflect the values and needs of a particular community. Some would maintain such an approach provides a safeguard against ethnocentric definitions that reinforce the values of the dominant cultural group.

However, while there may be dangers in assuming a very narrow and exclusive approach to giftedness, there can be greater dangers in broadening it too far. At least within a narrow definition usually the most gifted will be included. Within a very broad definition the exceptionally gifted run the risk of being viewed in the same way a child who has a talent in a single and specific domain. In reality they are probably poles apart in their nature and needs.

Case Study 4
Jason is an eight year old boy who is having a great year. His mother reports that their home has been transformed this year, and solely because Jason has a teacher who has recognised that he is gifted and has the knowledge, skills and willingness to provide appropriately for these. Jason, like so many of his intellectual peers, needs his 'intellectual fix' or else his becomes extremely frustrated, sometimes aggressive and is placed at great risk of becoming a hard core underachiever. This year is atypical in Jason’s school experience. In his second year at school he had a teacher who listened to his parents when they shared that they believed he might be gifted. This teacher, and Jason’s current teacher, became interested in gifted children through having gifted children of their own. Jason and his family are making the most of this year, but in the back of their minds lurks the concern about next year.

This example is characteristic of provisions for the gifted in this country. At a school level, whether or not a child receives some form of special provision is frequently determined by the interest and expertise of an individual teacher, and as such can vary from year to year. It is hard to imagine this situation occurring in other areas of education. Imagine if a curriculum area, such as mathematics, was omitted from the classroom programme every other year. Or where a child with a disability only received support when he or she was fortunate enough to encounter a teacher who was sufficiently interested and skilled to provide it. (In fact the Ministry of Education has obviously been so concerned about this scenario occurring for learners with special education needs they have dedicated large amounts of money to support initiatives to offer professional development to every teacher and principal in the country, to ensure consistency and appropriateness of provision. It is worth mentioning that this initiative excludes professional development in the special needs of gifted students.)

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. These people frequently provide the impetus for new initiatives, but when they leave, the developments they have been responsible for often follow close behind. A further reason why programmes for the gifted are so vulnerable to dis-establishment is their very nature. These programmes are very often' add-ons', rather than central to the culture or philosophy of the school.

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 of provision between classrooms within a single school is really just a reflection of the patchiness of provisions for the gifted between schools. While it is certainly fair to say that the educational reforms of the past decade have improved the lot for many of our gifted students (Moltzen, 1992), the absence of any national requirements or even direction in this area has meant that in many schools little, if anything, is targeted specifically at this group.

However, there is reason for optimism. First, the Education Review Office (ERO) must be commended for the role it has taken in raising the profile of the gifted. Anecdotal evidence suggests that as part of the review process many reviewers are focusing on provisions for the gifted and requiring schools to defend their gifted programmes, or lack of them. Unfortunately, some reviewers appear to demonstrate a serious lack of knowledge in this area and do require to be brought up to speed. Nonetheless, recognition of the specific learning needs of the gifted by ERO is encouraging, and mention must be made of the efforts of the Chief Reviewer Dr Judith Aitkin, who has consistently advocated in this direction. Along with another bouquet must go a brickbat. ERO are to be complimented for the publication last year of the booklet, Working with Students with Special Abilities (Education Review Office, 1998). There are many things about this booklet that are positive, but it has to be said that some of the material is questionable and some of it quite dated. 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.

Over many years there has been a strong call by those closely associated with the education of the gifted in New Zealand for the Ministry of Education to implement a national policy that requires schools identify and provide for their most able students. One of the cornerstones of our devolved system of educational administration is to limit to as few as possible the number of policies imposed from the 'centre'. Consistent with this principle, the Ministry of Education will not develop a national policy on gifted education. However, they have established a working party on gifted education to oversee the writing and publication of a set of guidelines that will be distributed to all schools in the country. The purpose of this initiative is to provide an outline of some general principles and practices that should be considered in the development of school-based programmes. This will represent the first official publication offering advice and direction on educating gifted students from the Department of Education/Ministry of Education since 1972. The significance of this development should not be underestimated and credit must go to those involved within the Ministry, but tribute must also be paid to the many parents, teachers, academics, psychologists, etc., who have advocated for some national direction in gifted education over a very long period of time.

However, the positive impact of providing schools with such guidelines will only be effective if their distribution coincides with two other moves. The first of these involves ERO, who, it is hoped, will reinforce the principles and practices contained in the guidelines, both explicitly, in terms of specific review criteria, and implicitly, by encouraging schools towards creating a climate of acceptance and awareness of gifted students and their special needs. The other critical factor is provision of an ongoing and comprehensive programme of professional development.

