Gifted Education In Australia

There is no national policy on gifted education in Australia. Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008) and Senate Committee inquiry by Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References (2001) recognise at national level that there is a need to nurture gifted learners. However, the primary responsibility of identifying and educating gifted learners lies with State and Territory governments. This means that there are eight different gifted education policies in Australia ‘resulting in a degree of disparity and inconsistency’ (Plunkett and Kronborg, 2007 p.74). A national policy can help to maintain quality and consistency in gifted education across Australia. Attention and focus is required for the special needs of students

Just the way we have national standards for the education of the disabled students, there should also be standards for the education of the gifted so as to ensure that all gifted students, including gifted underachievers and twice exceptional, are given the opportunity to realise their full potential. Gross (1999) stated that gifted children ‘will not develop to assist their country if they themselves are not assisted to develop’ (p.90). Even though Jaeda has already been recognised as a gifted learner in lower primary, she will not be provided with a consistent standard of education if she is to move States within Australia. Different States have different policies regarding identification of the gifted and talented students. The way the gifted and talented students are nurtured also varies across States and Territories. Due to these variations school transitions across States can be difficult for students. Also, there are no set minimum standards for gifted education

185). There is also a great chance to miss underachieving gifted students in this policy. Their identification solely depends upon the skill of the staff in identifying such students. In this policy, a major part of the identification process is a school based assessment which students undertake at school. Twice exceptional students and those underachieving due to other reasons (cultural diversity, English language learner etc.) may not do well in this test and may miss being part of a program as a result. Proving Dynamic Assessment for such students would have been beneficial. Chaffey & Bailey (2003) have found dynamic assessment to be successful in identifying ‘invisible’ underachievers where one off traditional methods didn’t work. However, this policy really suits students like Jaeda who have done well academically in the past and are very likely to perform well in the assessment. Kulik and Kulik (1982) performed meta-analysis of a wide range of research studies and found that full-time ability grouping produces positive and significant academic gains for gifted students. According to this policy, 15 students are selected to form one ability group for all subjects. Like all other students, gifted students also have different ability