7.1 Primary and secondary education in Australia is the responsibility of the States. Approximately seventy-three per cent of Australian children are educated in government schools.1 There are significant differences, however, among the various State and Territory Government education systems.
7.2 The Commonwealth Government has a limited, but important role in primary and secondary education. It provides funds to government and non-government schools. It finances a number of national programs and, through the Curriculum Development Council, supports curriculum development in collaboration with the States. The Commonwealth Government has assumed a major role in tertiary education, financing universities and colleges of advanced education.2
7.3 The Commonwealth Schools Commission (CSC) was established under the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973. Its role is to advise the Commonwealth Minister responsible for Education about national policy on schools and to provide a National focus for discussion and consultation about issues in school-level education. The Commission is intended to provide leadership in specific areas of Commonwealth priority, and to collaborate in national action in areas of shared commitment and concern in the educational community.3 In carrying out its functions, the CSC, under the Act, is to have regard to:
. . . the desirability of providing special educational opportunities for students who have demonstrated their ability in a particular field of studies, including scientific, literary, artistic or musical studies.4
7.4 Given this responsibility, a representative of the Commission attended the first World Conference on Gifted Children in London in 1975. Subsequently, in a paper prepared for the Australian Education Council, the Commission indicated that gifted children had special needs which it doubted were then being appropriately met. The CSC recommended the development of Special Interest Centres, an initiative which failed to gain wide acceptance, though some centres were established, notably in South Australia.
7.5 At the instigation of the Commission, an expert in gifted education, Professor Miriam Goldberg from Columbia University, made two visits to Australia in 1978 and 1980 to report on the local situation and to explore developmental options. Following her report, an Advisory Group on the Education of Gifted and Talented Children was established by the Commission in 1981, chaired by Dr David Mossenson.
7.6 As a result of the activities of this Advisory Group, the Commission recommended to the Minister that funds should be made available for initiatives in the field of gifted education under the Projects of National Significance scheme. The Government allocated $100,000 annually for four years from 1982 for this purpose. The funds were directed to selected projects including the holding of conferences and workshops, the National Mathematics Summer School, the development of resource manuals and teachers' guides, pilot programs, program evaluations and counsellor training.5
7.7 Over the four-year period of funding, thirty-six projects costing from $1,100 to $24,296 were sponsored. Total expenditure was $406,080.6 The Commission informed the Committee that it had recommended funding for 'investigatory and demonstration projects' and for 'the publication of resource materials, the proceedings of seminars and working groups and documents providing advice on exemplary practice and policies'.7 The CSC's recommendations were consistent with its national role of providing leadership, stimulating national activities, and assisting projects undertaken in the separate education systems.8
7.8 A number of witnesses commented on the benefits derived from projects funded on the recommendation of the CSC. Mr Harslett, Superintendent, Academic Extension Branch of the Western Australian Department of Education, observed:
The sort of service which the Schools Commission, through its projects of national significance, provides is very good and valuable . . . It is serving the needs of gifted children in a most valuable way. It is flexible. Some outstanding projects have been undertaken and achieved. It gives schools and States the flexibility to focus on the areas which they want to develop and which they see as their areas of need . . .9
Mr Harslett requested that the Committee recommend that assistance of the type provided through the CSC between 1982 and 1986 should continue.10
7.9 Dr Mossenson, former Chairman of the Commission's Advisory Group and a part-time Commissioner, raised the question of 'seed funding'. He commented on the disappointment of beneficiaries when funding stops, despite the merits of a project. Dr Mossenson concluded that 'there is a need for something more than seed funding'.11 Mr Vacchini, Assistant Director-General, Development, of the New South Wales Department of Education also expressed reservations about 'seed funding'. He remarked that when Commonwealth funding is discontinued, the State is under pressure to divert State funds to something which, however worthwhile, may not be one of its priorities. If the State does not continue with the project it must bear the brunt of the ill-will generated.12
7.10 The Schools Commission's report for the triennium 1982-1984 proposed what Dr Mossenson has referred to as an 'ambitious' plan for the education of gifted children. The Commission recommended that the Commonwealth should provide funding of $300,000 in 1982 rising to $1 million by 1984 for research and projects associated with gifted education.13 This proposal was not accepted for fiscal reasons. Dr Mossenson informed the Committee that the Commission's recommendations represented 'a high watermark within the area of possible Commonwealth involvement in the education of gifted and talented children'.14
