INFORMATION TO USERS
This re p ro d u c tio n was m ade fro m a co p y o f a d o c u m e n t sent to us for microfilming.
While the m ost advanced technology has been used to p h o to g ra p h and rep ro d u c e
this d o c u m e n t, the quality o f the re p ro d u c tio n is heavily d e p e n d e n t u p o n the
quality o f th e m aterial s u b m itte d .
The following e x p la n a tio n o f techniques is provided to help clarify m arkings o r
n o ta tio n s which m ay a p p e ar o n this rep ro d u c tio n .
1 .T h e sign o r “ targ e t” for pages a p parently lacking from the d o c u m e n t
p h o to g ra p h e d is “ Missing Page(s)” . If it w as possible to o b tain the missing
page(s) o r section, th ey are spliced into the film along w ith ad ja c e n t pages. This
may have necessitated c u ttin g th rough an image and duplicating a djacent pages
to assure c om plete c o n tin u ity .
2. When an image on th e film is obliterated w ith a round black m ark , it is an
indication o f e ith e r blurred co p y because o f m o v em e n t during e xposure,
duplicate c o p y , o r cop y rig h ted materials th a t should n o t have been filmed. F o r
blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be fo u n d in the ad ja c e n t fram e. If
copyrighted materials were deleted, a target n o te will appear listing the pages in
the adjacent fram e.
3. When a m ap, draw ing o r c h a rt, etc., is p art o f the m aterial being p h o to g ra p h e d ,
a definite m eth o d o f “ sectioning” the m aterial has been followed. I t is
c u sto m a ry to begin film ing a t th e u p p e r left h a n d c o m e r o f a large sheet a n d to
c o n tin u e from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary,
sectioning is c o n tin u e d a g a in -b e g in n in g below the first row a n d continuing on
until c o m plete.
4. F o r illustrations th a t c a n n o t be satisfactorily re p ro d u c e d by xerographic
means, p h o to g ra p h ic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted
into y o u r xerographic copy. These p rin ts are available u p o n request from the
D issertations C u sto m e r Services D e p a rtm e n t.
5. Some pages in any d o c u m e n t m ay have indistinct print. In all cases the best
available co p y has been filmed.

University

Mkzrdrilms

International
3 0 0 N ,Z e e b Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

8224421

Eiland, Belva Haynes

A STUDY O F ATTITUDES O F PARENTS, TEACHERS, A N D STUDENTS
TO W A RD T H E PILOT PR O G R A M S FO R G IF T E D A N D TA LENTED
STUDENTS IN SELECTED SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN M IC H IG A N

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

PH.D.

300 N. Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, MI 48106

1982

PLEASE NOTE:

In all c a s e s this m aterial h as b een filmed in the best possible way from th e p \a ir b le copy.
Problem s en co u n tered with this d o cu m en t have b een identified h ere with a crieck m ark V

1.

G lossy p h o to g rap h s or p a g e s ______

2.

Colored illustrations, p ap er or p rin t______

3.

P h o to g rap h s with dark b a c k g ro u n d ______

4.

Illustrations a re poor c o p y ______

5.

P a g e s with black marks, not original

6.

Print show s through a s th e re is text on both s id e s of p ag e______

7.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several p a g e s

8.

Print e x ce ed s m argin req u ire m en ts______

9.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______

10.

.

copy__

C om puter printout p ag es with indistinct p rin t______

11.

P a g e (s )____________ lacking w hen material received, and not available from school or
author.

12.

P a g e (s )____________ seem to b e missing in num bering only a s text follows.

13.

Two pages n u m b e re d _____________ . Text follows.

14.

Curling and wrinkled p a g e s ______

15.

O ther_____________________________________________________________________ ____

University
Microfilms
International

A STUDY OF ATTITUDES OF PARENTS, TEACHERS, AND STUDENTS
TOWARD THE PILOT PROGRAMS FOR GIFTED AND TALENTED
STUDENTS IN SELECTED SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN MICHIGAN

By
Belva H. Eiland

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e re quire m en ts
f o r t h e degree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Curriculum
1982

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF ATTITUDES OF PARENTS, TEACHERS, AND STUDENTS
. TOWARD THE PILOT PROGRAMS FOR GIFTED AND TALENTED
STUDENTS IN SELECTED SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN MICHIGAN
By
Belva H. Eiland

The purpose o f t h i s s tu d y was t o survey and compare t h e p r o ­
grams f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s i n s e l e c t e d school d i s t r i c t s
from th o s e t h a t p a r t i c i p a t e d in th e Michigan P i l o t Programs f o r G if te d
and T a le n te d S tu d en ts i n 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, and 1977-78.
Data f o r t h i s s tu d y were c o l l e c t e d through q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ,
a u d i o - t a p i n g , personal i n t e r v i e w s , and w r i t t e n docum entation.

The

a t t i t u d e s and concerns o f p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and s t u d e n t s toward
programs f o r t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d were v i t a l in a s s e s s i n g th e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l re sp onses t o th e e d u c a t i o n a l needs o f t h e s e s t u d e n t s .
P a r e n t s ' , t e a c h e r s ' , and s t u d e n t s ' q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e v e a l e d t h a t
t h e s e groups s h a re d f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward th e p r o v i s i o n s made f o r
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s i n th e s e l e c t e d d i s t r i c t s .

The r e s u l t s

o f r es po nses o b t a i n e d from d i r e c t o r s o f t h e programs r e v e a l e d t h a t many
s i m i l a r i t i e s as well as v a r i a t i o n s e x i s t e d in t h e general c h a r a c t e r i s ­
t i c s o f t h e programs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish t o ex p r e ss my s i n c e r e thanks and a p p r e c i a t i o n t o th e
many people who made t h i s study p o s s i b l e .

I wish p a r t i c u l a r l y t o

acknowledge Dr. James Snoddy f o r h i s guidance and t i r e l e s s a s s i s t a n c e .
To t h e members o f my guidance committee, Dr. S h e i l a F i t z g e r a l d ,
Dr. Louis Romano, and Dr. Yvonne Waskin, I wish to e x p r e s s my a p p r e ­
ciation.

F i n a l l y , I am e t e r n a l l y g r a t e f u l t o my husband, Dr. Lonnie C.

E i l a n d , and my d a u g h t e r r , Tangee, f o r t h e i r p a t i e n c e and encouragement
th ro u g h o u t th e p e r i o d o f t h e development o f t h i s s tu d y .

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ...........................................................................................................

v

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

IV.

INTRODUCTION

..........................................................................................

1

The P r o b l e m .........................................................................................
Purpose o f th e S t u d y ...................................................................
Need f o r th e S t u d y ........................................................................
L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e S t u d y ..........................................................
D e f i n i t i o n o f T e r m s ........................................................................
O v e r v i e w ..............................................................................................

1
6
6
10
11
13

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..........................................................

14

P a r e n t s ' , T e a c h e r s ' , and S t u d e n t s ' A t t i t u d e s Toward
Programs and S pecial C la s se s f o r G i f te d and
T a le n te d S tu d e n t s .......................................................................
Identification
................................................................................
S t a f f S e l e c t i o n ................................................................................
G r o u p i n g ..............................................................................................
E n r i c h m e n t .........................................................................................
A c c e l e r a t i o n .....................................................................................
E v a l u a t i o n .........................................................................................

14
27
31
34
39
43
46

METHODS AND PROCEDURES...................................................................

50

Research Qu estio ns ........................................................................
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .................................................................................
P o p u l a t i o n .........................................................................................
Proc ed ure s f o r Data G a t h e r i n g .................................................
Treatm ent o f D a t a ............................................................................

51
52
55
59
60

ANALYSIS OF D A T A ................................................................................

65

Program P r o to t y p e ............................................................................
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Procedures ..........................................................
Goals f o r S t u d e n t s ........................................................................
Teacher Q u a l i f i c a t i o n ...................................................................
P r o v i s i o n s Made f o r I n s e r v i c e f o r S t a f f and P a r e n ts .
Program E v a lu a ti o n ........................................................................

65
67
69
72
74
75

iii

Page

S e l e c t i o n o f D i r e c t o r s ...................................................................
P e r c e n ta g e o f D i r e c t o r ' s Time Des ignated Toward
t h e G i f te d and T a le n te d Program .............................................
Model o f C u r r i c u l u m ............................................................................
D ura tion o f th e P r o g r a m ...................................................................
How t h e Programs Were F u n d e d ...........................................
79
P o p u la ti o n o f S tu d e n t P a r t i c i p a n t s ..........................................
M o d if i c a t i o n s Made in P r o g r a m s .................................................
Q u e s t io n n a i r e Responses ...................................................................
R e s u l t s o f t h e P a r e n t and Teacher Q u e s t io n n a ir e s
. . .
R e s u l t s o f t h e S tu d e n t Q u e s t io n n a ir e Responses . . . .
R e l l a b i l i t y An al ysis o f C a t e g o r i e s ........................................
M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a ly s is o f Variance ...............................................
C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n and Chi-Square o f P a r e n t s ' Education
by C a t e g o r i c a l Items ...................................................................
C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n Between Family Income and
C a t e g o r i c a l Items ............................................................................
C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n s o f T e a c h e rs ' Experience and
C a t e g o r i c a l Items ............................................................................
V.

75
76
77
79
80
81
83
84
99
113
120
122
130
136

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................

141

Summary o f R e s u l t s ............................................................................
C o n c l u s i o n s ..............................................................................................
I m p l i c a t i o n s .........................................................................................

143
151
154

APPENDICES....................................................................................................................

157

A.

PARENT SURVEY...............................................................................................

158

B.

TEACHER SURVEY..........................................................................................

164

C.

STUDENT SURVEY..........................................................................................

169

D.

QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTORS OFGIFTED AND TALENTED PROGRAMS .

173

E.

PARENT COMMENTS...........................................................................................

175

F.

PARENT SUGGESTIONS

..................................................................................

186

G.

TEACHER C0MMENT5

......................................................................................

190

H.

TEACHER SUGGESTIONS .................................................................................

194

BIBLIOGRAPHY

................................................................................................................

iv

198

L IS T OF TABLES
Table

Page

1.

Summary o f Procedures f o r Data G a t h e r i n g .....................................

61

2.

Procedures f o r I d e n t i f y i n g and S e l e c t i n g Students That
Were Common Among Surveyed D i s t r i c t s
........................................

70

S i m i l a r Goals E s t a b l i s h e d f o r S tuden ts in th e Sample
D i s t r i c t s ......................................................................................................

73

4.

P o p u la t io n o f S tu d e n t P a r t i c i p a n t s

..................................................

80

5.

Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s * P e r c e n t a g e s , Means, and Standard
D e v i a t i o n s — P a r e n t Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .................................................

100

Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s , P e r c e n t a g e s , Means, and Standard
D e v i a t i o n s - - T e a c h e r Q u e s t i o n n a ir e .................................................

103

Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s , P e r c e n t a g e s , Means, and Standard
D e v i a t i o n s —S tu d e n t Q u e s t i o n n a ir e .................................................

114

Item S i m i l a r i t i e s on th e S t u d e n t , P a r e n t , and Teacher
Q u e s t io n n a i r e s Adm inistered i n t h e 11 School
D i s t r i c t s i n t h e Sample P o p u la t io n .............................................

117

R e l i a b i l i t y I n d ic e s f o r th e P a r e n t , T eac he r, and S tudent
Q u e s t i o n n a ir e s According t o C a t e g o r i e s , Based on
Cronbach's Alpha T e st o f R e l i a b i l i t y ........................................

119

R e s u l t o f M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s is of Variance Between
P a r e n t , Teacher, and S tu d e n t Q u e s tio n n a ir e s and T h e ir
C o n t r a s t i n g C a t e g o r i e s : Step Down Te sts ....................................

121

C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f M o th er s 1 Education by S p e c i f i c
Program C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .......................................................................

124

C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f F a t h e r s ' Education by S p e c i f i c
Program C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .......................................................................

124

C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f Mothers' Education by Overall
E v a lu a ti o n of t h e P r o g r a m ...................................................................

125

C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f F a t h e r s ' Education by Overall
E v a lu a ti o n of t h e P r o g r a m ...................................................................

125

3.

6.
7.
8.

9.

10.

11.
12.
13.
14.

v

Page

15. C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f Mothers' Education by S tu dent
E n d o r s e m e n t ..................................................................................................

127

16. C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f F a t h e r s ' Education by S tuden t
E n d o r s e m e n t ..................................................................................................

127

17.

C r o s s - T a b u l a tio n o f Mothers' Education by Stu den t Outcome .

128

18.

C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f F a t h e r s ' Education by S tu d e n t Outcome .

128

19.

C r o s s - T a b u l a ti o n o f Mothers' Education by I n s t r u c t i o n a l
Methods and Teacher Competency .
.............................................

129

C r o s s - T a b u l a ti o n o f F a t h e r s ' Education by I n s t r u c t i o n a l
Methods and Teacher Competency .....................................................

129

C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f Mothers' Education by A v a i l a b i l i t y
o f Info r m ati o n About t h e Program .................................................

131

C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f F a t h e r s ' Educ ation by A v a i l a b i l i t y
o f I n fo r m ation About t h e Program .................................................

131

C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f Fam ily's Income by S p e c i f i c Program
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .........................................................................................

132

C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f Fam ily 's Income by Overall
E v a lu a ti o n o f t h e P r o g r a m ...................................................................

132

C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f F am ily 's Income by S tudent
E n d o r s e m e n t ..................................................................................................

134

26.

C r o s s - T a b u la ti o n o f F am ily 's Income by S tudent Outcome

. .

134

27.

C r o s s - T a b u l a ti o n o f F am il y 's Income by I n s t r u c t i o n a l
Methods and Teacher Competency .....................................................

135

C r o s s - T a b u l a tio n o f F am ily 's Income by A v a i l a b i l i t y o f
In fo rm at ion About th e Program ..........................................................

135

C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f T e a c h e rs ' Experience by S p e c i f i c
Program C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .......................................................................

137

C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f T e a c h e r s ' Experience by Overall
E va lu a tion o f t h e P r o g r a m ...................................................................

137

C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f T e a c h e rs ' Experience by Studen t
E n d o r s e m e n t ..................................................................................................

138

C r o s s - T a b u la ti o n o f T e ach ers ' Experience by Stude nt
O u t c o m e ...........................................................................................................

138

20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

28.
29.
30.
31.
32.

vi

Page

33.

C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f T e a c h e rs ' Expe rience by
I n s t r u c t i o n a l Methods and Teacher Competency

.......................

140

C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f T e a c h e r s ' Ex perien ce by A v a i l a b i l i t y
o f Info rm ati on About th e Program .................................................

140

35.

Summary o f P a r e n t , T e ach er, and S tu d e n t Responses ...................

146

36.

P a r e n t and Teacher S ugges ti ons f o r G i f t e d and T a le n te d
P r o g r a m s .......................................................................................................

150

34.

vii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Problem
G i f t e d and t a l e n t e d c h i l d r e n a r e t h o s e . . . who by v i r t u e
o f o u t s t a n d i n g a b i l i t i e s a r e c a p a b l e o f high per form an ce . These
. . . c h i l d r e n . . . r e q u i r e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d e d u c a t i o n a l programs
a n d / o r s e r v i c e s beyond th o s e normally pro vided by t h e r e g u l a r
school program i n o r d e r t o r e a l i z e t h e i r p o t e n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n
t o s e l f and s o c i e t y . C h i ld r e n c a p a b le o f high performance
i n c lu d e t h o s e who have dem on strated any o f t h e f o llo w in g a b i l i ­
t i e s o r a p t i t u d e s , s i n g l y o r in co mbination: (1) ge neral i n t e l ­
l e c t u a l a b i l i t y , (2) s p e c i f i c academic a p t i t u d e , (3) c r e a t i v e or
p r o d u c t iv e t h i n k i n g , (4) l e a d e r s h i p a b i l i t y , (5) v i s u a l and p e r ­
forming a r t s a p t i t u d e , and (6) psychomotor a b i l i t y . (U.S. O f f i c e
o f Educ atio n; c i t e d in Marland, 1972, p. 10)
Americans t y p i c a l l y have a t t e n d e d s e r i o u s l y to t h e needs o f
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s only when t h e r e has been a s o c i e t a l
need f o r s o c i a l and s c i e n t i f i c l e a d e r s h i p . The p o s t- S p u t n i k
p e r i o d produced th e g r e a t e s t f l u r r y o f a c t i v i t y r e l a t i v e t o edu­
c a t i o n a l programming f o r t h e g i f t e d . A f t e r waning i n t e r e s t on
t h e p a r t o f many people f o r about t e n y e a r s , n a t i o n a l concern
is beginn in g t o focus once more on th e q u e s ti o n o f how a d e q u a t e ly
American s c h o o ls a r e de v eloping t h e v a l u a b l e human r e s o u r c e s o f
t h e young who a r e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d . S e r io u s p u b l i c concern
about seemingly i r r e v e r s i b l e i n f l a t i o n , e n d l e s s w a r s , d e p l e t i n g
s u p p l i e s o f energy and n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s , po ver ty and overpopu­
l a t i o n , and t h e need f o r more e f f e c t i v e s o c i a l l e a d e r s i n govern­
ment e v i d e n t l y has m oti v a te d t h i s most r e c e n t r e f o c u s i n g on t h e
e d u c a t i o n a l needs o f g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s . (Whitemore,
1979, p. 159)
I f g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s a l l too o f t e n f e e l d i s s a t i s ­
f i e d with t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s i n t h e r e g u l a r c la s s r o o m ,
t h e i r p a r e n t s o f t e n express an even g r e a t e r de gre e o f d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n .
In f a c t , t h e p a r e n t s o f t h e s t u d e n t s have in many p a r t s o f th e s t a t e
o f Michigan become so d is e n c h a n t e d with t h e s ch ools in r e g a rd t o t h e i r

1

2
p r o v i s i o n s f o r s t u d e n t s with e x c e p t i o n a l a b i l i t i e s t h a t they have
formed a c t i v e and even m i l i t a n t p a r e n t groups designed t o g e t t h e
s c h o o ls t o meet th e needs o f t h e s e s t u d e n t s .

I t is g ra tify in g , th e re ­

f o r e , to f i n d t h a t th e p a r e n t s o f th e s t u d e n t s i n t h e s t a t e ’s p i l o t
programs express such a high degree o f s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e programs
t h e i r ch ild re n are in.

Close t o 100 p e r c e n t o f th e p a r e n t s responding

t o a survey form e x p r ess ed a high degr ee o f s a t i s f a c t i o n {Michigan
Department o f E d uc ation, 1978).
Americans have g r e a t f a i t h in t h e power o f e d u c a t i o n t o b r in g
o u t t h e e x c e l l e n c e which may be l a t e n t o r i m p e r c e p t i b l e i n a p e r s o n ,
and t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e a c l e a r mandate from s o c i e t y .
I t has been deter mined t h a t a l th ough t h e r e a r e c h i l d r e n with
remarkable t a l e n t s in d i f f e r e n t economically p r i v i l e g e d f a m i l i e s ,
t h e s e t a l e n t s r a r e l y t h r i v e in a n o n s u p p o rt iv e fa m ily o r a b a r r e n com­
munity environment (DeHaan & H a v i g h u r s t , 1961).

Some f a m i l i e s e i t h e r

may not be cap ab le o f r e c o g n i z i n g t a l e n t , o r a r e unaware o f what t o do
with g i f t e d c h i l d r e n .

Perhaps a fa m il y can be excused f o r t h i s i n j u s ­

t i c e ; an e d u c a t i o n a l system o r school c a n n o t.

I t i s th e s c h o o l ' s

b u s in e s s t o r e c o g n iz e and develop t a l e n t , r e g a r d l e s s o f p a r e n t a l
behavior or e x p ectatio n s.

Because th e school i s a major community

i n s t i t u t i o n f o r h e lp in g g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d c h i l d r e n , two i n d i s p e n s ­
a b l e f u n c t i o n s should be dem on strated :

f i r s t , t h e d isc o v e ry o f

t a l e n t , and se co nd, th e en rich m en t o f e x p e r i e n c e s and e s s e n t i a l t r a i n ­
ing f o r d i f f e r e n t kinds o f t a l e n t (DeHaan & H a v i g h u r s t , 1961).
In a dem oc ratic s o c i e t y i t i s espoused t h a t e f f o r t s shou ld be
made t o develop each i n d i v i d u a l t o h i s / h e r maximum p o t e n t i a l .

3
T h e r e f o r e , i t would seem t h a t t h e n e g l e c t o f th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
i s an undemocratic p o l i c y because

th ey a r e den ied th e o p p o r t u n i t y to

develop t o t h e f u l l e s t e x t e n t i n o r d e r t o make use o f t h e i r t a l e n t s
f o r themselves and t h e b e n e f i t o f humankind.

The u l t i m a t e c o n s i d e r a ­

t i o n when r e c o g n i z i n g g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s i s t h e gen er al
w e l f a r e o f t h e community a t l a r g e and a l l i n h a b i t a n t s o f t h e community;
i t i s not to s e r v e t h e s p e c i a l advan tage o f t h e few who a r e g i f t e d .

A

p a r a l l e l c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s t h a t ever y i n d i v i d u a l , w hat ev er h i s g i f t s ,
de s erv es t h e f u l l e s t o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n .

This p o i n t

was emphasized by t h e U.S. Educational P o l i c i e s Commission:
To say t h a t ev ery c i t i z e n in a democracy has th e r i g h t to
d em onstrate h i s competence t o make use o f s o c i a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s
i s t o a f f i r m , i n a l i m i t e d s e n s e , th e p r i n c i p l e o f equal oppor ­
t u n i t y f o r a l l . But t o i n s i s t t h a t equal o p p o r t u n i t i e s must
always t a k e t h e form o f i d e n t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e s i s u n r e a l i s t i c .
E f f o r t s t o impose i d e n t i t y o f e x p e r i e n c e on i n d i v i d u a l s o f d i f ­
f e r i n g i n t e r e s t and a b i l i t i e s a r e not only foredoomed t o f u t i l i t y ;
th ey a r e a l s o u n f a i r - - e s p e c i a l l y t o th o s e i n d i v i d u a l s who d e v i a t e
markedly from t h e a v e r a g e ; and because the y d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t
i n d i v i d u a l s in such m i n o r i t y groups as t h e handicapped and t h e
g i f t e d , th ey a r e unde m ocratic. Moreover, t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t such
e f f o r t s s u c c e e d , th ey p r e v e n t t h e maximum development o f t h e gen­
e r a l w e l f a r e . The dem ocratic i d e a l can be most f u l l y a t t a i n e d
when every i n d i v i d u a l has o p p o r t u n i t y f o r e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s
commensurate with h i s a b i l i t i e s and f o r v o c a t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i ­
t i e s commensurate w it h h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . (Educational P o l i c i e s
Commission, 1950)
Many s c h o o ls have i n i t i a t e d programs f o r th e g i f t e d and t a l ­
en ted in an a t t e m p t t o meet t h e needs o f such s t u d e n t s .

Even though

some a r e n o t s u c c e s s f u l , many c la im a g r e a t deal o f s u c c e s s (DeHaan &
H a v ig h u r s t, 1961).

S uccessf ul programs a r e l i k e l y t o be c a r e f u l l y and

thoughtfully estab lish ed.

They in v o l v e a l a r g e e x p e n d i t u r e o f time

and a r e n o t rushed i n t o o p e r a t i o n on t h e s t r e n g t h of c o e r c i o n from a
c i t i z e n s ' committee o r t h e b l a z i n g am bitio n o f one school person

4

(Durr , 1964).

E f f e c t i v e programs r e q u i r e e v a l u a t i o n components, g o a l -

s e t t i n g p r o c e d u r e s , a n a l y s i s o f methods f o r a t t a i n i n g t h e s e g o a l s ,
f a m i l i a r i z a t i o n o f everyone in v o l v e d , and t h e development o f an a p p r e ­
c i a t i o n f o r t h e proposed methodology.
The a c t i v e s u p p o r t , e f f e c t i v e involvem en t, and p e r t i n e n t
knowledge o f a l l th o s e who a r e e i t h e r d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y concerned
with th e program i s a major f a c t o r in a s u c c e s s f u l program f o r th e
g i f t e d {Durr, 1964; Gowan & Demos, 1964; R ic e , 1970).

