Equity with Excellence Confronting the Dilemmas and Celebrating the Possibilities
Dr Tracy Riley
Massey University
Keynote Address presented at Teaching and Learning "Celebrating Excellence"
28–29 September 2000, Hamilton
Equity. Excellence. Equity and excellence. Equity versus excellence. Equity with excellence. These terms – equity, excellence – are recurring themes in education. They appear in relation to culture, gender, socioeconomic status, disabilities. But what relation do they bear to special abilities? What exactly do we, as educators, mean when we make statements like "Quality education enables individuals to achieve their full potential" (Ministry of Education, 2000a)? Or when we endorse National Education Goals emphasising a broad and balanced curriculum, equal opportunities for all, and consideration of those with special needs (Ministry of Education, 1993)? What do these and similar statements imply for New Zealand's students with special abilities? Can the notion of equity – fairness – work in tandem with excellence – meeting potential ... even if that potential reaches well beyond the norm?
Today I'd like to explore these terms and their implications for the education of gifted and talented students. I want to begin by simply looking at their meanings and why they hold a place in education in New Zealand. From there I'd like to focus upon an examination of the relationships between equity, excellence, and gifted education. The barriers to a partnership must be analysed, as well as some recommendations as to how we, as educators, bridge the gap between "theory" and "practice". My intent today is not to beat an old drum to death, but to try and create a new rhythm – to play for you a tune which simply says that equity and excellence don't just demand action for our students of diverse cultures, both genders, varying socioeconomic groups, and with disabilities. Equity and excellence are terms we must actively shift from "theory" – or, good ideas – to "practice" – or, reality – for our gifted and talented students.
Perhaps the most naive way of determining just what these terms mean is to go to a dictionary. So we might as well begin there. Being an American I tend to rely on Webster, who defines equity in terms of justice, rights, and freedom from bias or favouritism (Merriam-Webster, 2000). A search in a thesaurus brings up terms like fairness, equitableness, justness, impartiality, fair play. When used as a verb, the term equity is associated with an array of quite moralistic notions – honesty, truth, dignity, respect, honour, faithfulness. Equity is connected with phrases like "see justice done" ... "give everyone his due" ... "put the saddle on the right horse" ... "as it should be" ... "upon even terms". Or in Hamlet's words "in equal scale weighing delight and dole". And what terms contrast with equity? Bias, discrimination, partiality, unfairness (Roget, 2000).
If we examine excellence we're led to the term excellent which is defined as "meritoriously near the standard or model and eminently good of its kind" (Merriam-Webster, 2000). The synonyms associated with excellence are categorised in relation to goodness, skill, virtue, superiority, and importance. And there are many! Consider these: first-rate, bang-up, tip-top, magnificent, five-star, incomparable, A1, crème de la crème, brilliant, cock of the roost, flower of the flock. Interestingly, an assortment of the terms synonymous to excellence is also found in just about any text, conversation, journal article, or web site associated with giftedness – superiority, prodigy, elite, talent, ability, genius, cleverness, ingenuity, intelligence. The flipside of excellence elicits words like mediocre, inferior, substandard, shoddy, commonplace, fourth-rate, wretched, second-class, ordinary (Roget, 2000).
So if we apply these terms to education, and in tandem, we are apparently striving for one which is fair and just for all students, without bias or favouritism toward a given few. At the same time we are aiming towards the development of all students as the best they can be – creating, if you will, a future generation that is first-rate, whiz-bang, top-notch. Applying these terms to education means what we are not doing is discriminating against or being partial toward some students, nor are we satisfying ourselves with mediocrity, middle-of-the road, low-quality results. When we begin to examine equity and excellence in light of advocacy for our students of different cultures, both genders, varying socioeconomic groups, with disabilities, it seems a virtuous, good, honourable argument. However, when used as a justification for making special provision for students who appear to enter the classroom with excellence in hand, it often begs the question ... is this fair?
And fairness is conceived in a number of different ways. The National Center for Research in Mathematical Sciences Education in the United States identifies six different conceptions of equity:
- concern for the whole child;
- a safety net for individual differences;
- the same treatment for everyone;
- compensation for social justice;
- triage – focusing on students whose success or failure depends upon their school experience; and
- maximum return on minimal investment, or concentrating our resources on students most likely to succeed (cited by North Central Regional Education Laboratory, 2000).
