EDUCATION K-12 position paper

EDUCATION K-12 position paper catholic education office, sydney

2 All students regardless of race, age or gender, by virtue of their dignity as human persons, have a right to an education that is suited to their particular needs and adapted to their ability. Gravissimum Educationis nl, 1965 Declaration on Christian Education, Pope Paul VI Catholic Education Office, Sydney 38 Renwick Street PO Box 217 Leichhardt NSW 2040 Phone (02) 9569 6111 Fax (02) 9550 0052 www.ceo.syd.catholic.edu.au Catholic Education Office, Sydney 2007 First published June 2007 PN 2074 Not part of NEALS

Vision The Catholic Education Office (CEO), Sydney has as its vision a commitment to developing authentic Catholic schools that see as their responsibility the development of the whole person. Therefore: + Schools challenge students to achieve academic excellence by: - empowering academically gifted students to perform at their highest level - maximising the potential of all students - making student academic achievement a priority in all Annual Development Plans - increasing the number of students attaining Band 6 level in HSC courses - informing target-setting which is focused on improved student outcomes. + Schools have structures that acknowledge diversity, support personalised learning, and address the identified needs of underachieving students. + Schools support and challenge students to develop their potential in all domains of giftedness. + Schools affirm the inherent dignity of each person and respect the right of all to learn and to grow by a greater recognition of broader education activities that support student learning. As partners in Catholic education, the CEO, Sydney commits itself to its students by: + providing schools that are places of learning and excellence + rejoicing in our cultural diversity + working with those who experience disadvantage + fostering the dignity, self-esteem and integrity of each person + inspiring hope and a positive vision for the future. Introduction This Position Paper acknowledges and builds upon the 2003-2004 consultation draft document, Gifted Education K-12 Position Paper for Sydney Archdiocesan Schools. It is the first formal statement on the education of gifted and talented students for Catholic systemic schools in the Archdiocese of Sydney. The paper is intended to be a resource for Principals and school communities in responding to the educational needs of students identified as gifted. Its purpose is: + to set out basic principles to inform schools policies and practices + to establish a common language and shared understanding related to gifted education + to build upon the strong equity principles that underpin education in Catholic systemic schools + to provide direction for future action. The revised paper identifies and draws on the underlying philosophies and fundamental principles of the Sydney Catholic Schools Learning Framework; the Board of Studies Syllabus documents K-12; the Gifted and Talented Education Professional Development Package for Teachers: DEST/GERRIC; The Policy and Implementation Strategies for the Education of Gifted and Talented Students revised 2004, DET; The Sydney Catholic Schools Towards 2010 Strategic Leadership and Management Plan; the External Review of the SACS Board and the CEO, Sydney; and current research into the education of gifted and talented students. It is also supported by contemporary resources published on the CEO, Sydney s Curriculum Online website. 3

4 Educational Programs and Provisions for Gifted Students: Principles and Responsibilities Principles This Position Paper is founded on the understanding that the learning of gifted students is enhanced when: + whole-school planning and management models are in place + teachers have access to appropriate professional development + schools and families access resources available in the wider community + the school actively engages parents and carers in the students learning processes. Responsibilities Educational outcomes for gifted students can be achieved through: + appropriate and defensible identification + well-planned and articulated programs and provisions + high-quality classroom support materials, resources and planning time + curriculum differentiation + flexible pathways in progression and study options + attention to academic, practical and affective domains + assessment of knowledge, understanding, skills and learning gains + reporting that encourages growth and supports future learning + regular collaborative review; needs assessment and evaluation of goals and outcomes. Defining Giftedness This Position Paper adopts the underlying principles of giftedness and talent based on Gagné s (2003) Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT). The Gagné (2002) model differentiates between natural abilities (gifts or aptitudes) and systematically developed skills (talents). It defines giftedness and talent as follows: Giftedness The potential to perform at a level significantly beyond what might be expected from one s agepeers in any area of human ability. It is important to note that a student may be gifted in any one of the cognitive, creative, socio-affective or sensori-motor domains, or in several, or in all, or in an area not categorised by domains. Talent An achievement at a level significantly beyond what might be expected from age-peers in fields such as arts, technology, academic pursuits, athletics, sports and social action. Therefore, a student can be gifted without being talented. The purpose of the gifted services is to catalyse potential into performance. The key to this definition is that it distinguishes between outstanding potential (giftedness) and outstanding performance (talent). The model also highlights the diversity of learners (culture, economics, gender, etc) and the factors that influence them, such as motivation to achieve, personal interests, presence or absence of an adult support system, as well as the quality of educational support they provide. In differentiating between potential and performance, this view of giftedness acknowledges that some students may be gifted underachievers.

Gagné s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent Giftedness = top 10% CATALYSTS Talent = top 10% NATURAL ABILITIES (NAT) DOMAINS Intellectual (IG) Fluid reasoning (induct/deduct.) Crystallized verbal, spatial, memory, sense of observation, judgement, metacognition. Creative (CG) Inventiveness (problem-solving), imagination, originality (arts), retrieval fluency Socioaffective (SG) Intelligence (perceptiveness). Communication (empathy, tact), influence (leadership, persuasion) Sensorimotor (MG) S: visual, auditory, olfactive, etc. M: strength, endurance, reflexes, coordination etc. INTRAPERSONAL (IC) Physical/Mental characteristics (Appearance, handicaps, health) (Temperament, personality traits, well being) Self-Management (Maturity) Awareness of self/others (Strengths & weaknesses, emotions) Motivation/Volition (Needs, interests, intrinsic motives, values) Resources allocation, adaptive strategies, effort POSITIVE/ NEGATIVE IMPACT DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS Informal/formal learning and practicing (LP) POSITIVE/ NEGATIVE SYSTEMATICALLY DEVELOPED SKILLS (SYSDEV) FIELDS (relevant to school-age youths) Academics: language, science, humanities, etc. Arts: visual, drama, music etc. Business: sales, entrepreneurship, management, etc. Leisure: chess, video games, puzzles, etc. Social action: media, public office etc. Sports: individual & team. Technology: trades & crafts, electronics, computers, etc. 5 IMPACT ENVIRONMENTAL (EC) Milieu: physical, cultural, social, familial, etc. CHANCE (CH) Persons: parents, teachers, peers, mentors, etc. Provisions: programs, activities, services, etc. Events: encounters, awards, accidents, etc. Within the Gagné model, it is the schools and the communities responsibility to seek out students who are gifted but not yet talented and assist them to develop their abilities into achievements, as well as recognising and further assisting those talented students who are already performing at high levels. For this to happen, the school needs to identify positive personal and environmental catalysts and harness them to assist the talent development process. Equally, however, a school must work to lessen or remove negative personal and environmental catalysts which may be hampering the gifted student s progress towards talent. GERRIC, September 2006 Gagné, F (2002) Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory, In Colangelo, N & Davis, G (Eds) Handbook of Gifted Education (pp 60-74), Boston: Allyn & Bacon. * See online Support Resource for detailed information.

6 Giftedness in the School Setting The following are guidelines for identification, monitoring, and teaching learning strategies for gifted and talented students. They provide a resource on which schools can build defensible programs and provisions for these learners. Identification Effective educational programs for gifted students depend on appropriate and accurate identification. In order for identification to be effective for gifted and talented students, a balance of objective and subjective approaches should be adopted. Teachers and parents will then be assisted to identify behaviours, some of which are often perceived as negative, that can indicate the presence of high ability. Approaches for identification may include: Objective measures + IQ tests in combinations with other measures (AGQTP, 2005 Core Module 2) + standardised testing (eg Group tests) + tests of ability + tests of performance + off-level testing + standardised competitions + psychometric assessments + personality assessments + learning styles inventories + tests of creativity or critical thinking + student products assessments + school marks. Subjective measures + checklist of characteristics common to underachieving students + checklist for students from language backgrounds other than English + student interest inventory + teacher nomination checklists + parent checklist/interview + self/peer nomination + information at transition points + syllabus statements of expected outcomes + behavioural checklists. Identification of gifted and talented students should: + be systematic across the school + provide for early identification + ensure that as many characteristics and areas as possible are identified + use multiple criteria without giving undue weight to any single measure + be ongoing and fair + allow open-ended opportunities for gifted students to emerge + lead to the development of defensible programs for gifted students + include parent/carer information and students self and peer assessments as well as assessments by teachers, school executive and school counsellors + collect data that directly inform program service provision. Monitoring Monitoring includes a series of assessments done annually which can be used to describe student learning. Monitoring allows for: + tracking and reporting of the identified student s learning within a gifted program + regular review of the placement + evaluation of the appropriateness of the programs and provisions. Placement of an identified student within a program for gifted students should not be seen as permanent, as the needs of the identified student may change. The programs and provisions may also need to be adjusted to meet the needs of identified students.

Characteristics of Gifted Students An effective curriculum for students who are gifted is essentially a core curriculum that has been modified to meet their needs. The unique characteristics of the students must serve as the basis for decisions on how the curriculum should be modified (Feldhusen, Hansen and Kennedy, 1989; Maker 1982; VanTassel-Baska et al, 1988). It is difficult to generalise about students who are gifted, because their characteristics and needs are personal and unique. However, as a group they: + comprehend complex ideas more fully + learn more rapidly and in greater depth than their age peers + may exhibit interests that differ from those of their peers. They may also have: + an unusually well-developed sense of justice and fairness + emotional intensity + play interests that are more like those of older children + a tendency to prefer the companionship of children a little older, or sometimes many years older + an enhanced capacity to empathise with the feelings of others + a more mature sense of humour than age-peers. It is important to note that not all gifted children will display all of these characteristics, and often display differing rates of physical, cognitive and emotional development (asynchrony). Underachievement Underachievement is a substantial discrepancy between potential and performance. The Gagné model demonstrates that underachievement has many causes and may be the result of a single factor or a combination of factors. It may occur when gifts are not effectively developed into talents, or when talents are not expressed consistently in a classroom setting. Factors that inhibit or may mask the development of gifts or the expression of talents include: + low self-belief to plan or complete a task (self-efficacy) + feeling the need to choose between peer acceptance and achievement (forced-choice dilemma, Gross, 1989) + specific learning disabilities, physical impairment, autism, Asperger s Syndrome, etc (Double labelled students) + perfectionism + unrealistically low expectations by teachers of students academic potential and abilities + lack of challenge in the classroom + achieving in class at levels that appear satisfactory but are below a gifted student s academic potential ( Achieving Underachievers : Chaffey, 2004) + dominance of visual-spatial learning preference + social-emotional issues + voluntary and involuntary minority issues (Indigenous Australian students, refugees, etc) + lack of metacognitive skills + students with low-level language proficiency which masks potential. These students, along with those with low self-efficacy and poor metacognitive skills, are often referred to as invisible underachievers (Chaffey, 2004). 7 As in other fields of special education, the nature of the intervention program which a school develops for a gifted or talented student should be influenced by the level of the student s giftedness or talent as well as the domain or field in which it is sited. Gagné, 2002, pp 2-6

8 Such students, and gifted students from minority groups and low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds, are frequently under-represented in gifted education programs. Their potential is often masked, and programs designed to increase their participation in a challenging curriculum need to be developed. (Burns, Purcell, Hertbert, 2006 pp 105-106) Strategies to enhance academic self-efficacy in underachievers are covered extensively in the AGQTP Gifted Education Resource materials: Core, Extension and Specialisation, as well as in the work of Delile and Rimm. Table 1 illustrates a classification of levels of giftedness and indicates the frequency with which children with particular IQs are found in the general population. Children with an IQ in the gifted range are likely to be adept at many cognitive tasks (Gross, 2000). Table 1: IQ and levels of giftedness Levels of giftedness IQ range Prevalence Mildly 115-129 > 1:40 Moderately 130-144 1:40 1:1000 Highly 145-159 1:1000 1:10,000 (Feldhusen, 1993, cited in Gross, 2000) Teaching and Learning Strategies A range of approaches and strategies in supporting gifted students is possible. Teachers have the responsibility of evaluating and implementing the most appropriate mainstream classroom procedures and strategies that will maximise the learning opportunities for gifted students. Programs A program is a comprehensive sequential system for educating students with identifiable needs. In most cases it includes a variety of individual group and accelerated services. Appropriate services for gifted students could include a combination of any of the following: Acceleration Acceleration is any strategy which allows individuals and groups of students to progress more quickly than their age-peers. Acceleration recognises that some students have cognitive abilities that allow them to learn at faster rates, and achieve the required curriculum outcomes for their particular stage earlier than their age-peers. Acceleration may also take various other forms which need school level or system level support. These include: + compacting + single subject acceleration + grade skipping + early entry to school + telescoping learning time by subject or year + mentoring + cross-grading + radical acceleration: skipping several grades, and/or forms of acceleration during a student s school years + early university admission + dual enrolment. Acceleration needs to be seen as an ongoing process and one that requires careful planning.