A good program

i s more l i k e l y t o become a r e a l i t y when t e a c h e r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and
p a r e n t s work t o g e t h e r in plan ning i t .

The p r o f e s s i o n a l knowledge about

th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs t h a t school personnel may c o n t r i b u t e
may be supplemented with t h e kinds o f p a r e n t a l u n d e r s ta n d i n g s t h a t
can only come from t h e home.

A d i v e r s i t y o f viewpo in ts and a wide

range o f c o m p eten cie s , s p e c i a l t i e s , and knowledge a l l c o n t r i b u t e to th e
s u c c e s s f u l program, and a l l can be viewed as t h e r e s u l t o f wide p a r ­
t i c i p a t i o n by numerous i n d i v i d u a l s (Newland, 1976).
The f o r m u l a t i o n o f sound purposes and g o a ls i s o f g r e a t concern
in pla n n in g a program f o r t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d .

The general p u r ­

poses o f programs f o r t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d may be t h e same as t hose
fo r all students.

However, b e f o r e th e y can s e r v e as t r u e i n d i c a t o r s

to guide p r o g r e s s toward a s u c c e s s f u l program, t h e g o a ls shou ld be
s t a t e d i n terms o f expec ted s p e c i f i c outcomes, and th e outcomes t h a t
a r e e x p ected o f g i f t e d s t u d e n t s may n o t be i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e ex p ected
o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s (D urr, 1964).

The a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e g i f t e d and

t a l e n t e d program sho uld i n c l u d e a v a r i e t y o f l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s .
These e x p e r i e n c e s shou ld ex tend from knowledge mastery t o t h e

5
development o f s k i l l s , i n t e r e s t s , a s p i r a t i o n s , and a t t i t u d e s because
t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s tend to pos se ss q u a l i t i e s o f l e a r n i n g
c a p a b i l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n t h a t demand g r e a t e r c o n t e n t c overage.

For­

t u n a t e l y , t h e s e s t u d e n t s u s u a l l y have c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t make them
want to e x p lo r e w id e ly .

Goals must be e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a r e broad

enough to t a k e advantage o f t h e e n t i t i e s t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e s e
s t u d e n t s as g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d (Durr , 1964; Gowan, 1964).
Another i m p o r ta n t f a c t o r i n programs t h a t a r e soundly e s t a b ­
l i s h e d and c o n s i s t e n t l y worthwhile i s e v a l u a t i o n , which should evolve
as a d i r e c t r e s u l t o f th e s t a t e d purposes ( D urr , 1964; Shannon, 1960).
This i s e s s e n t i a l both t o improve u n d e r sta n d in g o f t h e value o f what
i s being done and t o become aware o f ways f o r improving th e program.
The im p o rtan t proc es s o f e v a l u a t i o n sho uld be as o b j e c t i v e as p o s s i b l e .
The q u a l i t y o f an e f f e c t i v e program sho uld n o t be based s o l e l y on the
f e e l i n g s o f school p e r s o n n e l .

A f e e l i n g o f well being by t e a c h e r s

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s does n o t g u a r a n t e e an e f f e c t i v e program because
t h e i r emotional r es pon ses t o a program may be based on f a c t o r s t h a t
have l i t t l e o r no b e a r i n g on i t s t r u e worth.

A s i n c e r e e f f o r t must

be made t o o b t a i n eviden ce t h a t i s l e a s t s u s c e p t i b l e to e x tr aneous
influences.

Since th e purposes o f th e program should be s t a t e d in

terms o f pupil b e h a v i o r , e v a l u a t i o n must be made i n terms o f changes
in t h a t b e h a v io r (D urr, 1964).
The a t t i t u d e s and concerns o f p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and s t u d e n t s
toward g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s a r e im p o r t a n t a s p e c t s in a s s e s s i n g
th e i n s t i t u t i o n a l re sp onses t o t h e e d u c a t i o n a l needs o f t h i s p o p u la tio n
of students.

6

Purpose o f t h e Study
This study was des igned t o survey and compare th e programs
f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s in 11 o f t h e 18 school d i s t r i c t s
t h a t p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e Michigan P i l o t Programs f o r G i f t e d and
T a le n te d S tu d e n t s in 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, and 1977-78.

The

s p e c i f i c purposes o f t h i s stu d y were t o :
1.

Survey and compare t h e general n a t u r e o f 11 o f t h e 18

p i l o t programs r e p o r t e d in Michigan by t h e Michigan S t a t e Department
and funded by t h e S t a t e Aid Act o f 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, and
1976-77.

(Only 11 o f t h e s e 18 school d i s t r i c t s g r a n t e d pe rm is si on to

be i n c lu d e d in th e s t u d y . )
2.

Determine and compare p a r e n t s ' , t e a c h e r s ' , and s t u d e n t s '

r e p o r t e d a t t i t u d e s toward t h e programs.
3.

Determine i f a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between th e p a r e n t a l

ed u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s , socioeconomic s t a t u s o f p a r e n t s , and r e p o r t e d
a t t i t u d e s toward programs f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .
4.

Determine i f a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between th e t e a c h e r s '

y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e and t h e i r r e p o r t e d a t t i t u d e s toward programs f o r
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .
This s ta t e m e n t o f purposes o f t h e stu d y was used t o g e n e r a t e
th e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s f o r t h e s t u d y .

These r e s e a r c h q u e s ti o n s a r e

s t a t e d a t th e beginning o f Ch apter I I I .
Need f o r t h e Study
G i f te d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s have been rec o g n iz e d th ro ugh out
th e world f o r many c e n t u r i e s (Gowan & Demos, 1964).

They have tended

t o be p e r i o d i c a l l y i n and o u t o f t h e co n s c i o u s n e s s o f e d u c a t o r s and

7
c i t i z e n s , and co n s e q u e n tly th e p r o v i s i o n s made f o r t h e s e s t u d e n t s
have been u n s y s t e m a t ic and i n a d e q u a te ( T r e z i s e , 1976).

In th e United

S t a t e s t h e r e has been a r e s u r g e n c e o f i n t e r e s t i n t h e g i f t e d and t a l ­
en ted as a r e s u l t o f many c r i t i c i s m s re ndere d toward our American
school systems (Conant, 1958).
Since th e more r e c e n t r e su r g e n c e o f i n t e r e s t in g i f t e d and
t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s , many school d i s t r i c t s have e s t a b l i s h e d programs to
respond to t h e needs o f s t u d e n t s who have been c h a r a c t e r i z e d as g i f t e d
or talented.

"Until 1973, Michigan a p p r o p r i a t e d no s p e c i a l funds f o r

th e e d u c a t i o n o f t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d .

Any s p e c i a l programs i n

o p e r a t i o n were l o c a l l y fun ded , as a r e most o f t h e d i s t r i c t s w ith i d e n ­
t i f i e d programs today" {Michigan Department o f E d u c atio n , 1978).
In th e 1973-74 S t a t e School Aid A c t , S e c t i o n 47 a p p e a r e d ,
a l l o c a t i n g $150,000 f o r p i l o t programs f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u ­
dents.

The language o f t h e b i l l was as f o l l o w s :

From t h e amount a p p r o p r i a t e d i n S e c ti o n 47 t h e r e i s a l l o c a t e d
n o t t o exceed $150,000 t o a p p l i c a n t d i s t r i c t s f o r t h e purpose
o f e x p erim entin g w i t h , e v a l u a t i n g and r e p o r t i n g upon programs
o f s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n f o r c h i l d r e n who a r e acad e m ic a ll y
t a l e n t e d o r g i f t e d in terms o f un i q u e l y high i n t e l l i g e n c e o r
s p e c i a l a b i l i t y t o such a degree t h a t t h e i r academic p o t e n t i a l
might n o t be r e a l i z e d i n a normal i n s t r u c t i o n s e t t i n g . (Michi­
gan Department o f Ed ucat io n, 1978)
According t o t h e Michigan Department o f E d u c atio n , in 1973-74,
65 d i s t r i c t s made a p p l i c a t i o n , and t h e f o ll o w i n g d i s t r i c t s were funded
a t the in d icated le v e ls:
Cheboygan
Flint
Lansing

$13,288
21,130
21,328

Livonia
N iles
Willow Run

$37,960
22,522
32,772

8

Although t h e s e d i s t r i c t s r e c e i v e d t h e i r funds dur in g f i s c a l y e a r
1973-74, most o f t h e programs were n o t in a c t u a l o p e r a t i o n u n t i l th e
1974-75 school y e a r .
S e c t i o n 47 was in c l u d e d a g ain i n t h e 1974-75 S t a t e Aid Act.
The wording was t h e same, ex c e p t t h a t th e f undin g was i n c r e a s e d t o
$250,000—an i n c r e a s e o f $100,000.

The funds t h a t y e a r were used to

co n t i n u e s u p p o r t o f t h e s i x o r i g i n a l p r o j e c t s , and s i x new p i l o t
programs were i n i t i a t e d :

Benton Harbor, Buchanan, Dearborn, Highland

Park, Kalamazoo I n t e r m e d i a t e School D i s t r i c t , and Union C i t y .
second y e a r , 84 d i s t r i c t s made a p p l i c a t i o n .

The

The 12 d i s t r i c t s were

funded a t t h e f o llo w in g l e v e l s : ^
Cheboygan
Flint
Lansing
Livonia
Niles
Willow Run

$ 9, 500
14,100
14,200
25,300
15,000
21,900

Benton Harbor
Buchanan
Dearborn
Highland Park
Kalamazoo ISD
Union C ity

$31,000
24,000
27,000
31,000
20,000
17,000

Again, alt hough t h e funding oc c u r re d i n f i s c a l y e a r 1974-75, t h e p r o ­
gram o p e r a t i o n d i d n o t a c t u a l l y begin u n t i l th e 1975-76 school y e a r .
Although t h e 1975-76 School Aid Act a l s o c o n t a i n e d S e c t i o n 47,
th e amount a p p r o p r i a t e d t h a t y e a r was reduced t o $20,000.

Therefore,

no new programs were i n i t i a t e d , b u t t h e e x i s t i n g 12 programs co n t in u e d
to r e c e i v e s u p p o r t .
The 1976-77 School Aid Act a p p r o p r i a t e d $200,000 f o r S e c t i o n 47
programs.

Since th e i n i t i a l s i x p r o j e c t s had been s u p p o r te d f o r a

These f i g u r e s do not n e c e s s a r i l y i n d i c a t e t h e f u l l program
c o s t . Many o f t h e l o c a l d i s t r i c t s in volved c o n t r i b u t e d l o c a l funds
to t h e program.

9
t o t a l o f t h r e e y e a r s , they were

dropped froms t a t e f u n d in g , thus

a llow in g s i x new p r o j e c t s t o be funded.
A c c o r d in g ly , in t h e f a l l of 1976, a p p l i c a t i o n s were s e n t out
t o a l l d i s t r i c t s , and by t h e d e a d l i n e d a t e , 90 p r o p o sa ls had been
received.

In June 1977, t h e S t a t e Board o f Education approved fund­

ing f o r th e s i x new p r o j e c t s in s i x community c a t e g o r i e s (M e tr o p o lita n
Core, C i t i e s , Towns, Urban F r i n g e , R u r a l , and I n t e r m e d i a t e ) .

These

d i s t r i c t s , and t h e amounts th e y r e c e i v e d , a r e as f o ll o w s :
M e t r o p o l i t a n Core
C ities
Towns
Urban F r in g e
Rural
Interm ediate

Grand Rapids
Birmingham
Chelsea
Chippewa Valley
Meridian
Saginaw

$17,000
17,000
17,000
15,000
17,000
17,000

Thus, dur in g th e 1977-78 school y e a r t h e s e s i x p r o j e c t s , in
a d d i t i o n to th e p r o j e c t s in Benton Harbor, Buchanan, Dearborn, Highland
P ar k, Kalamazoo I n t e r m e d i a t e , and Union C i t y , were in o p e r a t i o n .
Even though t h e s e 18 p i l o t programs were funded and in o p e r a ­
t i o n from one t o f o u r y e a r s , t h e r e has been l i t t l e c a t e g o r i c a l r e s e a r c h
conducted in terms o f an e n t i r e s t a t e w i d e e f f o r t r e l a t e d t o t h e i n i t i a ­
t i o n , development, e x p a n s io n , and e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e s e programs f o r
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .
There appeared t o be concern r e g a r d in g th e u s e f u l n e s s o f t h e
i n f o r m a t i o n ga ined from t h e s e p i l o t programs f o r o t h e r school d i s ­
t r i c t s in th e s t a t e o f Michigan, t o t h e S t a t e Department o f Ed ucat io n,
and t o o t h e r ag e n c ie s t h a t a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r making d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d ­
ing t h e f u t u r e o f e d u c a t io n f o r th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d in Michigan
(Michigan Department o f E d u c atio n , 1978).

10

L i m i t a t i o n s o f th e Study
The l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e s tu d y in clu d ed t h e f o llo w in g :
The s tu d y was l i m i t e d t o p a r e n t s o f g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u ­
d e n t s , t e a c h e r s o f g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s , and g i f t e d and
t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s ; and did not in c l u d e p a r e n t s o r t e a c h e r s o f s t u d e n t s
who have not been i d e n t i f i e d as g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d , o r s t u d e n t s who
have not been i d e n t i f i e d as g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d .

The p a r e n t s , t e a c h ­

e r s , and s t u d e n t s who were in clu d ed in t h e study were chosen because
o f t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n or t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s o r s t u d e n t s ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n
i n t h e program.

C onseq ue ntly, t h e f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s , and recom­

mendations of t h i s s tu d y should be read with th e u n d e r sta n d in g t h a t
only p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and s t u d e n t s who were in volv ed with programs
f o r t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d were a p a r t o f t h e s tu d y .

I t i s acknowl­

edged t h a t t h e s e p a r t i c i p a n t s in th e study were very l i k e l y t o have a
b i a s t h a t o t h e r p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and s t u d e n t s would not have.
P a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and s t u d e n t s who were n o t involved in programs
f o r t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d were not i n clu d ed in th e study because
o f t h e i r l i m i t e d knowledge o f g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs.
Only 11 o f t h e 18 p u b l i c school d i s t r i c t s with s t a t e - f u n d e d
programs f o r t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d responded t o t h e s tu d y .

The

s tu d y was co n f in e d t o t h o s e 11 p u b l i c school d i s t r i c t s .
The a t t i t u d e s r e p o r t e d in t h i s study were co nfined to a t t i ­
tud es as p e r c e iv e d and e x p r e s s e d by p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and s t u d e n t s
toward g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs in 11 school d i s t r i c t s in Michigan.
This stu d y was f u r t h e r l i m i t e d by t h e use of a q u e s t i o n n a i r e
as th e method o f c o l l e c t i n g d a t a .

I t sho uld be r eco g n iz ed t h a t

n
a t t i t u d i n a l s c a l e s r e p r e s e n t th e v e r b a l i z e d a t t i t u d e t h a t the i n d i ­
vidual i s w i l l i n g t o e x p r e s s .
Since th e programs s t u d i e d were a l l p a r t i a l l y funded by the
s t a t e , i t would be d i f f i c u l t to apply t h e c o n c l u s i o n s reached i n t h i s
stu dy t o s i m i l a r programs in s c h o o ls where funds a r e n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y
a l l o c a t e d f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs.
F i n a l l y , t h i s stu d y was not an e v a l u a t i o n o f the q u a l i t y o f
th e p i l o t programs f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms
The f o ll o w i n g terms a r e d e f i n e d as th e y r e l a t e t o t h i s s tu d y .
A cceleration:

Any procedure t h a t allows a s t u d e n t t o p r o g r e s s

more r a p i d l y and complete a given school program in l e s s time o r a t
an e a r l i e r age than th e av erage s t u d e n t .
Durr (1964) s t a t e d t h a t a c c e l e r a t i o n has two d i f f e r e n t and
commonly used meanings.

One, a c c e l e r a t i o n means p r o v id i n g advanced

l e a r n i n g e x p e r ie n c e f o r a s t u d e n t w h ile he p h y s i c a l l y remains a t
grade l e v e l .

Two, a c c e l e r a t i o n means t h e ph y s ic a l moving ahead o f

th e s t u d e n t so t h a t he completes any given segment o f t h e school pro­
gram a t an e a r l i e r - t h a n - a v e r a g e age.
Enrichm ent:

An a d m i n i s t r a t i v e pr oce dur e f o r p r o v id i n g more

o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r th e g i f t e d c h i l d to go dee per and more widely than
the av er ag e c h i l d in h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l , s o c i a l , and a r t i s t i c e x p e r i ­
ence.

The n a t u r e o f t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t i s such t h a t

e f f e c t i v e enrichment o f his e d u c a t i o n c o n s i s t s not in adding more o f
the same c o n t e n t and a c t i v i t y t o th e program b u t i n p rovid ing

12
e x p e r ie n c e s o f g r e a t e r v a r i e t y o r a t a more advanced l e v e l so as to
match h i s h i g h e r l e v e l o f a b i l i t y .

I t is a m a t t e r o f q u a l i t y , not

quantity.
There a r e two types o f enrich m en t:
1.

Enrichment in d e p t h , which en a b l e s a s t u d e n t t o study

more deeply t h e a r e a s t h a t a r e p a r t o f t h e r e g u l a r c u r r ic u l u m .

This

means working a t a more advanced l e v e l ( v e r t i c a l e n r i c h m e n t ) .
2.

Enrichment in b r e a d t h , which, w h ile i t i s n o t t h e most

common, l e a d s t h e pupil t o stu d y a r e a s t h a t a r e r e l a t e d t o b u t not
u s u a l l y in clu d ed in t h e r e g u l a r co urse o f stu d y ( h o r i z o n t a l enr ichmen t)
(DeHaan 8 H a v ig h u r s t , 1961).
G if te d and t a l e n t e d :
G if te d and t a l e n t e d c h i l d r e n a r e t h o s e . . . who by v i r t u e
of o u t s t a n d i n g a b i l i t i e s a r e c a p a b l e o f high performance. These
. . . c h i l d r e n r e q u i r e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d e d u c a t i o n a l programs a n d / o r
s e r v i c e s beyond t h o s e normally provided by th e r e g u l a r school
program i n o r d e r t o r e a l i z e t h e i r p o t e n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n t o s e l f
and s o c i e t y .
Ch ildren cap ab le o f high performance i n c l u d e t h o s e who have
dem onstrated any o f t h e f o llo w i n g a b i l i t i e s o r a p t i t u d e s , s i n g l y
o r in combination: (1) gen er al i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y , (2) s p e ­
c i f i c academic a p t i t u d e , (3) c r e a t i v e o r p r o d u c t i v e t h i n k i n g ,
(4) l e a d e r s h i p a b i l i t y , and (5) v i s u a l and pe rform ing a r t s a p t i ­
tu d e . ( Linds ey, 1980)
Grouping:

This term r e f e r s t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f s t u d e n t s

in a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and i n s t r u c t i o n a l u n i t s i n o r d e r t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e
attainm ent o f educational o b je c tiv e s .
Identification:

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s d e f in e d as a s s e s s i n g th e

a b i l i t i e s and t a l e n t s o f s t u d e n t s i n t h e school and s e l e c t i n g th o s e
s t u d e n t s who meet t h e c r i t e r i a e s t a b l i s h e d f o r a program.

13
Pull-out technique:

This is a t e c h n i q u e by which i d e n t i f i e d

s t u d e n t s a r e tak en o u t o f t h e normal d a y ' s s c h e d u le and given c l a s s e s
p a r t i c u l a r l y designed t o meet t h e i r need s.
Overvi ew
This d i s s e r t a t i o n i s o r g a n iz e d and p r e s e n t e d i n t h e f o ll o w i n g
manner.

In Ch apter I I a review o f th e l i t e r a t u r e i s p r e s e n t e d .

This

review emphasizes those s t u d i e s t h a t have been conducted which r e l a t e
t o g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .

These s t u d i e s a r e found in j o u r n a l s

and d o c t o r a l t h e s e s .
P r e s e n te d in Chapter I I I i s t h e d es ig n o f t h e s t u d y , which
in c l u d e s th e sample p o p u l a t i o n upon which t h e stu d y was based.
in Chapter I I I t h e o p e r a t i o n a l measures a r e d e s c r i b e d .

Also

F i n a l l y , th e

des ig n and methods o f a n a l y s i s a r e d i s c u s s e d .
The f o ll o w in g c h a p t e r i s an a tt e m p t to p r o v id e an overview o f
th e p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e in v o lv in g programs f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
s t u d e n t s as th ey r e l a t e t o t h i s s tu d y .

CHAPTER I I
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

A review o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e f o r t h e study n e c e s s i t a t e s an
i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e p r e v io u s r e s e a r c h done in th e a r e a o f c o r r e l a ­
tional studies of a ttitu d e s of superintendents, p aren ts, te a c h e rs,
s t u d e n t s , and laymen toward s p e c i a l programs f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
students.

The review f u r t h e r n e c e s s i t a t e s an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f th e

t h r e e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e approaches ( o r p r o t o t y p e s ) t h a t a r e t h e most
o f t e n used in meeting t h e needs o f g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s , and
some o f th e im p o r t a n t f a c t o r s t o be c o n s id e r e d in any program f o r th e
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d .

I t i s hoped t h a t t h i s review o f l i t e r a t u r e p r e ­

s e n t s a framework t h a t w i l l be u s efu l in t h e s u bsequent examination
o f d a ta in t h i s s tu d y o f programs f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .
P a r e n t s 1, T e a c h e r s 1, and Students* A t t i t u d e s
Toward Programs and Special C la s s e s f o r
G i f t e d and T a le n te d S tu d e n ts
The f o llo w in g s t u d i e s d e s c r i b e p a r e n t s ' , t e a c h e r s ' , and s t u ­
d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward programs and s p e c i a l c l a s s e s f o r g i f t e d and
ta le n te d students.
One o f t h e e a r l i e r s t u d i e s o f p a r e n t a l a t t i t u d e s was conducted
by F r a z e r (1963 ).

This stu d y i n v e s t i g a t e d p a r e n t a l a t t i t u d e s toward

t h e s p e c i a l program f o r g i f t e d s i x t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s .

An a t t e m p t was

made t o e s t a b l i s h t h o s e f a c t o r s t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e a c c e p ta n c e o f
14

15
s p e c i a l c l a s s e s f o r g i f t e d s i x t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s and t o i d e n t i f y and
c i t e t h e r ea so ns f o r p a r e n t a l a c c e p ta n c e o r r e j e c t i o n o f t h e s p e c i a l
program.

I t was found t h a t a s t a b l e community, s a t i s f i e d with t h e

s t a t u s quo, was r e l u c t a n t t o a c c e p t new i d e a s .

The program was much

more r e a d i l y a c c e p te d by p a r e n t s o f t h e l a b o r i n g c l a s s than by th e
managerial and p r o f e s s i o n a l group.

These f i n d i n g s r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e

h i g h e r t h e e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l o f t h e p a r e n t s , th e g r e a t e r th e number
who opposed t h e c l a s s .

Furth erm ore, i t was r e v e a l e d t h a t p a r e n t s f e l t

th e s u c c e ss o f t h e c l a s s f o r g i f t e d s t u d e n t s was due l a r g e l y t o th e
e f f o r t s of the teach er.
Myers (1963) conducted a s tu d y t o determ ine i f e d u c a t i o n a l p r o v is i o n s
f o r g i f t e d s t u d e n t s a r e r e l a t e d to p a r e n t a l a t t i t u d e s toward l o c a l
schools.

In t h i s stu d y a comparison was made between t h e a t t i t u d e s

o f p a r e n t s o f g i f t e d c h i l d r e n and th o s e o f p a r e n t s o f n o n g i f t e d s t u ­
den ts from two communities.

P r o v is i o n s were made f o r g i f t e d s t u d e n t s

in only one o f t h e s e communities.

The f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t e d , though

i n c o n c l u s i v e l y , t h a t a t t i t u d e s toward l o c a l s chools he ld by p a r e n t s
o f g i f t e d c h i l d r e n were r e l a t e d t o s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n s f o r the ed uca­
tion of t h e i r stu d e n ts.

