SELECTIVE SCHOOLS FOR INTELLECTUALLY GIFTED STUDENTS: ARE THEY JUSTIFIED? R.M. Dixon and L. Gow ESCLATE Research Centre for Inclusion, Faculty of Education, University of Western Sydney Macarthur, Milperra, NSW. Paper to be presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Perth, November 1993 ABSTRACT Integration of children with special educational needs into regular classrooms is the principle guiding the provision of services in the NSW State Education System. However, this principle has not been applied for intellectually gifted students; while Schools for Specific Services (SSPs) are being phased out in favour of inclusive schooling, selective schools and O.C. classes are burgeoning. Recent advances in selfconcept theory and research indicate that segregating intellectually gifted students can have a negative effect on their academic-self concept as well as their academic and career aspirations. Placing students into educational settings where only their frame of reference is other equally able students may ultimately lead to a decrease in academic achievement. The question must be asked whether selective schools for these students are justified. In answering this question, recent research into academic self- concept and selfperceptions of intellectually gifted students will be presented. INTRODUCTION Integration of children with special educational needs into regular classrooms is the principle guiding the provision of services in the N.S.W. State Education System. However, the principle has not been applied to intellectually gifted children. While Schools for Specific Purposes (SSPs) are being phased out in favour of inclusive schooling, selective schools and opportunity (O.C.) classes are burgeoning. It seems policy is proceeding ahead of informed debate, and research in the field which questions whether this type of provision is of the greatest benefit to the students. It appears to be an expedient response to the pressures from advocacy groups and the need by policy makers to be seen to be doing something for this population who have been largely ignored up until now. Whilst it is necessary, indeed mandatory, to provide differentiated programming and provisions for intellectually gifted children, evaluative research must be undertaken on the impact this particular type of provision has on academic and related social-emotional variables. There is a wide perception in N.S.W. that O.C. classes and selective schools provide a 'quality' education for gifted and talented students (Braithwaite, 1993). Nevertheless, selective schools have been 'quarantined' from researchers because of political sensitivities (Braithwaite, 1993). Only now is research data being gathered about their effectiveness. THE IMPACT OF AFFECTIVE VARIABLES There has been an increasing awareness of the powerful impact that school mediated affective variables such as self-concept can have on achievement outcomes, but there are conflicting results in this area concerning gifted and talented children. Recent advances in self-concept theory and measurement indicate that segregating intellectually gifted children into homogeneous groups can have a negative impact on their selfconcept as well as on academic and career aspirations for future success. The following questions must then be asked: 1. Are 'segregated placements' such as O.C. classes and Selective High Schools justified for intellectually gifted children? 2. Should we consider other types of provisions that might be equally capable of enhancing academic achievement, social- emotional adjustment and educational outcomes for these children? 3. Are selective schools providing for all subgroups of intellectually gifted children? Identification procedures tend to overidentify the achieving gifted white middle-class child and neglect others such as gifted underachievers, gifted children with learning disabilities, those who have not had their potential nurtured by their environment, gifted children with severe and profound physical and/or sensory disabilities and children who are gifted in one area (e.g. maths) but not others. SELECTIVE SCHOOLS - HISTORICAL AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Selective and agricultural high schools in the NSW state school system, have a long tradition in the provision for gifted and talented children. In 1885, the first selective school was established at Sydney Boys' High School. There are now 17 selective high schools and 4 agricultural high schools spread over 8 of the 10 administrative regions of the state. Some schools have had a long tradition in catering for intellectually gifted and talented children. More schools are expected to become selective in 1994. There is some variety in the nature of segregation. The range includes single sex, co-educational, day students/boarding students, fully selective versus partially selective. However, there are no differences in the areas of staffing, resources and administration compared with other high schools; the only difference is in the nature of the student intake. OPPORTUNITY (O.C.) CLASSES NSW O.C. classes were first established in 1932 at various locations in Sydney. Since then Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong have maintained these classes in fluctuating numbers