There is a great guest post on Heather Roy’s blog by Assoc Prof Tracy Riley one of our leading academics on the question of education for the gifted and talented.
Assoc Prof Tracy Riley, Massey University, is the Chairperson of giftEDnz: The Professional Association for Gifted Education. Tracy represents her organisation on the Ministerial Advisory Group for Gifted and Talented Education, and has long been an advocate for the needs of gifted and talented students in New Zealand.
Conspicuously missing from the debate around National Standards documentation and discussion is any reference to how these may be implemented for, and their potential impacts upon, our gifted and talented students. Unlike students with special educational needs (as identified by having a disability, rather than advanced abilities) or those who speak English as an additional language, it could be construed that gifted and talented students do not require any special consideration in the implementation and reporting of national standards.
In perusing the material on National Standards, I have become alarmed by the ‘missing’ elements. There is no mention of above-level assessment, well-above average performance, or continuous progress via appropriate educational provisions for gifted and talented students.
Whole blog worth reading and the comments as well. What is really interesting is that despite being the Minister in charge of this area Heather has chosen not to comment herself.
Falufala Fisi: That may not be true. Without support of some sort there are many who should be G&T who become conditioned to believe that they are mediocre.
Remember the girl who stopped asking questions in class because she realised that she must be dumb. She must be because the other kids must know already and they didn’t need to ask questions, and the teachers seemed to resent her questions anyway. A long time in this atmosphere is a killer.
Answer: No class in Primary School of more than 24 kids. And Professional development.
Sonia – the advice that i have had is that the change is technical and makes no practical difference. I’ve asked a few questions and if in fact it does make a difference I will post on the issue.
I had a few emails on this last week.
The footnote: It makes a huge difference to me but I’m feeling the cynical old bones creaking ‘what can one person do?’. The entire G&T sector was so excited about being included in the original wording and it gave hope to taking your individual child’s case to the school. Now it’s a footnote and school’s can give it ‘footnote’ treatment.
Linda – of course it is better to be in the middle of the text. And I don’t think there is a politician who has looked at this policy area more than me – but frankly I only want to do battle if the change is going to make a difference.
Frankly the answer is to get a government in that is prepared to listen to experts in the field and stick some funding in.
@Falafulu. How do you define ‘excel’? If the gifted child is putting in the minimum effort for A+ and quality of work is actually declining then it does matter what teacher they are with. I will always want my children to have teachers that can inspire self-motivation to ‘personal best’. I hope this can continue despite the ’standard’ having been met.
Being gifted is a state of brain capacity not necessarily good fortune esp considering the disproportionate suicide and depression rate among this group.
Hi “A Mother”
Not sure how that happened, I copied it directly.. trying again… http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/PolicyAndStrategy/PlanningReportingRelevantLegislationNEGSAndNAGS/TheNationalAdministrationGuidelinesNAGs.aspx
If that doesn’t work, go to http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools.aspx
then follow the links on the side: Policy and strategy then
relevant legislation NEGS & NAGS, then NAG 1 in the body of the text. You will see a tiny footnote number 1, which can only be found after scrolling right down to the end of NAG 6.
I think you will see why many may regard it as a casual afterthought
Regards
Sonia
Hi Trevor – thanks for your response. I understand the reply you got to your query – however, the interesting subtext is the reason WHY the phrase was relegated to a footnote. Why should the current Minister /Ministry bother to do such a tiny tweak. Technicality indeed! But who in the Ministry was so concerned about it becoming a footnote?
I believe you are likely to hear from a considerable number more people yet, as awareness grows that this has happened.
Some Secondary DPs and Principals are telling me that the Ministry is signalling very clearly that gifted & talented is no longer an issue they are interested in focussing upon. I see the NAG footnote as giving credence to this and am concerned.
I agree wholeheartedly in your answer to the situation – however, can our gifted students afford to wait?
sincerely
Sonia
Obviously the current government does not want to foster the kind of minds that applied to our economic and social problems could really take this country forward. Feels threatened by them I reckon!
Hmmm. Okay. I’ve looked at the info on national standards and it does say there is a well above standard but looking at
NAG 2A (c) report in the board’s annual report on:
i.the numbers and proportions of students at, above, below or well below the standards
No mention of well above standard.
From what I read well above standard is over one year ahead I think, though it might be 2. I’ll have to find that information again.
