between enthusiasts for the creativity tests and skeptics produced debate on the measurement of human abilities along with hundreds of studies on measures to identify creativity. The controversy in many respects was reminiscent of that between Terman and Stenquist in the early 1920s, when Stenquist doubted the value of the Binet test because his tests of mechanical aptitude produced results at great odds with those of the Binet. Many persons have pointed out that many of the terms used by the creativity enthusiasts, and descriptions of the creative person, are suspiciously similar to those found in the recent literature of child psycnology and education-such terms as "giftedness," "discovery," "intuition," and "intelligence."

The measures developed by Guilford to identify specific traits or human abilities were combined and adapted by subsequent researchers to identify creativity. Studies of the creativity measures and their relationship to intelligence measures have produced a preponderance of evidence that the use of a common term "creativity" is misleading, since the measures bear no more relationship to one another than they do to measures of intelligence.

There are higher relationships between general intelligence and the individual tests of creativity than among the individual measures themselves. Although a few studies have supported the creativity-intelligence distinction, most have established substantial relationships between creativity and intellectual aptitude.

Greater accuracy in the use of labels has been one result of the research in creativity. The trend is away from the global use of “creativity" as a psychological concept similar to intelligence. Goldberg has suggested the use of the term "creative" be assigned to novel, reality adapted, disciplined, and fully realized products, and that “divergent thinking" be used to describe new attributes of ability.

Recent scholars have recognized the contradictory nature of timed and scheduled tests to measure creativity, and have sought conditions which will more realistically permit open and original response. Research workers have begun to develop tests to be administered under more open conditions, and to tap ideational fluency appropriate to relevant rather than whimsical productivity. These studies, and studies on qualitative values in children's products, should extend the possibilities to identify added capacities and talents.

HOW MANY GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS ARE THERE?

Considering the complex profile of this group, it is no simple task to sort out the number of gifted and talented young people in our society. Some young people with potential mask their abilities in order to adapt to a more mundane group; others cannot find an outlet in the school setting for their particular talents. Many teachers and administrators turn a blind eye on the very bright child even when talent is evident. The infinite variety within the population itself is a challenge; to be gifted is to be different and unique-and, too often, invisible.

WHAT IS A GOOD OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF "GIFTED AND TALENTED"?

This is the basic question when special education programs are being considered. Despite divergent opinions about what constitutes "gifted

ness" or "creativity" or "talent," workable criteria must be established to provide for the young people we know are there.

Generally, the following evidence would indicate special intellectual gifts or talent:

-Consistently very superior scores on many appropriate standardized tests.

-Judgment of teachers, pupil personnel specialists, administrators, and supervisors familiar with the abilities and potentials of the individual.

-Demonstration of advance skills, imaginative insight, and intense interest and involvement.

-Judgment of specialized teachers (including art and music), pupil personnel specialists, and experts in the arts who are qualified to evaluate the pupils demonstrated and/or potential talent.

While an operating definition is required, there are some pitfalls in describing giftedness too specifically, particularly in definitions written into law. The Special Study Project for Gifted Children in Illinois is a case in point. From the beginning of the program in 1959, planners sought to avoid placing a definition of the term "gifted children” in the legislation for two major reasons: First, specification and description of human abilties was, they thought, a problem for behavorial scientists rather than legislators. Definitions employed at the operational level in schools should be responsive to new scientific findings and response should not be delayed by legal restrictions. Second, the planners recognized that allocation of funds requires description of the special category; but they recommend that this description be made in administrative regulations and formulas for support rather than law. Thus, flexibility was retained while the need for expendi tures control by the State education agency was met.

The legal definition employed in Illinois, then, is:

Gifted children are those children whose mental development is accelerated beyond the average to the extent that they need and can profit from specially planned educational services.

The administrative regulation controlling expenditures for the gifted and talented is a formula which allows the district to use 2 percent of its enrollment in applying for reimbursement; for example, Reimbursement = 2% (enrollment) $40. In seeking to meet a variety of special abilities, districts may involve as many as 5 percent of their pupils.

WHAT IS A GOOD ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF GIFTED AND TALENTED CHILDREN?

