TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT IHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHH HHHHH HHHHHHH HHHHHHH 3107035 HZ} BY: 4 H W “AW 11 K128 ABSTRACT DEMOGRAPHIC, PERSONNEL, AND PHILOSOPHICAL FACTORS RELATED TO THE SELECTION OF PROVISIONS FOR GIFTED PUBLIC ELEMENTARY STUDENTS IN THE INGHAM INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT BY Susan Scott Horan The dual purpose of this study was to investigate educational provisions made for gifted elementary children in the Ingham Inter- mediate School District, and to examine selected demographic, per- sonnel, and philosophical characteristics which may predispose ele- mentary schools to provide for gifted students in a given manner. Fourteen demographic and personnel variables were analyzed in order to ascertain their relationship to thirteen formal and informal provisions. Philosophical positions of schools making and not making formal provisions were contrasted. Demographic and personnel variables included: State Equalized Valuation, State Equalized valuation per pupil, number of elementary pupils and schools in a district, individual elementary school size, availability of funding for gifted programs, 1969-70 school district expenditure per pupil, average class size of a school both including and excluding special education students, grade-level composition of individual schools, percentage of teachers involved in team-teaching, presence of a school counselor, presence of an assistant principal, :35 rescue a: Far-.41". pro: UL 15mm! 1'. . « '. SL325 .E:...;C;. 2:7 or C3221?! ’gr-Iney av; nL . Ivflu Q ’ .g. .‘,. 21a: ciassrocz, " '. n CLEI‘S. 3" State-level O. H 43. .Zterz- smral Costa-.3 . I 5Q; ’ -o .emd fro: tin Q. n u.‘ Jrict. Q.e J: . barECtea to O... S: Susan Scott Horan and presence of a district director of special education. Formal provisions were defined as partial or total segregation, and a special teacher or consultant for the gifted. Informal provi- sions included: acceleration, early school admission, ungraded pri- mary or combined-grade room, enrichment by the regular classroom teacher, enrichment by ancillary personnel, grouping within the reg- ular classroom, advanced placement, extra-curricular activities, and "others." The sample-population consisted of all eighty-seven public ele- 'mentary schools in the Ingham Intermediate School District. Though the grade-level composition of the schools varied, all were "elemen- tary." Intermediate and middle schools were excluded, even though several contained fifth and/or sixth grades. Information not readily available to most principals was col- lected from.the business office of the Ingham Intermediate School District. Questions concerning funding for gifted programs were directed to the business managers or superintendents of the twelve constituent school districts. Data relative to individual school programs were gathered via a (pretested) survey administered by mail to the principal of each of the eighty-seven schools. Follow-up letters and telephone calls secured response from 100% of the population. The majority of principals reported making at least one provision for gifted students. Those provisions cited most fre- quently were enrichment by the regular classroom teacher, and grouping within the regular classroom. Most principals also :eaarzed as 27.3 ‘ . .v- jig-.22: was t H I: Grier '. pctsaznel vari; I 1:2 separate :: 371‘? m ( :"~O‘ ‘ ‘ Q. . 'HoALLlQC \ h .4 we no: “'4. 33m“, has ' :ee: HiH! to : Susan Scott Horan reported using at least one method to identify the gifted. Teacher judgment was the most frequently used identification technique. In order to determine the relationships between the demographic- personnel variables and the kinds of educational provisions employed, 182 separate chi square analyses were conducted. Twenty-eight rela- tionships emerged as significant beyond an alpha level of .05. How- ever, not all these relationships were readily explained; hence, seven were designated as spurious. Only two of the demographic-personnel variables, namely, State Equalized valuation and number of pupils in an elementary school, were not related to any formal or informal provision. Causality, however, has not been established; each joint occurrence may have been due to the presence of another underlying factor. Most principals who made use of one or more formal provision for the gifted gave a relatively consistent rationale in support of such measures. Those principals who did not make any formal provi- sion stated reasons that lacked uniformity and consistency. Caus- ality, though, was not established in these instances either; existing provisions (or lack thereof) could have determined the stated philosophy. Apparently, certain demographic, personnel, and philosophical variables are related to the kind of provision made for gifted stu- dents. Further research is needed, though, to clarify the nature of these relationships. dfi“ O DEMOGRAPHIC, PERSONNEL, AND PHILOSOPHICAL FACTORS RELATED TO THE SELECTION OF PROVISIONS FOR GIFTED PUBLIC ELEMENTARY STUDENTS IN THE INGHAM INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT By Susan Scott Horan A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1971 © Copyright by SUSAN SCOTT HORAN 1971 TO JOHN ii A name: '5 ¢o{,...‘ ,‘ , - {Lb-LB.L‘§ . Err-Ix 3. 3:23: '1 a: als: ' - In..'~ . “W6 53¢ pr: $131531: f . s Certa‘- q.‘ 1::aluable 5.: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A number of people helped make this study possible. I would particularly like to thank my chairman, Dr. Dale V. Almm, and Drs. Frank B. Bruno, William.E. Sweetland, and James B. McKee for their ready support and perceptive guidance. I am also grateful to Dr. William K. Durr for suggestions given during the primary stages of this project, and to Dr. Howard S. Teitelbaum for statistical consultation. Certain Ingham.Intermediate School District personnel provided invaluable services. Dr. David L. Haarer, Assistant Superintendent of Special Education, officially endorsed this project and sponsored the survey administration. Mr. Richard Vincent, Administrative Ser- vices Consultant, assisted in the compilation of data from the Dis- trict business office. my appreciation is also extended to (Mrs.) Dawn Scarborough for her efficient coordination of survey returns, and to (Mrs.) Mary Anderson for her prompt and careful typing of the manuscript. My husband John has been extremely patient and supportive; to him.go my deepest gratitude and love. iii ""II .- -.-'... ‘ 3! -' ' Dona _ LIE-I 3F FZCQFJ. Itapte: ‘Iu-- \ .I I't.._ V. H “WI ." ¢.If‘ LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I. II. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE S O O O C O O O O O O O O FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O RATIONALE . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . Purpose . . . . . . . . Previous Survey Research Questions for Study . Overview TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF GIFTEDNESS . The Concept of Intellect . . . Guilford's Structure of Intellect The Concept of Giftedness Definitions of Giftedness Intellectual Ability Creative Thinking . Scientific Ability Social Leadership . . . . Talent in the Fine Arts . Conclusion . . . . Characteristics of Gifted Children . Intellectual Traits Achievement . . . . Creativity . . . . Social Adjustment . Emotional Traits . Ethnicity . . . . . Physical Traits . . Male and Female Incid Giftedness . . iv ence Page vii O‘J-‘Nt-‘H H \l 10 10 ll 13 15 15 15 16 16 16 18 19 20 20 21 22 23 "‘ o “E! \n. at . '.. "l I 0 I; D... had».- Q“ .b, V.".: s-. Chapter III. IV. Techniques of Identification . . . Standardized Tests . . . . . Teacher Judgment . . . . . . School Grades . . . . . . . . EDUCATIONAL PROVISIONS FOR GIFTED CHILDREN Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Enrichment in the Regular Classroom Acceleration . . . . . . . . . . . Early School Admission . . Condensation . . . . . . . . Double Promotion . . . . . . Grouping . . . . . . . . . . . . . Partial Segregation of Gifted Children . . . . . . . . Total Segregation of Gifted Children . . . . . . . . Teachers of Gifted Children . MEmomLOGY . C O O O O O O O C O O O 0 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . Measures and Materials . . . . Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . General Preliminaries . . . . Data Collection from the Business Office of the Ingham Inter- mediate School District Pretest of Survey and Subsequent Alterations . . . . . . Statistical Analysis . . . . . . “SULTS O O O O O O O O O I O O O I I 0 Intermediate District-Wide Occurrence of Provisions Made for Gifted Elementary Students . . . . . . . Intermediate District-Wide Occurrence of Selected Demographic and Personnel variables . . . . . Survey Administration . . . . . Page 24 25 27 28 29 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 37 39 39 41 41 41 42 42 42 43 44 45 48 48 48 CT D . ‘1 I. LJ‘V . «J at Page Chapter Relationships Between Selected School Characteristics and Provisions Made for Gifted Elementary Students . . . 54 Stated Rationales for Presence or Absence of Formal Provisions for Gifted Elementary Students . . . . . 72 VI. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 conc1us ions 0 I O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 81 Present and Past Research . . . . . . . . 82 New Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Spurious Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Philosophical Determinants . . . . . . . 86 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 smry O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O 88 LIST OF REFERWCES O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 91 APPENDICES Appendix A. Data Sheet for Individual Schools . . . . . . . . . 101 B. Pretest Form of Survey: Part I . . . . . . . . . . 102 C. Pretest Form of Survey: Part II . . . . . . . . . 106 D. Final, Revised Form of Survey . . . . . . . . . . . 108 E. Letter of Transmittal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 F. FOIIOW'UP Letter 0 o o o s o o o o o o o o o o o o 113 vi .9 .0. a... 'h v... Ll. E (n I" §.. LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. A Classification 0f Intelligence Quotients Derived From The 1937 Revision Of The Stanford-Binet Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 II. Approximate PrOportions Of School Populations At Various Intellectual Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 III. Number Of Responses To Pretest Questions Six And Seven . . . . . . . . . . . 44 IV. Analysis Breakdown Of Demographic And Personnel Variables . . . . . . . . . . . 46 V. Provisions Made For Gifted Students (Reported By Individual Public Elementary Principals In The Ingham Intermediate School District) Compared On The Basis Of Frequency Of Occurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 VI. ‘Methods Of Identification Of Gifted Students (Reported By Individual Public Elementary Principals In The Ingham Intermediate School District) Compared On The Basis Of Frequency Of Occurrence . . . 50 VII. Tax Base And Allocation Of Funds In The Constituent Districts Of The Ingham Intermediate School District . . . . . . . . . 51 VIII. Intermediate District-Wide Occurrence Of Selected Elementary School Personnel . . . . . 52 IX. Elementary Student And Faculty Sizes In The Constituent Districts Of The Ingham Intermediate School District . . . . . 53 X. Average Class Sizes Of Elementary Schools In The Constituent Districts Of The Ingham Intermediate School District . . . . . 54 vii XII. Eels: o c.. - “O‘A. 56.5: 3—4 D :1: n» ' 9. XL 3215: W Q ¢ . .31. 59.; T"’ ulat. RQIa: rm A... Rein. t Y“ -. «‘1; 0 Re . a: REla: Table XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XXI. Relationship Between State Equalized valuation And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students . . . . Relationship Between State Equalized valuation Per Pupil And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students Relationship Between Number Of Elementary Pupils In A School District And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students . . . . . . . . Relationship Between Number Of Elementary Schools In A District And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students Relationship Between Number Of Pupils In An Elementary School And Provisions Made For Its Gifted Students . . . . Relationship Between Availability Of Funding For Gifted Programs And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students . . . . . . . . Relationship Between 1969-70 School District Expenditure Per Pupil And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students . .1. . . . . . Relationship Between Average Class Size Of A School (Including Special Education Pupils) And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students Relationship Between Average Class Size Of A School (Excluding Special Education Pupils) And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students Relationship Between Grade Composition Of A School And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students . . . . . Relationship Between Percentage of Teachers Involved In Team Teaching And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students viii Page 55 57 58 59 61 62 63 65 66 67 69 v4.99. “46.5! “m. on... I W“ a-.. . 'h... ll ' ' we)“. {11 rn Table XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXV. XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. Relationship Between Presence Of A School Counselor And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students Relationship Between Presence Of An Assistant Principal In A School And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students . . . . . . . . . Relationship Between Presence Of A Director Of Special Education In A School District And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students Reasons Stated By Elementary Principals In The Ingham Intermediate School District For The Presence Of Formal Provisions For The Gifted . . . . . . Reasons Stated By Elementary Principals In The Ingham Intermediate School District For The Absence Of Formal Provisions For The Gifted . . . . . . Factors Related To Formal Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students In The Ingham Intermediate School District . Factors Related To Informal Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students In The Ingham Intermediate School District Spurious Relationships Between Selected Demographic-Personnel Variables And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students In The Ingham Intermediate School District . . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 70 71 73 74 75 78 79 87 The -.A LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. A cubical model representing the structure of intellect . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2. Cumulative percentage of survey returns at each contact point . . . . . . . . 45 .Vsty s: . .Ln . ,, P“.4dsed in a o 0‘. exuple. H CHAPTER I: RATIONALE Introduction Many studies have described the provisions made for gifted children in a given school or district at a specified time (see, for example, Wilson, 1949; Havighurst, Stivers, & DeHaan, 1955; Wagner, 1957; State of North Carolina, 1962; Oakland Schools' Board of Designates, 1965a). Few, however, have gone beyond program des- cription to relate various demographic factors, personnel variables, and philosophical points of view to the type of provision employed. Exceptions to this trend are studies by Havighurst (1955) and Durr (1962), which respectively, relate the kind of provisions made for the gifted to various community factors, and to school size and system size at the elementary level. Purpose The purpose of this study, then, was not only to investigate provisions made for gifted children in a given locale, but also to examine selected demographic, personnel, and philosophical character- istics which may predispose elementary schools to provide for gifted students in a given manner. Specifically, this study examined those programs and provisions designed for gifted students in the eighty-seven public elementary schools of the Ingham Intermediate School District (Ingham County, '1’ n a d 1" 21.2131.) . sshoel Eras :' fistrict. as: (I) o v. ' Q :11: that re. tie gifted. a You: prc‘ 592:: can be . SJFTEFS is C:- h- ‘ ' - ..c..gfi vvst‘ : :PL‘ 1 - .LJVQ s 33‘: ' l 1515.035 :5 A‘.