Case Study 5
Nathan is 13 years old and in his third year at high school. Nathan was accelerated prior to commencing high school and is younger than all his classmates. His parents enrolled him at this school because it operates gifted classes at every level. The staff at this school is very well-intentioned, and felt that they could best cater for their most able students by grouping them together. It is just unfortunate that to many teachers the adjustment they make to their programme when working with these classes involves increasing the quantity of work, rather than making adjustments to nature of the teaching/learning process. When Nathan and his classmates were asked how their experiences in the gifted class differed from their experiences in regular classes, their comments were in the main positive. However, they said that the single biggest change, was not in the increased challenge, or different approaches to learning, or opportunities to pursue areas of interest, or a focus on problem solving, or opportunities for research, etc., but the increased amount of work they were expected to do.

Case Study 6
Edith is a gifted 11 year old, and is having a better time than probably any other student in her class. If you ask her teacher the approach that is being taken to meet Edith s needs she will tell you she uses 'enrichment'. Enrichment is frequently mentioned in the literature as a valid approach to meeting the needs of the gifted, especially within the regular classroom. There are no special programmes for Edith outside the regular classroom, which is probably the case for many of our gifted students, and especially those in smaller schools. (Braggett (1992) suggests people feel comfortable with enrichment because it operates within the classroom, and he maintains that as a result it would be difficult to find a school in Australia or New Zealand that does not mention enrichment and its merits in its guidelines for provisions.) In Edith’s room enrichment is almost a reward for 'early finishers '. Finishing your working before the majority in this classroom gains you access to additional activities, which are usually very similar to what has already been completed, except they are more interesting and exciting. Such enrichment is not an extension of existing knowledge, but rather, more interesting ways of working at the same level. There are some children in Edith’s class who will never access these fun' activities. Lucky Edith accesses them almost every day.

Here we have two examples of teachers who are attempting to provide differentially for their more able students, but whose efforts are misguided. Negative attitudes certainly work against the gifted in this country, but a greater constraint to the development of appropriate educational provisions for these children results from ignorance, rather than arrogance. Many teachers have the willingness to cater for the needs of these students, but lack the knowledge and skills to be able to do so successfully. At a preservice level, courses that focus on understanding, identifying and programming for gifted learners tend to be minimal. Teacher training courses in gifted education are almost always optional, and any compulsory coverage is usually included in a single module within a special education course. On a more positive note, the undergraduate and graduate 'gifted' courses offered by the University of Waikato and Massey University have attracted a steadily increasing number of enrolments in recent years.

Our record of inservice professional development in this aspect of education is appalling. In this regard the gifted must surely represent the most neglected group in our school system. Again, while the circulation of 'guidelines' to all our schools holds promise for gifted learners, if this is not accompanied with a carefully planned and implemented programme of professional development the initiative may will be tantamount to planting seeds, failing to water them, but still expecting a yield of fruit.

The lack of support for both teachers and parents of gifted children is a continued cause for concern. The contract the Specialist Education Service (SES) has with the Ministry of Education has excluded support to gifted students since this agreement was first struck (unless, of course, a gifted child has special needs in an area that does qualify for SES support). It is acknowledged that the role of the SES has changed very recently and it is probably less appropriate for this agency to support to gifted students. The trend towards providing schools with the resources and the freedom to purchase services from providers themselves offers some hope for our gifted students.

Throughout our educational history there seems to have been an inherent belief that programmes for gifted students comes without a cost. This attitude seems to exist both at a national level, and at an individual school level. One would be hard pressed to find initiatives of any significance funded by the former Department of Education or the current Ministry of Education, which specifically targeted gifted students. Sometimes caveats are added to grants to ensure that the gifted do not benefit, such as with the recently established Special Education Grant (SEG). The Ministry of Education's guidelines outlining how this grant may be used states that gifted children fall outside their criteria, unless of course they qualify under some other category of special need.

Case Study 7
Although his parents suspected it when he was young, it was not until Brent was in his second year at high school that a teacher suggested that he might be gifted. Brent has a learning difficulty and his struggles with reading, writing and spelling have effectively masked his special ability. This special ability was sometimes evident in Brent’s oral language, but in the absence of any formal approaches to identifying gifted students with learning difficulties in the schools Brent attended, such glimpses were either missed, or not taken as indicative of anything atypical.

