isolated instances; these efforts often have been regarded as experimental, temporary programs. The tragedy is further accentuated by the statement of the experts that most services for the gifted are concentrated in the cities and suburbs (although these services are meager at best).

The lack of provisions for the gifted also is reinforced by the School Staffing Survey. This lack is evident even for the identified gifted.

Of those recognized as gifted, the majority receive scant attention at best. One-third or more of the known gifted receive no special instruction of any kind. With the exception of large cities where some grouping is carried on, the majority of gifted children are given any special attention they do receive in the regular classroom from the regular teacher. As research studies indicate, even the sympathetic and conscientious teacher in the regular classroom rarely finds time to devote to the gifted or talented pupil. It is safe to assume, therefore, that most identified gifted children receive little or no attention in elemenary school, while the programs at the secondary level consist mainly of separate part-time classes.

Lack of opportunity for the gifted secondary student to make rele. vant contacts outside of the formal classroom is evident in table V of the School Staffing Survey; less than 2 percent were given opportunities to work with specialists or in other school settings. Yet many gifted and talented students are at a level of knowledge which requires such opportunities if they are to develop. One of the features of an excellent program is its increasing use and diversification of resources.

FIGURE 3

PROGRAMS REPORTED BY 27 MODEL DISTRICTS IN 5 STATES WITH SUPERIOR PROGRAMS
FOR CHILDREN WITH EXCEPTIONAL LEARNING NEEDS

* (CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA, NEW YORK, TEXAS. AND WISCONSIN)

Source: Abstracts of National Educational Finance Project Satellite Projects Reported

At First National Conference, 1970.

The relative lack of emphasis on the gifted also is seen in figure 3. Twenty-seven school systems, chosen from a national sample because of their model programs for children with exceptional learning needs,

See footnote 4, page B 8.

reported only five programs for the gifted. Other categories commonly had three to four times as many programs (the only exception being the multiple handicapped, which is a relatively new program, unlike programs for the gifted which have existed for the past half century).

The summary of the regional hearings (appendix C of this report) showed that 40 of the 50 States have no support personnel, and that only three States have three or more persons. Even in States with personnel, existing support is limited. In North Carolina, 81.3 percent of students eligible in 1969-70 to be in programs were not enrolled." In Illinois the average annual expenditure for the gifted and talented who were in programs was $28; in California the average was $65.” This situation is due primarily to competing problems, and the failure of the public to understand the educational handicaps faced by the gifted and talented. The gifted receive sympathy and verbal support, but fall short at the fiscal level:

I know that I speak for Superintendent Riles when I say we wholeheartedly believe that quality education implies an education which fully meets the individual requirements of all children. We believe that gifted children must have additional or supplemental educational interventions if a sound program which assures capability to fully develop each child's potentiality is to occur."

10

Figure 4 illustrates the limited amount expended in model schools on programs for the gifted. Even in those systems selected as model systems in their provisions for children with unusual learning needs, the gifted have the lowest priority for expenditures." The local amount shown, however, is considerably above amounts allocated per pupil by the few States which provide any support at all.

RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS

Some contradiction is seen in the recommendation by 95 percent of the respondents that programs be continuous throughout the school career of the gifted child while most also respond that programs should be started in grades four to six. The latter recommendation. undoubtedly was governed by the wording of the item, which requested a forced choice on level at which a program should be started

to limitations of funds. The selection of the elementary grades also may recognize the fact that most programs still operate at the secondary level on a too-little-and-too-late basis, despite abundant knowledge from research that gifted children face the greatest adjustment problems at school entry and during the primary grades when patterns of underachievement become entrenched.

The need for gifted and talented children to experience opportunities for complex, creative thought, with content appropriate to their level of functioning, was seen as important or essential by nearly all of the advocates. They stressed also the need for development of aesthetic sensitivity.

Abstracts of National Education Finance Project Satellite Projects Reported at First National Conference. December 7-8, 1970.

A Status Report, Program for the Education of Exceptionally Talented Children. Raleigh State Department of Public Instruction, 1970.

8 Jackson, David, Illinois Program (starting on page 255 of this document).

9 California State Budget Supplement, 1971-72, Vol. 4.

10 Personal communication to Ruth Martinson from Mr. Leslie Brinegar, Associate Superintendent of Public Instruction, California, dated March 25, 1971.

Rossmiller, Richard A., Hale, James A., and Frohreich, Lloyd E.. Educational Programs for Exceptional Children: Resource Configurations and Costs. Madison, Wisconsin: National Educational Finance Project, Special Study No. 2, August 1970.

FIGURE 4

EXPENDITURES IN 27 MODEL DISTRICTS IN 5 STATES WITH SUPERIOR PROGRAMS
FOR CHILDREN WITH EXCEPTIONAL LEARNING NEEDS: EXCESS BEYOND REGULAR PROGRAM

The advocates favored a distinctly differentiated curriculum for the gifted, designed to accommodate higher levels of functioning in the cognitive and specialized talent domains. Over 90 percent also favored special administrative arrangements to permit such differentiation.

The gifted and the talented were clearly differentiated in the responses. Two-thirds felt that different programs were essential, based on the view that the gifted have generally superior intellectual ability, while the talented are skilled in a particular area.

