This submission provides information from the perspective of some members of the Queensland Association for Gifted and Talented Children Inc (QAGTC) as invited by the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee Inquiry into the Education of Gifted and Talented Children. This submission particularly addresses the terms of reference and highlights issues important to QAGTC with reference to:

(A) developments in the education of gifted and talented children since the 1988 report of the Select Committee on the Education of Gifted and Talented Children;

(B) consideration of whether current policies and programs for gifted and talented children are suitable and sufficient to meet their special educational needs, including, but not limited to:

(C) consideration of what the proper role of the Commonwealth should be in supporting the education of gifted and talented children.

Prior to publication of the 1988 report of the Select Committee on the Education of Gifted and Talented Children, QAGTC was actively involved in this important field through the work of its teacher and parent members. As a key submitter to that inquiry, QAGTC had considerable interest in, and ownership of the report and its recommendations. It is with a sense of disappointment that we undertake this submission once again, in the knowledge that our efforts may be met with little long-term effect. Commonwealth interest in gifted education after the 1988 report was qualified and short-lived. Funding was made available only to education systems for programs which had to demonstrate links with other areas of disadvantage. By stipulating that giftedness is only an educational issue when linked with other potential difficulties such as poverty or literacy, the Commonwealth demonstrated little understanding of the disadvantages which accrue to giftedness per se.

QAGTC currently has a membership of several hundred parents and teachers, including tertiary personnel and general community members. We conduct workshops, seminars, conferences as well as providing a counselling service which supports parents and teachers concerned about the needs of gifted children across Queensland. Counsellors deal with hundreds of requests for help each year and have indicated that there is an ever increasing need for support for gifted children.

QAGTC is aware that some progress has been made since 1988 which reflects expanding concepts of giftedness in the education research area as well as expanding awareness in the general community.

The education of gifted and talented children in Queensland has progressed very slowly however, due to ongoing prejudice and lack of understanding in general. Few schools identify and provide support for gifted children.

In Australia important aspects such as differentiation have been developed by Eddie Braggett (1994, 1997) and the contributions of others such as Stan Bailey, Miraca Gross, Toni Noble and Helen McGrath are also well known. The work of many Queenslanders is also well recognised and appreciated within the local community.

Australia is in need of an intensive public relations strategy to increase understanding, enthusiasm and tolerance within the wider community. This should aim to eliminate the commonly-held elitist view of gifted education and demonstrate both the depth and breadth of giftedness and the need to support gifted children as an issue of equity and social justice.

Those schools who implement enrichment and extension provide greater flexibility for more students identified as gifted, or potentially gifted in a wider range of talent areas. They generally use strategies such as:

DIFFERENTIATION

Seven of these schools continue to operate as centres for learning and development. Their primary function now is to train teachers in other schools in gifted education.

A contributing factor to the success of the school-based programs has been the presence of a central training function in Education Queensland. This is no longer supported by the department.

There is an identified need for more focus on early intervention. Young children who enter school with advanced skills should not have to sit and wait for others to ‘catch up’. All children need pretesting to avoid harmful repetition of basic skills.

There have been both positive and negative consequences of greater awareness. Without commensurate knowledge and skills in gifted education bandaid measures have resulted in short-term programs with no ongoing benefits for gifted children.

It is noted with dismay that the national trend to benchmarking is supported by the Commonwealth. Teachers, schools and systems are focused on narrow educational goals which detract from extension and achievement of excellence and personal fulfilment.

The state education system, Education Queensland, is the only state system with any policy supporting gifted education. Other systems appear not to develop central policy and are not obliged to implement government policy. Although policy exists in the state system it appears to be under continual threat. The first policy (1985) was updated in 1993 and almost prevented by the then Director General from distribution to schools. He then informed schools that they were not obliged to implement the policy. He was on the record as saying that gifted children can look after themselves. Such statements are regularly put forward at different levels within schools and bureaucracies.

The 1993 policy is now under review. It is supported by a resource document which provides viable methods for identifying the gifted which are not mandatory. Schools generally choose not to identify systematically for the entire school population, indeed they choose not to identify at all.

Successful programs have been implemented in some Queensland schools. These have resulted in increased identification of gifted children in selected geographic areas. Selective implementation of policy and scarcity of funds for professional development programs means that identification is very much a ‘hit-or-miss’ possibility.

Members of QAGTC believe that a variety of identification methods should be employed to recognise giftedness. Limited identification services are available without resorting to private psychologists because schools are reluctant to use their testing services to identify giftedness.

No attention is being paid to identification of underachieving gifted.

There is lack of understanding of how impairments can prevent identification.

There is no funding for research into the masking of potential by other characteristics such as disengagement, inattention, untidiness.

B (ii) whether access to gifted and talented programs is provided equitably

Access to programs is provided inequitably due to the deplorable shortage of funding. Less than $1M per annum provided by the state government presumably serves the gifted among 440 000 children in state schools and over 160 000 children in non-state schools are similarly affected. A few attend schools which are so resource wealthy that it is possible many aspects of giftedness are inadvertently taken care of. So by our reckoning the allocated $20.00 per gifted student per annum makes a mockery of government’s fondness for alliterative sloganing such as ‘clever county’ and ‘smart state’.

In addition the non-state sectors do not use their share of this funding for gifted education. One million dollars cannot hope to serve a state such as Queensland where vast distances are involved. There are pressures in all systems to use the funds on other areas under the broadest most general interpretation of what could be considered gifted programming.

Attempts to spread small amounts of funding statewide stand as testament to the inability of governments to envisage a future where all members of society have actually realised their potential and contribute to the public good. Public awareness has improved only minimally in the past decade, and new players on both the political and the education scene bring with them their lack of knowledge of the area and the resultant prejudices that predetermine negative attitudes.

There are no stated requirements for investigation of any links between attainment and socio-economic distribution in Queensland. Given the lack of government attention to the general area of giftedness it is not a priority to research this link, although it is well-recognised that giftedness knows no socioeconomic, cultural or gender barriers and is found in all groups of children, including those with learning difficulties and disabilities.

QAGTC is concerned that children from low socio-economic backgrounds are given opportunities to develop their talents fully.

Given funding restrictions this is not a priority area, particularly because it presupposes a link between attainment and giftedness which demonstrates ignorance of the underachievement syndrome. Underachievement is a complex issue which requires examination of all factors, both within and around the child, that could limit the realisation of potential, whether that is expressed as school achievement or high self-esteem and self actualisation in a range of fulfilling human endeavours.