GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS:
MEETING THEIR NEEDS IN NEW ZEALAND SCHOOLS
A CRITIQUE OF SELECTED ISSUES

VALERIE G MARGRAIN Victoria University

Congratulations must go to the Ministry of Education for their initiative in the publication of Gifted and Talented Students: Meeting Their Needs in New Zealand Schools (Ministry of Education, 2000a). The use of Moltzen, Riley, and McAlpine as authors shows the Ministry's recognition of valuable academic expertise available within New Zealand. However, there remains a group of people to whom acknowledgment remains at a minimal level: parents of gifted and talented students. (The term 'parents' is intended to be inclusive of parents, caregivers, whanau, and all those closely involved with the care of the students.) Despite the rhetoric of equity, consultation and meeting individual needs, the record of provision for gifted and talented students is "hardly one to be proud of” (Moltzen, 1996a, p. 17). Presenting our failures more honestly may affirm the need for immediate attention to gifted and talented issues. Identification of clear sources of funding will also be necessary to facilitate the needed implementation. This article is based on the premise that although the publication of guidelines is to be applauded, constructive critique has an important function.

FROM A PARENTAL PERSPECTIVE

The introduction of Gifted and Talented Students refers to "conclusive and irrefutable" research which demonstrates gifted and talented students' needs as not being met (p.6). Outcomes are cited as including "boredom, frustration, mediocrity, and even hostility" (p.6). This is not 'news' to parent groups. Parents have long described their children's boredom, frustration and anger with dry, boring and mediocre school experiences (Cathcart, 1994; Fraser, 1996; Freeman, 1992; Hendy-Harris, 1990; Price, 1995). The parental need to support "an increasingly unhappy, stressed and frustrated child capable of so much, and gradually turned into a child at risk" is an unfortunately frequent occurrence (Cathcart, 1994, cited in Fraser, 1996, p. 445). For example, the experience of beginning school was described by the parents of precocious readers as "a time of intense anxiety and unhappiness. Challenges were low, books 'banal and repetitive', and the word 'boring' used repeatedly" (Margrain, 1998, p. 42).

The Ministry of Education could have more clearly highlighted the diverse and sometimes difficult experiences of gifted and talented students within the document as part of the rationale for meeting students' needs. New Zealand's 'tall poppy' syndrome may be so entrenched that more forceful descriptors of the failure to date are necessary to dispel prevalent myths; Gifted and Talented Students provided a rare opportunity for this.

Gifted and Talented Students does note that parents may serve as catalysts for the realisation of talent, and that involvement of parents in the identification process is critical. However, further highlighting the essential the role of the parent as supporter and advocate for the child would have been beneficial. Literature suggests that, in the absence of school supports, parents have done an admirable job of becoming 'core service providers'. This is not only through out-of-school activities and home schooling, but through provision of a responsive environment. As the child's first teacher, the parent has identified abilities and needs, and nurtured the child's gift. Weiss (1985, p.30) affirms parents as "the most important person in the preschooler's life and ... the first teachers."

Parents should be highlighted more strongly as a resource for teachers. Although parents of gifted and talented children are noted on page ten of Gifted and Talented Students as individuals that may contribute to professional development, there is a probability that school staff may assume the parent only has knowledge of their own child's abilities and experiences. Often, however, the parent of a gifted child has greater understanding of gifted education ­perhaps through years of associated reading, research and organisational membership - than any staff member, and potentially as much as (more respected) invited speakers for professional development. Using parents, and the wider community, as a resource for the school is great public relations, economical, and pure common sense.

Consultation with parents and a 'team approach' is certainly presented as an ideal approach in several sections of Gifted and Talented Students. Although the importance of consultation is not refuted, this writer also contends that clarification of the difference between 'mere' communication and 'true' collaboration would have been a helpful addition to the document. Communication is often, in reality, a 'top-down' model- wherein parents are 'informed' (if they are lucky!) of what the school is going to do. In a truly collaborative model, in an ideal world, the expertise of parents and community groups would be recognised to be of such value that parties would work in partnership to develop and evaluate programmes both on school-wide and individual bases. This can only be effective and honest collaboration if both parties value the contribution of the other.