‘ seals 33,, N . "J- .,,; V,-e 35:9: 9 '- 5..& 31“ x‘ed a ‘! n v— v p: ‘3' , UvHSLDHS f Michigan) during the 1970-71 school year. Data was gathered on each school from the business office of the Ingham Intermediate School District, and from a survey administered to the principal of each of the eighty-seven schools. This information was analyzed to ascer- tain what relationships exist between types of provisions made for the gifted, and selected school characteristics. Previous Survey Research Most previous surveys of provisions for gifted elementary stu- dents can be classified according to their purpose. One group of surveys is comprised of studies that describe specific programs in various locales, but do not go beyond mere program description. Havighurst, Stivers, & DeHaan (1955), Wagner (1957), and Oakland Schools' Board of Designates (1965a), for example, summarized the provisions made for gifted students in a number of elementary schools across the nation, while Durr (1959) and the State of North Carolina (1962) surveyed provisions made for the gifted in Michigan and North Carolina, respectively. A second group consists of studies that survey topics related to provisions for the gifted. Hildreth (1955), for instance, exam- ined the requisites of school-wide planning for the gifted, while Passow (1957) and Flanagan & Dailey (1960) explored research per- taining to provisions for the gifted then in progress. Alpren & Hohenstein (1960) summarized services and personnel available to the gifted at the state level. The final group of surveys is composed of studies that relate provisions for the gifted to selected demographic and philosophical variables. it grass designs: 0. ' ov‘lnfl. "l . ' viz-AbLa-IA .3 :3:- -;:::v. or. o'- L;I ‘ ',. we 1.1.054... . to... "I; are in a variables. Havighurst (1955) stated that the nature of school pro- grams designed for gifted elementary children depends in a fairly predictable fashion on the size, complexity, and wealth of any given community, on the social structure and values of the locale, and on the philosophical stances of lay and professional leaders. Specifi- cally, Havighurst indicated that special grouping is most likely to occur in large communities (population a;100,000) with an "average" economy. Special grouping is least likely to occur in communities that are in a "favored" socioeconomic position, regardless of size, and in small communities (populations 5,000) regardless of socio- economic level. The "average-type” medium-sized community (popula- tion - 5,001-99,999) provides for its gifted in a much less predict- able manner; the nature of provisions made is often more dependent upon influence exerted by lay and professional leadership than upon factors of size or economy. Durr's (1962) study relating provisions for the gifted to school size and system size at the elementary level indicated that elementary schools in large systems are more likely to have planned programs for mentally superior students than elementary schools in small systems; elementary schools with large student enrollments are more likely to have planned programs for the gifted than elementary schools with small student enrollments. Although most schools use enrichment with gifted students regardless of the size of the student body, small schools use partial segregation more often than large schools, while large schools use extra-curricular activities more often than small schools. While Havighurst (1955) did not elaborate upon his contention :3: phil sap: 51:15:11 fcr :::e that the: of revision : ism' that 5%.. having plant 1: stall 51:51. :it: 1:133.th are are like Mined pros: reason. Oak: the uHDI’it‘,‘ SLIIEC child: :3 educations “‘31 needs, that philosophical characteristics may influence the kind of provi- sions made for gifted elementary Students, two other studies indi- cate that there are three predictable relationships between the type of provision made and the rationale stated for so doing. Durr (1962) found that while the reasons reported by elementary schools for not having planned provisions for the gifted lack uniformity, schools in small systems are more likely than schools in large systems to cite inadequate finances as the reason; schools in large systems are more likely than schools in small systems to state that no planned programs are needed, or lack of gifted students as the reason. Oakland Schools' Board of Designates (1965b) found that the majority of elementary schools which do make provisions for gifted children supply the rationale that all children are entitled to educational programs which are most appropriate to their indivi- dual needs. Questions for Study The studies by Havighurst (1959) and Durr (1962) do indicate, then, that provisions for gifted elementary children are related to community factors, and to school and system size at the elementary level. Because these surveys were somewhat limited in the scope of provisions considered, though, the following hypotheses will be examined to verify and/or expand upon the previously noted relation- ships: 1. Is there a relationship between the State Equalized Valu- ation of a school district and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students? 2. Is there a relationship between the State Equalized Valu- ation per student of a school district and the kind of pro- visions made for gifted elementary students? rim resear: ' 11, :0 ::e fOL‘-". ~4 '4 (p *4 (L) o 11. - 13, Is there a relationship between the number of elementary pupils in a school district and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students? Is there a relationship between the number of elementary schools in a district and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students? Is there a relationship between the number of pupils in an elementary school and the kind of provisions made for its gifted students? A number of other demographic variables not examined in pre- vious research were selected for exploratory study. Such give rise to the following non-directional hypotheses: 6. 10. 11. Is there a relationship between the availability of funding for gifted programs and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students? Is there a relationship between the 1969-1970 school dis- trict expenditure per pupil and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students? Is there a relationship between the average class size of a school (including special education pupils) and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students? Is there a relationship between the average class size of a school (excluding special education pupils) and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students? Is there a relationship between the grade composition of a given school (e.g. K-4, K-S, K-6) and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students? Is there a relationship between the percentage of teachers involved in team teaching in a school and the kind of pro- visions made for gifted elementary students? Several personnel variables were also thought germain. Hence, three additional exploratory hypotheses: 12. 13. Is there a relationship between the presence of a school counselor and the kind of provisions made for gifted ele- mentary students? Is there a relationship between the presence of an assis- tant principal in a school and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students? v ,, 1’.. LS .. t D. 9" ‘1‘“: :jectzeses 3-,. 15, 3° .. "‘ '9‘ J fieh’s . .a~ are ‘ yr baa e P.e: ’1. 14. Is there a relationship between the presence of a director of special education in a district and the kind of provi- sions made for gifted elementary students? In order to corroborate and/or expand upon the relationships between the type of provision made for gifted elementary students and the stated rationale for so doing, as indicated by Durr (1962) and Oakland Schools' Board of Designates (1965b), the following hypotheses will be examined: 15. Do the majority of elementary schools that partially or totally segregate gifted students, or provide a special teacher or consultant for the gifted, have a consistent rationale for doing do? 16. Do the majority of elementary schools that do not par- tially or totally segregate gifted students, or provide a special teacher or consultant for the gifted, have a consistent rationale for not doing so? Overview Chapter Two of this study, "Toward an Understanding of Gifted- ness," focuses on the concepts of intellect and giftedness. Defini- tions of giftedness and characteristics of the gifted are also' explored in detail. Finally, techniques of identifying gifted stu- dents are presented and evaluated. Chapter Three deals with the various educational provisions that can be made for gifted elementary children; the advantages, dis- advantages, and effectiveness of each are discussed. The methodology employed in this study is explained in Chapter Four. This includes a definition of the population, a description of the measures and materials, and an outline of the procedures. The results of this study are presented in Chapter Five, and discussed in Chapter Six. The limitations and implications of the study also appear in Chapter Six, along with a summary of the work. :aticn of :, iefized intell xas;:ed this Q ”Carmen :hfidifiz ifl’e' .\. 5?€:ia1 task-3 CHAPTER II: TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF GIFTEDNESS The Concept of Intellect Before giftedness can be discussed, it is necessary to describe what is meant by the more basic concept of intellect. At one time, intelligence was viewed as a single-component factor. Though the unitary trait "general intelligence" was not clearly defined, vali- dation of its existence was attempted. Lewis Terman, for example, defined intelligence as the ability to do abstract thinking, and measured this with achievement tests (Gowan & Demos, 1964, p. 16). Spearman (1904) proposed a two-factor theory of intelligence, dividing intellect into general mental energy, labeled "g," and special task-oriented factors, labeled "3." Other psychologists, including Kelley (1928) and Thurstone (1947), hypothesized that intellect is comprised of a group of fac- tors, not just one or two. Broad "intellectual" categories were for- mulated, but there was no agreement as to which specific abilities composed each of the categories. Nor was there consensus as to which factors were "intellectual" and which were not. In the 1950's, it became increasingly apparent that this "intel- lectual-nonintellectual" dichotomy was artificial, and that all facets of personality have some intellectual component. Thus, by the early 1960's, intellect and personality were considered synonymous (Gowan & Demos, 1964). :riered. in: g: tiesretical :r ,1 ' 'u'v l 31311111851 8 word's Structure of Intellect In addition to isolating over seventy intellectual factors, Guilford (1956, 1959) classified the sundry components into an ordered, integrated model called the structure of intellect. His theoretical model, portrayed in Figure 1, has three major divisions of abilities: operations, contents, and products. Units / Classes / Relations ’//‘ Systenns / Transformations j Implications PRODUCTS Figure l. A cubical model representing the structure of intellect. Operations refer to the major kinds of intellectual activities, to what an individual does with information. The five processes I ‘ . ' , H. I'D \ raped -~ 1. ‘x. f) (‘1 involved in operations are: l. Cognition, which is awareness, simple knowledge, discovery, or comprehension. Memory, or storage of information for later recall. Convergent Production, based on producing from the cogni- tion process, it involves generating the one "most appro- priate" solution in view of given criteria. Divergent Production, also based on producing from the cog- nition process, emphasizes variety and quantity of responses. Evaluation, or appraising and judging the suitability of decisions made in terms of goal satisfaction. These five operations act upon the second major division of abilities, contents, which is information received through figural, symbolic, semantic, and behavioral modes. The result of this inter- action is any one of the six components of products: 1. Units, which refer to a relatively simple response, such as a single word. Classes, which refer to a set of units, or several simple responses. Relationships, or the abstract correlation between units and classes as described above. Systems, defined as the organization of classes or relation- ships. Transformations, which are the alteration or redefinition of any of the four previous products. Implications, or recognition of consequences and applica- tions. Guilford's structure of intellect, then, recognizes and inte- grates a wider array of mental abilities than did previous theories. It has been compared to Mendeleev's periodic table for the organiza- tion of chemistry (Gowan & Demos, 1964; Torrance, 1965). n!— - v .v. a .t :- fi . '4- '9‘. ~._ 10 The Concept ofggiftedness The concept of giftedness is based on the theory of trait var- iability, which states that human traits (such as measured intelli- gence) occur in the general population in a predictable manner. When intelligence scores from a representative sample of the popu- lation are graphed, the result is the familiar bell-shaped curve called the normal distribution (Anastasi, 1968). Comparatively speaking, most people are of average intelligence, and hence cluster around the mean. Those of less than or greater than average intel- ligence are the exceptions, and account for the tapering off of the curve at either extreme. Depending on the direction of the devia- tion, these exceptional individuals, in comparison to the rest of the population, will approach either mental deficiency or mental superiority (giftedness). The normal distribution of intelligence was first made evident by Galton (1869, 1875). These, and later studies (Yoder, 1894; Cattell, 1903; Ellis, 1904), gave rise to the conception of gifted- ness as a gradually increasing deviation from the mean in a positive direction, which disproved the notion that great intellectual gaps separate the gifted from the bulk of the population. Definitions of Giftedness No single, universally-accepted definition of giftedness exists. One survey of the literature, for example, produced 113 different definitions (Abraham, 1958). To confound the matter further, other terms, such as bright, superior, genius, talented, able, and rapid learner, are used interchangeably with gifted. Each of these ll synonyms, in turn, has idiosyncratic connotations that vary with indi- vidual researchers and writers. The resulting confusion has led some to contend that further research is needed simply to help clarify the use of the terms (Newland, 1953, 1959, 1963; Birch & Reynolds, 1963). As a result of Guilford's work, educators of the 1950's began to recognize a wider variety of abilities when defining giftedness. Creativity became a crucial part of most of these definitions once it was established as an integral component of giftedness. The con- cept, and hence the definitions, continued to expand, encompassing an even increasing span of abilities (Passow, Beasley & Brooks, 1957; Fliegler & Bish, 1959; Gallagher & Rogge, 1966). DeHaan & Havighurst (1961) have offered the following classifi- cation scheme under which the major intellectual facets and ensuing definitions may be ordered: intellectual ability, creative thinking, scientific ability, social leadership, and talent in the fine arts. Each category and its member definitions will be discussed below. Intellectugl_Ability The most prominent and accepted manifestation of giftedness is intellectual ability, measured by an intelligence test and reported as an I.Q. score. The normal distribution of I.Q. scores is pre- sented in Table I. Table II depicts the distribution of intelli- gence levels in school populations. Researchers and educators do not agree upon the point, be it an I.Q. score or percentile ranking, from which giftedness begins. ‘Kough (1960), for example, advocates demarcation of the top fifteen ..£SS - .s- .. seal \ tqe‘ .4..- I - . av. .‘. .'e.‘ A n- a e, a. ‘r a. .- y. ‘4 a.- 12 TABLE I A Classification Of Intelligence Quotients Derived From The 1937 Revision Of The Stanford-Binet Scales (Davis, 1940, p. 603) m ‘1 Classification IQ Range Percent of American Population Brilliant 139 and above .9 Very superior 128-138 3.7 Superior 117-127 11.0 Bright 106-116 21.3 Average 95-105 26.2 Dull 84- 94 21.3 Inferior 73- 83 11.0 Mental deficiency, including border- line cases 72 and below 4.6 TABLE II Approximate Proportions Of School Populations At Various Intellectual Levels (Gallagher, 1959, p.5) Stanford-Binet Percent of School Population Intellectual Average Superior Socioeconomic Levels Community Community, IQ above 140 .5 to 1% 2 to 3% IQ above 130 2 to 4 6 to 12 IQ above 125 S to 7 15 to 20 IQ above 120 10 to 12 30 to 40 IQ above 115 16 to 20 45 to 60 AL [I II! C l u 's a: 5. h. . Lt .. e e vs .w» s s L . G. L. .n... . . 5 ed .. . L.» . A e .. . 4L. .0 u . p . o. . :- AV; E u . a on,” :e .o. 3. .4. .4... :a .m. fie «HA ..e .n. as. :5. .p . ml .3 51. a. t . Cs Ar. 1.. . . 13 to twenty percent of a given population as gifted, while Holling- worth (1926) and Terman (1930) recognize only the top centile of the total population as such. Gallagher (1960) assumes an intermediate position, labeling as gifted the top two to four percent of "average" communities, and the highest six to twelve percent of those locales that are "superior." However, his "highly gifted" intellectual category is more exclusive, with the eligibility rate of only one to three individuals per thou- sand. Likewise, DeHaan & Havighurst (1961) specify two levels of giftedness, children in the upper one-tenth of one percent (of measured intelligence) being of the "first order," children in the top ten percent being of the "second order" of giftedness. And on and on! Against this backdrop of disagreement, two clear trends seem to be emerging. Schools in smaller American cities tend to use the minimum I.Q. score of 110 when defining gift- edness, while schools in larger cities use the higher beginning point of 125 or 130 (Hildreth, 1966). Creative Thinking Although creative thinking was not recognized as an integral component of intelligence until recently (Guilford, 1950, 1956, 1959), much current research has been devoted to its nature and nur- ture (Frierson, 1969). However, since operational definitions of creativity are as diverse and disparate as the studies themselves, most accounts of giftedness, when contrasted with one another, appear to be laden with confused and conflicting conjectures. Yamamoto (1965) has compared the status quo to reports of blind men on the 13 to twenty percent of a given population as gifted, while Holling- worth (1926) and Terman (1930) recognize only the top centile of the total population as such. Gallagher (1960) assumes an intermediate position, labeling as gifted the top two to four percent of "average" communities, and the highest six to twelve percent of those locales that are "superior." However, his "highly gifted" intellectual category is more exclusive, with the eligibility rate of only one to three individuals per thou- sand. Likewise, DeHaan & Havighurst (1961) specify two levels of giftedness, children in the upper one-tenth of one percent (of measured intelligence) being of the "first order," children in the top ten percent being of the "second order" of giftedness. And on and on! Against this backdrop of disagreement, two clear trends seem to be emerging. Schools in smaller American cities tend to use the minimum I.Q. score of 110 when defining gift- edness, while schools in larger cities use the higher beginning point of 125 or 130 (Hildreth, 1966). Creative Thinking Although creative thinking was not recognized as an integral component of intelligence until recently (Guilford, 1950, 1956, 1959), much current research has been devoted to its nature and nur- ture (Frierson, 1969). However, since operational definitions of creativity are as diverse and disparate as the studies themselves, most accounts of giftedness, when contrasted with one another, appear to be laden with confused and conflicting conjectures. Yamamoto (1965) has compared the status quo to reports of blind men on the 'EZL . €\‘ a. ... I .c .3» . g at ..n c... ‘- u' a.» fit '- L s A‘- ‘4 ‘ Q 5 IE: 5 5 in. 14 essence of the elephant: I have suggested in this paper that the blind men of the present day have been experiencing some difficulties in mutual communication and understanding not so much because of their restricted exploratory abilities and spheres of scrutiny as because of their radically dif- ferent philosophical positions or expectations with which they set out in their exploration. Thus, I have tried to point out the fact that the present "confused abundance" in the study of creativity is a result of (l) the different points of departure in the definition of cre- ativity, (2) the differences in assumptions and presuppositions and (3) the differences in research strategies among and within groups of workers of different orientations (p. 432). Guilford (1959) refers to his structure of intellect (see Figure 1) when defining creativity as the result of the divergent thinking operation. Of particular importance is the column formed when semantic contents and divergent thinking intersect, for this chimney of factors contains those we usually stereotype as "verbal creativity," including ideational fluency, spontaneous flexibility, associational fluency, and originality. Under this theory, creative gifted children are those with high endowments in these factors, while non-creative gifted children excel elsewhere (Gowan, 1965; Kneller, 1966). DeHaan & Havighurst (1961) define creativity more simply as a complex talent made up of many abilities, including the capacity to recognize problems, to be flexible in thinking, to invent and origi- nate ideas or products, and to find new uses for common objects and materials. While definitions of creative giftedness could continue ad infinitum, further presentation would not enhance the clarity of this concept. -4. .4.v ‘0. ... 1.. Q7. . . .a. uV§ \K. .:.< nex 15 Scientific Ability Scientific ability is not a primary mental factor in itself, but is comprised of many skills and attitudes, including the ability to reason mathematically, the capacity to use numbers and symbols, and the mastery of a particular kind of thinking called the "scien- tific method" (DeHaan & Havighurst, 1961). Because of its reliance on direct intellectual components, sci- entific ability is not the most frequent source of giftedness. Those who are superior in this area, though, are often termed gifted. Social Leadership Though social leadership is a combination of other abilities rather than a direct intellectual component, researchers recognize its potential for manifesting giftedness. Jarecky (1959), for example, states that not only can social giftedness be ascertained and described, but that instruments and techniques are available for its measurement. Witty, Conant, & Strang (1959) describe as gifted in social leadership those individuals who are identified by behavior and soci- ometric measures to be effective leaders of different groups. While they find only a low positive relationship between an individual's measured intelligence and his potential for leadership, Hollingworth (1926) and Scheifele (1953) have established that an effective leader is likely to be slightly more intelligent than the average of the group led. TQLentgin the Fine Arts Scheifele (1953) and Hildreth (1966) feel that talent in the fine arts refers strictly to performance, not potential. Giftedness . a .\P- 1 satdea .n.. ‘l a . Ry _‘ he“ 16 is manifested by exceptional performance in such nonacademic areas as sports, dramatics, dancing, music, art, and writing. Conclusion The preceding definitions of giftedness, each accenting a par- ticular area, are only a sample of the hundreds now in use. Abraham (1958) has tersely described the state of the literature: The moral should be clear, however: Define the gifted child almost as you wish and you will find some authority to support your point of view (p. 21). Characteristics of Gifted Children Gifted children as a group tend to exhibit a number of traits in a variety of areas (intellectual, social, emotional, and physical, to name a few). However, the vast array of individual differences precludes any formulation of a "typical" gifted child. Furthermore, since correlation, not compensation, is the law of nature, the gifted child tends to excel in all endeavors (Gallagher, 1959). Intellectual Traits Many researchers, including Strang (1954), Barbe (1955), Cal- lagher & Lucito (1961), and Hauck (1967), have investigated the mental characteristics of the gifted. In an inclusive summary of the collective findings, Scheifele (1953) reports that intellectually, the gifted child, in relation to other children, tends to: l. Possess superior ability in reasoning, gen- eralizing, dealing with abstractions, com- prehending meanings, thinking logically, and recognizing relationships. 2. Perform highly difficult mental tasks, an ability described as ”power." 17 3. Learn more rapidly and easily. 4. Show intellectual curiosity. 5. Possess superior insight into problems. 6. Have a wider range of interests. 7. Show greatest superiority in reading ability, both in speed and comprehension; language usage; arithmetical reasoning; science; lit- erature; and the arts. 8. Do effective work independently. 9. Apply originality and initiative in intel- lectual tasks. 10. Show less patience with routine procedures and drill. 11. Exhibit alertness, keen observational abil- ity, and quick response. 12. Show as much unevenness in abilities in the subject-matter areas as other children. 13. Have a longer interest span; show more inter- est in abstract than practical subjects; exhibit greater superiority in attainment in abstract subjects and less in manual activi- ties. 14. Have an interest in the future, a concern with origin, destiny, and death though unable emotionally to accept realities of the latter (p. 6). The stabilityiof intelligence. While Terman (1930) found that the measured intelligence of his gifted subjects tended to decrease over time, Cattell (1931) reported that her subjects gained on retests. To determine whether constancy or instability of intelli- gence characterizes the gifted, Lincoln (1935) conducted further research. He concluded that over a period of five or more years, the intelligence scores of superior pupils (selected on the basis of a single Stanford-Binet), tend to drop substantially, with girls -u L... ~.. (a .h uni A s I 18 losing more than boys. Lincoln further noted that losses for the gifted, as a group, were not offset by gains, for more tended to lose than to gain in measured intelligence. Thorndike (1948), Clarke, A. D. 3., Clarke, A. M., & Brown (1960), and Hughes & Converse (1962) found that groups selected on the basis of extreme intelligence test scores tended to regress toward the mean of the general population, thus confirming and explaining Lincoln's (1935) conclusions. When evaluating the men- tal status of gifted children, then, Hildreth's (1943) advice to obtain successive intelligence ratings several years apart is still sound. Achievement Gifted children tend to perform better (score higher) on intel- ligence and achievement tests, and to receive higher grades in school than other students (Gallagher, 1959). Exceptions are the "gifted ' who perform less well in school than their intel- underachievers,‘ lectual potential would predict. Terman & Oden (1959) found that the educational attainments of gifted adults are far above the contemporary norm. The majority of their gifted subjects graduated from college; 70.0% of the men, and 66.7% of the women obtained a Bachelor's degree. Of these, 10.5% of the men and 16.3% of the women also received a Master's degree. Doctorates were earned by 13.8% of the men, and 4.0% of the women. Barbe (1956) studied graduates of the Major Work Program (Cleveland, Ohio) to ascertain their level of occupational achieve- ment. There were far more of these gifted subjects in the professions i .n p- “ in '0 p ‘. . “a u 19 than was typical of the general population. Creativity, Though the correlation between operationally defined measures of intelligence and creativity is high, it is not absolute. Chil- dren with low or average intelligence generally possess the same level of creativity; however, the presence of a high I.Q. does not guarantee high creativity. On the other hand, there are few people who are highly creative who are not also highly intelligent. Witty and his associates (1959) have summarized the components of creati- vity in gifted children: 1. Sensitive perception of details in the world of nature and the world of man. 2. Awareness of and concern about unsolved prob- lems - the attitude of inquiry. 3. Fluency of thought. The creative person's ideas come readily - often suddenly. 4. Concentration - ability to enter wholeheart- edly and personally into an experience. 5. Integration - ability to find unity in the diversity of nature, to perceive structure or a new design in a scene or situation, to discover unexpected likenesses, and to relate or connect things that were not previously related or connected. 6. Flexibility and spontaneity guided by a goal or purpose. 7. Originality and individuality. The creative person has the moral courage and inner direct- edness to resist conformity. 8. Ability to analyze and abstract, and also to synthesize. 9. Ability to go beyond the facts and discern new implications, to imagine more than the evidence obviously shows, to speculate on 20 relations that may not at present be veri- fiable. 10. Keen satisfaction in creative activities. 11. Superior abstract and verbal intelligence (pp. 21-22). Creativity has received much current attention. While some researchers have been primarily concerned with assessment (Wilson, Guilford, & Christensen, 1953; Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Marsh, 1964), others have emphasized a general understanding of creativity (Parnes & Harding, 1962; Gowan, Demos, & Torrance, 1967). However, there has also been a trend toward exploring various educational provisions to foster creativity (Torrance & Witt, 1966; Hutchinson, 1967; Parnes, 1967; Taylor, 1967). Sggigl Adjustment Investigations into the social adjustment of the gifted have challenged the old stereotype of gifted children being rejected or ostracized by other children. The vast majority of researchers, including Durr (1960) and Gallagher (1960), indicate that the gifted tend to achieve superior social adjustment. Gallagher (1959), in fact, maintains that the degree of social adjustment is positively related to the level of intellectual ability. While the gifted tend to be well accepted by most children, they often prefer other gifted children as friends. In the upper elementary grades, the gifted may also gravitate toward non-gifted children who though chronologically older, have a similar mental age. Emotional Traits As a group, gifted children are more emotionally stable, less tense, and more able to handle personal problems than children with 21 average intelligence (Mensh, 1950; Scheifele, 1953; Barbe, 1955; Birch & Reynolds, 1963; Hildreth, 1966). Hollingworth (1926) found that the gifted are above average in nervous stability, and that there are disproportionately fewer neu- rotics among gifted children. Terman & Oden (1959) state that the gifted do not differ from the generality in the frequency of mental disease, as evidenced by admission to a mental hospital. (They empha- size, though, that the rate of hospitalization among the gifted may be related to their generally superior status, not only intellectual which may give them insight into their needs, but also socioeconomic which makes seeking aid possible.) Most researchers agree that the gifted tend to possess "desir- able" characteristics to a greater degree than children with average intelligence. Barbe (1955), for instance, found that the gifted are less inclined than other children to boast, to exaggerate accomplish- ments, or to cheat when provided with the opportunity. Scheifele (1953) reports that gifted children tend to be more courteous, coop- erative, and willing to take suggestions than other children. Ethnicity A well documented observation is that Jewish children contribute disproportionately large numbers to those recognized as gifted. For instance, Terman & Oden (1947) noted that 10.36% of their gifted sub- jects were of Jewish descent. (In this classification, Terman & Oden excluded from the group defined as "Jewish descent" all subjects who had a non-Jewish parent or grandparent.) Though they had no statis- tical data from which to calculate the precise proportion of Jews in ..- R .43 v a ‘. , a ..obE 321 (‘0 ' C I t‘ ~V. c an 22 the population from.which their sample was drawn, Terman & Oden con- cluded that the number of (gifted) Jewish subjects was considerably greater than would be expected from the number of Jews estimated to live in that particular area. Adler (1963, 1964) reports that Jewish representation in the gifted of this country is three times the expectancy, based on a national ratio. One ethnic group has been cited for its proportionately low incidence of giftedness. Reviewing research to that date, Holling- worth (1926) reports that surveys unexceptionally show a low level of intellect among children having Negro blood, and that very few are gifted. This perception has been affirmed by later studies (Adler, 1963; Jensen, 1969). Other researchers admit to the relatively low incidence of Negro giftedness, but soundly refute the notion that this circumstance is caused by inherent intellectual deficiency or inferiority (Bereiter, 1969; Cronbach, 1969). Hunt (1969), for example, attributes the low incidence of Negro giftedness to differences between the child- rearing practices of the middle and lower socioeconomic classes, and to the bondage black people have experienced in slavery and sustained cultural deprivation. Crow (1969) concludes that quantitative and qualitative environmental factors account for the differences in the mean intelligence levels of the white and black populations. Physical Traits The notion that gifted children are physically weak, undersized, and unattractive has proved to be thoroughly erroneous. Hollingworth u ..1 Eu ... 4" D... 0‘!” an,” .. . Pa I H" -4. .1 9.6 L y {w n§| \& 23 (1926) reports that the gifted tend to be taller and heavier for their height than other children. (The gifted do tend to have the stereotypically larger-than-average head, but it is not out of pro- portion to body size.) Furthermore, the gifted generally become physically mature, and begin reproductive life at an earlier age than other children (Hildreth, 1966). As a group, gifted children are also healthier, and suffer from fewer common childhood diseases than other children (Hollingworth, 1926; Barbe, 1956; Terman & Oden, 1959). Though the gifted tend to exceed the mean in terms of physique, health, and attractiveness, there is a great deal of overlap in the physical traits of the gifted and non-gifted (Durr, 1960). Thus, Durr (1964) cautions that while a positive correlation between intel- ligence and physical characteristics does exist, the use of physical maturity as a predictor of intellectual excellence is unjustified. Male and Female Incidence of Giftedness The assumption that women are intellectually inferior to men stood unproven, but not scientifically disproved, until the advent of standardized mental tests made objective measurement possible. Even when it was ascertained that no significant difference existed between the mean intelligence scores of men and women, some researchers hypothesized that greater male variation away from the mean toward either extreme produced more incidence of both feeble- mindedness and giftedness in men than women. The larger ratio of males to females (20 to 1) among histori- cal geniuses (Terman & Oden, 1947) does indicate increased male 24 manifestation of giftedness, but this does not appear to be caused by greater male variation. Clark (1954) and DeHaan & Havighurst (1961) attribute the high male frequency of exhibited talent and performance to societal expectations and child-rearing practices, stating that American women as a group do not develop inherent abil- ities to as high a degree as men simply because society does not expect them to do so. The feminine role in this country stresses tenderness, tranquility, and submissiveness, while the male role emphasizes aggressiveness, ambition, and productivity. Techniques of Identification Procedures for identifying the gifted should evolve from a given definition of giftedness. For example, if giftedness is defined solely in terms of demonstrated achievement, identification techniques should include achievement tests, and possibly school grades. If gift- edness is defined in terms of mental potential alone, then intelligence tests would be in order. The more expansive a definition of giftedness becomes, the more techniques the identification procedure should include. Besides being consistent with a given definition, techniques of identification ought to be guided by other principles espoused by such researchers as Terman & Oden (1954), Sanders (1959), and Martinson (1966). For example, it has been suggested that identification pro- cedures begin as early as possible in school and be systematically applied at all grade levels, that they be as varied and diversified as possible, that they require a minimum of time and money to admin- ister, and finally, that they have no adverse social or emotional effects on children. (A— 25 Standardized Tests Standardized tests of intelligence, achievement, and aptitude are objective measures of giftedness. Free from teacher bias, they also provide for a comparison of children on a national basis. Individually administered (standardized) tests have the added advantage of bringing the examiner in direct contact with the student, thus allowing for the development of rapport, the detailed observation of the child, and the reduction of difficulties resulting from poor reading skills. Although such tests are probably the best single indication of giftedness (Barbe, 1959), the time and expense involved in individual administration precludes their use in many locales. Standardized group tests require less time and money per student, but have the disadvantage of predicting less accurately than indivi- dual tests. Furthermore, their results may be distorted because of low reading ability, lack of motivation, and/or the pressures of time and emotional stress. Some researchers, such as Witty (1951) and Gallagher (1960), feel that many individual and group standardized tests measure only a few mental abilities, and fear that many gifted children may pass undetected if total reliance for identification is placed on their use. However, most authorities recognize that standardized intelli- gence, achievement, and aptitude tests are reliable techniques for the identification of gifted children. Sggndardized intelligence tests. While the most frequently used (objective) indicators of giftedness are standardized intelligence tests (Hill, Lauff, & Young, 1957; Durr, 1964), many schools fail to note that similar I.Q. scores do not necessarily mean the same thing. 26 For example, students often score higher on individual than on group intelligence tests (Martinson & Lessinger, 1960). This factor can confound individual student and program comparisons, plus precipitate unwarranted teacher expectations, if not taken into consideration. Many writers and educators, including Levinson (1956) and Boyer & Walsh (1968), claim that intelligence tests discriminate against minority groups, the "culturally different," and the lower socio- economic strata of the nation. These critics insist that intelligence tests measure abilities primarily determined by the environment, and thus do not indicate inherent intellectual potential. Consequently, they contend, a low I.Q. score does not denote low innate intelligence, but merely reflects that such a student has experienced a relatively deprived, unstimulating environment. Stanley (1959) sought to determine the test biases of prospec- tive teachers for identifying gifted children. He found that those prospective teachers who scored low among their peers on a verbal intelligence test, and knew it, tended to rationalize their inferior position by denying the value of the test, and preferring non-test procedures for identifying gifted children. Those who scored high, and knew it, tended to believe the test measured something important, and preferred using such tests for identifying the gifted. There- fore, teachers may vary in their acceptance and use of intelligence test results for personal as well as professional reasons. Standardized achievement tests. Designed to measure learning in specific content areas, standardized achievement tests have limi- tations when used as a technique to identify gifted students. One drawback is that these tests indicate only what a child has actually I A can 27 achieved, not what his potential for learning may be. Thus, many gifted underachievers may not be detected. Furthermore, standardized achievement tests sample material from national curricula. While the majority of schools do teach this "typical" content, the few which do not should make cautious use of such tests. Use of either standardized achievement or intelligence tests alone as a technique for identifying gifted students is thus not fully effective. However, the combined results of both types of tests have proven to be an accurate, effective means of locating the gifted (Pegnato & Birch, 1959). §£§ndardgped aptitude tests. While not the most frequently used method of identifying giftedness, standardized aptitude tests are some- times employed. These tests are designated to measure either one spe- cific aptitude such as music or art, or a general range of skills and aptitudes. Teacher Judgment Researchers have shown that the effectiveness of teacher judg- ment as a method for identifying gifted children is limited. Witty (1951), for instance, found that only 15.7% of those students rated as gifted by teachers actually proved to be so according to standard- ized test results. Pegnato & Birch (1959) report a somewhat higher success level, with 45.1% of those students identified by teachers as gifted actually testing out as such. (These particular teachers not only overlooked more than half the gifted students among those studied, but also included 31.4% who fell in the average Stanford- Binet range.) 28 The ineffectiveness of teacher judgment may be attributed to many factors, including the tendency for teachers to equate achieve- ment with potential, the lack of objective standards against which teachers may judge giftedness, and the refusal of those teachers threatened by giftedness to acknowledge it. Despite the low reliability of teacher judgment, it is one of the most popular techniques for identifying gifted children. In larger school systems, this method is often used in conjunction with standardized testing (Durr, 1959, 1962). School Grades The student's present grade-point-average is generally a good predictor of future academic performance. Hence, school grades are often used in the identification of gifted students. When such measures are combined with standardized intelligence tests, bright high achievers can be distinguished from hard working children of average intelligence (Hildreth, 1966). However, since school grades are manifestations of teacher judgment, they are subject to the same criticism, and consequently are considered to be ineffective indica- tors of giftedness. 5. P3 «ax CHAPTER III: EDUCATIONAL PROVISIONS FOR GIFTED CHILDREN Introduction This chapter will deal with the various educational provisions that can be made for gifted children. Although the distinct pro- grams are numerous, each is based on one of three major administra- tive arrangements. The first is enrichment in the regular classroom. The second basic plan, acceleration, includes early admission to school, rapid progress through the normal educational sequence, and double promotion. The final major provision is ability grouping, including that which is done within the regular classroom, partial segregation of the gifted (separation for some classes), and com- plete segregation of the gifted (separation for all classes). Each of these provisions will be discussed in greater detail below. Enrichment in the Regular Classroom The majority of elementary schools in this country place gifted students in "regular" classrooms -- homogeneous as to age, hetero- geneous as to mental potential and achievement (Durr, 1962, 1964). Enrichment done in this setting by the regular classroom teacher (and on occasion, by ancillary personnel), refers to the modifica- tion of methods and materials so the gifted receive curricula more commensurate with their ability. Two ways to facilitate this pro- cess are to allow gifted children to work on the most complex 29 .9. and .H. q. ale .1 bl e‘» 30 elements of the regular curriculum, and to design special lessons especially for the gifted (Lewis, 1960; Martinson, 1968). One advantage of enrichment in the regular classroom is that it requires little or no extra funding or administrative alteration. Besides allowing bright children who are not equally advanced physi- cally and socially to remain with their chronological peers, enrich- ment also provides stimulation for the total class. However, it is not always possible for a teacher to adequately meet all the diverse academic and social needs of individuals in a heterogeneously grouped class. Another inherent disadvantage of enrichment is that it often becomes all that is done for gifted children, its nature and philos- ophy precluding many other arrangements. Although enrichment in the regular classroom (by the regular teacher) has been the major provision made for the gifted since the middle of this century (Durr, 1959, 1962), its effectiveness has been soundly disputed. Gallagher, Greenman, Karnes, & King (1960), for instance, found that a program of concentrated enrichment was of little or no benefit to gifted students in the areas of academic achievement, self-concept, and social status, in spite of parents' and teachers' (subjective) feelings to the contrary. It has also been found that enrichment in the regular classroom is often ineffec- tive due to lack of planning and low teacher incentive (Hildreth, 1952, 1966). Acceleration Any procedure which allows a student to complete a given school program at an earlier age, or in less time than is standard, may be 31 termed acceleration. The most common forms in the elementary school are early admission, more rapid progress through the normal educa- tional program, and double promotion. One major benefit of acceleration in any form is that it allows a student to progress at a rate more related to scholastic ability and intellectual maturity than to chronological age. Economic advan- tages accrue when the gifted are allowed to complete their education as soon as possible, for they are able to begin their careers early, and parents are relieved of supporting them financially. Acceleration is often opposed on the grounds that too much emphasis may be put on academic achievement, and not enough on the nurture of creativity and leadership. There is also concern for the gifted child's social and emotional welfare when grouped with older children. Egply School Admissigg Allowing carefully selected children to begin kindergarten or first grade at a chronological age below that of normal entry, early school admission combines the general benefits of acceleration, and minimizes the disadvantages. For instance, this practice permits a gifted student to complete the full six or seven years of elementary school in the regularly ordered grade sequence, but with older chil- dren as classmates, and curricula a year advanced. Early school admission also helps ensure early identification of the gifted (Kirk, 1966; Berkowitz, 1967). Two of the most frequently voiced disadvantages of early admis- sion are the potential maladjustment of those children thus accelerated, 32 and the possibility of errors in identification. The effectiveness of early school admission is well documented. For instance, Hobson (1948), Birch (1954), and McCandless (1957) found that gifted children entering school within a year below that of standard entry tended to be academically superior and better adjusted as a result of their acceleration. Weiss (1962) reported, though, that while early-age children of above average intelligence may be expected to achieve and adjust approximately at the level of the class average, they would have achieved at a higher level had they entered school a year later. (However, Weiss does not specify intelligence scores for these children of "above average" intellect, which makes comparison of research results difficult.) Notwithstand- ing this slight discord, it may be concluded that the early admission to school of mentally advanced, generally mature children, who are within a year of the ordinary entrance age, is to their advantage (Reynolds, 1962). Condensation Any program which allows a child to complete the regular educa- tional sequence more rapidly than is usual may be labeled condensa- tion. One implementation of this provision at the elementary school level is the ungraded primary, where grade distinctions are abolished for the first two or three years of school, and pupils are grouped within the class according to ability. Thus, a scholastically adept student may complete all elements of the prescribed two or three year curriculum at his own pace, possibly in one or two years. The second form of condensation is a combined-grade room, where certain children 33 may complete two or three grades in a lesser number of years. Combining enrichment with rapid progress, both forms of conden- sation allow for a broad range of growth rates within given groups, and alleviate the potential social, academic, and intellectual "gaps" sometimes resulting from double promotion. The main disadvantage of ungraded primaries and combined-grade rooms is that such programs are lengthy, and many circumstances may prevent a gifted student from completing them. Most researchers have found condensation to be effective. Chapman (1961), for instance, reported no decrease in the academic achievement of gifted students who participated in condensed pro- grams, and that these students did not later regret being thus accel- erated. Rusch & Clark (1963) likewise found that children with a minimum I.Q. of 110, who were rated high on social and emotional maturity, physical development, intellectual ability, and academic achievement, were able to complete four grades in three years with no detrimental effects on adjustment or achievement. Double Promotion The simplest and most common form of acceleration used in ele- mentary school, double promotion (grade-skipping) requires less administrative planning, expense, and time than either early school admission or condensation. One advantage of double promotion is that it allows children to work with their mental, rather than their chronological peers. Besides being the easiest way to provide for the gifted, double promotion decreases the amount of time and money spent on their elementary 34 education. Though popular opinion has criticized double promotion as being detrimental to the personal, social, and academic welfare of gifted children, research results tend to support its effectiveness. Morgan (1957), for example, states that the double promotion of children with a Stanford-Binet I.Q.2;135, will be successful if three criteria are met: 1. Academic Achievement: Reading comprehension and vocabulary must be above the present grade level. Arithmetic reasoning must be at least at grade level. Spelling or com- putation or both must be at or above grade. Neither spelling nor computation can be as much as a year below grade level. 2. Physical Development: Height or weight, or both, must be at or above the mean for the modal age of the present grade level. Neither height nor weight can be more than one standard deviation below this mean. 3. Attitude of Parents: There must be no objec- tion to the child's acceleration on the part of the parents (p. 76). Shannon (1957), Klausmeier & Ripple (1962), and Klausmeier (1963) found no unfavorable academic, social, emotional, or physical corre- lates of grade-skipping for gifted students who attended a summer school session before being double promoted. (During that session, essential content of the grade to be skipped was presented.) Grouping Dividing students into homogeneous groups, usually of the basis of some measure of intelligence or achievement, is the third major provision that can be made for the gifted. Educators such as Rey- nolds (1963) and Snow (1970) feel that gifted students achieve to a 35 higher degree in homogeneous rather than in heterogeneous ability groups; Howell (1965) states that the more intelligent the student, the better the reason to ability group. Other educators maintain that homogeneous grouping establishes an intellectual elite, and deprives other children of the stimula- tion the gifted can provide (Faust, 1957). Critics also insist that homogeneous grouping causes social maladjustment in gifted children. This last point, amenable to objective study, has been proved to be false, for Terman & Oden (1947) report that while some maladjustment may occur in homogeneously grouped gifted children, it is temporary, and greatly exaggerated in most accounts. Mann (1957) states that homogeneous grouping is instrumental in developing and reinforcing friendship among gifted children, and that heterogeneous grouping often does not produce relationships between gifted and typical chil- dren significant enough to be termed friendships. Finally, Goldworth (1959), West & Sievers (1960), and Mirman (1962) found no evidence of social maladjustment in homogeneously grouped gifted children. One final criticism of homogeneous grouping, that its benefits do not persist over time, cannot be fully substantiated or refuted. However, several studies, including Terman & Oden (1947, 1959) and Dunlap (1955) have suggested that gains made by gifted children as a result of this provision do persist over time. Though homogeneous grouping has been and probably will continue to be subject to widespread debate, individual educators rarely cast the deciding vote (Miller, 1957; Barbe, 1958; Hamilton, 1960); instead, prevailing community factors and attitudes generally deter- mine whether or not such a provision is adopted. Havighurst (1955), 36 for example, showed that homogeneous grouping is more likely to be employed in large communities with an "average" socioeconomic status than in small cities, especially those which are economically "favored." Research reports neither confirm nor refute the effectiveness of homogeneous grouping. Ekstrom (1961) attributes this lack of con- sensus to the nature of most of the experiments themselves: These studies on the effectiveness of homogeneous grouping fail to show any great consistency in the findings. The experimental results differ greatly because of the wide variety of experimental condi- tions, methods, and purposes. Few studies have much in common in content, method, or type of sub- jects used (p. 222). Ekstrom also cites other factors as further confounding the collec- tive research results, including the lack of control over teaching methods, the use of volunteers for experimental groups, and the short duration of most studies. In her concluding statement, though, Ekstrom presents one trend: results tend to favor homogeneous grouping in those experiments that specifically provide for differentiated teaching methods and meter- ials for groups at each ability level, and that make an effort to accelerate the content and pace of the bright homogeneous classes. For example, Hart (1959) found that the reading achievement of ele- mentary students at every ability level increased as a result of homogeneous grouping. McCracken's (1960) study showed that when gifted, upper-grade elementary children received reading instruction in homogeneous classes, reading ability grew rapidly and consistently. Provus' (1960) study reported significantly greater achievement in math for children grouped homogeneously (according to measured 37 intelligence level) than for children grouped heterogeneously. Anal- ysis by level, though, showed that the more competent pupils profited most from the homogeneous grouping, while average students profited slightly; below average pupils gained no more from homogeneous, than from heterogeneous grouping. West & Sievers'(l960) study of superior students reported a mean achievement gain of two to five months for those homogeneously grouped over those placed in heterogeneous abil- ity classes. These and other studies (e.g. Bowman & Pierce, 1957; Borg, 1964) are summarized in Borg's (1966) report: Thus, we may conclude that neither ability group- ing with acceleration nor random grouping with enrichment is more effective for all ability levels of elementary-school pupils. When data for the different ability levels were considered separately, achievement advantages of the two grouping systems, though small, tend to favor ability grouping for superior pupils and random grouping for slow pupils. As was hypothesized, the achievement results for average pupils did not consistently favor either grouping treatment (p. 85). Partigl Segregation of Gifted Children Partial segregation is a broad term covering any program which places the gifted in homogeneous ability groups for some activities, and in heterogeneous ability groups for others. The Colfax Plan (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is one example of part-time grouping. While students with a Stanford-Binet I.Q. of 130 or more receive academic instruction in homogeneous ability groups, they participate in heterogeneous classes for music, art, and physical education. Pregler (1954) feels that this arrangement provides the gifted with three essential experiences: group activities with both their mental 38 and their social peers, individual activities through projects, and drill in mental skills. Other partial segregation programs, such as the Major Work Classes (Cleveland, Ohio), emphasize program enrichment (Barbe & Norris, 1954). As in the Colfax Plan, the gifted receive basic aca- demic instruction in homogeneous ability groups, but the regular cur- riculum is followed, augmented with additional lessons and activities. The Dual Progress Plan (Stoddard, 1961) groups children hetero- geneously for reading, language arts, and social studies. Students also participate in ability-grouped "clubs" for mathematics, science, foreign languages, art and music. This arrangement is presumed to produce optimum achievement, especially for gifted students in the upper grades. Some partial segregation programs place the gifted in hetero- geneous classes for all content areas, but provide an enrichment teacher to work with them in a homogeneous group several times a week. Dunlap (1955) states that the prime focus of this arrangement is on the attitudes, study habits, and ways of getting along with people that can be nurtured through such enrichment. Partial grouping often occurs on a smaller scale (Holcomb, 1955; Cline & Smith, 1958). The Joplin Plan, for instance, uses cross- grade ability grouping to raise reading achievement. Ramsey (1962) reports that this arrangement does produce expected gains, especially for those children in the upper third of the classes in measured intelligence. Finally, some schools cluster a small group of gifted children in a classroom with pupils of average intelligence. Besides providing 38 and their social peers, individual activities through projects, and drill in mental skills. Other partial segregation programs, such as the Major Work Classes (Cleveland, Ohio), emphasize program enrichment (Barbe & Norris, 1954). As in the Colfax Plan, the gifted receive basic aca- demic instruction in homogeneous ability groups, but the regular cur- riculum is followed, augmented with additional lessons and activities. The Dual Progress Plan (Stoddard, 1961) groups children hetero- geneously for reading, language arts, and social studies. Students also participate in ability-grouped "clubs" for mathematics, science, foreign languages, art and music. This arrangement is presumed to produce optimum achievement, especially for gifted students in the upper grades. Some partial segregation programs place the gifted in hetero- geneous classes for all content areas, but provide an enrichment teacher to work with them in a homogeneous group several times a week. Dunlap (1955) states that the prime focus of this arrangement is on the attitudes, study habits, and ways of getting along with people that can be nurtured through such enrichment. Partial grouping often occurs on a smaller scale (Holcomb, 1955; Cline & Smith, 1958). The Joplin Plan, for instance, uses cross- grade ability grouping to raise reading achievement. Ramsey (1962) reports that this arrangement does produce expected gains, especially for those children in the upper third of the classes in measured intelligence. Finally, some schools cluster a small group of gifted children in a classroom with pupils of average intelligence. Besides providing 39 the gifted with mental peers, clustering grouping allows for the advantages of a heterogeneous class (Kincaid & Epley, 1960). Total Segregation of Gifted Children Complete segregation of the gifted into groups homogeneous as to measured intelligence and/or achievement is not as common as part- time grouping, but special classrooms and schools have been estab- lished. One of the first special classes was organized by Race (1918) for superior students in Louisville, Kentucky. The Terman Classes of Speyer School are among the most well- known examples of total segregation of the gifted (Hollingworth, 1936, 1938, 1939; Bruner, 1941). Designed for children with a min- imum Stanford-Binet of 130, these classes were part of an experimental program established to study and improve upon the education of excep- tional children. Many other classes and schools for the gifted have been estab- lished (see, for example, Havighurst, Stivers, & DeHaan, 1955; Wirick & Chambers, 1964; Oakland Schools' Board of Designates, 1965). These provisions, plus such new school arrangements as supplementary learn- ing centers and mobile teaching laboratories, have provided opportu- nities to employ new instructional approaches with the gifted. How- ever, little curriculum innovation has been based on knowledge of giftedness, and educational provisions designed for gifted children continue to be influenced by traditional grading practices and stan- dardized testing (Hausdorff & Farr, 1965; Frierson, 1969). Teachers of Gifted Children The most important element of any educational provision for gifted children is the teacher (Renzulli, 1968). Although many 40 studies have sought to clarify the traits of an effective teacher of the gifted, complete consensus does not exist (Selvi, 1953; Wilson, 1953, 1957; Gowan, 1960). In an inclusive study comparing teachers identified by gifted students as being effective to teachers not so identified, Bishop (1968) presents certain characteristics as being most important. While effective teachers did not differ from unse- lected teachers in sex, marital status, type of undergraduate insti- tution attended, highest degree held, or course work preparation, they did tend to be more intelligent, more active in the cultural aspects of their communities, and more achievement-oriented. The successful teachers also exhibited more favorable attitudes toward students in general, and toward the gifted in particular. They sup- ported special educational provisions for the gifted, and preferred to teach a class of exceptionally bright students more than did the unselected teachers. Finally, in comparison to their fellow teachers, the effective teachers of the gifted were more systematic, orderly, and businesslike in their approach, and more enthusiastic about teaching. CHAPTER IV: METHODOLOGY Papulation The population consisted of all eighty-seven public elementary schools in the Ingham Intermediate School District (State of Michi- gan), not just a sample thereof. Data were gathered from.the busi- ness office of the Intermediate District, and from a survey given to each elementary principal. (Three schools that service elementary- age students were excluded from the study, one because it is a center for the trainable mentally retarded, and two others because they are special schools for emotionally disturbed children.) Though the grade-level composition of the schools in the study varied, all the schools were "elementary." Intermediate and middle schools were excluded, even though several contained fifth and/or sixth grades. Measures and Materials Information was gathered on each of the eighty-seven elementary schools from the business office of the Ingham.Intermediate School District, and recorded on dittoed pages hereafter referred to as data sheets for individual schools. (See Appendix A.) The survey was pretested in two consecutive sessions. In the first, the answers to questions six and seven were "Open," with no prestructured options. (See Appendix B.) Only questions six and 41 42 seven were replicated in the second session, but a list of possible responses was provided. (See Appendix C.) The final, revised form of the survey (see Appendix D) was mailed to each of the eighty-seven elementary principals in a 10 inch by 13 inch brown envelope. Included was a letter of transmittal with an individualized inside address and salutation; each letter was signed by hand. (See Appendix E.) Individualized, hand-signed follow-up letters were sent to all principals not returning the survey by the stipulated date. (See Appendix F.) Procedures General Preliminaries The rationale and purpose of this study were explained at its onset to the Assistant Superintendent of Special Education (Ingham Intermediate School District) in order to enlist his support and cooperation. Specifically, he arranged access to the Intermediate District business office files in order that necessary information on schools involved in this study could be gathered; he also agreed to co-sign the letter of transmittal that accompanied each survey. (His signature and position in the Intermediate District would help ensure response to the survey from the eighty-seven principals.) Data Collection from the Business Office of the Ingham Intermediate School District Information not readily available to most principals was collected from the business office of the Intermediate District with the assis- tance of the Administrative Services Consultant of the District, and 43 recorded on data sheets for individual schools. With the exception of funding for gifted programs data, the sheets were completed with information from the Intermediate District files; funding questions were later directed to the business managers or superintendents of the various school districts. Pretest of Survey and Subsequent Alterations The survey was pretested on all eight elementary school princi- pals in Grand Ledge, Michigan. Examination of the completed forms indicated that certain revisions were necessary. When provided with a list of answer options for questions six and seven, the pretest principals made a significantly higher number of responses (pa .05) than they did when these questions were left open-ended (see Table III). Apparently, supplying possible answers had the effect of insuring their inclusion. Thus, in spite of accom- panying problems in quantification, an open-ended format for questions six and seven was selected for the final survey form because such an approach seemed to be more valid. Furthermore, the directions to questions six and seven were not fully understood by several principals. In order to both clarify directions and to obtain responses free of external influence, these questions were combined and modified as shown in question six of the final, revised form of the survey. Two additional alterations cf the pretest survey were necessary. First, the percentage categories of (pretest) question four needed to be separated more precisely; it was also noted that option M of (pretest) question eight was redundant. Accordingly, these questions 44 TABLE III Number Of Responses To Pretest Questions Six And Seven Principal Format Open-Ended Options Provided =:C)H1nacar>od#> HHNHHD—‘NW H $‘BDUJNDP‘$‘U10\ 12 X X = 1.50 37 2= 4.65 IN ll >fl t test, correlated measures, p.<.05 were revised as shown in questions four and seven, reSpectively, of the final survey form. Survey Administration The survey was administered by mail to the principal of each of the eighty-seven schools studied. An accompanying letter of trans- mittal explained the purpose of the study, and requested that the sur- vey be completed and returned by a Specific date; a stamped envelope, addressed to the Intermediate District, was included for this purpose. The majority of principals (75.86%) responded to this initial contact. A follow-up letter, and another survey, were mailed to those principals who did not comply within the allotted time (two weeks). Of these, two-thirds returned their completed question- naires within an additional two week period. The seven remaining 45 delinquent respondents were contacted by telephone, and each agreed to answer the survey questions orally. The cumulative percentage of survey returns at each contact point is depicted in Figure 2. Responses from 100% of the popula- tion were finally secured. 1007. ‘P A go (100%) '2 75% r g ‘1 (75,867.) 8 m 50% Q) ‘7 co m ‘5 257 3 ° av 84 5'3 0% 1 i l 1 1" T Initial Follow-up Final Telephone Mailing Letter Call Contact Point Figure 2. Cumulative percentage of survey returns at each contact point. Statistical Analysis Data gleaned from the files of the Ingham Intermediate School District and responses to survey questions one through four were classified into a number of categories. The complete component breakdown of each of these demographic and personnel variables is depicted in Table IV. Responses to survey question five were classi- fied into nine categories, i.e. each educational provision variable was tallied in terms of its being: first through below sixth in frequency of use (including ties), used alone, or not used at all. 46 In order to determine the relationship between the fourteen demographic-personnel variables and the thirteen educational provi- sion variables, 182 separate chi square analyses were conducted. Relationships existing above an alpha level of .05 were not consid- ered significant. Relationships between the philosophical and provision variables are presented in a descriptive manner in Chapter V. TABLE IV Analysis Breakdown Of Demographic And Personnel Variables Variable Component Breakdown State Equalized ‘6 $15 Million $16-25 Million $26-50 Million Valuation $51-150 Million Other State Equalized s $10,600 $10,601-12,500 >/$13,000 Valuation per Pupil Number of Elementary .s 1,500 l,501-2,000 2,001-3,000 Other Pupils in District Number of Elementary 1-3 4-6 7-9 Other Schools in District Number of Pupils -€ 249 250-299 300-349 350-399 400-449 in School 450-499 500-549 550-599 5600 Availability of Yes No Funding for Gifted Programs 1969-70 Expenditure <.$599 $600-799 assoc per Pupil Average Class Size g 25.0 25.1-29.9 $30.0 Including Special Education Students .131? .1 a:' H n a...» 47 TABLE IV (cont'd.) Variable Average Class Size Excluding Special Education Students Grade Composition of School Percentage of Teachers Team Teaching Counselor Availability Availability of An Assistant Principal Component Breakdown \a 25.0 25.1-29.9 K-2 K-4 K-S K-6 None 5257. 26-50‘7. 51-757. Full Time Part Time Yes No Availability of Director Yes No of Special Education >,30.o Other >,76‘7. None CHAPTER V: RESULTS Intermediate District-Wide Occurrence of Provisions Made for Gifted Elementary Students The majority of public elementary principals in the Ingham.Inter- mediate School District (94.25%) reported making some kind of provi- sion for gifted students (see Table V). While 6.9% of the princi- pals reported using only one kind of provision, 68.96% stated that a mmin provision was used in conjunction with less frequently used methods. The remaining 19.39% of the principals reported using two or more provisions with equal frequency. Enrichment by the class- room teacher and grouping within the regular classroom were the most frequently used provisions. Most of the public elementary school principals (88.51%) reported using some technique to identify gifted students. While 113.34% reported using only one method (teacher judgment) for such identification, the remaining 78.17% stated that two or more tech- Iliques‘w'ere employed. As shown in Table VI, the method used most frequently to identify gifted elementary students was teacher judg- ment . Intermediate District-Wide Occurrence of Selected Demographic and Personnel Variables The State Equalized valuation and the State Equalized Valuation per student in the constituent districts of the Ingham Intermediate 48 49 TABLE V Provisions Made For Gifted Students (Reported By Individual Public Elementary Principals In The Ingham Intermediate School District) Compared On The Basis Of Frequency Of Occurrence W Percentage of Respondents Provision Selecting as Selecting as Employing Employing Less Not Using Only Choice First, but Equally with Frequently at A11 not Only Other Provi- than Main Choice sions as Provision(s) First Choice No Provision 5.75 - - - 94.25 Acceleration 0 0 2.30 18.39 79.31 (Double Promotion) Early Admission 0 0 2.30 2.30 95.40 Ungraded Primary 0 11.49 8.05 10.34 70.11 Enrichment by 5.75 24.14 12.64 44.83 12.64 Regular Teacher Enrichment by O 2.30 3.45 19.54 74.71 Ancillary Personnel Grouping in 0 14.94 13.79 47.13 24.14 Regular Classroom Advanced 0 1.15 6.90 29.89 62.07 Placement Extra Curricular O 0 1.15 11.49 87.36 Activities Partial 0 1.15 5.75 21.84 71.26 Segregation Complete 0 0 0 1.15 98.85 Segregation Special Teacher 1.15 11.49 1.15 16.09 70.11 or Consultant Other 0 2.30 0 2.30 95.40 50 TABLE VI Methods Of Identification Of Gifted Students (Reported By Individual Public Elementary Principals In The Ingham Intermediate School District) Compared On The Basis Of Frequency Of Occurrence Percentage of Respondents Method Selecting as Employing with Not Using Only Choice Other Provisions at All No Planned 11.49 - 88.51 Identification Teacher Judgment 10.34 70.11 19.54 Counselor Judgment 0 13.79 86.21 Principal Judgment 0 43.68 56.32 Individual Intelligence 0 22.99 77.01 Tests Group Intelligence Tests 0 40.23 59.77 Individual Achievement 0 13.79 86.21 Tests Group Achievement Tests 0 51.72 48.28 Reading Readiness Tests 0 14.94 85.06 Reading Achievement Tests 0 20.69 79.31 Aptitude Tests 0 8.05 91.95 School Grades 0 2.30 97.70 Other 0 2.30 97.70 School District are presented in Table VII. As might be expected, the distribution of tax base is directly related to individual district expenditure per student. (In all but two constituent school districts, those which were above the Intermediate District mean in State Equalized 51 Valuation per student were above the same mean in expenditure per stu- dent; those districts below one mean were also below the other.) Intermediate District-wide occurrence of elementary school per- sonnel thought to be germain to the kinds of provisions made for gifted students is depicted in Table VIII. Relationships between these two factors will be reported later in this chapter. TABLE VII Tax Base And Allocation Of Funds In The Constituent Districts Of The Ingham Intermediate School District Constituent State State 1969-1970 School Equalized Equalized Expenditure Districts Valuation Valuation Per Pupil* Per Pupil* East Lansing $ 126,296,081 $ 24,471.24 $1,025.07 Holt 44,578,118 10,307.08 606.38 Okemos 64,990,438 19,646.44 958.91 Waverly 145,288,879 30,174.22 830.40 Dansville 11,893,163 11,580.49 541.57 Haslett 21,977,561 10,632.59 700.11 Leslie 16,030,138 9,882.95 623.14 Mason 43,338,696 12,187.48 598.38 Stockbridge 22,916,069 11,277.59 579.87 Webberville 9,235,872 11,588.30 616.14 Williamston 24,217,580 13,736.57 674.18 Total for Non-Lansing 530,762,595 165,484.95 7,754.15 Districts Average for Non- 48,251,145 15,044.09 704.92 Lansing Districts Lansing 677,494,032 20,285.47 893.57 Total Including Lansing 1,208,256,627 185,770.42 8,647.72 Average Including Lansing 100,688,052 15,480.87 720.64 * Average figures based on total elementary and secondary student enrollment 52 TABLE VIII Intermediate District-Wide Occurrence Of Selected Elementary School Personnel Positions Percentage of Schools Having Such Personnel Assistant Principal 8.05% Counselor (Total) 29.89 Part Time 21.84 Full Time 8.05 Director of Special Education 64.37 Team Teachers (Total) 56.33 1/4 of staff or less 34.48 (but more than none) 1/2 of staff or less 9.20 (but more than 1/4) 3/4 of staff or less 4.60 (but more than 1/2) all of staff or less 8.05 (but more than 3/4) The distribution of elementary school students and faculties in the Ingham Intermediate School District is presented in Table IX by constituent districts. The most conspicuous factor is that elemen- tary schools in the Lansing district had, on the average, more stu- dents and fewer teachers per building than non-Lansing districts. Table X depicts the resulting larger average class size in the Lan- sing elementary schools. TABLE IX Elementary Student And Faculty Sizes In The Constituent Districts Of The Ingham Intermediate School District Constituent Number of Number of Students Per Faculty Per District Elementary Elementary Elementary School Elementary Schools Students School East Lansing 9 2,477 2,464 275 274 11.5 11.5 Holt 5 2,413 2,378 483 476 17.5 17.0 Okemos 4 1,490 1,486 373 372 15.0 15.0 Waverly 6 2,149 2,114 358 352 14.0 13.5 Dansville l 578 569 578 569 20.0 19.0 Haslett 3 1,050 1,038 350 346 13.5 13.0 Leslie 1 651 636 651 636 27.0 25.0 Mason 5 1,954 1,932 391 386 15.0 15.0 Stockbridge 3 1,136 1,117 379 372 13.5 12.5 Webberville l 316 316 316 316 13.0 13.0 Williamston 2 837 824 419 412 18.0 17.0 Total for Non-Lansing 40 15,051 14,874 Districts Average for Non- 4 1,368 1,352 376 372 14.5 14.0 Lansing Districts Lansing 47 18,989 18,455 404 393 13.5 12.5 Total Including Lansing 87 34,040 33,329 Average Including Lansing 7 2,836 2,777 391 383 14.0 13.5 E - Sum including special education students 22 - Sum excluding special education students ”1 ' Mean including special education students/faculty M2 - Mean excluding special education students/faculty 54 TABLE X Average Class Sizes Of Elementary Schools In The Constituent Districts Of The Ingham Intermediate School District Average Class Size Constituent District Including Excluding Special Special Education Education Students Students East Lansing 23.5 24.0 Holt 27.5 28.0 Okemos 25.0 25.0 Waverly 26.0 26.5 Dansville 29.0 30.0 Haslett 26.5 26.5 Leslie 24.0 25.5 Mason 25.5 26.0 Stockbridge 28.5 29.5 Webberville 24.5 24.5 Williamston 23.5 24.0 Total for Non-Lansing Districts Average for Non- 25.5 26.0 Lansing Districts Lansing 29.5 31.5 Total Including Lansing Average Including Lansing 27.5 29.0 Relationships Between Selected School Characteristics and Provisions Made for Gifted Elementary Students Question One of this study asked, "Is there a relationship between the State Equalized Valuation of a school district and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students?" From Table XI, it can be observed that the State Equalized Valuation of 55 TABLE XI Relationship Between State Equalized Valuation And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students Proyision X2 df Significance Level No Provision 5.615 4 NS Acceleration 17.956 24 NS Early Admission 15.006 12 NS Ungraded Primary 16.569 16 NS Enrichment (by 18.729 24 NS regular classroom teacher) Enrichment (by 34.887 24 NS ancillary personnel) Grouping (in 20.550 16 NS regular classroom) Advanced Placement 19.885 24 NS Extra-Curricular 30.350 24 NS Activities Partial Segregation 35.252 28 NS Total Segregation 8.767 4 NS Special Teacher 32.179 32 NS or Consultant Other 17.418 12 NS NS = Not Significant 56 a school district is not related to any provision beyond the .05 level of significance. Question Two of this study asked, "Is there a relationship between the State Equalized Valuation per student of a school dis- trict and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students?" From Table XII, it can be observed that the State Equalized Valuation per student of a school district is related to making "other" provi- sions. Further chi square cell analysis suggested that this relation- ship is specifically between the presence of low ($$10,600) State Equalized Valuation per student and the use of such unspecified pro- visions. Question Three of this study asked, "Is there a relationship between the number of elementary pupils in a school district and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students?" Table XIII shows that the number of elementary pupils in a school district is related to the following provisions: no provision, special teacher or consultant for the gifted, and provisions other than those listed. Specifically there is a relationship between districts having 1,501- 2,000 elementary pupils and the use of no or "other" provisions. There is also a relationship between school districts having large elementary enrollments (>/18,000 pupils) and the employment of spe- cial teachers or consultants for the gifted. Question Four of this study asked, "Is there a relationship between the number of elementary schools in a district and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students?" From Table XIV, it can be observed that the number of elementary schools in a dis- trict is related to the following provisions: early admission, TABLE XII Relationship Between State Equalized Valuation Per Pupil And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students Provision X2 df Significance Level No Provision 2.819 2 NS Acceleration 11.977 12 NS Early Admission 1.172 6 NS Ungraded Primary 8.437 8 NS Enrichment (by 6.614 12 NS regular classroom teacher) Enrichment (by 5.182 12 NS ancillary personnel) Grouping (in 2.318 8 NS regular classroom) Advanced Placement 12.357 12 NS Extra-Curricular 12.167 12 NS Activities Partial Segregation 17.012 14 NS Total Segregation 5.758 2 NS Special Teacher 10.828 16 NS or Consultant Other 19.875 6 .01 NS - Not Significant TABLE XIII 58 Relationship Between Number Of Elementary Pupils In A School District And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students m 2 Provision x df Significance Level No Provision 12.999 3 .01 Acceleration 13.425 18 NS Early Admission 14.046 9 NS Ungraded Primary 10.096 12 NS Enrichment (by 20.336 18 NS regular classroom teacher) Enrichment (by 20.778 18 NS ancillary personnel) Grouping (in 12.675 12 NS regular classroom) Advanced Placement 7.923 18 NS Extra-Curricular 24.593 18 NS Activities Partial Segregation 28.946 21 NS Total Segregation 4.856 3 NS Special Teacher 36.803 24 .05 or Consultant Other 21.611 9 .02 NS = Not Significant 59 TABLE XIV Relationship Between Number Of Elementary Schools In A District And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students i Provision X2 df Significance Level No Provision 1.922 3 NS Acceleration 20.111 18 NS Early Admission 36.337 9 .001 Ungraded Primary 10.334 12 NS Enrichment (by 19.704 18 NS regular classroom teacher) Enrichment (by 39.221 18 .01 ancillary personnel) Grouping (in 21.957 12 .05 regular classroom) Advanced Placement 13.919 18 NS Extra-Curricular 29.348 18 .05 Activities Partial Segregation 29.211 21 NS Total Segregation 6.989 3 NS Special Teacher 31.153 24 NS or Consultant Other 8.508 9 NS NS = Not Significant 60 enrichment by ancillary personnel, grouping in the regular classroom, and extra-curricular activities. Further investigation showed that strong relationships exist between there being seven to nine elemen- tary schools in a district, and the use of both early admission and enrichment by ancillary personnel. Significant relationships also occur between the presence of seven to nine elementary schools in a district, and the use of both grouping in the regular classroom and extra-curricular activities. Question Five of this study asked, "Is there a relationship between the number of pupils in an elementary school and the kind of provisions made for its gifted students?" Table XV shows that the number of pupils in an elementary school is not related to any provision beyond the .05 level of significance. Question Six of this study asked, "Is there a relationship between the availability of funding for gifted programs and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students?" From Table XVI, it can be seen that the availability of funding is related to accel- eration, enrichment by the regular classroom teacher, and grouping in the regular classroom. It is strongly related to partial segre- gation and use of a special teacher or consultant for the gifted. Question Seven of this study asked, "Is there a relationship between the 1969-70 school district expenditure per pupil and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students?" Table XVII shows that the 1969-70 school district expenditure per pupil is related to total segregation and provisions other than those listed. Specifically, there is a relationship between average TABLE XV 61 Relationship Between Number Of Pupils In An Elementary School And Provisions Made For Its Gifted Students W 2 Provision x, df Significance Level No Provision 2.702 8 NS Acceleration 45.652 48 NS Early .Admission 23.018 24 NS Ungraded Primary 26.708 32 NS Enrichment (by 46.503 48 NS regular classroom teacher) Enrichment (by 45.378 48 NS ancillary personnel) Grouping (in 27.952 32 NS regular classroom) Advanced Placement 40.215 48 NS Extra-Curricular 48.202 48 NS Activities Partial Segregation 67.159 56 NS Total Segregation 6.989 8 NS Special Teacher 58.201 64 NS or Consultant Other 36.271 24 NS NS 5 Not Significant 62 TABLE XVI Relationship Between Availability Of Funding For Gifted Programs And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students Provision X2 df Significance Level No Provision 2.021 1 NS Acceleration 13.521 6 .05 Early Admission 1.597 3 NS Ungraded Primary 4.320 4 NS Enrichment (by 14.115 6 .05 regular classroom teacher) Enrichment (by 5.386 6 NS ancillary personnel) Grouping (in 12.774 4 .02 regular classroom) Advanced Placement 3.128 6 NS Extra-Curricular 2.909 6 NS Activities Partial Segregation 23.322 7 .01 Total Segregation 0.385 1 NS Special Teacher 78.322 8 .001 or Consultant Other 1.597 3 NS NS = Not Significant 63 TABLE XVII Relationship Between 1969-70 School District Expenditure Per Pupil And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students Provision X2 df Significance Level No Provision 5.417 2 NS Acceleration 15.503 12 NS Early Admission 1.334 6 NS Ungraded Primary 9.893 8 NS Enrichment (by 9.240 12 NS regular classroom teacher) Enrichment (by 15.520 12 NS ancillary personnel) Grouping (in 3.794 8 NS regular classroom) Advanced Placement 9.818 12 NS Extra-Curricular 11.582 12 NS Activities Partial Segregation 17.403 14 NS Total Segregation 6.323 2 .05 Special Teacher 12.463 16 NS or Consultant Other 15.628 6 .02 NS . Not Significant 64 ($600-799) district expenditure per student and the use of total seg- regation. A strong relationship occurs between low (a 599) district expenditure per pupil and the use of "other" provisions. Question Eight of this study asked, "Is there a relationship between the average class size of a school (including special educa- tion pupils) and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students?" From Table XVIII, it can be observed that the average class size of a school including special education pupils is strongly related to enrichment by ancillary personnel. Further analysis showed that this relationship is specifically between schools with low Gs 25.0 students) average class size (including special education pupils) and the use of such enrichment. Question Nine of this study asked, "Is there a relationship between the average class size of a school (excluding special educa- tion pupils) and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students?" Table XIX shows that the average class size of a school excluding special education pupils is related to early admission and enrichment by ancillary personnel. These relationships exist speci- fically when low (g 25.0 students) average class size (excluding special education pupils) is evident. Question Ten of this study asked, "Is there a relationship between the grade composition of a given school (e.g. K-4, K-S, K-6) and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students?" From Table XX, it can be observed that the grade composition of a school is strongly related to enrichment by ancillary personnel and provisions other than those listed. Further investigation showed 65 TABLE XVIII Relationship Between Average Class Size Of A School (Including Special Education Pupils) And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students Provision X df Significance Level No Provision 3.108 2 NS Acceleration 8.779 12 NS Early Admission 10.357 6 NS Ungraded Primary 6.216 8 NS Enrichment (by 15.793 12 NS regular classroom teacher) Enrichment (by 30.056 12 .01 ancillary personnel) Grouping (in 9.457 8 NS regular classroom) Advanced Placement 8.616 12 NS Extra-Curricular 16.847 12 NS Activities Partial Segregation 14.969 14 NS Total Segregation 1.245 2 NS Special Teacher 17.729 16 NS or Consultant Other 6.132 6 NS NS = Not Significant 66 TABLE XIX Relationship Between Average Class Size Of A School (Excluding Special Education Pupils) And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students Provision X2 df Significggge Level No Provision 1.235 2 NS Acceleration 9.547 12 NS Early Admission 15.299 6 .02 Ungraded Primary 5.224 8 NS Enrichment (by 6.750 12 NS regular classroom teacher) Enrichment (by 22.760 12 .05 ancillary personnel) Grouping (in 12.353 8 NS regular classroom) Advanced Placement 8.272 12 NS Extra-Curricular 11.071 12 NS Activities Partial Segregation 19.233 14 NS Total Segregation 1.577 2 NS Special Teacher 24.501 16 NS or Consultant Other 3.409 6 NS NS - Not Significant 67 TABLE XX Relationship Between Grade Composition Of A School And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students Provision X2 df Significance Level No Provision 6.057 4 NS Acceleration 13.578 24 NS Early Admission 10.398 12 NS Ungraded Primary 8.739 16 NS Enrichment (by 32.660 24 NS regular classroom teacher) Enrichment (by 130.859 24 .001 ancillary personnel) Grouping (in 15.747 16 NS regular classroom) Advanced Placement 15.146 24 NS Extra-Curricular 13.165 24 NS Activities Partial Segregation 16.904 28 NS Total Segregation 2.509 4 NS Special Teacher 25.003 32 NS or Consultant Other 45.539 12 .001 NS - Not Significant - L._ 41:24; 68 that the relationships exist between schools with a K-2 composition and enrichment by ancillary personnel and also between "other" grade compositions and "other" provisions. Question Eleven of this study asked, "Is there a relationship between the percentage of teachers involved in team teaching in a school and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary stu- dents?" From Table XXI, it can be observed that the percentage of teachers involved with team teaching in a school is related to pres- ence of an ungraded primary, enrichment by ancillary personnel, and advanced placement. Further analysis showed that the specific rela- tionships are between 1) most (>/76%) of the teachers in a school team teaching and the presence of an ungraded primary, and 2) the majority (51-76%) of the teachers in a school team teaching and both enrichment by ancillary personnel and advanced placement. Question Twelve of this study asked, "Is there a relationship between the presence of a school counselor and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students?" Table XXII shows that the pres- ence of a school counselor is related to making provisions other than those listed (when the counselor is part time). Question Thirteen of this study asked, "Is there a relationship between the presence of an assistant principal in a school and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students?" From Table XXIII, it can be observed that the presence of an assistant principal in a school is related to the following provisions: ungraded primary, partial segregation, and use of a special teacher or consultant for the gifted. 69 TABLE XXI Relationship Between Percentage Of Teachers Involved In Team Teaching And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students m Provision X2 df Significance Level No Provision 1.407 4 NS Acceleration 15.762 24 NS Early Admission 18.061 12 NS Ungraded Primary 39.637 16 .001 Enrichment (by 31.861 24 NS regular classroom teacher) Enrichment (by 47.576 24 .01 ancillary personnel) Grouping (in 18.388 16 NS regular classroom) Advanced Placenent 40.122 24 .05 Extra-Curricular 33.062 24 NS Activities Partial Segregation 22.706 28 NS Total Segregation 1.922 4 NS Special Teacher 33.033 32 NS or Consultant Other 5.859 12 NS NS I Not Significant 70 TABLE XXII Relationship Between Presence Of A School Counselor And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students Provision X df Significance Level No Provision 2.261 2 NS Acceleration 7.082 12 NS Early Admission 1.787 6 NS Ungraded Primary 5.603 8 NS Enrichment (by 12.714 12 NS regular classroom teacher) Enrichment (by 13.102 12 NS ancillary personnel) Grouping (in 8.365 8 NS regular classroom) Advanced Placement 17.764 12 NS Extra-Curricular 8.940 12 NS Activities Partial Segregation 6.020 14 NS Total Segregation 0.431 2 NS Special Teacher 16.017 16 NS or Consultant Other 15.006 6 .05 NS = th Significant 71 TABLE XXIII Relationship Between Presence Of An Assistant Principal In A School And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students Provision X2 df Siguificance Level No Provision 0.464 1 NS Acceleration 4.493 6 NS Early Admission 0.367 3 NS Ungraded Primary 13.150 4 .02 Enrichment (by 3.775 6 NS regular classroom teacher) Enrichment (by 8.399 6 NS ancillary personnel) Grouping (in 7.754 4 NS regular classroom) Advanced Placement 6.107 6 NS Extra-Curricular 1.102 6 NS Activities Partial Segregation 20.204 7 .01 Total Segregation 0.089 1 NS Special Teacher or Consultant 22.643 8 .01 Other 0.367 3 NS NS - Not Significant 71 TABLE XXIII Relationship Between Presence Of An Assistant Principal In A School And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students Provision X2 df Significance Level No Provision 0.464 1 NS Acceleration 4.493 6 NS Early Admission 0.367 3 NS Ungraded Primary 13.150 4 .02 Enrichment (by 3.775 6 NS regular classroom teacher) Enrichment (by 8.399 6 NS ancillary personnel) Grouping (in 7.754 4 NS regular classroom) Advanced Placement 6.107 6 NS Extra-Curricular 1.102 6 NS Activities Partial Segregation 20.204 7 .01 Total Segregation 0.089 1 NS Special Teacher or Consultant 22.643 8 .01 Other 0.367 3 NS NS - Not Significant 72 Question Fourteen of this study asked, "Is there a relationship between the presence of a director of special education in a district and the kind of provisions made for gifted elementary students?" Table XXIV shows that the presence of a director of special educa- tion is related to the presence of a special teacher or consultant for the gifted. Stated Rationales for Presence or Absence of Formal Provisions for Gifted Elementary Students Schools in this study were classified on the basis of whether or not the building or district administration made formal provisions for gifted elementary students. Such provisions include partial or total segregation of gifted students, and employment of a special teacher or consultant for the gifted (see Appendix D, question six). Rationales were not pre-structured for the principals (see Chapter IV, p. 43); individual responses were classified upon receipt according to content. Question Fifteen of this study asked, "Do the majority of ele- mentary schools that partially or totally segregate gifted students, or provide a special teacher or consultant for the gifted, have a consistent rationale for doing so?" Table XXV shows that a fairly consistent rationale did exist.1 Collectively, all 34 principals (39.08% of the sample-papulation) who employed one or more of these provisions stated a total of only five reasons for using such The judgment of consistency here is relative and perhaps arbitrary. As a group, principals who made formal provisions were more consistent in their rationale than those who did not. 73 TABLE XXIV Relationship Between Presence Of A Director Of Special Education In A School District And Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students m m :m Provision X2 df Significance Level No Provision 0.044 1 NS Acceleration 9.597 6 NS Early Admission 2.321 3 NS Ungraded Primary 4.103 4 NS Enrichment (by 6.790 6 NS regular classroom teacher) Enrichment (by 8.826 6 NS ancillary personnel) Grouping (in 2.215 4 NS regular classroom) Advanced Placement 3.065 6 NS Extra-Curricular 8.194 6 NS Activities Partial Segregation 10.294 7 NS Total Segregation 1.827 1 NS Special Teacher 20.670 8 .01 or Consultant Other 4.737 3 NS NS - Not Significant 74 measures. (One reason was given by 79.41% of these principals; the remaining 20.59% cited two reasons.) The two reasons for the use of formal provisions stated most frequently were that such were neces- sary to meet the academic needs of gifted students, and to provide enrichment for them. TABLE XXV Reasons Stated By Elementary Principals In The Ingham Intermediate School District For The Presence Of Formal Provisions For The Gifted Reason Number of Times Cited To meet individual (academic) 15 needs of gifted students To provide enrichment 10 It is the policy of the 6 school district To make the classroom 4 teacher's job easier Have no rationale 6 Question Sixteen of this study asked, "Do the majority of ele- mentary schools that do not partially or totally segregate gifted students, or provide a special teacher or consultant for the gifted, have a consistent rationale for not doing so?" From Table XXVI, it can be observed that a relatively inconsistent rationale existed. Collectively, all 53 of the principals (60.92% of the sample-popula- tion) who did not employ any of these provisions stated a total of eleven reasons for not doing so. (One reason was given by 60.37% 75 of these principals; two reasons were stated by 30.19%; three reasons were cited by 9.44%.) The three reasons stated most frequently for the absence of formal provisions were lack of funds, pedagogical opposition to such measures, and lack of need due to complete cur- ricular individualization. TABLE XXVI Reasons Stated By Elementary Principals In The Ingham Intermediate School District For The Absence Of Formal Provisions For The Gifted Reason Number of Times Cited Lack of funds 18 Pedagogically opposed 17 No need-complete individual- 11 ization exists in our school Not enough gifted students 9 Lack of teacher support 6 Lack of (trained) staff 5 Emphasis should be on 4 remediation Lack of community support 3 "All children are gifted" 2 Lack of facilities 1 No response 3 CHAPTER VI: DISCUSSION Summarygof Results The majority (94.25%) of public elementary principals in the Ingham Intermediate School District reported making some educational provision for the gifted; 88.35% of the principals reported using two or more methods. Enrichment by the regular classroom teacher and grouping within the regular classroom were the most frequently used provisions. Most (88.51%) of the principals also reported using some technique to identify the gifted; 78.17% stated that two or more methods were used. Teacher judgment was the most frequently used identification technique. District tax bases and 1969-70 district expenditures per pupil were directly related to each other. These economic factors varied widely throughout the Intermediate District. While only 8.05% of the elementary schools in the Intermediate District had an assistant principal, 29.89% of the schools had a part-time or full-time counselor; 64.37% of the schools (i.e. those in Lansing and East Lansing) belonged to districts employing a dir- ector of special education. Varying degrees of team teaching occurred in 56.33% of all the schools surveyed. Average class sizes (both including and excluding special edu- cation pupils) were larger in the Lansing district than in the 76 77 eleven other districts. Although 182 separate chi square analyses were conducted to ascertain what relationships exist between (fourteen) selected demo- graphic-personnel variables and (thirteen) provisions for the gifted, only twenty-eight proved to be significant beyond an alpha level of .05. Table XXVII depicts the seven variables related to formal pro- visions for gifted elementary students. Table XXVIII delineates the twenty-one factors related to informal provisions for the gifted. Certain variables, namely State Equalized Valuation and number of pupils in an elementary school, were not related to any formal or informal provision. Thirty-four elementary principals (39.08% of the sample-papula- tion) reported making formal provisions for the gifted. (Such pro- visions include partial or total segregation of gifted students, or employment of a special teacher or consultant for the gifted.) Of these principals, 79.41% gave one reason for using one or more for- mal provisions; the remaining 20.59% cited two reasons. The reasons stated most frequently for the use of formal provisions were that such were needed to meet the academic needs of gifted students, and to provide enrichment for them. Fifty-three elementary principals (60.92% of the sample-population) did not make formal provisions for the gifted. Of these principals, 60.37% stated one reason, 30.19% cited two reasons, and 9.44% reported three reasons for the absence of such measures. The reasons stated most frequently for not using formal provisions were lack of funds, pedagogical opposition to such measures, and lack of need due to complete curricular individualiza- tion. 78 TABLE XXVII Factors Related To Formal Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students In The Ingham Intermediate School District Provision Partial Segregation Total Segregation Special Teacher or Consultant for the Gifted Factor Availability of funding for gifted programs *** Presence of assistant principal *** District expenditure per pupil ($600-799) * Availability of funding for gifted programs **** Presence of assistant principal *** Presence of director of special education *** Number of elementary pupils in district 03,18,000) * p levels: *.3 .05 *‘k \“ .02 m 5 .01 **** i .001 Limitations Perhaps the most obvious limitation of this study is its partial reliance on verbal report. While most principals responded to the questionnaire in an honest and forthright manner, a few instances of inaccurate reporting did take place. Whether such errors were inten- tional or inadvertent remains unknown. Inherent in the statistical analysis are several other limitations. 79 TABLE XXVIII Factors Related To Informal Provisions Made For Gifted Elementary Students In The Ingham Intermediate School District Provision Factor No Provision Number of elementary pupils in district (l,501-2,000) *** Acceleration Availability of funding for gifted programs * Early Admission Number of elementary schools in district (7-9) **** Average class size excluding special education pupils (f 25.0) ** Ungraded Primary Percentage of teachers team- teaching (a76%) **** Presence of assistant principal ** Enrichment (by regular Availability of funding for classroom teacher) gifted programs * Enrichment (by Grade composition of school ancillary personnel) (K-Z) **** Number of elementary schools in district (7-9) *** Percentage of teachers team- teaching (51-75%) *** 80 TABLE XXVIII (cont'd.) Provision Grouping (in regular classroom) Advanced Placement Extra-Curricular Activities "Other" Factor Average class size including special education pupils (é: 25.0) *** Average class size excluding special education pupils (425.0) * Availability of funding for gifted programs ** Number of elementary schools in district (7-9) * Percentage of teachers team- teaching (51-75%) * Number of elementary schools in district (7-9) * Grade composition ("other") **** State Equalized Valuation per pupil (4310,600) *** Number of elementary pupils in district (l,501-2,000) ** Expenditure per pupil ( Individual achievement test (giftedness = grades above the norm) Group achievement tests (giftedness grades above the norm) Reading readiness tests (giftedness grades above the norm) Reading achievement tests (giftedness = grades above the norm) Aptitude tests School grades (giftedness = grade point average) Combination of above. Please specify by letters. Other. Please explain: APPENDIX C PRETEST FORM OF SURVEY: PART II PRETEST FORM OF SURVEY: PART II If your school does p22_partia11y or totally segregate your gifted students, or have a special teacher or consultant for the gifted, please indicate the reason(s) for this. If more than one reason exists, please number them in order of impor- tance, with #1 being the most important, #2 the next most important, and so forth. If two or more reasons are equally important, assign the same numeral to each. Please rank only the reason(s) that actually apply to your school. Leave the reasons that do not apply blank. a. Gifted students excel without such provi- sions. b. Gifted students should be integrated, not segregated, from other students. c. Not enough gifted students d. Lack of community interest e. Lack of teacher interest f. Lack of administrative support Lack of funds h. Lack of qualified teachers 1. Lack of physical facilities Other. Please specify: If your school does partially or totally segregate gifted stu- dents, and/or have a special teacher or consultant for the gifted, please indicate the reason(s) for this. If more than one reason exists, please number them in order of importance, with #1 being the most important, #2 the next most important, and so forth. If two or more reasons are equally important, assign the same numeral to each. Please rank only the reason(s) that actually apply to your school. Leave the reasons that do not apply blank. 106 107 Gifted students need such provisions if they are to maximize their abilities. Gifted students learn more from each other than from other students. Gifted students deserve just as much time, money, and effort as do mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed students. Equal education for all students deprive the gifted of a good education. The community accepts and is willing to pay for such provisions for the gifted. The community demands such provisions for the gifted. Teachers are interested in such provisions. I (the principal) am interested in such pro- visions. The administration is interested in such pro- visions. Such provisions for the gifted have high financial priority in this community dis- trict. Other. Please specify: APPENDIX D FINAL, REVISED FORM OF SURVEY APPENDIX D FINAL, REVISED FORM OF SURVEY FINAL, REVISED FORM OF SURVEY SCHOOL DISTRICT NAME OF RESPONDENT POSITION DATE 1. Do you have an assistant principal? Yes No 2. Does your school have a counselor? Yes No If yes, is he/she: Full time Part time 3. Please write "yes" in front of any of the following positions 4. that exist in your school district. Write "no" in front of those which your school district does not have. Director of Elementary Education _____ Director of Special Education Curriculum Director (K-12) Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Please indicate what percentage of your teachers team-teach (two or more teachers sharing responsibility for a group of students): ______ a. None b. 25% or less c. 26-50% d. 51-75% e. 76% or more 108 109 Rank the provisions that your school makes for gifted students in order of frequency, with #1 being the most frequently used provision, #2 the next most frequently used provision, and so forth. Please rank only those provisions that are actually used in your school. Leave blank the provisions that are not used. a. No provisions are made b. Acceleration (grade skipping) c. Early admission to kindergarten d. Ungraded primary or combined-grade room (where child can condense three year's work into two, or two year's work into one, and so forth) e. Enrichment in the regular classroom by the regular teacher f. Enrichment in the regular classroom by a person other than the regular teacher. Please specify who this person is: Grouping within the regular classroom h. Advanced placement for some academic areas (child remains in regular classroom for most subjects, but goes to higher-grade rooms for some subjects) i. Extra-curricular activities (which occur v// before or after the regular school day). Please identify these activities: Partial segregation (gifted grouped together for some classes) k. Complete segregation (gifted grouped together for all classes) 1. Special teacher or consultant for the gifted m. Other. Please describe: 110 Directions: Question 6 consists of two parts. Respond to Part A only if you excluded options j, k, and l in your answer to ques- tion 5. Respond to Part B only if you included options j, k, or 1 in your answer to question 5. Do not respond to both parts of question 6. Part A: If your school does 392 partially or totally segregate gifted students, or have a special teacher or consultant for the gifted, please indicate the reason(s) for this. If more than one reason exists, please number them in order of importance, with #1 being the most important, #2 the next most important, and so forth. Part B: If your school does partially or totally segregate gifted stu- dents, and/or have a special teacher or consultant for the gifted, please indicate the reason(s) for this. If more than one reason exists, please number them in order of importance, with #1 being the most important, #2 the next most important, and so forth. 111 7. Which of the following do you use to identify your gifted stu- dents? Please state the scores or other criteria as the minimal beginning point for giftedness. a. No planned identification Teacher judgment Counselor judgment Principal judgment Individual intelligence tests (I.Q. for giftedness = ) Group intelligence tests (I.Q. for gifted- ness = > Individual achievement test (giftedness = grades above the norm) Group achievement tests (giftedness * grades above the norm) Reading readiness tests (giftedness = grades above the norm) Reading achievement tests (giftedness - grades above the norm) Aptitude tests School grades (giftedness = grade point average) Other. Please explain: PLEASE RETURN TO: Ingham Intermediate School District Division of Special Education 2630 Howell Road Mason, Michigan 48854 APPENDIX E LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL IOAID 0' IDUCATION INGHAM INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT DIVISION or SPECIAL EDUCATION I.” W. HOWELL ROAD MACON. MICHIGAN mu ARIA COD! II? CWI March 9, 1971 Principal's Name Principal's School Principal's Address City, State, Zip Code Individualized Salutation: There appears to be increasing interest in special educational programming for gifted children. Periodically we get calls from parents with gifted children and inquiries from teachers and adminis- trators to see what is being done or what might be done. One of the superintendents on the Special Education Advisory Committee has expressed an especially strong interest in special education provi- sions for gifted children. Our last State Legislature had introduced legislation for special provisions for gifted students. Although this legislation has not passed we have noted considerable interest at many levels. We are most interested in what is being done within the consti- tuent school districts of the Ingham Intermediate School District and are conducting a survey to gain some picture of the curricular provi- sions presently made for gifted students in our elementary programs. As principal, you are the person most knowledgeable about programs and services designed for gifted pupils in your building. Would you help us by completing the enclosed questionnaire? It will take between five and ten minutes of your time. Your reply is essential if the study is to be accurate and complete. We would be grateful if you would fill out the enclosed form and return it by March 19 in the enclosed envelope. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions about the project. Thank you for your cooperation. We appreciate the time and effort you will invest in this survey. Sincerely yours, David L. Haarer, Ph.D. Assistant Superintendent Special Education Susan Scott Horan Teacher/Consultant (Chief Researcher for Project) 112 APPENDIX F FOLLOW-UP LETTER IOARD OF IDUCATION INGHAM INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT DIVISION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION 2030 W. HOWELL ROAD MASON. MICHIGAN 4.054 ARIA CODE 517 I7C-ZAII March 31, 1971 Principal's Name Principal's School Principal's Address City, State, Zip Code Individualized Salutation: We still need your help. As we indicated in our letter of March 9, we are most interested in what is being done for gifted children within the constituent school districts of the Ingham Intermediate School District and are conducting a survey to gain some picture of the curricular provisions presently made for gifted students in our elementary programs. In order to have a complete picture of present provisions for gifted students, we need a report from each elementary school in the Intermediate District. Enclosed is another copy of the questionnaire just in case you did not receive or perchance mislaid the copy sent earlier. We would appre- ciate having it returned at an early date. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Sincerely yours, David L. Haarer, Ph.D. Assistant Superintendent Special Education (Mrs.) Susan Horan Project Director DLH/SH:lf Enclosure 113 STATE UNIV. L BRA MICHIGAN 11111111" I 312 RIES 53 HI I Immmiml 931070351 1| 1