in response to various policy changes. In 1992, the NSW Minister of Education announced a major state-wide expansion of these classes. Up until then, there were 16 classes across 2 regions. In 1993 opportunity classes were commenced in all regions and the Department plans to establish an additional 54 classes (McGrath, 1993). The burgeoning of this type of service provision has been so precipitant that there has been little reflection on the negative impact that segregating or grouping gifted and talented students might have. Indeed, the purpose, goals and achievements of these classes have never been documented. SELF-CONCEPT AND GIFTED CHILDREN It would be predicted that gifted and talented children would have relatively high self-concepts because of their success experiences in school. However, the results of the general body of research on global self-concepts and gifted and talented children are somewhat equivocal. Gifted and talented students have been reported as having higher self-concepts than other students (Chan, 1988; Chapman and McAlpine, 1988; Coleman and Fults, 1985; Karnes and Wherry, 1981; Tidwell, 1980). In other studies, gifted and talented students have been shown as having lower selfconcepts (Kanoy et al., 1980; Whitmore, 1980) and some studies have shown no significant differences (Bracken, 1980; Cornell, Delcourt, Goldberg and Bland, 1992; Neufeld and Cozac, 1980; Olszewski- Kubilius et al., 1988). It has been suggested that these conflicting results could be the result of two differing but related phenomena: (1) the multi- dimensional nature of self-concept and (2) social comparison processes. 1. The Multidimensional Nature of Self-Concept Results may differ according to whether self-concept has been assessed as either a global or multidimensional characteristic. Global self-concept is no longer seen as a useful construct, where the link between self-concept and school achievement is the focus for the study. Concentrating on the academic facet of self-concept should produce more consistent and meaningful results in achievement related contexts (Byrne, 1984). The relationship between academic achievement and self-concept is complex (Marsh, 1990) and achievement does not always result in high self-esteem. It also cannot be assumed that all domains of self-concept will be higher in the gifted child. Only those areas will be enhanced where the child actually demonstrates high achievement and where the achievement is valued by the child and significant others in its environment (Harter, 1986). Where researchers have used instruments that are capable of assessing the multidimensional nature of self-concept, more consistent results have been obtained. The consistent finding has been that academic self-concept is the most significant discriminator between gifted children and other types of learners (Chan, 1988; Chapman and McAlpine, 1988; Hoge and Renzulli, 1993; Schneider, 1987; Van-Boxtel, 1992). 2. Social Comparison Processes Secondly, the inconsistency between self-concept results could be explained by the 'impact of structure and composition of the social and educational environment in which students are placed'(Chan, 1988, p310) Previously, self-concept has been thought of as an invariant trait, but new research developments have demonstrated that it can be very much influenced by an individual's situational context. Coleman and Fults (1982), Harter (1986) and Marsh (1990) have all described the impact of social comparison processes on the self- concept and achievement of intellectually gifted children. They contend that if, there are both similar and dissimilar people in a social environment, people are more likely to use similar others as a basis for social comparison. Children make judgements about themselves based primarily on their own capabilities relative to those children in their immediate environment. The phenomena has been described as the "Big Fish Little Pond Effect" (Marsh, 1991). These processes always operate but they will be more evidentcan be when children are exposed to segregated provisions. Gifted students in segregated special programs are more likely to compare themselves with their gifted peers in the same program resulting in reduced academic self-concept and reduced perceptions of academic ability (Chan, 1988). From Social Comparison Theory the following predictions can be made for the self-concept of segregated gifted students. 1. Academically gifted students will have lower self-concepts when grouped with other gifted students compared to equally gifted children in ungrouped settings. 2. Academic self-concepts of academically gifted students will decline after they have been placed in segregated settings for the gifted. 