7.11 In the early 1980s, the Commission began to concentrate on other priorities, including Aboriginal education, the education of girls, children with disabilities and the economically disadvantaged. The CSC adopted as a policy the goal of equality of educational outcomes.15 Consequently, the Advisory Group on the Education of Gifted and Talented Children within the CSC was disbanded and funding for the gifted education element in the Projects of National Significance Program was discontinued after 1985. In its submission to the Committee, the CSC observed:
The Commission considers that it has achieved its original objectives of fostering and stimulating activity, debate and interest in the needs of gifted and talented students . . . as a general principle, continuing provision for gifted and talented children should be made by systems and authorities from general resources made available to them . . .16
7.12 Several witnesses considered that the disbanding of the Advisory Group was a retrograde step. A former member of the Advisory Group, Mr Turner, Superintendent, Student Services, of the Tasmanian Department of Education, praised its work in raising awareness of gifted issues and in establishing networks and channels of communication between the States.17 Ms Bond, of the Queensland Association for Gifted and Talented Children, considered that a national advisory committee or some sort of national group was needed as a means of information and to discourage individual systems or States from reinventing the wheel.18 Mrs Paramanathan, lecturer in Child Studies at the Victoria College, also suggested that there should be a national committee to collate and document current practice in gifted education in the States.19
7.13 Evidence submitted during the course of the inquiry indicated that the Advisory Group provided a focus for developments in the field of gifted education and a leadership role which is now lacking. This Victorian Association for Gifted and Talented Children called for an assertive national role for the Commonwealth in gifted education and a clearly articulated sense of direction and focus for resources.20 Its president, Mr Comerford, suggested that the Commonwealth Government should endeavour to change public opinion in relation to the word 'gifted'.21 Miss Tindale, a representative of the National Council of Independent Schools, observed:
. . . one of the things that I feel we lack as teachers is leadership from the Government to give direction and support to a policy of the country that these students are entitled to an education - not one that is special or is added to, but simply one reflecting a requirement that they need to reach their potential, the same as any child.22
7.14 The Committee considers that a strong case was made in the evidence for continuing Commonwealth Government involvement in the field of gifted education. In particular, the Committee considers that a national focus and a national centre for the dissemination of information are needed. The provision of these services need not involve the Commonwealth Schools Commission. The Committee accepts that the CSC has successfully stimulated research and development in the field of gifted education. It is now time to consider how the Commonwealth Government might assist in consolidating the advances that have been made in this nationally vital area of education. The most cost-effective way of doing this may be in the area of tertiary education where the Commonwealth has responsibility.
7.15 Not all witnesses considered that additional Commonwealth Government funding or involvement is desirable or necessary. Mr Giles, Director of Studies of the South Australian Education Department, criticised the CSC special purpose grants for encouraging 'a totally dependent mentality on the part of the States'.23 He remarked:
. . . we have gone past the stage where we must continue to look to the Commonwealth to provide special kinds of funding to the States beyond assistance with the general recurrent funding . . . If we are really to make our schools adaptive to the children we are talking about and able to cater for gifts and talents it must be a State-funded exercise.24
7.16 The Committee agrees in general with the sentiments expressed by Mr Giles. Nevertheless, it is concerned that some State Governments do not appear to appreciate that the education of gifted children should be a national priority.
7.17 If the Commonwealth Government does not accept a leadership role in this area, the education of gifted children could continue to receive little attention in some areas of Australia. Therefore, to allow the gifted in this country to reach their full potential, the Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government make a clear statement that special educational strategies should be provided for gifted children throughout Australia.
7.18 Because the Commonwealth Government has the major responsibility for the funding of tertiary education, the training of teachers by universities and CAEs is of particular relevance to the Committee's inquiry. Surveys of teacher education courses in Australia were conducted by the University of Melbourne in 1974 and again in 1984. The 1974 survey revealed that little was being done to equip teachers to understand the needs of gifted students. Ten years later, while the situation had improved, student teachers were given 16 hours preparation for the needs of handicapped children for every one hour on the education of gifted children.25 The 1984 survey found that every university and college had integrated programs on disadvantaged children for student teachers. None had an integrated program, that is, a program extending from initial training to doctoral research, on gifted education.26
7.19 In April 1986, the Committee wrote to the Australian tertiary institutions which educate teachers to seek data about their courses in gifted education. The responses indicated that some of these forty-five colleges and universities were offering studies in gifted education at the undergraduate and diploma levels. Doctoral level studies in gifted education were still not available in Australia. Most pre-service teacher education courses in Australia offered, at most, a few lectures on gifted education or an elective unit, often within the context of 'special education'.
