Definition and Identification ··························································

The students were referred to in five policies as Children with Special Abilities

(CWSA) or Students with Special Abilities. Four policies used the term Gifted and Talented and two of these schools differentiated between ‘gifted’ and ‘talented’. The definitions were mostly compositional in that they borrowed from multiple perspectives. For example, they were based on definitions used in the literature such as Renzulli’s (1978), Gagné’s (1985), and Gardner’s (1983, 1993) definitions. They were also generic in terms of the concepts of giftedness or talent although some acknowledged different domains of giftedness such as academic and sporting. Two schools acknowledged that multicultural aspects should be considered and only one school specifically outlined the concept of special abilities in terms of Māori customs, values, and beliefs.

The issue of definition should not be the primary matter for discussion, but it is the meaning that is attached to the term and the accompanying policy that addresses the ‘so what?’ question that is of importance. Over time, different terms and definitions have been considered internationally, nationally, and at local level. The changes in definition have been from that of intelligence (Terman, 1925) to Renzulli’s (1978) set of behaviours, and Gardner’s (1983) multiple forms of intelligence. The definitions used in the policies in this study were both conceptual and operational (Moon, 2006). The operational definition is closely linked to identification procedures.

Multiple methods of identification were listed in eight policies and these included those outlined in the literature, namely: parent, peer, self nomination, observation, tests, and student work samples. One school did not define any methods of identification. The mathematics policy of one of the secondary schools stated that identification in mathematics was by a pre-test.

These policies showed promise in terms of the documented variety of identification tools. They incorporated both formal and informal identification procedures. However, where identification was based exclusively on a formal procedure such as a test, there were related issues as evidenced in this study (reported in Chapter Six). The practice of formal assessment was used as a gatekeeper (to identification and

subsequent provisions in mathematics) for eight students in the study when they transferred to their next school.

There was no specific attention given in the documents to early identification in the primary schools or links to early childhood information. One of the intermediate schools (School D) included information in their school transfer documentation to assist in the identification process.

For two of the schools (Schools I and J), the documented identification procedures showed specific consideration for the mathematically gifted. However, there was no reference in these policy statements to identifying students through aspects such as those noted by Diezmann and Watters (1997), Hoeflinger (1998), and Sheffield (1999). These authors included a focus, for example, such as identifying students by examining their levels of mathematical reasoning in problem solving. No school documents detailed characteristics of the mathematically gifted that could then be used to inform teachers’ and parents’ nominations. These policies failed to meet all of Gubbin’s (2006) criteria that high-quality identification procedures should be comprehensive (no policy achieved this), include student characteristics (this was generic in all cases), use objective and subjective tools (eight schools), and have identification criteria that are defensible and inclusive (Schools C, E, and J). With identification procedures in place, it should follow that provisions would be made to address students’ learning needs in particular learning areas such as mathematics.

5.4.3 Provisions

Nine of the school policy documents outlined a range of provisions for gifted and talented students. School I articulated this specifically for the mathematically gifted and talented. The schools used a variety of different organizational strategies in order to group the mathematically gifted students so that they could work together. These included cross-class ability grouping (School A), ability grouping within the regular class (School B), special fulltime gifted classes in the intermediate schools (Schools C and E), cluster classes (School D), and streamed classes in Years 7 to 13 (Schools F and G) and secondary schools (Schools I, J, and K). The strengths and weaknesses of homogeneous grouping of students in mathematics, as discussed in the literature review, are contradictory. However, the majority of studies based on provision for

gifted students supported the practice where the gifted students were grouped together using one of the above organizational strategies. This study refutes Rogers’ (2006) perspective that how gifted learners may be organized for their instruction “has nothing directly to do with what or how they are taught” (p. 208). The organizational decisions by these schools affected who received acknowledgement as a gifted and talented student and therefore the types of programmes designed to meet their needs.

Four schools (Schools A, C, D, and G) stated that one of their goals was to provide differentiated programmes. Differentiation is usually through a qualitative difference which is how School G viewed differentiation. With little supporting documents, it is not possible to describe the other schools’ views on this provision. The terms used in most of the policies were enrichment, acceleration, and extension. The acceleration practices were not well defined in any of the policies, although there were schools in the study that practised deliberate acceleration of students in streamed or special gifted classes. These students worked one year level in advance of their age peers. Enrichment and extension activities were not described in mathematics except for School I who had a mathematics scheme outlining specific enrichment topics such as codes and paper constructions.

At the policy level, these schools included acceleration and enrichment as provision options. If these policies were put into practice, then there should be evidence of curriculum differentiation so that content, pace, instructional strategies, process, and products are modified to cater for gifted and talented students (Maker & Neilson, 1995). Other provisions outlined in the policies included competitions, curriculum compacting (School J), mentoring (School G), a one-day-a-week programme, Correspondence School, and liaison with universities. All of these provisions reflect recommended practice in New Zealand schools (Ministry of Education, 2000; Riley et al., 2004).

5.4.4 Professional Development

Six schools acknowledged the need for staff professional development. The schools differed in their approaches to professional development in gifted education. School

professional development in gifted education to interested staff over a sustained period of time. This school showed a real commitment to professional development with detailed strategies and timelines. The other schools were not committed to focused and sustained professional development although they had recognized it as a consideration.

It is undisputed that practitioners should have the knowledge, competencies, and dispositions required to be a teacher and address the individual needs of students (New Zealand Teachers Council, 2008). However, there is foundational knowledge for teachers in gifted education (Leppien & Westberg, 2006; Mingus & Grassl, 1999) and specific challenges for teachers of the mathematically gifted (McClure, 2001). All teachers of mathematics require sound content (subject matter) and pedagogical content knowledge (Ball et al., 2001; Ma, 1999). It seems that none of these school policies addressed this specific need for teachers of the mathematically gifted. The policies were broadly based and only one included a professional development plan to ensure an ongoing systematic process.