Actually, the implied separation of the gifted and talented into two discrete groups may be an artifice of the questionnaire. As appendix A of this report indicates, giftedness and talent are not mutually exclusive; many intellectually gifted persons are talented, and many talented persons are also gifted. Indeed, high mental ability may be a necessary condition for the kind of talent which produces work of lasting merit.

The experts generally supported summer programs, the use of community resource personnel, individualized instruction, special groupings, and part-time groupings as a means toward adequate provisions. Some felt that the choices were made only as better than nothing, however.

Conventional or standardized curriculum requirements were seen as unimportant to the gifted and talented. Rather than studying grade level content required of the total group, the advocates favored an open curriculum based on individual interests, with large blocks of independent time. The gifted and talented were seen as capable of self-management and decisionmaking for both study content and classroom procedures.

These recommendations certainly are compatible with those of the program research studies, which found that deletion of irrelevant or unnecessary content, in favor of opportunities to study and learn in depth, produced better achievement and better adjustment in the gifted and talented.

Adjustment to different learning styles among the gifted and talented was seen as essential by 89 percent of the respondents. As described by various research studies, the gifted are complex, highly diverse individuals, with an unlimited array of interests and talents. The involvement with a given learning activity may be affected by these factors as well as by personality factors. Among the gifted and talented, one may find persons who respond and function rapidly, those who are deliberate and contemplative, those who are logical and direct, or those who are exploratory and circuitous. The quality of end product may be excellent (and different) from any of these, but teaching the gifted does not comfortably permit standard rules of procedure.

The expert saw as the most important program objective the stimulation of individual interests. Next in order of importance were the development of student initiative, the development of self-acceptance, concept development, and recognition of the early ability to undertake complex learning tasks.

Close to 90 percent of the advocates felt that differentiated programs for the gifted need greater resources than programs for regular students. While this is true, adequate inservice preparation may reduce unessential program expenditures. Teachers with background knowledge are prone to use better existing resources, and to free students to seek needed materials or specialist personnel. These teachers also tend to be more willing to ask for assistance from parents and consultants who can bring in necessary resources, or to arrange for student contacts with them.

The need for regular teachers to carry on differentiated experiences for the gifted, whether or not they are in special programs, is a recognition of the fact that attention to the gifted only in a special program may mean neglect for the greater part of the school weeks, particularly if the special program meets a couple sessions per week or less. Also seen as important are liaison between regular and special teachers, and constant effort to differentiate programs in both settings.

SCHOOL PERSONNEL AND THE GIFTED AND TALENTED

TEACHERS

The majority of experts equated specialized programs and separate grouping of the gifted with recognition of the teacher as a teacher of the gifted. Fifteen percent considered all teachers as teachers of the gifted even when no special provisions were made, possibly because of the physical presence of the children-albeit they are ineffective teachers for them.

Only 12 of 204 respondents felt that an adequate supply of personnel was available to teach all of the gifted within their State. The pressing need for preparation within the ranks of those teaching is seen in their recommendations for summer institutes, along with in

service programs and workshops during the school year. Most of the respondents also favored the development of advanced degree programs with specialization in teaching the gifted.

Successful teachers of the gifted were seen by the experts in much the same light as in research studies, although one difference was apparent: The respondents did not regard as important for success with the gifted, advanced degrees, prior teaching experience (as opposed to special preparation), teaching experience itself, or teaching credentials. They particularly opposed the rotation of teaching the gifted among all teaching staff members.

They saw the successful teacher of the gifted as one interested in learning, and possessing a rich academic background. They agreed that teaching the gifted required a different approach, and that the successful teacher must have a high level of self-confidence.

While advanced degrees were not seen as important, specialized preparation, continuing professional study, and frequent contact with other teachers of the gifted were strongly advocated. Continuing scholarship was implied in the recommendation that teachers of the gifted have at least one specialized area of study.

The major difference between research and the advocates occurred in the advocates' even split on whether the gifted should be taught only by the brightest teachers. This may be a reaction to both the gifted and talented, which would produce some difference of opinion. Studies have shown that teachers with the highest ability and accompanying performance tend to be the most accepting and understanding of the gifted, while those with comparable low ability are the most likely to feel threatened and to be hostile toward the gifted.

With both the gifted and the talented, personal factors such as ability to work with children, understanding of the population, egostrength, confidence, maturity, open-mindedness, and enthusiasm were mentioned as important more often than intellective and academicrelated qualities. High intelligence, intellectual curiosity, and love of learning were seen as more important with the gifted; competence in a specific skill, ranked last for the gifted, was first in importance for the talented. Proven teaching ability was mentioned most often for the gifted, and ranked second for the talented. The differences undoubtedly are due to the perceived need for specialized skill in teaching the talented, whereas the teacher of the gifted would encounter a greater variety of skills and interests. Over half of the respondents did not differentiate the special competencies needed to teach the gifted versus the talented.

To attract teachers who would specialize in the education of the gifted, the advocates recommended subsidies for training, university courses and training centers, inservice preparation for those already in the profession, and development of positions for those qualified. The heavy advocacy of inservice preparation is doubtless due to the knowledge that many teachers are currently working with the gifted without background, as well as knowledge of recent findings that even the best teachers can improve their skills and abilities in working with the gifted and talented through specialized preparation. (Important too is the research finding that even limited special preparation reduced hostility toward the gifted, and increases support of them as a group.)