3. The greater the degree of segregation, the greater the decline in academic self-concept. Although there are mixed results in studies of segregated gifted students, there is some support in the literature in favour of social comparison theory and the relationship segregation has on students' self-perceptions, particularly as it relates to academic self-concept. GIFTED CHILDREN IN HOMOGENEOUS PROGRAMS VERSUS UNGROUPED Coleman and Fults (1982) compared self-concept scores of children exposed to a one-day enrichment program with children remaining in the regular classroom. Results indicated higher self-concept scores for regular classroom children. Cornell et al. (1992) contrasted children in four types of gifted programming with gifted children in regular classrooms. Although results were variable for social and global selfconcept, the academic self- concept scores comprehensively favoured gifted children who were not in any special program. Schneider et al. (1989), in a study that compared children in segregated classes and students who were in regular classes, found that these groups differed significantly only in the area of perceived cognitive competence (i.e. academic selfconcept), with the difference favouring the children who were in the regular classes. Conversely, Vaughn, Feldhusen and Asher (1991), in a metaanalysis and review of the research of partial withdrawal programs concluded that the programs did not have a negative effect on self-concept. Karnes and Wherry (1981) compared children in gifted and regular classrooms and reported small differences favouring the gifted in special classes. Brody and Benbow (1987) also reported results of higher selfconcepts for children receiving some type of programming. The studies of Feldhusen et al. (1990) and Maddux (1982) revealed mixed results across different grade levels, and Kollof and Feldhusen (1984) reported no differences between gifted children in regular and special class settings. In summary, research reporting that gifted children in segregated settings have higher self-concepts than those in regular classes have usually used global/composite measures of self-concept. In contrast, those studies which have found that self-concepts are lower for gifted children in segregated settings have assessed academic self-concept. Perhaps being identified as "Gifted" may enhance general feelings of self-worth. However, once children have moved to their new educational setting it seems that exposure to a much more competitive environment and a different social comparison group can decrease the academic self-concept significantly. Marsh and Johnston (1993) have outlined the negative impact that depressed academic self-concept can have on academic behaviour, academic choices, educational aspirations and academic achievement. Although general self-concept may not be overly depressed, the impact of segregated placement on academic self-concept and other related variables should not be ignored, particularly for intellectually gifted children. They have the greatest potential to achieve academically but, if they develop depressed school-related affective variables because of involvement in inapropriate educational placements, then their potential may never be realised. DECLINE IN SELF-CONCEPT AFTER PLACEMENT IN SEGREGATED PROGRAMS A number of studies have shown the predicted decline after placement in segregated programs (Coleman and Fults, 1982, 1985; Maddux et al., 1982; Rogers, 1979). Olszewski et al. (1987) reported a decline in academic self- concept for both boys and girls after involvement in two enrichment programs. Lupkowski et al. (1992) found a decline in self-esteem for adolescents who had been granted early entrance to college. A significant drop in self-esteem was noted after one semester of participation. In the Coleman and Fults study there was a significant decline in the selfconcept scores of gifted chidren after involvement in a oneday enrichment program, with the greatest decrease occurring in the lower IQ students within the gifted group. This result can also be explained from social comparison processes. The large majority of children who move into segregated programs move from settings where their abilities are exceptional to a setting where their abilities are typical. It is only those children who are the elite of the gifted group who may be able to maintain their enhanced academic self-concept in this setting. THE GREATER THE DEGREE OF SEGREGATION THE GREATER THE DECLINE Two recent studies support this hypothesis. Keller (1991) examined academic self-concept in three settings for elementary school-aged children. The settings were mixed classroom, selective class in regular school and selective school. Keller concluded that increasing concentrations of high ability students were associated with lower cognitive self- conceptions. In an Australian study, Chan (1988) found that the greater the degree of segregation, the greater the depression in perception of academic competence in preadolescent children. In her study the gifted students in the full-time segregated program had relatively lower perceived cognitive and physical competence than those in a partial withdrawal extension program. She concluded that this was because of a lack of opportunity to demonstrate superiority in academic achievement. Chan, in a curious justification of segregated placements, feels that the students reassessed their abilities to a more realistic and accurate level and would therefore be able to cope better in a competitive tertiary setting. An alternative view to Chan's is that the mediating effect that academic self-concept has on academic achievement might depress these children's achievement and aspirations so much that they may never achieve their potential. It could be argued that making readjustment to more 'realistic' levels in pre-adolescents will actually disadvantage these academically gifted children by encouraging them to prematurely lower their expectations of future academic success. In the only other recent Australian study of selected schools in NSW, Braithwaite (1993) asked new school leavers to reflect on their experiences in selective high schools. He found that among the worst aspects cited by 9% of these people was low self esteem among those who were now considered to be less brilliant as a result of moving to a more challenging environment. Braithwaite reports that two-thirds of his sample perceived that their attendance at these schools was benefical to them. However, 25% were quite dissatisfied with the experience. This group of students who found the experience detrimental had been characterised as underachievers by their teachers because of their failure to perform well across all areas of academic performance. Braithwaite assumed that the underachievement was more a reflection of teachers' perceptions and an artefact of the selection process, which allows students who may score outstandingly well on two tests but only average on another to still be offered a place in a selective school. A NEED FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Currently, there appear to be few initiatives in the NSW education system to provide for gifted children beyond the provision of OC classes and selective high schools. As the previous review has shown the effects of segregation on the self perceptions of gifted students still needs to be resolved. It can be argued from Social Comparison Theory that this type of provision should be carefully evaluated as it might not be promoting social emotional well-being of any but the elite of academically gifted children. In the Australasian context, there have been few studies that directly reflect on the effects of segregated provisions for academically gifted children. The Braithwaite (1993) study used only self-report data from informants and did not consider students attending other types of schools at all. Chan's (1988) work assessed only self-concept using the Harter (1982) Scale at a single time point. It therefore gives no indication of the dynamic interactional effects between selfconcept, achievement and the provision of segregated programming. In the light of the paucity of research data in the Australasian context, combined with the inconsistencies in the overseas data, there is certainly a need to conduct comprehensive longitudinal research projects that examine the academically affective variables and their relationship to achievement outcomes. Ideally, longitudinal research should be conducted comparing this type of provision with a matched group of equally able students who did not take up the opportunity to attend a comprehensive school (Braithwaite, 1993). No studies have been completed as yet, but in an interesting research project in New Zealand, Dixon (1985) has examined the school-related affective characterictics of a group of gifted children over a period when they had moved to a more competitive educational environment. RESEARCH - SOME AFFECTIVE VARIABLES OF GIFTED AND AVERAGE CHILDREN: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY Dixon (1985) examined the academic self-concepts and self perceptions of future academic performance of academically gifted children and average children over a year long time frame. The research was conducted when these particular children were moving from their elementary schools to a more competitive school environment educationally, where they would encounter a greater number of high ability children. Previously the children in this study had been involved in heterogeneous classes and now they were streamed for academic subjects. Subjects The subjects were selected from a cohort of 1220 Form 1 (Grade 6) students attending the five intermediate schools in a city in New Zealand and who were in their first year. They were participating in a larger research project (Chapman and McAlpine, 1988). The gifted sample was identified by means of an initial screening test, Test of Scholastic Abilities (TOSCA) (Reid et al., 1981). Those children who gained an eight or nine stanine were administered the WISC-R (Wechsler, 1974). Those children who gained a WISC-R FS of 125 or greater were included in the study. The mean Full Scale IQ for this gifted group was 131. The average group comprised 39 children from the same schools who had WISC-R full scale scores of 90 to 110. Those children whose achievement was within one standard error of estimate of their predicted achievement were include in the study. The mean Full Scale IQ was 102. Instruments Affective Measures - Academic Self-Concept Boersma and Chapman's (1977) Student's Perception of Ability Scale (SPAS) was used to measure academic self-concept. The SPAS contains 70 forced choice "Yes/No" items which cover attitudes about school in five basic academic areas and to school in general. These items are grouped into six subscales, originally derived through factor analysis. The subscales are Perception of General Ability, Perception of Arithmetic Ability, General School Satisfaction, Perception of Reading and Spelling Ability, Perception of Penmanship and Neatness, and