Equity is furthermore, in the context of excellence, conceived as an opportunity to learn, an equalising of outcomes, and a vision of a community of learning (NCREL, 2000). Closer examination of each of these perspectives tells us that all students have the ability to learn, regardless of individual differences, and that as a community of learners, each student is valued.
Taking this a step further, we, as educators, make bold statements like the following:
There exists a hierarchy of levels of achievement ... the high point of these levels ... "excellence" ... we hold out as a goal.
In education, equity requires actions that improve educational experiences and set high expectations of success for all students.
We should have the same expectations/standards for all students (NCREL, 2000).
Within New Zealand, the translation of equity and excellence by the Ministry of Education is found in statements such as:
It is important for New Zealand's social well-being and economic development that all our people succeed in education and that levels of achievement keep rising. Too many people do not achieve in education. A substantial closing of the gap is needed between individuals, schools, and communities that do not achieve well and those that do (Ministry of Education, 2000a).
This idea of closing the gap perhaps stems from a recognition firstly, that equity doesn't currently exist, and secondly, excellence is not at the height it could be. Closing the gap between excellence and equity is one the Government has deemed a priority, with a shift in the Ministry's mission to "Raise achievement and reduce disparity" (Ministry of Education, 2000a).
Few of us would argue that this is not a reasonable priority, particularly for those students who are not achieving. So it is equitable to challenge all students to strive towards excellence. Yet, in this formula, which results in the term "all students", we must more actively seek to include our students with special abilities. If we are indeed going to raise achievement levels we must acknowledge those top-performing students, lifting standards of excellence to better match their strengths and abilities. For "only a challenging educational environment that elevates standards for everyone can create the schools our students need to take their places in tomorrow's world" (Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1993, p. 14).
If our gifted and talented students are to take their places, the argument of equity and excellence must be directed towards them. It must serve as a building block in advocacy. For if we do not firstly, recognise their existence in schools, and secondly, actively address their abilities through raising expectations, then we close the gap by simply raising the floor. In 1993, the United States Department of Education, in making a case for developing America's talent, warned that such initiatives would be "... slowed if ... restricted to boosting standards for students at the bottom and middle rungs of the academic ladder. At the same time we raise the "floor", we must also raise the 'ceiling'" (OERI, 1993, p. 6). New Zealand's Ministry of Education endorses this view in stating "Gifted education, in its simplest terms, is about enabling gifted and talented students to discover and follow their passions. It's about opening doors, removing ceilings, and raising expectations by providing an educational experience that strives towards excellence" (2000b, p. 35). And the Ministry has acknowledged that in order to fulfill the mission of raising achievements and reducing disparity we must enable our gifted and talented students to reach their full potential (2000b, p. 5).
So our challenge as educators is to strive towards making real the principles of equity and excellence, working in tandem, for all of our students – including those with gifted and talents. Historically, and even today, this challenge poses a number of dilemmas. These are related directly to the gifted and talented students, cultural beliefs, current educational principles and practices, and our profession. I'd like to discuss each of these dilemmas.
Gifted and talented students often come to school only to discover a mismatch between their capabilities and our expectations of excellence. Thus, across a range of intellectual, academic, creative, and physical pursuits, these students fail to meet their potential. While they might have all the ingredients needed to become outstanding performers in just about any field of human endeavour, if the curriculum, educational provisions, opportunities given do not recognise and utilise these abilities, the result is "boredom, frustration, mediocrity, and even hostility" (Ministry of Education, 2000b, p. 6). Because gifted and talented students learn differently, they are set apart from most other children. If we seek to actively acknowledge their intensity, quickness, complexity, motivation, tenacity, and prior knowledge, through a better fitting education, we can – or should – be able to deter these negative results.