The p a r e n t s o f g i f t e d and n o n g i f t e d s t u d e n t s

in t h e community t h a t d i d not have a s p e c i a l program f o r th e g i f t e d
tended t o be l e s s f a v o r a b l e toward t h e l o c a l s c h o o l s .
Dunn (1969) conducted a study o f t h e a t t i t u d e s o f p a r e n t s con­
ce r n in g a program f o r g i f t e d s t u d e n t s t o determine s p e c i f i c a t t i t u d e s
t h a t may c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e a c c e p t a n c e , r e j e c t i o n , o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f a
program f o r t h e g i f t e d .

Comparisons were made between C a t h o l i c -

school p a r e n t s and p u b l i c - s c h o o l p a r e n t s .

This stu dy r e v e a l e d t h a t

16
p a r e n t s o f g i f t e d c h i l d r e n as a whole overwhelmingly endorsed t h e
program.

These f i n d i n g s a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t v a r i a b l e s o f sex and

socioeconomic l e v e l had no e f f e c t on p a r e n t a l a t t i t u d e s .

The most

f a v o r a b l e resp o n s es were r e l a t e d t o e n r i c h e d c u r r i c u l a , a b i l i t y
gro upin g,

stim ulating

p r e s e n t a t i o n s , o f f e r i n g one o r more f o r e i g n

l a n g u a g e s , c h a l l e n g i n g m a t e r i a l , and w i l l i n g n e s s to r e p e a t t h e d e c i s i o n
to e n r o l l t h e c h i l d .

A d e s i r e t o co n t in u e th e program was expres sed

by 92 p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s .

L e s s - f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e s were a s s o c i ­

a t e d with l o c a t i o n o f c l a s s e s , l a c k o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , l i m i t e d o p por­
t u n i t i e s fo r a fter-sch o o l a c t i v i t y , the "g ifted " l a b e l , excessive
homework, and broken neighborhood f r i e n d s h i p p a t t e r n s .
A s tu d y conducted by Gregory (1975) in volv ed g i f t e d s t u d e n t s ,
both p a r t i c i p a n t s and n o n p a r t i c i p a n t s in a g i f t e d program, t h e i r
p a r e n t s , and o t h e r community l e a d e r s .

An a t t e m p t was made to d e t e r ­

mine (1) t h e t y p e s o f a b i l i t y and knowledge valued as a goal o r o b j e c ­
t i v e in e d u c a t i o n a l o f f e r i n g s f o r t h e g i f t e d , (2) t h e val ue o f p r o v i d ­
ing d i f f e r e n t e d u c a t i o n a l o f f e r i n g s f o r g i f t e d high school s t u d e n t s ,
(3) t h e c o n d i t i o n s t h a t might d is c o u r a g e s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and
(4) t h e val ue o f v a r i o u s ty p e s o f programs o r e d u c a t i o n a l o f f e r i n g s
pro vid e d f o r g i f t e d high school s t u d e n t s .
The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s tu d y r e v e a l e d t h a t a l l groups agree d
t h a t (1) a v a r i e t y o f q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t e d u c a t i o n a l o f f e r i n g s
should be prov ided f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d high school s t u d e n t s ; and
(2) t h e r e were c o n d i t i o n s t h a t d is c o u r a g e d s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n in
programs f o r t h e g i f t e d , and changes o r m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o improve
s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e s e programs, as well as program e v a l u a t i o n ,

17

should r e f l e c t t h e views o f t h e g i f t e d s t u d e n t s , both p a r t i c i p a n t s
and n o n p a r t i c i p a n t s in programs f o r t h e g i f t e d , t h e i r p a r e n t s , and
community l e a d e r s .
Smith (1959) focused on t h e e x p r e s s e d o p in io n s o f samples o f
s e v e r a l p o p u l a t i o n s in our s o c i e t y w ith r e g a rd t o how t h e e d u c a tio n a l
needs o f g i f t e d s t u d e n t s a r e being met a t t h e secondary l e v e l and
what t h e s e s e v e r a l p o p u l a t i o n s t h i n k should be done to meet th e needs
of students.

The f i n d i n g s r e v e a l e d t h a t most resp onden ts were in f a v o r

o f p r o v id i n g some s p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r th e g i f t e d .

They a l s o

fav ore d t h e s e l e c t i o n o f t e a c h e r s a c c o r d i n g to p a r t i c u l a r q u a l i f i c a ­
tions.
S te w a r t (1972) conducted a study t o i n v e s t i g a t e a t t i t u d e s o f
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s concerning programs f o r g i f t e d s t u d e n t s .

This s tudy

was an a t t e m p t t o measure a t t i t u d e s t h a t were grouped i n t o f i v e major
areas:

(1) p h i l o s o p h i c a l a p p r o a c h e s , (2) program development,

(3) s t a f f and pupil s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a , (4) s p e c i f i c t e a c h e r compe­
t e n c i e s , and (5) c u r r e n t s t a t u s and conmunity i n f l u e n c e s .

The f i n d ­

ings i n d i c a t e d t h a t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ex p r e ss e d t h e lack o f f i n a n c i a l
r e s o u r c e s as t h e main f a c t o r t h a t has hi n d e r e d t h e expansion o f and
development o f programs f o r t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d in Alabama.
Caraway (1959) i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e Broughton High School Program
f o r g i f t e d s t u d e n t s in an a t t e m p t (1) t o d i s c o v e r m a t e r i a l s and p r o c e ­
dures t h a t could be used by o t h e r i n t e l l e c t u a l l y g i f t e d s e condary school s t u d e n t s , (2) t o det er m ine th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e program on
academic achievement o f th o s e s t u d e n t s i n t h e s p e c i a l c l a s s e s f o r th e
g i f t e d , and (3) t o determ ine t h e s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses o f th e

18

program.

R e s u l t s o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n seemed t o i n d i c a t e t h a t

g i f t e d s t u d e n t s have d i f f e r e n t academic needs and i n t e r e s t s from th e
"av erage" s t u d e n t s in terms o f clas sro om o b j e c t i v e s , m a t e r i a l s , and
p r o c e d u re s .
This review of s e l e c t e d l i t e r a t u r e seemed t o i n d i c a t e t h a t
p a r e n t s tend t o en do rse t h e p r o v i s i o n s made f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
students.

They may tend to develop s p e c i f i c a t t i t u d e s toward lo c a l

school d i s t r i c t s because o f t h e s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n s t h a t a r e made f o r
s t u d e n t s ; t h e r e f o r e , p a r e n t s o f n o n p a r t i c i p a n t s may ten d t o be l e s s
f a v o r a b l e o f s p e c i a l programs f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s than
p a rtic ip a n ts ' parents.
F a c t o r s t h a t may c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e a c c e p t a n c e , r e j e c t i o n , or
m o d i f i c a t i o n o f g i f t e d programs were r e l a t e d t o t h e c u r r i c u l u m , group
p a t t e r n s , m a t e r i a l s and p r o c e d u r e s , r e t e n t i o n o f s t u d e n t s , l o c a t i o n
of c la sse s, tra n sp o rta tio n , opportunities fo r after-school a c t i v i ­
t i e s , l a b e l i n g o f s t u d e n t s , and th e e f f e c t s o f t h e program on s t u d e n t s '
social r e la tio n s h ip s .

The o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e program sho uld r e f l e c t

th e views o f t h e s t u d e n t s , p a r e n t s , and th e community.
There i s a growing r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e importance o f a t t i t u d e s
in meeting th e needs o f g i f t e d c h i l d r e n .

Attempts a r e being made to

measure and e v a l u a t e o b j e c t i v e l y and s t a t i s t i c a l l y f a c t o r s such as
mental c a p a c i t y , ph y s ic a l development, h e r e d i t a r y background, and
environmental i n f l u e n c e and to determ in e t h e i r e f f e c t s on t h e academic
achievement o f g i f t e d c h i l d r e n .
Educ ators tended p r e v i o u s l y t o c o n s i d e r mainly t h e mental
capacity of g ifte d ch ild re n .

However, mental c a p a c i t y i s but one

19

f a c t o r among a m u l t i p l i c i t y o f t r a i t s t h a t t h e s e c h i l d r e n o r any
o t h e r c h i l d r e n posse ss t h a t a p p ear worthy o f c a r e f u l e x am in atio n .
Educators have begun t o an a ly z e t h e importance o f t h e environmental
influence.
There i s an awareness t h a t c h i l d r e n come t o school wit h a t t i ­
tudes toward t h e s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and toward a v a r i e t y o f o t h e r
things.

Peachman (1942) p u r p o r te d t h a t h e r e d i t a r y and p h y s ic a l f a c ­

t o r s acc oun t f o r some p a r t o f t h e depth and i n t e n s i t y o f c h i l d r e n ' s
a t t i t u d e s , but t h e environment prob ab ly p la y s t h e major r o l e .

The

school may be a b l e t o do very l i t t l e about some f a c t o r s t h a t a f f e c t
c h i l d r e n ' s a t t i t u d e s , b u t school per sonnel should be a l e r t t o d e t e c t
t h e p resen ce o f t h e s e f a c t o r s t h a t a f f e c t c h i l d r e n ' s a t t i t u d e s and
to r e c o g n iz e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h e i r e f f e c t on th e achievement o f
children.

Since t h e school i s d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r some a t t i ­

t u d e s , i t should approach th e d i f f i c u l t t a s k o f en dea vor ing t o f o s t e r
th e most u s e fu l and d e s i r a b l e a t t i t u d e s .

Educ ators contend t h a t a t t i ­

tudes toward s c h o l a r s h i p and i n t e l l e c t u a l l i f e seem t o a f f e c t th e
q u a l i t y o f t h e s t u d e n t s ' academic accomplishments.
The s u c c e s s o f a program f o r g i f t e d s t u d e n t s i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d
t o t h e amount and kind o f a c t i v e s u p p o r t , e f f e c t i v e involvem ent, p e r ­
t i n e n t knowledge, and a t t i t u d e o f members o f t h e community, th e board
o f e d u c a t i o n , t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i r e c t o r s o f t h e e d u c a t i o n a l syst em ,
and t h e l o c a l school f a c u l t y .
In r e p o r t s on c l a s s e s f o r t h e g i f t e d in C l e v e la n d , Goddard
( i n Peachman, 1942) r ecogniz ed th e pr esen ce o f c e r t a i n u n d e s i r a b l e
a t t i t u d e s toward s p e c i a l c l a s s e s but denied th e p r e se n c e o f u n d e s i r a b l e

20
a t t i t u d e s w i t h i n t h e c l a s s e s th em selv es .

The a c c u s a t i o n was made

t h a t s e g r e g a t e d c l a s s e s encourage c o n c e i t ; however, he f a i l e d to
f i n d eviden ce o f such a t t i t u d e s among c h i l d r e n who had p a r t i c i p a t e d
in such c l a s s e s .

Goddard b e l i e v e d t h a t when u n d e s i r a b l e a t t i t u d e s

were found in c h i l d r e n they were u s u a l l y a t t r i b u t e d t o co nsci ou s f o s ­
t e r i n g by p a r e n t s .

However, Peachman a s s e r t e d t h a t i t remains t h e

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e school to a t t e m p t t o a l t e r t h e s e a t t i t u d e s by
t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s u n i t i n g to remove egotism whenever i t e x i s t s in
c la s se s fo r the g if te d .
Dye (1956) made a co mpa rative s tu d y o f a group o f g i f t e d
p u p i l s and a group o f av erage f i f t h - g r a d e p u p i l s f o r th e purpose o f
(1) d e te r m in in g t h e a t t i t u d e s o f th e g i f t e d c h i l d toward t h e s c h o o l ,
t h e c u r r i c u l u m , and t h e t e a c h e r ; and (2) d eter m in in g i f t h e r e were
i m p o rta n t d i f f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s o f g i f t e d and av erage c h i l d r e n .
The r e s u l t s o f t h e study seemed t o i n d i c a t e t h e f o ll o w i n g :

(1) The

m a j o r i t y o f both g i f t e d and av er ag e s t u d e n t s appeared t o approve o f
t h e i r teacher.

(2) A h i g h e r r a t i o o f g i f t e d s t u d e n t s were unhappy in

school compared t o t h e r a t i o o f a v er ag e s t u d e n t s who were unhappy in
s c h o o l.

(3) Although both t h e g i f t e d and t h e av er ag e groups appeared

t o have f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r t e a c h e r , s c h o o l , and c u r r i c u ­
lum, t h e g i f t e d group was alm ost c o n s i s t e n t l y more c r i t i c a l th an th e
av erage group.
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s stu d y seemed to imply t h a t t h e kinds o f
a t t i t u d e s a per son develops a r e dependent on t h e e x t e n t t o which his
i n n e r d r i v e s and urges a r e s a t i s f i e d in h i s d a i l y e x p e r i e n c e s .

The

school o r g a n i z a t i o n and program should encourage a t t i t u d e s t h a t w il l

21
be s a t i s f y i n g t o t h e c h i l d .

They sho uld a f f o r d him an o p p o r tu n i t y

to f u l f i l l h i s wants and i n t e r e s t in a s o c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e way and
help him to form h a b i t s o f b e h a v io r t h a t w i l l become so imbedded t h a t
d e s i r a b l e a t t i t u d e s may f u n c t i o n in him f o r h i s own w e l f a r e as well
as f o r t h a t o f th e group.
S t e n d l e r (1951) pursued a s tu d y o f s o c i a l - c l a s s d i f f e r e n c e s
in p a r e n t a l a t t i t u d e s toward school a t grade one.

She hypothesize d

t h a t t h e r e a r e s o c i a l - c l a s s d i f f e r e n c e s in p a r e n t a l b e l i e f i n and
s u p p o r t o f t h e school a t grade one.

Her f i n d i n g s seemed t o i n d i c a t e

t h a t a c h i l d ' s chances o f a t t e n d i n g preschool d e c r e a s e th e f u r t h e r
down t h e s o c i a l l a d d e r h i s f am il y i s .

She s u g g e ste d t h a t t h e r e s u l t s

o f t h i s s tu d y n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d s o l e l y i n terms o f t h e economic
f a c t o r but may be due t o d i f f e r e n c e s in how s o c i a l c l a s s e s p r i o r i t i z e
schooling.

With r egard t o e d u c a t i o n a l a s p i r a t i o n s , p a r e n t a l expec­

t a t i o n s f o r c h i l d r e n seem to be l e s s am bitious f o r t h e lower s o c i o ­
economic c l a s s .
McGehee and Lewis (1940) conducted a study o f p a r e n t a l a t t i ­
tudes o f m e n ta lly s u p e r i o r , a v e r a g e , and r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n .

The

study was des igned t o i n v e s t i g a t e d i f f e r e n c e s in th e a t t i t u d e s o f
th e p a r e n t s o f s u p e r i o r , a v e r a g e , and r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n toward th e
c h i l d and t h e home s i t u a t i o n , and, i f d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d , t o d e t e r ­
mine t h e n a t u r e o f t h o s e d i f f e r e n c e s .

T h e i r f i n d i n g s seemed to i n d i ­

c a t e t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between s u p e r i o r and r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n could
not be s e t f o r t h merely on t h e b a s i s o f mental a b i l i t y .

As a r e s u l t

o f t h e s e f i n d i n g s , th ey concluded t h a t t h e r e t a r d e d c h i l d i s a l s o
handicapped in many ca s es by p a r e n t s whose a t t i t u d e toward him and

22
t h e home i s n e g a t i v e , whereas t h e g i f t e d c h i l d i s a p t to be aided by
p a r e n t s whose a t t i t u d e s may be r a t e d as s u p e r i o r .

Because o f t h e

importance o f p a r e n t a l a t t i t u d e s in t h e development o f a c h i l d ,
u n d e s i r a b l e p a r e n t a l a t t i t u d e s may c o n t r i b u t e t o p e r s o n a l i t y a b e r r a ­
t i o n s and school f a i l u r e .

In c o n t r a s t , d e s i r a b l e p a r e n t a l a t t i t u d e s

may ten d t o a c t as a p o s i t i v e f o r c e in t h e mental h e a l t h and academic
su c c e ss o f t h e c h i l d .
Hamilton (1963) conducted a study o f some general a t t i t u d e s
and o p i n i o n s o f p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and c h i l d r e n ab out t h e c h a r a c t e r i s ­
t i c s o f g i f t e d c h i l d r e n and t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs s c h o o ls p r o ­
v id e f o r them, and t o a s c e r t a i n t h e deg re e o f r e l a t i o n s h i p o f s p e c i f i c
v a ria b le s to expressed a t t i t u d e s .

As a r e s u l t o f t h e s t u d y , he con­

cluded t h a t (1) Schools w i l l be s u c c e s s f u l i n f u l f i l l i n g t h e i r o b l i ­
g a t i o n s t o g i f t e d c h i l d r e n i f th e y f o rm u la t e t h e i r o b j e c t i v e s with
c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e people i n v o l v e d .

(2) Programs

should not be i n i t i a t e d u n t i l t e a c h e r s a r e s p e c i a l l y t r a i n e d about th e
nature of individual d iffe re n c e s .

(3) Schools should proceed with

c a u t i o n and n o t make a b r u p t changes in t h e e x i s t i n g programs.
(4) Schools should avoid p r e s e n t i n g in n o v a t i o n s as being new o r
unique.

(5) There sho uld be i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g f o r t e a c h e r s , and

t e a c h e r s sho uld a s s i s t in t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e
program.

(6) E x p la n a ti o n s should be made t o p a r e n t s i n terms t h a t

a r e m ea ningful.

(7) New l a b e l s o r names should be a v o id ed ; t h e term

" G i f t e d c h i l d r e n ' s c l a s s e s " i s l e s s d e s i r a b l e than simply " s p e c i a l
c l a s s e s , " " s p e c i a l - i n t e r e s t c l a s s e s , " o r "advanced c l a s s e s . "

The

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n and l a b e l i n g them as g i f t e d o r t a l e n t e d

23

should be av oided .

Another group whose a t t i t u d e s have g r e a t e f f e c t

upon g i f t e d c h i l d r e n i s t h e e d u c a t i o n a l group, which i n c l u d e s th o s e
who work d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y with such c h i l d r e n .

Teachers must

t a k e c a r e not t o impose t h e i r value s on t h e s e c h i l d r e n , and a t times
i t may be n e c e s s a r y to a l t e r t h e i r own a t t i t u d e s .
Teachers vary a g r e a t deal in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward g i f t e d
children.

Many o f them r e c o g n i z e t h e f a c t s o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s

and how i m p o r t a n t i t i s t o a d a p t t h e l e a r n i n g environment t o s a t i s f y
t h o s e d i f f e r e n c e s by using a v a r i e t y o f m a t e r i a l s and te c h n i q u e s to
he lp t o do th e j o b .

Other t e a c h e r s may i g n o re t h e h i g h - a b i l i t y s t u ­

d ents o r t e a c h them as th e y would any av erage c h i l d .

They may r e c o g ­

n iz e c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n c h i l d r e n and do n o t a t t e m p t t o meet
t h e i r needs because o f o t h e r demands in t h e c la s sr o o m , such as th e
slow l e a r n e r and d i s c i p l i n e problems.
DeHaan and H avigh urst (1961) d e s c r i b e d t h e t e a c h e r ' s a t t i t u d e
toward th e e d u c a t i o n o f th e g i f t e d as " c r u c i a l . "

The t e a c h e r w i l l be

a b l e to hel p g i f t e d c h i l d r e n i f he i s s e n s i t i v e to t h e i r needs and
w i l l i n g t o make changes i n o r d e r t o give them what th e y need.
The importance o f t h e t e a c h e r was summed up well by F r e e h i l l
(1961) when he s t a t e d t h a t "nothing in t h e home m a t t e r s as much as
t h e p a r e n t s and n o thing i n th e school m a t t e r s as much as t h e t e a c h e r . "
P a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s as s u r r o g a t e p a r e n t s a r e dynamic i n f l u e n c e s in
th e c h i l d ' s l i f e .
We may assume t h a t when our s cho ols r e c o g n iz e and make p r o v i ­
sions fo r individual differen ces of a ll c h ild re n , b e t t e r opportuni­
t i e s should r e s u l t f o r t h e g i f t e d .

24

Jacobs (1972) i n v e s t i g a t e d t e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e s toward g i f t e d
c h i l d r e n through t h e use o f a q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

He a t tem p ted t o develop

a measure f o r t e a c h e r a t t i t u d e s toward th e g i f t e d and a l s o t o d e t e r ­
mine i f t h e i r a t t i t u d e s a r e p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e .

His f i n d i n g s

r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e a t t i t u d e o f t h e k i n d e r g a r t e n and f i r s t - g r a d e t e a c h ­
e r s , who a r e very i n f l u e n t i a l in t h e e a r l y school c o n t a c t o f young
c h i l d r e n , was n e g a t i v e .

He concluded t h a t t h e impact o f t h i s a t t i t u d e

on t h e c h i l d ' s acce p ta n c e o f h i s high a b i l i t y may be u n d e s i r a b l e
because t h e g i f t e d c h i l d may s u b t l y be informed by t h e t e a c h e r t h a t
o n e ' s b r i g h t n e s s i s not as a c c e p t a b l e as th e b e h a v io r o f th e l e s s
b r i g h t , more normal c h i l d .

He f u r t h e r concluded t h a t t e a c h e r s as well

as o t h e r s in s o c i e t y must be c a u t i o u s not t o encourage our g i f t e d t o
conceal t h e i r a b i l i t i e s by a t t e m p t i n g t o r e c o g n i z e , guard a g a i n s t ,
and help modify th o s e a t t i t u d e s t h a t ten d t o imply t h a t g i f t e d n e s s
i s l e s s than d e s i r a b l e .
According t o r e s e a r c h , one may assume t h a t t h e a t t i t u d e s o f
t e a c h e r s i n f l u e n c e t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e c h i l d r e n whom th ey t e a c h .
Haring, S t e r n , and Cruick (1958) s u g g este d t h a t i f through c e r t a i n
ed u c a t i o n a l tec h n iq u e s one can change t h e a t t i t u d e s o f clas sro om
t e a c h e r s toward a r e a l i s t i c acce p ta n c e o f g i f t e d c h i l d r e n , t h e s e a t t i ­
tu d e s o f acce p ta n c e on t h e p a r t o f t e a c h e r s w i l l a l s o i n f l u e n c e c h i l ­
dren in t h e d i r e c t i o n o f r e a l i s t i c a c c e p ta n c e .
A s tu d y o f t e a c h e r a t t i t u d e s toward s p e c i a l c l a s s e s f o r
i n t e l l e c t u a l l y g i f t e d c h i l d r e n was made by Justman and W r ights tone
(1956).

They a ttem p ted t o de te rm ine t h e e x t e n t o f t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f

i n t e l l e c t u a l l y g i f t e d c h i l d r e n c l a s s e s by t e a c h i n g p e r s o n n e l .

25
According t o t h e i r f i n d i n g s , g e n e r a l l y younger t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r s
with i n t e l l e c t u a l l y g i f t e d c h i l d r e n e x p e r i e n c e showed more f a v o r a b l e
a t t i t u d e s than t e a c h e r s who had s e rv e d in t h e school a g r e a t e r number
o f y e a r s and who lack ed e x p e r i e n c e w ith c l a s s e s f o r i n t e l l e c t u a l l y
g ifted children.

The o r g a n i z a t i o n o f c l a s s e s f o r t h e g i f t e d and t a l ­

e n te d may cause some d e v i a t i o n from normal school p r a c t i c e s , and th e
e x t e n t t o which t h e s e c l a s s e s a r e ac c e p te d by t h e t e a c h i n g s t a f f i s
an im p o r t a n t f a c t o r in a s s e s s i n g th e t e a c h e r ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e
s u c c e ss o f t h e g i f t e d c h i l d .
Smichens and S e l l i n (1976) made a s tu d y o f 116 g r a d u a t e s t u ­
den ts in e d u c a t io n toward a t t i t u d e s ab out m e n t a ll y g i f t e d l e a r n e r s .
The s p e c i f i c dimensions o f t h i s s tu d y in c l u d e d (1) w i l l i n g n e s s to
s u p p o r t s e r v i c e s , (2) w i l l i n g n e s s t o t e a c h , and (3) p r e f e r r e d l e v e l s
of in tera ctio n .