7.20 In Queensland, the Darling Downs CAE offers a two-unit elective program in gifted education in its course for the Graduate Diploma in Special Education. This is one of the few external courses in gifted education. The units are also made available in continuing education courses for teachers.27
7.21 In Victoria, the University of Melbourne offers some studies in gifted education. One option in the Diploma of Education course focuses on individual differences in learning. Two semester-length courses dealing with individual differences in the classroom and the fast learning child are available in the Bachelor of Education degree. The University is also developing a Masters program in the area of gifted education.28 The Victoria College offers an elective semester unit on gifted children in the fourth year of its Bachelor of Education (Primary) course. It also offers lectures on gifted education within other elective units.29
7.22 In Western Australia, the Diploma of Teaching course offered by the Western Australian College of Advanced Education includes a compulsory unit in the third year which covers the teaching of children with special needs, including the gifted. At the fourth year of the Bachelor of Education course, two units are offered on high ability children and strategies for teaching them.30
7.23 In New South Wales, the Sydney College of Advanced Education is developing a post-graduate diploma in the education of gifted and talented children. At the Mitchell CAE, a two-year external course leading to a Graduate Diploma in Educational Studies (Teaching Gifted Children) has been planned but has not as yet enrolled any students. The College offers elective courses in gifted education at both the full-time undergraduate level and the fourth year external level.31
7.24 Many Australian tertiary institutions which have teacher education courses do not offer as many studies in gifted in gifted education as the universities and colleges mentioned in paragraphs 7.20 to 7.23. Teachers who take a three-year undergraduate course of study miss out altogether, or attend only a few lectures on gifted education within a broader unit of study. This is in contrast to the situation in the United States where, in 1985-86, one hundred and thirty-seven universities offered graduate programs specifically for teachers of gifted children.32 Witnesses representing the Education Department of Western Australia suggested that more could be done at the teacher training level to equip teachers to provide for this particular group of students.33
7.25 In evidence, a suggestion was made to the Committee that compulsory specialist studies in gifted education should not necessarily be included in pre-service teacher training.34 There is little time available, especially in one-year post-graduate courses, to include all the subjects that future teachers should study. Priority must be given to ensuring that teachers have a firm grasp of their subjects and be instructed in the methodology of teaching those subjects.35 Mr Imison, who is Dean of Education at the Darling Downs College of Education, commented on the limitations of studies that can be included in pre-teacher training. Be observed:
. . . in pre-service the best we can do is provide teachers with those strategies which they can apply to a broad range of abilities, provide them with the confidence in using those, but above that provide them with the sensitivity to recognise the uniqueness of children, that each child is a unique individual who needs to be treated in different ways.36
7.26 The Joint Review of Teacher Education, conducted by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and the Commonwealth Schools Commission in 1986, reached a similar conclusion. It recognised that there were real difficulties for institution in accommodating new perspectives, given the resources and time constraints currently applying to pre-service programs, and given the need to maintain balanced course content. The Review concluded:
. . . higher education institutions should direct their pre-service programs to improving the preparation of teachers in such a way as to enhance their competence during their first years in the workforce, and especially in those areas which prepare them to meet the needs of students with diverse backgrounds and differing levels of achievement.37
7.27 Though it may be impractical to include compulsory intensive studies on the education of gifted children in pre-service teacher education, some studies should be included. The Committee recommends to teacher training institutions that pre-service training courses include sufficient information about gifted children to make student teachers aware of the needs of those children and the special identification techniques and teaching strategies which the student teachers will have to use with the gifted on graduation.
7.28 New entrants to teaching each year represent about five per cent of the total teaching workforce.38 Even if there were a greater emphasis on the education of gifted children at the pre-service level - an emphasis which has been frequently called for in reviews of teacher education39 - it would take years for the ideas and skills generated to permeate the system. If provision is to be made to cater for the needs of gifted children, teachers already in the workforce must be informed of these needs and of how to meet them.
7.29 In previous paragraphs, the Committee has mentioned that some schools of teacher education offer external and part-time courses in gifted education. Teachers wishing to upgrade or update their qualifications may undertake these courses. Many teachers will not do so because of more pressing commitments on their time. In-service professional development will therefore be needed to inform the majority of teachers about current thinking and practice in gifted education.