I read it as meaning that any child more than one year ahead doesn’t have their results given to MoE as there is no extra funding for them as were the along the line of what Chris Harwood said. Waiting to confirm this though.
On the brocher that was sent out there was a well above level I should say.
Hope the essay’s going well.
http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/National-Standards/Key-information/Fact-sheets/Overall-teacher-judgement
In a year level above a National Standard, the student’s achievement will be described as above the National Standard
predominantly meeting the expectations at a year level, the student’s achievement will be described as at the National Standard
not achieving at a National Standard, but achieving closer to the National Standard immediately below, the student’s achievement will be described as below the National Standard
more than one year below a National Standard, the student’s achievement will be described as well below the National Standard.
So from this I believe that the well above would be over one year ahead.
There you have it. If you want your school to look good, don’t put deserving children up a year. Yes they may become bored but for the good of the school, keep them in the class with others in the same age group, below their natural ability. This would ensure that the teacher looks good and the school has good results. Don’t make children do challenging work by moving them up, let them tune out, muck around and still pass.
@Spud.
Would have been easier to answer the essay question using a different minority group. Sticking with it but it is not an easy essay question to turn around and use gifted children. Am seriously thinking about doing another group and saving all my research for another essay that I can turn around and write about this group. If I pull it off, it would be a great mark, but am finding it hard to do.
I should have just re read the blog post as what I have written above was on there. Read too much information in last week or so.
We have gone standards-crazy at the expense of our children. Read Should We Teach Standards or Children.
Reading is not a simplistic “how-to” that is once learned well and thereafter applied. Academic reading is multi-faceted and complex. In other words, there is plenty to learn that will challenge gifted students throughout their K-12 experience. In fact, the old learning to read and reading to learn dichotomy is limiting our “best and brightest” students. Let’s un-limit them with Differentiated Reading Instruction for Gifted Students.
Questions for Anne Tolley:
What process led to the decision to make the inclusion of gifted and talents students in NAG 1 a footnote, and what other changes were made to the document at the same time?
Who is responsible for the change to the NAG making the inclusion of gifted and talents students in NAG 1 a footnote?
I ask because now that it’s a footnote it’s fallen off my local primary schools web-based version of the NAGs. It was a huge issue for the sector to have G&T recognised and included. Being relegated to a footnote is halfway to being excluded again. Why?
Careful Linda, you don’t want to Nag her
Do we really need additional focus on G&T children? If NZ has no tall poppies, we won’t have to keep doing all that arduous cutting them down to size.
Focussing on the mediocre to passable should be the priority for M.Ed. After all, where would the modern world be without makeshift no.8 wire. I bet you the new iPad and the new Audi TT is full of the stuff.
Further, focussing on certain children as being “G&T” might hurt the feelings and self esteem of other children who will obviously realise that they aren’t as gifted and talented and we can’t have that.
Much better just to keep everyone achieving at a mediocre to passable level, instead of supporting each individual to realise their true potential. Anyone who feels like they don’t fit into this well thought out framework, do feel free to leave.
The satire would be funny if it wasn’t so close to reality. There is no compulsory training in G&T at Teacher’s college so there are still new teachers coming out with no understanding of the damage that can be done by not attempting to meet the educational needs of these children
One of the reasons why I’m putting myself through teachers training college.
The only thing is that I’ll have to pay for further training once finished. At the moment Postgraduate Diploma in Education for Gifted and Talented you have to complete 4 papers at 1,255 per paper. That is the cost now. Hate to think what it will be when I go to sit them.
$$$
$$$
Hi Trevor… this week is Gifted Awareness Week in New Zealand,(14th June) I heard on National radio and through looking at the giftednz website, that the government presently allocate gifted and talented students about $35 per identified child……. a year. However it is not actually allocated to the child but is going into a few meetings around New Zealand, helping a few low decile schools in Auckland and Wellington, some scholarships and some website stuff but most of that hasn’t even happened yet this year. The Labour government might not have had all the answers in Gifted Education but did achieve and do a heap more than this…. any way you can get it back on the radar Trevor?
I have been following the media releases on National Standards and reporting of students performing above-level – what is going?