No doubt many will assert that according to charters and policies collaborative practices do occur. However, attempts by parents to collaborate with teachers "are not always met with alacrity", and parents are sometimes encouraged to "stop rocking the boat and to refrain from insisting on appropriate education for their child" (Fraser, 1996, p. 444). It is suggested that there is a difference between rhetoric and reality as "research does not affirm that collaboration successfully occurs, or that parents' observations and understandings are valued" (Margrain 1998, p. 7.). Riley (1999) notes that 'it takes two to tango', and the importance of getting to know your dance partner. However, some dances can be performed side by side, and others involve one partner 'taking the lead.'

The analogy here is that the same party always taking the lead may be tradition at a ball, but a fumbling foxtrot is likely to become frustrating for an expert dancer if he/she is constantly the one who is led. The lead dancer may well become footsore!

Teachers may often have a perception of themselves as the professional ‘experts’ within the parent-teacher ‘partnership’. This perception could have been actively discouraged within Gifted and Talented Students. Recognition of parents-as-experts and teachers-as-learners would have been an integral part of this. During recent essays for a third year university paper in gifted education, many teachers took the opportunity to reinforce a top-down approach (observed by this writer as an off-campus marker). Gifted and Talented Students states that "while most parents/caregivers may have a realistic understanding of their child's performance compared with that of others of the same age, some parents do not" (p.30). The statement in itself is not incorrect; what is intriguing is that it was outstandingly the most popular quote of the entire booklet which my students cited. Why was it this statement that teachers 'zeroed' into? It is suggested that the quote was used to discredit parents­-as-experts. This is unfortunate, given schools' limited track record in supporting gifted and talented students.

TEACHERS: RISING TO THE CHALLENGE?

There has not appeared to be a groundswell of advocacy from teachers on behalf of their students. In fact, it is likely that part of the purpose of producing the booklet is to provide support in an area where it is now recognised that schools and teachers fail students. Despite describing "a system that fails to support the development of their special abilities" and "an unrewarding school environment" (p.6), Gifted and Talented Students asserts that many eminent adults point to teacher support as a critical factor contributing to their achievement. While students may be able to cite a number of generally supportive teachers, and even an occasional outstandingly supportive teacher, the wider literature suggests the majority of teachers are unable to provide the type of understanding and support needed (Moltzen, 1996b; Taylor, 1996).

So why is it that despite the poor record of student support, teachers are presented so positively within Gifted and Talented Students? Perhaps the purpose of the positive rhetoric, despite the negative reality of teacher support, is in order to get teachers, as the intended audience, willingly 'on board'. This is of course a needed outcome, but it also presents some questions about the profession if 'warm fuzzy' presentation is deemed necessary to reach the intended audience. One would hope that, as reflective practitioners, teachers and school administrators are able to deal competently with 'real' issues and 'hard' facts. An opportunity existed within the document to give a strong message showing the failure of schools in general to meet needs of gifted and talented students, the ability of parents to both identify and support children, and the need for enhanced collaborative practice. Part of this message could have been to further highlight the tragic suicide, depression and chronic underachievement outcomes for gifted and talented students who fail to receive school support (Moltzen, 1996b). As one of the booklet authors stated to this writer when discussing the need for honesty in a proposed presentation to teachers: 'The truth hurts'. This writer contends that we respect the teaching profession enough to make the record of failure quite clear, and teachers may rise to the challenge of change.

HOW DO WE MAKE IT ALL HAPPEN?

The Ministry of Education has taken a giant leap forward in enabling publication of Gifted and Talented Students and in funding development initiatives (Velde, 2000). However, a critical concern is surely: How are schools, and thus individual teachers, able to implement the programmes and practices advocated in the booklet? The Ministry of Education has failed to provide funding for student assessment or resources, additional staffing hours, release time for staff, or funded ‘consulting teachers’ (a recommended practice on page 42 of Gifted and Talented Students). For example, from experience, a student on a correspondence programme needs time to discuss their work with a teacher, and teachers need release time to be able to effectively implement individual education plan goals or individually assess particular students. Without support for both staff and students, according to a primary school principal "the booklet is more than likely going to be shelved and forgotten amongst the avalanche of written material produced for schools by the MoE" (Taylor, 2000).

Without funding, the greatest plans in the world may never be able to reach fruition. Although the philosophy of inclusion advocates acceptance of diversity, the Ministry of Education did acknowledge the necessity of a special education policy and associated funding through Special Education 2000 (SE2000, 1996). That targeted initiatives and funding are introduced for some students with special needs and denied to others contradicts the espoused aims of the revised National Education Guidelines (Ministry of Education, 2000c).

The issue of equity is raised within Gifted and Talented Students with the statement "students should not be disadvantaged because of their socio-economic status, and schools should endeavour to offer assistance when they can" (p. 45). Few schools would consider they have funds readily available to purchase the services noted. The Special Education Grant (SEG) is already significantly under pressure. In an investigation evaluating SE2000, some schools reported that they might 'hypothetically' use the SEG for extension/accelerant programmes if they did not have students with moderate needs (Ministry of Education 2000b, p.97). However, it is unlikely a school would not have students with moderate needs. Meeting the 'shortfall' in teacher aide wages for students under the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme (ORS) or adding to allocated hours for students with severe behaviour difficulties are other claims made on SEG, whether intended or not. Use of SEG in order to support the needs of gifted and talented students was reported significantly less than other uses (Ministry of Education, 2000b).

Equity is also addressed as an important issue with respect to tests of intelligence, scholastic ability or the like. Particular assessments "administered orally by qualified psychologists" (p. 29) raise concerns regarding equity of access. Of course the multi­-method approach to identification is to be advocated, and a range of instruments need to be used. Of concern, however, is that the more politically correct tools of portfolio assessment, teacher observation and so forth have not tended to accurately and reliably identify students. Thus, there is a relevant place for external professional, standardised assessment. In the past, the Psychological Service completed such testing for schools. However, Specialist Education Services' contractual agreement with the Ministry of Education means this is generally now only available on a 'fees' basis (an exception may be if the student is deemed to have a severe behaviour difficulty). Since the cost of such assessment can be around $500, it would be unfortunate if we needed to instruct our gifted and talented students to use their abilities to demonstrate severe behaviour difficulty in order to obtain assessment support.

Since acceleration is a programming option that has minimal cost associated, it is surprising that the Ministry of Education has not used this fact to their own advantage. Gifted and Talented Students presents an excellent review of advantages and disadvantages of both acceleration and enrichment, and notes the need for an integrated approach. However, the statement "in New Zealand, enrichment is the preferred option for meeting the needs of gifted and talented students" (p.38) may be misinterpreted by many readers. There may be an assumption that it is preferred because it is 'better' or 'more appropriate'. The egalitarian ethos of New Zealand, which has favoured enrichment, has not served gifted and talented students well. Acceleration lacks acceptance by teachers, although apprehensions are 'unwarranted' (Townsend & Patrick, 1993). It would have been helpful if there was less careful balance between the two approaches. It would have been of benefit to have clearly noted that although enrichment is more frequently used research does not favour the approach as strongly as acceleration, and a greater willingness to examine acceleration is needed in New Zealand. In the same way that we now accept unequal distribution of resources for equitable outcomes, acceleration needed more than its 'fair share' of exposure within the booklet due to its under-utilisation in schools.

