and support of the education profession and the public. The funds. have undoubtedly improved life opportunities for thousands of the handicapped and members of their families. These programs vividly demonstrated the social benefits from a Federal investment in the education of specific target populations with needs which cannot be met by general education.

The need for funding support for the gifted and talented is critical. If funds can be devoted similarly to program improvement, personnel preparation, improved and extended research, and general support and understanding, the educational opportunities and life possibilities for this group also will improve.

Many experts in the Advocate Survey observed that the gifted were losing to the competition of other problems. It is seen even in States which support programs, such as California, where the allocation to State operations for the gifted in the 1971-72 budget shows a decline. The fiscal year 1971 funds monitored by the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, U.S. Office of Education, total $197,767,633. Several areas in which these funds are currently expended are areas in which programs for the gifted could be improved through support. Funds are allocated to the following categories relevant to the gifted: To strengthen educational and related services for preschool, elementary and secondary children; to provide grants for supplementary, innovative, or exemplary projects for educational improvement; to develop model preschool and early childhood programs; to provide Vocational education and services; to improve recruitment of educational personnel and to desseminate information on educational opportunities; to provide for research, training of personnel, and to establish and operate model centers; to promote new knowledge and developments for this population; to prepare and inform teachers and others who work in the education of the target population.

The amount allocated to these categories totals $102,5888,116, of which $47,188,116, comes from title III of ESEA and the Vocational Education Act, Part B of the 1968 amendment, which earmark a percent of funds for the handicapped.

Similar categorical allocations, with specific designation of the gifted and talented, would strengthen educational efforts for this group. States have made little or no use of Federal funds for the gifted and talented. Without special definite designation of fund use for this population, it is not likely that they will.

The cost of quality educational opportunities for the gifted and talented would be relatively low, compared to other programs. Even in strictly fiscal terms, the expenditures would be returned to the Federal Government. The productivity of a well-educated, well-adjusted gifted or talented adult would be of benefit in many ways, including the monetary advantage.

Income figures for males in the United States, compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce for the decade 1956-66, indicate that as education increases, lifetime income climbs steeply. Investment in education of the gifted would be returned shortly to the Treasury through additional income tax.

In Digest of Educational Statistics, 1970. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education (OE 10024-70). See also Figure 5 in Appendix B of this

report.

Categorical allocation of even 2 percent of the Federal expenditure for education would produce more than $50,000,000 from present income. The figures for 1967-68 representing 2 percent of the total expenditure were $48,000,000.6

VIEWS ON PROGRAMS

Some contradiction is seen in the recommendation that programs be continuous throughout the school career of the gifted child by 95 percent of the respondents, while most also responded that programs should be started in grades four to six. The item required a forced choice due to limitations of funds as to level at which a program should be started. 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 have the greatest adjustment problems to face at school entry and during the primary grades when patterns of underachievement become entrenched.

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, an open curriculum based on individual interests was favored, with large blocks of independent time. The gifted and talented were seen as capable of self-management and decisionmaking for both content of study and classroom procedures.

These recommendations are compatible with 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.

The need to adjust to different learning styles among the gifted 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. Among the gifted and talented, one may find persons who respond and funetion 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 experts 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 comlex learning tasks.

Close to 90 percent of the advocates felt that differentiated programs for the gifted need greater resources than programs for regular students. However, adequate inservice preparation may reduce unessen

• Digest of Educational Statistics, 1970. U.S. Office of Education (OE-10024-70).

tial program expenditures. Teachers with background knowledge are prone to use better existing resources, and to free students to seek needed materials or specialists personnel; they are more willing to ask for assistance from parents and consultants who can bring in necessary resources, or 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 in only a special program may mean neglect for the greater part of the school week, particularly if the special program is a few sessions per week or less. Liaison between regular and special teachers, and constant effort to differentiate programs in both settings, are seen as important.

THE SUCCESSFUL TEACHER OF THE GIFTED AND TALENTED

Although 15 percent of the advocates saw all teachers as teachers of the gifted, whether or not the children were found in regular classrooms without special provisions, the majority equated specialized programs or separate grouping of the gifted with recognition of the teacher as a teacher of the gifted.

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, and inservice 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.

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 the 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 reduces hostility toward the gifted, and increases support of them as a group.)

OTHER SCHOOL PERSONNEL

Nearly all of the experts recognized the need for inservice preparation on the gifted for school administrators. Administrators affect teaching in many ways by their decisions as well as their attitudes. The administrator can encourage or discourage teacher interest through his remarks and behavior. His support must be active to encourage teachers in the extra efforts required to maintain programs of high quality.

