University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A survey of professional attitudes and opinions toward the education of the mentally gifted minor

(USC Thesis Other)

A survey of professional attitudes and opinions toward the education of the mentally gifted minor

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A SURVEY OF PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDES
AND OPINIONS TOWARD THE EDUCATION OF
THE MENTALLY GIFTED MINOR
A Project
Presented to
the Faculty of The. School of. Education
University of Southern California
In P artial , Fulfillm ent
of the Requirements for the Degree
M aster of Science in' Education
by
Howard B. Weithorn
August 1962
UMI Number: EP51017
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissfiftation FiMMing
UMI EP51017
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 -1346
EcJ dsi Y
This project report, written under the direction
of the candidate’s adviser and approved by him,
has been presented to and accepted by the faculty
of the School of Education in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science in Education.
Date....
Adviser
Dean
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
I
Chapter Page
I
I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
USED........................................................................................................ 1
Introduction
The Problem
Definitions of Term s Used
Organization of the Study
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE................................. s!
Giftedness in R etrospect
Current Trends for Educating the Gifted Student
Definition of Giftedness
The Nature of Giftedness
C haracteristics of the Gifted Child
Identification of the Gifted Child
III. FINDINGS OF PREVIOUS STUDIES......................................... 25
The Reed Study
The Kincaid Study
The Sea Study
The Smith Study
The State Study
Comments on Previous Studies
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE S T U D Y .......................................................... 32
A nalysis of the Findings with Regard to Specific
Questions
Composition of Respondent Groups
Years of Experience as an Educator
V. - SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................... 38
Recapitulation of the Problem
Summary of the Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
11
I 111
Chapter Page
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................... 48
A PPE N D IX ...................................................................................................................... 54
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Questionnaire R e s p o n s e s ....................................................... 33
IV
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED
Introduction
In recent decades our society has becom e acutely aware of the
heed to provide m ore adequate academ ic stim uli for the gifted child.
I
jThe past decade has served as a great impetus in making the society
aware of the n ecessity for providing stim ulating educational activities
for our talented students. 1£ our specialized and technologically o ri
ented society is to continue to develop, then we m ust also expand our
fram e of reference in pursuit of m eeting the needs of the academ ically
talented student.
I The gifted student in a dem ocratic so ciety .— All too often it is
alleged that special attention for the gifted student is undemocratic.
Equal opportunity in education does not mean that each child should
share the same experience. Equal opportunity in education refers to
the need to challenge each student to develop his individual ability to the
fullest extent and then utilize this ability in a useful manner. Contrary
I
to the belief maintained in som e circles, we are not providing equality
when we ask that students with unequal ability be given equal education-
I ,
al experiences.
The need for resea rch .— Program s are beginning to flourish,
D ut these program s need som e form of unity. This is not to say that
1 : _________________________________________________________________________________________
2 1
there is only one approach to providing for the academ ically talented
I
segm ent of our school population. Rather, there is a need to study
these many approaches and evaluate them carefully in order to clarify j
our thinking. Experim entation is an asset to society, but evaluation and'
oilow-through are the keys to reaping benefit from any experim ent.
Careful examination of each approach to educating the gifted and
the eventual evaluation of these approaches w ill prove beneficial to the
individual, the country, and civilization.
1
' The Problem
j Statement of the problem .— It was the purpose of this study (1)
|to review available literature, (2) to investigate and determ ine whether
jor not there was a need on the part of professional educators to make
special provisions to accommodate the m entally gifted minor, (3) to de
term ine certain prevalent attitudes and opinions of a sample of educa
tors toward aspects of procedure and content of a program for the m en
tally gifted minor, and (4) to obtain answers to questions from a sample
I
of professional educators.
Delim itations of this study.— This study was concerned with the
education of the academ ically talented student at the elem entary school
jlevel. Those sampled in this study were all professional educators
prim arily involved with som e aspect of elem entary school education.
In cases where the large m ajority (7 5% or m ore) of those surveyed
gave identical or sim ilar responses, the result was accepted as a con
sensus of opinion. Finally, this study was not geared toward finding
"the" best method for teaching the gifted.
Importance of the study. Recent events have brought about
great interest as w ell as realization of the educational needs of the
academ ically talent student.
"The great and growing attention to gifted children in Am erican
education is due to a combination of ideology and the reality of social
heed" (5:1). Ideology in this statem ent refers to the recognition and
dedication to the individual student and his needs. Reality refers to the
manpower shortage of which this society is becoming increasingly
aware. Although there is little research in the area dealing with why
gifted children fail to succeed, certainly some of these failures may be
clearly viewed as the result of failure to provide adequate educational
stim uli for the gifted child.
When speaking about any aspect of man and his being, certain
fundamentals m ust be taken into consideration. Man is constantly
I '
reaching com plex goals and creating new and more complex goals for
him self. His goals have become m ore com plex and specialized as a
result of his previous goal setting and goal attainment. Our system of
;.ife is com plex, specialized, and technological. To fulfill our current
goals more technically trained people are needed, and more circum
stances are needed to provide for the individual to demonstrate his own
in itiative.
Experience is the key to our su ccess in arriving at new horizons
With each new experience our perspective is broadened. The gifted
child has a need to be exposed to a rich variety of challenging exp eri
ences. F reeh ill notes the importance of an aw areness of this need.
Neither the effects of heredity nor the effects of environment
are immutable. Teachers may w isely respect the realities of
physiological lim its but what these are for persons with IQs of 130 j
are sim ply unknown. A best guess suggests that these lim its are
w ell beyond the current standards in the school or in communities I
and are probably w ell beyond our im aginings. It is vitally imp or tant I
to enrich and enlarge the environment of gifted children. (6:144) ;
It is important to determ ine what practices are feasible in ;
m eeting the needs of the gifted student and then put them into use. The
j
basis for civilization ’s great fund of achievem ents has been the result ;
! !
of the application of the talents of individuals with special abilities.
Again, the very survival and growth of civilization are dependent upon
the contributions of the talented.
I Procedure used.— A questionnaire and an introductory letter
I
were sent to 50 adm inistrators and 50 teachers in the southwestern
!
section of Los Angeles County (see Appendix for questionnaire and let-
I
ter).
The questions chosen for the questionnaire w ere selected on the
Dasis of issu es m ost frequently discu ssed in the literature and by ad
m inistrators and teachers in private conferences.
I The number of respondents totaled 83. The respondents were
divided into two major categories : teachers and adm inistrators.
I ,
Teachers were considered to be those actively engaged in actual c la s s
room teaching, therefore responsible for the true instruction of pupils.
Adm inistrators were considered to be those individuals charged with
over-all resp on sib ilities for the instruction of pupils. Hence, the latter
category included a variety of adm inistrative lev els.
! The results were tabulated and categorized, with each choice
i
given a per cent rank to the nearest whole number as compared with the
category sam ple. The analysis of the results of the survey was first
5
made question by question and then area by area, e.g., special provi
n s ions, adm inistrative p ractices, teacher qualifications, classroom pro-
I
cedures, program content, and com m ents.
Definitions of Term s Used
I Ability grouping. A classification of pupils in which those of
!
like ability are grouped together into a homogeneous group is referred j
to as ability grouping.
A cadem ically talented.— For the purposes of this study, any
child who dem onstrates superior capacity in intellectual pursuits was
regarded as academ ically talented. (Synonyms: gifted, m entally gifted
m inor, and intellectually gifted.)
i
I A cceleration.— A cceleration was interpreted as a system in
i
which a pupil may attain an educational lev el at an earlier age or in a
shorter period of tim e than standard educational practice would nor-
j'
m ally perm it. Thus, any child who (1) started school at an earlier age,
i
(2) skipped a grade, or (3) proceeded through a grade in a rapid prog
r ess cla ss would be regarded as accelerated.
Achievem ent test.— Achievem ent test refers to those standard
ized tests used to m easure knowledge or sk ill attained in a given area
or areas
Aptitude te s t.— Aptitude test refers to those standardized tests
used to m easure the potential of an individual in a given area or areas.
Enrichm ent.— Enrichment refers to the practices which provide
additional and/or deeper learning experiences than those provided in
the regular program of instruction.
I Elem entary school.— For the purposes of this study the elemen-j
tary school is defined as the school with grade lev els kindergarten j
through six or eight.
Intelligence t e s ts . Intelligence tests are those tests which
m easure scholastic or academ ic aptitude. These tests may be admin-
I
istered in individual or group situations.
Standardized tests."— A standardized test is one which has been
given to a large group of people so that a norm or average score is ob-
I
tained and m ay be used as a standard for future com parison.
P rofession al people.— For the purpose of this study, p ro fes
sional people are those actively engaged in organized education.
Organization of the Study
/
] In Chapter I the problem and definitions of term s used w ere pre
sented. There was a brief discussion of the gifted student in a dem o
cratic society, the need for research, the procedures used in this study^
and comments on its importance.
A review of the literature is presented in Chapter II. Consider
ation is given to a brief history of giftedness, current trends for edu
cating the gifted student, definition of giftedness, nature of giftedness,
the ch aracteristics of the gifted child, and the identification of the gif tec.
child.
i
A review of several surveys conducted during the past decade is
covered in Chapter III.
The findings of the survey are presented in Chapter T V . These
findings are reviewed in the order in which they appear in the ques
tionnaire.
Chapter V includes a recapitulation of the problem , a summary
of the findings of the survey, conclusions drawn from the results of the
I
survey, and recomm endations made in light of the findings of the sur-
I
jv^ ey. The conclusions are presented under the following subheadings :
special provisions, adm inistrative p ractices, teacher qualifications,
I .
classroom procedures, program content, and com m ents.
The bibliography and appendix com plete the project.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
A study of the m ost recent literature reveals a great deal of
^concern about the education of the gifted child. Information about the
i
nature of giftedness, ch aracteristics of the gifted, identification of the
gifted, and trends in the education of the gifted are becoming abundant.
jWith special attention to current trends, two rather predominant prob
lem s were found; (1) there was a lack of thorough research and evalu
ation of the various adm inistrative procedures documented, and (2) an
adm inistrative procedure which was suitable in one geographic area
may be unsuitable in another.
I
!
I Giftedness in R etrospect
The gifted have always been set aside by society and given sp e
cial recognition. In som e civilizations the gifted were recognized for
what they actually w ere— talented individuals. In other civilizations
j
the gifted were thought to be "possessed" by a supernatural force.
[Thus, for a period of tim e the dem onic-deity oriented view prevailed.
Both scriptural and Platonic literature speak of the exceptional
ly able, although they refer to different kinds of talent. The Bible
extols the saintly wisdom of prophets and learned eld ers, and ad
jures man to seek from them proper interpretation of divine w ill.
Plato places the leadership reins of his ideal state into the hands of
philosopher-kings who p o sse ss the greatest m easure of rational in
telligence. (41:22)
Sumption notes that Plato even went so far as to speculate upon
8______________________________________
— g
ways of determ ining which children w ere gifted, in order that they
might be educated for leadership in the state (10:21).
I It was the R enaissance which form ed the foundation for the
present day spirit; that is, the spirit of intellectual growth as the way
to a better life.
With the advent of the R enaissance, the Platonic conception of
talent began to ascend in W estern civilization. Humanists rebelled
against what they considered the static, doctrinaire elem ents of
m edieval culture and introduced into the world of ideas a venture-
I som e spirit which prevails to this day. (41:23)
I
j It was not until 1868 that A m erican public education saw the b e
ginning of several attempts to m eet the needs of the talented. G eneral
ly, these attempts offered som e variation of either acceleration, abili-
ty-grouping, or enrichm ent. The St. Louis program (1868) was geared
to acceleration of the gifted; the Elizabeth (New Jersey) plan (1886) was
a "m ultiple-track" system offering a type of homogeneous grouping and
gave im petus to the sim ilar Cambridge "Double-Track" plan, the Santa
j
Barbara "Concentric" plan, and others; and the Batavia plan (New
[York) introduced the system whereby a special teacher a ssisted the
regular teacher in a form of individualized instruction or enrichm ent
(43, 6). Thus, it is evident that acceleration, ability-grouping, and en
richm ent had their bases in the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen-
I
tu r ie s.
Other significant developm ents in the first two decades of the
present century w ere the standardization and use of the intelligence
test to identify the gifted at school; the organization of experim ental
c la sses for the gifted; the initiation of studies at Stanford U niversity
(1911) of children with high I.Q.’s, which later blossom ed into the
exhaustive work directed by Term an; and plans for individualizing
instruction, enabling the rapid learners to progress at their own
speed and on their own initiative in the regular classroom . These
I innovations form ed an important prelude to trends in the 1920’s and
! 1930's. (41:31)
In brief, Tannenbaum (41:31) notes that the 1920’s was essen - '
I
tially a period of grouping; the 1930's and the war years were charac- j
terized by enrichm ent in the regular classroom ; and finally the post- |
war years saw a decline and then an upsurge in concern for the gifted '
1
child.
i
I Current Trends for Educating the Gifted Student
In our society, need for people of creative ability is urgent. ;
I Even before the space age there was an undercurrent of d issatisfac- |
I tion with the lack of talent resou rces. The present trend toward |
m ore efficient guidance of the gifted shows realization that human
resou rces are n ecessa ry for growth in a complex, dynamic society,
j (22:412)
I
j
I A cceleration.— One of the oldest and m ost prevalent form s of
educational adjustment to m eet the needs of the gifted child is a ccelera
tion. A cceleration may take on several form s, but in each it involves
allowing the pupils to attain a certain grade lev el either by (1) beginning
school at an earlier age, (2) skipping a previous level, or (3) p ro g rèss-
I
ing through a certain lev el(s) in a shorter tim e than is custom ary.
I
I The p rocess of accelerating pupils is a controversial one. For
each advantage listed , there is a disadvantage of equal im portance. The
actual validity of the use of acceleration is a m atter which should be
weighed by any potential em ployer.
In brief, the following are several of the m ost common argu
ments in favor of acceleration: according to several authorities, ac
celeration is a procedure whereby the gifted may be attended to without
incurring additional expenses or extensive adm inistrative adjustment—
N orris (31:260), Fas sow (33:213), DeHaan and Havighurst (5:99), Abra
ham (2:77), the Educational P o licies C om m ission (20:49-50), and
i
Kincaid (50:31-32); acceleration may serve as a m otivational technique I
“Abraham (2:77); it may provide additional challenge to the gifted stu
dent— Fas sow (33:213), The Educational F o licies Com m ission (20:49“
50), and Sumption (10:196); it would allow earlier attainment for eventu
al professional study by these students— Abraham (2:78), Bentley (3:
125), Fas sow (33:213), Sumption (10:202-203), and Kincaid (50:31-32);
I
and since no correlation has been found between the tim e devoted to a
subject and the knowledge gained — Abraham (2:78), Sumption (10:196),
and Terman (12:280) — it would provide a system whereby the student
could proceed at his own rate of p rogress.
The alleged disadvantages of acceleration are equally numerous
and are also noted by several leading authorities. In brief: younger
students may suffer due to lack of physical, emotional, and social m a
turity comparable to their intellectual p ro w ess— Abraham (2:7 8), F as-
jsow (33:214), Holl ing worth (8:298-299), Kincaid (50:32), DeHaan and
Havighurst (5:99), and Sumption (10:198-199); it may result in a lack of
instruction in certain a r e a s— Abraham (2:78), Fas sow (33:214), and
Kincaid (50:32); and a child is not consistently gifted in all areas of
academ ic concern— Abraham (2:78), Fas sow (33:214), and Sumption
10:20 0).
The m ost notable of the proponents of acceleration was Terman
12:281). Term an’s evidence was based upon his exhaustive findings in
lis work at Stanford.
In summation of the pro and con argument of acceleration, T er
man and Oden provide the m ost concise statem ent.
The m ost common arguments in favor of acceleration are that it
im proves the child’s m otivation, prevents him from developing
I
■ I
habits of dawdling, and later on allows him to com plete his profes- |
sional training earlier, and to make an earlier m arriage. On the
1 other side it is argued that grade-skipping aggravates the child's
problem of social adjustment, prom otes bookishness, is dangerous
I to physical or mental health, and leaves gaps in the child's academic!
knowledge and sk ills. Although our data do not afford an accurate |
m easure of all these alleged effects, they do furnish evidence of con-j
! siderable value with respect to som e of them. (42:42) I
I
Once the advantages and disadvantages of acceleration have been
I 1
carefully studied, it is important to accelerate the child early in his edi
ucational experience if acceleration is to occur (6:224). The factor of
early acceleration should prove valid as a technique for reducing many i
i I
jD f the social and em otional disadvantages allegedly inherent in accele-
I
ration.
Ability grouping.— Ability grouping is a system whereby pupils
of like or sim ilar mental ability are grouped together for their educa-
tional advancement. It is a system which fosters much controversy,
but at the same tim e a system gaining a great deal of acceptance.
Ability grouping as a m eans of achieving a better education for
the gifted has grown in favor and in practice. This is also because
recent research indicates that ability grouping aids the education of
the gifted m ore than any other way of grouping these pupils. This is
I a reversal of ea rlier findings in this area, which showed that slow
pupils gained m ost from ability groupings; that average pupils were
second in gains; and that the gifted gained least from such groupings.
(13:18-19)
j "Comparative studies of gifted students in regular c la sse s on all
t
educational lev els tends to be m ore uniform in denoting beneficial e f
fects of the special c la sse s on academ ic, personal, and social growth"
(33:207).
I
1 One of the drawbacks of ability grouping is that it is a le s s eco
nom ical way of m eeting the needs of the gifted child. This is a fact
which is le ss prevalent in large cities with greater industrial and
m id d le-class populations, according to F reeh ill (6:219). In our large
urban-industrial com plexes, there is a greater demand for specialized
training and therefore le s s resistan ce to initiation of such a procedure
for training children. But what of the rem ainder of the nation? This is
a problem which m ust be evaluated and dealt with at the local level.
In brief, the following are several of the m ost frequent advan
tages attributed to ability grouping; the gifted child's needs can be m et
m ore ea sily in a segregated group due to its hom ogeneity— Sumption
(10:224), Hollingworth (8:300), and DeHaan and Havighurst (5:106); the
I
gifted child is m ore likely to obtain a m ore rea listic a ssessm en t of his
I
own worth when he com petes with students on his own lev el — Abraham
I
(2:69“70), Sumption (10:224), and Fas sow (33:206); there is greater so
cial acceptance by the group in a homogeneous situation where he is
le s s likely to be regarded as an oddball — DeHaan and Havighurst (5:
106-107), Sumption (10:225), Abraham (2:71), and Fas sow (33:206); it is
1
easier to select m ore competent teachers for a class where students'
abilities are so sim ila r Kincaid (50:30), DeHaan and Havighurst (5:
107), Fas sow (33:206), and Sumption (10:225); the student is more p o si
tively m otivated and is m ore apt to dem onstrate greater initiative and
self-assu ran ce — Krueger, Alien, Ebeling and Roberts (28:261), and
Abraham (2:71); and finally, there is m ore concentration on abstract
and creative areas of study — Abraham (2:70).
I
I
I The disadvantages or negative attributes of ability grouping are
also given recognition by several leading authors. In brief: there is a
1
tendency to promote snobbery and arrogance — Sumption (10:227), Hol-
lingworth (8:304), F reeh ill (6:197), Abraham (2:71), and Fas sow (33:207);
there are fewer opportunities for leadership qualities to develop —
'DeHaan and Havighurst (5:108), Sumption (10:227), F reeh ill (6:198),
; i
Abraham (2:72), and Fas sow (33:207); increased pressu re and com peti-I
tion may result in the child's becoming an underachiever — Sumption i
I
(10:228), Krueger, Allen, Ebeling and Roberts (28:262), F reeh ill (6:196),
Hollingw orth (8:300), and Fas sow (33:207); ability grouping on a com - j
mon base is im possible since each child may vary widely on different
I
levels of achievem ent — Abraham (2:72); and in certain com m unities it
!
is socially or econom ically unfeasible F reeh ill (6:219), and Abraham
(2:72).
I
Enrichm ent. — What does enrichm ent imply? "Enrichment con
sists in giving the gifted child an opportunity to go deeper or to range
m ore widely than the average child in his intellectual, social, and a rtis
tic experience" (7:20).
: "True enrichm ent widens, deepens, and enhances learning" (10:
171).
I If the aforem entioned ch aracteristics are the ingredients to an
I
enriched curriculum , is it not possible that enrichm ent may occur in a
variety of situations? That is, might not enrichment occur in the regu-
i
lar classroom , the accelerated classroom , the special classroom , or in
the extracurricular activity? The answer is an unquestionable yes.
Enrichment can operate effectively in all classroom arrangem ents.
Specifically, what types of enrichm ent are there? The National
Education A ssociation offers a succinct answer.
j F irst enrichm ent in depth refers to devices which enable a stu- i
, dent to probe m ore deeply into the curricular areas offered than is
I foreseen in the regular program of work. Opportunities are given to
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sp ecialize in a certain activity or work at a more advanced level.
This is also known as intensive or vertical enrichm ent.
Supplementing this is enrichm ent in breadth, which m akes it
possible for gifted children to pursue areas not ordinarily touched Î
upon by the average students in the regular course of study. . . .
This type of program is also known as extensive, lateral, or h ori
zontal enrichm ent. (30:84-85)
The difficult problem regarding enrichm ent revolves about a
sem antic situation. Before one is obliged to evaluate enrichment, one
m ust be cognizant of the sp ecific type of enrichm ent to be em ployed and
the situation being scrutinized.
In the regular classroom , enrichm ent offers the advantages of
little, if any, adm inistrative reorganization and, therefore, is quite
adaptable to schools of all sizes (10:211, 33:202). It is also argued that
since individual differences m ust be m et in any classroom situation,
there is no significant increase in teacher preparation or load. Howev
er, it also creates the disadvantages of possibly inducing underachieve-
ment among the gifted (33:203, 2:91), and creates a wider gap of indi
vidual differences for the teacher to cater to.
In m ost situations, enrichm ent is usually the common fare and
is therefore considered to be concomitant to any type of adm inistrative
procedure.
In evaluating any type of program — acceleration, ability group
ing, or enrichm ent, or a combination of these approaches — it m ust be
rem em bered that there is no single method of attack.
No single method of teaching is n ecessa rily best for all gifted
children. No particular school or classroom organization w ill m eet
all their needs. No clear-cu t personality type makes the best teach
er for the gifted. No sim ple solution suits all schools or communi-
I ties. (2:67)
Definition of Giftedness
I
I
Libraries bulge with verbiage defining giftedness. As one stu
dent so aptly stated: "Those definitions! They're driving me nuts ! I
>vould never have believed there were so many, that they overlapped so
much,: p r th at some were at opposite poles from others. It's im pos
sible to m ake head or tail out of them" (2:21).
i
I Most definitions are limited to performance or potential. The
real problem lies in the distance between the extremes in definition
j
within the realm of performance or potential. One approach advises us
j
to consider any superior performance in a potentially valuable area of
human endeavor as a satisfactory definition of a gifted child (35:62).
|Other approaches, such as those of Terman and Hollingw orth, limit us
to a specific IQ on a designated test or tests.
For the purpose of this study, the gifted child was regarded as
any child who (1) scored at or above 130 on an individual intelligence
I
test such as the Revised Stanford-Binet Scale, Form L-M; or (2) any
child who scored at or above the 98th percentile on a standardized
I
group test of mental ability; and/or (3) any child who is gifted in the
judgments of teachers, psychologists, and school administrators and
supervisors who are familiar with the demonstrated ability of the child.
[These criteria are further expounded upon in the Appendix, within the
I
framework of Article 23. 199.11 of Title 5 of the State of California (15).
Thus, the gifted child in this study refers to the child who has
(demonstrated superior potential or performance in tasks requiring a
high degree of intellectual abstraction. The aforementioned standards
are the bases for recognizing such ability.
-
The Nature of Giftedness !
!
As has already been stated, the view once maintained about the ,
nature of giftedness was that the possessor was an "inspirited" person |
I
who gained his power by the will of a supernatural force. j
I I
; A second view — still maintained in some circles — revolves
I
about the belief that giftedness is based upon biological or genetic
foundations. Leading studies upon which this school of thought is based!
came from the works of men such as Darwin, Galton, Mendel, William
I
James, Cattell, Cox, Yoder, Ellis, and Term an (41:26-27; 6:88; 9:111-
123, 367; 8:4-20). These men, either by means of scientific studies of
genetics or by biographical case histories, attributed giftedness to the
I
working of some sort of biological complexity beyond that of the normal
I
man.
A third view asserts that the environment is the force operant
in the creation of giftedness. Proponents of this theory maintain that
1
giftedness results from nurture or environmental forces. In brief: the
tabula rasa theory of John Locke, where it was believed that the mind
was but a blank slate at birth (9:36); Johann Herbart’s theory of the
i
mind as an apperceptive m ass in which the mind was a type of sponge—
soaking in every experience to help the individual to perceive som e
thing new (9:52); and Strang's view that giftedness is continually elabo
rating itself as the child responds to his environment (40:65).
Currently, there is a trend toward combining beliefs held in the
second and third views, resulting in a happy blending.
i
I "Academic accomplishments depend upon complex interrelation-
1
ships of intelligence, personality, identification with social-class
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J-g
values, peer relationships, parental environment, and school milieu"
(22:423).
I "The social environment in which a child grows has a decisive
influence on the development of any potential talent he may possess"
(5:20).
Today it is maintained that the biological aspects are those
which set the zeniths of performance with the environment as the de-
I
termining force in attainment of these maximums. This is the result ofj
studies which have indicated that the number of gifted is proportionally
higher in environmental situations which are more conducive to the de-
jv^elopment of these gifts whether the environment be that of an upper-
class family, or a state or nation especially sophisticated in the educa
tion of its students.
Cattell tabulated birthplaces for American men of science for
the years 1903 and 1932. In 1903, the place of birth for 123 scien
tists was Massachusetts, in 1932 Massachusetts was the birthplace
for only 72. This drop in proportionate representation was charac
teristic of Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania where the edu
cational facilities had been long established. . . .
Similar conditions prevailed in England where Galton found chances
of eminence in mental work to be four hundred times greater among
children of upper-class parents than those of laborer parents. (6:
99-100)
It must remain implicit that these changes mentioned in the ear-
ier statement above were not solely the result of population changes.
Careful examination reveals that environmental factors were the
stimuli.
Characteristics of the Gifted Child
The most important consideration in a discussion of the charac
teristics of the gifted child is to remember that he is a child first, and
— — ---------------------------------------------------------
gifted second. Also, he is an individual and a comparison of him to any!
other child gifted or otherwise must take into account that individu
al differences do exist. The only significant difference between the ,
gifted child and the non-gifted child is a marked departure in intellectu-j
1 I
al capacity.
! Of utmost importance in the identification of gifted children is '
an awareness of their characteristics at an early age. . Witty provides a
list of characteristics of young children who are intellectually gifted,
which, as a general guide, is quite useful:
1. The early use of a large vocabulary, accurately employed.
2. Language proficiency — the use of phrases and entire sen
tences at a very early age.
3. Keen observation and retention of information about things
observed.
1 4. Interest in or liking for books — later enjoyment of atlases,
I dictionaries, and encyclopedia,
j 5. Early interest in calendars and clocks.
j 6. The ability to attend or concentrate for a longer period than
j is typical of most children.
I 7. Demonstrations of proficiency in drawing, music and other
I art-forms.
I 8. Early discovery of caus e - and- eff e ct relationships.
9. The early development of ability to read.
! 10. The development of varied interests. (48:48-49)
! Probably one of the most distinguishing characteristics of the
gifted child is that he is alert and observant and is constantly trying to
find out the "why?" of any observed phenomenon (30:35).
To provide a clear picture of the gifted child, it is necessary
that a variety of characteristics in a number of areas be considered.
I
The three major areas regarded as important in this study are: (1) the
mental characteristics of the superior child, (2) the physical character
istics of the superior child, and (3) the social and emotional character
istics of the superior child (3:13-33).
Following the guidelines set by Bentley (3:13-33), it was noted
that Scheifele (38:6-7) offers the most comprehensive list of general
I
characteristics of the gifted child.
1. Intellectually, the gifted child, in relation to other children,
tends to:
A. P ossess superior ability in reasoning, generalizing,
dealing with abstractions, comprehending meanings,
thinking logically, and recognizing relationships.
B. Perform highly difficult mental tasks, an ability de
scribed as "power.”
C. Learn more rapidly and easily.
D. Show intellectual curiosity.
E. P ossess superior insight into problems.
F. Have a wider range of interests.
G. Show greatest superiority in reading ability, both in
speed and comprehension; language usage; arithmetical
reasoning; science; literature; and the arts.
H. Do effective work independently.
I. Apply originality and initiative in intellectual tasks.
J. Show less patience with routine procedures and drill.
K. Exhibit alertness, keen observational ability, and quick
response.
L. Show as much unevenness in abilities in the subject-mat
ter areas as other children.
M. Have a longer interest span; show more interest in ab
stract than practical subjects; exhibit greater superiori
ty in attainment in abstract subjects and less in manual
activitie s .
N. Have an interest in the future, a concern with origin,
destiny, and death though unable emotionally to accept
realities of the latter._______ _______------------------------...
y" (Gifted boys excel gifted girls in general information,
( arithmetic, spelling, science, and history; girls over
ten are slightly superior to boys of that age in language
1
2. Physically, the gifted child, in relation to other children,
tends to:
A. Be slightly heavier and taller, and to be heavier in rela
tion to height.
B. Be somewhat stronger and healthier; be well nourished.
C. Be relatively free from nervous disorders.
D. Be a little more advanced in ossification of bones.
E. Reach maturity at an earlier median age.
3. Socially and emotionally, the gifted child, in relation to
i
other children, tends to: 1
A. Show superiority in desirable personality traits; be i
more courteous, cooperative, obedient, willing to take |
suggestions; be better able to get along with others and |
have a keener sense of humor.
B. P ossess a superior power of self -criticism .
C. Exhibit greater trustworthiness when under temptation to
cheat. j
D. Show less inclination to boast or overstate his knowledge!.
E. Receive more opportunities as leader, up to 150 IQ: be~ ’
yond that point, to have ideas and interests that are too !
advanced for his peers; work and play alone more often,
above 160 or 170 IQ.
F. Have the same type of play interests and activities, in
general, but frequently to have play preferences that re
veal a level of interest two or three years beyond his age
norm.
(Level of interest may exceed level of activities actually
engaged in, because the child's motor coordination is
more closely related to chronological age and physical
development to mental maturity.)
G. Show a greater preference for games involving rules and
system s complicated games requiring thinking.
(He has more information about such games also.)
H. Enjoy the same outdoor games which are preferred by
average children.
I. Prefer sedentary, relatively quiet games in the absence
of stimulation from others.
J. Create more imaginary playmates, in the case of the
younger gifted child.
K. Prefer playmates older than him self, children of his own
mental age. (^(38:6-7
A final note of great importance: "there is no single character-
r group of charac
giftedne s s '
istic, or group of characteristics, which is an infallible indication of
Identification of the Gifted Child
I ---------------------------------------------------------------
I The gifted child does not jump out from behind a bush and say
i
Vhere I ami" As Hersey so ably states : "Talent is elusive, fragile,
manifold, fast-moving, luminous, tantalizing, and incredibly beautiful,
like aurora borealis on a cool September night" (24:5).
! Identification is made more difficult by the fact that it is simple
for the gifted child to assume the characteristics of the average or dull
child. But the average or dull child finds it somewhat difficult to as -
i
sume the characteristics of the gifted child in the same degree main
tained by the gifted.
Essentially, as DeHaan and Wilson (19:166) have pointed out,
identification consists of screening and selection. One must first de
termine which children are the better performers and then set about
j
deciding which of these children should receive special attention.
According to Witty (45:269), research workers generally agree
that plans should be made for early identification of the gifted in order
that a long-term program of education may be planned. Terman (12:
L2 1 ), Birch (16:13), and other authorities note that early identification
is imperative if society is to capitalize on the latent abilities of these
pupils.
I Every youngster gives to his parents and his teachers a contin
uous flow of signals by which he expresses himself as a person and
I by which they are expected to understand and recognize him. Those
I skilled in interpreting these signals can usually determine whether
I or not a child is gifted, and can formulate programs designed to help
j him achieve his maximum potential in ways that are good and satis -
I fying to both him and the society in which he lives. The earlier this
identification of giftedness can be made, the better it will be for the
child's subsequent progress. A child whose entire educative career
is directed toward helping him develop his potential fully and realize
his obligations to use his talents for the good of himself and his fe l
low man can go farther faster and with more beneficial results than
the youngster whose giftedness for some reason is not recognized
until he has reached, for example, his junior year in high school.
(10:41)
Intelligence might be compared to an inverted pyramid. The
pointed base of the pyramid coincides with conception for here is the
logical limit of no performance. From that point on the subject in
creases in complexity, in the number of things he knows and does,
and in the difficulty of the tasks possible to him. With increasing