They a l s o a tte m p te d t o i d e n t i f y t h e e f f e c t o f c e r ­

ta in v ariab les regarding teach er a t t i t u d e s .

These c o r r e l a t e s were

(1) s e x , (2) c u r ric u lu m p r e f e r e n c e ( i . e . , e lem entary vs . s e c o n d a r y ) ,
(3) pr ev io u s e x p e r i e n c e , and (4) p e r c e iv e d t r a i t s .

Their findings

implied t h a t (1) sex and e l em enta ry vs. h ig h -s c h o o l o r i e n t a t i o n had
r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e e f f e c t on dimensions o f a t t i t u d e , (2) t e a c h e r s o f
g i f t e d s t u d e n t s need s p e c i a l t r a i n i n g , (3) r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e ty pe o f
intim acy o f c o n t a c t , t h e r e was a marked p r e f e r e n c e f o r i n t e r a c t i o n
o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s own c h i l d , and (4) t h e o v e r a l l image o f t h e s e
l e a r n e r s was o f a l e a r n e r who was d e s i r a b l e t o t e a c h b u t who had no
s p e c i a l needs f o r s e r v i c e .
A number o f a u t h o r i t i e s have i d e n t i f i e d t h e importance o f
acce p ta n c e and p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward t h e g i f t e d .

I t seems b a s i c

26
t h a t a t e a c h e r o f t h e g i f t e d ought t o have a f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e
toward t h e g i f t e d c h i l d because u n f a v o r a b le a t t i t u d e s may be observed
by t h e c h i l d and may r e s u l t in h i s deve lo ping a n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e
toward l e a r n i n g .
Wiener and O ' S h e a 's study (1963) was de signed t o (1) i n d i c a t e
a t t i t u d e s h eld by t e a c h e r s , s u p e r v i s o r s , u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y members,
and u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s toward t h e g i f t e d and (2) t o n o te th e r e l a ­
t i o n s h i p s between c e r t a i n s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e s and a t t i t u d e s toward t h e
gifted.

T h e i r f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e s u p e r v i s o r s were t h e most

f a v o r a b l e , w h ile the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were s l i g h t l y l e s s f a v o r a b l e .
The u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y members were somewhat l e s s f a v o r a b l e than th e
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and t h e t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t s were t h e l e a s t f a v o r ­
a b le o f a l l groups s t u d i e d .
The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e was a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t
r e l a t i o n s h i p between a t t i t u d e toward g i f t e d c h i l d r e n and s c h o l a s t i c
ap titu d e of the te a c h e rs.

There was no r e l a t i o n s h i p between a g e , s e x ,

degrees h e l d , f i e l d , income, o r number o f y e a r s t e a c h i n g and t h e
f a c u l t y members' a t t i t u d e toward t h e g i f t e d .

There was no r e l a t i o n ­

s h i p between a g e, income, y e a r s as a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , p o s i t i o n , grade
l e v e l , or programs f o r t h e g i f t e d in school and th e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s '
a t t i t u d e toward t h e g i f t e d .

The male a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were more f a v o r ­

a b l e toward t h e g i f t e d th a n were t h e female a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

There was

a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between e d u c a t i o n a l degrees h e l d and
a t t i t u d e toward t h e g i f t e d .

The a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w ith d o c t o r ' s degr ees

were more f a v o r a b l e toward t h e g i f t e d than were t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
with b a c h e l o r ' s o r m a s t e r ' s d e g r e e s .

There was a s i g n i f i c a n t

27
r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e e x i s t e n c e o f c l a s s e s f o r t h e g i f t e d in
school systems and a t t i t u d e s toward t h e g i f t e d .

The a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

with c l a s s e s f o r t h e g i f t e d i n t h e i r s c h o o ls were more f a v o r a b l e
toward t h e g i f t e d than were a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who d id not have c l a s s e s .
There was no r e l a t i o n s h i p between a g e, s e x , d e g r e e , income, number
o f y e a r s as a s u p e r v i s o r , o r e x p e r i e n c e i n s u p e r v i s i n g t h e g i f t e d and
t h e s u p e r v i s o r ' s a t t i t u d e toward t h e g i f t e d .

There was no r e l a t i o n ­

s h i p between a g e , s e x , income, number o f y e a r s as a s u p e r v i s o r , o r
e x p e r i e n c e in s u p e r v i s i n g t h e g i f t e d and t h e s u p e r v i s o r ' s a t t i t u d e
toward th e g i f t e d .

There was no r e l a t i o n s h i p between a g e , s e x ,

income, number o f y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e , o r grade l e v e l and t h e t e a c h e r s '
a t t i t u d e toward t h e g i f t e d (Wiener & O'Shea, 1963).
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s stu d y seem t o i n d i c a t e t h a t u n d e r sta n d in g
and f a m i l i a r i t y with g i f t e d s t u d e n t s a f f e c t a t t i t u d e s , and i f those
per so ns who most d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e t h e a t t i t u d e o f s t u d e n t s do
not d i s p l a y a f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e , improvement in s t u d e n t a t t i t u d e s
and u n d e r s ta n d in g may be l i m i t e d .
Identification
Many e d u c a t o r s a g r e e t h a t g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s have
p o t e n t i a l a b i l i t i e s o f an o u t s t a n d i n g o r unusual n a t u r e and t h a t
t h e s e a b i l i t i e s can be enhanced by s p e c i a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s .

I f our

sc h o o ls a r e going to be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r enhancing t h e s e p o t e n t i a l l y
o u t s t a n d i n g a b i l i t i e s , we need th e b e s t a v a i l a b l e measure to i d e n t i f y
and t o a r r i v e a t an as se ssm en t o f t h e s e p u p i l s ' p o t e n t i a l which i s as
a c c u r a t e as p o s s i b l e , so t h e s e p o t e n t i a l s can be t u r n e d i n t o f u t u r e
productivity.

28

Rice (1970) and Barbe and R en z u ll i (1975) con cu rre d t h a t th e
pr imar y goal o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n pro ce du res ought t o be t h e s e l e c t i o n o f
t h e b r o a d e s t p o s s i b l e range o f g i f t e d s t u d e n t s ; i t s ta n d s to reason
t h a t s e l e c t i o n committees ought to be composed o f a v a r i e t y o f pro­
f e s s i o n a l and t a l e n t e d members.

Rice f u r t h e r sugges ted t h a t general

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n coimiittees i n s c h o o ls should i n c l u d e t e a c h e r s from
v a r i o u s s u b j e c t d i s c i p l i n e s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , school p s y c h o l o g i s t s , and
s p e c i f i c community e x p e r t s .

Most p r o f e s s i o n a l e d u c a t o r s in t h e school

ought t o be in c o n t a c t with th e s e l e c t i o n committee a t some time s i n c e
(1) nominations should be openly c o m p e t i t i v e , (2) s c r e e n i n g p r o c e ­
dures shou ld be c i r c u l a t e d among a l l t e a c h e r s du r in g annual survey
p e r i o d s , and (3) i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g f o r d i a g n o s i s and t a l e n t deve lop­
ment sho uld be open t o a l l t e a c h e r s .
The proce ss o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n should begin a t t h e k i n d e r g a r t e n
l e v e l , and shou ld be a cont inuous pr o c e ss ex ten ding through t h e grades
(Mar tinso n, 1965; R i c e , 1970; W i t t y , 1971).

An i n t e r r u p t i o n i n t h i s

p r o c e s s occurs a t th e time o f c e r t i f i c a t i o n ; b e f o r e t h i s i n t e r r u p ­
t i o n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e ss tends t o be h i s t o r i c a l .

Data con ce rn­

ing t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s development a r e c o l l e c t e d and a s s e s s e d in terms
o f h i s v a r io u s p o t e n t i a l i t i e s , with s p e c i a l emphasis on h i s mental
abilities.
Gowan and Demos (1964) recommended some p r i n c i p l e s t h a t sho uld
prove h e l p f u l as g u i d e l i n e s .

They s t a t e d , " I t i s f i r s t im p o rta n t t h a t

t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n has a purp ose and t h a t some s p e c i a l a c t i v i t i e s w ith
t h e g i f t e d s h o u ld flow from t h e i r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . "

They f u r t h e r s u g ­

g e s te d t h a t the p r o c e ss o f o r g a n i z i n g a program f o r th e g i f t e d should

29
succeed e x p l o r a t i o n s by t e a c h e r s o f th e b e s t ways t o meet t h e needs
of g ifted children.

The program sho uld be t h e consequence o f good

guidance and f a c u l t y m ora le .
fo r a ll children.

I t should f i t i n t o an e x i s t i n g program

L a s t , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n sho uld d i s t u r b as l i t t l e as

p o s s i b l e t h e c h i l d in h i s p er so n al and s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p .

I t should

n o t caus e s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s , p a r e n t a l c o n f l i c t s , o r u n f a v o ra b le
publicity.
The f o llo w in g a r e s u g g ested pr oce dur es to be used in the
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s , in t h e o r d e r o f p r e f e r e n c e , ac c o r d in g to
Gowan and Demos:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

P e r i o d i c e v a l u a t i o n t o d eter m in e r e t e n t i o n in program
I n t e l l i g e n c e q u o t i e n t as measured by group t e s t
Reading grade placement
Recommendation o f s u b j e c t t e a c h e r
Review and approval o f r e cord by c o u n s e l in g s t a f f
Score on s t a n d a r d i z e d achievement t e s t
Composite s c o r e s o f v a r io u s s u b j e c t f i e l d s
Previous g r a d e s , a l l s u b j e c t s
Previous g r a d e s , s p e c i f i c s u b j e c t s
P a r e n t a l approval
I n t e l l i g e n c e from i n d i v i d u a l t e s t
S o c i a l - e m o t io n a l s t a b i l i t y from t e a c h e r judgments
Reconmendation o f t e a c h e r o u t s i d e s u b j e c t f i e l d

Kough (1960) s t a t e d t h a t " s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s and t e a c h e r s '
o b s e r v a t i o n a r e t h e two means by which s ch ools can i d e n t i f y i n t e l ­
lectu ally gifted students."

He contended t h a t some a b i l i t i e s a r e

b e t t e r measured by o b j e c t i v e t e s t s , o t h e r s by o b s e r v a t i o n , and s t i l l
o t h e r s by a combined app ro ac h.

Each o f t h e s e methods has i t s own

l i m i t a t i o n s ; t h e r e f o r e , a good i d e n t i f i c a t i o n program sho uld never
r e l y on a s i n g l e t e c h n i q u e , b u t on a wide v a r i e t y o f c r i t e r i a .
G a lla g h e r (1976) d id not f a v o r u s in g t e a c h e r o b s e r v a t i o n s f o r
identifying g ifted children.

He contended t h a t t e a c h e r s make a

30

s i z a b l e number o f e r r o r s in a t t e m p t i n g t o i d e n t i f y g i f t e d s t u d e n t s .
F i r s t , some te n d t o i d e n t i f y many s t u d e n t s who t e s t s i n d i c a t e a r e
not g i f t e d .

Second, they do n o t i d e n t i f y some s t u d e n t s who t e s t s

in d icate are g if te d .

Another e r r o r t h a t t e a c h e r s have been known

to make i s in i d e n t i f y i n g most c h i l d r e n who come from m i d d l e - c l a s s
and p r o f e s s i o n a l f a m i l i e s .
Vail (1979) contended t h a t one rea so n f o r e r r o r s in t e a c h e r
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n may be due t o t h e t e a c h e r ' s e x p e c t a t i o n o f g i f t e d
s t u d e n t s t o be c h e e r f u l and e n t h u s i a s t i c in responding t o th e c l a s s ­
room program.

Many o f t h e s e s t u d e n t s may be w i l l i n g t o conform to

r o u t i n e s , whereas o t h e r s may r e s i s t .
re garde d as b e h a v i o r problems.

Consequently, some may be

Other g i f t e d c h i l d r e n may be l a b e l e d

slow l e a r n e r s because th ey a r e bored and do n o t respond t o cl as sr oo m
activities.

Thus, t h e t e a c h e r may over lo ok t h e s e c h i l d r e n .

However,

t h o s e g i f t e d c h i l d r e n who a r e h a r d e s t to i d e n t i f y a r e u s u a l l y th e
ones who a r e most in need o f s p e c i a l h e l p .
Since r e s e a r c h has shown t e a c h e r judgment t o be f a l l i b l e , to
d e c r e a s e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f t e a c h e r misjudgment, i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g
f o r t e a c h e r s conc er ning t h e b e h a v io r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f c h i l d r e n
i s needed.
McMillan (1976) ag re ed t h a t t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n sho uld be
combined w it h o b s e r v a t i o n and nomination by t e a c h e r s , p a r e n t s , and
peers.

The i n t e l l i g e n c e , ach iev em en t, and d i a g n o s t i c t e s t s may be

used as means t o measure a p t i t u d e , c r e a t i v i t y , p e r s o n a l i t y , and i n t e r ­
ests.

He a l s o fav o red th e use o f s e l f - n o m i n a t i o n by g i f t e d c h i l d r e n

because i n t e r e s t and m o t i v a t i o n p la y c r i t i c a l r o l e s i n achievement

31
and, c o n v e r s e l y , in unde rachievement.

He c a u tio n e d a g a i n s t comparing

t e s t s c o r e s as a means o f choosing s t u d e n t s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs because an IQ o f 130 i s o f t e n c i t e d as
t h e " c u t - o f f " s c o r e f o r i n c l u s i o n i n g i f t e d programs.

However,

because i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s vary in t h e i r r e s u l t s ( f o r example,
S t a n f o r d - B i n e t IQs av er ag e seven p o i n t s h i g h e r th an Wechsler IQs) ,
t h i s " c u t - o f f " s c o r e i s n o t recommended.

He f u r t h e r contended t h a t

g i f t e d n e s s may n o t show up i n t e s t s c o r e s s i n c e t e s t s ten d t o i d e n ­
t i f y i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y and s p e c i f i c academic a p t i t u d e .

Certain

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f g i f t e d n e s s may be measured by t e s t s , i n c l u d i n g
c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g , l e a d e r s h i p a b i l i t y , v i s u a l and p e r f o r m i n g - a r t s
a b i l i t y , and psychomotor s k i l l s .
Many a u t h o r i t i e s have agreed t h a t t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e method
o f i d e n t i f y i n g g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d c h i l d r e n i s t h e s y s t e m a t i c a d m i n is ­
t r a t i o n o f group i n t e l l i g e n c e and achievement t e s t s , p l u s i n s e r v i c e
t r a i n i n g f o r t h e t e a c h e r s c o n cernin g t h e b e h a v io r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
of these children.

Even with t h e s e methods, i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t some

g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d c h i l d r e n may be m i s s e d , b u t an y th in g l e s s than
t h e s e pr oced ure s may a s s u r e t h a t many p o t e n t i a l l y h i g h - a b i l i t y c h i l ­
dren w i l l be ig n o r e d .
S ta ff Selection
The q u a l i t y o f i n s t r u c t i o n i n any e d u c a t i o n a l program depends
l a r g e l y on t h e q u a l i t y o f th e t e a c h e r s t h e m s e l v e s , f o r what t h e p u p i l s
l e a r n and t h e a t t i t u d e s th e y form w i l l depend in l a r g e p a r t on t h e
guidance th ey have r e c e i v e d from t e a c h e r s .

Te achers h e l p p u p i l s to

32
det er m in e g o a l s , e s t a b l i s h v a l u e s , s e l e c t l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s , and
choose methods, and th e y s e r v e as examples o r models.

Freehill

(1963) and Crow (1963) proposed t h a t because t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
c h i l d has made good l e a r n i n g p r o g re s s on h i s own t h ro u g h o u t t h e y e a r s ,
he o f t e n has i n c e n t i v e and c a p a c i t y to pursue l e a r n i n g on his own.
With r e s p e c t to maximizing h i s l e a r n i n g i n t h i n k i n g s t r a t e g i e s , uncom­
mon knowledge, and s o p h i s t i c a t e d m e th o d o lo g ie s, i t i s n e c e s s a r y to
f i n d t e a c h e r s who a r e equipped t o handle such l e a r n i n g i n p u t s .
S t a f f i n g p a t t e r n s may be co m pl ica ted by such f a c t o r s as
s c a r c i t y o f r e s o u r c e s p e c i a l i s t s , l a c k o f time on t h e p a r t o f h i g h l y
p r o d u c t iv e i n t e l l e c t u a l s t o devote t o perso nal i n t e r a c t i o n with th e
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t , o r f a i l u r e o f p r o f e s s i o n a l e d u c a ti o n a l
i n s t i t u t i o n s t o c a p t u r e t h e i r s hare o f i n t e l l e c t u a l s ( R i c e , 1970).
The U.S. O f f i c e o f Education s u g g e s t e d t e a c h i n g f e l l o w s h i p s
and i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g as major needs t o " b e t t e r p r e p a r e " t e a c h e r s
o f th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d .

S a n d e r l i n (1973) p o i n te d o u t t h a t in

1971 only th e U n i v e r s i t y o f G e o r g ia , Pen nsylvan ia S t a t e , Kent S t a t e ,
George Peabody C o l l e g e , t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y a t San Diego, and th e U n i v e r s i t y o f C o n n e c ti c u t were p r e ­
pared t o give g r a d u a t e degr ees in g i f t e d e d u c a t i o n .

More r e c e n t l y ,

o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r l e a r n i n g have i n i t i a t e d s i m i l a r programs
( e . g . , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y i n i t i a t e d a program in 1978).
The t e a c h e r ' s i n t e l l e c t u a l c a p a b i l i t y should be a p p r o p r i a t e
t o th e e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l o f t h e p u p i l s .
reasons:

This i s im p o r t a n t f o r t h r e e

F i r s t , i t i s im p o r ta n t t h a t no communication gap e x i s t

33
between t h e c h i l d and t e a c h e r .

Second, th e t e a c h e r should be cap ab le

o f u n d e r s t a n d in g t h e c oncepts e s s e n t i a l t o t h e l e a r n i n g o f t h e c h i l d .
T h i r d , t h e t e a c h e r s h o u ld be s u f f i c i e n t l y p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y i n s i g h t f u l
and i n t e l l e c t u a l l y competent to u n d er stan d and work with g i f t e d and
t a l e n t e d c h i l d r e n in t h e i r n e c e s s a r y p r o g re s s from b e h a v io r t h a t
in v o lv e s h i g h e r - l e v e l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n (Newland, 1976).
H i l d r e t h (1952) s u g g ested t h a t t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d c h i l d
needs a g i f t e d t e a c h e r .

A r a r e r de gre e o f competence i s needed by

th e t e a c h e r who a t t e m p t s to d i r e c t t h e l e a r n i n g o f g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
students.

H i l d r e t h f u r t h e r a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e r e i s l i t t l e documented

evide nc e t o prove t h a t t e a c h e r s who a r e c o n s id e r e d g e n e r a l l y e x c e l ­
l e n t t e a c h e r s would be e x c e l l e n t t e a c h e r s f o r g i f t e d c h i l d r e n .

Other

e d u c a t o r s have agreed t h a t t h e t e a c h e r o f t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
c h i l d should h i m s e l f be g i f t e d ; however, t h i s means t h a t he should
have enough emotional b a la n c e and enough advantage from e x p e r i e n c e to
a c c e p t and work with s t u d e n t s who a r e b r i g h t e r th an h i m s e l f .
According t o Mirman (1964 ), i t seems r e a s o n a b l e and l o g i c a l
t h a t we c o n s i d e r t e a c h e r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s i n terms o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s ­
t i c s o f th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d c h i l d r e n t h e m s e lv e s ; however, t o be
a b l e t o pr ovid e g i f t e d t e a c h e r s f o r t h e s e s t u d e n t s may be a d v a n t a ­
geous— i t seems alm ost an i m p o s s ib le goal t o a c h i e v e .

Although good

s c h o l a r s h i p and a wide c u l t u r a l background a r e i m p o r t a n t , i t is n o t
s u g g e s te d t h a t t h e t e a c h e r p o s se s s e x p e r t i s e i n a l l a r e a s o f knowl­
edge i n which g i f t e d c h i l d r e n may be i n t e r e s t e d .
Conant (1958) s t a t e d t h a t t h e t e a c h e r o f g i f t e d s t u d e n t s
sho uld have in e x c e p t i o n a l deg re e some o f t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s expected

34

o f a l l t e a c h e r s , e . g . , a good mind, broad i n t e l l e c t u a l c u r i o s i t y ,
c r e a t i v i t y , e n e r g y , e x p e r i e n c e , e n t h u si a s m , emotional b a l a n c e , p e r ­
s o n a l i t y , and a deep i n t e r e s t i n s t u d e n t s as i n d i v i d u a l s .
Witty (1951) su gges ted t h a t t h e main concern o f t e a c h e r s o f
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d c h i l d r e n should be t o he lp each c h i l d develop h is
p o ten tialities.

To do t h i s he should gain an u n d e r s t a n d in g o f c h i l d

development, and he should l e a r n t h e c o u n s e lin g and group-work t e c h ­
niques a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e informal cl as sroom .

Recognizing th e impor­

ta n c e o f p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s and o f neighborhood i n f l u e n c e s , he
becomes a c q u a in te d with p a r e n t s and community l i f e .
G i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s need t e a c h e r s with s p e c i a l t r a i t s
and s k i l l s .
but many can.

Not ev er y t e a c h e r can tea ch t h e s e s t u d e n t s s u c c e s s f u l l y ,
Even t e a c h e r s with a l l o r most o f t h e d e s i r e d t r a i t s

should have s p e c i a l t r a i n i n g i n meeting th e needs o f th e g i f t e d and
t a l e n t e d ( E p s t e i n , 1979).
Because o f th e v i t a l r o l e t h a t s t a f f members perform in d e t e r ­
mining g o a l s , e s t a b l i s h i n g v a l u e s , s e l e c t i n g l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s ,
choosing methods and m a t e r i a l s , and s e r v i n g as models f o r s t u d e n t s in
g i f t e d programs, t h e s e per sons ap p ear t o be o f utmost importance in
th e s u c c e ss o r e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e g i f t e d programs.

However, t h e

importance o f t r a i n e d personnel and t h e time f a c t o r seem t o be very
p e r t i n e n t a r e a s t h a t sho uld be c o n s i d e r e d in th e pr o c e ss o f o r g a n i z ­
ing a program f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .
Grouping
According t o Gowan and Demos ( 196 3), e s s e n t i a l l y a l l programs
f o r t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d a r e enrichment programs t h a t a r e des igne d

35
t o pro v id e f o r i n d i v i d u a l work, f o r d i f f e r e n t i a t e d a s s i g n m e n t s , f o r
g r e a t e r depth o f l e a r n i n g , o r f o r more r a p i d pace.

Each seeks to

e n r i c h by p r o v id i n g more o r d i f f e r e n t l e a r n i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s .
ar rangements may be c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o grou ps :

These

g ro u p in g , a c c e l e r a t i o n ,

and en rich m en t.
Many e d u c a t o r s advocate meeting th e needs o f a l l s t u d e n t s by
b r i n g i n g t o g e t h e r s t u d e n t s who have s i m i l a r i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y f o r
a l l o r some p o r t i o n o f t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e .

By grouping

s t u d e n t s t h i s way, th e range o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i s reduced and
pe rm it s t e a c h i n g methods and l e a r n i n g e x p e r ie n c e s t h a t a r e a p p r o p r i ­
a t e t o th e a b i l i t y l e v e l o f th e s t u d e n t s .

I t en a b le s t h e t e a c h e r t o

devote more time t o g i f t e d s t u d e n t s than i s p o s s i b l e when t h e r e a r e
slow er s t u d e n t s who need h e l p .
According t o S h e r t z e r ( 1960) , grouping may r e s u l t in th e
development o f more r e a l i s t i c s e l f - c o n c e p t s among g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
students.

S t u d i e s by t h e T a le n te d Youth P r o j e c t r e v e a l e d t h a t when

b r i g h t s t u d e n t s were moved from b r oad- t o narro w-ran ge g r o u p s, t h e i r
s e l f - e s t i m a t e s tended t o go down and t h e gap between t h e i r p e r c e p ­
t i o n o f t h e i r p r e s e n t s t a t u s and t h e i r d e s i r e d s t a t u s i n c r e a s e d , thus
l e a v i n g p s y c h o lo g ic a l space f o r improvement.

This may be reaso n to

s u p p o r t t h e argument t h a t grouping does n o t f o s t e r c o n c e i t and snob­
bery in g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .
Anderson (1961) was s u p p o r t i v e o f t h e above f i n d i n g s because
he contended t h a t grouping o f g i f t e d s t u d e n t s may caus e d e s i r a b l e
changes i n s e l f - a t t i t u d e , both f o r t h e g i f t e d and t h e a v e r a g e .
e v e r , working in a s p e c i a l group may g iv e t h e g i f t e d s t u d e n t an

How­

36

o p p o r t u n i t y t o see h i m s e l f more r e a l i s t i c a l l y i n r e l a t i o n t o h i s peers
in a b i l i t y .

There i s no evid en ce t o s u p p o r t th e n o tio n t h a t grouping

has any a d v e r se e f f e c t s on t h e s o c i a l o r perso nal a t t i t u d e s o r behav­
io r of children.

Anderson f u r t h e r a s s e r t e d t h a t "grouping i s a f a c i l i ­

t a t o r o f b e t t e r l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s f o r b r i g h t c h i l d r e n , b u t i t does
n o t , p er s e , r e s u l t i n g r e a t e r achievement in t h e b a s i c s k i l l s o r in
general c o n t e n t w i t h o u t s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s i g n i n g v a r i e d academic p r o ­
grams f o r t h e v a r i o u s a b i l i t y l e v e l s . "

Moreover, DeHaan (1961) and

Newland (1976) agr eed with An der so n's s u g g e s t i o n t h a t grouping n o t be
c o n s id e r e d on t h e b a s i s o f g en er al a b i l i t i e s , but i n s t e a d i t should
be r e l a t e d t o s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s and kinds o f a b i l i t i e s .

Specific

s i t u a t i o n s , s p e c i f i c a p t i t u d e s , and s p e c i f i c i n t e r e s t s o f c h i l d r e n
sh ould be tak en i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n .
Some a u t h o r i t i e s have s u g g ested t h a t g i f t e d c h i l d r e n tend to
s e l e c t t h e i r playmates and f r i e n d s from t h e i r i n t e l l e c t u a l p e e r s .
However, Anderson s t a t e d t h a t br o ad -r an g e grouping does not f o s t e r
g r e a t e r mutual acce p ta n c e among c h i l d r e n o f v a r i o u s a b i l i t y l e v e l s .
Mann (1957) found t h a t g i f t e d c h i l d r e n both chose and r e j e c t e d t y p i c a l
children.
t h e i r own.

Typical c h i l d r e n a l s o seemed both to p r e f e r and to r e j e c t
Both t h e acce p ta n c e and r e j e c t i o n seemed to be s t r o n g e r

w i t h i n a b i l i t y groups th an a c r o s s them.
Torran ce (1965) d e s c r i b e d th e r e s u l t s o f many su rvey s on
grouping as cr ude and u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , and because t h e s e r e s u l t s
have not been unifor mly f a v o r a b l e and many i m p o r ta n t go als o f e d u c a t ­
ing g i f t e d c h i l d r e n have n o t been c o n s i d e r e d i n th e e v a l u a t i o n s , th e

37
r e s u l t s have i n d i c a t e d t h a t grouping does n o t s o l v e a u t o m a t i c a l l y t h e
problems o f i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g i n s t r u c t i o n .
An i n c r e a s i n g number o f e d u c a t o r s f a v o r some form o f g r o u p in g .
Many o f them, l i k e MacLean ( 1 95 6) , have ag re ed wit h t h e p o l i c y o f
p l a c in g g i f t e d s t u d e n t s i n s p e c i a l c l a s s e s a t an e a r l y a g e , but have
emphasized t h a t t h e r e a r e ways o f i n c l u d i n g t h e s e s t u d e n t s i n school
a c t i v i t i e s in v o l v i n g them in heter oge ne ous r e l a t i o n s h i p s as an i n t e ­
gr a l p a r t o f t h e i r e d u c a t i o n .
Torrey (1956) s to o d a g a i n s t grouping on t h e ground t h a t i t
s o l i d i f i e s socioeconomic d i f f e r e n c e s .

He advoca ted t h e use o f b e t t e r

t e a c h i n g methods in which t h e c h i l d i s allow ed t o p r o g r e s s a t h i s own
rate.
Some w r i t e r s have f e l t t h a t grouping encourages co m p e titi o n
r a t h e r than c o o p e r a t i o n and t h a t t h e c o m p e t i t i v e s p i r i t should n o t
e x i s t i n t h e democ ratic co ncept o f t h e s c h o o l .

F ontaine (1941) saw

c l a s s d i s t i n c t i o n as hazardous and b e l i e v e d t h a t grouping i s more
l i k e l y to develop s o c i a l m i s f i t s than l e a d e r s .

Hinckley (1956)

c r i t i c i z e d t h e grouping o f p u p i l s as a hampering element f o r a whole­
some development.

He s u g g e s te d p r o v id i n g s p e c i a l c l a s s e s f o r t h e

g i f t e d d u r in g s tu d y p e r i o d .
Gowan's (1964) summary o f r e s e a r c h conducted by Laney and
LeHew i n 1958 i s

an e x c e l l e n t review o f r e a s o n s gi ven f o r grouping

and a l s o a g a i n s t g r o upin g.

They a r e as f o ll o w s :

For grouping:
1.

A s s i s t s th e t e a c h e r in p r o v id i n g a program o f g r e a t e r depth
o r b r e a d t h by more c l o s e l y grouping i n t e l l e c t u a l o r c r e a t i v e
peers.

38

2.

T a le n te d s t u d e n t s in a r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous group w i l l f i n d
i t more s t i m u l a t i n g and i n t e r e s t i n g t o e x p l o r e new f i e l d s and
id e a s e x p e r i m e n t a l l y and c r i t i c a l l y .

3.

Since a r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous group o f t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s can
cov er r o u t i n e m a t e r i a l more q u i c k l y , much time i s l e f t f o r th e
t e a c h e r t o guide a c t i v i t i e s o f a c r e a t i v e n a t u r e .

4.

The t e a c h e r a l s o has time f o r e n r i c h e d group o u t - o f - s c h o o l
a c t i v i t i e s t h a t might n o t be s u i t a b l e f o r a hetero geneous
class.

5.

A r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous group o f t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s can h elp
i t s members develop more r e a l i s t i c s e l f - c o n c e p t s . Working i n
a s p e c i a l group g iv e s t h e t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t a chance t o see
h i m s e l f in r e l a t i o n t o h i s pe er s in a b i l i t y .
In a d d i t i o n t o
r e c o g n i z i n g h i s s t r e n g t h s , he a l s o becomes aware o f some o f
h i s sh ort com in gs.

6.

The i n t e l l e c t u a l l y g i f t e d c h i l d te nds t o s e l e c t h i s playmates
and l a t e r , h i s f r i e n d s from h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l p e e r s . I t i s
pr obab le t h a t t a l e n t e d people tend t o choose as f r i e n d s t h o s e
whose t a l e n t s l i e in t h e same a r e a . I f t h i s i s t r u e , t h e
y o u n g s t e r ' s co ncept o f h i m s e l f shou ld be r e l a t e d t o th e kind
o f peo ple w i th whom he i s going t o spend most o f h i s l i f e .

7.

Grouping o f t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s s t i m u l a t e s g r e a t e r e f f o r t s s i n c e
"s u c c e s s " in r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r s i s n o t as e a s i l y achiev ed as
i t would be i n a r e g u l a r clas sr oom .

8.

I n t e l l e c t u a l l y g i f t e d s t u d e n t s a r e l i k e l y t o be d isc o u r a g e d
when th e y f i n d t h a t i n c o l l e g e they a r e no l o n g e r o u t s t a n d i n g .
They might be b e t t e r pr epare d t o cope w ith t h e problem o f being
in an e x c e p t i o n a l group i f th e y had t h i s e x p e r i e n c e w h ile in
high s c h o o l .

9.

B e t t e r s tu d y h a b i t s a r e e s t a b l i s h e d by a program which e n a b le s
each s t u d e n t t o work as n e a r l y t o c a p a c i t y as p o s s i b l e most o f
th e ti m e .

10.

Research has shown t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f a c c e l e r a t i o n w ith t h e
gifted.

11.

R e s to re s c o n f id en ce o f s lo w er p u p i l s .

A g a in s t gro up ing:
1.

Special grouping w i l l f o s t e r t h e development o f an i n f l a t e d
s e n s e o f s e l f - i m p o r t a n c e and may l e a d to t h e i r use o f t a l e n t s
in endeavors n o t c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e needs o f s o c i e t y .

39
2.

A b i l i t y grouping r e s u l t s in a l o s s t o t h e l e s s h ig h ly endowed
s t u d e n t s because boys and g i r l s not i n th e s p e c i a l group need
t h e s t i m u l a t i o n o f id e a s and pr o d u cts o f t h e a b l e r s t u d e n t s .

3.

Grouping on t h e b a s i s o f a b i l i t y i s und em oc ra tic.
I t develops
snobbery in t h e s e g r e g a t e d y o u n g s te r s o u t o f a s e n s e o f b e lo n g ­
ing to an e l i t e group, o r being b e t t e r than a v e r a g e .

4.

S e g r e g a t i o n p r e v e n ts adeq ua te t r a i n i n g o f t h e t a l e n t e d i n d i ­
vid ual f o r l e a d e r s h i p because on ly i f l e a d e r s have c o n s t a n t and
c l o s e c o n t a c t with t h e i r f o ll o w e r s can mutual communication and
u n d e r s ta n d in g r e s u l t .

5.

S e g r e g a t i o n o f t h e t a l e n t e d may r e s u l t in e x c e s s i v e competi­
t i o n , a s s i g n m e n t s , and overwork, which in t u r n may r e s u l t in
l e s s e n i n g of p a r t i c i p a t i o n in e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s o r
wor thw hile o u t - o f - s c h o o l p u r s u i t s .

6.

Due t o i n a d e q u a t e methods o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , t h e wrong s t u d e n t s
a r e sometimes picked f o r s p e c i a l groups.
There does not seem t o be any c l e a r - c u t g e n e r a l i z a b l e f in d i n g s

t h a t i n d i c a t e d e i t h e r an o v e r a l l d e s i r a b i l i t y o r u n d e s i r a b i l i t y o f th e
p r a c t i c e o f g r o u p in g , a t l e a s t so f a r as i t s val u e f o r t h e g i f t e d and
t a l e n t e d i s concerned.

There i s c o n f l i c t i n g evidence o f u s e f u l n e s s

in producing improved s c h o l a s t i c improvement in g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
s t u d e n t s , and alm os t unifo rm ly u n f a v o r a b le eviden ce f o r promoting
s c h o l a s t i c achievement in av er ag e o r low-achievement groups.
The e f f e c t o f a b i l i t y grouping on t h e a f f e c t i v e development o f
c h i l d r e n i s t o r e i n f o r c e f a v o r a b l e s e l f - c o n c e p t s o f t h o s e a s s i g n e d to
high-a ch iev em en t g r o u p s , but a l s o t o r e i n f o r c e u n f a v o r a b le s e l f con ce pts i n t h o s e a s s i g n e d t o low-achievement groups ( F in d le y &
Bryan, 1971).
Enrichment
Enrichment i s an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e pro ce du re f o r p r o v id i n g more
o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r t h e g i f t e d c h i l d t o go d ee per and more widely than

40

t h e av er ag e c h i l d in h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l , s o c i a l , and a r t i s t i c e x p e r i ­
ence.
The co ncept o f en rich men t a r i s e s from t h e f a c t t h a t th e usual
e d u c a t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s a r e not p a r t i c u l a r l y s a t i s f y i n g , and they a r e
perhaps too s c a n t y f o r i n q u i r i n g minds with i n s a t i a b l e c u r i o s i t y and
l i v e l y i n t e r e s t in l e a r n i n g .

The awareness o f t h e s e s t u d e n t s ' needs

has probably developed because o f th e demands o f s o c i e t y and o f t h e
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s themselves f o r more and b e t t e r e d u c a t i o n .
When s t u d e n t s a r e pr ep are d t o l e a r n a t a g r e a t e r speed and a t a h i g h e r
l e v e l , i t becomes th e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r and t e a c h e r
to pr ovid e new c o n t e n t and new a c t i v i t i e s f o r t h e s e s t u d e n t s .

Pr o v id ­

ing more o f th e same m a t e r i a l s i s not th e answer t o t h e problem o f
enrich men t.
Freehill

(1961) contended t h a t i t i s improper t o c o n s i d e r

enrich men t as though i t were a s p e c i a l approach t o meet t h e needs o f
g i f t e d s t u d e n t s because a l l o f th e p r o c e ss e s a r e f o r th e purpose o f
enr ichmen t.

A c t u a l l y , i t i s a component o f a l l programs f o r g i f t e d

and t a l e n t e d c h i l d r e n .

Other s u p p o r t e r s o f enrichment have contended

t h a t v a r i e t y and e x p l o r a t i o n a r e more s i g n i f i c a n t t o th e g i f t e d th an
a r e p r e c i s i o n and i n t e n s i v e work.

Enrichment o p p o r t u n i t i e s shou ld be

pr ovided i n terms o f b r e a d th and depth i n a d d i t i o n t o r e g u l a r c l a s s ­
room work.
Some proponents o f enrichm en t f a v o r i t w i t h o u t a c c e l e r a t i o n .
Perhaps t h i s i s so simply t o av o id t h e plans t h a t r e q u i r e grouping or
acceleration of students.

I t s t a n d s t o reas on t h a t enrichment may

d e g e n e r a t e i n t o busy work f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .

41

According t o Gowan and Demos ( 1 964), en rich m en t in h e t e r o ­
geneous c l a s s e s r e q u i r e s t h e f o ll o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s :
1.
2. A
3.
4.
5.

A c l a s s s i z e o f n o t more than 25 s t u d e n t s
s p e c ia lly tra in e d teacher or a
special teacher consultant
Extra m a t e r i a l s , s u p p l i e s and books
Freed time f o r t h e t e a c h e r t o make s p e c i a l p r e p a r a t i o n
A good program o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and guidance
Rough (1960) s t a t e d t h a t en richm ent w i t h i n th e r e g u l a r c l a s s ­

room r e q u i r e s few, i f any, a d d i t i o n a l
alteratio n s.
in t h e

On t h e

expenditures or a d m in istra tiv e

c o n t r a r y , Gowan and Demos p e r c e i v e d en richm ent

heter og eneous c la ssr oom as one o f th e most e x pens ive ways o f

meeting th e needs o f t h e g i f t e d .

They contended t h a t enrich men t as

a proc ed ure f o r e d u c a ti n g t h e g i f t e d , i f p r o p e r l y done (with r e l e a s e
t i m e , s p e c i a l t e a c h e r s , and s p e c i a l m a t e r i a l s ) , p r a c t i c a l l y amounts to
individual tu to rin g .
tive.

When done in t h i s manner, i t i s o b v i o u s ly e f f e c ­

They f u r t h e r p u r p o r t e d t h a t i t i s r e l a t i v e l y easy f o r an

a d m i n i s t r a t o r t o make s u g g e s t i o n s t o t e a c h e r s t o e n r i c h t h e i r programs,
b u t u n l e s s t h e above c o n d i t i o n s a r e be ing m et, t h e r e can be no b a s i s
f o r f e e l i n g t h a t a v a l i d e n r ichm ent program i s in e f f e c t .
Proponents o f r e g u l a r cl as sr oom en richm ent have argued t h a t
an e n r ichm ent program al lo ws g i f t e d s t u d e n t s t o s t i m u l a t e o t h e r s t u ­
d e n ts i n t e l l e c t u a l l y , c o n s e q u e n t l y , t o remove t h e s e c h i l d r e n from th e
clas sro om would e l i m i n a t e a sourc e o f s t i m u l a t i o n f o r o t h e r c h i l d r e n .
They a l s o have argued t h a t t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l l y g i f t e d a r e n o t n e c e s ­
s a r i l y more advanced p h y s i c a l l y and s o c i a l l y , and t h e r e f o r e i t may be
t o t h e i r b e n e f i t t o remain with t h e i r own age group.

In c o n t r a s t t o

t h e above ad vantages o f e n r ic h m e n t , o t h e r e d u c a t o r s have argued t h a t
enr ichment may f o r c e both t h e g i f t e d s t u d e n t s and t h e slow s t u d e n t s

42

i n t o t h e p a t t e r n o f t h e a v er ag e s t u d e n t because t h e g i f t e d s t u d e n t s
may become bored and n o t a c h i e v e t o t h e i r f u l l c a p a c i t y , whereas th e
slow s t u d e n t s may become f r u s t r a t e d because th ey cannot work up t o
th e c l a s s s t a n d a r d s .
Proponents o f en richm ent have f u r t h e r p r e s e n t e d a p h i l o s o p h i ­
cal argument f o r clas sroo m en rich men t on t h e b a s i s t h a t i t i s more
democ ra tic th an th e o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s t h a t can be made f o r g i f t e d
students.

I t e l i m i n a t e s t h e problems o f s e g r e g a t i n g c h i l d r e n , and

t h e r e makes f o r a more r e a l - l i f e s i t u a t i o n w ith c h i l d r e n o f d i f f e r e n t
in tellectu al a b ilitie s .

In o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e above s t a t e m e n t , a c c o r d ­

ing t o r e s e a r c h , t h o s e who oppose en ric hm ent r e j e c t i t s dem oc rat ic
val ue because th ey f e e l t h e home and community c o n t a c t pl ay an impor­
t a n t r o l e in t h e development o f wholesome s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s .
S t i l l a n o t h e r advantage claimed f o r clas sro om enrichment i s
t h a t i t n e c e s s i t a t e s more i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n f o r a l l s t u d e n t s .
Some opponents o f c la ssr oom en richm ent have argued t h i s p o i n t o f view
because i t depends too much on i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n , which
i s alm os t an i m p o s s i b i l i t y under our p r e s e n t system.

Enrichment i s

fav o red by s t i l l o t h e r s , namely t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , because
the y f e e l t h a t w i t h i n t h i s te c h n i q u e i t i s p o s s i b l e to make use o f
grouping and a c c e l e r a t i o n .

Others have contended t h a t g i f t e d c h i l d r e n

may develop a f e e l i n g o f s u p e r i o r i t y over t h e av erage members o f t h e i r
c l a s s bec au se i t may be very easy f o r them t o e x c e l , whereas i f they
were p laced in groups with c h i l d r e n who p o s ses s s i m i l a r i n t e l l e c t u a l
a b i l i t i e s , th ey might g ain a more r e a l i s t i c p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e i r
abilities.

43
I t seems a p p a r e n t from t h e number and t h e n a t u r e o f c o n t r o ­
v e r s i e s ab out t h e advantages and d is a d v a n ta g e s o f en richm ent t h a t
much a d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h needs t o be conducted in o r d e r t o r e s o l v e
t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f t h i s approach when compared with o t h e r p r a c t i c e s
be ing used t o meet t h e needs o f g i f t e d c h i l d r e n .
Acceleration
Any proc ed ure t h a t allo w s a s t u d e n t t o move more r a p i d l y and
complete a given school program in l e s s time o r a t an e a r l i e r age than
t h e av erag e s t u d e n t s may be r e f e r r e d to as a c c e l e r a t i o n .

I t is based

on th e philo so ph y t h a t g i f t e d s t u d e n t s shou ld n o t be r e s t r i c t e d t o
working a t t h e same pace as o t h e r s t u d e n t s o f a s i m i l a r age gr ou p,
but should be allowed t o p r o g r e s s t o more c h a l l e n g i n g work.
I t has been proposed as a p r a c t i c a l r a t h e r th a n an i d e a l
dev ice f o r e x tendin g t h e e d u c a t i o n a l ho r iz o n s o f g i f t e d s t u d e n t s
because i t can save s t u d e n t t i m e , i t i s easy to a d m i n i s t e r , i t i s
co m p ar ativ ely i n e x p e n s i v e , and i t does n o t r e q u i r e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f
the c u r r i c u l u m .

Gal.lagher (1975) m ain ta i n e d t h a t t h e methods used

f o r a c c e l e r a t i o n a r e w idely v a r i e d and t h e r e s u l t s almost always
successful.

This i s n o t t o imply t h a t because many e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t s

a r e f a v o r a b l e , th e p r a c t i c e i s e i t h e r widely used o r widely a c c e p t e d .
A number o f school systems have atte m p te d to p r a c t i c e a c c e l ­
e r a t i o n in t h e i r secondary and e lem en ta ry s c h o o l s .

One method o f

a c c e l e r a t i n g g i f t e d s t u d e n t s i s t o a llo w them t o begin school a t an
e a r l i e r age th an av erage s t u d e n t s .

I n v e s t i g a t o r s have noted t h a t t h e

s t r i c t c h r o n o l o g i c a l age r e q u i re m e n t f o r f i r s t g r a d e r s has l i t t l e o r

44
nothing t o recommend i t from a r e s e a r c h viewpoint.

The a r b i t r a r y

c h r o n olo gic al age l i m i t now used by school systems does n o t take
i n t o account e i t h e r advances in te ac hing o r t h e wide range o f i n d i ­
vidual i n t e l l e c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s in c h i l d r e n with a chronologic al age
o f s i x ( G a l l a g h e r , 1976; Ward, 1975).
The r e s u l t s o f e v a l u a t i o n o f e a r l y - a d m i t t a n c e programs have
been very f a v o r a b l e in M a s s a c h e s e t t s , Pen nsylv an ia, and Nebraska.
Children who were admitted e a r l y as a group were s u p e r i o r or equal in
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to t hose c h i l d r e n admitted a t t h e r e g u l a r age
( G a lla g h e r, 1976).
Grade sk ip pin g i s a n o t h e r means o f a c c e l e r a t i o n , which i s what
many members o f s o c i e t y t h i n k about when a c c e l e r a t i o n i s mentioned.
Some ed u cato r s c o n s id e r t h i s p r a c t i c e as th e l e a s t d e s i r a b l e because
o f the p o s s i b i l i t y of a c h i l d missing b a s i c info rm ation t h a t is ta u g h t
in t h e grade to be skipped.
Another means o f a c c e l e r a t i o n i s having ungraded groups in the
primary grades so t h a t s e c t i o n s o f s t u d e n t s can complete a p a r t i c u l a r
cu rri culum in l e s s time and proceed ahead in t h e school program.
G allagher (1975) s t a t e d t h a t th e a v a i l a b l e r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s
c l e a r l y t h a t moderate a c c e l e r a t i o n in th e elementar y school does no
n o t i c e a b l e harm to th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d c h i l d and has s h o rten ed his
academic o p e r a t i o n by o n e - h a l f t o one y e a r .
As a r e s u l t o f NEA r e s e a r c h , Anderson (1961) s t a t e d , "The
r e s e a r c h testimony as t o t h e advantages o f a c c e l e r a t i o n i s weighty,
c o n s i s t e n t , and continuous over s e v e r a l d e c a d e s ."

This a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

procedure has been approved by a u t h o r i t i e s such as Terman and Oden

45
(1954), who s t u d i e d t h e e f f e c t s o f a c c e l e r a t i o n on a group o f more than
one thousand s t u d e n t s with IQs above 140.

Terman and Oden advocated

a c c e l e r a t i o n s i n c e promotion i s based p r i m a r i l y on mental age .