There are a number of groups of young gifted New Zealand children who are significantly underrepresented amongst those identified as gifted. Brent represents one of these groups. Students with disabilities in general are consistently overlooked as having the potential to also be gifted. The scope of this neglect is reflected in a survey conducted by Eisenberg and Epstein (1981) who asked teachers of 60,000 children with disabilities in New York City to nominate children who could be included in a gifted programme. They failed to receive a single nomination for this programme. However, following inservice training with teachers on the characteristics and needs of the gifted with disabilities, nominations were received.

Although we lack the hard data to support the claim that if you are a gifted Maori student you are less likely to be identified and subsequently provided for, there is little doubt that this is the case. To a large extent this can be attributed to attitudes associated with cultural stereotyping that, unfortunately, are very resistant to change. For the greater part of this century Pakeha have been largely ignorant of how giftedness is viewed from a Maori perspective, and have lacked an appreciation of the most appropriate means to identify and cater for gifted Maori students. The recent work of Bevan-Brown (1996) has given us a foundation of understanding in this area, which will hopefully provide the basis for the inclusion of many more Maori children in gifted programmes.

There is certainly overseas evidence to indicate that gifted children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are also much less likely to be identified (e.g. Alamprese and Erlanger, 1988; Patton, Prillaman and Van Tassel-Baska, 1990). In the same way that children with disabilities and Maori children fall outside the stereotype what constitutes the gifted child, so too do children from low socioeconomic backgrounds. We need also to review how the gifted are identified, as some methods are certainly less effective in recognising the gifted amongst those from less 'advantaged' backgrounds.

It will take a concerted effort to change the attitudes that exclude children from these and other minority groups from those regarded as potentially gifted. It will also take a similar effort to educate teachers to be able to identify gifted children from these groups. However, failure to do this will only serve to reinforce the myth that the gifted can only be found amongst the white middle class and at that point education of the gifted can probably legitimately be defined as an elitist activity.

Case Study 8
When Marcie’s parents enrolled her at her new school they were given a form to complete which asked them, amongst other things, to provide information about Marcie’s interests and hobbies, any special abilities, her favourite books and the like. This not-so-cleverly-disguised questionnaire is part of the approach Marcie’s school takes to identifying students with special abilities. The school uses a variety of methods to identify gifted students, but places great importance on the information provided by parents. Recently Marcie’s mother has been invited to join a group of trustees and teachers to review the school’s policy on gifted education.

Marcie's school recognises that probably the most important way to identify the gifted is by listening to their parents. Hopefully, the erroneous notion that most parents overestimate their children's abilities is a myth that is gradually becoming extinct. In general New Zealand schools take a multifaceted approach to identification, which is commendable. However, it is frequently an unsystematic and informal process and one that relies very heavily on teacher observation and 'gut feeling'. Teachers seem to have developed an almost universal scepticism of testing in general and of standardised testing in particular. Many teachers view intelligence testing with even greater suspicion, and while some of the oft-cited shortcomings of these tests are valid, the arguments tabled which dismiss their use out of hand are frequently uninformed and lacking in substance.

The last decade has seen a general increase in the involvement of parents in educational decision-making. This trend has definitely worked to the advantage of the gifted in many schools. There is clear evidence that this greater voice given to parents has increased the level of advocacy for gifted students (Mol1zen, 1992). Research by Mol1zen and Mitchell (1992) demonstrates that parents on boards of trustees tend to have higher expectations of provisions for the gifted than many teachers and principals.

It is imperative parents of gifted students take the opportunities to be involved in the educational decision-making process. Rather than just advocating for the gifted from the sidelines, parents of these children need to become involved in the mainstream of education and argue for change from the inside.

Case Study 9
Leon is a gifted 10 year old who attends a school where the preferred context for catering for the special needs associated with his advanced development is the regular classroom. This has been a deliberate choice made by the staff and parents of the school, and does not represent a default option, as is so often the case. The school examined all the possible alternatives and came to the conclusion that it was not outside the abilities of their regular class teachers to provide the majority of the differentiation required to offer appropriate learning experiences for their gifted students.

To be young, gifted and living in New Zealand means that you will almost certainly spend most of your school life in the regular classroom with your same-age peers. There is little to suggest our preference for this way of educating our gifted will change going into the new century. Often in primary schools like the one Leon attends, this approach is supplemented with a withdrawal programme. To some the regular classroom represents a most restrictive environment in which to cater effectively for the gifted; but is this necessarily so? New Zealand teachers, especially our primary school teachers, have a greater ability than many of their counterparts in other countries to put the principles of learner-centred teaching into practice. It is not difficult to find examples of teachers skilfully catering for gifted students within the regular classroom. However, probably only a minority of teachers possess the knowledge and skills to undertake this task competently.

To achieve significant gains for the greatest number of gifted children in the next century we must make as a priority the preparation of every teacher to be a teacher of the gifted. This is not to suggest that the regular classroom is the only context in which to effectively teach the gifted, or that on its own it represents the complete answer to providing for all gifted children.

Over recent years there seems to have been some growth in the number of schools opting to provide separate full-time classes for their gifted students. This practice is almost nonexistent in New Zealand primary schools, but examples of separate classes for gifted students can be found in an increasing number of intermediate schools and there has been some growth of these classes in secondary schools. While this approach has been used by some intermediate and secondary schools for many years, the recent increased acceptance of separate classes for more able students can almost certainly be attributed to factors associated with the educational reforms of the 1990s (Keown, McGee and Oliver, 1992). In this context competition between schools appears to be a critical factor. Some schools openly admit the approach makes good sense in the 'educational marketplace'. This option for gifted students is often perceived to have the potential to attract more high achieving students to a school and some advocates of the approach argue these classes provide a positive 'shop window' to the public (Moltzen, 1992). Some secondary schools are attracted to this approach because it is anticipated it will yield improved examination results.

Any debate on the most appropriate educational provisions for gifted students almost always includes acceleration. As Southern and Jones (1991) point out, acceleration is an educational issue about which almost everybody appears to have a strong opinion. To most people acceleration means skipping classes; the promotion of a child to a level beyond their age peers. If you are young, gifted and living in New Zealand there is only a limited chance that you will be accelerated in this manner. If you are, then almost certainly it will only be a single class level advancement, whatever your ability. New Zealand teachers tend to have extremely conservative attitudes towards this practice (Townsend and Patrick, 1993). Yet the literature on the subject provides overwhelming support for this form of acceleration, pointing to short- and long-term benefits both academically and socially (e.g. Benbow, 1991; Braggett, 1992; Gallagher, 1969; Kulik & Kulik, 1984, 1992; Reynolds, Birch & Tuseth, 1962; Southern & Jones, 1991; Van Tassel-Baska, 1986, 1992).

Such evidence is compelling, however, the case for acceleration may not be quite that cut and dried. As Bailey (1997) points out, the dominance of findings based on groups of accelerated students may mask some of the difficulties experienced by individuals. He suggests that the reluctance of schools to accelerate gifted students may have some basis in fact, and argues that case study research may paint a truer picture of the affects. In the New Zealand system, where learner-centred education is not just espoused but it is widely practised, the need to move gifted children to achieve a better match of child to curriculum level may be not be as great as in some other countries. It is important to note that the New Zealand curriculum does not fix ages to levels, but provides the flexibility for children to work at levels above and below what may be considered the average level for an age group.

Acceleration is not a panacea to inappropriate curriculum. If there is no accompanying adjustment to the quality of the programme, gains will often be short-lived. An Australian study which tracked a group of accelerated students concluded it was "a temporary solution to addressing the needs of gifted students; without a differentiated curriculum which challenges the students and a teacher who is knowledgeable about the needs of gifted students, acceleration will not satisfy the gifted students" (Vialle, Ashton, Carlon, and Rankin, 1997, p.5).

While it is justified to exercise caution in accelerating students, there is no need to exercise such caution in accelerating curriculum. Any analysis of the efficacy of the various educational options for the gifted in New Zealand must rely heavily on overseas studies. While there has been some increase in New Zealand-based research in this field over recent years, it tends to be small-scale research, undertaken in the main by graduate students. There is a strong need for New Zealand studies of giftedness in general, but particularly studies focusing on educational provisions for this group of students.

CONCLUSION

If you are young, gifted and living in New Zealand, you have probably been born at the right time. There is little doubt that this decade has seen an increased acceptance of the special needs of the gifted and increased efforts by schools to provide for these. While these positive developments are by no means universal, initiatives are being taken to increase the likelihood that more schools will develop appropriate programmes for these students.