Yet, in New Zealand, from an historical perspective, we have failed to adequately do this. Roger Moltzen writes "Over the past five decades the majority of writers, both from inside and outside the country, in commenting on New Zealand's interest in and attention towards its most able students have painted a fairly grim picture" (1996). While we've had bursts of enthusiasm towards and acknowledgement of gifted and talented students – and admittedly, we are centred in one now – the initiatives have been sporadic, the commitment short-lived. Unfortunately we have little New Zealand based research to back advocates' claims that as a result, our gifted and talented students are indeed underachieving, underserved, and ignored by our education system. What we do have, which supports the argument for equity and excellence, is perhaps a "gut feeling" based upon the stories relayed by parents, teachers, and the students themselves. The Ministry of Education gives some insight into these stories in stating:
Certainly, many students are not deterred by a system that fails to support the development of their special abilities. Some of this group may compensate for an unrewarding school environment by finding fulfillment in activities beyond the school gate. However, others may choose to deny their abilities in an attempt to fit in. A significant number of our more able students simply 'give up', leave school prematurely, and often never pursue those areas where they once showed so much promise (2000b, p. 6). If this is indeed the case – and I suspect it is – then this presents not only a set of serious challenges for educators to address, but also grave implications for our nation. If one of the intents of the Government is for education to have a direct impact upon the nation's "social well-being and economic development" we must consider those students who potentially create New Zealand's future – or we risk the erosion of the Kiwi "know-how, can-do" spirit. In 1993, the United States Department of Education voiced similar concerns, concluding that the neglect of gifted students was a "quiet crisis" which could result in the impossibility of successful competition in a global economy – one which, in fact, demands the skills of gifted and talented individuals. We must ask ourselves, is this what we want for our nation – and more importantly, for our nation's children?
Because at present, our culture is sending gifted and talented students many mixed messages. A strong urge for egalitarianism – or equality – is played out in New Zealand's "tall poppy syndrome". As Moltzen (2000) explains, this is a " 'cutting down to size' those whose performance elevates them above the masses and who it is perceived may become arrogant because of such elevation". So, in some respects, our culture actively works against excellence, to keep individuals "in their place".
Perhaps our beliefs are not all that dissimilar to those of Americans who "... are uncomfortable with social or intellectual distinctions or with any hierarchies that they believe can stand in the way of success for industrious individuals" (OERI, 1993, p. 12). The result in that country is "... a tendency ... to move toward a 'middling standard' that favours conformity over deviation from the norm" (OERI, 1993, p. 12). In some respects this is one message we send gifted and talented students in New Zealand: let's level the playing field.
And while on one hand, we might well want equality in terms of the playing field, we also want to win the game! New Zealanders are indeed proud of our winners – particularly those who really are on the playing field! We applaud our All Blacks, Olympic athletes, sailing champions, and cricket stars as heroes and heroines of a "sporting nation". However, as Moltzen (2000) reminds us, intellectual and creative victories – excellence – are not accorded the same status. In some ways I disagree because I feel that once they have achieved acclaim, nationally or internationally, New Zealanders do admire and reward outstanding leaders in many walks of life. I'll give you an example. A web site for a boys' high school features in its prospectus a listing of "distinguished" alumni. It was fascinating to read the categories given:
- Academia (only overseas professors are listed here and included are institutions such as Oxford, Cambridge, and Columbia)
- Arts and Culture
- Business and Commerce
- Politics, Diplomacy, and Public Service
- Sport (why of course!)
- Judiciary
- Military
This school boasts "...eighteen Knights, thirteen All Blacks, eight Cabinet Ministers and Governor General". Now, I realise this is just one example of applause for greatness – but when you think of those Kiwis who make you proud, how can you not include the likes of Kiri TeKanawa, Sir Ed Hillary, Anna Paquin, Ernest Rutherford, Tim Finn and on and on?
My argument here is that we value special abilities once they're manifested into outstanding performance; however, we are not yet comfortable with the notion of fostering those abilities as they are developing. So we may well send all our students the message that they should be the best they can be – after all, they're Kiwi kids, who we know are Wheet-Bix kids! Yet, at the same time we busy ourselves with the job of "cutting them down to size". It is in this cultural context that we perhaps come face-to-face with a battle of equity versus excellence. This is where, I believe, we teach our students to "strive for adequacy, not excellence" (OERI, 1993, p. 14).
