Descripción de procesos

Scores for surveys show a range from 1-5: below 2.00 usually indicates a very negative attitude, while above 4.00 indicates a very positive attitude. Scores between 2.75 and 3.25 can be interpreted as reflecting an ambivalent attitude of just negative to just positive.

Gifted and Talented

A sample of teachers were surveyed using Gagné and Nadeau's survey, Opinions About the Gifted and Their Education (Gagné, 1991) in relation to their views on the gifted at their school. Three of the six teachers who participated in the survey demonstrated a positive attitude towards the gifted and their education over six factors, with means ranging from 3.60 to 4.54. Two teachers were “ambivalent” as scoring between 2.75 and 3.25 (Gagné and Nadeau’s choice of word and range) and one expressed a negative

attitude at 2.53.The group score did indicate an overall positive attitude (3.41) across six factors.

In general, the survey respondents recognised that gifted children had needs but too often their needs were ignored in schools. They were very positive (4.83) that gifted students needed special education services and needed special attention if their talents were to be fully developed (4.00). Funding needed to be provided.

Half of the teachers felt that special classes were the best way to meet the needs of gifted students. However, the teachers were divided in their attitude towards ability grouping (3.00). Teachers’ opinions were ambivalent as to whether students were often bored in school (3.17) and unsure whether their “intellectual curiosity was stifled by

155

regular school programmes” (3.00). However, five of the six teachers did not think that

gifted students wasted their time in regular classrooms.

Most teachers felt students were not rejected or isolated because they were gifted. Five of the six teachers did not think that giving the gifted special attention resulted in their becoming “vain or egotistical.” In addition, half of the teachers (3) did not believe that providing special programmes for gifted students resulted in “elitism.” Three teachers

did not feel that separating students and other students into gifted and other groups increased the “labelling of children as strong-weak, good-less good.” The majority were

positive that other students did not feel less valued (3.67). Teachers in this survey did not agree that students who had been identified as gifted had difficulty in making friends. However, they were ambivalent over the suggestion that gifted children were socially rejected because others were envious of them.

Four of the six respondents agreed (1) or partly agreed (3) that teachers in school do feel their authority threatened by gifted children (3.50). Teachers were divided in their opinions about parents’ contribution to the talent development of their children. Three

of the six did not agree that it was the parents who had the major responsibility to help “talent development.”

Acceleration

Overall, teacher attitudes, in Gagné and Nadeau's survey, towards acceleration were positive (3.60). The majority of respondents either partially or totally agreed (4.33) that it was better to be accelerated than to be bored in class. Four of the six teacher responses were favourable to Factor F on acceleration and this was the only factor to have half of the responses with means that were very positive (4.00 and above). However, three

156

teachers did not think more students should be accelerated beyond the numbers the school currently accelerated and two teachers believed that, academically, students had gaps in their knowledge if they were accelerated. Five of the six teachers were very positive (4.17) that socially, gifted students who were accelerated by skipping a grade, did not “have difficulties in their social adjustment to a group of older students.”

Gifted and Talented Students

According to the Gifted and Talented Education Process and Procedures document identification for a gifted and talented register involved teacher observation and nomination (checklist supplied for teachers). Standardised tests such as PAT, MidYis, asTTLe, ICAS and Probe Tests and examination results from NCEA and IB were also included. Peer, self and parent nomination data were also to be used as were

psychological tests, if available. The register was updated in term 4 each year and at the end of term 1 for new students. Identification was specifically under the responsibility of the Deans and Heads of Departments, and the register was available to all teachers.

The gifted and talented coordinator explained that currently there were two registers, one for diverse learners and one for the gifted and talented (GATE) students. For the gifted and talented (GATE) register the gifted and talented coordinator selected 15 to 20 students per year level from a schoolwide database which included PAT results and a MidYis test. Information was also obtained from the admissions office material gathered at the beginning of Year 7 and Year 9. She was responsible for gathering the data on students and keeping a record of “how they’re tracking and how they’re

progressing for our registers.” However, analysis of that data was carried out by the school.

157

Her primary responsibility was for gifted and talented students. As she said:

That’s my area of expertise within the diverse learners’ category. So I work with students involved in the identification process and I look after the policies, the processes and procedures for gifted and talented within the context of a personalised learning model.

In the senior school she kept the Deans informed regarding students and progress and approached individual teachers about students. Students could be identified or referred to the gifted and talented coordinator directly or indirectly. She noted that the school was investigating developing an electronic database with all teachers having access, but “there were concerns regarding student privacy.”

Teacher Knowledge of Acceleration

Different teachers’ perceptions were expressed in the researcher-constructed survey.

Some teachers believed that the school had students who were accelerated, including both students who were gifted and talented and students who had not been identified as gifted and talented. However, the gifted and talented coordinator did not agree. She also did not agree that the school had a policy on acceleration, that it documented procedures on acceleration, or that it maintained longitudinal data on accelerated students. She explained that “policies are being created. Acceleration is accepted practice in some

subject areas but it is not widely done. It is done on a case by case basis.” Two teachers, in contrast, believed there was a policy on acceleration and one believed that there were documented procedures on acceleration.

158

Selection of Gifted and Talented Students, and Students for Acceleration

The school used multiple sources for identification of gifted and talented students and accelerated students. There were slightly more methods used for the identification of gifted and talented students. One survey respondent selected 10 methods for the

identification of gifted and talented students and six for the identification of accelerated students. For both accelerated and gifted and talented students, teacher observation or nomination was the most used method, followed by cognitive assessments such as standardised tests, student work and public examination results. There was some knowledge that students could nominate themselves for acceleration (2) or as being gifted and talented (1) and two teachers believed that parents or caregivers could request that students be accelerated or identified as gifted and talented. The school had also used the Raven’s Progressive Matrices in the past, but it was now not used according to the gifted and talented coordinator.

One of the interviewed students first knew she had been identified for acceleration when the gifted and talented coordinator approached her because she had been informed she kept finishing work early. Discussion was held with the Deans and her parents

regarding proposed courses. In general, she was aware that it was her decision regarding acceleration rather than her parents' decision as the parents had always let her choose regarding her “time and effort.” They discussed it with her and made one visit to the

school to discuss her proposed acceleration. The student also discussed with the Deans her reasons for wanting to be accelerated. Then it was a question of what could be made possible.

159