a shortage of available resources. One key question in the survey was whether there is a staff person employed at the state education department level with major responsibilities for program for the gifted in that state. Twenty-four of the states answered 'Yes' that they have designated such a person. (This included three states that had no specific legislation). However, of those 24 states, only in 10 are staff members assigned that responsibility for 50% or more of their time. In many instances the amount of time allocated to serving gifted students is but a small fraction of a multitude of duties and responsibilities assigned to one of the high ranking state officials.

The financial support for the state personnel assigned to the gifted almost invariably comes from the state level. Twenty-one states reported their contribution as making up half or more of the salary of these key individuals. Only 3 states reported that a significant proportion of a salary of a leadership person was being paid for out of federal funds, despite the clear opportunity to do so in such programs as Title V of the ESEA, which provides funds for strengthening of State Departments of Education staff. The thinness of the leadership staff for the gifted is even more strikingly demonstrated by the lack of support staff or additional personnel available beyond the single designated leader. Over 40 states hire no support or consultation staff or additional personnel at all. This means that the designated leader has few resources for providing technical assistance to local programs of education. Only 3 states reported as many as three or more staff persons assigned to the specific responsibilities of education of the gifted.

The most typical personnel portrait at the State Department level is a single individual, with part time responsibility for the gifted and with no support staff. Occasionally, there is someone gravitating to interest in this area of gifted education because no one else is there. For example, Dr. Hugh Templeton, Supervisor of Science Education, New York State Education Department, was introduced in the oral hearings as Chief of the Bureau of Science Education, but unofficially he has been called "The Supervisor for Education for the Gifted without portfolio."

Personnel Training. One of the key aspects of providing effective services for education of gifted and talented students lies in the commitment to special preparation for the educational personnel to work with such students. The widespread general interest in providing some training in gifted education can be seen in Figure 9. This figure shows the number of states that have either college or university programs or course work in education of gifted students, together with those state departments that allocate a proporation of their training resources for inservice training of teachers on education of the gifted. As Figure 9 shows, the broad range of training activities stretches across the country, with only the mountain states lacking college programs or state training efforts of an identifiable nature. By and large, inservice training activities seem to be utilized in practically all of the regions.

Program Deterrents.-One of the most significant questions included in the survey dealt with the reasons for limited resources being allocated for the gifted. 'What were the specific forces that the states saw holding back a more extensive operation? The results of that

particular rating may be seen in Figure 10. In this instance, as in many others, the differences between the various regions were not significant. The problems were seen as the same, or extremely similar, from one region to the next. The deterrents that appeared to be operating in one area of the country also appeared to be operating in the others.

The major deterrent, clearly indicated, was the lack of sufficient funds to carry out significant program activity. The kinds of financial resources necessary to carry out the legislative intent are just not being allocated at the state level. The second most frequently mentioned deterrent, which links closely to the problems of insufficient funds, is the prsssure of other more crisis-oriented priorities.

In the State Surveys, additional notes were provided regarding how the emphasis on children with specific educational problems were using up the available resources that were not in great supply anyway. Little or nothing was left over for significant, but long range, problems that did not create immediate administrative crises, such as education of the gifted. Of lesser concern, but still mentioned as important by a majority of the states, was the small number of adequate personnel that is available. It would seem quite clear that any major move

in this area would have to include substantial emphasis on the training or retraining of personnel before an educational program could become a reality.

Use of Federal Legislation.-The final crucial question in the State Survey was, 'To what extent are states using the additional resources provided by federal aid to apply to the problems of educating the gifted and talented?"

Figure 11 indicates the number of states using a variety of federal funds for education of the gifted. It presents a rather discouraging story concerning the use of current funds for the gifted under the current federal guidelines. In only one instance, Title III, ESEA-Innovative Programs did as many as 20% of the states utilize federal funds for strengthening programs for the gifted, despite the manifest interest in the problem and the demonstrated shortage of state resources. Title I ESEA, which would allow states to utilize funds for the identification and development of special programs for specially talented youngsters from deprived circumstances, found less than 15% of the states spending any funds at all.

Title V ESEA, which permits strengthening of State Departments of Education, represented one major opportunity for use of federal funds with relatively little financial commitment. But there are only 9 states reported using any type of Title V activities for strengthening their programs for the gifted! Only three of these states put funds

into the support of leadership personnel, while the others spent such funds on a variety of administrative needs. The most extensively used federal provision was Title III of ESEA, devoted towards the strengthening and development of innovative programs and supplementary centers. There are over 20% of the states utilizing some monies for programs directed to educating the gifted. However, a closer analysis revealed a minimal effort. Only 4 of the states reported 3 or more projects with this emphasis, as seen in Figure 12. Other potential federal legislation devoted to strengthening training programs were obviously doing no better. As a matter of fact, Figure 5 shows that 62% of the states use none of the available federal legislation, while another 24% use only the resources of one or two acts and these very sparingly.

The general portrait of the State Survey data is clear. Most of the states have recognized that the education of the gifted is an area of substantial educational need and have tried, in a variety of ways, to put some available resources to work in this area. It is also clear that these efforts have been overwhelmed by the more crisis-oriented issues of the deprived child, the disruptive child, the child who cannot learn, etc. The limited resources available are absorbed by these problem areas before such long range educational issues as the gifted are considered. Federal aid that is unspecified appears to be spent in the same pattern, so that much legislation that could benefit the gifted, in fact, is not applied to their educational problems.

WRITTEN DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO REGIONAL HEW HEARINGS ON EDUCATION OF THE GIFTED

Alger, Ferris E. MENSA, College of Maryland, 1970.

Banks, George W. Time Out For Talent. San Diego, California, February, 1970. Bartsch, Abe. F. Proposals of "pilot" programs presently being tested. Fresno City Unified School District, Fresno, California.

Bernstein, Mrs. Helen. A Discussion of the Elementary Center for the Gifted.
Fairfax County, Virginia.

Brown, Josephine. A Guide and Course of Study to Teaching of Mentally Gifted
Pupils. North Sacramento School District, Sacramento, California.
Casebeer, Robert L. Project Prometheus: Education for the Technetronic Age.
Jackson County Intermediate Education District. Medford, Oregon, April, 1968.
Casebeer, Robert L. Description about Project Prometheus (newspaper article
about Project Prometheus) Southern Oregon College, Ashland, Oregon.
Casserly, Patricia Lund. What College Students Say About Advanced Placement.
College Board Review, No. 69, Fall 1968.

Cox, Henry M. Annual High School Mathematics Examination. Lincoln, Nebraska, August, 1970.

Cox, Henry M. Regents Scholarship Examination. University of Nebraska, November, 1969.

Dightman, Cameron R. Statistics. Department of Social & Health Services, Olympia, Washington.

Drake, Donald C. Gifted Youth Drug-Prone, Study Shows.

Flickinger, Geneva Ely. High Ability in a Democracy and The Nature of High Ability. Towson State College, Baltimore, Maryland. Maryland School Bulletin, December, 1962.

Florman, Mrs. Jerald J. Gifted Children's Association of Orange County. Santa Ana, California.

Fogel, Max. L. Need for Research on Gifted Children. MENSA, University of State of New York, New York, N. Y.

Frucci, John. Institute for the Gifted. Olympia, Washington, September, 1970. Hacher, Irene S. A Study to Determine How Gifted Students are Identified and the Programs Being Offered for the Gifted in the Elementary Schools of Wyoming. Utah State University, Logan, Utah, 1969.