Grouping Structures Ability grouping is not synonymous with tracking or streaming and may take many forms beneficial to gifted learners. Whichever form of acceleration or grouping is used, there will still be a range of ability in particular subjects, and curriculum differentiation still needs to occur to maximise student learning gains. Grouping structures include: + Full-time ability grouping: Classes in which students stay together for all subjects. Within the group there will be a range of ability levels in particular subjects, hence, subject-based ability grouping ( extension classes ) on a subject by subject basis is recommended + Part-time grouping: Withdrawing from their regular class a group of gifted students who show an interest or talent + Cluster grouping: A small group of gifted students is placed together within an otherwise mixed ability class. These clusters may change for different subjects depending upon a student s ability or interests + Multi-age grouping: Gifted students from several grades are brought together either as a full-time ability group or as a cluster for specific subjects within a mixed ability setting. Grouping Grouping is any strategy that allows high-ability students to interact either academically or socially for a protracted period of the school day. These students can be grouped by ability level in: + special self-contained classes + cluster grouping + like-ability groups Or they can be grouped by performace level: + cluster performance groups + regrouping for specific instruction + cross-grading + International Baccalaureate classes + within-class groups + like-performance co-operative groups. Differentiated Curriculum As gifted students are diverse in terms of their abilities and levels of giftedness (Gross, 2000), a differentiated curriculum assists in addressing the different learning styles of these students in both mixed ability and self-contained gifted classrooms (MacLeod, 2005, AGQTP Core Module 5). Essentially, the aim of differentiating instruction is to maximise each student s growth by meeting each student where he or she is and helping the student to progress. In practice, it involves offering several different learning experiences in response to students varied needs (Tomlinson, 2000). Learning activities and materials may be varied by difficulty to challenge students at different readiness levels; by topic in response to students interests; and by students preferred ways of learning or expressing themselves (AGQTP Core Module 5). The following three criteria by Passow (1988) best describe how to evaluate the suitability of any curriculum, program or a provision for gifted learners: + Would all students want to be involved in such learning experiences? + Could all students participate in such learning experiences? + Should all children be expected to succeed in such learning experiences? (Passow s Test of Appropriate Curriculum). If the answer to these questions is yes, then the curriculum is not differentiated for the gifted. When looking at the needs of gifted learners, a number of specific curriculum issues arise. Gifted students: + need challenging curricula that address their needs for flexible pace and complexity + need time for in-depth exploration and reflection + require fast-paced conceptual instruction and scaffolding for their learning without the level of repetition and support needed by less able students. A program that builds on these characteristics may be viewed as qualitatively (rather than quantitatively) different from the basic curriculum; it results from appropriate modification of the curriculum by using suitable models for differentiating learning for gifted students. One such model by Maker (1982) allows the integration of a variety of models such as Blooms, Williams, Kaplan, Wiggins and McTighe, which are considered suitable for gifted learners. 9