Additionally, we, as educators, explicitly send this message through some of the current principles and practices we employ in schools. For reasons I feel are grounded in equity, or fairness to all, I believe that in many instances our education system "teaches to the middle". Over the last decade we have implemented practices such as mixed ability grouping and cooperative learning strategies, as techniques which, in principle, accentuate individual differences and abilities of all children – but in practice, create a wedge for gifted and talented students between a "pace that's too slow and a curriculum that's too narrow for their quick minds and abundant abilities" (Northwest Education Magazine, 1999, p. 1). We have principles of equity and substantive research to support these approaches; however, as Professor Joyce Van Tassel-Baska pointed out during a recent visit to New Zealand, much of the research supporting these practices does not include gifted and talented students in the samples. We can add to these practices those related to inclusion – keeping all kids in the same classroom. In principle, I certainly agree ... for no child should be isolated or stigmatised. But let's consider for a moment what it must be like to be gifted in this setting – to feel "hemmed in and out of place" (Northwest Education Magazine, 1999, p. 1). Imagine Alice in Wonderland when she said " ... there's no room to grow any more here". Listen to this conversation between Alice and a dormouse as she expands "like the largest telescope that ever was".
"I wish you wouldn't squeeze so," said the Dormouse, who was sitting next to her.
"I can't help it," said Alice meekly; "I'm growing."
"You've no right to grow here," said the Dormouse.
"Don't talk nonsense," said Alice more boldly; "you know you're growing too."
"Yes, but I grow at a reasonable pace," said the Dormouse, "not in that ridiculous fashion."
Now, I must interject here that I agree with other advocates of the gifted and talented who argue that these students "... should be served in the mainstream ... (however) the total elimination of ability groups hurts top students who clearly benefit from spending some class time with their intellectual peers" (Northwest Education Magazine, 1999, p. 5). We must take care as educators to create a balance here – we should not cancel out the positive effects of an educational practice for one group of students based solely upon the negative effects of another. And vice versa. In light of current teaching principles and practices, before embarking upon them, it is our duty and responsibility to carefully examine their effects upon all children – including those with gifts and talents.
A theme related to this is the idea that one size does not fit all – not all students, not even all gifted and talented students. The Ministry of Education elaborates upon this in stating:
A different way to learning is what kids are calling for. All of them are talking about how our one-size-fits-all delivery system – which mandates that everyone learn the same thing at the same time, no matter what their individual learning needs – has failed them.
(Sarason, 1993 cited in Ministry of Education, 2000b, p. 35)
If we buy into this idea – and we really should – then as educators we are required to differentiate educational experiences for all students, creating an education tailored to individual strengths and weaknesses. For gifted students, this means we must consider all aspects of their education – namely content (what they are taught and learn), processes (how they are taught and learn), products (the ways in which they demonstrate their knowledge and understandings), and learning environment. And we should attempt, anyway, to match their education more closely to their abilities. To do this adequately creates an equity dilemma in our heads, it seems, for it equates with giving special treatment to all ready special students. We might find ourselves asking "do the rich get richer?" On the other hand, not to differentiate creates a tension with the principles of excellence. It implies closing the gap by simply raising the floor – or worse yet, lowering the ceiling.
Let's look a bit more at the idea of "one-size-fits-all". I have a bathrobe – and it's one of those "one-size-fits-all" versions. Yet, it doesn't really fit. The sleeves cover my hands. The hem lingers above my knees. I could wrap it around myself twice. On one hand it's brilliant. Because it wasn't tailor-made, it's quite sensible, economically speaking. I'm sure the factory produced hundreds of them, with one pattern, the same amount of fabric for each one, production line efficiency. On the other hand it's a nuisance. My knees get cold. It falls off my shoulders. When I wash the breakfast dishes the sleeves get wet. Surely I don't look feminine in it – much less sexy! It doesn't accentuate the best "me". If our curriculum or national education goals or school charters cry out for both equity and excellence, and yet we deliver the same things to everyone, are we providing our gifted and talented students with a bathrobe that fits? Or are we just wrapping them up in one which feels okay, but leaves them asking "why can't I afford a tailor?" Or worse yet, "this is okay ... no one else's fits either!"
The final dilemma posed by equity and excellence is one which is very personal – and that's the ability of our profession to adequately meet the demands of those principles. Each of us, as teachers, brings to our work personal beliefs, values, and experiences, as well as professional knowledge, skills, and understandings. As members of a culture, we carry the baggage of cultural beliefs I previously discussed. To serve the needs of gifted and talented students might well feel like "going against the grain." Additionally, as professionals, teachers in New Zealand have not been given the adequate tools, support, even encouragement, to recognise and serve gifted and talented students – at both pre- and in-service levels. If equity and excellence imply we do this, some of us can and will – but many will struggle. Throw into this mix the expectations and demands of current educational principles and practices ... and, well ... only a superhero (or heroine!) could guarantee both equity and excellence – all students reaching their full potential. So I see a predicament formed by espousing equity and excellence as "can our teachers really do this?" It seems to me a huge ask – and yet, it isn't a question really – it's an expectation.
It is also a legal requirement. While it might seem a bit implicitly stated, there is a strong call – an expectation – that all schools in New Zealand actively make adaptations for gifted and talented students. National Education Goals which relate to gifted and talented students are those emphasising a broad and balanced curriculum, equal opportunities, and consideration of those with special needs. Within the revised National Administration Guidelines gifted and talented students are addressed in the first guideline which states:
Each Board, through the principal and staff is required to:
- on the basis of good quality assessment information, identify students and groups of students:
- who are not achieving;
- who are at risk of not achieving;
- who have special needs; and
- aspects of the curriculum which require particular attention;
- develop and implement teaching and learning strategies to address the needs of students and aspects of the curriculum identified in iii. above ... (Ministry of Education, 2000).
To implement this, we must remember that gifted and talented students are addressed in nearly every curriculum document. Some examples are:
English
The aims and objectives described in this curriculum statement provide goals and challenges for all, including gifted and talented students. Teachers should adapt learning contexts to stimulate and extend these students. Many of the learning and teaching examples suggest contexts for acceleration and enrichment – for instance, the processes and knowledge needed for complex language activity or research, and the emphasis on individual challenge, experiment, and excellence. The curriculum's openness with regard to the choice of literary texts also offers opportunity for challenge and extension to students with special language abilities (Ministry of Education, 1994).
Mathematics
... students with exceptional ability in mathematics must be extended and not simply expected to repeat different permutations of work they have clearly mastered (Ministry of Education, 1992).
Science
School and classroom programmes in science need to identify and nurture students with special abilities in science. When used flexibly, the curriculum offers talented students both acceleration and enrichment. An inclusive curriculum in science provides opportunities for students with special abilities to:
- have their special ability in science valued by their peers, their teachers, their families, and the wider community;
- develop their knowledge and skills at their own pace;
- engage in learning activities which encourage higher-order thinking skills, such as analysis, evaluation, and synthesis;
- learn through open-ended activities which encourage imaginative and creative thinking and lateral exploration of ideas;
- use co-operative and problem-solving approaches to learning;
- communicate their ideas with others of similar ability (Ministry of Education, 1993a).
The Arts
Programmes should extend and challenge students who are gifted or talented in the arts disciplines. Students may, for example, work towards achievement objectives at higher levels or take part in more complex and challenging learning experiences that their peers. Gifted and talented students may demonstrate exceptional abilities in a wide range of art forms, many of which have not traditionally received recognition. Schools should seek to identify such students as early as possible in their development, provide them with supportive learning experiences and environments, and devise assessment methodologies appropriate to their learning. The Ministry of Education publication Gifted and Talented Students: Meeting their Needs in New Zealand Schools provides information to assist in this process (Ministry of Education, 2000c).
Social Studies
The social studies curriculum states that in planning programmes schools must consider a wide range of factors. These include "the needs and experiences of students" and more explicitly meeting those needs and utilising prior experiences (Ministry of Education, 1997).
Health and Physical Education
This curriculum document states "Students who have exceptional ability in health education and physical education ... require programmes that extend them, challenge them, and broaden their abilities. These ... students need programmes adapted and organised to provide access to relevant opportunities, meet their individual needs, and contribute to the development of their personal identity and sense of worth." Principles like early identification and subsequent programming, appropriate pace of instruction, the development of full potential, consultation with parents, and a sense of feeling valued by the school community are also stated (Ministry of Education, 1999).
Technology
Technology programmes should 'recognise, respect, and respond to the educational needs, experiences, and values of all students: both female and male students; students of all ethnic groups; students with different abilities and disabilities; and students of different social and religious backgrounds (Ministry of Education, 1995).
As Amanda Speer, Ministry of Education policy analyst, states "This is great progress!" (personal communication, 2000).
And finally, the Ministry of Education, in the last two years, has taken measures to ensure that these statements have some mechanism for more explicit outcomes – the formation of an Advisory Group on Gifted Education, the development and distribution of a handbook for schools, the development and maintenance of a web-based "community" for gifted and talented, the implementation of professional development programmes. These initiatives demonstrate to me a commitment to equity and excellence for gifted and talented students. And it's positive!
Beyond these steps, how do we ensure that the principles of equity and excellence extend to all of our gifted and talented students? Let's begin by imagining a vision of excellence for New Zealand schools. Here's what we might dream of for all students:
- Expect success, but remember that achieving success for all students does not equate to the same results for all students. For our gifted and talented students, this means we must expect and accept a "different" path of learning which may be longer, farther, more winding than others.
- Accommodate diversity and find strengths in all students. For our gifted and talented students, we must actively seek to identify their abilities, not for the purpose of a label, but for the creation of an appropriate education.
- Set high expectations for all students, as teachers, parents, the New Zealand community. This implies that we expect our gifted and talented students to achieve and do not allow nor tolerate underachievement.
- Provide resources which make the curriculum "work" by matching those to individual students' strengths and needs. For gifted and talented students we must recognise that to effectively meet their needs, appropriate and additional physical, financial, and human resources are necessary.
- Challenge all students, allowing each one to experience the gains in self-esteem and confidence reaped from the mastery of "difficult" tasks. This means we must close the gap for gifted and talented students by raising the ceiling.
- Create "eager" members of society who are confident and willing to join in the intellectual and cultural life of this country. By acknowledging and allowing for the development of excellence in our gifted and talented students we demonstrate their value to our culture – today and tomorrow.
Now let's create a vision of equity (Northwest Education Magazine, 1999). The principles of gifted education are sound for all children. Think about these:
- All students are individuals who have gifts and talents to be discovered and nurtured, not just deficiencies and weaknesses to remediate. Our gifted and talented students should not be viewed as "The gifted," but as individuals with special abilities to be cultivated.
- All students have the chance to interact with others of their choice. Gifted and talented students should spend time each day with others of similar abilities or interests.
- All students have opportunities to discover and investigate areas of great interest and to become competent in those areas. This means our gifted and talented students are not simply consumers of knowledge, but producers of knowledge – because they can be.
- All students are allowed – in fact expected – to work at their level of ability. For gifted and talented students this means we must actively seek to match the level and pace of instruction to their abilities.
- All students receive support, guidance, and facilitation to maximise their potential. This translates into providing gifted and talented students with teachers who are understanding, caring, and supportive of their special intellectual, physical, social, and emotional needs.
So there you have it – sound principles of equity and excellence for all students. Perhaps the next challenge for us as educators is to combine these two sets of principles into everyday educational "reality" for gifted and talented students. I believe that here in New Zealand we're on the road to achieving such. But let's consider these steps, adopted from strategies employed for other underserved groups of students:
- National Leadership
We must maintain the national sense of direction for gifted education which is presently being given by the Ministry of Education. The past has been marked by waves, ebbs, and flows of interest. Let's ride this wave out, but not crash on the beach! Advocates for gifted and talented students must firstly recognise the efforts of the Ministry, follow that with action through implementation and involvement and then voice additional needs. We need to not just appreciate what we've got, but to expect more. Maybe we need to apply to our educational leaders their own motto with a twist – raise expectations, reduce disparity. - Policy
Each school in New Zealand must create and implement a policy for gifted and talented students. The Ministry endorses this in stating:"A crucial component in establishing a comprehensive and enduring approach to providing for the gifted and talented is the development of a relevant policy. While a policy does not guarantee that the gifted and talented are appropriately provided for in every classroom, it does go a long way to ensuring that needs of these students remain on a school's agenda. A policy also provides something against which approaches can be reviewed and evaluated" (2000b, p. 8).
- A safety net
We must provide programmes for gifted and talented students which meet their unique intellectual, physical, social, and emotional needs. These should be aligned with individual strengths and interests; thus, a continuum of student-centred approaches should be implemented in every classroom in every school in New Zealand. The Ministry's handbook, Gifted and Talented Students: Meeting Their Needs in New Zealand Schools, reminds us that to adequately do this, each school will need to develop its own approach. "Consequently, the information provided [by the Ministry] is not prescriptive. It includes a range of perspectives and possibilities to help each school tailor its response to the nature and needs of its students and community" (Ministry of Education, 2000b, p. 7). - Resources
Financial, material, and programmatic resources must be provided to support the education of gifted and talented students. It is important to point out that this is not about taking from one group to give to another – it is really about equity – spreading it around. - Assessment
We must ensure that our assessment practices are fair and unbiased, and used to inform instruction. Gifted and talented students should be assessed frequently and continually. In assessing their abilities it is important we don't create "false ceilings" – we may consider "off-level" – or rather, "above-level" – assessment practices. - Professional involvement and development
We need teachers who are committed, knowledgeable, and skilled to provide all students with opportunities to reach the highest standards of excellence. For gifted and talented students, this calls for a recognition that all teachers are teachers of the gifted. Thus, all teachers, at pre- and in-service levels require additional professional support and development to what is currently provided in New Zealand. The Ministry clearly supports this view, as evidenced in the professional development programmes offered this year and the intention of the establishment of gifted education advisors for next year. - Parental involvement
We must actively involve parents, and the community at large, in the education of gifted and talented students. To create a climate of excellence we must empower those inside and outside education to act as advocates for gifted and talented students. We must more enthusiastically inform and consult the other key players in the lives of gifted students. Also, parents and community members can volunteer time and resources by way of involvement in the planning and implementation of school policies and programmes. - Research
Research should inform practice and practice should inform research. Rather than relying upon overseas research in gifted education and re-synthesising those findings again and again, we need to undertake research within the New Zealand context. Both "theorists" and "practitioners" need to form partnerships which work together to actively seek the answers to important questions like "what works in New Zealand for gifted and talented students?" The findings of this research must be widely disseminated and acted upon. - The climate
The final recommendation I'd like to make is the need to "practice what we preach". An educational and cultural environment must be created which truly respects and celebrates all individual differences ... and that must be extended to include our gifted and talented students. Every student should have the experience of feeling valued, important, good about who they are and what makes them unique. We often talk in educational circles of doing this, but do we really – for all of our students?
It is clear that equity and excellence are principles underlying our education system in New Zealand. And they are principles which must be transformed from theoretical statements on paper to everyday reality for all students, including our gifted and talented students. Because in theory those principles are there, it could be very easy to "hide behind" the view that "yes, all of our students are reaching their full potential – the curriculum, our school charter, our wall of distinguished alumni gives us proof". Story over. Everyone lives happily ever after. The End.
Endings are good. I'm always glad to finish a report, mark the last assignment, wash the bottom-most dish in the sink, kiss the last little boy goodnight – or today, finish this address! But I read a paper the other day, in which the author expressed this same sense of almost "delight" over closure. He went on to state that he'd changed his mind recently. You see, he read philosopher Michel Foucault's analysis of the term closure and was left disturbed. Foucault believes that "closure illuminates a practice that has always exhibited a dangerous tendency: the need that many people have to label and dismiss, to feel good and stop thinking" (Attinasi, 2000, p.1). Closure is comforting. "It puts a label on a box – a label that inhibits us from opening the box to see what is really inside" (Attinasi, 2000, p. 1).
Yes, we can close the box on equity and excellence for gifted children. Okay, we've read the books, seen the documentation, listened to the keynote address. But we can't stop there. Having clarified the place of equity and excellence in the education of all students, and yes, that includes our gifted and talented, we must now increase awareness and understanding of these students and what practices ensure equity and excellence is extended to them. Then, we must take action! If we just close the box, what may happen is "we do gifted and talented" – we ride today's wave – go with today's flow – only to find it's as short-lived as "doing the Olympics in term 3, 2000". Ensuring equity with excellence for gifted and talented students " ... is a concept, a movement, and a process, and, as such, there can be no closure" (Attinasi, 2000, p. 2).
References
Attinasi, J. (2000). Academic achievement, culture, and literacy: An introduction. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/leadrshp/le0att.htm
Merriam-Webster Online Collegiate Dictionary. http://www.m-w.com/home.htm
Ministry of Education. (1992). Mathematics in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (1993). National Education Guidelines. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (1993a). Science in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (1994). English in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (1995). Technology in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (1997). Social studies in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (1999). Health and physical education in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2000a). New Zealand Ministry of Education Homepage. http://www.minedu.govt.nz
Ministry of Education. (2000b). Gifted and talented students: Meeting their needs in New Zealand schools. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2000c). The arts in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Moltzen, R. (2000). Guiding a nation's gifted. Unpublished manuscript.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). Homepage. http://www.ncrel.org
Roget's Online Thesaurus. http://www.thesaurus.com/roget
United States Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent.