The Extent, Nature and Effectiveness of Planned Approaches in ...

• Missed instruction (Cox & Daniel, 1984) which may lead to students feeling punished forparticipating (Vaughn et al., 1991), getting a ‘double-dose’ of work or missing out onfavourite activities (Moltzen, 1996c).• A ‘part-time solution to a full-time problem’ (Van Tassel-Baska, 1987) or “weak solutions tobig problems” (Winner, 1996b, p. 44).• Danger of being one-off, temporary fillers or add-ons (Townsend, 1996).• Seldom meet the goals of gifted education programmes, but create a false impression thatsomething ‘substantial’ is being provided for gifted and talented students (Belcastro, 1987).• By being singled out, the child is labelled ‘gifted’ and this may create resentment amongstclassroom peers (Carter & Kuechenmeister, 1986).• Teachers may resent having their ‘best’ students withdrawn (Cox & Daniel, 1984), feeling thatthey could teach these students as well as the specialist (Rogers, 2002b).• Lack of communication between the pull-out programme and regular classroom teachers(Delcourt et al., 1994) which may result in staff discord and misperceptions (Van Tassel-Baska, 1987).• Dependent upon the length of time a student is involved, pull-out programmes may not allowstudents in-depth study (Winner, 1996b).• If enrichment-based, there is a danger of simply ‘more of the same’ busy work (Townsend,1996).• One kind of curriculum offered to all gifted children, regardless of their individual strengthsand abilities (Townsend, 1996; Winner, 1996b), and being “taught as an homogeneous group,where little cognisance is taken of differences in learning styles, abilities or interests”(Moltzen, 1996c, no page given).• “These classes are not clearly distinguishable from good classes for ordinary children”(Winner, 1996b, p. 44).• If specialist teachers are employed, pull-out programmes can be cost-bearing and potentiallyexpensive (Bernal, 2003a).• May be perceived by parents and educators as ‘the’ gifted programme, and in doing so thisdoes not take into account the remainder of the time spent in school (Rogers, 2002b).• Pull-out programmes have the potential to isolate gifted students from ethnic minorities(Bevan-Brown, 1996; Ministry of Education, 2000).Recommendations for Effective Practice• The pull-out programme should be combined with other strategies (Vaughn et al., 1991) alonga continuum of provisions (Ministry of Education, 2000).• Pull-out programmes should be offered in gifted and talented students’ early years ofschooling and followed-up with more appropriate options during intermediate and secondaryyears (Moon et al., 1994)• Belcastro (1997) outlines the key criteria that all gifted programmes, including pull-out orwithdrawal, should meet: integration with the regular curriculum; identification of students;daily programme experience; placement with intellectual peers; match between pace ofprogramme and students’ rates of learning; curriculum complexity; and excellent teachers.• The curriculum in pull-out programmes should replace (Ronvik, 1993) or enhance (Rogers,2002b) the regular curriculum, as opposed to being ‘added-on.’ Additionally, the curriculum97