Will, Emma (SEN)
From:	Forster [forsjgcn@ozemail.com.au]
Sent:	Friday, 6 April 2001 5:41 PM
To:	eet.sen@aph.gov.au
Subject:	senate inquiry submission
FROM: Dr Jill Forster
5 Stuart Street
Longueville 2066
Phone: 0411 191 073
Fax: (02)94279129

Delighted to see that there is now a Senate Inquiry into the Education of Gifted and Talented Children, I would very much like to contribute. I have a PhD in policy and practice in gifted education and have been working in the area as lecturer, policy adviser and consultant during the last 14 years. 

Current provisions for gifted education

Provisions for teacher training to accommodate teaching the gifted

Discussion of any discrepancies between policy and practice 

My PhD(completed in 1991)investigated what should be happening and what does actually happen for gifted children. As part of this investigation, it considered the 1988 Senate Inquiry’s recommendation that there should be inservice training in teaching strategies to speed up the process of real implementation of provisions for gifted  children. There was also a thrust for teacher insevice from the New South Wales Department of Education but it was short- lived , not widespread and not continuous. When the1991 policy was released and to this I contributed , there was a certain amount of support provided but the disbanding of the system of regions in New South Wales hindered ongoing implementation via inservice as personnel and priorities changed. 

Much of my role as consultant is teacher training in teaching strategies together with policy development and this in part fills the gap in support. My own role is unique in that I have taught at the secondary and tertiary levels - I taught the Masters in gifted education and supervised doctoral students; have a PhD in the area and run my own consulting independent of any institutions. From this basis I have a clear understanding of teachers’ needs regarding appropriate provisions for gifted children.

It is clear from my work in schools that teachers find it difficult to implement appropriate strategies for gifted children for a number of reasons: lack of time to reflect and prepare; lack of understanding

of possible strategies; failure to really consider a child who may be underachieving or is not being sufficiently stretched in thinking and learning. A common dilemma for such children is boredom and frustration leading parents to complain to the school and also becoming frustrated with a system that fails to recognize the individual. As I often have met with parents and heard these frustrations it is doubly apparent that specific strategies to challenge students must be in place routinely rather than waiting to eventually act after many parent complaints. Hence in the 1991 policy the words “ daily routine” applied to providing for gifted children are very important. Until routine and system are applied to educating gifted children the system will be neglecting its responsibilities to meeting the needs of all children.

Points that emerged from my PhD study of the previous New South Wales policy which hould  be reiterated here and which seem to be still apparent in schools are in relation to policy and practice :

Ø     Ad hoc provision

Ø     A lack of whole school involvement

Ø     Lack of parental involvement

Ø     Implementation strategies (examples of programs, inservice, release time) needed at the school level are often not in place

Ø      Lack of specific and systematic initiative

 

Implications for education policy and administration 

Teacher Training Needs (Preservice and inservice)

How research needs should be satisfied and Funded in context of research and education …

While definition and identification are vital , I believe the New South Wales policy with its wording in defining gifted and talented actually led to confusion and inaction on the part of  teachers. There seemed to be a lot of preoccupation with the distinction between “gifted” and “talented” and just how bright one has to be to be considered ”gifted” at all . Thus teachers overlooked the need to provide anyway and recognize children’s strengths from the ways they responded to their strategies.

From my own research and work in the area it is clear that major emphasis must be given to better teaching practice through which more student strengths will be identified by nature of the type of program offered - in brief, if we the educators do not ask the questions the students will not necessarily give us the answers - they will not always show their capability if we are not asking them .Our teaching can be the source of identification of potential. Therefore in all future support and renewal of efforts the focus needs to be on teaching strategies : in particular teaching that allows for students’ critical and creative thinking to be stretched. The innovators and the inventors are those who have had the chance to explore ideas. To have ideas valued and to be encouraged to persevere are essential needs of gifted individuals. 

Having set up a mentor program for the Department of Education,it was apparent that students when given recognition for their capability and supported in the pursuit of ideas flourished. It was a very useful way too of overcoming underachievement in some cases. Far too often teachers claim that the demands of the syllabus preclude the possibility of teaching creatively or to allow students to be creative - our goals then for education generally are surely confused. 

Again the previous findings from my PhD are still highly relevant today in terms of increasing articulation between policy and practice:

Ø      Need sustained direction form the system plus drawing in the base(parents, school, community) to assist cohesion - concerted effort

Ø      Need monitoring and feedback need continuity of support

Each educator should be able to answer in specifics ”What do you do for gifted children?”

Ø      Research that examines what teachers do to implement and what support there is for implementation can help close the gap simply by providing information and by giving examples of programs that work. From my own research this was one of the most frequently cited types of support requested by teachers. Greater support for implementing provisions will help escape further erosion among what can be will be and is being done.

Further research on the process itself of ways in which schools do or do not ensure implementation.

. While there are continuing discrepancies between policy and practice,generations pass through regretting what should be and what might have been. Without specific action and research it will always be the same.