Summary: Section One

The results from this first section highlighted the specialised ways in which the cluster was managed. Furthermore, the data inferred that the following eight factors were particularly important to the management leaders:

1. The pilot cluster between three schools provided the blueprint for working collaboratively;

2. The uniqueness of the region’s rurality was a mitigating factor in coming together to work in a cluster;

3. The benefits of contestable funding and the advantage gained as a TDI project;

4. The vital partnership between the Management Committee and REINC; 5. The critical role of professional development;

6. The creation of concepts for giftedness and talent based on a multicategorical method for the cluster identification process;

7. The development of an evolving child-centred approach to giftedness; and 8. The democratic and consensual decision-making of the Management

Group.

These shared understandings were based on the voices of the participants and their views on how the cluster was managed. The themes reflected the significance assigned by the principals to certain parts of the cluster model, and the relevance of their integral role as the management body. The next section will focus on the

SECTION TWO

The second research question heads this section:

5.6 How effective was this management model as a mechanism to provide for gifted and talented children in a rural region of New Zealand?

The coalition with REINC

The data clearly denoted the importance of the relationship between the school leaders and the external organisation of REINC. This commendation is made alluding to the quality of REINC’s contractual work.

At the commencement of the TDI contract, gifted and talented education became for the head of REINC, one of the passions of her job … Having REINC as the fund holder and subsequently contracting the Co-ordinator to do the organisation, ah, - was certainly one of our strengths. (HB, p. 10) REINC was the institution through which all the facilitation processes were channelled to meet the requirements of the Ministry of Education. Hunta gave this explanation of the procedure:

It was where the Co-ordinator’s crew fits in … it meant that things would happen and it wasn’t another job that our principals were tied down to doing. We would sort of come up with the plans and someone else would keep them running for us, so that was pretty, pretty important. (p. 10) The fact that an outside organisation was part of the team was seen as an advantage because it took the pressure off schools and time-deficient principals. “The dedicated time to do it … a job that they did instead of it being something piled on top of somebody at a school” (Chebz, p. 10). It basically allowed each group to get on with what they did best: lead and manage; or co-ordinate and implement. Chebz summarised the characteristic efficiency: “We got to the meetings, we made decisions … things were done, they happened, people were paid for their time … (Hunta: … and yeah) and the kids got the programme” (p. 10).

Evaluation of the child-centred programmes

The evolution of a shared culture was critical to the effectiveness of the cluster as a TDI. This gifted and talented education culture was based on the values of trust and respect. Just as importantly, this ethos stressed the importance of placing the

gifted child at the nub of the provision. Throughout the length of the transcript it was clearly evident that the principals kept coming back to their cue of what was the best decision for the children. Right at the centre was the finding that separate, one-off programmes did not suit or work for the children. As HB recalled: “The main thing we listened to from the kids was please don’t send us to something once because we don’t like it” (p. 23). The conclusive result was that there were no “one-offs” (HB, p. 36). The text indicated that this principal was an advocate for the planning and of workshops on a continuum. In regards to determining the quality of the cluster’s programmes, the student self-appraisal method was critical. It was a medium through which gifted and talented children could express their own thinking and personalise their learning. Student opinion was reinforced with principals’ feedback and this coincided with a tutor self review process. An integral part of this evaluative system was for the Project Manager to have a presence for a short time at most of the programmes. This contact gave an overarching perception of what was happening, and an intuitive feel for how the children were responding to the teacher. The visible appearance to represent management was highlighted by Hunta when he noted that the co-ordinator almost without exception attended every programme. In the later years of the TDI, parents were approached for their insights through a questionnaire. HB acknowledged that this was a learning curve:

We got a lot better at doing the assessment and review of the programmes as we went along and that was something we passed over to the Director to do and, with her efficiency, it always happened. She got all the feedback forms and made sure they were collated, and we knew whether it was a successful programme or not. (p. 23)

Hence, ongoing and constant evaluation from all represented groups was integral to the robustness of programme delivery.

The affective side of giftedness

Throughout the transcript, there were many references to nurturing the social and emotional development of students. The support mechanism for these sometimes vulnerable children took the form of a sense of community. The “wrap around effect” (Hunta, p. 17) engendered a feeling of belonging to a special cluster of

kindred learners. Hunta emphasised this socialisation aspect. “They grew and they became friends” (p. 17). Chebz remembered:

That’s when we started talking to the Advisor about the affective side of learning and how important it was for these kids to be together. And then we realised that when our first lot went off to Intermediate, they all went upwards and took off. (p. 17)

Professional development flagged the importance of looking more closely at what gifted and talented children needed. “In some ways, irrespective of what the programme was, it was their own company – like mindedness – that they enjoyed … they just enjoyed getting together with kids of the same ability” (HB, p. 23). Most significantly, it was the meeting point and congruence of like-ability with like-minds. “They weren’t ridiculed by their peers back at school at all” (HB, p. 17), rather they were accepted and respected for their talents. These children had a unique place in the world as a result of the commitment and professional understanding of the Management Committee.

A student leadership model

Time and again, the participants pointed out that they considered the programme effectively bolstered student esteem as a prelude to stronger self confidence. An aspiration of management was to have children feeling comfortable with their own image of giftedness and talent. It was this aim that led directly to the setting up of a Cluster Student Council (Year Six students), whereby selected children represented their school on this body. The programme was “driven by the model BH had of leadership building and understanding what leadership is” (Chebz, p. 40). Skills of leadership were enhanced through co-operative learning in a team environment. Leadership in this context was valued as both an attribute and domain of giftedness, therefore becoming an integral strand to the programme in 2007 to 2008. Babe commented on the uniqueness of this differentiated provision: “As a new person coming in, I hadn’t seen anything like that before” (p. 40). It was an experimental initiative using the expertise of three management members over its timeframe. In the latter years, growing future leaders became a core strand of interpersonal development for the TDI. Chebz worked with the students on identifying a real-life problem within their schools. During 2007, leadership took the form of a social action project culminating in a presentation to

the local District Council. The programme focused and reflected on what was happening in the region, ‘in our place” (HB & Chebz, p. 43). The fostering of leadership qualities seemed to “take on a life of its own” (Babe & Chebz, p. 40) to such an extent that it ended up as “one of our major programmes that’s been totally sustained and embedded in our school” (Babe, p. 40). The test of its success was the obvious enjoyment for the young leaders. “The kids love it and were always asking will I be on the Student Council next year?”(Chebz, p. 40) Such student eagerness ensured the sustainability of this strand so that it became a trademark of the cluster and all it stood for within the regional community.

Issues for the Management Committee

From the data, two negative issues for the cluster were identified: