1.1 Some persons are able to perform certain tasks considerably better than their peers. The achievements of famous Australians in many different fields of human endeavour is clear evidence of this. At another level, when a five year old correctly totals the cost of grocery items at the supermarket checkout before the operator does, it is obvious that there is a well above average faculty at work.
1.2 Outstanding individual achievement demonstrates the existence of giftedness, but the concept itself is difficult to describe or define. The evidence submitted to the Committee and the literature studied by it suggest that there is no fixed or arbitrary cut-off point separating gifted people from non-gifted people. Some persons may be gifted in one area only, while others are talented in several areas. Other people may have particular talents in the intellectual sphere, in the visual or performing arts, in the psychomotor area, in leadership or in social skills. Some people may be capable of high achievement in more than one or even in all of these spheres.
1.3 The Committee does not subscribe to the notion that every child is gifted. Children can generally do one thing better than they can do other things. This does not indicate, however, that these children are gifted in the one particular area where their performance in higher in other areas. The criterion against which talent should be judged is the performance level of their age peers.
1.4 Giftedness is not necessarily stable over the years. A child who is reading at a level three years in advance of chronological age at age six may have reverted to a level comparable to that of his or her peers by age fourteen. Other children may be late achievers who do not demonstrate any evidence of a particular talent until late in their development.
1.5 Because giftedness, unlike achievement, is difficult to define, it is also difficult to measure. Tests of general mental ability and aptitude tests may be useful to indicate a measure of giftedness. Other methods of measuring giftedness have also been designed to identify children whose giftedness may not be apparent by using normal testing procedures. Definitions and identification of gifted children are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.
1.6 Some witnesses made a distinction between children with 'gifts' and children with 'talents'. The two descriptions were, however, used interchangeably in much of the evidence and in much of the literature. The Committee has not made any distinction between 'gifts' and 'talents' in this report.
1.7 There is a generally held view that there exists an Australian ethos, which is said to discourage individual excellence. Witnesses asserted that Australian would not support special educational provisions for gifted children because they are seen as being privileged already.1 Nevertheless, the Committee did not receive any submissions suggesting that gifted children should not receive an appropriate education because they are already privileged. The paucity of provision made for intellectually and artistically gifted children in Australia suggests, however, that there is significant resistance to encouraging individual excellence in these fields.
1.8 This is not true for children with physical gifts, especially those who excel in popular sports. The Australian Institute of Sport has been established at public expense to develop the talents of physically gifted people. School sporting teams usually receive special coaching and attend inter-school matches in school time. Few Australians object to the practice of streaming sportspersons into 'A', 'B', or 'C' teams. Talented sportspersons can generally expect to bask in the acclaim of peers, teachers and parents.
1.9 Many witnesses contrasted the treatment accorded these students with the indifference and even hostility shown towards intellectually gifted children. The great majority of submissions received by the Committee dealt with the education of intellectually gifted children. There was no submission which specifically addressed the education of children with sporting talents, although many witnesses compared the high level of provision for children with these talents with the lack of provision made for those with intellectual gifts.2
1.10 The lack of submisions (sic) in this area may indicate that the provision for the sporting talent is adequate in Australia. Considering the Committee's terms of reference, there is no reason why people concerned with the education of those with sporting talents should not have made submissions. Given the lack of submissions about children who have sporting talent, the Committee did not pursue this matter further.
1.11 Several submissions were received which dealt with education in the performing and visual arts.3 It seems from these submissions, and from the provision made for children with artistic or musical gifts, that Australians are less opposed to making special educational provisions for children gifts in these areas than they are for children with intellectual gifts. Miriam Goldberg, Professor of Psychology and Education, Columbia University, suggested that artistic and musical skills are not always considered central to daily living and to gaining a livelihood. The development of these gifts, therefore, may be tolerated more readily than academic gifts which may be associated with high status occupations and high incomes.4
1.12 Many witnesses at the Committee's hearings referred to the 'educational myth' that gifted children will be high achievers in spite of an educational system which caters for the average student (however 'average' is defined) and for the disadvantaged learners.5 There is sufficient research evidence in Australia and overseas to disprove this view. Many academically talented children not only fail to achieve their potential but actually drop out of school in large numbers.6
1.13 If special educational provision is needed for gifted children to achieve their potential, the question is whether this may be justified, especially in view of competing claims for limited resources.
1.14 The United Nations has declared that every child 'shall be given an education which will . . . enable him, on a basis of equal opportunity, to develop his abilities [and] his individual judgement . . . The best interest of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education'.7 If it is considered desirable that provision should be made to enable all children to develop their abilities, it follows that this must be true not only for average children and for those with disabilities but also for those with special gifts. The Hon. Kim Beazley, Sr., Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry into Education in Western Australia, observed that 'special adjustments to the education of the gifted should not be regarded as something abnormal, but part of the courtesy and grace due to every child'.8
1.15 It is often asserted that, although gifted children may have legitimate educational needs, those needs must be subjugated to the needs of other children who have more pressing claims to the limited funds available, especially children with disabilities. It should not be assumed, however, that if education systems aim to cater for disadvantaged and 'average' learners, they cannot also make provision for gifted children.
1.16 If priorities for resources must be determined among educationally disadvantaged groups, it could be argued that gifted children are currently among the most disadvantaged of these groups.9 The 1983 report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education in the United States of America, for example, found that over fifty cent (sic) of gifted high school students in the United States do not match their tested ability with comparable achievement in school.10
1.17 Without the contributions of its gifted citizens, Australian society would be poorer, both materially and culturally. It would be less able to compete internationally. Moreover, Australia would be less able to sustain a level of prosperity which allowed the education system to provide, albeit inadequately in some case, for disadvantaged learners. One witness, Professor Brian Start, John Smyth Professor of Education at the University of Melbourne, has observed:
The [gifted] will provide far more than they consume. This country has an enviable record of caring for the disabled. But let's face it, the cure for Down's Syndrome won't be coming from a child with that problem. But it may come from one of these gifted children. They are our greatest natural resource.11