7.30 Most reports on teacher education have emphasised the importance of in-service training. The Joint Review of Teacher Education, for example, observed:
A major component of quality education is the adequate supply of professionally competent teachers, and therefore this is critical to improved education outcomes for all students. Successive reports on teacher education . . . have all placed a high priority on the continued and increasing significance of in-service education.40
7.31 The Committee was informed of several in-service course which concentrate on facets of gifted education. The New South Wales Department of Education, for example, conducts an intensive, four-week course for primary teachers each year.41 The Faculty of Education at Monash University collaborates in providing in-service courses in gifted education at the Teacher's Centre located on campus.42 The South Australian Association for Gifted and Talented Children conducts teacher education programs in the evenings, at the weekends and during school holidays. Teachers pay a small fee to attend. The Association reported that the sessions have proved to be popular, attracting up to a hundred participants at a time. According to the Association's President, Mrs Gross, the success of the programs is due to their timing. They are held when teachers are free to come, and thus do not require the employment of replacement teachers. Mrs Gross observed, however, that the Association believes the responsibility for teacher training and support lies with the tertiary institutions and the employing authorities. The Association organises the courses only because of a lack of interest and support from these organisations.43
7.32 The New South Wales Department of Education suggested to the Committee that an in-service course developed by the South Australian Department of Education might serve as a suitable model for in-service courses on gifted education.44 This course, the Early Literacy In-Service Course (ELIC), was developed to assist teachers to diagnose reading difficulties experienced by children in Years 1-3, and to prepare remedial programs for children with reading difficulties. ELIC materials and models have been adapted to suit the needs of different systems and specific groups within each system. The course consists of ten units which are undertaken by a group of teachers during a school term. A tutor leads the groups, generally after school hours, once a week. A sound theoretical basis is laid, then practised in the intervening week and reviewed and refined at the next workshop. This encourages sharing and communication in a supportive environment.45
7.33 The provision of in-service courses is expensive. Inevitably, some teachers will find it difficult to attend professional development courses out of school hours. If in-service courses are conducted in school time, replacement teachers must be employed at considerable cost. During the past decade, the Commonwealth Government has contributed to the cost of in-service teacher development in Australia. The Commonwealth Government in 1976 provided $33 million to establish a Professional Development Program (PDP). Commonwealth funding in this area was progressively reduced from 1976. In 1984, the PDP was linked to the support of educational objectives determined by the Commonwealth. In 1985, $11 million was made available for this purpose, with a limit of thirty-five per cent of these funds available for teacher replacement.46 Funding for the PDP ceased in 1987.
7.34 A review of the PDP conducted for the Commonwealth Schools Commission by be Messrs Coulter and Ingvarson, identified problems in the program. These were caused by abrupt policy changes, the conflict between local school and Commonwealth priorities and fluctuations in funding because of budgetary constraints.47 The CSC, in a review of its Specific Purpose Programs, took up some of these issues in its guidelines for the PDP in 1987-88. It recommended that professional development should be a high national priority and a responsibility shared among the Commonwealth, employing authorities and the profession. The Commission recommended that because professional development is a recurrent obligation, there should be specific professional development provision in Commonwealth specific purpose programs. Increased support also should be offered for school level activities. The CSC suggested that the priorities in professional development should be for teachers of Aborigines, disadvantaged students and girls, particularly in science and mathematics.48 Under the current educational priorities of the Commonwealth Government there would seem to be no impediment to the Commonwealth funding of in-service courses for the education of gifted children from special populations.
7.35 The Joint Review of Teacher Education recommended that the Commonwealth work in collaboration with the State authorities to identify and establish national objectives in in-service education, and to devise appropriate strategies. It further suggested that financial support for continuing professional development should be regarded as a responsibility to be shared among the Commonwealth, employing authorities, the profession and higher education institutions.49
7.36 The Committee recognises the importance of in-service courses for the professional development of teachers. It recommends to the Commonwealth Government that the professional development of all teachers in the areas of education currently accorded special assistance, namely, the education of girls, Aborigines and disadvantaged children, should include the identification and education of gifted children from those populations. The Committee, however, does not consider the Commonwealth should support the professional development of teachers in these three areas only. It therefore recommends the professional development of teachers in the education of gifted children be supported by the Commonwealth Government.
7.37 Because this report is concerned with the education of gifted children, the Committee has discussed the training required by teachers if they are to provide for gifted children. Appropriate training, although important, is not all that is needed if teachers are to provide adequately for gifted children.
