Page images
PDF
EPUB

amend by inserting a sentence there after the words 'handicapped children and adding the following and for gifted and talented children.'

(Sjolund-Region X)

Congressional action is needed if we are to set in motion adequate selection machinery and consequent school programs suited to the wider definition of giftedness. Otherwise progress will remain fitful, depending upon local and often idiosyncratic interest, allied to only one or another partial aspect of a broad definition.

(Laycock-Region V)

We recommend that the Bureau for the Education of the Handicapped expand its authorization under P.L. 91-230, Part D, to grant scholarships and fellowships to teachers and supervisors of the gifted and to offer support grants to colleges and universities for sequential educational programs for the gifted.

(Marshall-Region VII)

The Association for the Gifted believes that only through Federal activity at this time will anything of a long range, positive, extensive nature be possible. A triple first priority exists... first, a fellowship program to prepare educational, research and administrative leaders. Second, the upgrading of State Departments of Education under Title V ESEA-the categorical assignment of at least one full-time professional in each state. Third, at least one full-time professional leadership position at the Federal level. Second in priority is the establishment of a series of regional network demonstration programs and centers. Third, an estimated attempt to put practitioners in the field must be made. Fourth, a research effort including continuous evaluation of all on-going programs is the one way to assure maximum generation of new knowledge and reliable implementation of old.

(Vassar-Region I)

Here are some suggested ways in which the Federal government can help: 1. Establish some specific leadership in gifted-child education and talent development at the Federal level in the U.S. Office of Education; 2. Help to establish some leadership in this area at the State level in States where there is presently a void; 3. Establish and fund research pilot projects throughout the nation to re-examine identification procedures and to experiment with innovative program designs; 4. Set up a national information retrieval and research dissemination exchange system specifically for gifted-child education and talent development; 5. Extend financial assistance to those educators being trained to work with gifted children.

(LaSalle Region I)

Regional differences.-A separate analysis of the data collected from the oral and written testimony was conducted region by region in order to observe whether there were striking differences between the perceived needs or attitudes from one part of the country to another. By and large, the results of the testimony from one place to another has a striking sameness to it. The same needs and the same recommendations were voiced again and again.

These results confirmed the State Survey data which includes very similar statements from all regions regarding what deters them from further program action (i.e. need for money, leadership and priorities going to crisis issues). Differences could be noted between those regions

that seemed fairly well developed in terms of legislation and programs and those regions that seemed to be in an initiatory stage in developing special program efforts for the gifted.

Table 2 compares the testimony obtained from two districts that have a history of more developed programs (III, V) with the testimony obtained from two districts that have less well developed programs (VI, X). The witnesses from undeveloped areas concentrated their testimony on the need for teachers and supplementary personnel. They were little concerned about state or federal leadership problems. This suggests that until something happens at the local level, there is little stimulus to think about regional or national issues.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

On the other hand, the witnesses from the well developed areas, where there are a number of local programs for the gifted, placed a much higher emphasis on the need for state and federal leadership. A similar difference in emphasis is seen when we look at Table 2, Recommendations for State and Federal Action. In the undeveloped regions great stress is placed on increasing priorities for the gifted at both state and federal level. In contrast, the well developed regions place little stress on general requests for higher priorities and are much more specific with regard to the kinds of state and federal actions that should be taken.

Fifteen percent of the witnesses from the developed area saw the Federal Government as playing an important catalytic role in program development and 14% saw the need for new federal legislation and for specific assignment of responsibility to someone at the federal level for programs of the gifted.

It appears that some degree of program maturity and development is almost necessary before thought is given to systems needs and administrative problems. When one is starting from scratch, we are restricted to general statements of needs, a request generally unspecified except for the cry for more resources, and more emphasis on action at the local level.

DIFFERENCES BY TYPE OF TESTIFIER

An additional analysis of the oral and written testimony was performed to compare opinions expressed by different types of testifiers. While there are numerous similarities among all types of testifiers on the needs of gifted students and the recommendations, there were some notable differences (see Table 3). In program needs, student testifiers voiced great interest in being able to set their own pace in school and in obtaining greater opportunities for creativity and no interest at all in early identification. Table 3 reveals that administrators and school board members are more balanced in their concern. They tend to feel that simply identifying the gifted student early is as important as giving him suitable curricula and suitable pacing once he has been identified.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Teachers, administrators, and school board members indicate that better prepared teachers and various specialized personnel are badly needed to educate the gifted. Some school administrators felt that leadership personnel at the state and federal levels were crucial to effective education of gifted. The student, in contrast, seems to focus his interest on the teacher, the person most directly responsible for his educational success, rather than on those far removed from him in the organizational structure such as national leaders.

Gifted students who testified stated that they do not wish to be segregated from other students. Instead they approve of a system whereby they are separated only part of the time each day. By and large, teachers concur with this position. On the other hand, administrators and school board members find the notion of total segregation of gifted students acceptable.

Another area of apparent difference between types of testifiers is on the need for new federal programs. Students rarely spoke about improvements in education of the gifted in terms of introducing an entirely new program. On the other hand, teachers and administrators more readily acknowledge that a new program at the federal level is a logical avenue for bringing about desired improvements.

School board members, an astounding 88% of them, urgently recommend that funds for educating the gifted come from federal sources. One out of every four board members also emphasiezs that if educators wish to guarantee adequate funding for gifted programs, federal appropriations must be earmarked. A similar financial support portrait is painted by administrators.

The differences between types of testifiers can be summarized by observing that students tend to voice strong opinions on their immediate pressing needs, while offering little in the way of concrete suggestions for meeting those needs. The testifiers more sophisticated in the area of education, such as administrators and school board members, tend to speak on a wide range of needs, concerning themselves with specific questions of funding and program implementation. Teachers fall somewhere between the students and administrators. They tend to mirror students' opinions with regard to the most important and immediate needs and administrators' opinions with regard to recommendations on how these needs can be met most effectively.

72-502 0-72—12

RESULTS

STATE SURVEY INFORMATION

The State Survey yielded significant information with regard to the allocation of resources at the state level and the impact of federal programs toward supplementing those resources. The first question was, 'What available personnel and legislative resources are currently available at the state level? The breadth of interest in this problem is indicated (See Figure 8) by the fact that 21 states currently have legislation on their books that provide special resources or incentives to local school districts to increase their program efforts on education of the gifted and talented. Figure 2 shows that those states that have adopted such legislation represent a broad geographic spread throughout the country. There are states in every Region but one (Region II), that have passed legislation for these purposes. Ten other states have now or have had planning commissions, but no specific legislation as yet.

[merged small][merged small][graphic][subsumed][merged small]

State Leadership. Such legislation, in many cases, merely represents intent. How that intent is being implemented is of greater relevance to our current concerns. There is a consistent portrait of

« PreviousContinue »