Confidence in Academic Ability. This test was specifically constructed for use with primary age children. Items are read aloud to minimise the effects of reading difficulties. Scores derived from the SPAS may range from 70 (high academic self-concept) to 0 (low academic self-concept). The available technical data (Chapman and Boersma, 1979) summarised include a Full Scale mean score of 46.24, with a standard deviation of 11.71, and a standard error of measurement (SEm) of 3.41. For the Full Scale, Cronbach's alpha is 0.915 with 0.803 being the median alpha for the subscales. Full Scale test-retest reliability is 0.834. Affective Measures - Future Academic Expectations The Projected Academic Performance Scale (PAPS) developed by Chapman and Boersma (1978) was used to assess selfexpectations for future academic achievement. This instrument has 42 four response multi-choice items allocated to six subscales each containing seven items: Spelling, Reading, Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies and Science. The items concern predicted performance in the near and long-term future. Responses are weighted on a four point scale with higher values reflecting higher expectations. Full Scale scores range from 42 (low expectations) to 168 (high expectations). The available technical data (Chapman and Boersma, 1979) indicate a Full Score mean of 121.41 and a standard deviation of 17.37. Cronbach's alpha was 0.901, while the test-retest stability was 0.801. Although this is a relatively untried instrument, it appears to have promising possibilities. Procedures IQ Measures The TOSCA was administered in April by two senior researchers and two graduate education students to the Form 1 cohort from which the present sample was drawn. The WISC-R was administered to the average group during June, July and August by the same four personnel as well as the experimenter. For the gifted group, the WISC-R was administered in April by the senior author. Affective Measures The SPAS and PAPS were administered in February and November. The children were tested in their regular classroom groups as part of a larger study. Subjects were informed that the questionnaires were being used in a city-wide survey to find out something about "what kids thought about school and schoolwork". It was emphasised that the questionnaires were not tests and that, although it was necessary to be honest, there were no right or wrong answers. Testing time took 35 to 45 minutes. All items were read aloud by the tester. The administration was conducted in the absence of teachers by the same five personnel who conducted the WISC-R testing. Statistical Procedures Differences between the groups in the affective variables (SPAS and PAPS) were examined using an hierarchical procedure beginning with analysis of variance with repeated measures (MANOVA) and examining univariate effects when appropriate. Results Affective Variables Summary data for the groups on the affective variables are presented in Table I. INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE Academic Self-Concept The SPAS instrument tested the hypothesis that significant differences in academic self-concept would be found between the achieving gifted, and average achieving groups and that over time there would be a perceptible decrease in academic self-concept for all groups. As predicted, the results of the repeated measures analysis of variance for academic self-concept reveal a statistically significant main effect for group (F=6.31, P<0.05). Analyses of variance were performed to clarify further this result. ANOVA summary data for both the beginning (Tl) and end- of-year (T2) full scale SPAS scores showed that on both testing occasions, the group effect was the result of a significant difference between the gifted and average groups. The repeated analysis of variance also revealed unexpectedly, that there was no main effect for time, nor was there any interaction effect observed. In other words, over the 10 month period between the first and second testing occasions, there was no change in the children's self-concept of academic ability, nor did either of the groups change in their relative positions with regard to each other. The change to a new academic situation (viz., their progression from primary to intermediate school) did not result in an alteration of the academic self-concept of these children. In summary, there was a marked difference between the gifted and average children. There were no changes over time in either scores of rankings as a result of exposure to a new social milieu, nor was there the typical small drop in selfconcept as a result of age. Self-Expectations for Future Achievement It was hypothesised that in the area of future academic expectations as assessed by the PAPS there would be significant differences between the gifted and average children. It was also hypothesised that the scores of both these groups would decrease between Tl and T2 testing occasions. The repeated measures analysis of variance for the PAPS Full Scale scores revealed a main effect for group (F=18.97, p<0.01) and time (F=18.09, p<0.01) but there were no interaction effects. The univariate analysis of variance at Tl revealed that the significant group effect was caused by the average