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

It is also important to remember that cultures may interpret behaviours differently. As Bevan-Brown(1996) points out, a Mäori interpretation of leadership abilities and qualities acknowledges the“behind-the-scenes” leader, the leader who may never be seen “in the public eye” but who quietlyworks in the background, “lifting people up” (pp. 95-96). So, if the characteristics adopted by aschool, and associated with leadership, only reflect the up-front style of leadership, these children willno doubt be overlooked. Similarly, it is important to remember the qualities and abilities valued withinMäori society, constantly seeking to understand how those might be demonstrated.Finally, educators must be aware of the ‘flipside’ of giftedness: the seemingly positive behaviourswhich can show themselves in less acceptable ways (Ministry of Education, 2000). For example, astudent who has a vast range of general knowledge and ability to quickly learn new ideas may becomequite bored and act out in frustration. Some gifted and talented students will ‘hide’ their abilities to fitin or for cultural acceptance; others will rebel against the educational system and underachieve; someothers will have abilities masked by learning, physical or behavioural disabilities; and naturally, otherswill shine as confident, independent, high achieving students (Ministry of Education, 2000).In sum, gifted and talented students are markedly different from other children. Their social,emotional, intellectual, cultural, and physical abilities and qualities will vary amongst individuals, butas a group, gifted children are ‘out-of-step’ with their peers. The recognition and acknowledgement ofthese asynchronous behaviours will be partially reliant upon a school’s definition, its scope andinclusiveness. There is an interrelationship between how a school defines giftedness and talent and therelated behaviours and characteristics.IDENTIFICATIONOne of the most widely discussed and perplexing aspects of gifted and talented education isidentification. As Davis and Rimm (1998) state, “There probably are as many different strategies andpolicies for identifying gifted and talented students as there are programs” (p. 68). The Ministry ofEducation (2000) indicates that identification is often ranked ‘number one’ amongst critical issues inthe field. It seems that the identification of the gifted and talented sometimes becomes a matter of‘getting the label right.’ However, identification is not about the label itself, but as the Ministry ofEducation (2000) encourages, it should be seen as a means to an end. Identification has as its ultimategoal the collection of a wide range of information about a gifted and talented student’s learning,interests, qualities, abilities, strengths, and weaknesses to be used in the formation and implementationof a differentiated educational programme. At the same time, identification is a reflection of one’sconceptualisation of giftedness and talent. In this way, as the Ministry of Education (2000) points out,identification is the ‘mediating link’ between a school’s concept or definition of giftedness and talentand its differentiated educational provisions.In theory, the principles and purposes in identification, as briefly outlined above and discussed morefully in this section, are sound. However, it is in practice that the issue of identification becomesproblematic. Callahan, Hunsaker, Adams, Moore, and Bland (1995) outlined the forces contributing tothe dilemmas over identification in the United States, and these are relevant within the New Zealandcontext. Firstly, confusion over the concept of giftedness and talent underlies perplexities related toidentification. Broadened conceptualisations and definitions of giftedness and talent as advocated bythe Ministry of Education (2000, 2002) have made the selection of appropriate identification methodsmore complex and difficult. Additionally, some constructs of giftedness and talent, such as cultural,emotional and spiritual giftedness, may be difficult to define and measure. Often educators rely uponcommonly known methods, and in doing so, may fail to match the method to the construct. Related tothis problem with conceptions of giftedness and talent are two common misconceptions: ‘the giftedand talented’ are seen as a homogeneous group, similar across individuals; and giftedness and talent isviewed as a static trait (Braggett, 1994). The flow-on effect of these misconceptions is an attempt tofind the ‘truly’ gifted students, and the result is often rigid, narrow identification processes.Conversely, it is also plausible that in attempting not to exclude students, the identification processescan become so broad, they are not justifiable.13