The third session of this five-part lecture series was led by Gay Gallagher and Heather O’Neill from Auckland University School of Teaching. The focus for this session was:
Can people be gifted underachievers?
The first part of the lecture presented interesting perspectives. The challenge: Attempt to define achievement. One’s notion of underachievement, of course, depends upon the way we define achievement. Renzulli’s model, along with that of Gagne was a reference point once again as was research by James Delisle (2002, Australia).
The presenter discussed Delisle’s view of underachievement; the key points being that it:
- Is in the eyes of the beholder
- Is content and situation specific
- Is tied to self-image
- Implies that adults disapprove of a child’s behaviour
- Is a learned set of behaviours
- Is a behaviour and therefore can be changed
- Relates to blame – that’s the name of the game
Several environmental catalysts for underachievement that have been identified through the research of Butler-Pou (1993) and Clark (1992) were discussed; these included inadequate parental role-modelling, expectations(too high or too low) and pressure, lack of involvement or support as well as children feeling that their acceptance is conditional.
Another view, that of Carolyn Coil looked at attention addiction, excessive manipulation, dependence/dominance struggle in the early years and ‘parents to the rescue’ as possible contributors to underachievement.
The notions of ‘underachievers’ and ‘selective consumers’ were discussed; the selective consumers being those who choose to ‘opt in and opt out’ while the real underachievers are those who really do lack the defined characteristics of achievers (Heacox,1991) those being:
- Goal oriented
- Positive thinkers
- Confident
- Resilient
- Self-disciplined
- Take pride
- Proficient
- Risk-takers
Selective consumers display the above attributes but on their terms.
As teachers and parents we can identify with both of these groups; with the children we believe are capable of achieving at a much higher level than their task commitment and output may demonstrate. It’s important to think about where self-management, motivation, volition and personality fit within this picture as well, not forgetting self-image. I believe that teachers have a responsibility to ensure that school is a place where children want to come everyday, where children are motivated to both learn and extend their learning and are both inspired and excited about the programmes in which they participate. If you listen to Ian Jukes speak and believe what he says; that in many cases, the excitement happens for children in the activities that take place after the 3:00pm bell i.e. the dance, music, sports lessons and activities as well as the internet games etc should we then be concerned about what’s happening in day-to-day class programmes? Are many of today’s children using the school as ‘down time’ in order to prepare for the afternoon outside of school? Or are parents providing children with/expecting children to participate in so many activities after 3:00pm (including in some cases lengthy hours of homework tasks additional to that set by teachers) that they are simply too tired to perform during the school day? I remember talking with a year six student some years ago about just this, she was expected to perform at a high intensity with so many extra-curricula activities that she was exhausted every morning and therefore was too tired to participate.
Self-management is important. We see only too often, parents carrying schoolbags for children, putting their book-bags away and letting children decide too many of the boundaries; this fits into the ‘parents to the rescue’ category. Children need to be given opportunities to develop independence as soon as they come to school. There needs to be a balance with the choices they are offered and times when they are expected to comply.
On a lighter note, we were told of a child who arrived at school wearing a t-shirt with the statement, “The opinions expressed by this child are not necessarily the opinions of the parents!” As parents, how many times have you had this thought!
A second speaker talked about the ‘invisible’ students within culturally diverse populations. Her view, (based upon a case-study at one particular school, with 98% Maori and Pasifika students) is that the NZ system is not designed to recognise, respond to or value, the gifts and talents children from culturally diverse communities have to offer. When families disassociate from an educational system that they may not relate to is the result that all students from these families will fail at school? This is something that Edendale has been challenged with and addressing for a number of years. We have provided emphasis classes for Maori, Pasifika and Tongan students in response to community wishes at different times. However, with changing diversity in our community we need to continue to be pro-active and consider the needs of many cultures that are now represented within our student population. In my view however, we cannot make a value judgement about the programmes and attitudes of all schools based on the experience of one community. I would be interested to hear the thoughts of others. You may like to discuss this as part of our up-coming community consultation process. We hope that you’ll choose to participate.
Other links that may be of interest are:
Heterogeneous Groupings
Underachievement
Another Perspective
Cultural Issues: Ministry of Education NZ
Meeting the Needs of Gifted and Talented Minority Language Students
