PROCEDIMIENTO

All of the school policy documents acknowledged the importance of using multiple sources for identification. These included teacher observation and nomination; rating scales; standardized testing; portfolios; performances and auditions; product evaluation; parent, caregiver, and whanau nomination; peer nomination; and self nomination. There was specific reference to either the academics or mathematics in most of the school policies on gifted and talented education with achievement or standardized tests as the most common identification method. There was no mention of using off-level testing or acknowledgement of the ‘ceiling effect’.

The question to answer is: How does policy manifest itself in practice? According to eight teachers, their schools, in practice, used a multiple method approach for selecting students for their gifted and talented classes or programmes. This multiple method approach included teacher nomination, parents, and tests. Only one of the schools used self and peer nomination as part of this approach. The issue of misdiagnosis by teacher nomination was raised by one teacher.

Some of them came to me as having been identified as gifted in maths and I didn’t always agree….the previous teacher tagged some and failed to tag some as well because I guess it’s the old story particularly the girls who work neatly, logically and are really focused; they listen to what’s being asked and follow instructions well; they are frequently the ones not gifted in maths. (Mrs J, School BP)

The teacher expressed a genuine concern related to misgivings about the identification process and in particular the process of teacher identification.

The schools relied predominantly on test information; this was reinforced by the teachers who stated that testing was used by their schools as part of the identification

process. These tests included the Test of Scholastic Ability (TOSCA) (n=2), Progressive Achievement Tests (PAT) (n=5), Assessment Tools for Teaching and Learning (asTTle) (n=4) and school-designed tests (n=2). Most of the teachers accepted that formal tests were an answer to the problem of identification in mathematics. However, three teachers acknowledged that even though they used tests as a form of identification, there were students who might miss out because they did not do well in tests. In both of these cases, they stated that the school had a flexible policy, they may not always get it right, and there may be movement later in the year.

How we place the kids in the classes early on isn’t an exact science so there are some kids in the second class who are just as good as the guys in the first class. (Mr M, School KS)

Sometimes students mask themselves or whether it’s because they get overawed by coming in and doing tests and then shine out or whether it’s been sitting there latently and finally they find the push button and move on. (Mr H, School HPI)

One school, (School E) relied exclusively on a test as their sole identification tool. The teacher commented that “initially asTTle was the big decider”. She acknowledged this as a shortcoming, which led to an extensive range of mathematical abilities within the class. As a consequence, the class included students who she felt were not gifted in mathematics. There was no movement in or out of this designated ‘extension’ class for gifted mathematics students. When questioned about the lack of movement, the teacher explained: “I can’t do that to the kids; I can’t.…Not one of them wants to leave”.

The parents were aware of their children being identified for particular groups or classes because of test results.

I guessed he’d been in the top group and that’s why he’d been selected. I don’t know of any other process other than just the normal testing. (Eric’s mother) Very much hands-off, basically, they had the test and then we had the letter sent home to say that: “We’ve identified him as being a child who would probably enjoy this or benefit from it”. (Martin’s mother)

One parent was prepared to acknowledge what he perceived to be a rather ‘ad hoc’ approach to identification.

I believe that New Zealand could really lift its game incredibly by clearly identifying these kids. There is no real identification apart from individual schools using tests. I think they purchase some and use TOSCA. (Lewis’ father)

The issue of misidentification was apparent from the students that were included in this study. They had been identified by their school and/or teachers as gifted and talented in mathematics, yet parent information, student data, and researcher knowledge and expertise would support misidentification of at least two students. Both of the students (Bob and Tim) were from Year 6. One of the students was in a cross-class ability group and the other student was in an ability group within a regular class. The students were observed to be working happily and successfully with other students in the groups. The students explained that they enjoyed mathematics. However, according to the parents and the researcher, they did not display some of those special characteristics associated with mathematical giftedness. They scored moderately well in tests and were observed working diligently in class. One parent had commented how surprised she was that her son was included in the study; she felt he was a hard worker, but not gifted in mathematics. This parent considered that it was beneficial for her child’s self-esteem to have been invited to be part of the study.

The issue of ongoing identification came in the following year when the students in the study were tracked through a transfer. This issue is also raised in Chapter Nine: School Transfer. The students believed that because they had been identified as gifted and talented in one year that this would continue in the following year. They realized that there would be greater competition the next year. For all students, it meant moving to a larger pool of students whether to an intermediate or secondary school. (This notion of ‘small fish in a big pond’ is explored in Chapter Nine.)

The majority of the students understood and accepted that selection was based on the results of a test sat for the receiving school. However, Nardu had faith that his selection for the ‘Mathematics Enrichment’ class would be based on the information passed on from his previous school stating that he was good at mathematics, and consideration would be given to his previous years’ test results. He also knew that he had to sit a test at his new school, but he expected to get in this streamed class for

mathematics. Likewise, Martin expected to get in to the CWSA class; he knew selection was based on a test. If he had not made the class, he said that his mother was prepared to question the selection process. Both Nardu and Martin were placed in designated ‘special abilities’ classes.

One situation concerning lack of identification is briefly outlined in the following case of Eric. Eric’s mother raised the issue of her son not being identified for the intermediate school’s streamed (cross-school) mathematics class. The story is left for the parent to tell in her own words.

Well I went to that parent interview and it came up about maths. I thought I’d see what she [the teacher] had to say. In the end she said to me, “I think that he needs to go into the extension class” and I thought, well this is interesting.…I’ve asked and there’s no room.…I said, “He’s found it at times very boring.…he comes home from school and says ‘I did this in Year 4….I don’t think that he’s telling an untruth”. (I think she [the teacher] was quite shocked)….I said, “I’m just terribly worried that he’s going to lose his enthusiasm for maths….he’s loved maths.…I have no idea how you organize it and it’s up to you, it’s your school, but you asked how things were going in maths and that’s how it is”. (Eric’s mother)

Meanwhile, students from the streamed mathematics (CWSA) class were enrolled in the Australian Mathematics Competition. Eric was not allowed to take part as he was not a member of the CWSA class. His mother, on her son’s behalf, persisted with the school and explained to the principal that Eric had competed successfully for several years and wanted to participate again. As her story unfolded, it became clear that the principal was puzzled that Eric was not in the CWSA class, and he agreed that he needed to look into the matter.

Eventually, the school received Eric’s results from the Australian Mathematics competition. He had obtained one of the highest marks in the school and the category of ‘Distinction’12. Consequently, Eric was placed in Term Three in the ‘Children with Special Abilities’ streamed mathematics class. This was a case of non- identification despite parent nomination, student nomination, and information forwarded from the previous school about his achievement levels in mathematics.