The recent
scoping report by consultants MartinJenkins, commissioned by Gifted Kids (now
New Zealand Centre for Gifted Education) identified a series of ‘gaps’ in service delivery for gifted children in New Zealand’s
schools (read more here: http://www.giftedkids.co.nz/Gaps+in+education+for+gifted+-+report+finds+-+Media+Release). These thoughts are echoed by the shared Position Statement from the New Zealand Centre for Gifted Education, giftEDNZ and the NZAGC.
If they aren’t doing this, we must stop and think very, very carefully about why.
Reis (1998) identified a relationship between unchallenging or inappropriate curriculum in underachievement, and Whitmore (1989) found a leading cause of under-achievement to be “Environments that do not nurture their gifts and may even discourage high achievement” (Whitmore, 1989). More simply put, gifted children may not be working to their potential because they are not being given educational opportunities that propel them towards that potential.
Sources:
When thinking about gaps
in relation to the education of gifted, one springs to my mind immediately – the gap between potential and
achievement in our gifted children. This gap saddens and angers me. To see gifted children languishing in the 'above standard' zone, perhaps a year above their chronological age, is simply wrong.
While
giftedness is not an automatic ticket to high achievement but our gifted
children absolutely and undoubtedly have the ability to achieve at exceptional
levels, many years above their chronological age. If they aren’t doing this, we must stop and think very, very carefully about why.
Reis (1998) identified a relationship between unchallenging or inappropriate curriculum in underachievement, and Whitmore (1989) found a leading cause of under-achievement to be “Environments that do not nurture their gifts and may even discourage high achievement” (Whitmore, 1989). More simply put, gifted children may not be working to their potential because they are not being given educational opportunities that propel them towards that potential.
There’s a lot
of chalk-face talk about enrichment and lateral extension as provisions for
gifted children. Despite many good intentions, I remain unconvinced that these piece-meal,
‘around the edges’ approaches are anywhere near sufficient to close the gap.
A bigger picture
view of what our gifted students need is required here – one that has genuine
intellectual challenge at the core of any provision for gifted students. Intellectually challenging content, tasks and
processes can be developed for all gifted students, at any ages, and across and
within all curriculum areas. Challenging
strength based programming allows gifted children to really work towards their
potential.
The other
common chalk-face conversation is about the limits placed upon us as teachers by
the New Zealand Curriculum and National Standards. Here I echo Sue Barriball's concerns about raising the ire of my colleagures, those in my profession, one that I have worked in for 20 years, but... I think blaming the limits of our curriculum or National Standards is an easy ‘out’. There is plenty of scope within both for us as teachers to develop genuinely
intellectually challenging programmes for our gifted children from school entry
onwards. Let’s be more creative, more adventurous, more ambitious as we create and negotiate curriculum
pathways that challenge our students, and start to close the gap.
As teachers,
are we brave enough?Sources:
Reis, S. M. (1998). Underachievement for some—Dropping out with dignity for others. Communicator, 29(1), 1, 19–24.
Comments
Post a Comment