10 Maker (1992) summarises the strategies needed to differentiate the curriculum for gifted students as follows: Content modifications for gifted students should: + be abstract and complex, + involve issues of content/concept organisation, study of people, methods of inquiry and multidisciplinary content. Process modifications for gifted students should: + involve higher-order thinking processes + promote creative and critical thinking + require problem-based, guided discovery and shared inquiry learning + involve like ability group interaction + have variable levels of pacing + allow for debriefing of process + involve open-ended thinking + include proof and reasoning + allow for freedom of choice. Product modifications for gifted students should: + involve real world problems + be for real world audiences + require transformation of learning + involve appropriate assessment of learning gains + involve extended or accelerated outcomes. Learning environment modifications for gifted students should: + be flexible, open, mobile (beyond a single setting) + encourage independent and intrinsic learning + be accepting and non-judgemental + encourage complex and abstract thought. It is important to note that teachers new to differentiation may choose to begin by differentiating content or process or product, rather than all of them, until they are both familiar and comfortable with the strategies (MacLeod, 2005, AGQTP Core Module 5) Additionally, the following strategies will also assist the process of differentiation (adapted from AGQTP Core Module 5): + assessing students prior knowledge, understandings and skills early in the year + using pre-assessment of units to compact the curriculum for students who have already mastered the core + differentiating and implementing initial learning plans in response to preassessment evidence to address readiness, interest and learning preference needs (Tomlinson and McTighe, 2006) + accelerating the pace and reducing practice time for gifted students to allow for independent study in an area of interest + flexible grouping to allow gifted students to work with like-minded peers + using tiered assignments and/or assessment tasks + designing a choice of independent research tasks + learning contracts + learning centres. Differentiated Programming is: Having high expectations for all students. + permitting students to demonstrate mastery of material they already know, and to progress at their own pace through new material. + providing students with choices about what and how they learn. + allowing students to choose, with the teacher s guidance, ways to learn and how to demonstrate what they have learned. + assigning activities geared to different learning styles, interests, and levels of thinking and achievement. + flexible. (Teachers move students in and out of groups based upon current instructional needs.) + instructing class assignments so that they require high levels of critical thinking, and permit a range of responses. + providing multiple assignments within each unit, tailored for students with differing levels of achievement. Differentiated Programming is not: + Having minimum standards for all learners. + Using only the differences in student responses to the same class assignment to provide differentiation. + Limited to acceleration. Teachers are encouraged to use a variety of classroom strategies. + Students spending significant amounts of time teaching material they have mastered to others who have not mastered it. + Assigning more work at the same level to high-achieving students all the time; whole-class instruction. + Individualisation. (It is not a different lesson plan for each student each day). + Giving all students the same work most of the time. + Grouping students into co-operative learning groups that do not provide for individual accountability, or do not focus on work that is new to all students. (adapted from Tomlinson and Allan (2000) The aim of differentiating the curriculum is to maximise each student s growth and involves offering learning experiences which respond to students differing needs. It is not an individualised program for each student (IEP), but a form of instruction which offers two to four different learning experiences (per topic) so that students are given the opportunities to make their own choices (Kiernan, L, 1996).

Learning Technologies Technology as a tool for differentiating the curriculum offers a wide variety of possibilities for students of all abilities and educators. It can be used as a resource for gifted students providing that it offers challenge and stimulates higher levels of thinking and learning (see Passow). E-Learning offers a number of advantages for gifted students and their teachers, and can be used to: + provide access to expertise and/or advanced knowledge at a pace which the student determines + provide access to ideas and information on the basis of readiness and interest rather than age + group students according to readiness for the content and processes which are to be employed + allow gifted students to be judged on their responses and contributions rather than age, culture or disability, especially in group work. This can reduce the possibility of stereotyping and the forcedchoice dilemma (Bailey, S, 2005, p 23) + solve real-world problems, the products of which can be tested for effectiveness in authentic settings, and feedback from live audiences + offer enrichment and extension activities that provide challenge, eg Web Quests which require critical thinking + develop social skills such as reading non-verbal cues, using a tone of voice appropriate to the occasion, and many more (Bailey, S, 2005, p 26) + maximise learning for gifted visual-spatial students with the use of mind-mapping. Strategies for online learning include collaborative activities such as seminar-style presentations and discussions, debates, group projects, composition of exam questions or research questions (Hiltz and Turoff, 1993). According to Hedberg, G, 2006, p 2, possible technology matches to achieve alternative learning paths include: 11 Outcome Interactive activity Evaluate Case study Text Digital asset Create Composing Musical score Synthesise Experiment Diagram or flow-chart Support Links to further resources Collaboration with others Links to checklists Assessment Essay/report Presentation Self-check/ quiz

12 Provisions These are educational electives that are not considered imperatives, are rarely articulated from one grade to another (Tannenbaum, 1983), and can include the following: Enrichment Enrichment is a term that is frequently associated with gifted education. It is also a term that has many meanings. Enrichment (whole-school) can refer to undifferentiated activities that are the same for all students. When used effectively for gifted students, enrichment activities are carefully differentiated at a level of complexity appropriate to individual needs and include extending, developing and deepening the enrichment program. The program of enrichment should be carefully articulated to eliminate gaps or overlaps in offerings. It must be rigorous, challenging and beyond the scope of the majority of learners. It is important not to confuse what is good wholeschool enrichment with that which is only appropriate for gifted students. (see Passow) Extension Extension activities allow students to explore areas of talent or interest in more depth. Once a gifted student s talent area is identified, it then needs to be monitored regularly and provided on a daily basis in lieu of the regular curriculum in that talent area. Extra-Curricular Activities Opportunities for gifted students exist in all aptitude domains, across the school, cluster, Regional and State level including public speaking, sport and the arts, as well as access to academically challenging external competitions tests, and opportunities for team problem-solving. Mentoring These programs match individual students with mentors who have expertise in a specific area of the gifted student s interest. They can be school-based, online, or involve the wider education and/or business community.

Assessment and Reporting To nurture motivation, achievement and self-efficacy as well as take into account the personal growth of gifted students, policies and procedures that distinguish between achievement (grading) and learning (individual) need to be developed. Assessment is most powerful when it is used not only for measuring learning, but also to inform teachers instructional decisions and allow students to self-monitor and adjust their own learning. Effective assessment and reporting of a student s understanding and proficiency requires multiple sources of information including: + achievement (noted by standardised scores for student progress within a subject area) + progress (measured against individual goals or syllabus outcomes at different levels of complexity within a gifted cohort) + growth (in comparison with self and student s measured ability) + habits and attitudes (persistence, independence, work habits, co-operation) + work quality (to measure the calibre of the products developed or produced). Such an approach allows teachers to differentiate content, process and product so that each student has the opportunity to be appropriately challenged, work within interest/s areas, and be increasingly motivated (Tomlinson and Allan, 2000). Evaluation of Programs and Provisions Evaluation of differentiated initiatives is encouraged at the formative and summative stages and includes curriculum development, professional development, collaborative partnerships and material/resources acquisition. Important questions that schools, Principals and teachers might ask (Tomlinson and Allan, 2000) when evaluating programs for gifted students are: + What evidence is there that a common vocabulary related to differentiation exists within a school? + Are differentiated curriculum documents available and in use? + Are mechanisms for teachers to acquire material for differentiation adequate, and are they adequately used? + To what degree do teachers perceive that staff development is effective? + Is differentiation being interpreted and translated into classroom practice in ways that are likely to benefit students? Following are some other questions that need to be asked in regard to outcomes/and student learning. + Is student achievement improving as a result of differentiation? + Is there evidence of more student-centredness in classroom learning? + Are there groups of students who are showing greater benefit? + What evidence is there that curriculum and instruction in differentiated classrooms are at a higher level that in the past? + Are students more engaged in classes that are differentiated? + Is there evidence of higher student self-efficacy as a result of differentiation? + Are teachers effectively using a broader range of instructional assessment? + Have the goals of gifted and talented program sources been achieved? Such an approach will enable school leaders to adapt and strengthen programs and plan for long-term success, affirm the work of educators, and maintain support for the continued growth of gifted students (Tomlinson and Allan, 2000). 13

14 Support for Schools The CEO, Sydney is committed to supporting teachers in schools in implementing teaching/learning programs for gifted students. This support is an ongoing priority for Regional teams. Current support includes: + an Education Officer: Gifted Education K-12 (Archdiocese of Sydney) and Regional Advisers + development of this Position Paper and its accompanying online support resources + professional development opportunities for school staff, including sponsorship in a range of postgraduate programs such as the Certificate in Gifted Education and the Mini-Certificate in Gifted Education. + curriculum unit bank + evaluation instrument bank. The Education Officer: Gifted Education K-12, in collaboration with Regional personnel, will lead the development and implementation of the Archdiocesan Gifted Strategy.

References Betts, G.T. and Neihart, M. (1998). Profiles of the Gifted and Talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(2), 248-253. Board of Studies NSW. (2003). Guidelines for accelerated progression (revised 2004), Sydney. Burns, D.E., Purcell, J.H. and Hertberg, H. Curriculum for Gifted Education Students. pp87-111. In Eckert, D.R. and Purcell, J.H. eds (2006). Designing services and programs for high-ability learners. A guidebook for gifted education. National Association for Gifted Students and Corwin Press.5. Chaffey, G.W., Bailey, S.B. & Vine, K.W. (2003). Identifying high academic potential in Australia Aboriginal children using Dynamic testing. Australisian Journal of Gifted Education, 12(1), 42-55. Feldhusen, J., & Kennedy, D. (1989). Curriculum development for G.C.T teachers. Gifted Child, Today, 12(6), 12.19. Gagné, F. (2002). Transforming Gifts into Talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In Colangelo, N & Davis, G (Eds), Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd ed., PP60-74), Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gagné, F. A. Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent. www.nswagtc.org.au/info/definitions/ gagnémodel.html Gifted and Talented Education Professional Development for Teachers. Australian Journalist D.E.S.T. (2005). Gross, M.U.M. (1989); The Pursuit of Excellence or the search for intimacy? The forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review, 11(4), pp189-194. Gross, M; Macleod, B; Drummond, D; & Merrick, C (2001). Gifted Students in Primary/Secondary Schools Differentiating the Curriculum, GERRIC: Sydney. Kanevsky, L. (1999). The Tool Kit for Curriculum Differentiation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby. Kiernan, L. (1996). Differentiating Instruction. (Lesson One. pp 3-4). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development in AGQTP (Gifted Education Package). Also found at http://www. ascd.org. MacLeod, 2005 AGQTP Core Module 5 http://www. dest.gov.au/sectprs/school_education/publications_ resources/profiles/gifted_education_professional_ development_package.htm <http://www.dest.gov. au/sectprs/school_education/publications_resources/ profiles/gifted_education_professional_development_ package.htm> Maker, C.V. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Austin, T.X: Pro-Ed. NSW Department of School Education (2004). Policy and implementation strategies for the education of gifted and talented students (revised 2004), Sydney. Passow, A.H. (1988). School, university, and museum corporation in identifying and nurturing potential scientists. In P.F. Brandwein and A.H. Passow (Eds.). Gifted young in science: Potential through performance (pp. 243-253). Washington, DC: National Teachers Association. Passow, A.H. (1988). The educating and schooling of the community artisans in science. In P.F. Brandwein and A.H. Passow (Eds.). Gifted young in science: Potential through performance (pp. 27-38). Washington, DC: National Teachers Association. Rogers, K.B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education : Helping parents and teachers to match the option to the child. Scottsdale, AZ : Great Potential Press. Rogers, K.B. (2005). Matching domain specific identification with programming for learners with gifts or talents. Presentation by Karen B. Rogers for CEO Reference Teachers from the Inner West Region of the Sydney Archdiocese (2006). GERRIC, University of New South Wales. Rogers, K.B. (2006). Connecting Program Design and District Policies. P207-223. In Eckert, D.R. and Percell, J. eds (2006) Designing services and programs for high-ability learners. A guidebook for gifted education. National Association for Gifted Students and Corwin Press.5. Rogers, K.B. (2006). Curriculum Development Master Class. GERRIC. The University of New South Wales. Tannenbaum, A.J. (1983). Gifted Children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: MacMillan. Tomlinson, C.A. and Allan, S.D. (2006). Leadership for differentiating schools and classrooms. Alexandria, V.A: ASCD. Tomlinson, C.A. and Allan, S.D. (2000). Leadership for Differentiating Schools and Classrooms. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Alexandria, Virginia USA. Tomlinson, C.A. and McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design. Hawker Brownlow Education, Australia. Tomlinson, C.A. and Allan, S.D. (2006). Leadership for differentiating schools and classrooms. Alexandria, V.A: ASCD. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive Curriculum for Gifted Learners. Allen and Bacon Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 15

EDUCATION K-12 position paper This Position Paper sets out the fundamental principles governing the education of gifted and talented students in the Catholic systemic schools of the Archdiocese of Sydney. It is intended to be a resource for Principals and school communities in responding to the educational needs of students identified as gifted. Its purpose is: + To set out some basic principles to inform schools policies and practices + To establish a common language and shared understanding relating to gifted education + To provide direction for future action + To build upon the strong principles that underpin education in Catholic systemic schools. catholic education office, sydney