Re. the identification of gifted students, I think it is important that the submission from BHHS specifically emphasizes intellectual giftedness. Two main reasons:
1. Other forms of giftedness, such as sporting, are already well catered for in schools and in the community.
2. Intellectual ability is the most relevant domain of giftedness for a Parliamentary inquiry into education.
I also think we should be wary of using a "broad" conception/definition of intellectual giftedness. A "broad" definition could include 15-20% of students, in which case one might ask why do we need to make special provision these kids? (ie. such a sizable minority falls well within the expected range of ability and would already be catered for in any classroom)
This is a very valid point that Benita makes.
ReplyDeleteSuggestion has been made in some spheres of the community that 'every school should have a gifted program'. This is a potentially dangerous idea as it not only has serious implications on the process of identifying gifted students but also threatens to compromise the quality of gifted programs. If these programs are modified to include a broader definition of gifted students they will no longer cater for the truly gifted learners for whom they were originally established, and these students will once again find themselves out of place.
Further to this, I have some concerns that relate to the current differences between the Victorian SEAL system and the equivalent NSW system. As I understand it, the Victorian system is geared towards intellectually gifted children whereas the NSW system is geared towards high achievers.
ReplyDeleteFrom my perspective these two groups of children have quite different needs and I don't want the two groups to be conflated. When BHHS is writing its submission I would like the people writing that submission to be aware of and careful about that distinction, whether or not they state the distinction specifically in the document.