group differing significantly from the gifted group. At T2 the average children differed significantly from the gifted group. The hypothesis that the PAPS scores of all children would deteriorate over the year was supported. At T2, all group mean scores on the PAPS had decreased (average M=114.75; gifted M=129.52). The greatest difference was recorded by the gifted group (9.45 points) and the least by the average group (2.92 points). Hence, the average students clearly hold lower expectations for future academic performance than the gifted group. However, in accordance with social comparison theory, it is possible that once gifted children were exposed to a more potentially competitive environment there was a downward shift in their perceptions of future achievement. This shift is not so marked for average children whose academic environment has remained virtually unchanged. As the new educational environment which these students entered was not a segregated setting, care is needed when extrapolating the findings to selective schools. These findings certainly suggest that changes in the structure and composition of educational environments do not have to be extreme before they have a significant impact on achievement related variables such as future expectations for academic achievements. It follows, therefore, that if such a change can be observed in environments that change slightly, then when gifted children move into a more dramatically changed and competitive environment such as a segregated school, this would have a greater impact on their self-concept. IMPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH FOR THE SEGREGATED PLACEMENT OF INTELLECTUALLY GIFTED STUDENTS The withdrawal of academicaly gifted children into segregated provisions such as O.C. classes and selective high schools may be inadvisable because of the impact it has on important variables such as academic self-concept and expectations for future achievement. Students exposed to gifted children as their primary reference group might re-evaluate their achievements as just average and develop unrealistically low expectations for future success. These negative expectations could contribute to reduced motivation and eventually lead to decreased academic achievement. The homogeneous grouping of academically gifted seems to lead to the depression of academic self-concept. Chan feels this is because segregated placements offer little opportunity for success for any but the most superior of gifted students. The administrative provision for selective schools and O.C. classes is not supported by research. Many students will not benefit from being placed in high ability schools because of the interaction between affective variables and school performance. Furthermore, many selective schools employ grouping, evaluative and teaching practices which maximize the consequences of social comparison processes. For example, in the past, pass marks have been moved from 50 to 70, classes are streamed even thoughthe school has a relatively homogeneous population and competition between students has been strongly emphasised. These ensure the negative effect on the affective variables and the consequent impact on performance. SUGGESTED ADAPTATIONS TO SEGREGATED EDUCATIONAL PROVISIONS As policy makers in N.S.W. seem committed to this style of provision then certain adaptations will have to be recommended to ameliorate the effect of social comparison processes. For the gifted, it is imperative that schools maintain and expand opportunities for success, so that children do not decrease their academic self-concept. Marsh (1991) suggested some adaptations that can ameliorate the effects of segregation on gifted children. These include: 1. emphasis on a co-operative learning rather than a competitive learning environment; 2. emphasis on criterion-referenced assessment instead of norm- referenced assessment; 3. the use of externally normed tests so that students compare themselves with students in the broader school population and not just with students in their own schools; 4. adjustment to internal feedback procedures that emphasise comparisons with a normative sample; and, 5. reminding students that they are a select group. FURTHER CONCERNS ABOUT SEGREGATED EDUCATIONAL PROVISIONS Segregated educational provisions certainly do not provide for the gifted underachiever who may be screened out of programs. These students in such an environment may develop depressed self assessments and underachieve even more as a result of this educational provision. Selective schools do not provide for the gifted/learning disabled child who might be quite capable of scoring very highly on a verbally administered I.Q. test such as the WISC-R (the most common identification tool for inclusion in segregated programs) but who will not be successful in this type of educational setting unless adaptations are made to instructional processes. Segregated education does not provide for the "trillium child" i.e. underachieving children who can do well in regular classes but have difficulty meeting the challenges of gifted programs. Such programs do not meet the needs of gifted students who lack general achievement motivation, those who have experienced early difficulty in the acquisition of basic