7.38 The Committee expects that most gifted children will continue to be educated for most of the time with their age peers in classes of mixed ability. These classes will be instructed by teachers assigned to them for reasons other than their competence in gifted education. It is therefore essential not only that all teachers should be properly equipped to cater for individual differences but also that the quality of teaching should be as high as possible. The Quality of Education Review Committee recognised that educational outcomes depend on teachers. That Committee commented that 'this dependence . . . brings sharply into focus the need for measures to improve the quality of teachers and teaching'.50
7.39 Several suggestions have been made and experiments undertaken in an attempt to improve the quality of teaching. Apart from teacher development, three particular concerns have been addressed in the evidence presented to the Committee and in the recent literature. Firstly, it has been difficult to attract well-qualified people to teach disciplines which are well-renumerated in other professions. Secondly, ambitious teachers advance their careers by moving into administration and others areas outside the classroom. Thirdly, it appears that there is little formal appraisal of teachers to encourage the maintenance of standards.
7.40 Employers may need to offer financial incentives to attract and to retain good teachers in some disciplines. If financial incentives are needed; this is a matter principally for the employers, notably, the State Governments and the independent schools and school systems.
7.41 Financial incentives could take the form of merit pay, or additional salary for 'master' teachers. Merit pay is based on the assumption that monetary incentives will motivate teachers both to excel and to remain in the teaching profession.51 Attempts to retain good teachers by rewarding them with additional money have been made overseas and in Australia, with mixed results. The Commonwealth Teaching Service introduced a 'master teacher' scheme in 1974, to try to retain teachers of outstanding ability in the classroom. The aim was to confer prestige on outstanding teachers and to reward them financially for remaining involved in face-to-face teaching. It was thought that they would otherwise move into supervisory or administrative duties. Master teachers were identified by their peers.52 The scheme is still operating in the Australian Capital Territory.
7.42 The master teacher concept cause a number of questions. Should a master teacher be expected to undertake the same, or different, duties as other teachers? How long should master status be tenable? Who should identify the master teacher, and by what criteria? Should there be a limit to the number of master teachers in one school or school system. How should they be distributed across schools and across subjects?53
7.43 Major obstacles to any system of merit pay or master teachers may be financial constraints and the possibility that such a system would cause industrial problems. Another obstacle to merit pay would be the difficulty of determining objective standards for teacher evaluation. Susan Rosenholtz of the University of Illinois has suggested that the definition of exceptional teaching is 'an empirical and analytical quagmire'.54 If students' performance on standardised tests is used as a measure of the quality of teaching, factors outside the teacher's control, for example, prior knowledge, the academic composition of the class, parental assistance and student motivation cannot easily be excluded. Teaching effectiveness may also not be readily amenable to short-term monitoring. Despite the difficulties, by the end of 1984 twenty-five of the United States' state legislatures were developing merit pay programs.55
7.44 As mentioned in paragraph 7.39, educational employers have found it difficult to recruit teachers with competence in specific subject areas which receive higher remuneration or offer superior career prospects elsewhere. Science, technology and mathematics are the areas most frequently affected. As a short-term measure, it may well be necessary for employers to offer a loading akin to merit pay for skills which are in demand. An alternative would be to offer contracts to well-qualified people at above-award rates. The Committee did not receive evidence to allow it to comment on whether more frequent appraisal of teachers would raise the quality of teaching.