One must project here from the studies of the gifted and at the same time consider the point that is recurrent throughout this study that there is undiscovered genius and talent. So we are dealing with estimates. Numbers presumed to be gifted or talented have varied considerably in recent estimates. Up to the end of the 1950's, most research workers and other experts agreed that the gifted included those within the upper 2 to 3 percent of intellectual ability, defined as a Binet I.Q. of 130 or more. More variance was introduced by those wishing to include social, mechanical, and other aptitudes, and by those who saw intelligence and talent as different dimensions.

The potential numbers involved by the use of selected percentages from the total population appear in table 1. The total census projection for the 1970 United States elementary-secondary school population was 51,600,000.1

Table 1-Numbers of pupils in various percentage groups to be gifted and talented

Percent of pupils:

1

2

3

Number of gifted and talented pupils

516,000

1,032, 000 1,548,000

5

2,580,000

10

15

5, 160,000

7, 740,000

These numbers in table 1 would increase if the gifted at preschool levels were included. Obviously giftedness is not manifest at a set time: even though not recognized, it is present as a potential from birth. Attention to the preschool gifted population therefore merits serious consideration.

Table 2 indicates that 11,906,000 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children in October 1968, 3,929,000 were enrolled in preschool programs outside of the regular school. If a conservative 3 percent of the total were estimated to be gifted, 117,870 young children would be accessible for special early childhood programs. Another 242,310 gifted preschoolers are not in any programs! However, the proportion of children in programs has increased from 1964 to 1968, suggesting that the gifted have become more accessible.

TABLE 2.-TRENDS OF EARLY CHILDHOOD POPULATION, AGES 3 TO 5, AND SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS, OCTOBER 1964 TO OCTOBER 1968

1 Excludes 5 year olds enrolled in primary school: 1966-505,000; 1967-444,000; 1968-444,000.

In view of what we know about early childhood learning, to be able to reach and sustain over 100,000 gifted and talented children at the beginning of their formal schooling is significant. But this is only a fraction of the whole gifted population. Some people put the figure at 3 percent of the total school population while others would range as far as 15 percent to include those children with a special talent who

1 Projections of Educational Statistics to 1978-79. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics (OE-10030-69).

Nehrt, Roy C. and Hurd, Gordon E. Preprimary Enrollment of Children Under Siz, October 1968. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, June 1969 (OE 20078-68).

may lack the full spectrum of "giftedness." This may be too broad, but even taking the very conservative estimate of 3 percent, the size of the population-1.5 million-demands attention.

EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH

Gifted and talented youth are a unique population, differing markedly from their age peers in abilities, talents, interests, and psychological maturity. They are the most versatile and complex of all human groups, possibly the most neglected of all groups with special educational needs. Their sensitivity to others and insight into existing school conditions make them especially vulnerable, because of their ability to conceal their giftedness in standardized surroundings and to seek alternative outlets. The resultant waste is tragic.

Research studies on special needs of the gifted and talented demonstrate the need for special programs. Contrary to widespread belief, these students cannot ordinarily excel without assistance. The relatively few gifted students who have had the advantage of special programs have shown remarkable improvements in self-understanding and in ability to relate well to others, as well as in improved academic and creative performance. The programs have not produced arrogant, selfish snobs; special programs have extended a sense of reality, wholesome humility, self-respect, and respect for others. A good program for the gifted increases their involvement and interest in learning through the reduction of the irrelevant and redundant. These statements do not imply in any way a "track system" for the gifted and talented.

Identification of the gifted and talented in different parts of the country has been piecemeal, sporadic, and sometimes nonexistent. Very little identification has been carried on in depth, or with appropriate testing instruments. Many of the assumptions about giftedness and its incidence in various parts of the American society are based on inadequate data, partial information, and group tests of limited value. The United States has been inconsistent in seeking out the gifted and talented, finding them early in their lives, and individualizing their education. Particular injustice has occurred through apathy toward certain minorities, although neglect of the gifted in this country is a universal, increasing problem.

The next chapter discusses the typical obstacles and necessary steps in overcoming this neglect.