A look at identification of Gifted and Talented students in Australia

I have been told that this is a touch too opinionated. Perhaps. Maybe that is just me though.

Uncovering Gifted and Talented Students in the Australian Educational Context.

There is an attitude in Australia, perhaps the egalitarian streak that runs through the culture, which sees those with gifts and talents, unrelated to sport, as suspect. Unless your gifts and talents are useful on the sporting field, stay in your box/room/lab. This attitude influences policy. There are many historical reasons for the pervasiveness of this way of thinking, however the effect is real and is felt by students across the country. Without clear policies regarding gifted and talented students, identification will continue to be stifled and students will continue to mask their talents. It is imperative that this be changed.

Identification methods in Australia

In a review of gifted and talented identification methods and policy in Australia, Slater (2018) found a general lack of consistency. While there is direction provided, nationally, by the Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA), it is left to the state education bodies to implement policy and syllabus based on state level priorities. Outside of New South Wales and South Australia, policy regarding identification is vague at best, with Victoria having no policy at all (Slater, 2018). This is inconsistent with the aims of the Melbourne Declaration.

The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA 2008) calls for both equity and excellence in education (Hyde, Carpenter, Conway, 2014). Without clear policy and direction, it is hard to see how these goals could possibly be met for the gifted and talented. There is a distinct need to make a change. Without direction from education departments, regions and schools, there is no imperative for teachers to act. Considering the change that has happened spheres of working with students with disabilities and from diverse backgrounds – rightfully so – it can be seen that with direction, and directives, change can occur.

While not perfect, New South Wales has a comprehensive policy and systems that aims to cater to the needs of the gifted and talented students in that state. The New South Wales policy embraces Gagné’s model of gifted and talented, encompassing a broad definition throughout a number of spheres (Department of Education & Training, 2004). This policy places the requirements of identification on the individual school, providing the scope to develop programs to fit the local context. Rather than a specific method for identifying gifted and talented students, a series of guidelines is provided, which states the process must: be school-wide, use multiple criteria, be inclusive, dynamic, ongoing and several more (Department of Education & Training, 2004). It would seem that the scope is there to capture a wide range of gifted students.

In South Australia, the other state with a comprehensive policy identified by Slater (2018), the identification process involves a number of subjective and objective measures (Department for Education and Child Development, 2016). There is an acknowledgement that the identification process can be a difficult one, with a number of factors impacting upon the visibility of gifted and talented students. Also highlighted is the need for identification not to be an end in itself, rather it should be ongoing and the “impetus for providing appropriate and personalised learning programs (Department for Education and Child Development, 2016). Identification might include observations and interviews, interest surveys, standardised attainments tests and standardised achievement tests such as Raven’s standard progressive matrices. The front line of all this remains the teacher.

Western Australia places the emphasis of identification on the parents. With no clear policy document regarding gifted and talented available, it would seem that it is up to parents and primary teachers to recommend that student sit the testing required to gain access to the states’ selective high schools. The Academic Selective Entrance Test (ASET) is required to be sat by all students seeking acceptance, with additional requirements dependant on the specific program/s being applied for (Department of Education, 2018). While the programs themselves seem broad in their scope and therefore opportunity, the application process is slanted towards those clearly showing their potential rather than identifying students that may slip through the net.

Talent Masks – The hidden gifted and talented

What the majority of the policy documents discussed above leave out is the fact that gifted and talented students are not always apparent. Unsurprisingly, in a cultural climate that does little to celebrate the academically talented, or anyone that is different to the norm, it is not surprising that many talented students hide their capabilities. Reporting in the Sydney Morning Herald, Jennifer Jolly (2016) compares Australia’s obsession with the success, or otherwise, of our sporting teams, with little concern shown towards declining academic success of “our best and brightest young students barely rates a mention”. If the nation places so little emphasis on academic or cultural success, why should the individual?

Montgomery (2009) highlights the extent of underachievement, stating that 80% of students are underachieving with astonishing regularity. Overcoming this should be a primary focus of any plan to identify gifted students. In order to do so, teachers need to be conscious of the reasons why students may choose hide behind a mask. The values of a student’s peers and wider culture are a primary reason for the desire to hide potential away.

That Australians broadly consider all to be equal is a wonderful aspect of the culture in many ways. It builds community. Conversely, this egalitarian approach to life has a tendency to develop “a profound unease with ‘further privileges for the already privileged’” (Jericho, n.d.). Particularly throughout middle school years – 7 to 9 – students become more and more reliant on their peers for validation, seeking to create their own identities through the eyes of those around them (O’Donnell et al., 2012). The desire and need to fit in leads to making adaptions in order not to call attention to individual differences.