Other readers might want to look at these releases (in order!)
http://www.guide2.co.nz/politics/news/national-standards-will-recognise-excellence-parliament-told/11/17246
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1006/S00269.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1006/S00276.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ED1006/S00064.htm
It’s unfortunately a non-event, storm in a teacup. The Hansard clearly shows that the links provided have extrapolated far beyond what Bill English actually said on behalf of the Associate Minister. Anne Tolley has denied changes and will probably claim that Asso Min. was speaking as an ACT rep/MP not for MOE. I’ll go get the link to the Question for Oral Answer that started the storm.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/b/a/f/49HansQ_20100616_00000007-7-Education-Associate-Minister-Statements.htm
don’t know how to make it clickable.
Well done Trevor (and Heather Roy, by way of her blog)for bringing gifted issues forward again!
This week a school trustee said all children are gifted. There is still a long way to go in educating on G&T issues and advocacy for G&T students.
Have another G&T Loota. It brings out the funny if sad stuff.
What? Not G&T sorry.
LOL
Any minister doing anything for gifted children anywhere is a waste of time no matter what you do or how hard you try gifted children will slip through the radar their entire lives en mass they will live out their early years in misery. Gifted children are intelligent but fail/do averagely at tests. This is something the authorities will NEVER, EVER understand.
I guarantee this to all of you mark my words this issue will never dissapear.
Does she not get it? Even on the bulk posting there was an above average. Have a look.
So I take it there isn’t as there no funding for these children I’ve found out. They not worried about the ones way ahead.
Yes Dylan, some don’t test well. Some are about 2 years ahead. I wish they could all get picked up but they wont and they will have ongoing problems even when they get to adulthood.
Anon said…
This week a school trustee said all children are gifted…
Yes, that’s true, although I would say that gifted ones are those that are natural, but there is no doubt that they all have the potentials to achieve higher (but perhaps supplemented with external help, i.e., outside school).
One 9 year old boy in my group of young kids that I coach math (twice a week, 1 and 1/2 hour session each in the evening), has now able to solve “linear simultaneous equations” of the type shown below:
Eq1: 3x + 2y = 4
Eq2: 2x = 3 – y
This same 9 year old can also solve calculus problems such as differentiation & integration of polynomial equations similar to one shown below:
y = x^4 – 9x^2 + 5x – 2/x
He can calculate the first, second, third derivatives of y (i.e., y’, y”, y”’).
He is not in the gifted group at his school. He always talks about another kid in his class who is in the gifted group saying that they have a special program that he always goes to.
There are lots of topics that I am yet to introduce them to, but algebra & calculus needs pre-requisites in (directed) numbers (i.e., positive & negative), long divisions, long multiplications (integers, whole numbers & decimals) fractions (additions/subtractions, multiplications/divisions), which they have already covered.
I think that the curriculum should be upgraded because I think that some topics are clearly redundant. These redundant topics are time-wasting for kids to learn. I’ll give an example. When I first taught them long multiplication (I use laminated tabulated charts which makes it easier for them to keep track, which numbers are carried over to which column – units, tens, hundreds, thousands, …), they told me that they’ve been taught to split numbers and do them separately and either subtract or add at the end.
Eg: 46 x 4
is to be done in 2 steps: 40 x 4 + 6 x 4 which comes to :
160 + 24 = 184
I don’t know why teach kids redundant & time-wasting methods such as shown above, when they can be taught the universal method of doing it in one step (digits long multiplication). The above method works fine on simple numbers, but they’re useless in very big numbers & long digits, e.g.:
120458745687 x 14251247
The beauty of using long multiplication method is that one can calculate any product of 2 numbers, irrelevant of how big they are:
Trev, is it possible to raise the curriculum level? Perhaps start teaching year 5 materials that used to be taught to year 8, year 6 will learn materials from year 9 and so on? I am not an education expert; however, I feel that the education curriculum (in math) is designed to babysit kids in their learning. This is just my opinion because I have managed to teach 9 & 10 year old kids materials that are far too advanced to their level of understanding (according to perhaps education experts), which they manage to cope well in my judgment.
I’ve told them that next term they will be using math software for checking their answers, so once they start doing this, then their learning will only accelerate and there is no doubt in my mind that they will do.
F.F. that sounds like awesome work we are doing. Yay for math.
Ahem I actually meant you and the kids are doing
Nice1
Hi A Mother
Anyone who says ‘all children are gifted’ clearly doesn’t understand the definition of the technical term ‘gifted’. It is the potential to achieve at the level of the top 5% of the population. It is cognitive potential. Not all children have that level of potential.
I believe all children have a place in the world and all can achieve more with appropriate nurturing and tuition but not all are capable of the same intellectual achievement.