An approach to acceleration includes early entrance, with Gifted and Talented Students stating that the option "allows them to skip a level of their education or to enter intermediate, secondary, and tertiary education at an earlier age than usual (p. 44)." The needs of young gifted and talented students are as important as are those of older students, so it continues to be a concern that early entrance is so rarely available when beginning school. Although there are exceptions, most schools cite Ministry of Education insurance regulations as prohibiting their ability to allow highly able four-year-olds to begin school. Given that acceleration is an under-utilised approach generally, it is concerning that the Ministry of Education continues to affect barriers for young gifted and talented students. With a primary principle of identification being that it "should begin early" (Ministry of Education, 2000a, p. 27) it appears to be a contradiction that identification can exist without 'labelling' or the full range of programme options.

CONCLUSION

Parents have a multiplicity of critical roles that teachers need to become more cognisant of: student advocates; 'experts'; and responsive teachers. All parties often advocate collaborative working relationships, but there can be differences between theory and reality. Attention to issues of funding and the particular needs of young gifted and talented students have also been considered. Schools, teachers, parents and students have, of course, been generalised in this article, and points presented in this article are themselves open to critique. It is hoped that healthy debate will occur in staffrooms and professional development settings as that will assist in raising awareness of gifted and talented education in New Zealand.

It is exciting that we have a well-presented, useful and contemporary resource to support New Zealand teachers and students; and this critique is by no means intended to discourage the Ministry of Education from further support in the area. Publication of the document is an example of progress that we seem to be making in this extremely underserved area of education in New Zealand; more widespread understanding and implementation will take us further.

REFERENCES

Cathcart, R. (1994). They're not bringing my brain out. Auckland: REACH publications.
Fraser, N. (1996). Parenting. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds.) Gifted and talented students: New Zealand perspectives (pp. 443-454). Palmerston North: ERDC Press.
Freeman, D. (1992). Releasing the child's mind in school. Apex O: An educational journal for teachers and parents of gifted children, 5 (1 ), 15-19.
Hendy-Harris, 1. (1990). Young children who read fluently. In E.Richardson (Ed.) Getting started: The proceedings of the New Zealand Council for Gifted Children, 1 (1).
Margrain, V. (1998). Young able readers: Parental perceptions regarding their children's literacy learning and transition to school; and parent experiences of school collaboration and consultation. Unpublished Education Project, Massey University, Palmerston North.
Ministry of Education (1996). Special Education 2000. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education (1999). Revised National Education Guidelines. Education Gazette, 13 December.
Ministry of Education (2000a). Gifted and talented students: Meeting their needs in New Zealand schools. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education (2000b). Special Education 2000: Monitoring and evaluation of the policy final report - Phase 1 1999. Ministry of Education research division, Massey University College of Education.
Moltzen, R. (1996a). Historical perspectives. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds.) Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives, (pp.I-22). Palmerston North: ERDC Press, Massey University.
Moltzen, R. (1996b). Underachievement. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds.) Gifted and talented. New Zealand perspectives (pp. 407-­426). Palmerston North: ERDC Press, Massey University.
Price, G. (1995). The 'dumbing down' of gifted children. Education Today, September.
Riley, T. (1999). It takes two to tango: Creating and maintaining positive partnerships between parents and teachers. Tall Poppies: Magazine of the New Zealand Association for Gifted Children Inc., 24(3/4), pp. 5-7.
Taylor, R. (2000). Personal communication. June 8.
Taylor, S. (1996). A school or early childhood policy on children with special abilities. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds.), Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (pp. 111-120). Palmerston North: ERDC Press, Massey University.
Townsend, M.A.R. & Patrick, H. (1993). Academic and psychosocial apprehensions of teachers and teacher trainees toward the educational acceleration of gifted children. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 28(1),29-41.
Velde, M. (2000). Young, gifted and provided for. New Zealand Education Gazette Tukutuku Korero, 19 (7), 1.
Weiss, P. (1985). Expanding pre-schooler awareness. Gifted Child Today, Nov./Dec., 30-34.