They

f u r t h e r s u g g este d t h a t t h e s e g i f t e d s t u d e n t s should be adm it te d to
c o l l e g e a t th e age o f 17 a t t h e l a t e s t .
Morgan (1957) s u g g ested a c c e l e r a t i o n f o r s t u d e n t s with
S t a n f o r d - B i n e t IQ s c o re s o f 135 o r h i g h e r when (1) th e c h i l d i s working
a t or above grade l e v e l in r e a d i n g , a r i t h m e t i c , s p e l l i n g , and computa­
t i o n ; (2) t h e p hys ic a l v a r i a t i o n s a r e above mean f o r modal age o f
gr ade; and (3) i t is a c c e p t a b l e by p a r e n t s .
P res sey (1962 ), a proponent o f a c c e l e r a t i o n , a c c o r d in g to
Anderson, was in agreement w i th Terman and Lehman when he s t a t e d t h a t
g i f t e d s t u d e n t s should p r o g r e s s more r a p i d l y than t h e av er ag e young
person and should g e t i n t o t h e i r p r o d u c t iv e c a r e e r s e a r l i e r than
occurs with t h e l o c k s t e p because f o r some f i e l d s o f e n d e a v o r , e s p e ­
c i a l l y s c i e n c e and math, g r e a t e s t p r o d u c t i v i t y i s achiev ed durin g t h e
tw en ties, chronologically.
Anderson (1961) r e p o r t e d t h a t (1) a v a i l a b l e r e s e a r c h does not
i n d i c a t e t h a t a c c e l e r a t i o n i s t h e b e s t method f o r meeting t h e needs o f
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s ; however, i t i s a d e s i r a b l e and p r a c t i c a l
one; (2) t h e amount o f a c c e l e r a t i o n has not been e s t a b l i s h e d ;
(3) a c c e l e r a t i o n shou ld n o t ta k e p l a c e w ith s t u d e n t s whose IQ i s
below 130; (4) when a c c e l e r a t i o n sho uld t a k e p l a c e i s i n d o u b t, b u t
t h r e e p e r i o d s f o r i t have been developed i n t h e American school s y s ­
tem:

(a ) e a r l y e n t r a n c e , (b) grade o r j u n i o r high s c h o o l , and

(c) advanced placement o r a c c e l e r a t i o n i n t o c o l l e g e .

46

Terman (1954) recommended a c c e l e r a t i o n o f no l e s s than one y e a r
and no more th an two y e a r s as t h e most s a t i s f a c t o r y procedure f o r
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .

He f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t opponents o f

a c c e l e r a t i o n ar gue t h a t a c c e l e r a t i o n (grade s k i p p i n g ) i n t e n s i f i e s t h e
problem o f s o c i a l a d j u s t m e n t , promotes b o o k i s h n e s s , i s d e t r im e n t a l
to p h y s ic a l and mental h e a l t h , and l e a v e s gaps in t h e c h i l d ' s academic
knowledge and s k i l l s a l th ough t h e r e i s l i t t l e eviden ce in s u p p o rt o f
such c o n t e n t i o n s .
To adopt t h e p r a c t i c e o f a c c e l e r a t i o n n e c e s s i t a t e s e x t e n s i v e
t e s t i n g o f s t u d e n t s , which i n t u r n r e q u i r e s adeq ua te p s y ch o lo g ic a l
services.

I f a school system i s l a c k in g t h e s e s e r v i c e s , t h i s may

become a b a r r i e r t o a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' a c c e p ta n c e .
I t seems r e a s o n a b l e to conclude t h a t a l l d e c i s i o n s about
a c c e l e r a t i n g s t u d e n t s should be made on an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s in the
l i g h t o f r e l i a b l e i n f o r m a tio n about t h e p a r t i c u l a r s t u d e n t s .

E s ta b ­

l i s h i n g w ho le s a le p o l i c i e s f o r or a g a i n s t t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p ro ce4

dure would seem to be unwise.
E v a lu a tio n
The i n i t i a t i o n o f a program i s only t h e beginning s t e p o f
meeting t h e needs o f g i f t e d s t u d e n t s .

Yet to o o f t e n f u r t h e r s t e p s

a r e n o t t a k e n , s i n c e everyone f e e l s t h a t "something i s bein g done f o r
the g i f t e d . "

U n f o r t u n a t e l y , i t i s not enough t o know t h a t something

i s being done; i t i s c r u c i a l t o know t h a t what i s being done i s
e f f e c t i v e and what ways i t might be improved.

47
E v a lu a tio n i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f ev ery program t h a t i s
o r g an ized f o r any e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e .

T h e r e f o r e , i t seems f e a s i b l e

t o i n i t i a l l y o r g a n i z e t h e s e programs so t h a t e v a l u a t i o n can oc cur
c o n t i n u o u s l y and n a t u r a l l y in o r d e r t o determine a r e a s t h a t need
improvement, m o d i f i c a t i o n , e x p a n s i o n , and d e l e t i o n .
DeHaan (1960) contended t h a t program e v a l u a t i o n should be
based on c l e a r o b j e c t i v e s t h a t a r e o u t l i n e d e a r l y i n t h e program.
Plans should be made beforehand co ncernin g expected s t u d e n t a t t a i n ­
ments and what t h e program shou ld be in o r d e r f o r t h e e v a l u a t i o n to
be v a l i d i n terms o f w hether or n o t th e o r i g i n a l o b j e c t i v e s have been
a c h ie v e d .

E v a lu a tio n must a l s o be concerned with p e r s o n n e l , c u r r i c u ­

lum, methodology, a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e , and e d u c a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s .
The process o f e v a l u a t i o n should i n c lu d e growth in achievement
in s p e c i f i c s u b j e c t - m a t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g s , c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g , i n t e r ­
e s t s and m o t i v a t i o n , s o c i a l a t t i t u d e , and a b i l i t y t o work with o t h e r s .
T h e r e f o r e , many who c o n s i d e r programs in terms o f p o s s i b l e growth
f e e l t h a t g r e a t dependence on t e s t e v a l u a t i o n could be d e t r i m e n t a l
because s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s may not be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r measuring a l l
t h e outcomes o f a g i f t e d program.
Gowan and Demos (1964) s u g g ested some a r e a s o f concern in any
general-consideration evaluation.
1.
2.
3.

They a r e :

C l a r i f i c a t i o n o f c r i t e r i a from ge neral to s p e c i f i c and
from long term t o s h o r t term
The ge neral ex per im en tal des ig n o r methodology
The so urc e o f d a t a and te c h n i q u e s o f d ata c o l l e c t i o n

They f u r t h e r s u g g e ste d (1) t h e use o f r e a c t i o n su rvey s and
d i r e c t measurement.

The s i m p l e s t kinds o f surveys may come from j u s t

48

a s k in g th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s ab out t h e i r r e a c t i o n s to th e
e d u c a t i o n a l envir onment.

These r e a c t i o n s a r e u s efu l f o r s p o t e v a l u a ­

t i o n and as h i n t s t o program m o d i f i c a t i o n and improvement.

This i s

t h e q u i c k e s t and e a s i e s t way t o d e t e c t and e l i m i n a t e problems in a
program.

(2) The use o f d i r e c t ex per im en ta l ev idence t o e v a l u a t e

s p e c i a l programs f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d c h i l d r e n .

These s t u d i e s

should in v o l v e measurements upon c r i t e r i o n groups where c e r t a i n v a r i ­
a b l e s have been c o n t r o l l e d and a b e f o r e - a n d - a f t e r measurement i s used.
Hal p e r t and Vredevoe (1965) recommended t h a t any program f o r
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d c h i l d r e n sho uld p r o v id e f o r t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ,
d i a g n o s i s , p r e s c r i p t i o n , m o t i v a t i o n , freedom, f l e x i b i l i t y , and e v a l u a ­
t i o n o f t h e program.

They emphasized t h e importance o f freedom and

f l e x i b i l i t y t o s t u d e n t s so they can s t r i k e out i n t o c r e a t i v e and
p io n e e r i n g e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n and i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t i e s .

They f u r t h e r

emphasized t h a t no in s tr u m e n t can be desig ne d t h a t would f i t a l l c a s e s ,
b u t c e r t a i n common c r i t e r i a must be r e c o g n i z e d in o r d e r t o a p p r a i s e
t h e e f f o r t s o f a program.
According t o g u i d e l i n e s s u g g e s t e d by H a l p e r t and Vredevoe,
e v a l u a t o r s should c o n s t a n t l y d i r e c t t h e i r a t t e n t i o n t o t h r e e p o i n t s :
(1) t h e s c h o o l ' s p h ilosophy and o b j e c t i v e s , (2) c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f
s t u d e n t s and community, and (3) t h e wide range o f p o t e n t i a l s t h a t
should be conc eived o f when t h i n k i n g abou t g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u ­
dents.
S h e r t z e r (1960) a s s e r t e d t h a t in an e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e e f f e c ­
t i v e n e s s o f a program f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s , t h e s c h o o l ' s
to ta l climate is highly important.

For t h i s r e a s o n , e v a l u a t i v e

49
i n f o r m a t i o n should be o b t a i n e d from as many p a r t i c i p a n t s as p o s s i b l e —
s t u d e n t s , t e a c h e r s , c o u n s e l o r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and p a r e n t s .
E v a lu a tio n in v o lv e s t h e d e s c r i p t i v e a c t o f s t a t i n g what e s s e n ­
t i a l components a r e p r e s e n t o r a b s e n t in a program and then making
judgments as t o whe ther such components a r e f u n c t i o n i n g p r o p e r l y .
c e r t a i n i m p o r t a n t components a r e a b s e n t , t h e d is c o v e r y can s e r v e as
th e s ti m u l u s f o r i n c o r p o r a t i o n .

If

CHAPTER I I I
METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The plan of t h i s s tu d y was to determine and compare the
r e p o r t e d a t t i t u d e s o f p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u ­
d e n ts toward t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs funded by th e s t a t e of
Michigan in 18 school d i s t r i c t s in Michigan.

These school d i s t r i c t s

were:
Cheboygan
F l i n t (Beecher)
Lansing
Livonia
Niles
Willow Run

Benton Harbor
Buchanan
Dearborn
Highland Park
Kalamazoo ISD
Union Ci ty

Grand Rapids
Birmingham
Chelsea
Chippewa Valley
Meridian
Saginaw

L e t t e r s were w r i t t e n t o s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s o f t h e s e school d i s ­
t r i c t s r e q u e s t i n g p e r m is s io n t o i n c l u d e them as p a r t o f t h e p r e s e n t
s tu d y .

Of t h e 18 school d i s t r i c t s t h a t were funded and p i l o t e d by

t h e s t a t e o f Michigan, p e r m is sio n was g r a n t e d by s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ,
d i r e c t o r s , o r o t h e r school pe rsonnel r e p r e s e n t i n g 11 school d i s t r i c t s .
These d i s t r i c t s were:
Cheboygan
Flint
Lansing
Niles

Willow Run
Dearborn
Birmingham
Chelsea

Chippewa Valley
Meridian
Benton Harbor

They comprised t h e p o p u l a t i o n f o r t h e p r e s e n t s tu d y .

50

51

Research Questions
The purposes o f th e study were l i s t e d in Ch apter I .

The

s t a t e m e n t o f t h e purposes was used t o g e n e r a t e t h e f o llo w i n g r e s e a r c h
questions:
1.

What a r e th e g en er al c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f 11 o f t h e 18 p i l o t

programs r e p o r t e d in Michigan by t h e Department o f Education and
funded by t h e S t a t e Aid Acts o f 1973 through 1977?
2.

What a r e t h e a t t i t u d e s o f p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and s t u d e n t s

toward g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs in which th ey p a r t i c i p a t e d ?
3.

What i s th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between e d u c a t i o n a l background,

socioeconomic s t a t u s , and a t t i t u d e s o f p a r e n t s toward programs f o r
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s ?
4.

What i s th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e t e a c h e r s ' y e a r s o f

e x p e r ie n c e and t h e i r r e p o r t e d a t t i t u d e s toward programs f o r g i f t e d
and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s ?
The procedures developed f o r d eter m in in g th e a t t i t u d e s o f the
p a r t i c i p a n t s in t h i s stu d y were as fo ll o w s :
1.

A l i s t o f q u e s ti o n s co ncerning g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d p r o ­

grams f o r d i r e c t o r s was developed.
2.

A q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o submit t o p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and s t u ­

dents in 11 school d i s t r i c t s was d e v is e d .
3.

A l i s t o f s chools t h a t p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e Michigan P i l o t

Program from t h e S t a t e Department o f Michigan was o b t a i n e d .
4.

The s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s o f th e involved school d i s t r i c t s

were c o n t a c t e d r e q u e s t i n g p erm is sio n t o i n c l u d e th e d i s t r i c t in t h e
s tu d y and r e q u e s t i n g the name o f a c o n t a c t person in t h e d i s t r i c t .

52
5.

A l i n e o f communication w ith th e p r o p e r c o n t a c t person in

each school d i s t r i c t f o r t h e purpose o f s c h e d u l in g times f o r adm inis­
t e r i n g th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s was e s t a b l i s h e d .
6.

A l i s t o f q u e s t i o n s c o n cerning t h e g i f t e d program was

mailed t o c o n t a c t p er so n s .
7.

Q u e s t io n n a i r e s were mailed t o c o n t a c t persons i n some

d i s t r i c t s , w h ile o t h e r s were mailed to p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s .

Other

q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were a d m i n i s t e r e d by th e i n v e s t i g a t o r .
8.

Responses t o q u e s ti o n s were r e c e i v e d from c o n t a c t persons

in t h e form o f t a p e s , personal i n t e r v i e w s , and w r i t t e n documentation.
9.

Q u e s t i o n n a ir e s were r e c e i v e d from p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and

students.
10.

A d d itio n a l i n f o r m a ti o n r e l a t i v e t o th e 11 p a r t i c i p a t i n g

sc hools was o b ta in e d from " In f o r m a tio n on M ic h ig a n 's P i l o t Programs
f o r the G i f te d and T a l e n t e d , 1978," pro vided by t h e Michigan D ep art­
ment o f Education.
11.

A system o f t r e a t i n g o b t a i n e d d a ta was d e v i s e d , as shown

in th e s e c t i o n on Treatment o f t h e Data.
Q u e s t i o n n a ir e s
Because no a t t i t u d e s c a l e co uld be i d e n t i f i e d t h a t could be
d i r e c t l y employed o r r e a d i l y ada pted f o r t h i s s t u d y , q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
were developed f o r the purpose o f g a t h e r i n g t h e a t t i t u d e s o f s t u d e n t s
who were c u r r e n t l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g in o r who had p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e
g i f t e d programs, t h e i r p a r e n t s , and t e a c h e r s toward th e programs f o r
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .

53
The q u e s t i o n s used in th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were adopted from
Musgrove and E s t r o f f ( 19 77 ), Batesman ( 194 3), Si lance and Remmers
(1934), and th e Michigan Department o f Education (1978 ).

The primary

so u rc e s from which the m a j o r i t y o f t h e s ta t e m e n t s in th e q u e s t i o n ­
n a i r e s were adopted were a t t i t u d e s c a l e s p r e v i o u s l y developed by
Musgrove and E s t r o f f ( G i f t e d A t t i t u d e S c a l e ) and t h e Michigan D epart­
ment o f Education (Michigan Department o f E d u c a t i o n ' s I n s tr u m e n t f o r
Determining t h e A t t i t u d e s o f S t u d e n ts Involved in M ichigan's S e c tio n 47
P r o j e c t s Toward t h e P r o j e c t s and t h e In str u m e n t f o r Determining t h e
A t t i t u d e s Toward t h e P i l o t P r o j e c t s o f P a r e n t s Whose C h i ld r e n Are
Involved i n t h e S e c t i o n 47 P r o j e c t s ) .
As a r e s u l t o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Musgrove and E s t r o f f ' s
G if te d A t t i t u d e S c a l e , a Kuder-Richardson r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t
( a lp h a ) of .91 was o b t a i n e d .

Mehrens (1973) s t a t e d t h a t " a t t i t u d e

s c a l e s , by and l a r g e , have r e l i a b i l i t i e s around ,75.

This i s much

l e s s than th o s e o b t a i n e d f o r c o g n i t i v e m ea s ure s , and hence t h e r e s u l t s
o b t a i n e d from a t t i t u d e s c a l e s should be p r i m a r i l y f o r group guidance
and d i s c u s s i o n . "

C onseq ue nt ly, t h e Musgrove and E s t r o f f q u e s t i o n ­

n a i r e should be viewed as r e l i a b l e as p e r c e iv e d by Mehrens.
S tatem en ts from th e t h r e e s c a l e s were examined t o o b t a i n
t h e i r f re qu en cy o f o c c u r r e n c e .

Those s ta t e m e n t s t h a t o c c u r r e d most

f r e q u e n t l y on t h e t h r e e s c a l e s were r e v i s e d and adopted f o r use in
t h i s s tu d y .
The r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s developed f o r t h i s study
was determ ine d from th e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o th e
p o p u l a t i o n o f t h i s s tu d y and i s d i s c u s s e d i n Ch apter IV.

54
A L i k e r t - t y p e summative f i v e - c h o i c e form at was develope d,
which was based on t h e work o f Oppenheim ( 1966 ), Lemon ( 197 3), and
F is h b e i n and Ajcen (1975).

These cho ice s ranged from 1 = s t r o n g l y

a g r e e , 2 = a g r e e , 3 = un decided, 4 = d i s a g r e e , t o 5 = s t r o n g l y d i s ­
agree.

L i k e r t ' s primary concern was with u n i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y — t h a t i s ,

making s u r e t h a t a l l items in each c l u s t e r would measure t h e same
thing.
According t o Oppenheim, t h e r e a r e a few d is a d v a n ta g e s o f a
L i k e r t s c a l e ; i t was p o i n t e d o u t , however, t h a t th e advan tage s o u t ­
weigh t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e s .

The r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e s c a l e tend s to be

good because o f th e g r e a t e r range o f answers p e r m i t t e d to r e s p o n d e n t s .
A r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t o f .85 i s o f t e n a c h ie v e d .

Apart from t h e i r

r e l a t i v e e as e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e s e s c a l e s have two o t h e r a d v a n ta g e s ;
f i r s t , th e y pr ovid e more p r e c i s e in f o r m a t i o n abou t t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s
degree o f agreement o r d i s a g r e e m e n t , and resp ondents u s u a l l y p r e f e r
t h i s t o a simple a g r e e / d i s a g r e e s c o r e .

Second, i t becomes p o s s i b l e

to i n c l u d e items whose m a n i f e s t c o n t e n t i s n o t o b v io u s ly r e l a t e d to
th e a t t i t u d e i n q u e s t i o n , so t h a t t h e s u b t l e r and d eep er r a m i f i c a ­
t i o n o f an a t t i t u d e can be e x p l o r e d (Oppenheim, 1966).
Lemon (1973) s u p p o r te d a summative s c a l e by emphasizing t h e
i m p l i c a t i o n s o f i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e in a s s e s s i n g th e o p in io n s t a t e m e n t s a
person i s w i l l i n g t o e n d o r s e .

The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f summative s c a l i n g

i s t h a t i t assumes t h a t a t t i t u d e s can be a s s e s s e d by co u n tin g the
number o f p ro- o r a n t i - o p i n i o n s t a t e m e n t s a per son i s w i l l i n g to
en do rse r a t h e r than t r y i n g to i d e n t i f y t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t i s i d e a l
f o r t h e person as a s t a t e m e n t o f h i s o p in io n .

55
P o p u la t io n
The p o p u l a t i o n f o r t h i s s tu d y in clu d ed t h e p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s ,
and t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s who p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e p i l o t
programs f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s i n Michigan from th e f o l l o w ­
ing school d i s t r i c t s .
Benton Harbor i s a p o r t , i n d u s t r i a l , and commercial c i t y in
s o u th w e s te r n Michigan, in B e r r ie n County, 187 m iles w est o f D e t r o i t .
The p o p u l a t i o n o f 16,481 r e s i d e n t s depends on t h e i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i ­
t i e s , r e s e a r c h , e n g i n e e r i n g , and t h e p r o d u c tio n o f a u t o m o b il e s .

I t is

composed o f a school p o p u l a t i o n o f a p proxim a te ly 10,349 s t u d e n t s .
Birmingham, a c i t y in s o u t h e a s t e r n Michigan, i s in Oakland
County, 15 miles n o r th o f D e t r o i t .

The c i t y , with a p o p u l a t i o n o f

26,1 70 , i s l a r g e l y r e s i d e n t i a l but has some m a n u f a c t u r e r s .

The school

p o p u l a t i o n i s ap p r o x im a te ly 12,354.
Cheboygan, a p o r t c i t y in n o r t h e r n Michigan, t h e s e a t o f
Cheboygan County, i s 150 m iles n o r th o f Bay C i t y .

The c i t y , with a

p o p u l a t i o n o f 5,5 53, i s a d a i r y i n g , mixed f a rm i n g , r e s o r t , and i n d u s ­
tr i a l area.

Cheboygan has a school p o p u l a t i o n o f a p proxim a te ly 2,911

students.
C h e l s e a , an i n d u s t r i a l v i l l a g e of a p p r o x im a te ly 4,000 p e r s o n s ,
in Washtenaw County, i s l o c a t e d some 20 m il e s west o f Ann Arbor.
has a school p o p u l a t i o n o f ap proxim a te ly 2,647 s t u d e n t s .
Chippewa Valley i s a Macomb County u r b a n - f r i n g e d i s t r i c t ,
n o r t h e a s t o f D e t r o i t and immediately west o f Mt. Clemens.

I t is

c u r r e n t l y undergoing a r a t h e r r a p i d p o p u l a t i o n growth as t h e

It

56

m e t r o p o l i t a n ar ea expands.

There i s a school p o p u l a t i o n o f a p p r o x i ­

mately 5,700 s t u d e n t s .
Dearborn, a c i t y in s o u t h e a s t e r n Michigan in Wayne County,
i s 10 m il es west o f t h e c e n t e r o f D e t r o i t .

R esiden ts o f t h e c i t y ar e

employed i n i n d u s t r i e s i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , r e s e a r c h , and man ufa cturin g
capacities.

I t has a p o p u l a t i o n of 104,199.

The s t u d e n t p o p u la t io n

i s ap proxim a te ly 17,075.
F l i n t , a c i t y i n s o u th e r n Michigan, t h e s e a t o f Genessee
County, i s 58 m il es n o r th w e st o f D e t r o i t .

I t i s one o f t h e w o r l d ' s

le a d i n g c e n t e r s f o r t h e m an ufac ture o f a u to m o b ile s.
p o p u l a t i o n o f a p p r o x im a te ly 193,317.
ap proxim a te ly 40,2 55 .

The c i t y has a

The s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n i s

F l i n t has a community-school plan f in a n c e d in

th e c i t y by t h e Mott Foundation through a g r a n t t o t h e board o f edu­
cation.

Each c i t y school i s kep t open a t n i g h t and durin g th e Summer

f o r community a c t i v i t i e s .
La nsi ng, t h e c a p i t a l o f Michigan, i s s i t u a t e d in Ingham
County, in th e s o u t h - c e n t r a l p a r t o f th e Lower P e n i n s u l a .
ab ou t 80 m iles n o r th w e s t o f D e t r o i t .
i n d u s t r i e s a r e devoted t o a u t o m o b ile s .

I t is

The m a j o r i t y o f t h e c i t y ' s
Lansing has a p o p u l a t i o n o f

131,546; a p proxim a te ly 31,505 o f t h i s p o p u l a t i o n a r e s t u d e n t s .
Meridian i s a r u r a l , l a r g e l a k e a r e a w ith a school p o p u l a t i o n
o f 2,200 s t u d e n t s .

Most r e s i d e n t s a r e employed i n Midland f o r t h e Dow

Chemical Company or Dow-Corning C o r p o r a t io n .
N i l e s , a c i t y in B e r r i e n County, i s i n th e so uth w est s e c t i o n
o f Michigan, 48 m iles s outhw es t o f Kalamazoo and 10 m iles n o r th o f
South Bend, I n d ia n a .

I t has a p o p u l a t i o n o f a p p roxim a te ly 30,000

57
residents.
wo rk ers.

Most r e s i d e n t s a r e m i d d l e - c l a s s w h i t e - o r b l u e - c o l l a r
Numerous b u s i n e s s e s and i n d u s t r i e s a r e l o c a t e d in th e

community, g i v i n g N iles an urban , b u s i n e s s - c e n t e r e d atmosphere.
Willow Run s e r v e s a p p roxim a te ly 4,200 s t u d e n t s , k i n d e r g a r t e n
through t w e l f t h g r a d e .

