AN ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMS AND PRIORITIES:

ADVOCATE SURVEY AND STATISTICS SOURCES

1

The Advocate Survey is a 26-page Office of Education survey sent to 239 experts, as part of the Commissioner's study to obtain recommendations on provisions for the gifted and talented. The advocates, representing all sections of the Nation, were chosen for their specialized experience and knowledge on the gifted and talented.

The 204 experts who returned a completed form included State education officials, university professors, and education organization representatives. Many of their recommendations were virtually unanimous. Their views certainly merit serious attention.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GIFTED AND TALENTED

DEFINITION

More than 80 per cent of the respondents agreed that the category "gifted and talented" should include "those with high general intellectual ability, those who manifest creative or productive thinking, those with specific academic aptitude and/or those with ability in visual and performing arts." They also supported inclusion of those with underdeveloped potential. About 50 percent would include those with social adeptness and psychomotor ability.

Over two-thirds of the respondents did not recommend additions or changes in the categories selected by the majority. Thirty percent wanted specific categories, such as creativity, or more inclusiveness. While the great majority felt that the above definition could be used effectively with educators and the public, approximately 20 percent recommended more specificity.

The general view was that the gifted and talented can be viewed and understood by the majority of educators and laymen as those of high intellectual ability, those with high academic aptitude, and/or those with high ability in the visual and performing arts. These terms are, of course, not mutually exclusive.

The definition of the talented was seen as considerably more inclusive than that of the gifted. While 82 percent would confine the gifted to 5 percent or less of the population, the talented were regarded by the experts as including 11 to 15 percent of the population. The mean percentages for each category, gifted and talented, probably are somewhat less than the percent chosen, since 38 percent favored

1 Unless otherwise noted in the text or in footnotes, the data in this appendix are derived from A Survey of Leadership in Education of Gifted and Talented Children and Youth. Silver Spring, Maryland: Operations Research, Inc., 1971 (Hereafter referred to as the Advocate Survey).

The Advocate Survey was developed by the Office of Education and conducted under contract by Operations Research, Inc. An informal outside advisory group provided substantive content for the survey and identified the universe of leadership. The survey form and the list of advocates are available from the Office of Education.

confining the gifted to 2 percent or less, and the remainder chose the category 3-5 percent. Similarly, 47 percent limited the talented to 5 percent or less.

SEARCH FOR THE GIFTED AND TALENTED

Nearly four out of five of the respondents favored continuous screening and search, or at least annual searches for the gifted and talented. Two-thirds favored at least annual re-evaluation, presumably to be certain that placement and educational planning were appropriate.

As figure 1 indicates, he advocates favored multiple means for identification of the gifted and talented, including measures of intelligence, achievement, talent, and creativity. The highest rank was accorded the individual intelligence test, a means not used in most States because of the cost. Undoubtedly, this rank is based on the knowledge that group measures fail to locate at least half of the gifted and talented in any population.

Apparently the advocates were concerned by the failure of school personnel to identify the gifted, as well as by the well-known ability of the gifted to conceal their true abilities and to adapt themselves to school offerings and requirements.

Reports, such as that of the 57.5 percen tof U.S. schools stating in the School Staffing Survey that they had no gifted, undoubtedly led the respondents to recommend involvement of all persons in the search process. School psychologists were seen as most important, with

2 School Staffing Survey, 1969-70. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S. Office of Education.

talent specialists next. Interestingly, seven advocated the use of professional artists, a practice not common in schools. The relatively low ranking of school administrators and curriculum specialists may have been due to their less direct contact with children, since teachers and guidance counselors were ranked high.

The report of no gifted pupils by over half of schools surveyed in 1969-70 is a depressing piece of information. The statistic may indicate widespread ignorance, apathy and indifference, or outright hostility toward the notion that gifted and talented young people merit attention. Less effort to identify is made at the elementary level than at the secondary, although research stresses the advantages of early identification and planning. Gifted young people with the ability to invent, create, and contribute to society at an early age apparently would have little opportunity in the majority of our schools, and probably no encouragement, under present conditions.

POTENTIAL POPULATION

Numbers presumed to be gifted or talented have varied considerably in recent estimates. Up to the end of the 1950's, the general agreement of most research workers and experts was that the gifted included those within the upper 2 to 3 percent of intellectual ability (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 school population was 51,600,000.3

Table 1-Numbers of pupils in various national percentages of presumed gifted and talented

Percent: 1.

2_

3.

5_ 10.

Number of pupils 516, 000

1 032, 000 1, 548, 000 2,580, 000

5, 160, 000

The numbers in table 1 would increase if provisions were made for the gifted at preschool levels.

Obviously giftedness is not manifest at a set time; even though not recognized, it is present as a potential from birth; attention to gifted in the preschool population therefore merits serious consideration.

Table 2 indicates that of 11,906,000 3-, 4-, and 5-year old children in 1968, 3,929,000 were enrolled in preschool programs outside of the regular school. If a conservative three percent 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!

* Projections of Educational Statistics to 1978-79. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health. Education and Welfare, National Center for Educational Statistics, 1969.

Nehrt, Roy C. and Hurd, Gordon E. Preprimary Enrollment of Children Under Six, October 1968. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. June 1969. (OE-20079-68.)

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.

Recommendations on numbers and percentages of the gifted to be served indicate that several million American school children require special planning so that they may experience proper educational opportunities.

PROVISIONS FOR THE GIFTED

CURRENT PROGRAMS

As figure 2 shows, the experts present a dismal view of the adequacy of existing programs. Nearly all communities are described as having very few provisions, or none at all. The neglect is greatest at the early

Source: A Survey of Leadership in Education of Gifted and Talented Children & Youth, 1971.

school years; but even at the secondary level, little is done. Educational planning for the gifted has had low priority, and few persons are aware of the tragic waste of human potential. The often verbalized principle of quality education for all has only been implemented in