School Philosophy

School documents defined in detail the school’s philosophy and climate. Public

documents such as the Strategic Plan and the Learning Centre Brochure, and in-school documents such as school policies and procedures reinforced the same vision.

148

The school’s five-year Strategic Plan, published December 2011in the school magazine, provided the school’s vision of personal learning. The vision for personal learning was

developed with an individual focus, ensuring that the programme any student

“experiences will be designed for and with her, to address her individual skills, needs, challenges and possibilities.” The vision also referred to the importance of striving for excellence. It emphasised that “diverse learners’ needs and talents are at the heart of teaching programmes” with the strategic initiative to expand the diverse learners’

programme.

Learning Centre

The brochure on the Learning Centre (LC), available from the school website, explained the school’s understanding of diversity as: “Diversity encompasses many characteristics

including giftedness (learning enrichment), learning differences (specialised learning intervention) and ELL (English Language Learners).” Personalised Learning was “underpinned by a belief that students should have access to learning opportunities at the level best suited to them” and the function of the school’s Learning Centre was “to

provide structure to the process of identification and provision for these students.”

At the school students spent the majority of their time in mainstream classes and every teacher was “a teacher of diverse learners.” There was a focus on staff professional development and “in-class support and mentoring of classroom teachers.”

Acceleration was an intervention which could be provided according to The Gifted and Talented Education Process and Procedures document for “students who achieve learning outcomes more quickly than their peers” and these students “may be

149

or in exceptional circumstances, movement to a higher year group.” The school provided for gifted students, depending on individual need, “with a combination of enrichment and acceleration opportunities” according to the LC booklet.

The [named] programme for Years 7-10 included enrichment and acceleration depending on the timetable and availability of staff and there were also personalised learning plans. A number of activities were listed such as Future Problem Solving and Writing Workshops. The [named] programme for Years 11-13 specified subject acceleration in “certain subjects” depending on timetable restraints. Some examples of

departmental programmes were: Brain Bee and Biology and Chemistry Olympiads. There was also an extensive co-curricular programme (which according to the ERO 2009 report, was “an extensive range of sporting, performing arts, cultural and community service activities.”).

Specialised learning intervention for students with learning differences (including twice exceptionality) and English Language Learners and Thinking were offered at the school according to the LC brochure. In the New Zealand Curriculum, Thinking is a key competency and in the Thinking Section of the LC brochure the HOTT certificate (Higher Order Teaching/Thinking) for staff professional development was explained and the work of the LC which supported this.

Gifted and Talented Education Policy

The LC noted that “giftedness is found across all cultures and groups” and “provisions for gifted and talented students will acknowledge and reflect the Special Character of the College and encourages the inclusion of bi-cultural and multi-cultural dimensions.” All teachers were to be informed of the characteristics of gifted and talented students.

150

Professional development needs and the provision of resources for gifted and talented students were budgeted for.

Gifted and Talented Education Process and Procedures

This document included definitions and information about the philosophical

underpinnings for gifted and talented education in the school. It also included Principles of Identification. Gifted and talented identification, as explained:

 is school wide

 is systematic

 is dynamic and ongoing

 is justifiable

 provides for early identification and

 ensures students from different cultures and socioeconomic groups can be

identified.

There was ongoing evaluation of the gifted and talented programmes through “survey/intranet evaluation and one to one feedback.”

Gifted and talented students were one group of diverse learners in the school. There was a school-wide definition of gifted and talented in the LC leaflet (also included in the School’s Gifted and Talented Education Policy) which stated:

A gifted child as one who performs or who has the ability to perform at a level significantly beyond his/her chronologically aged peers. Giftedness can apply to either one or a variety of learning areas and across the multiple intelligences. Giftedness is found across all cultures and groups.

151

The LC and the Gifted and Talented Policy explained equity and opportunity in the following way: “Ongoing provision for exceptionally able children is a matter of equity and will help them to reach their optimum development and achieve emotional, physical and intellectual wellbeing.”

However, the gifted and talented coordinator regarded the term “gifted and talented” as having “fishhooks.” The school’s preferred term was “personalised learning” and she

explained “that it is really about the individual child and catering for their specific needs.” Identification was kept “low key” because “we don’t do that with students who

are struggling, so why should we do it with students who are above average. The only reason for me, the only reason why I can justify identification is for intervention.” At this school when a student was identified as gifted she needed intervention. If so, a personalised learning approach was used.

One of the interviewed students also had difficulties with the term “gifted and talented.” She was not sure what it meant to be gifted and talented but was aware she was

“apparently” gifted and talented but was not sure how people are classified as gifted and

talented. She had been identified as gifted and talented at a music training session. She also did not want to be classified as such. As she said: “I’m actually quite

uncomfortable with that.” The other student interviewed found the term gifted and talented “like bragging.” However, she was aware that because of the exposure to the term and discussions and meetings that it was “okay” to be curious and go and find out about things. She noted that “the school is very accepting in terms of what you want to do and if you want to go further.”

152

In particular, Challenge High School had developed its own contextual model based on an understanding of the learner at the centre. As the gifted and talented coordinator explained: “I think it is very contextual, and so the model that would [work] in my

previous schools simply does not work in this school.” A personalised approach and some form of enrichment in every subject was part of the school culture. The

commitment to the school vision of personal learning and a commitment to excellence were both emphasised by the gifted and talented coordinator, the surveyed teachers and the students.

In addition, the high performing private school had its own culture. As the gifted and talented coordinator explained, “we have more kids who are able and that has

complexities of its own.” As part of the school’s culture of learning and care the gifted and talented coordinator was responsible for “academic needs” of gifted students and their “intellectual stimulation” and she always referred students and concerns to the

Dean.

“Multi-levelling” and “diverse learners” were the terms most used in the school rather

than acceleration, and gifted and talented, according to the gifted and talented coordinator. “Learning Differences” rather than “Learning Needs” was also the

preferred term. She explained that under the strategic plan the school was investigating how to make multi-levelling more effective. As she noted, “I’ve not come across negativity towards multi-levelling by anybody. It’s all around the technicalities,” such as timetabling technicalities and organisational issues, rather than philosophical opposition. There was an openness to discussion and there had been increasing

153

Parents’ Perceptions of the High School

The school reported in the school magazine on a Stakeholder Survey of the High School family (N=700+) conducted in 2013 through a survey company. It surveyed both the junior and senior school. The topline measure is Overall CVM (a measure of overall perceived value for money) on a scale of 1-10 where 10 is the most positive. A score of 8 or higher is regarded as exceptional. Stakeholders perceived that Teaching and Learning was exceptional in relation to inspiring and dedicated teachers, learning environment, challenging students and educational resources. In the Curriculum area very positive scores were given for flexibility and choice (7.7) and for talented students (7.6). Co-curricular activities ranged from 7.6 to 8.1. Stakeholders also indicated an exceptional level of pastoral care of students and in encouraging excellence in personal and social development. Career education was very positive at 7.8.

Education Review Office Report

The Education Review Office is a government department which provides public reports on the quality of education in all New Zealand schools. The 2009 ERO report affirmed the school’s promotion of academic excellence and its development of student potential. It recognised the school’s foremost aim was “catering for the diverse abilities, aspirations and interests of students.” The report was very positive about the link

between teaching and learning and care for students and that there was a “rigorous programme of self-review” including student evaluations.

154