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

many others did not. For example, 18 schools reported on their identification procedures; four schoolssimply wrote, “it all depends”; two stated that this was an area being developed; and two schoolsindicated that they were “using an adviser.” Approximately 20 schools replied with teachingstrategies or provisions, as opposed to curriculum or programme models, and these included DeBono’sThinking Hats, inquiry learning, critical thinking, action learning, integration, acceleration, ‘ChallengeClub,’ and Successmaker. Two schools indicated use of the Ministry of Education handbook (2000)and three reported use of the New Zealand Curriculum Framework.The most frequently cited model was the Enrichment Triad Model, which was reported by 44 schools.Additionally, fifteen schools utilise the Enrichment Triad in conjunction with another model: MultipleIntelligences (3); Autonomous Learner Model (6); Bloom’s Taxonomy (5); and the AutonomousLearner Model and REACH Model (1). One school reported use of the Schoolwide EnrichmentModel. Another school employs the Revolving Door Model in conjunction with MultipleIntelligences.The second most frequently cited model was the Autonomous Learner Model, as indicated by 26schools. Additionally, one school reported its use in conjunction with Multiple Intelligences andanother with one of the Purdue models (not clarified in the response). As cited above, the AutonomousLearner Model is also used by seven schools in association with the Enrichment Triad Model.Multiple Intelligences was reported as the sole model employed by five schools, but also used inconjunction with Bloom’s Taxonomy by two schools, as well as in association with the modelsreported above. Six schools stated that they use models based upon Cathcart’s work; however, it is notclear from the responses if this refers to the REACH model or other works. Two specifically identifiedthe REACH model, whereas the others simply made reference to Cathcart and/or the George ParkynCentre.Two schools report use of a variety of approaches, or as one of these respondent states, “a cut-andpasteapproach.” Neither of these responses gives any indication which models are being utilised.However, six other schools describe an eclectic approach which integrates up to seven models and/orstrategies. These include all of the aforementioned models and strategies, but also Krathwohl’sTaxonomy (affective), Williams’ Matrix, and conceptual themes.School-Based Provisions for Gifted and Talented StudentsSchools were asked whether school-based provisions had been available to gifted and talented studentsover the last 12 months. Respondents were asked to indicate the types of school-based provisions foreach different area of special ability. The following provisions were given as options: cross-agegrouping; withdrawal groups; cluster grouping; early entry; concurrent/dual enrolment; full-timespecial classes; mentorships; competitons; clubs or electives; virtual instruction; external exams; andoutside experts. Additionally, respondents were asked to indicate the level at which identificationoccurred (i.e., schoolwide, NE-Year 2, Years 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-10, 11-12 or a combination).The extent of school-based provisions. The majority of the 1273 schools (63.6%) indicated thatschool-based provisions had been made for gifted and talented students in the last 12 months; 36.4%had not made such provisions. An analysis by school level indicates that 62.4% of primary schools,88.7% of intermediate schools, 67.1% of secondary schools, and 40.0% of ‘other’ schools areproviding school-based programmes for gifted and talented students. Table 25 shows an analysis ofschool-based provisions in relation to decile.Fifty-seven point three percent of decile 1-5 schools and 68.7% of decile 6-10 schools reported schoolbasedprovisions. As decile increases, so too does the likelihood of school-based provisions: 73.5% ofschools with a decile rating of 10 reported school-based provisions, in contrast to 44.2% of decile 1schools. In rural schools, 52.6% reported school-based provisions and 68.3% of urban schoolsreported the same.188