School psychologists and guidance counselors were seen as mildly or highly positive toward the gifted by approximately two-thirds of the respondents, while social workers and tutorial workers were characterized as neutral, negative, or unknown. The need for special preparation to develop understanding of the gifted is apparent for social workers

and tutors, who deal chiefly with remedial needs. A research study established school psychologists as relatively more hostile toward the gifted than other persons in education, despite their advanced preparation.

Approximately 90 percent of the experts agreed that the teacher of the gifted should have ready access to specialized consultant help and to auxiliary materials. Consultants have made appreciable improvements in the quality of programs, through inservice assistance for teachers, other school personnel, and parents, and through arranging for access to learning materials.

Experts agreed that much of the responsibility for program success and decision should be assigned to a special consultant for the gifted at the local level. The need undoubtedly is seen as one for a constant interpreter and advocate for the gifted, as well as one who would have the authority to arrange optimal learning situations and affiliations.

Only 3 percent of the experts felt that pupil personnel workers show a positive attitude toward the gifted, while 22 percent of the responses described negative attitudes, other concerns, or apathy and indifference toward the gifted.

The great majority said that pupil personnel workers are not equipped for the task of working with the gifted. The recommendation that they be given added preparation came from 85 percent of the experts, with the most important need being that of information regarding the gifted and their needs.

Studies have shown that pupil personnel workers are indifferent or hostile in their attitudes toward the gifted; it is supported as well by the general failure to seek and recognize the gifted in the schools.

RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR EXPENDITURES

Priorities recommended by the experts for expenditures were 1) inservice preparation of teachers and other personnel, 2) pilot and experimental programs, and 3) direct aid to school systems.

The cost of inservice preparation of teachers apparently was interpreted as involving both part-time and full-time study. Estimates ranged widely, with 35 percent of the experts choosing a sum implying full-time fellowship study.

At the local level, the greatest need was for personnel. This category received double the number of first choices given to inservice. teacher preparation.

At the State level, the experts again endorsed support of an office to coordinate and strengthen programs for the gifted. This need far outweighed others in importance.

Over 90 percent of the respondents mentioned psychological services and guidance counseling as important needs of the gifted. Their perception of need is supported by research studies in which highly gifted students have been found to require expert psychological assistance in adapting to environmental frustrations, and in understanding themselves and their relationships with others. The problems of coping with attitudes and misunderstandings of others, frequent feelings of difference and inferiority, frustrations in learning, educational choices, the development of tolerance and understanding, all require special help. Parents frequently need assistance along with their children.

SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS

The majority of advocates felt that education for the gifted was not a continuing priority in their communities. They recommended the use of various modes for informing legislators, the general public, and educators, including media, experts, and parents of the gifted.

The opposition to special education for the gifted is seen mainly as lack of public awareness and lack of funds. The belief that the gifted can manage without provisions and that other priorities are more important were also mentioned. The major efforts of all agencies responsible for instituting programs for the gifted were described as disorganized or nonexistent. Support in rural areas was seen as the

worst.

Advocacy of programs for the gifted rests primarily with those most directly concerned and affected: teachers of the gifted, parents, and children. Most others are seen as neutral.

The experts alluded to the problem of communication with others about the gifted and their needs. The most important function of a State consultant was seen as interpretation and dissemination of knowledge. Half of the respondents suggested information to the lay public as necessary to attain support for the gifted.

The present burden of education for the gifted and talented was described by one advocate as falling on parents who "weep alone for their children."

REGIONAL HEARINGS-THE PEOPLE SAY

The call for oral testimony on education for the gifted by Regional Assistant Commissioners of Education in the 10 HEW regions of the country drew a surprising number and wide variety of witnesses. A total of 295 persons from diverse backgrounds delivered oral testimony: school administrators, teachers, parents, students, State legislators, school board members, etc. The results of the oral and written testimony were combined because they were so similar. In general, the testimony confirmed more eloquently and specifically the results of the State survey. Education for the gifted is seen as an important and long-term concern of educators but good intentions and plans are inundated by a flood of immediate problems. Appendix C of this report details the findings.

PERCEIVED NEEDS

Curriculum. The testimony analysis was divided into statements of specific needs and recommendations. In the area of needs, one major theme repeatedly mentioned was the need for curriculum flexibility to allow talented students to move forward on their own, or to modify existing curriculum to take into account their unusual ability. The witnesses maintained that initiative and creativity were being crushed by the required conformity to an inappropriate and dull educational

program.

Teachers. A second strong need was expressed for better prepared teachers. Almost one half of the witnesses spontaneously mentioned this need, expressed as strongly by the teachers as by the other witnesses. There was a consensus that teachers are currently not prepared and cannot handle the special educational issues presented by

72-502 0-724