However, there is no room for complacency. Our record in this area is hardly an enviable one. There have been a number of occasions this century that seemed to hold great promise for our gifted students, but almost inevitably this promise was not fulfilled, and gains made seemed to disappear almost over night. Why does this happen? Developing the talent of our gifted children has always been, and probably always will be, a controversial issue in New Zealand. Gallagher and Weiss (1979) talk about society's love-hate relationship with giftedness. On one hand we admire the talent and motivation of the gifted, especially those who overcome the odds to achieve success. However, our egalitarian heritage, and the belief that 'all people are created equal' competes with any celebration of achievement. Gardner (1982) suggests this creates a tension between encouraging yet restraining individual accomplishment.

REFERENCES

Alamprese, J. A., and Erlanger, D. (1988). No gift wasted: effective strategies for educating highly able, disadvantaged students in mathematics and science. Vol 1: Findings. Washington DC: COSMOS Corporation.
Bailey, S. (1997). Doing acceleration: Fast but not loose. In J. Chan., E. Rex Li., and J. Spinks (Eds.). Maximising potential: Lengthening and strengthening our stride. Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children (pp. 60-65). Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong Social Science Research Centre.
Benbow, C. (1991). Meeting the needs of gifted students through the use of acceleration. In M. C. Wang, M. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.). Handbook of special education: Research and practice, Vol. 4. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Bevan-Brown, J. (1996). Special Abilities: A Maori Perspective. In D. McAlpine and R. Moltzen. (Eds.). Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (pp. 91-110). Palmerston North: ERDC Press.Palmerston North: ERDC Press.
Braggett, E. J. (1992). Pathways for accelerated learners. Hawker Brownlow Education: Australia.
Education Review Office (1998). Working with students with special abilities. Education Evaluation Reports:New Zealand.
Eisenberg, D., & Epstein, E. (1981). The discovery and development of giftedness in handicapped children. Paper presented at the CEC- TAG National Topics Conference on Gifted and Talented Children,Orlando, Florida.
Gallagher, J. (1969). Gifted children. In R. Ebel (Ed.). Encyclopedia of educational research. (4th ed.) (pp. 537-544). New York: Macmillan.
Gallagher, J.J., & Weiss, P. (1979). The education of gifted and talented children and youth. Washington,DC: Council for Basic Education.
Gardner, J. W. (1982).Excellence: can we be equal and excellent too.(2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Gardner, H. (1998).A multiplicity of intelligences. Scientific American, 9,4, 19-23.
Keown, P., McGee, C., and Oliver, D. (1992). National survey of secondary schools 1. In D. Mitchell(Ed.). Report No.5. Monitoring Today's Schools Research Project, University of Waikato.
Kulik, J. & Kulik, C. (1984). Effects of acceleration instruction on students. Review of Educational Research,54, 3, 409-425.
Kulik, J. & Kulik, C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programmes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36,73-77.
Mackenzie-Sykes, L. (1997). Acceleration: The real story. In J. Chan., E. Rex Li., and J. Spinks, (Eds.). Maximising potential: Lengthening and strengthening our stride. Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children (pp. 141-146). Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong Social Science Research Centre.
Moltzen, R.,and Mitchell, D. R. (1992). Children with special needs. In S. Middleton (Ed.). Report No. 6. Monitoring Today's Schools Research Project, University of Waikato.
Moltzen, R. (1992). The impact of reforms in education of provisions for gifted children. Master of Education Thesis. University of Waikato.
Patton, J. M., Prillaman, D., & Van Tassel-Baska, J.( 1990). The nature and extent of programs for the disadvantaged gifted in the United States and territories. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 94-96.
Reynolds, M., Birch, J., & Tuseth,A. (1962). Research on early admissions. In M. Reynolds, (Ed.). Early school admission for mentally advanced children (pp. 7-17) Reston, VA. Council for Exceptional Children.
Southern, W. & Jones, E. (Eds.). (1991). The academic acceleration of gifted children. New York:Teachers College Press
Townsend, M. & Patrick, H. (1993). Academic and psychosocial apprehensions of teachers and teacher trainees toward the educational acceleration of gifted children. New Zealand Journal of Education Studies, 28, 29-41.
Vialle, W., Ashton, T., Carlon., and Rankin, F. (1997, July/August). Acceleration: The good, the bad and the ugly. Paper presented at the 12th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children, Seattle, WA.
Van Tassel-Baska. J. (1986). Acceleration. In C.J. Maker, (Ed.). Critical issues in gifted education (pp.179-198). Rockville, MD: Aspen.
Van Tassel-Baska. J. (1992). Educational decision making on acceleration and grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 68-72.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Reprinted with the kind permission of the Christchurch and South Canterbury Associations for Gifted Children from the proceedings of Inside-Out: Understanding the Needs of Gifted Children.