intelligence the pyramid spreads rapidly and becomes more com
plex. The upper reaches are characterized by more creative and
abstract behavior. This is much more difficult to measure than
— ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
simple rote behavior characteristic at lower levels of intelligence.
(6:63) I
Once identified and provided for, these students can utilize their abili-
I
ties in education, government, and industry, to name but a few broad
i
areas of need. i
I ;
The work of those charged with screening and selection has been
; , i
facilitated by the sophistication in testing and measurement during the
I
past several decades. However, one cannot rely upon any single area
of talent or form of measurement, as many leaders would like to do;
that is, if we are to take advantage of the latent talent of thousands of
youngsters. As Woolcock notes:
I
i The range of opportunity will grow from the location of a single
I factor of giftedness— in art, for instance— to the determination of
I general giftedness, as in all subjects. . . . Thus, many single-talent
I or single-ability students are omitted from most present programs.
I (13:32)
I Williams (44:154-156) also noted that identification should seek
to recognize a wide variety of talents and different levels of potential.
Identification should be systematic.
I Scheifele provides the most adequate list of possible avenues
for gathering information about the ability of a pupil:
Personal data (birth, age, etc.)
Physical health (physical examination)
Intellectual ability
Social-personal development (needs, as well as skills already devel
oped)
Emotional maturity
Social history (home, community)
Preschool growth and development
School history
Achievement in major subject-matter areas and special areas
Interests and hobbies
Special abilities (talents)
Out-of-school activities. (38:3)
Scheifele presents a rather broad scope of possible sources of
, — ^ — - 24:
information. But, what procedures are m ost frequently employed in the^
identification of the gifted child in the elementary school? Platt (51:35);
in her survey, lists the following procedures and percentage of fre-
t
jquency:
Procedure Per Cent
1. Group Intelligence Tests 28.0
2. Teacher Judgment 21.0
3. Individual Intelligence Tests 17.0
4. Achievement Tests 17.0
5. Parent Observation 10.0
6. Physical Characteristics 3.5
7. School Records 3.5
Again, before any program for the gifted can be instituted, the
prospective participants must be selected. The earlier the identifica-
1
tion, the greater the possibility that the needs of the gifted student, the
society, and the civilization will be met.
CHAPTER III
FINDINGS OF PREVIOUS STUDIES
A review of the findings of previous studies conducted during the
past decade is presented in this chapter. This presentation is made to
allow the reader an opportunity to compare the findings of the present
survey with those made in recent years.
The Reed Study (36)
The Guidance Committee of the California Supervisors A ssocia
tion, under the direction of Harold J. Reed of the Guidance Committee,
j
conducted an opinion survey on a gifted pupil program. This survey
was conducted during the summer and fall of 1957. Hence, many of the
I
respondents completed the survey prior to the advent of Sputnik I, while
others participated after the launching of Sputnik I.
i
j The total number of returns tabulated by Reed was 405. These
were analyzed within the confines of 11 categories: superintendent,
elementary principal, high school principal, elementary teacher, high
school teacher, psychologist, curriculum co-ordinator, counselor, par
ent, layman, and trustee.
I
j The survey consisted of 46 forced choice questions (agree, dis
agree, and cannot say) and 4 multiple - choice questions,
j The criteria for significance, selected arbitrarily and used by
Reed, were as follows:
! ______________________________________________ 2 5 _______________________________________________
1. Strong agreement or disagreement could be said to exist if
five or more categories of respondents used the "agree" or
’disagree" response 75% or more on any one item .
",
2. The use of "?" response could be said to be significant if
five or more categories of respondents used the "?", or
cannot say, response 30% or more on any one item.
3. Ambivalence could be said to be significant if five or more
categories of respondents used both the "agree" and "dis
agree" responses no more than 40% or less than 25% on any
one item. This would mean that "?" response was used at
least 20% but no more than 50% of the time. (36:14)
The succeeding are several areas Reed found to be significant:
Strong Agreement
1. Philosophy or point of view.
a. The school is obligated to identify the abilities of every
child and to provide programs for his maximum develop
ment. (All categories except parents — 69%).
b. Possibilities for the development of human intelligence
are far greater than supposed in earlier times (all cate
gories except high school principals and psychologists).
c. Gifted students have above average ability and they
should therefore accept responsibility for above average
contributions to society (all categories except psycholo
gists and laymen).
d. The school often cannot meet adequately both the needs
of society and of the individual (all categories except
specialists and laymen).
2. No strong agreement on identification or characteristics.
3. Services.
a. Society is neglecting the needs of the gifted by providing
only minimum financial resources (all categories).
b. Teachers would meet the needs of the gifted more ade
quately if they had smaller classes (all except laymen
and trustees — 69% and 74%).
c. Schools with special programs for the gifted should be
reimbursed for excess costs the same as for mentally
retarded classes (except curriculum workers — 68%,
_______ and superintendents — 71%).
2 7
d. The course of study should not be restricted to a formal
pattern, but the result of teacher-pupil planning (all cate
gories except administrators and trustees; high school
principals and teachers, psychologists, counselors, par
ents and laymen ranged from 56% to 74%).
Strong Disagreement
1. No strong disagreements were noted under philosophy,
identification, or characteristics.
2. Services.
a. Teachers can afford to get out of the way and let the
gifted develop their own interests. All categories dis
agreed except two with 73% and 74%.
b. The gifted should be allowed more freedom in attendance
than other students. All categories disagreed.
c. Segregation of the gifted is an undemocratic process.
I Superintendents, elementary principals and teachers,
curriculum workers, and laymen disagreed less than the
criterion. (36:14-16)
j It is also of interest to note that when offered a choice of pro
cedures to meet the needs- of the gifted student, 26% selected segrega
tion, 8% acceleration, and 66% enrichment (36:13). Thus, it appears as
though acceleration as a form of meeting the gifted students’ needs was
reiecte’ â in the Reed survey.
I k
I
I The Kincaid Study (50)
In a dissertation, "Objectives of Education for the Gifted Chil
dren in California Elementary Schools," Kincaid surveyed supervisors,
principals, teachers, guidance directors, parents and students. With
I
regard to attainment, of objectives of education by gifted children, he
found that:
i
1. In general, the objectives of education for gifted children do
not differ materially from those for all children.
2. In general, the gifted child should attain most objectives of
2 8
education at an earlier age than other children.
I 3. In general, gifted children should attain most objectives of
i education to a greater degree than other children. (50:303)
Kincaid also found that the majority of all groups surveyed be-
I I
lieved that enrichment in regular classes should be utilized to meet the |
needs of the gifted child. The majority of his sample also believed that
enrichment through special classes should not be utilized for gifted
1
children. The only deviation here was found in his parent and student
samples, which reacted more favorably to enrichment through special
classes than did other groups (50:304-305).
I Kincaid also established that while a large majority of his sam
ple believed that enrichment through special interest groups should be
utilized, only a slight majority of the special programs for gifted chil
dren in California elementary schools utilized this type of enrichment
^50:305).
I With regard to acceleration, Kincaid noted that a marked major
ity of principals and a large majority of students favored acceleration
for the gifted child. Teachers, guidance directors, and parents favored
1
some acceleration but the majority of supervisors did not favor accele
ration at all.
The Sea Study (52)
Sea, in her survey of reactions of gifted high school pupils to
elementary education, found that in her sample one-half of the gifted
group had been accelerated one sem ester or more in the elementary
schools.
Many of them felt they had been doubly handicapped by this ad
vancement. The academic handicap was immediate and temporary
- " - 29
and only a matter of adjustment to bridge the gap between the two I
, grades. Later on they experienced a social handicap because they |
j were physically immature in comparison with their peers. However]
I the majority of these superior pupils believed that acceleration had |
f been helpful to them in many ways, especially that it had saved them|
: from boredom; had stimulated their initiative; and had also devel- I
I oped their self-confidence. (52:194) j
j With regard to special classes. Sea noted that the gifted stu
dents in her study who had had the advantage of special class experi
ences made the largest percentage of high grades. This Sea felt was
proof that such classes had desirable aspects and should be more care
fully evaluated (52:195).
I
1
! The Sm ith Study (53)
Smith's study dealt with professional and lay attitudes toward
the education of the intellectually gifted high school student. Although
preferences for secondary level students may vary from those for the
I
elementary level student, there was significance in noting general
trends.
I
Smith acknowledged that there was strong evidence that most of
the samples she surveyed did not want gifted pupils set apart too much
from students of lesser intellectual ability. She noted that there was
I
unanimous disapproval of unlimited acceleration and complete segrega
tion (53:104). Her sample also endorsed more academic testing (53:
147) and the standard five-point grading scale (53:149) as a means for
academic evaluation of gifted students. Her respondents were in ac
cord in noting that these students should be given more intensive train
ing in the discipline of proper study and research (53:165).
I
I
------ 30
The State Study (21)
I The State Study was authorized under the direction of Roy E.
Simpson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction. It was a study de
signed to evaluate several administrative procedures for meeting the
!
heeds of the gifted children in the State of California. It encompassed a
yariety of program s enrichment, acceleration, etc. — at several
ev els.
In evaluating the specific programs involved in the State Study,
it was found that the children all showed significant academic gains
over their counter or control groups. Teachers and consultants all felt
that the particular program that they were concerned with was of bene
fit to both teachers and students. In general, teachers and consultants
listed the following as the benefits and handicaps of this program for
i
the elementary level:
Pro
1. Learned new teaching techniques
2. Profited from use of extra materials
3. Better understanding of the gifted child's needs
4. Felt that their efforts were beneficial
Con
1. Large classes handicapped teachers’ efforts
2. Need for more in-service meetings
3. Lack of clerical help
4. Pressure of time
5. Need for narrower ability range (in heterogeneous classes)
6. Felt that there was a need for more coordinated planning.
(21 :181 - 198 )
Comments on Previous Studies
It was interesting to note that in each of these surveys — all
conducted during the past decade — there was no one set trend. In one
survey findings showed acceleration to be looked upon with favor (52),
— —
while in another survey, it was completely rejected (36). |
! Reed (36) and Smith (53) found disapproval of complete segrega-|
I
tion, but Sea (52), on the basis of her findings, favored special classes |
for the gifted.
' There seemed to be one rather onerous problem related to the '
evaluation of the programs in the State Study. For the most part, the
teachers and consultants involved indicated that they felt quite positive
toward the program and its results. Exceptions were noted mostly in
the areas of administrative components, e.g., classes were too large,
sufficient materials were lacking, etc. However, tests did bear out the
fact that these students showed academic improvement.
But one wonders if some sort of Hawthorne Effect may not have
Deen experienced in this study.
The consultants spoke of the "personal lift" and self-im prove
ment which they derived from the program. They sensed a great in
crease in pupil knowledge as a result of participation and stated that
' their own teaching skill had improved. (21:194)
; Was it not possible that the students involved in such programs
were also experiencing some sort of Hawthorne Effect, e.g., the feeling
of receiving special treatment, therefore putting greater effort into
I
their school-related activities?
I This does not mean that the results of the State Study should be
negated, but rather, future analyses should delve more deeply into the
reasons for the alleged successes.
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE STUDY
An analysis of the findings of this survey is reported in this
chapter.
(
t A questionnaire and an introductory letter were sent to 50 ad-
j
ministrators and 50 teachers in the southwestern section of Los Angeles
I ' *
County. A total of 44 administrators and 39 teachers responded to the
random survey. The respondents were divided into two major catego
ries : teachers and administrators. Teachers were considered to be
those actively engaged in actual teaching, therefore responsible for the
true classroom instruction of pupils. Administrators were considered
to be those individuals charged with over-all responsibility for the in
struction of pupils.
I ^
I The results were tabulated and categorized, with each choice
^given a per cent rank to the nearest whole as compared with the catego-
I
ry sample. Analysis of the questionnaire was presented, question by
^question, so as to facilitate the determination of sim ilarities and differ
ences between the two groups. (See Table 1.)
Analysis of the Findings with Regard to
Specific Questions
Special provisions. — It was found that there was a consensus of
opinion (99%) in the belief that there should be special provisions for
the academically talented student to receive special academic attention.
' ____________________ 32_________________________________________
'3 3
TABLE 1
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
Teachers
Yes
No
98%
2 %
Administrators
T Ô Ô % Yes
No 0 %
2 .
!
3.
4.
10
67
20
42
25
80
31
8
17
0
7
22
5
48
50
95
15
18
30 I
10
45 53
43 54 23 23 50
53
50 50
Rank
Total Total
24 14 50 32
42 34 22 73 70
40 10 14 37 c.
64 24 74 30 30
e.
63 43
Social
h. Studies
(2 )
300 300
Job Distribution
N = 83 Superintendents
Asst. "
Supervisors
Currie. Coord.
Teachers
Principals
Vice "
33
------------ : 3 4
Types of provisions. — Enrichment was looked upon by both j
teachers (42%) and administrators (48%) as the best approach for meet-
i
ing the needs of the mentally gifted minor. However, it was found that \
teachers preferred ability grouping (31%) as an administrative device, j
Administrators tended to place more emphasis on individualization in j
the classroom (30%) than did teachers (17%). Acceleration was the ap
proach least favored by both teachers (10%) and administrators (7%).
!
I Type of ability grouping schedule. — If some form of ability
grouping were instituted, teachers (67%) would endorse a full-time spe-
1
cial class conducted during the regular school day. Administrators
|(50%) felt it should be conducted on a part-time basis during the regu
lar school day. Only slightly less than 20% of the total respondents felt
that it should be conducted on a part-time basis either before or after
the regular school day.
Type of class period. Both groups indicated strong preference
■for discussion-type class periods (teachers 80%, administrators 95%),
I
as opposed to a lecture-type class period. Several respondents indi
cated a need for both approaches, with the latter receiving the stronger
em phasis.
i
Amount of homework. Most respondents (teachers 61%, ad
ministrators 53%) indicated that these students should receive a sim i
lar amount of homework as compared with their peers. More adminis
trators (45%) than teachers (36%) felt that these students should receive
more homework than their peers. Neither group favored the practice of
giving these students less homework than their peers.
Type of grading system . — Teachers (54%) and administrators
|(50%) indicated a preference for maintaining the standard five-point '
I I
grading scale system as a means of evaluating the academic achieve
ment of these students. Teachers were evenly divided (23% v. 23%) as j
! I
to whether a three-point grading scale system or a pass or fail gradingi
! _ :
scale should be employed. Administrators rejected a pass or fail sy s
tem (7%), but indicated preference for a three-point grading scale sys-
i
tem (43%).
I
■ Amount of academic testing. — Teachers (61%) and administra-
i
tors (53%) tended to favor subjecting the mentally gifted minor to ap
proximately the same amount of academic testing as their peers. Both
teachers (8%) and administrators (11%) did not feel that these students
should be subjected to less academic testing than their peers. More
administrators (36%) than teachers (31%) indicated that these students
i
should receive more academic testing than their peers.
I
j Training of teachers. — Teachers clearly indicated a preference
!
(81 % ) for having specially trained classroom teachers for the gifted.
|The administrators were evenly divided as to whether a regular cla ss
room teacher or a specially trained classroom teacher should instruct
the academically talented pupil.
j
Areas which should receive the most em phasis. The respond
ents were asked to rank in order of preference the three areas that
they felt should receive the greatest amount of emphasis in a program
'geared to the academically talented student. (See Table 1, page 33, for
specific ratings, e.g., 1, 2, and 3 for each area.) It was found that the
four m ost common areas to receive a rank of 1, 2, or 3 in order of
preference were: FOR TEACHERS— ^Science, Mathematics, English,
I
and General procedures of study and research; FOR ADMINISTRATORS
— Mathematics, Science, General procedures of study and research,
and English.
Respondent comments. — Comments were few and were catego-
I
rized into the following areas: (1) that the specific subject area for
[emphasis should be governed by the interests and abilities of the pupils
involved in such a program; (2) there is a need for smaller classes if
Lhe mentally gifted minors' needs are to be met; (3) each situation is
I
different and specific suggestions would depend upon an examination of
the total situation; (4) Social Studies should be stressed, e.g., stress of
the social sciences; (5) Physical Education should be included to main
tain a balance between the physical and mental aspects of the individual;
jand (6) homework should be geared to research work which would re-
|quire investigation, synthesis, and abstraction.
Composition of Respondent Groups
The total number of respondents was 83. Of this total, the fol
lowing is a breakdown into specific position: Teachers----39, Princi
p als 33, Vice Principals—- 1, Superintendents — 3, Assistant Superin-
|tendents 1, Supervisors—- 3, and Curriculum coordinators — 3.
Years of Experience as an Educator
A frequency distribution was composed with the educators' ex-
Derience being compiled in intervals of five.
37
Years Teachers Administrators
1 - 5 20 4
6 -10 10 12
11-15 6 21
16-20 3 3
21 or more 0
N = 39
4
N-= 44 Total = 83
î Hence it is noted that most of the teachers had an average of
6-10 years of experience, while the administrators had an average of
I
11-15 years of experience as an educator.
I
I CHAPTER V
i
; SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
I AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I
Recapitulation of the Problem
' ■ I
Statement of the problem. — It was the purpose of this study (1) [
I i
to review available literature, (2) to investigate and determine whether
or not there was need on the part of professional educators to make
special provisions to accommodate the mentally gifted minor, (3) to de
termine certain prevalent attitudes and opinions of a sample of educa
tors toward aspects of procedure and content of a program for the men-
! '
tally gifted minor, and (4) to obtain answers to questions from a sample
I %
of professional educators.
i
I
I Procedure used. — A questionnaire and an introductory letter
were sent to 50 administrators and 50 teachers in the southwestern
section of Los Angeles County. A total of 44 administrators and 39
teachers responded to this random survey. The respondents were di
vided into two major categories: teachers and administrators. Teach-
I
ers were considered to be those actively engaged in actual teaching,
therefore responsible for the true classroom instruction of pupils. Ad
ministrators were considered to be those individuals charged with
over-all responsibility for the instruction of pupils.
j The questions chosen for the questionnaire were selected on the
I
' ________________________________________ 38_______________________________________
basis of issues most frequently discussed in the literature and by ad
ministrators and teachers in private conferences.
) i I
j V The results were tabulated and categorized with each choice i
^ I
given a per cent rank to the nearest whole as compared with the cate go-
\ ' :
ry sample. Analysis of the questionnaire, for the purposes of this se c
tion, waa made on the basis of the following areas: special provisions,
! ' ' ■
administrative practices, teacher qualifications, classroom procedures,
i .
program content, and comments. The results were subjected to only i
one kind of mathematical analysis, that of per cent.
Summary of the Findings
Special provisions. It was found that ther'e was a consensus
i ■ ^ .
(99%) in the belief that there should be provisions for the academically
I ^ ■
talented student to receive special academic attention.
I -Administrative practices. — There was no consensus of opinion
as to what specific administrative approach was best for meeting the
needs of the mentally gifted minor. Enrichment was looked upon by
teachers (42%) and administrators (48%) as the best approach.
I ^
I Teachers indicated a preference for ability grouping (31%). Ad
ministrators (30%) preferred individualization in the regular classroom
I Acceleration was rejected by both groups in this sample, with
I
ess than 9% of the total respondent group in favor of this procedure.
If some form of ability grouping were instituted, teachers fa
vored either a full-time special class (67%) or a part-time special
I ' '
class (25%) conducted during the course of the regular school day. Ad-
i
ministrators favored a part-time special class (50%) or a full-time
4 C T
special class (22%) conducted during the course of the regular school
'day.
I Both groups rejected employing ability grouping as an extracur
ricular aspect of the child’s academic education.
Teacher qualifications. — Teachers (81%) clearly indicated a
consensus of opinion for having specially trained classroom teachers
for the gifted. Administrators were evenly divided on whether the reg
ular classroom teacher or a specially trained teacher should be em
ployed to teach the gifted.
Classroom procedures.— A consensus of both respondent groups
88%) indicated a preference for a discuss ion-type class period as op
posed to a lecture-type period. The comment section of the survey
yielded several comments favoring both approaches with more empha
sis placed upon discussion-type periods.
There was mixed opinion dealing with the amount of homework
gifted children should receive. In order of preference, both groups felt
that these students should either receive the same amount of homework
j
(57%) or more (41%) homework than their peers. Less than 3% of the
total respondent group felt that these children should receive leès
homework than their peers.
j A majority (52%) of both groups favored continuance of the
standard five-point grading scale system as a means of evaluating the
academic achievement of these students. As an alternative, adminis
trators (43%) tended to favor a three-point grading scale system and
rejected a pass or fail system (7%). Teachers were evenly divided on
incorporation of a three-point grading scale system or a pass or fail ^
system (23% v. 23%). |
I Both respondent groups (57%) indicated that they favored sub-
1
jecting the mentally gifted minor to approximately the same amount of |
academic testing as their peers. The second choice was for subjecting
I
these students to more testing than their peers (34%). Neither group of
respondents preferred subjecting these students to less academic test
ing than their peers.
I
I
I Program content. — In order of preference, teachers felt that
English (1, 32%), Mathematics (2, 42%), and Science (3, 39%) should be
emphasized in a program geared to the academically talented student.
îAdministrators felt that General procedures of study and research (1,
^43% ), Mathematics (2, 34%), and Science (3, 30%) should be emphasized
in a program geared to the academically talented student.
I The four categories to receive the largest per cent of respond-
!
ent votes for the three rank positions were: TEACHERS— Science
I
,(74%), Mathematics (70%), English (61%), and General procedures of
study and research (56%); ADMINISTRATORS — Mathematics (7 3%),
^Science (64%), General procedures of study and research (6 3% ), and
English (50%).
I Comments. — Comments were few and were categorized into the
^•following areas: (1) that the specific subject area for emphasis should
be governed by the interests and abilities of the pupils involved in such
a program; (2) there is a need for smaller classes if the mentally
gifted m inors’ needs are to be met; (3) each situation is different and
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' . . . i
specific suggestions would depend upon an examination of the total situ-j
ation; (4) Social Studies should be stressed, e.g., stress of the social I
(
sciences; (5) Physical Education should be included to maintain a bal
ance between the physical and mental aspects of the individual; and (6)
homework should be geared to research work which would require in
vestigation, synthesis, and abstraction.
Conclusions
The conclusions drawn in this section were based upon the re
sponses to the. questionnaire distributed in the survey.
Special provisions. — Educators, by their consensus of choice,
indicated an awareness of the need for the mentally gifted minor to re
ceive more than the common fare of education. The results appeared
to be a manifestation of the knowledge that gifted students need to be
challenged if both they and society are to utilize their talents.
Administrative practices. — Enrichment was looked upon by both
spondent groups (45%) as the best approach for meeting the needs of
the mentally gifted minor. However, this could hardly be recognized as
a true majority in light of the fact that it was the response of less than
one-half of the total respondent vote.
Teachers indicated that ability grouping was their second pref-
jerence. The probable reason for this was that ability grouping would
yield a much narrower range; therefore, it would be less difficult to ad
minister to the needs of students in such an arrangement.
Administrators indicated a preference for individualization in
the regular classroom (30%) with apparent cognizance that this type of
re
—
provision would require a minimum of administrative and budgetary al
lowances. This finding also proved to be parallel with the current ad
ministrative trend of encouraging individualization of instruction when
ever possible rather than creating a myriad of grouping situations.
I
I Apparently, although acceleration requires a minimum of ad-
i
I
ministrative action, it was felt that the negative attributes of accelera
tion weighed too heavy. Hence, this sample rejected acceleration with a
total less than 9% of the entire respondent group in favor of this pro
cedure.
Teacher endorsement of ability grouping on a full-time or part-
time basis was in apparent accord with their selection of ability group
ing as the second most favored approach for meeting the academic
I
needs of the gifted child. Teachers (8%) rejected ability grouping on an
extracurricular activity basis.
j Administrators indicated a preference for enrichment or indi
vidualization in the regular classroom . Thus, it would be expected that
they would feel that if ability grouping were instituted, it should be in-
I
troduced as an extracurricular program. This was not the case. Ad-
I
ministrators (72%) favored either full-tim e or part-time ability group
i e
ings during the course of the regular school day. This indicated ap
parent ambivalence on the part of administrators.
Teacher qualifications. — Teachers (81%) clearly showed a con
sensus of opinion for having specially trained classroom teachers for
the gifted. This finding was regarded as an indicator that teachers felt
that they could not sufficiently meet the needs of the gifted child with
the training they now possess. This finding also had ramifications
.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^--------------- 4 4
i 'j
when related to a previous question in which teachers selected ability j
I ^ I
grouping as preferable to individualization in the regular classroom: I
teachers want special groups, but feel that special training is a pre
requisite for teaching in such a situation.
Administrators again indicated ambivalence by their division in
thought regarding teacher qualifications. If individualization in the reg
ular classroom was a preferred approach, then the administrators
|vould have been expected to indicate that the regular classroom teacher
I
V^as capable of instructing a gifted group. However, administrators, by
their split choice, showed a degree of undecidedness.
I
I Classroom procedures. — A consensus of both respondent groups
(88%) indicated a preference for a discussion-type class period as op
posed to a lecture-type period. This finding is an apparent outgrowth
I
of the trend toward encouraging children to learn by participation
rather than by observation.
j Both respondent groups felt that the gifted child should either
receive the same amount of homework or more than their peers. This
I
y/ould negate the feeling that gifted students should be allowed extra
I
time to develop new interests during their leisure time.
The rejection of evaluating gifted students on a pass or fail
oasis and the acceptance of maintaining the standard five-point grading
scale system or the incorporation of a three-point scale system had
significance. This finding served as a manifestation of the belief that
the gifted child should not be set too far apart from students of lesser
intellectual ability. This point was also implied in the rejection of sub
jecting these students to less academic testing than their peers.
4 5
Program content. — There was no consensus regarding the spe
cific rank preferred for any given subject area. Hence, it was som e
what difficult to express an indication of a trend in terms of how much
stress each specific area should receive. However, upon examination
I
of the specific subject areas in terms of the total percentage of re-
I
spondent votes for the three possible rank positions, a trend was evi-
I
dent.
I Teachers and administrators reflected the strong emphasis so
ciety has placed upon Mathematics and Science. Science received the
i
greatest consensus in the teacher group and Mathematics appeared the
I
second strongest. Mathematics received the greatest consensus in the
administrator group, while Science appeared the second strongest.
j
j Both groups recognized the importance of General procedures of
study and research, and English. This tended to reaffirm the selection
of Mathematics and Science: since General procedures of study and re
search, and English, are the foundation for more involved study in Sci
ence and Mathematics, this result was viewed as further evidence of
the weight given to the more technical subjects in the curriculum.
Comments . — The comments were few and brief. In essence,
they infer the following: the need to give gifted students broader back
ground in the humanities, the need to allow the curriculum to evolve out
of the students' interests and abilities, the need to stress physical edu
cation in order to maintain a balance between the physical and mental
aspects of the individual, and the need for smaller classes to allow for
more careful treatment of each student and his wants.
_ — -— -— ^
Recommendations
1. Special provisions should be made for the mentally gifted
minor in the elementary school. However, the specific approaches to
be enacted should be incorporated only after the total local situation
i
has been carefully analyzed and evaluated.
2. The areas in which there appeared to be no common agree
ments should provide the bases for future study and research in an at
tempt to clarify these issues.
j 3. The areas in which there appeared to be common agreements
should provide a foundation for the institution of special provisions,
j 4. More careful examination and evaluation is needed in schools
I
^hich have already made special provisions for the academically tal
ented student.
I 5. Future studies are necessary to determine whether or not
the differences in point of view among the two groups studied in this
oroject were significant and whether or not reconciliation is possible.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
1. Abraham, Willard. A Guide for the Study of Exceptional Children.
Massachusetts: Porter Sargent, Publisher, 1956.
2. ___________. Common Sense About Gifted Children. New York: Har-
; per and Brothers, 1958.
I ■ I
, 3. Bentley, John Edward. Superior Children. New York: W. W. Nor- |
ton and Company, Inc., 1937.
I 4. Cruickshank, William M., and Johnson, Orville G. Education of
' Exceptional Children and Youth. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1959.
j 5. He Ha an, Robert F., and Havighurst, Robert J. Educating Gifted
I Children. Chicago: The University of Chicago P ress, 1961.
6. Freehill, Maurice F. Gifted Children; Their Psychology and Edu
cation. New York: The Macmillan Company, Inc., 1961.
I 7. Havighurst, Robert J., Stivers, Eugene, and DeHaan, Robert F. A
I Survey of the Education of Gifted Children. Chicago: The Uni-
I versity of Chicago P ress, 1955.
j 8. Hollingworth, Leta A. Gifted Children: Their Nature and Nurture.
^ New York: The Macmillan Company, Inc., 1926.
I 9. Murphy, Gardner. Historical Introduction to Modern Psychology.
1 New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1949.
10. Sumption, Merle R., and Lue eking, Evelyn M. Education of the
Gifted. New York: The Ronald P ress Company, I960.
11. Terman, Lewis M., and others. Genetic Studies of Genius. Palo
Alto, California: Stanford University P ress, 1925.
12. Terman, Lewis M., and Oden, Melita H. The Gifted Child Grows
Up. Palo Alto, California: Stanford University ,Press, 1947.
13. Woolcock, Cyril William. The Education of the Gifted. M orris
town, New Jersey: Silver Burdett Company, 1961.
_48_
4 9
Articles and Periodicals
■ 14. Abraham, Willard. "The Bright Child in the Elementary Class-
1 room," National Education Association Journal, March, 1959,
] pp. 57-58.
I
'15. Administrative Code. Title V (Education), Article 2 3, Sections
199.10-199.14. Sacramento, California: Office of Administra
tive Procedure, Department of Finance, February 3, 1962.
16. Birch, Jack W., and McWilliams, Earl M. Challenging Gifted Chil-
I dren. Bloomington, Illinois: Public School Publishing Company,
t 1955.
I ' : ;
|17. Bish, Charles E. "The Academically Talented," National Educa-
■ tion Association Journal, February, 1961, pp. 33-37.
18. Bristow, William H., Craig, Marjorie L., Hallock, Grace T., and
Laycock, S. R. "Identifying Gifted Children," The Gifted Child.
The American Association for Gifted Children. Boston: D. C.
Heath and Company, 1951. Pp.^ 10-19.
19. DeHaan, Robert F ., and Wilson, Robert C. "Identification of the
Gifted," Education for the Gifted. Fifty-seventh Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago:
j National Society for the Study of Education, 1958. Pp. 166-192.
'20. Educational Policies Commission. Education of the Gifted. Wash
ington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1950.
21. Educational Programs for Gifted Pupils. Sacramento, California:
California State Department of Education, 1961.
22. Fliegler, Louis A., and Bish, Charles E. "Summary of Research
on the Academically Talented Student," Review of Educational
Research, XXIX (1959), 408-450.
23. Frazier, Alexander. "New Expectations and the Elementary
School," National Education Association Journal, November,
1958, 47:546-548.
24. Havighurst, Robert J., Hersey, John, Meister, Morris, Cornog,
William H., and Terman, Lewis M. "The Importance of Educa
tion for the Gifted, Education for the Gifted. Fifty-seventh
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education,
Part II. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education,
1958. Pp. 3-20.
25. Hobbs, Nicholas. "Community Recognition of the Gifted," The
Gifted Child. The American Association for Gifted Children.
Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1951. Pp. 163-184.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Justman, Joseph. "Obstacles to the Improvement of Teaching in |
Classes for the Gifted," Journal of the International Council for j
Exceptional Children, 18:41-45, October, 1951. I
27. Keliher, Alice V. "Talks with Teachers," Grade Teacher, EXXIX j
(February, 1962), 133-134. |
28. Krueger, Louise, Allen, W. Paul, Ebeling, Elsa, and Roberts,
[ Robert H. "Administrative Problems in Educating Gifted Chil-
1 dren," The Gifted Child. The American Association for Gifted
! Children. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1951. Pp. 257-266
I
2 9 . Lee, Dr. Edwin A. "Are Crash Programs the Answer ?" Calif or -
j nia Parent-Teacher, 34:16-17, August, 1958.
30. National Education Association. "Administration: Procedures and
I School Practices for the Academically Talented Student in the
' Secondary School," National Education Association and the Na-
! tional Association of Secondary-School Principals. Washington,
I D. C.: National Education Association, I960.
:31. Norris, Dorothy E., and others. "Programs in the Elementary
i Schools," Education for the Gifted. Fifty-seventh Yearbook of
! the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chi
cago: National Society for the Study of Education, 1958. Pp.
i 222 - 262 .
32. Palo Alto School District. The Gifted Child: A Handbook for
; Teachers and Administrators. Palo Alto, California, 1955.
33. Pas sow, A. Harry. "Enrichment of Education for the Gifted," Edu-
I cation for the Gifted. Fifty-seventh Yearbook of the National
; Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: National
j Society for the Study of Education, 1958. Pp. 193-221.
|34. ___________. "Our Schools Must Discover and Use to the Maximum
Each Child's Talents," New York State Education, XLIX (Janu
ary, 1962), 17-18.
35. Pritchard, Miriam C. "The Contributions of Leta S. Hollingworth
to the Study of Gifted Children," The Gifted Child. The A m eri
can Association for Gifted Children. Boston: D. C. Heath and
Company, 1951. Pp. 47-85.
36. Reed, Harold J. "Opinion Survey on Gifted Pupil Program," Cali-
fornia Journal for Instructional Improvement, II (May, 1959),
13-17.
37. Ryan, W. Carson, Strang, Ruth, and Witty, Paul. "The Teacher of
Gifted Children," The Gifted Child. The American Association
for Gifted Children. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1951.
Pp. 106-130.
54
38. Scheifèle, Marian. The Gifted Child in the Regular Classroom .