Of course, in the modern Australian context, there are a plethora of communities and sub-cultures that have their own impact on a student’s desire to be seen as someone standing out from the crowd. Australian indigenous groups place particular importance on family, community and culture, with those over-riding the educational requirements of modern schooling. Chaffey, Bailey and Vine (2003) provide an example of how such barriers may be overcome. Working with and within communities, a model has been developed that provides dynamic, culturally appropriate, opportunities to test and work with gifted indigenous students. The dynamic nature of their testing overcame the masking of the underachievers and found gifted rates similar to those in other communities (2003). This is proof that cultural barriers may be overcome.

Considering all of this, it is apparent that there is a need for identification of gifted and talented students to take into account that students may not wish to be seen as such. Therefore, identification methods need to screen students in ways that at once both effective and non-confrontational. Fun would be an added bonus. There are several options that may be utilised.

First and foremost, as identified by those Australian education departments with policies, the teacher and the parents are at the forefront of gifted and talented identification. Conversations with parents can lead to a greater understanding of the student’s strengths and interests in ways that may not be possible simply conversing with the student themselves. Parents often have insights that may not be readily apparent to the child. Teachers must use their observational skills and basically get to know their students. This can be built further with the use of checklists, such as those outlined by Montgomery (2009). While such checklists may be aimed at identifying underachievement rather than potential giftedness specifically, it is hardly a waste of the teacher’s time to consider their students under such a light.

One potential screening tool that leaps out is the Ideal Computer test (Shavinina, 2009). Using the concept that the students have access to a computer, which has all the answers to any questions they may possibly ever wish to ask, students are able to spend some time developing their questions in what would appear to be engaging exercise. Certainly non-confrontational, the number of questions and depth of insight sought by the students may be scaled by the teacher to at least give some indication of potential. Of course, there will always be students who will not even willingly participate in something so simple, but as an entry point to screening, it would seem to have a number of advantages over more traditional and complex forms.

Conclusion

The importance of identifying students with potential giftedness or apparent talents cannot be understated. Like all students, they have a right to an education that is challenging ad engaging. It is to society’s benefit that these students reach their potential, giving them the opportunity to lift the potential of communities and the country as a whole. That it is a difficult task to identify those that perhaps wish to remain hidden in the crowd, should not deter educational bodies from doing so. There is an opportunity within this country to celebrate all forms of achievement equally. The dearth of policy regarding the gifted and talented is something to be worked upon by all, to the benefit of all.

References Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA). Gifted and Talented Students. Retrieved from: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/student-diversity/gifted-and-talented-students Chaffey, G., Bailey, S., & Vine, K. (2003). Identifying high academic potential in Australian Aboriginal children using dynamic testing. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education 12(1), pp. 42-55. Department of Education. (2018). Guidelines for Parents Gifted and Talented Selective Entrance to Secondary Schools and Programs. Government of Western Australia Department of Education and Child Development. (2016). Gifted and talented children and students policy. Government of South Australia. Department of Education and Training. (2004). Policy and implementation strategies for the education of gifted and talented students. State of NSW. Hyde, M., Carpenter, L., Conway, R. (2014). Diversity, Inclusion & Engagement (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Jericho, A. (n.d.). Inquiry into the Education of Gifted and Talented Children. Board for Lutheran Schools. Jolly, J. (2016). Gifted and talented students are neglected by our schools. Retrieved from: https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/gifted-and-talented-students-are-neglected-by-our-schools-20160928-grqd6c.html Montgomery, D. (2009). Able, gifted and talented underachievers (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley. O'Donnell, M., Dobozy, E., Bartlett, B., Bryer, F., Reeve, J., Smith-Wiley, J. (2012). Educational Psychology: First Australian Edition. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. Shavinina, L. (2009). International handbook on giftedness. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Slater, E. (2018). The identification of gifted children in Australia: The importance of policy. TalentEd, 30, 1–16.

A smattering of thoughts on gifted & talented characteristics and identification

Characteristics and Identification – Topic 2

A non-assessment post, so a bit more of a collection of thoughts rather than anything else. There may or may not be wine involved too, so excuse an grammatical lapses.

As I am reading my notes and quotes for the week, I cannot help but come to a number of conclusions; though maybe suspicions might be more apt.

Firstly to the question of: what is gifted and/or talented? My understanding, and therefore my usage, at this stage is that talented is the expression of gifted. Or, that gifted is potential and talent the application. As to identification itself, many of the listed characteristics, in Sayler scales for example, seem readily achievable.

I am still looking for a very basic screening tool. Neihart and Betts profiles (2010) offer a marking criteria of giftedness, but this is not quite what I am looking for. Historically, the purpose seems to have been to simply identify the high IQ types so that they could be offered extension, or even to be celebrated. Gazed upon like gazelles in a park. Instead, Gifted and talented students need to be identified simply because it is right and just to do so. It is to their benefit, as well that of the school and wider society.

Making this more important is the fact that typical features of the gifted and talented can be two sided. Brian Cooper (2012) speaks of smooth sailing and rough seas (a metaphor I feel the need to unnecessarily extend) – hinting at the changeable ocean  that is gifted life – (sorry), highlighting just some of the challenges that need to be considered. Looking at analytical skills alone, the ability to identify relationships readily can lead to connecting to inappropriate or overly personal topics (Cooper, 2012). Everything has a flipside.

But how are we to identify those with potential? In sport, the potential is readily apparent. Good movement cannot be hidden and those that thrive in that way have a tendency to feel the need to express their skills. Hidden intellect, or academic talent, is readily masked and requires the teacher to be actively searching. In my own school environment, a model of identification needs to be one that identifies, in particular, those that are hidden amongst their peers. I am hoping one becomes apparent to me before school returns next year, rather than continuing to look at children with suspicion. “Are you the one I am looking for?”

“Identification should be an essential part of any school policy for gifted and talented” (Merrotsy, Bannister-Tyrrell, Jones, & Gunn, 2016). I would argue that it should simply be embedded in school policy. Identifying student needs should be a priority for all. A number of short courses have been identified that assist teachers in identification. Merrotsy et al (2016) state that, teachers without a minimum of twelve hours training in gifted identification, are likely to miss many potentially gifted students. They also point out that Gayle Gear (University of Alabama) has devised a short course that leads to identification success rates of 85%. I cannot help but think that some of the repetitive, ineffectual professional development that teachers currently undertake should spent on such programs. At least for teachers interested in the topic.

It is important to remember that giftedness is a construct. Fraser et al (1995) expand on this idea, “Giftedness is psychological construct that cannot be measured accurately”. It requires observation and some sort of agreed upon indicators. There are “certain fundamental and identifiable traits, aptitudes and behaviours”. These indicators should be what prompts further investigation as well as program design.

Focussing on the aptitudes, Shavinina (2009) equates aptitude with readiness to learn and identifies four: prior knowledge and skill, interest, ability to reason symbol system, & persistence in the type of learning environment. This is applicable to all students, though is crucial for the gifted student. Thoughts from this reading of Shavanina continue below.

Exceptionality, or perceptions of it, depends largely upon the norm group. The high flyer within the class or cohort may simply be that; not necessarily gifted, simply a bright student. This does not mean that the opportunity to extend the student is not the same, or not to be taken. Returning to last topic’s idea of the gifted continuum, the high flyer has their place and should have the opportunity to challenge their capabilities at a suitable level.

How useful is an arbitrary demarcation anyway? “The majority of students who would be classified as gifted one year would not be so classified a few years later.” The only survivors are likely to be the extreme outliers. Again, while being somewhat mindful of my own confirmation bias, this indicates the importance of not saying ‘here is the line you must cross’. It also raised the question whether segregated differentiation for gifted students is the answer. Who will miss out? Knowing the way kids, and many if not most adults, see arbitrary lines in the sand, it will become ‘beyond this lies smart’. Be on the wrong side of it and be condemned to the stupid masses.

I am still left with: what am I to do? What difference can I make? I am liking the idea of a really basic and simple screening tool for the start of each year. On occasion I have been known to add bonus questions to the board, for those ahead of the class. I am wondering if I was able to target this with some degree of accuracy, if I might see more students taking the opportunity to challenge themselves.

The next topic looks at the underachievers, a type of student that I am sure that surrounds me. I am very much looking forward to this. I have also been reminded, while marking assessment, that there are many students whose ideas are A’s while their writing is a C level or below. Another challenge to ponder upon, but one that I am very happy that, as an English faculty, we are seeing improvements with our dedicated work with Prof. Ian Hunter’s sentence, paragraph and essay structures.

More to come in a couple of days.