Below is my first post for EDLT481 Education of the Gifted and Talented. I enjoyed writing it and it is wonderful to have the requirement to consider these issues rather than it simply feeling like something I should do.
Myths lead to
misunderstanding, leading to missed opportunities
The more that I read and reflected in topic one, the more I
came to believe the title of this little thought bubble. Having said that, it
is probably giving a brief overview of the basis of my, potential, biases. I am
the parent of four very intelligent children – not claiming gifted at this
stage – three of whom, the boys, have Asperger’s. My eldest finished high
school last week and will achieve a good OP and received an A on the QCS test,
without breaking an academic sweat. A great teacher arrived too late in his
special interest area, ancient history, to really challenge him. The second son
is in year seven, likes school well enough, but is showing nothing of his
potential. His teachers know he is more than capable; his Aspiness gets in the
way. Sorry, but this waffly disclaimer goes on for another paragraph.
For myself, I was in the first selective cohort at Gosford High. Like a number of my friends, I struggled. Topic one’s readings have provided some confirmation – confirmation bias perhaps – as to why that was. Why some of my friends, who have gone onto achieve wonderful things in their chosen fields, dropped out of school. Which is what I ended up doing, early on in year eleven. I have come believe that there were number of factors that affected my approach to education at that stage. The most glaring of which is the myths that, “Gifted children will do fine on their own” and that there is a distinct model of a gifted student as the earlier paradigms would seem to assume (Bannister-Tyrrell, Merrotsy, Jones, & Gunn, 2016).
Beginning with the
second myth first, the Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA)(n.d.)
is quite clear on the fact that students showing gifted and talented traits can
be quite varied across a number of areas. Importantly, the same document states
that students are entitled to “rigorous, relevant and engaging learning
opportunities”. I am left wondering how that can be achieved in the
current system where everything must be measured. There is nothing wrong with
being results orientated, but a grade, or NAPLAN score, should not be the only
measure of a good education.
No method is perfect,
or can accomplish every goal, though at least Gagné has provided a
source that encourages a different approach. The 2008 Differentiated Model of
Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) begins to do more than simply separate gifts and
talents. By breaking away from the paradigm that says IQ is paramount, the
opportunity arises to identify a range of talents. Even more significantly,
Gagné has identified a number of factors or influences that contribute to the
realisation of the gifted student’s potential. While still showing some
limitations, this goes a long way to acknowledging the fact that one gifted and
talented student is not the same as the next. There is no simple equation.
Another approach might go further to destroy this myth. We have seen in
the last ten years or so greater recognition that the Autism spectrum is just
that, a spectrum. I believe that this approach should be applied to giftedness.
Approaching giftedness as a continuum provides the opportunity to begin to the
gifted and talented student as an individual rather than a specific group. This
approach lends itself immediately to appropriate differentiation. As seen in
British Columbia (Laine & Stanley, 1989), a continuum rather than a
dichotomous approach can be an incredibly effective method of establishing
programming for the gifted and talented. It is a system through which all
students can profit.
This system asks the
question, ‘what can we do with what we have?’ Bypassing the limitations of
funding and resourcing, using a continuum approach has allowed students to
access extension, or even different curriculum as required, on an individual
basis, creating provisions within the “students’ daily lives”(Laine & Blank,
1989). The programming is designed to develop students to be “more independent
managers of their own education”, and provides opportunity for counselling
rather than extension if that is what is required by the individual. This
article only provides an overview of the program, so I am very interested in
exploring this further.
An individual approach that exists along a continuum addresses both of
the myths identified earlier in this ramble. When a student is considered in
this way, it is possible to differentiate quite specifically. Another personal
belief that all of this reinforces, is that the current method of segregating
students due to their age is outdated. If all truly exist on a continuum and,
as the Melbourne Declaration (2008) states, all students have a right to an
education that meets their needs, progressing students through their education
based on their turning another year older rather than attaining mastery of a
skill or knowledge area is at once holding students back while leaving others
behind.
There are ways to address these issues, but while funding models and
governmental policy stays firmly rooted in the past, the status quo will
remain. While this is a problem, it does take me to another thought that
plagued me throughout this topic. What can I do as an individual teacher, in my
smallish school, in a regional area? Ideas are brewing away. I look forward to
exploring these issues as the unit progresses.
References other
than topic readings
Laine, C.J., &
Blank, S.S., (1989) Integrative Program
Policy for the Gifted: Continuum or Dichotomy? Canadian Journal of
Education Vol. 14 No. 1
No comments:
Post a Comment