skills, those who lack environmental nurturance of their potential, or those with specific learning difficulties (Whitmore, 1987). Importantly, it does not provide for those children with severe to profound disabilities who may also be academically gifted. CONCLUDING STATEMENT Whether or not selective high schools and O.C classes can be an effective provision for academically gifted children has never been adequately evaluated in an Australasian context. Relevant research evidence, particularly in the area of school-related affective variables, would indicate that this type of provision can have an unforseen negative impact that can depress rather than enhance academic achievement. Although there have been conflicting results on the impact of segregated placement on the self-concept of academically gifted children, when academic self-concept has been used as the measure, the results become more uniform and support the predictions from social comparison theory. Placement in a segregated program leads to a decrease in academic selfconcept for all but the elite of the gifted population. This implies that selective schools must make adaptations if they are to really provide "quality outcomes". Other types of provisions, rather than segregating children should be investigated and offered as alternative options. Many children who are identified as being academically gifted choose not to attend these schools and classes for a multiplicity of reasons. These children can not be allowed to fade back into the mainstream. Alternative types of provisions are provided in NSW; these centre around unspecified enrichment and mentor programs, and some shortening of the final two years of high school. Other more radical provisions have been found successful overseas, which are rarely instituted in the NSW state education system. These include radical acceleration, multilevel classrooms, early entrance to university and early school entrance. These types of provisions may be just as efficient in achieving educational outcomes as segregated ones, and they may not evoke the social comparison processes which lead gifted children to reappraise their abilities in a downward direction. Finally, some subgroups of academically gifted children tend to fall through the selective net. As it is now instituted, there is little chance of gifted underachievers, gifted children with learning disabilities and gifted children from ethnic minorities being identified. Given the strong social comparison effects associated with segregated educational placements, it would be questionable whether placing these children into a highly competitive environment would enhance their school-related affective characteristics and achievement. Policy makers in NSW have chosen a model of provision for academically gifted children which has a long tradition and wide acceptance in the community. The need now is to facilitate assessments of the effectiveness of these programs so that "quality" outcomes can be achieved for these children. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS An earlier version of this paper was presented at The Gifted Challenge, The First Conference of the N.S.W. Association for Gifted and Talented Children. April, 1993. This research was completed when the senior author was a staff member of the Department of Education, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Dr James Chapman must be thanked for his willingness in allowing access to a large data base, utilised in part, by this research. The authors wish to thank Professor Herb Marsh and Dr Robert Dixon for helpful comments on this paper. REFERENCES Boersma, F.J., and Chapman, J.W. (1977). Student's Perception of Ability Scale. Edmonton: University of Alberta. Bracken, B.A. (1980). Comparison of self-attitudes of gifted children and children in a non-gifted normative group. Psychological Reports, 47, 715-718. Braithwaite, J. ( 1993). How good are N.S.W. selective high schools? Gifted, Apr, 16-18. Brody, L.E., and Benbow, C.P. (1987). Accelerative strategies: How effective are they for the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 3, 105-110. Byrne, B.M. (1984). The general/academic self-concept nomological network: A review of construct validation research. Review of Educatinal Research, 54, 427-456. Chan, L. (1988). Perceived competence of intellectually talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 310-314. Chapman J.W. and Boersma, F.J. (1978). The Projected Academic Performance Scale. Unpublished instrument, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Chapman, J.W. and Boersma, F.J. (1979). Technical data on the Student's Projected Academic Performance Scale. Unpublished paper, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. Chapman, J.W. and McAlpine, D.D. (1988). Student's perception of ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 222-225. Coleman, J.S. and Fults, B.A. (1982). Self-concept and the gifted classroom: The role of social comparisons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 116-120. Coleman, J.M. and Fults, B.A. (1985). Special-class placement, level of intelligence and the self-concepts of gifted children: A social comparison perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 7-11. Cornell, D.G., Delcourt, M.A.B., Goldberg, M.D. and Bland, L.C. (1992). Characteristics of elementary students entering gifted programs: The learning outcomes project at the University of Virginia. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 309-331. Dixon, R.M. (1985). Affective Characteristics of Underachieving Gifted Children. Unpublished Masters of Education Thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Feldhusen, J.F., Sayler, M.F., Neilsen, M.E. and Kolloff, P.B.(1990). Self-concepts of gifted children in enrichment programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 380-387. Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child Development, 53, 87-97. Harter, S. (1986). Processes underlying the construction and maintenance, and enhancement of self-concept in children. In J.Suls and A.G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological Perspectives on the Self, Vol. 3 (pp. 139-181). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hoge, R.D. and Renzulli, J.S. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and self-concept. Unpublished paper, University of Connecticut, Connecticut. Kanoy, R.C., Johnson, B.W. and Kanoy, K.W.(1980). Locus of control and self-concept in achieving and underachieving bright elementary students. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 395-399. Karnes, F.A. and Wherry, J.N. (1981). Self-concepts of gifted students as measured by the Piers-Harris Children's SelfConcept Scale. Psychological Reports, 49, 903-906. Keller, J. (1991). Self-perception and the grouping of gifted children. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Kollof, P.B. and Feldhusen, J.F.(1984). The effects of enrichment on self-concept and creative thinking. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 53-57. Lupkowski, A.E., Whitmore, M. and Ramsay, A.(1992). The impact of early entrance to college on self-esteem: A preliminary study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 87-90. McGrath, C. (1993). Identification/selection for selective and specialist schools. Gifted, Apr, 19-24. Maddux, C.D., Scheiber, L.M. and Bass, J.E. (1982). Selfconcept and social distance in gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 77-81. Marsh, H.W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77-172. Marsh, H.W. (1991). Failure of high-ability schools to deliver academic benefits commensurate with their students' ability levels. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 445-480. Marsh, H.W. and Johnston, C.F. (1993). Multidimensional self- concepts and frames of reference: relevance to the exceptional learner. In Self-Concept of Exceptional Learner: Current Perspectives for Educators. Obiakor, F.E. and Stile, S.W. eds pp 72-112. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company. Neufeld, J.S. and Cozac, E. (1980). A study of the selfconcept of intellectually superior children. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 26, 149-158. Olszewski, P., Kulieke, M.J. and Willis, G.B. (1987). Changes in the self-perceptions of gifted students who participate in rigorous academic programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 287-303. Olszewski-Kubilius, P.M., Kulieke, M.J. and Krasney, N. (1988). Personality dimensions of gifted adolescents: A review of the empirical literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 347-352. Reid, N.A., Jackson, P., Gilmore, A. and Croft, C.(1981). Test of Scholastic Abilities. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Rogers, B.S.(1979). Effects of an Enrichment Program Screening Process on the Self-Concept and other Concepts of Gifted Elementary Children. Doctoral dissertation. University of Cinncinnati, 1979. Schneider, B.H. (1987). The Gifted Child in Peer Group Perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag. Schneider, B.H., Clegg, M.R., Byrne, B.M., Leddingham, J.E. and Crombie, G. (1989). Social relations of gifted children as a function of age and school program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 48-56. Tidwell, R.(1980). Gifted student's self-images as a function of identification procedure. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 5,57- 69. Van-Boxtel, H.W. and Monks, F.J. (1992). General, social, and academic self-concepts of gifted adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 169-186. Vaughn, V.L., Feldhusen, J.F. and Asher, J.W.(1991). Meta- analysis and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 92-98. Wechsler, D.(1974). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Whitmore, J.(1980). Giftedness, Conflict and Underachievement. Boston , Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Whitmore, J. (1987). Conceptualising the issue of underserved populations of gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 141-153. TABLE I SUMMARY DATA FOR THE ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT AND PERCEPTIONS OF FUTURE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF AVERAGE AND GIFTED PREADOLESCENT CHILDREN AVERAGEGIFTED MEAN SD MEAN SD SPAS TIME 1 46.82 13.O5 55.24 7.40 TIME 2 46.09 13.11 55.14 6.30 PAPS TIME 1 117.67 15.99 138.92 11.48 TIME 2 114.75 15.77 129.52 12.14 SPAS: Student's Perception of Ability Scale PAPS: Projected Academic Performance Scale