asked that present State laws and operations be examined to see how special programs could be established with no additional appropriation by the General Assembly. Past experience showed that such requests were deleted from budgets prepared by the Budget Bureau for presentation to the General Assembly. The approved plan allowed one instructional person in the area of the gifted to a school system submitting an approved program plan.

The opening of the 1969-70 school year brought 20 special programs for the intellectually gifted in 20 school systems. The number of systems operating special programs grew to 44 by the 1970-71 school year.

The approved plan stipulated that the plan be evaluated each year. Since approval in 1968, Georgia's State plan has been revised so school systems may use more than one allotment in the area of the gifted, provided the personnel involved are:

1. Coordinators of programs for the gifted or consultants in the area of the gifted,

2. Resource teachers to work with all classroom teachers having intellectually gifted, or

3. Resource teachers who work part time with classroom teachers having gifted students, and part time with gifted students. The present State program for the gifted is two-fold: (1) local schoolyear program, and (2) the Governor's Honors Program for 400 gifted high school juniors and seniors.

In 1970-71, 44 school systems were operating approved State-supported programs during the regular school year. Participating are 4,871 students in grades 1 to 12. These programs provide for those whose mental ability places them in the upper 2 to 5 percent of the general school population.

The Governor's Honors Program is an 8-week summer residential program for 400 upcoming juniors and seniors who have either high mental ability or a special talent in art, music, or drama.

Both State-operated programs are totally financed with State funds. Approximately $409,175 were spent on regular school programs and $279,566 for the Governor's Honors Programs, making a total of $688,741 spent on special programs for the gifted and talented during FY 1971.

In November 1970, the State Board of Education approved the gifted as an endorsement area for a teaching certificate. Personnel in the area of the gifted may be professionally certified in the area of the gifted if they complete 25 quarter hours of appropriate specialized study. This approval was brought about through involvement of a Georgia Teacher Education Council Committee. Through the Department's Unit Teacher Recruitment and Special Programs, a small number of grants are available for special study in the area of the gifted. The State Board of Education has named the area as a critical field of education for which special teacher preparation is necessary. At the present time, only one graduate institution in Georgia offers a series of teacher preparation courses in gifted education. However, two other graduate institutions are planning such courses.

Since January 1958, a number of activities related to the education of the gifted have been carried out by the Georgia Department of Education. Many of the goals set forth in the 10-year plan of action have been reached, in full or in part.

ILLINOIS' SPECIAL PROGRAM FOR THE GIFTED

Out of the initial planning phase, 1959-1963, a set of principles emerged for the rationale of the Illinois Plan:

1. Gifted children exist within all levels of society, within all racial and ethnic groups, and they come from every kind of home. Any programs to develop their talents must be concerned with their diversity. Among the differences which vitally affect program development are the differences between elementary and secondary schools, between urban and rural setting, and between gifted children whose school achievement is high and those whose achievement is low. 2. A State plan must take into account the ways in which innovation occurs in schools. Brickell's study of innovation in the schools of New York State indicates that journal articles, convention speeches, and research papers are less influential in fostering change than is the onsite visit by the practitioner of a school in which the changes have been programmed and put into operation.

3. The General Assembly has delegated major responsibility for the operation of schools to local boards of education. In recommending State action we do not intend to displace or discourage local initiative. We would like to expand the range of possibilities open to local districts in providing for their gifted children . . .

4. Research on gifted children has gone forward for more than 40 years. We now know more than enough to support extensive, and more adequate programs for gifted children. Yet our current knowledge and our current best efforts are sure to be modified as research in this area continues at an accelerated pace. Thus State action, while necessary, must be flexible and must not establish rigid formulas and detailed prescriptions. Study and experimentation should continue with State support so that improvement may be continuous and responsive to new scientific findings.

The five parts of the Illinois plan are:

1. Reimbursement for Services and Materials

Any school district in Illinois may submit a plan for improving its services to gifted children. The district may employ its own definition of giftedness. State funds may be used for services such as counseling, diagnosis, and consultation on a variety of problems, for books and other materials, or for inservice teacher training.

Reimbursement funds may not be used to pay teachers' salaries, and the funds are limited in application to fewer than 5 percent of the pupils enrolled in the district. The distribution formula takes account. of the wealth of the district and the number of gifted pupils served. Application procedures are simple and school districts are allowed wide latitude in expending funds. Funds provide only an average of $28 per pupil each year.

Total expenditures for reimbursement, 1963-71, are $19,450,000 or 59.8 percent of total expenditures for the Illinois Plan.

2. Demonstration Centers

Demonstration centers provide for all Illinois educators and other citizens convincing and readily accessible operating programs using particular approaches to educate gifted children.

At the outset, demonstration centers were expected to exemplify the following approaches:

a. Acceleration of highly gifted pupils.

b. Individualized instruction through such means as team teaching, nongraded plans, independent study.

c. Special classes for the highly gifted, with specially trained teachers, supervisors and consultants.

d. Special attention to gifted youth among socially and culturally underprivileged groups.

e. Curriculum improvement through programs which emphasize higher level thought processes, creativity, divergent thinking.

f. Special attention to the emotional and social adjustment of gifted pupils.

Each demonstration center is responsible for showing the program to visitors and for evaluating the program. Where possible, each demonstration center is the responsibility of at least one full-time professional staff member of the local district.

By 1970, 26 demonstration centers were in operation, employing an expanded set of functions. Total expenditures, 1963-71, are $6,300,000, or 19.4 percent of the total.

3. Experimental Projects

To advance knowledge about practical programs for the gifted, the State has provided funds for experimental projects in school districts, colleges and universities.

Total expenditures for experimental projects, 1963-71, are $2,274,000, or 7 percent of the total.

4. State Staff

To administer the program of reimbursement, demonstration, experimentation, and training, a Department of Program Development for Gifted Children was established in the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Total expenditures for administration at the State level, 1963-71, are $21,103,900, or 6 percent of the total.

5. Training Program

To help meet the great need for specially trained personnel to carry out the other parts of the plan, State support is provided for fellowships, academic year institutes, and summer institutes.

Total expenditures 1963-71, are $2,524,000, or 7.8 percent of the total.

In evaluating the two major components, Illinois measured the effectiveness of their politics and practices.

The program of reimbursement of materials and services has successfully supported significant educational improvements based upon proven practices related to programs for gifted children. There has been an enormous increase in the number and extent of local gifted programs. Many new programs have been initiated and most students are now in districts with such programs.

The number of teachers, special personnel, and students in classes has also increased. Many districts are using special materials and methodologies.

The program has been less successful in saving talent by identification and development of pupils who, despite high ability, have not acquired the necessary knowledge and skills to fully utilize this ability. There is considerable "spill-over" of techniques originated in gifted classes into regular classes. Many regular techers are also being trained in the inservice programs. In their effect on the regular school program, the special programs for the gifted have been highly successful. The least successful effort has been to incorporate evaluation procedures in all phases of the program. Only 15 percent of the districts have minimally adequate evaluation.

Personnel and knowledge, rather than physical facilities, are the major limitations for future development of the individual programs. The centers, for the most part, have excellent programs, but visitors have not adapted whole programs.

All demonstration centers were successful in establishing programs that met the requirements of the State policy: 1) internal consistency; 2) research basis; 3) educational significance; 6) exportability; 7) uniqueness; and 8) growth in quality.

These four States demonstrate the possibilities for gifted programs when commitment is evident. Each State, however, has been handicapped by the lack of Federal assistance, which chapter VII will discuss.