I New York: Bureau of Publication, Teachers' College, Columbia
I University, 1953.
39. Strang, Ruth. "Mental Hygiene of Gifted Children," The Gifted
Child. The American Association for Gifted Children. Boston:
D. C. Heath and Company, 1951. Pp. 131-162.
40. ___________. "The Nature of Giftedness," Education for the Gifted.
Fifty-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, Part II. Chicago: National Society for the Study of
Education, 1958. Pp. 64-86.
41. Tannenbaum, Abraham J. "History of Interest in the Gifted," Edu-
\ cation for the Gifted. Fifty-seventh Yearbook of the National
' Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: National
Society for the Study of Education, 1958. Pp. 21-38.
[ 42. Terman, Lewis M., and Oden, Melita H. "The Stanford Studies of
the Gifted," The Gifted Child. The American Association for
Gifted Children. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1951. Pp.
20-46.
43. Whipple, G. M. (ed.). Report of the Society's Committee on the
Education of Gifted Children. Twenty-third Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Blooming
ton, Illinois: National Society for the Study of Education, 1924.
44. Williams, Clifford W. "Characteristics and Objectives of a Pro-
I gram for the Gifted," Education for the Gifted. Fifty-seventh
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education,
j Part II. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education,
I 1958. Pp. 147-165.
I
,45. Witty, Paul. "The Education of Gifted Children and Youth— Sum-
I mary and Recommendations," The Gifted Child. The American
j Association for Gifted Children. Boston: D. C. Heath and Com
pany, 1 9 5 1 . Pp. 267-276.
46. ___________. "Nature and Extent of Educational Provisions for the
Gifted Pupil," The Gifted Child. The American Association for
Gifted Children. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1951. Pp.
185-209.
47. ___________. "Progress in the Education of the Gifted," The Gifted
Child. The American Association for Gifted Children. Boston:
D. C. Heath and Company, 1951. Pp. 1-9-
48. ___________. "Who Are the Gifted?" Education for the Gifted. Fifty-
seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Educa
tion, Part II. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Educa-
_______tipn, 1958. Pp. 41-63.___________________________________________________
-------------------------- ------------ — ------------------------------------------------------52',
4 9 . Woolcock, Cyril William. "Needs of Gifted and Talented Students, " 1
School and Society, 18:413-415, November 5, I960.
Unpublished Materials
50. Kincaid, Donald J. "Objectives of Education for Gifted Children in
California Elementary Schools." Unpublished Doctoral D isser
tation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1956.
51. Platt, Janet Ann. "A Survey of Various Means of Identifying Gifted
I Children." Unpublished Master's Project, University of South
ern California, Los Angeles, I960.
52. Sea, Marcella Ryser. "Reactions of Gifted High School Pupils to
; Elementary Education." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
I University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1952.
^ 53. Smith, Gjertrud Hjorth. "Professional and Lay Attitudes Toward
j the Education of the Intellectually Gifted High School Student."
j Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern Cali-
; fornia, Los Angeles, 1959-
APPENDIX
May 23, 1962
I
Dear Educator:
I
Recent years have seen a marked increase in concern regarding the
educational provisions made for the gifted child. We in California have
been provided with further impetus legislative enactments during the
last session of the Legislature have allocated funds for the identifica
tion of the gifted child. But, identification without objectives is value
less.
' :
I ■
The term gifted, as it is applied in this letter and questionnaire, refers !
to students with I.Q.'s of 130 or above, as delimited in recent legisla
tion regarding the mentally gifted minor.
|The enclosed questionnaire is an attempt to survey certain prevalent
attitudes and opinions regarding the mentally gifted minor and provi
sions for him in the elementary schools of California. The responses
to these questions will be compiled and analyzed as a part of a Master's
Project at the University of Southern California.
it is with great awareness of your limited time and additional responsi
bilities regarding the closing of school that I write this letter. Your
time and effort will be greatly appreciated.
L
jThank you for,your cooperation.
I Sincerely,
Howard B. Weithorn
P.S. It will only take
1 a few minutes.
.5.4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5'5
SURVEY ON THE MENTALLY GIFTED MINOR
i '
Î 1. Should there be a provision for the academically talented student to'
j receive special attention? Yes ( ) No ( ) |
1 !
P le a s e Indicate Which Choice You F e e l Is Most j
A dv isable : i
(
I 2. Gifted children's needs should be met through _____
j a. acceleration
I b. enrichment
I c. ability grouping
1 d. individualization in the regular classroom
3. if some form of ability grouping were instituted, it should_______
a. be during the course of the regular school day in a full-time
special class.
b. be during the course of the regular school day in a part-time
class for which the child would be released in order to attend.
c. be conducted before the regular school day begins.
d. be conducted at the close of the regular school day.
1. Class periods should be essen tia lly _______
a. lecture-type periods
b. discussion-type periods
! 5. These students should be given_______
I a. less homework than their peers.
j b. regular homework load as compared with their peers.
I c. ' more homework than their peers.
6. These students should be graded o n _______
a. the standard five-point grading scale system.
b. a three-point grading scale system.
c. a pass or fail basis grading scale.
7. These students should be subjected t o _______
a. less academic testing than their peers.
b. approximately the same amount of academic testing as their
peers.
c. more academic testing than their peers.
Teachers of the gifted should be _______
a. regular classroom teachers.
b. specially trained classroom teachers.
Please rank (1, 2, and 3) the three areas you feel are most prefer
able for emphasis in a program geared to the academically tal
ented student.
a. ( ) English
b. ( ) Mathematics
5 ’ 6’
c.
d.
e.
f.
g-
h.
Foreign Language
Science
Art
Music
General procedures of study and research
Other (Please indicate)
10. Please add any comments on the reverse side of this questionnaire
11. Position currently held:
12. Number of years you have been an educator:
■--------------------------------------------------------- : 5 7 .
Article 2 3. Special Educational Programs for
Mentally Gifted Minors
1 9 9 .1 0 . General Provisions, (a) This article applies only to spe
cial educational programs for mentally gifted minors described in, and
for which reimbursement for excess costs are claimed under. Article
14 (commencing with Section 6421) of Chapter 6 of Division 6 of the Ed
ucation Code.
I (b) The terms used herein have the same meaning as in that A r
ticle.
i ...............................................................................................................................................................................
j 1 9 9 .1 1. Identification of Mentally Gifted Minors, (a) The responsi
bility for the identification of pupils as mentally gifted minors shall
rest with the administrative head of the school district or an employee
pf the district designated by him. Such identification shall be based up
on a study of all available evidence as to a pupil's general intellectual
capacity made by a committee consisting of the school principal, a
classroom teacher who is familiar with the school work of the pupil, a
school psychologist or other pupil personnel worker who is fully quali
fied to administer and interpret tests of mental ability, and any other
person or persons designated by the district employee responsible for
making the identification.
! (b) Among the items of evidence available concerning the gener
al intellectual capacity of each pupil for whom an excess cost reim
bursement is claimed under the provisions of Education Code Section
‘ 6425 shall be one of the following:
j (1) A score on an individual intelligence test, such as the
' Revised Stanford-Binet Scale, Form L-M, representing an intelli-
! gence quotient of 130 or above, administered by a person creden-
i tialed for this purpose by the State Board of Education.
! (2) A score at or above the 98th percentile on a group test
I of mental ability and a score at or above the 98th percentile on a
j standardized test of reading achievement or arithmetic achieve
ment, each test having been administered within a period of no
more than 36 months of the date of identification. Beginning July 1,
I 1963, the tests used for this purpose must be chosen from a list of
I tests approved by the State Board of Education under the provi
sions of Education Code Section 12821.
(3) The judgments of teachers, psychologists, and school
administrators and supervisors who are familiar with the demon
strated ability of the minors provided that not more than three (3)
per cent of the pupils for whom an excess cost reimbursement is
claimed shall be identified on such judgments alone.
(c) The evidence described in paragraph (b) (1) above shall be
required for all gifted minors enrolled in kindergarten and in grades 1
[through 3. Beginning July 1, 1965, such evidence shall be required for
all gifted minors enrolled in grades 4 through 6 except those who may
(be identified under paragraph (b) (3) above.
j 1 9 9 .1 2 . Minimum Standards for Programs for Mentally Gifted
M inors. Programs provided for mentally gifted minors shall meet the
following standards :
(a) A pupil placed in the program shall be identified in accord- ^
an ce with the provisions of Section 199.11, and shall be assigned to a '
program suited to his abilities and needs as determined by the commit
tee described in Section 199-11. i
I (b) Individual case study records shall be maintained for all p u -1
pils placed in the program. j
j (c) Consent of a parent, guardian, or other person having actual
custody and control of said minor shall be a prerequisite to participa
tion in the program.
I (d) A written plan for the program shall be available for public
inspection on the same basis as is the district course of study. The
written plan shall describe:
! (1) The purpose of the program including the general goals
t which pupils are expected to achieve.
(2) The special activities to be carried on as a part of the
program.
(3) The special facilities and special materials to be used
in connection with the program.
(4) The methods to be used in evaluating the success of the
program.
(e) Programs shall be one or more of the following types:
(1) Programs in which pupils remain in their regular
classroom s but participate in additional educational activities
planned to suit their special abilities and interests, use advanced
m aterials, and/or receive special help, directly or indirectly,
through persons other than the regular classroom teacher.
(2) Programs in which pupils are provided with instruction
by the school of attendance either through correspondence courses
specified in Education Code Section 8301 and Section 101 of this
title or by special tutoring.
(3) Programs in which pupils are placed in grades or
classes more advanced than those in their chronological age group
and receive special instruction outside of the regular classroom in
order to assist them in handling advanced work.
(4) Programs in which high school pupils for a part of the
day attend classes conducted by a college or junior college.
(5) Programs in which pupils participate regularly on a
planned basis in a special counseling or instructional activity car
ried on during or outside of the regular school day for the purpose
of benefitting from additional educational opportunities not pro
vided in the regular classroom .
(6) Programs in which special classes are organized to
provide advanced or enriched work for pupils with superior mental
ability during the regular school year or during a summer session.
Such special classes may be in single subjects or may include
more than one subject. They may be scheduled for a part or all of
a school day.
I 199.13. Approval of Program s, (a) Programs for mentally gifted
minors must be approved by the State Superintendent of Public Instruc
tion. For any of the six types of programs specified in subsection (e)
of Section 199.12, such approval will be given when the application for
5 9 '
an apportionment under Education Code Section 6426 includes a certifi-j
cation by the chief administrative officer of the district that the pro- '
gram has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of Article
14, Chapter 6, Division 6, of the Education Code and that it has met the
standards set forth in Section 199-12 above.
(b) When a school district desires to provide a program for
mentally gifted minors which does not fall into one of the types listed
in subsection (e) of Section 199-12, an application for an approval of the
program shall be filed with the State Superintendent of Public Instruc
tion at least 90 days prior to the opening date of the sem ester of the
summer session during which the program will be given. The applica
tion shall include the information listed in (d) of Section 199.12 above.
ÜW VERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA L IB R A R Y

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The experience and education of the industrial training instructor

PDF

The organization of a counseling and guidance program for small high schools in Northern California

PDF

A study of the status of business education in the public high schools of Hawaii

PDF

A survey of Los Angeles public opinion concerning education

PDF

Federal-territorial relationships in the field of education in the Territory of Hawaii

PDF

The responsibilities of the elementary teacher in school camping

PDF

A survey of the attitudes in the Alamitos School District towards merit related salaries

PDF

A study of student management practices in junior high school shops

PDF

A proposed check list of minimum requirements of site, facilities, and equipment for school camps

PDF

A study of the attitudes of selected parents toward their deaf children

PDF

Electronic speed control of a two phase induction motor

PDF

A survey to measure attitudes toward health practices of the ninth grade girls at Garden Grove High School

PDF

A parent opinion survey in the La Mesa Dale School

PDF

A follow-up study of the attitudes and interests of the first graduating class of a California suburban senior high school

PDF

A survey study of the counseling functions of physical education teachers

PDF

Identification and education of gifted pupils on the secondary level

PDF

Draga Mashin and the development of the Serbian revolution of 1903

PDF

A survey of the problem of minorities in Rumania

PDF

A first step towards the implementation of an advanced teleoperated system

PDF

A study of home health aides' attitudes toward aging and the aged

Asset Metadata

Creator Weithorn, Howard B. (author)

Core Title A survey of professional attitudes and opinions toward the education of the mentally gifted minor

Degree Master of Science

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c37-121236

Unique identifier UC11640166

Identifier EP51017.pdf (filename),usctheses-c37-121236 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier EP51017.pdf

Dmrecord 121236

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Weithorn, Howard B.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA