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

Identification: ProblemsSocioeconomic factors. Keen (2001) hypothesized that the under-representation of Mäori and otherPolynesian children that emerged in his research could be related to socioeconomic status rather thanethnicity. He notes that children of beneficiaries and unskilled labourers are also under-representedamongst the gifted and that “a disproportionate number of Mäori fall within these occupationalcategories” (p. 9). Similarly, Rata (2000) maintains that ethnicity has been credited with a greaterinfluence than it actually exerts and that poverty is principally responsible for the educational andsocial inequalities that exist in New Zealand. However, Blair, Blair, and Madamba (1999) argue that itis virtually impossible to separate the potential effects of ethnicity and social class, while Bevan-Brown (2002) and Glynn (cited in Bevan-Brown, 2002) maintain that it is a pointless exercise anywayas both these dimensions need be taken cognisance of in any educational provisions for poor Mäoristudents with special needs and abilities.Cultural factors. Apart from the influence of socioeconomic factors, participants in Keen’s researchmentioned other possible causes of the under-representation of Mäori students in gifted education.These were incompatibilities “between Mäori performance and conventional school cultures” (Keen,2001, p. 9); procedures for gifted identification that rely predominantly on written evidence, to thedisadvantage of Mäori oral culture and kinaesthetic expression (Keen, 2002a, p.17) and the inabilityof teachers to recognise giftedness in diverse cultural settings (Keen, 2001, p. 3). These last tworeasons have particular significance given this research also found that the most frequently usedstrategies for identifying gifted and talented students were observational approaches in early childhoodcentres and primary schools and assessment related approaches in secondary schools. Interestingly, theleast used identification strategies were those that required community input including parental,whänau, peer and self nomination.In fact concerns about ineffective and inappropriate identification of gifted and talented Mäoristudents are prominent in the literature. Anderson (1990), Bevan-Brown (1993, 1994, 1996, 2000a,2002); Cathcart (1994); Cathcart and Pou (1992); Doidge (1990); Galu (1998); Hurtubise (1991);McCaffery (1988); McKenzie (2001); Milne (1993); Niwa (1998/99); Reid (1989, 1990, 1991, 1992)and Rymarczyk Hyde (2001) all voice a concern that gifted and talented Mäori and other minoritygroup children are missing out on identification because teachers identify giftedness from a majorityculture perspective using methods that have a dominant cultural bias. In particular considerablecriticism has been levelled at the use of and over-dependence on majority-normed IQ and achievementtests (Bevan-Brown, 1993, 1994; Cathcart, 1994; Dale, 1988; Freeman, 1983; Galu, 1998; Hurtubise,1991; McAlpine, 1996; McCaffery, 1988; McKenzie 2001; Milne, 1993; Niwa, 1998/99; Reid, 1989,1990, 1991, 1992).Attitudinal factors. Bevan-Brown (2000a) identified negative attitudes as a major barrier in theidentification of gifted Mäori students. In particular, she highlighted low teacher expectation whichresulted in a number of negative outcomes, namely, under-identification, teaching practices andbehaviours that disadvantaged gifted Mäori students and students developing low self-esteem andperforming ‘down’ to expectation. Gifted Mäori students were also disadvantaged by a range oforganisational procedures, practices and structures in secondary schools and negative feedback fromtheir classmates and society in general.In a research that involved talking to teachers and students about music education in 15 schoolsthroughout New Zealand and observing in music classes, Henderson (2003) found that the high dropout rate of talented Mäori and Polynesian students from traditional music programmes could beattributed to a number of factors. One of these was “a form of cultural ‘blindness’ occurring in musiceducation and a culturally “deficit” model of viewing low achievement ”(p. 14).Negative and deficit-based teacher attitudes that disadvantage gifted Mäori students have also beennoted by Galu (1998), McKenzie (2001), Milne (1993), Reid (1992), and Rymarczyk Hyde (2001).134