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

THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF IDENTIFICATION AND PROVISIONS FORGIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS IN NEW ZEALAND SCHOOLSAs this review of the literature demonstrates, much of the ‘research’ in New Zealand is based upondescriptive reports. However, there are several studies (Keen, 2000, 2001, 2002a, 2002b, 2003;McAlpine, 1993; Moltzen, 1992; Riley, 2003) which have been conducted over the last 15 years whichdelve into the nature and extent of provisions for gifted and talented students. Although each of thesestudies examined different elements of gifted and talented education, with different pockets of NewZealand educators, the findings begin to paint a picture of the common practices in gifted and talentededucation. Those related to identification, provisions, and school organisation are reported here toprovide readers with a backdrop upon which to better consider and understand the purposes andfindings of this research report.In 1991, McAlpine conducted a national survey of New Zealand schools which queried the ‘currentstate of affairs’ in gifted education, at that time. (Findings are reported in McAlpine, 1993.) The studywas supported by the New Zealand School Trustees Association and 997 schools responded. Thefindings are summarised as follows:• Sixty-three per cent of responding schools indicated that they had a policy for students withspecial needs and 45% of schools made reference to gifted and talented students in specialneeds policies.• Nineteen per cent of the respondents reported special, separate policies for gifted and talentedstudents.• Thirty-one per cent of respondents indicated that “all classes” were “involved in some form ofprovisions, e.g. enrichment programmes, IEPs” (p. 11).• Eighty per cent of responding schools stated that gifted and talented students were providedprogrammes within regular, mainstreamed classrooms.• In relation to enrichment and acceleration, 74% of schools reported that their major emphasiswas on enrichment and 56% reported that they ‘employed’ acceleration.• Of the responding schools, 428 indicated a need for: assistance in relation to resources forfunding, space, staff, etc; teacher education (pre-service and in-service); and information aboutstrategies for teaching gifted and talented students.McAlpine (1993) acknowledged the limitations of survey research of this nature and recommendedthat these findings would be enhanced by interviews and visits to schools. He also describes difficultyin determining the accuracy of these findings, which is complicated by the different meaningsassociated with different terms (e.g., enrichment and acceleration, special programmes, andprovisions). Finally, the quality of the implementation of policies or programmes is inevitably notreported or investigated in research of this nature. However, McAlpine’s findings did give anindication of the overall picture of gifted and talented education in late 1991.Moltzen (1992) reports findings of a similar study which investigated, via questionnaire, the policiesand provisions of schools in the Waikato district. He surveyed all schools in the district, receivingresponses from 121 schools (100 primary, 21 secondary). His findings were similar to McAlpine’s;however, in some cases the terminology used by the two researchers differed and makes comparisondifficult. Nonetheless, Moltzen reported:• Thirteen per cent of respondent schools included recognition of gifted and talented students intheir school charters; 25% of primary schools and 18% of secondary schools had policiesspecific to gifted and talented students. Interestingly, of schools which addressed specialabilities in their charters, 41% also reported having policy statements.157