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

…appears to suit Mäori and Polynesian students because it provides social and culturalinteraction within mixed ability classrooms. Students do not have to be separated fromcultural peers and the identification issue fades away. This has a positive effect as allstudents still can believe they are special and not “dumb.” This for Mäori and Polynesianswho may already have low self-esteem and concepts, is crucial. (p. 51)While not specifically designed for gifted education, the Curriculum Integration model proposed byBeane (1997) has also proven successful in providing for gifted Mäori students (Jenkins, 2002). Milne(2001, cited in Jenkins, 2002) explains that the Curriculum Integration Model’s problem solvingapproach allows Mäori students to pose questions relevant to themselves, “their iwi, cultural traditions,land, colonisation, politics or the implications of the Treaty of Waitangi” (p. 47).Although not a programme or model, the use of mentors and role models is another approach that isrecommended for gifted Mäori and Polynesian students (Bevan-Brown, 1993, 2000b, 2003; Fitzgerald& Keown, 1996; Galu, 1998; Henderson, 2003; McKenzie, 2001). A participant in Bevan-Brown’s(2000b) investigation into provisions for gifted and talented students in kura kaupapa Mäori explained:Once a particular talent is identified we look for someone within the whänau who can takethe child under their wing and nurture that talent. Their job is to encourage and teach. Thewhänau member can come to the kura and work with the child and maybe others or perhapsthe child will go out of the kura to work with that person. This can be done in school time,after school or at the weekend. It doesn’t really matter. It depends on what is mostappropriate and what opportunities arise.Greater parental, whänau and community involvement. Bevan-Brown (1993, 1994, 1996, 2002) callsfor greater involvement of parents, whänau and the Mäori community in the education of gifted Mäorichildren. Participants in her 1993 research suggested a number of ways this could be achievedincluding: increased home-community-school consultation and involvement in relevant decisionmaking,parent/whänau/community nomination as a component of the identification process,involvement as resource people, advisers, volunteers, audiences, mentors and role models (preferablypeople gifted children could ‘whakapapa into’); and as participants in programme evaluation. Bevan-Brown (2000b) found that in kura kaupapa Mäori, parents, whänau and community members wereregularly being involved as resource people and mentors to extend children in their areas of particularstrength.Doidge (1990); Galu (1998); McKenzie (2001); and Rymarczyk Hyde (2001) also advocate for greatercommunication with and involvement of parents, whänau and Mäori and Polynesian communities.Talking specifically of mentorship, Galu (1998) noted that “for some Polynesians who have severedlinks with their elders or grandparents back in the islands this provision seems very appropriate” (p.59).Equity measures. The literature contains a number of equity-related suggestions to ensure studentsfrom ethnic minority groups are provided for. For example, Galu (1998) recommends a quota systemfor these students to ensure their representation in gifted and talented programmes. This was alsoraised as an issue by participants in Keen’s (2002) research.Rawlinson (1996) suggests that the gate-keeping pre-requisites for some gifted programmes beabolished for underachieving and under-represented gifted minority students. Rather than waiting forthese students “to demonstrate a set number of gifted behaviours” they should be included in initialenrichment tasks as:inclusion may be all that is needed to strengthen children’s academic self concept andenhance their confidence to demonstrate special abilities. In terms of equity it is theeducator’s responsibility to explore alternative teaching strategies which may support thesechildren (p. 356).140