Will, Emma (SEN)
From:	Kathryn Nordstrom [knordstrom@optusnet.com.au]
Sent:	Monday, 26 February 2001 8:44 PM
To:	eet.sen@aph.gov.au
Subject:	submission: K. Nordstrom
Overview and personal opinion of outcomes from last inquiry:
The task of having my son identified and appropriately treated because of
his intellectual ability has been painful, financially crippling and
socially destructive. It is not the first time such events have occurred in
my family, but this time the outcome may be better. Better than the suicidal
adolescent son, with whom now I do not have any communication.  It is the
lack of interdisciplinary liason and support, as well as continued ignorance
that concerns me. I believe that a major reason for this is that financial
constraints are put upon recommendations based on research, so that
progression of information throughout the disciplines involved in issues of
gifted, are halted. My children have suffered underachievement,
vilification, misunderstanding of not only educational welfare, but medical
misdiagnosis and appropriation of treatment because of their specific
difference to the norm. and because information available to one discipline
is not being transferred to other specialist areas, so that broad
understanding of contributory factors are known. It not only affects gifted
individuals, but all people and their differences, we are not all the same
and should not be expected to be managed in the same way. As diversity in
our culture is increasing, it is ignorance to assume that all people will
respond to one generalist attitude, unless one is willing to produce a
moronic race.

To address points to be raised:
(a) a review of developments in the education of gifted and talented
children since the 1988 report of the Select Committee on the Education of
Gifted and Talented Children;

No doubt the public is more aware of highly able children and that some
provision is made for them, but there are far fewer place than are required.
Schools are not necessarily admitting many of the needy children, nor are
they coping with the diversity of need amongst the highly able; there are
some who have asynchrony, learning difficulty, and some who are not
accommodated or accellerated enough. This is due at many times, to
misinformation about identification of giftedness, and biased selection
process. There are many principals and teachers who refuse acknowledgement
of specific need, because of personal bias or because of Dept. Ed. policy,
it is a way of keeping a job. Work is formulaic, teachers at primary level
only address 3 levels of outcome over 7 years, slow progress, whether or not
a child is gifted. Many teachers are not smart or industrious enough to
enhance the syllabus for general ed. let alone for children who are bored,
unstimulated or subject-specific in their taste and attention.

(b) consideration of whether current policies and programs for gifted and
talented children are suitable and sufficient to meet their special
educational needs, including, but not limited to:

(i) the means of identifying gifted and talented children,

My son's kindergarten teacher suggested my son may be gifted at the end of
his first year at school.
Although the school counsellor identified my son's ability, at my request,
she knew little about giftedness. I sought and paid for parent information,
lectures and external remediation/extension. The child suffered anxiety and
depression, mainly due to teasing and behavioural (emotional) outbursts at
school, treated by a psychiatrist since age 8 and ongoing, all information
was reported to school. The child received awards for academic excellence
while he and I struggled with bullying and isolation, as well as the cost of
his support. Four years later my son gave up the struggle for social comfort
and we left the school, having to cover the cost of private school fees, but
achieving accelleration of one grade.  Not once was any achievement test or
support offered in this school. My son was verbally abused by staff or
ignored when in plight. My discomfort was known to the school staff, sadly I
thought they would be proactive, would know some of the information I had
been learning, and that we would have some mutual understanding. That was a
delusion.

Having had two giften boys, my third son was identified by my instigation,
again without any advice or suggestion by any early education personnel. He
began school at 4.5 yrs and has had a very good passage through infant
grades so far. Whilst his ability is in the same range as his brother, his
innate integration good, making his personality and demeanor generally more
socially acceptable to this stage of his education, he has fared well,
without incident. I now know that I will have to complain louder and harder
to a higher level in the department of education. I do not think this should
be necessary, except that there are issues other than the welfare of
individual children that seem to occupy Principalship today. I am suggesting
that management in the department of education in NSW or the direction of
the NSW Teachers Federation is questionable in its objectives. Both I feel
are hamstrung, restrained, demoralised and bureauocratised in mediocrity.

(ii) whether access to gifted and talented programs is provided equitably,
and

I was unable to have an out of area transfer to the larger suburban school,
where a GATE program was in place. The school that my son attended would not
facilitate transfer, their desire for numbers for head-count provisions
precluded my son's needs be addressed over their need for an extra teacher.
My son did not qualify for special program at selective primary school (St
Ives North PS), although his IQ was well within the requirement range for
this school. I have met many people whose children do not qualify at this
school, the need is so great that people move house to get children into
certain schools.

The programs that are currently provided do not necessarily have the breadth
and depth required to meet the needs of exceptionally and profoundly gifted
children, nor those whose learning style or differences preclude inclusion
in all subject areas. These children are as good as neglected in the system,
and to obtain Individual Education Programs or Radical Accelleration are
near to impossible. The alternative is for parents to homeschool children,
or have them placed in special education units, therby limiting their
opportunity for enrichment in other areas. It can also have a detrimental
effect psychologically as well as socially.

(iii) investigation of the links between attainment and socio-economic
distribution; and

There are many families whose children are assessed and treated for
disorders that are not effectively being identified as gifted. The reason
that there is a discrepancy, in my opinion, is that dysfunction seems to be
a product of change. Some families are attaining levels of educational,
social and economic ability, but do not have access to an understanding of
the stresses that are created by their own rapid progress, and the rapid
learning and stimulation of children that nowadays occurs with electronic
media and our busy social world. One can draw a conclusion that our
education and life circumstances may leave unprepared for effective
adulthood. The behaviour of many youngsters in teen years today, leads one
to wonder if there is still enough being done to develop individuals well
enough. The role should not be left only to teachers, it is beyond their
mandate, but sadly they are burdened with more and more, whilst other
professions are in disarray and not communicating effectively in bringing
about educative and preventative solutions. They are all running behind the
problem, trying to remediate and treat the maladaptions in later years. The
critical years gone by in inertia and poorly funded and resourced early
childhood identification, education and placement of appropriate support for
families and children.

(c) consideration of what the proper role of the Commonwealth should be in
supporting the education of gifted and talented children.

There are many people who have not achieved personal wellbeing and
satisfaction in their existance. Some spend years being effectively
unedcuated, understimulated and unhappy. Their sin is that they are thinking
differently to the lockstep manner of the current ageist educative plan.
They learn, not to read, enjoy maths or science, but to hurt and hit out
because someone did not understand that they have a mind that sees a way to
the same things, but a different way around. Some of the greatest
discoveries, or some of the solutions to former oversights in processes,
have come from the independent thinker. They are at times individuals who do
not march to anyone's drum, but do things that benefit all people
nevertheless. As a country whose racial and belief diversity is great, where
differences in tolerance and information is notable from state to state, not
only in education policy, but in political and social tolerance, it is
imperative that to maintain cohesiveness and broadness of mind, that
thinkers and wise people be given the opportunity to contribute their
experiences and knowledge. Whilst departments of education may have a state
by state directive, an overall direction, supervision and outlook ought to
be addressed. Policies drawn and enacted, not from current economic
rationalisation, but from current research with an wholistic and long range
view, for the benefit of the entire country's stability, for unified self
understanding and direction.

Kathryn E. Nordstrom
2 Carramar Road
Lindfield  2070

Phone: 94158125