7.45 Several witnesses remarked on a lack of research into the education of gifted children and suggested that the Commonwealth Government should support research. Dr Mossenson observed that research has been conducted overseas but that nearly all the findings need to be tested under Australian conditions. While acknowledging the work carried out by State education departments, he remarked that their chief concern was with administrative issues, hence research 'is very much an area where Commonwealth involvement is appropriate and very likely to fill a need that otherwise is unlikely to be resolved'.56 The Victorian Government also referred to a heed for research into the education of gifted children. That Government's submission suggested:
Research must be undertaken into all aspects of the problem throughout Australia. Compared with other countries, research in Australia is almost non-existent. The Commonwealth needs to undertake its own applied research. It would be appropriate for the Commonwealth to make direct funding available to professionally-trained researchers and to research institutes as well as to State Government Education authorities for this purpose.57
7.46 The Victorian Association for Gifted and Talented Children suggested that the Commonwealth government should 'assert the importance of research'58, while Mrs Moulton, Co-ordinator, Talented Children Program, Deakin University, suggested that research grants should be made available to stimulate university activity in the area.59 Mr Creese, representing the National Council of Independent Schools, also remarked that there should be additional funding for research.60
7.47 Mrs Gross, President of the South Australian Association for Gifted and Talented Children, suggested that one university in each State should be designated as a centre for post-graduate studies in gifted education, She observed that, if this were an over-ambitious plan, a single national centre for research and teacher training should be established. Mrs Gross informed the Committee that the most appropriate site for a national centre would be the University of Melbourne. The establishment of a national centre at that institution would capitalise on the strength of the teachers' and parents associations in Victoria and the expertise of Professor Brian Start, John Smyth Professor of Education at the University.61 In its submission to the Committee, the University of Melbourne observed:
Given the resources, the University of Melbourne would wish to become such a centre and provide leadership in the field of education critical to the continued development of the nation.62
7.48 Professor Start, in his submission to the Committee, suggested that designated tertiary institutions within each State should take on a research, evaluation and teaching role. One of these State centres should also have national responsibility. He remarked that any Commonwealth Government funding should be seen as pump-priming and not as in perpetuity support. Centres which were successful would gain sufficient institutional support and student numbers to be funded through the normal triennial processes of funding. The proposed national centre would, however, require an initial six years of full funding and three years of half funding.63
7.49 Professor Start has estimated that such a centre, located within the Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne, would require funding of $525,000 per annum at 1987 prices. When fully developed, the centre would employ five academic staff, five graduate research assistants, ten graduate students and three support staff.64
7.50 The Committee believes a national centre of the type proposed by Professor Start is needed. The centre would offer post-graduate programs in gifted education and thus obviate the need for Australians to go overseas to seek higher qualifications in this field. It would also provide a much-needed focus for Australian research and teacher development and for the dissemination of information about gifted education. The Committee expects that such a centre, once firmly established, would be successful in attracting funding from its parent university or college and may be able to attract funds from industry. The Committee recommends that a national centre for research into the education of gifted children be established in an Australian tertiary institution and that this centre be financially supported during its establishment phase by the Commonwealth Government.
7.51 The Committee makes no recommendation about the location of the proposed national research centre but recommends that the Commonwealth Government consider expressions of interest from tertiary institutions.
7.52 Many witnesses requested that the Commonwealth Government should become involved in the development of curricula for gifted education and, in particular, the development of appropriate resources for use in the education of gifted children.65 In the CSC's report for the 1982-84 triennium the Commission recommended the Curriculum Development Centre should be involved in this field.66
7.53 Dr Louden, Deputy Director-General of the Western Australian Department of Education, observed that 'there is always need for Commonwealth assistance' in the areas of curriculum development and in the production and marketing of materials.67 Dr Mossenson remarked that unless Commonwealth Government resources were provided, a sufficient level of development in these areas would not be attained.68 Mr Dixon, Director of Curriculum of the Queensland Department of Education, also suggested that materials should be developed by the Curriculum Development Council (CDC). He observed, however, that hand-out materials in themselves were not sufficient, and that teachers really needed to develop or adapt materials to their own needs.69
7.54 Mr Turner, Superintendent of Student Services with the Tasmanian Education Department, indicated his concern that the valuable material resulting from the projects funded by the CSC was to all intents and purposes lost, because of inadequate dissemination.70 Ms Bond, President of the Queensland Association for Gifted and Talented Children, suggested that the Commonwealth should have a 'clearing house' role, to facilitate the exchange of ideas and resources, and to counter State provincialism.71 A number of other witnesses supported the concept of a central 'clearing house'. Dr Bartak and Mrs Deppeler of Monash University envisaged that the information that would be disseminated by a 'clearing house' would include identification procedures and national statistics on giftedness in addition to curriculum development and information.72
7.55 The Committee understands that a project being developed by the CDC may help in the dissemination of information about gifted education. The CDC has established the Australia Curriculum Information Network (ACIN), an on-line database which has been available to schools since October 1986 through the Australian Schools Cataloguing Information Service. It will also be made available in the near future through the Australian Education Index.73 The CSC estimates that the service has reached about one half of Australian schools, both government and non-government, on microfiche, with a growing of those schools having access to the database on-line. In September 1987, information on about seven hundred items, such as software programs, videos, syllabi and projects was available on ACIN.
7.56 The ACIN has the potential to be used for the dissemination of information about gifted education. Under the scheme, inquirers may contact the authors or originators of the material. The CDC therefore acts only as an information 'clearing house' and does not have the responsibility for storing and disseminating material itself. The Committee recommends that priority be given to expanding the information on the education of gifted children within the Australian Curriculum Information Network and that this information be made accessible to educational institutions and those sections of the community with an interest in this area of education.