I t i s l o c a t e d in s o u th e r n Michigan on I n t e r ­

s t a t e 94, ap proxima te ly 35 m iles west o f D e t r o i t and 7 m iles e a s t o f
Ann Arbor.

From t h e a i r t h e r e i s no a p p a r e n t d e l i n e a t i o n between t h e

Willow Run Community School D i s t r i c t and th e Ci ty o f Y p s i l a n t i .
These d i s t r i c t s were a s s i g n e d l e t t e r d e s i g n a t i o n s f o r i d e n t i ­
f i c a t i o n purposes i n t h e s tu d y .
The sample c o n s i s t e d o f 943 r e s p o n d e n t s .

I n i t i a l l y , 1,030

q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were m ailed o r d e l i v e r e d and 943 were r e t u r n e d .

Of

t h i s number, 508 were s t u d e n t s , 283 females and 225 m a l e s , whose grade
l e v e l s ranged from f i r s t t o n i n t h g r a d e .

Three hundred t h r e e were

p a r e n t s o f g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s , and 132 were t e a c h e r s .

All

943 r e s p o n d e n t s ' q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were in cluded in th e t a b u l a t i o n .
There was a s t r o n g a t t e m p t t o o b t a i n r esp onses from as many
s t u d e n t s , p a r e n t s , and t e a c h e r s as p o s s i b l e .
a good r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was o b t a i n e d .

In t h e cas e o f s t u d e n t s ,

The r e s u l t s were l e s s s u c c e s s f u l

with p a r e n t s , and w ith t h e t e a c h e r s t h e r e was even l e s s s u c c e s s .
The reason f o r th e reduced su c c e ss r a t i o in t h e p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s
may have been r e l a t e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e was
a d m i n i s t e r e d d i r e c t l y by th e t e a c h e r s o r d i r e c t o r o f th e program,
whereas t h e p a r e n t s ' and t e a c h e r s ' q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were mailed and
thus more f l e x i b i l i t y e x i s t e d in t h e i r r e s p o n s e s .

58

Seven o f t h e 18 d i s t r i c t s c o n t a c t e d d i d not a g r e e t o p a r t i c i ­
p ate in t h e stu d y f o r t h e f o ll o w i n g r e a s o n s :
D i s t r i c t L—There was no respons e t o any o f th e communications
r e q u e s t i n g perm is sion t o in c l u d e them in t h e s tu d y .
D i s t r i c t M--The g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program was involved a t
th e time w i th two e v a l u a t i o n s t u d i e s :

one by th e S t a t e Department o f

Education and one by t h e school d i s t r i c t .

I t was i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h i s

s tu d y would in v o l v e g a t h e r i n g d ata from th e same p o p u l a t i o n in c lu d e d
in t h e o t h e r two s t u d i e s .
D i s t r i c t N--The c o n t a c t person i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e program
was no l o n g e r in o p e r a t i o n .
D i s t r i c t 0--The c o n t a c t person i n t h i s d i s t r i c t s t a t e d t h a t
t h e p r o j e c t was no l o n g e r s t a t e funded, and because o f many commit­
ments a t t h e tim e , th ey could not p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e s tu d y .
D i s t r i c t P—This d i s t r i c t d e c l i n e d t o be in vo lved because o f
t h e d a t a - g a t h e r i n g t e c h n i q u e s , which would n e c e s s i t a t e t h e i r i d e n t i ­
f y in g s p e c i f i c s t u d e n t s and r e v e a l i n g t h e i r a d d r e s s e s .
D i s t r i c t Q - - I n i t i a l l y , per mission was g r a n t e d by t h e s u p e r i n ­
t e n d e n t t o i n c l u d e th e school d i s t r i c t i n t h e s t u d y , but no resp onse
was r e c e i v e d to t h e r e q u e s t f o r t h e name o f a c o n t a c t person.
D i s t r i c t R— No resp ons e was r e c e i v e d from t h i s d i s t r i c t a f t e r
several req u ests.
The d i s t r i c t s t h a t d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e s tu d y can be
d e s c r i b e d as f o l l o w s :

59
D i s t r i c t L, a d i s t r i c t in so u th w es ter n Michigan, has a s t u d e n t
p o p u l a tio n o f a p p roxim a te ly 3,000 .

Auto p a r t s and i n s u l a t i o n m a t e r i a l s

a r e manufactured in t h e c i t y .
D i s t r i c t M i s l o c a t e d in a c i t y in w es te rn Michigan.
an i n d u s t r i a l and marketing c e n t e r .

I t is

The c i t y has a p o p u la ti o n o f

a p proxim a te ly 200,000, o f which approxim ate ly 36,000 a r e s t u d e n t s .
D i s t r i c t N, a d i s t r i c t l o c a t e d in a suburb o f D e t r o i t t h a t
encompasses 2. 9 m i l e s , has a p o p u l a t i o n o f app rox im ate ly 30,000.
This school d i s t r i c t has a p proxim a te ly 7,000 s t u d e n t s .

The c i t y has

a l a r g e number o f s t u d e n t s from low-income f a m i l i e s .
D i s t r i c t 0 i n c l u d e s f i v e c o u n t i e s i n s o u th e r n Michigan.

The

g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program i s c o n s u l t i v e in n a t u r e .
D i s t r i c t P i s l o c a t e d in s o u t h e a s t e r n Michigan, west o f
D etroit.

The c i t y has a p o p u la tio n o f ap proxim a te ly 115,000.

The

school p o p u l a t i o n i s composed o f appr oxi m ate ly 22,000 s t u d e n t s .
D i s t r i c t Q i s an i n t e r m e d i a t e school d i s t r i c t , which s e r v e s
13 school d i s t r i c t s and p a r o c h i a l s c h o o l s ; s e r v i n g 58,000 s t u d e n t s ,
i n c l u d i n g t h o s e o f r u r a l , su b urb an, and i n n e r - c i t y backgrounds.

The

program i s c o n s u l t i v e in n a t u r e .
D i s t r i c t R, a d i s t r i c t l o c a t e d i n s o u th e r n Michigan, has a
s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n o f ap proxima te ly 1,400 s t u d e n t s .

I t i s i n an

a g r i c u l t u r e and d a i r y i n g a r e a .
P rocedures f o r Data Gathering
The d a t a used i n t h i s s tu d y were c o l l e c t e d from f o u r s o u r c e s :
th e p a r e n t s o f p a r t i c i p a n t s , th e t e a c h e r s o f p a r t i c i p a n t s , the g i f t e d

60

and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s , and t h e d i r e c t o r s of t h e programs.

Table 1

summarizes t h e pr ocedure s used t o c o l l e c t d a t a .
Treatment o f Data
Data r e p o r t e d by d i s t r i c t c o n t a c t per sons were t a b u l a t e d and
a n aly zed .

The d a ta c o l l e c t e d from t h e p a r e n t , t e a c h e r , and s t u d e n t

q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were ana lyze d by doing a frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e
res pons es on a l l items and d e t e r m in in g t h e mean re sp o n s e o f t h e group
f o r th e purpose o f d e s c r i b i n g and comparing t h e a t t i t u d e s o f th e
sampled p o p u l a t i o n .

S ca le s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d and s c a l e means

and v a r i a n c e s were analyz ed in o r d e r to c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e a t t i t u d e s o f
th e sample and to de term in e t h e v a r i a b i l i t y o f r e s p o n s e s .
Cronbach's alp ha r e l i a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s was performed on t h e
items in each s c a l e to d eter m in e t h e de gr ee t o which items in a c a t e ­
gory measured t h e same u n d e r ly in g a t t i t u d e .
The s t a t i s t i c a l t e c h n i q u e , m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e
(MANOVA), was performed between p a r e n t , t e a c h e r , and s t u d e n t q u e s ­
t i o n n a i r e s t o dete rm in e i f th e t h r e e groups d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r r esp onses
on t h r e e common a t t i t u d e c a t e g o r i e s .
F i n a l l y , c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s o f t h e c a t e g o r y items on t h e q u e s ­
t i o n n a i r e with t h e e d u c a t i o n a l and income l e v e l s o f t h e responding
p a r e n t s were made.

F u r t h e r c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s were performed on th e

t e a c h e r s ' e x p e r i e n c e and c a t e g o r y i te m s .

C h i- s q u a r e t e s t s were p e r ­

formed on each c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n t o d eter m in e i f c a t e g o r y re spo ns es
were i nde pe nd en t o f t h e demographic v a r i a b l e s .

Table 1 . — Summary o f procedures f o r data g a th e r i n g .
D istrict

A

B

C

D

E

Parents

Teachers

Students

Di r e c t o r

Questionnaires
mailed to p a r e n ts .

Questionnaires
mailed to d i r e c t o r .

Ques tionnaires
mailed to d i r e c t o r ;
d i r e c t o r adminis­
t e r e d q u e s tionnaire.

Questions mailed to
d i r e c t o r . No response.
Data received via
telephone.

Questionnaires
mailed t o d i r e c t o r .
Returned by pare nts
through U.S. mail.

Questionnaires
mailed t o d i r e c t o r .
Returned through
U.S. mail by
teachers.

Questionnaires
mailed to d i r e c t o r .
D ir ector adminis­
tered questionnaire.

Questions mailed to
d i r e c t o r . No response.
{Telephone number was
unavailable.)

Questionnaires
mailed t o p r i n c i p a l .
Returned by parents
through U.S. mail.

Questionnaires
mailed to p r i n c i p a l .
Returned through
U.S. mail by
te a c h e r s .

Questionnaires
mailed t o p r i n c i p a l .
Teachers adminis­
t e r e d q u e s tio n n a ir e .

Questions mailed to
p r i n c i p a l . A mimeo­
graphed d e s c r i p t i o n
o f program was
re ce ived .

Questionnaires
mailed t o d i r e c t o r .
Returned by parents
through U.S. mail.

Questionnaires
mailed to d i r e c t o r .
Returned through
U.S. mail by
te a c h e r s .

Questionnaires
mailed to d i r e c t o r .
D ir e c to r adminis­
t e r e d q u e s tio n n a ir e .

Questions mailed to
d i r e c t o r . Returned
completed.

Questionnaires
mailed to p a r e n t s .
Returned by parents
through U.S. mail.

Questionnaires
mailed t o d i r e c t o r .
Returned through
U.S. mail by
teachers.

Questionnaires
mailed t o d i r e c t o r .
D ir e c to r adminis­
te r e d q u e s ti o n n a i r e .

Questions mailed to
d i r e c t o r . Returned
completed. Received
a d d iti o n a l document.

Table 1 . — Continued.

D istrict

Parents

Teachers

F

Questionnaires
mailed t o p a r e n ts .
Returned by parents
through U.S. mail.

Questionnaires
mailed to d i r e c t o r .
Returned through
U.S. mail by
teachers.

Questionnaires
mailed to d i r e c t o r .
D ir e c t o r adminis­
t e r e d q u e s ti o n n a i r e .

Questions mailed to
d i r e c t o r . Two
d e s c r i p t i v e documents
were r eceived.

Questionnaires
mailed to p r i n c i p a l .
Returned by parents
through U.S. m a i l .

Questionnaires
mailed to p r i n c i p a l .
Returned through
U.S. mail by
teachers.

Questionnaires
mailed t o p r i n c i p a l .
Returned by p r i n ­
cipal .

Questions mailed to
p r i n c i p a l . No
response. Data r e ­
ceived via telephone.

Questionnaires
mailed to p a r e n ts .
Returned by parents
through U.S. mail.

Questionnaires
mailed to t e a c h e r s .
Returned through
U.S. mail by
teachers.

Questionnaires
mailed to p a r e n t s .
Returned by parents
through U.S. m ail.

Questions were
answered via t e l e ­
phone.

Questionnaires
mailed to d i r e c t o r .
Returned by parents
through U.S. mail.

Questionnaires
mailed to d i r e c t o r .
Returned through
U.S. mail by
teachers.

Questionnaires
mailed t o d i r e c t o r .
D ir e c t o r adminis­
te r e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

Questions mailed to
d i r e c t o r . Returned
completed.

G

H

I

Students

Directo r

Table 1 .- - C o n t in u e d .

D istrict

J

K

Parents

Teachers

Students

Directo r

Questionnaires
mailed to d i r e c t o r .
Returned by parents
through U.S. mail.

Questionnaires
mailed to d i r e c t o r .
Returned through
U.S. mail by
te a c h e r s .

Questionna ires
mailed to d i r e c t o r .
D ir e c t o r adminis­
t e r e d q u e s ti o n n a i r e .

Questions mailed to
d i r e c t o r . A tap erecording was
r e tu r n e d .

Questionnaires
d e l iv e r e d to te a c h ­
er s by surveyor.
Returned by parents
through U.S. mail.

Questionnaires
d e li v e r e d t o t e a c h ­
ers by surveyor.
Returned through
U.S. mail by
teachers.

Questionnaires
deli v ered by s u r ­
veyor. Surveyor
administered ques­
tionnaire.

Questions mailed to
d i r e c t o r . Data
gathered via t e l e ­
phone.

64

Space was provided on t h e p a r e n t and t e a c h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
t o make u n s t r u c t u r e d r e a c t i o n s t o t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.
These r es po nses ar e p r e s e n t e d u n e d i t e d .

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA

Research Question 1:

What a r e t h e ge ne ral c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f 11 o f t h e
18 p i l o t programs r e p o r t e d i n Michigan by t h e
Department o f Education and funded by t h e S t a t e
Aid Acts o f 1973 through 1977?
Program P r o to ty p e

The f o ll o w i n g d a t a p e r t a i n t o t h e g en er al c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f
t h e 11 responding d i s t r i c t s ' programs.

These d a ta were o b t a i n e d as a

r e s u l t o f q u e s t i o n s d i r e c t e d t o t h e d e s ig n a te d c o n t a c t person in each
d i s t r i c t surveyed.
Of t h e 11 d i s t r i c t s t h a t respon ded , d i s t r i c t s d e s ig n a te d A, B,
C, D, E, F, G, H, J , and K had p u l l - o u t o r p a r t i a l p u l l - o u t enr ichment
programs.

These programs were t h o s e in which i d e n t i f i e d s t u d e n t s were

tak en o u t o f th e normal d a y ' s sch ed ule and given c l a s s e s p a r t i c u l a r l y
des igne d t o meet t h e i r needs.

In d i s t r i c t s A, C, D, H, and J , t h e

s t u d e n t s were t r a n s p o r t e d from t h e i r s c h o o ls t o a n o t h e r s i t e f o r
enrichment c l a s s e s .

The enrichment c l a s s in d i s t r i c t K was o p e r a t e d

in each o f t h e s i x el em en tar y s c h o o ls in t h e d i s t r i c t .

Of t h e d i s ­

t r i c t s t h a t had p u l l - o u t en rich men t programs, d i s t r i c t s F and B o p e r ­
a t e d programs in t h e s e n i o r high s ch o o l.

D i s t r i c t F had an a l t e r n a ­

t i v e language a r t s program, and d i s t r i c t B had a p e r s o n a l i z e d e d u catio n
plan based on s t u d e n t s ' s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s , a b i l i t i e s , and e d u c a tio n a l
65

66
goals.

In t h i s program, v o l u n t e e r mentors ( c o u n s e lo r s o r t e a c h e r s )

were us ed.

D i s t r i c t s A and E o p e r a t e d programs in th e j u n i o r high

school.
D i s t r i c t C o p e r a t e d two s e l f - c o n t a i n e d t r a d i t i o n a l - t y p e c l a s s ­
rooms t o which s t u d e n t s were t r a n s p o r t e d w i t h i n t h e d i s t r i c t from
f o u r elem entary s c h o o l s .

In t h i s d i s t r i c t , s i b l i n g s were p e r m it t e d

t o a t t e n d t h e same school so b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s could be housed
together.
In d i s t r i c t F, t h e en rich men t program was in o p e r a t i o n in a l l
grade l e v e l s , 1-12.
teacher."

This program was f a c i l i t a t e d by a " c a t a l y s t

D i s t r i c t F used t h e term " c a t a l y s t t e a c h e r s " t o r e f e r to

members o f i t s s t a f f who had cl as sr o o m r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and a c t e d as a
l i a i s o n between th e l o c a l s t a f f and c e n t r a l o f f i c e .

In th e elem en tary

b u i l d i n g s t h e c a t a l y s t t e a c h e r was r e l e a s e d from o t h e r assignments
o n e - h a l f day on a l t e r n a t e weeks t o perform h i s / h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ,
w h ile secondary c a t a l y s t t e a c h e r s and c o u n s e l o r s had one hour per
school day f o r t h i s f u n c t i o n .
In d i s t r i c t I , t h e academic component was comprised o f s t u d e n t
p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a pred om inantly s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom environment.
The program i n c l u d e d both t h e a r t i s t i c a l l y and m u s i c a l l y t a l e n t e d ,
as well as a c a d e m ic a lly g i f t e d s t u d e n t s .

The a r t i s t i c a l l y t a l e n t e d

and m u s i c a l l y t a l e n t e d program employed an a f t e r - s c h o o l and weekend
f o rm a t.
D i s t r i c t K r e p o r t e d t h a t i t o p e r a t e d t h e en rich m en t program
in each e lem entary school and i n one j u n i o r high s c h o o l .

A "Discovery

Cen ter" was l o c a t e d i n each e lem entary b u i l d i n g , where t h e s t u d e n t s

67
p a r t i c i p a t e d in " d i r e c t e d s t u d i e s c l a s s . "

The o v e r a l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

f o r t h e c e n t e r was a s s i g n e d to a r e g u l a r s t a f f member a p p o i n t e d by
the building p r in c ip a l.
o p e r a t e each c e n t e r .

A f u l l - t i m e p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l was employed to

The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l a c t e d as l i a i s o n w ith th e

cl as sr o o m t e a c h e r and kept n e c e s s a r y r e c o r d s , i n c l u d i n g s t u d e n t
p r o g r e s s on i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s .
F i n a l l y , d i s t r i c t G r e p o r t e d t h a t i t o p e r a t e d an en richm ent
program in t h r e e s c h o o l s ; however, t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d co ncerning
t h i s program was very l i m i t e d because t h e program had been d i s c o n ­
tinued.
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Procedures
The pr ocedure s used f o r i d e n t i f y i n g s t u d e n t s f o r t h e g i f t e d
and t a l e n t e d programs were g e n e r a l l y somewhat s i m i l a r a c r o s s d i s t r i c t s .
All d i s t r i c t s r e p o r t e d t h a t the y used p a r e n t s 1, s t u d e n t s ' , and t e a c h ­
e r s ' recommendations t o some e x t e n t .

The s c o r e s from achievement t e s t s

were used t o i d e n t i f y s t u d e n t s in t e n d i s t r i c t s .

D i s t r i c t F used the

r e s u l t s o f two o r more group i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s i n combination with
achievement t e s t s c o r e s .

In t h i s d i s t r i c t , h i g h l y c r e a t i v e and

t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s who dem onst rat ed e x c e p t i o n a l a b i l i t y i n t h e i r i n d i ­
vid ual a r e a s o f i n t e r e s t , in t h e judgment o f p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n n e l ,
were c o n s i d e r e d f o r t h e program.

In a somewhat d i f f e r e n t ap proach,

d i s t r i c t H r e p o r t e d t h a t a t l e a s t 10 p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s with SAT
s c o r e s a t l o c a l norms and who combined low socioeconomic f a c t o r s with
a c a p a c i t y to do in d e p e n d e n t work and i n t e r e s t i n e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r
a c t i v i t i e s , depending on t e a c h e r and p r i n c i p a l judgment, were tak en
i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n in s e l e c t i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s .

68
In d i s t r i c t E, th e s e l e c t i o n pr o c e ss in v o lv e d t h e nomination
o f p a r t i c i p a n t s by p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , t h e s t u d e n t , and t h e p eer group,
and th e f i n a l s e l e c t i o n was made by a m a j o r i t y vote o f a committee
composed o f t h e d i r e c t o r o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , t h e a s s i s t a n t s u p e r i n ­
t e n d e n t o f i n s t r u c t i o n , a c i t i z e n s e l e c t e d from t h e middle-sch ool
a d v i s o r y committee or by t h e board o f e d u c a t i o n , a middle-school
p r i n c i p a l , and a m id dle- sch ool t e a c h e r .
D i s t r i c t H i n d i c a t e d t h a t a f t e r s t u d e n t s had been nominated
by p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and p e e r s , t h e f i n a l s e l e c t i o n was made by t h e
q u a d r a n t p r i n c i p a l , t h e home-school p r i n c i p a l , and t h e program c o o r d i ­
n a t o r by drawing from a pool o f e l i g i b l e s t u d e n t s .

D i s t r i c t H used

t h e term " quadrant p r i n c i p a l " t o r e f e r t o th e d i r e c t o r o f each o f t h e
f o u r components i n t o which t h e school d i s t r i c t was d i v i d e d f o r elemen­
ta ry education.
D i s t r i c t J r e p o r t e d t h a t i t used t h e Balwin I d e n t i f i c a t i o n
Matrix and th e R en z u ll i C h e c k l i s t t o s e l e c t s t u d e n t s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
The Balwin I d e n t i f i c a t i o n M atrix c o n s i s t s o f t h e r e s u l t s o f e i g h t
tests:

(1) S t a n d a r d iz e d I n t e l l i g e n c e T e s t s , (2) Achievement T e st

Composite S core, (3) Achievement T e s t —Reading S c o r e , (4) Achievement
Test--M ath S c o r e , (5) Learning S c a l e S c o r e , (6) M o ti v a tio n a l S c ale
S core, (7) C r e a t i v i t y S c a le S c o r e , and (8) L e aders hip S c a le Score and
Various Teacher Recommendations.

The Renz ulli C h e c k l i s t i s a method

f o r r a t i n g b e h a v io r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s u p e r i o r s t u d e n t s , c o n s i s t i n g
of ten s c a le s:

(1) Learning C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , (b) M o ti v a t io n a l Char­

a c t e r i s t i c s , (3) C r e a t i v i t y C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , (4) L e aders hip C h a r a c t e r ­
i s t i c s , (5) A r t i s t i c C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , (6) Musical C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,

69

(7) Dramatics C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , (8) Communication C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s —
P r e c i s i o n , (9) Communication C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s —E x p r e s s i v e n e s s , and
(10) Planning C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
The proce dure s t h a t appeared t o be common among th e d i s t r i c t s
surveyed f o r i d e n t i f y i n g and s e l e c t i n g s t u d e n t s f o r t h e g i f t e d and
t a l e n t e d programs a r e shown in Table 2.
Goals f o r S tudents
The goals s e t f o r s t u d e n t s tended to vary among t h e r e p o r t i n g
districts.

According to th e Michigan Department o f Education (197 8),

e a r l y in th e 1976-77 program y e a r , t h e d i r e c t o r s o f t h e 12 p r o j e c t s
and some o f t h e i r s t a f f members a t te m p te d t o i d e n t i f y a s e t o f p r o ­
gram o b j e c t i v e s t h a t would apply t o a l l o f th e p i l o t programs and,
in d e e d , could be c o n s id e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e o b j e c t i v e s f o r almost any
program f o r t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d .
agreed upon.

A s e t o f seven o b j e c t i v e s was

They a r e :

1.

Eighty p e r c e n t o f th e s t u d e n t s in volved i n th e Michigan p i l o t
p r o j e c t s f o r t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d w i l l i n d i c a t e p o s i t i v e
a t t i t u d e s toward the p r o j e c t s , as measured by an a t t i t u d i n a l
survey pr ep are d by th e s t a t e program c o o r d i n a t o r and adminis­
t e r e d toward t h e c l o s e o f t h e school y e a r .

2.

Eighty p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s o f s t u d e n t s in volv ed i n t h e
p i l o t p r o j e c t s f o r th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d w i l l i n d i c a t e p o s i ­
t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward th e p r o j e c t s , as measured by an a t t i t u ­
d in al survey pre pare d by t h e s t a t e program c o o r d i n a t o r and
a d m i n i s t e r e d toward t h e c l o s e o f th e school y e a r .

3.

Eighty p e r c e n t o f a random sampling o f th e s t u d e n t s in vo lved
in th e p i l o t programs w i l l a t t a i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y s c o r e on an
" E x ce llen c e S c a l e , " when th e s t u d e n t s ' products a r e i n d i ­
v i d u a l l y r a t e d by a group o f t h r e e j u d g e s .

4.

Eighty p e r c e n t o f a random sampling o f th e s t u d e n t s in vo lved
in th e p i l o t programs w i l l a t t a i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y s c o r e on a
s c a l e de signe d t o a s c e r t a i n s t u d e n t s ' a b i l i t y t o g a t h e r and

Table 2 . —Procedures f o r i d e n t i f y i n g and s e l e c t i n g s tu d e n ts t h a t were common among surveyed
d istricts.
Procedures
D istrict
Achievement
Test

Intelligence
Test

Former School
Performance

Reading
Level

Parent
Recommen­
dation

Teacher
Recommen­
dation

X

X

X

X

X

X

C

X

X

X

X

D

X

X

X

X

E

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

F

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

G

X

X

X

X

X

X

H

X

X

X

X

X

X

I

X

X

J

X

X

K

X

X

A

Student
Recommen­
dation

B

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

71

r e p o r t d a t a , when a s t u d e n t pro duct i s r a t e d on t h e s c a l e by
the s tu d e n t's pro je ct d ire c to r or teacher.
5.

Eighty p e r c e n t o f a random sampling o f t h e s t u d e n t s involved
in t h e p i l o t programs w i l l a t t a i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y s c o r e on a
P r o c e s s / P r o d u c t " C r e a t i v i t y S c a l e , " when th e s t u d e n t p r o j e c t s
a r e i n d i v i d u a l l y r a t e d by a group o f t h r e e j u d g e s .

6.

Eighty p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s involved in t h e p i l o t programs
w ill in d ic a te a favorable reactio n to teaching s t r a t e g i e s
des igne d t o encourage c r e a t i v i t y , as measured by an i n s t r u ­
ment pre pare d f o r t h i s purp os e.

7.

One hundred p e r c e n t o f t h e p i l o t p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r s in th e
S e c t i o n 47 Program w i l l submit a t t h e end o f t h e program y e a r
a r e c o r d o f t h e c o n t a c t s made t o them as a r e s u l t o f t h e i r
involvement in th e s t a t e e f f o r t .
Because t h e s e programs were d i v e r s e in n a t u r e , each program

had i t s own g o a ls and o b j e c t i v e s and was l o c a t e d a t a v a r i e t y o f
grade l e v e l s .

While i t might be expec ted t h a t t h e u l t i m a t e goals

o f t h e programs f o r

g i f t e d s t u d e n t s would be s i m i l a r , a n o t i c e a b l e

lack o f common ter mino logy used i n d e s c r i b i n g t h e goals

set for s tu ­

den ts was r e v e a l e d .
D i s t r i c t s A, H, I , and J s t a t e d th e s t u d e n t s ' o v e r a l l goals
t o be co mpleting p r o j e c t s and group dynamics.
to develop s k i l l s t o expand e d u c a t i o n a l ,
through

S tu d en ts were expected

s o c i a l , and c u l t u r a l l e a r n i n g

components t h a t in c l u d e d group l e a r n i n g , group t h i n k i n g , value

c l a r i f i c a t i o n , independent p r o j e c t s , p e r s u a s i o n s k i l l s , and l o g i c a l
and c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g .
The g o a l s e s t a b l i s h e d f o r s t u d e n t s i n d i s t r i c t s C, D, and K
were t o

do r e s e a r c h and to pursue p r o j e c t s .
In d i s t r i c t

E, t h e goals f o r s t u d e n t s were t o develop i n i t i a ­

t i v e and a b i l i t y to plan perso nal programs, t o p r o v id e o p p o r t u n i t i e s
f o r s t u d e n t s t o work in small groups with o t h e r s o f s i m i l a r a b i l i t y ,

72
t o p r o v id e s t u d e n t s with an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d c h a l l e n g i n g program, t o
improve a t t i t u d e s o f g i f t e d s t u d e n t s , and t o develop de cisio n-m akin g
sk ills.
D i s t r i c t F reported t h a t

i t s s t u d e n t s were to make e x t e n s i v e

use o f t h e media r e s o u r c e s , do e x p l o r a t o r y a c t i v i t i e s , do i n - d e p t h
s t u d i e s , and make use o f c r e a t i v e p u r s u i t s and c h a l l e n g i n g e x p e r i e n c e s
through p e r s o n a l i z e d programs.
S i m i l a r i t i e s i n th e go als e s t a b l i s h e d f o r s t u d e n t s in th e
sample d i s t r i c t s a r e shown i n Table 3.
Teacher Q u a l i f i c a t i o n
School d i s t r i c t s A, C, F, G, and K i n d i c a t e d t h a t no s p e c i a l
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s were r e q u i r e d f o r t e a c h e r s o f t h e g i f t e d i n t h e i r g i f t e d
and t a l e n t e d programs.
D i s t r i c t E required t h a t the te a c h e r of the g ifte d express a
desire

t o t each g i f t e d s t u d e n t s , p o s ses s s u c c e s s f u l t e a c h i n g e x p e r i ­

ence , and a l s o have e x p e r i e n c e in t e a c h i n g g i f t e d o r advanced s t u ­
dents .
D i s t r i c t s J and D r e q u i r e d t h a t t e a c h e r s t a k e some c o u r s e s in
g ifte d education.
D i s t r i c t H r e q u i r e d t h e t e a c h e r o f th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
program t o have a m a s t e r ' s d e g r e e , e x p e r i e n c e , and c r e a t i v e a b i l i t y .
The only re q u ire m e n ts f o r t e a c h e r s in d i s t r i c t I were t h a t
the y be i n t e l l i g e n t and i n t e r e s t e d in g i f t e d e d u c a t i o n .
The above f i n d i n g s seem to i n d i c a t e t h a t e x t e n s i v e q u a l i f i c a ­
t i o n s were n o t r e q u i r e d o f t e a c h e r s o f th e g i f t e d .

According t o Gowan

Table 3 . —S im il a r goals e s t a b l i s h e d f o r stu den ts in th e sample d i s t r i c t s .
D istricts

Goals
A

Ba

C

D

E

F

Ga

H

I

J

K

In crease o p p o r tu n i t i e s f o r academic
growth

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Improve ex te n s iv e development of
academic s k i l l s

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

3.

Improve work and study h a b its

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

4.

Expand i n t e r e s t s

X

X

5.

In cr ea se opportu nity f o r individual
r a t e o f growth

X

X

X

X

Improve p e r s o n a l, so c ia l and emotional
development

X

X

X

X

Improve production through improved
i n t e l l e c t u a l clim ate

X

X

X

X

8.

Improve educational motivation

X

X

X

9.

Enhance a p p r e c i a t i o n o f th e c r e a t i v e
process

X

1.
2.

6.
7.

Note:

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Of th e goals t h a t were e s t a b l i s h e d f o r s tu dents and rep orte d by each d i s t r i c t , t h i s t a b l e
shows those goals t h a t were common among the d i s t r i c t s .
d i s t r i c t s B and G did not respond.

74
and Torran ce (1971), d e s p i t e a v a s t amount o f r e s e a r c h , too l i t t l e i s
still

known about t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f e f f e c t i v e

t e a c h e r s in g e n e r a l , l e t alon e th o s e o f th e g i f t e d .

However, among

th o s e d i s t r i c t s t h a t r e q u i r e d s p e c i a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f t e a c h e r s f o r
t h e g i f t e d , t h e s e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s involved f i v e f a c t o r s .

These were:

(1) some p r e p a r a t i o n in g i f t e d e d u c a t i o n , (2) e x p e r i e n c e , (3) i n t e l ­
l e c t u a l background, (4) d e s i r e t o work wit h t h e g i f t e d , and (5) c r e a ­
tiv ity .
P r o v is i o n s Wade f o r I n s e r v i c e f o r S t a f f and P a r e n t s
P r o v is i o n s were made f o r i n s e r v i c e programs f o r s t a f f and
p a r e n t s in o r d e r to f o r m u l a t e plans f o r t h e p i l o t programs in most
d i s t r i c t s surv ey ed .
D i s t r i c t s D, E, F, G, and K pro vide d i n s e r v i c e time f o r c l a s s ­
room t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s .

Regu lar meetings were he ld f o r t e a c h e r s ,

and p lann in g and review s e s s i o n s were h e ld with p a r e n t s .
i n s e r v i c e was conducted durin g r e g u l a r s t a f f m ee tin g s .
used c o n s u l t a n t s from a nearby u n i v e r s i t y .

Some s t a f f
D istrict D

D i s t r i c t J reported th a t

i n s e r v i c e was pr ovid e d f o r t e a c h e r s by means o f c o n s u l t a n t s .

This

was l a t e r d i s c o n t i n u e d due to s h o r t a g e o f f u n d s.
In d i s t r i c t H, no formal i n s e r v i c e was h e l d ; however, th e y did
have a p a r e n t a d v i s o r y committee.
Teachers i n d i s t r i c t A were t r a i n e d t o use t h e Memphis Clue
fo rm at and l a t e r i n d i v i d u a l con f e re n c e s with p a r e n t s .

Memphis Clue

fo rm at i n c l u d e s group dynamics, d i s c u s s i o n g r o u p s , c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g ,
p e r s u a s i o n s k i l l s , l o g i c a l t h i n k i n g , v a l u e s c l a r i f i c a t i o n , independent

75
p r o j e c t s , and m i n i - c o u r s e s .

Each o f t h e components i n c o r p o r a t e s

many o f t h e s k i l l s a s s o c i a t e d w ith r e a d i n g , l i s t e n i n g , w r i t i n g , and
s p eak in g .
D i s t r i c t I pro vided i n s e r v i c e by holding r e g u l a r meetings f o r
t e a c h e r s and l a t e r s e s s i o n s were h eld f o r t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s .
D i s t r i c t s B and C d id not r e p o r t any form o f i n s e r v i c e f o r
s t a f f and p a r e n t s .
From t h e s e r e s p o n s e s , i t can be seen t h a t most d i s t r i c t s
involved p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s i n th e i n i t i a l planning o f t h e g i f t e d
and t a l e n t e d programs.

All d i s t r i c t s ex c e p t two i n d i c a t e d t h a t p a r ­

e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were i n i t i a l l y in volv ed in th e gen­
e r a l scheme o f t h e program through workshops o r i n s e r v i c e m e e tin g s.
In most d i s t r i c t s , a d v i s o r y committees were formed t o o f f e r ad v ic e on
th e implementation and development o f th e programs.
Program E v a lu a ti o n
During t h e f i r s t t h r e e y e a r s o f t h e e x i s t i n g programs, e v a l u a ­
t i o n was performed by pe rsonnel from t h e S t a t e Department o f Educ ation.
T h e r e a f t e r , e v a l u a t i o n s by l o c a l s t a f f members were co ndu cted , and t h e
r e s u l t s were p r e s e n t e d to th e d i s t r i c t s ' boards o f e d u c a tio n o r t h e
d i s t r i c t s ' a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and used t o make m o d i f i c a t i o n s in program
s t r u c t u r e and g o a ls (Michigan Department o f E d u c a tio n , 1978).
Selection of Directors
In th e d i s t r i c t s su rv e y e d , much v a r i a t i o n o c c u r re d in i n d i ­
v i d u a l s a s s ig n e d t o t h e r o l e o f s u p e r v i s o r .

Indeed, some o f t h e

d i s t r i c t s r e p o r t e d th ey d i d not have d i r e c t o r s .

In d i s t r i c t A, t h e

76

s p e c i a l e d u c a t io n d i r e c t o r was in charge o f t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
program.

In d i s t r i c t I , a p r i n c i p a l wrote t h e program and became t h e

d i r e c t o r a f t e r th e program was funded.
In d i s t r i c t F, t h e d i r e c t o r o f elementary and secondary edu­
c a t i o n , a s s i s t e d by a r e s o u r c e t e a c h e r , c o o r d i n a t e d t h e program.
*

D i s t r i c t s 0, E, and K i n d i c a t e d t h e d i r e c t o r s were chosen by
th e d i r e c t o r of elem en tary e d u c a t i o n o r by t h e head o f th e c u r r ic u l u m
departm ent.
The a s s i s t a n t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t a p p o in ted t h e d i r e c t o r in
d i s t r i c t G.
A t e a c h e r was n e a r in g r e t i r e m e n t in d i s t r i c t H and e xpress ed
an i n t e r e s t in g i f t e d s t u d e n t s and was chosen t o work w ith t h e s e s t u ­
dents.

A f t e r t h e t e a c h e r ' s r e t i r e m e n t , t h e p r e s e n t d i r e c t o r was

chosen.
In d i s t r i c t C, a s t a f f member e x p r e s s e d i n t e r e s t in g i f t e d
e d u c a t io n and was chosen as th e d i r e c t o r .
D i s t r i c t s D and B d id not i n d i c a t e t h e way in which t h e i r
d i r e c t o r s had been chosen.
Most d i s t r i c t s r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e i r d i r e c t o r had been chosen
by t h e c e n t r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n in t h e p i l o t programs.
P ercentag e o f D i r e c t o r ' s Time Des igna ted Toward
t h e G i f te d and T a le n te d Program
Four d i s t r i c t s - - G , H, 0 , and K— r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e d i r e c t o r s
s p e n t o n e - h a l f time as d i r e c t o r o f th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.
In d i s t r i c t H, t h e d i r e c t o r s p e n t o n e - h a l f time as d i r e c t o r and oneh a l f time as t e a c h e r o f t h e g i f t e d s t u d e n t s .

77
In d i s t r i c t A, no p a r t i c u l a r p e r c e n t a g e
to

th e d i r e c t o r s h i p o f th e program.

The person

o f time was a l l o t t e d
i n charge was a l s o t h e

s p e c i a l e d u c a t io n d i r e c t o r .
In d i s t r i c t E, t h e d i r e c t o r s p e n t t w o - t h i r d s time as t e a c h e r
o f g i f t e d s t u d e n t s and o n e - t h i r d time as c o n s u l t a n t f o r th e g i f t e d
program.
In d i s t r i c t I , th e r esp o n d en t i n d i c a t e d

he was an ele men tary

p r i n c i p a l as well as being in charge o f th e g i f t e d

and t a l e n t e d p r o ­

gram, which was an unpaid e x t r a as si gnm en t.
D i s t r i c t C r e p o r t e d t h a t th e p r i n c i p a l was t h e d i r e c t o r o f
th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.
In d i s t r i c t s E and D, 100 p e r c e n t o f t h e d i r e c t o r ' s time was
s p e n t with t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.
D i s t r i c t B d i d not i n d i c a t e t h e p e r c e n ta g e o f time t h e d i r e c t o r
s p e n t with t h e program.
There did not ap pear t o be any commonality among th e school
d i s t r i c t s surveyed as t o th e p e r c e n ta g e o f th e d i r e c t o r ' s time d e s i g ­
nat ed toward t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.

This seemed to be

r e l a t e d to t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e school d i s t r i c t .
Model o f Curriculum
Four d i s t r i c t s — F, H, I , and J — used t h e Renz ull i Enrichment
T r i a d Model o f c u r r i c u l u m , which i n c l u d e s s e c t i o n s e n t i t l e d "General
E x p lo r a t o r y A c t i v i t i e s , " "Group T r a i n i n g A c t i v i t i e s , " and " I n d i v i d u a l
and Small Group I n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f Problems."

The l a t t e r two a r e con­

s i d e r e d t o be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a l l l e a r n e r s ; however, th ey a r e a l s o

78

im p o r t a n t in t h e o v e r a l l en richm ent o f g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s
f o r a t l e a s t two r e a s o n s .

They claim t o deal with s t r a t e g i e s f o r

expanding s t u d e n t i n t e r e s t s and de veloping t h e t h i n k i n g and f e e l i n g
p r o c e s s e s , and f o r t h i s reaso n they a r e viewed as n e c e s s a r y i n g r e d i ­
e n t s in any enrich m en t program.

These two ty p e s o f en rich men t r e p r e ­

s e n t l o g i c a l i n p u t and s u p p o r t systems f o r Type I I I Enrichment, which
i s c o n s id e r e d to be t h e only ty p e t h a t i s mainly a p p r o p r i a t e f o r
g ifted students.

Type I I I Enrichment, e n t i t l e d " I n d i v i d u a l and Small

Group I n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f Real Problem s," i s th e major focus o f t h e model
and i s in te n d e d t o imply t h a t ap p r o x im a te ly o n e - h a l f o f t h e time t h a t
g i f t e d s t u d e n t s spend in en richm ent a c t i v i t i e s shou ld be devoted to
t h e s e ty p e s o f e x p e r i e n c e s ( R e n z u l l i , 1977).
The Memphis Clue format was used by d i s t r i c t A.

The Memphis

c u r ri c u lu m i n c l u d e s us in g a v a r i e t y o f components t h a t expand educa­
t i o n a l , s o c i a l , and c u l t u r a l l e a r n i n g .

The model components i n c l u d e

group dynamics, d i s c u s s i o n g r o u p s , c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g , p e r s u a s i o n
s k i l l , l o g i c a l t h i n k i n g , valu es c l a r i f i c a t i o n , independent p r o j e c t s ,
and m i n i - c o u r s e s .

Each o f th e components i n c o r p o r a t e s many o f th e

s k i l l s a s s o c i a t e d w ith r e a d i n g , l i s t e n i n g , w r i t i n g , and speaking
( S t a t e o f Michigan, 1978).
Four d i s t r i c t s - - D , E, G, and K - - r e p o r t e d th ey used no p a r t i c u ­
l a r model o f c u r r i c u l u m .
D i s t r i c t s B and C d id n o t i n d i c a t e t h e model o f c u r r i c u l u m ,
i f any, used i n t h e i r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.

79
D ura tion o f t h e Program
Of t h e 11 d i s t r i c t s s u rv e y e d , t h r e e school d i s t r i c t s —K, H,
and C—r e p o r t e d t h e i r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program had been in o p e r a ­
tion for five years.

One o f t h e s e d i s t r i c t s , K, i n d i c a t e d i t s e l e ­

mentary program had been in o p e r a t i o n f o r f i v e y e a r s and t h e j u n i o r
high school program had been in o p e r a t i o n f o r f o u r y e a r s .
In two d i s t r i c t s , A and F, t h e program had been in o p e r a t i o n
f o r t h r e e y e a r s as funded.

I t o p e r a t e d on l o c a l funds f o r one y e a r ,

du rin g th e 1978-79 school y e a r .
Four d i s t r i c t s - - I , D, E, and B—had o p e r a t e d g i f t e d and t a l ­
en ted programs f o r two y e a r s as o f 1979.

One o f t h e s e d i s t r i c t s , E,

s a i d i t s m id dle- sch ool program had been o p e r a t i n g s i n c e 1977-78 in
grades 6-8 .
D i s t r i c t G r e p o r t e d th e program had been te r m i n a t e d a f t e r one
y e a r because o f th e l a c k o f funds.
How t h e Programs VJere Funded
The programs in a l l d i s t r i c t s surveyed were funded under th e
S t a t e Aid Act, S e c t i o n 47 , f o r t h e f i r s t t h r e e y e a r s .

Seven o f t h e

d i s t r i c t s ' programs were funded l o c a l l y , as o f t h e 1979-80 school
year.

D i s t r i c t B r e p o r t e d i t was funded t h e f i r s t y e a r p a r t i a l l y by

th e s t a t e , and t h e remainder o f t h e budget was d iv i d e d among t h e f i v e
p a r t i c i p a t i n g d i s t r i c t s i n t h e co n s o rtiu m .

The consort ium pr ovid e d

t h e community and s t a f f o f t h e p a r t i c i p a t i n g d i s t r i c t s w it h t h e su p­
p o r t and e x p e r t i s e n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e development, im p lem en tati o n , and
maintenance o f i n d i v i d u a l g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs.

80

D i s t r i c t E1s elem en tary g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program was funded
l o c a l l y , whereas t h e midd le-scho ol program was l a r g e l y funded by Sec­
t i o n 47.
P o p u la t io n o f 5 t u d e n t P a r t i c i p a n t s
The response by school d i s t r i c t o f th e s i z e o f th e p o p u la t io n
ser ved i s shown in Table 4.

Ta ble 4 . — P o p u l a ti o n o f s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a n t s .
D istrict

Elementary

Secondary

Grades

A

180

125

2-6
7-8

305

Percent

Total

B
C

50

3-6

50

D

50

K-5

50

E

75

60

1-5
6-8

135

F

80

60

1-5
6-8

140

4-12

190

1-6

160

G
Ha

160

I

4-6

J

2-3

K

K-12
aThis d i s t r i c t s e r v e s 160 s t u d e n t s pe r s e m e s te r .

10

5-10

81

Table 4 shows t h e number o f s t u d e n t s s e r v e d , ac c o r d in g t o t h e
responding d i s t r i c t s .

As i n d i c a t e d in t h e t a b l e , some s chools i n d i ­

c a t e d t h e number o f s t u d e n t s serv ed a cco r d in g t o ele m e n ta r y /s e c o n d a r y
l e v e l s and g r a d e s , whereas o t h e r s i n d i c a t e d t h e grad es o f s t u d e n t s
s e r v e d , and s t i l l o t h e r d i s t r i c t s i n d i c a t e d th e pe r c e n ta g e o f th e
s c h o o l ' s p o p u la ti o n and t h e grades s e r v e d .

One d i s t r i c t did not d i s ­

c l o s e t h e number o f s t u d e n t s s e r v e d .
M o d if i c a t i o n s Made in Programs
Many o f th e d i s t r i c t s in vo lved in t h e study r e p o r t e d t h a t
t h e i r program had been modified s i n c e i n c e p t i o n .

D is tr ic t I indicated

a f t e r two y e a r s o f o p e r a t i n g th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program, th e
d i s t r i c t ' s pe rsonnel were p le a s e d with th e p r e s e n t o p e r a t i o n and f e l t
t h a t few, i f any, m o d i f i c a t i o n s were n e c e s s a r y .
D i s t r i c t A r e p o r t e d t h a t some m o d i f i c a t i o n s had been made in
i t s program.

I t had d i s c o n t i n u e d t h e use o f a b i l i t y t e s t i n g in id e n ­

t i f y i n g s t u d e n t s f o r t h e program.

M o d if i c a t io n s had been made i n t h e

s e v e n t h - and e i g h t h - g r a d e honors program, an a l t e r n a t i v e language a r t s
and r eading program.
D i s t r i c t D r e p o r t e d t h a t no major m o d i f i c a t i o n s had been made.
However, t h e program had been a d j u s t e d t o f i t t h e i n t e r e s t and a b i l i ­
t i e s o f th e s t u d e n t s .

A t t e n t i o n had been given t o t h e amount o f time

s t u d e n t s were out o f th e r e g u l a r clas sr oom .
M o d if i c a t i o n s had been made in t h e c u r ri c u lu m in d i s t r i c t H.
The c u r ric u l u m had been l i m i t e d t o i n c l u d e s c i e n c e , s o c i a l s t u d i e s ,
math, and a r t , i n t e r r e l a t e d with t h e l e a r n i n g - c e n t e r appr oach.

82

Various changes had been in d i s t r i c t C, which included a
change in s t a f f in t h e upp e r -e l e m e n t a r y clas sr oo m .

The d i r e c t o r s h i p

had changed from t h e c u r ri c u l u m d i r e c t o r t o th e two t e a c h e r s in v o l v e d .
The a r t , m usi c, and ph y s ic a l e d u c a t io n programs f o r g i f t e d and t a l ­
en ted s t u d e n t s had been d i s c o n t i n u e d as a r e s u l t o f a m i l l a g e d e f e a t .
D i s t r i c t E had made changes i n t h e middle-school program by
dropping t h e p u l l - o u t proce dure s in f a v o r o f t r a c k i n g g i f t e d and t a l ­
e nt ed s t u d e n t s i n t o two s u b j e c t s , math and s c i e n c e , a t t h e s i x t h and s e v e n t h - g r a d e l e v e l s , and t r a c k i n g e i g h t h - g r a d e g i f t e d and t a l ­
e n te d s t u d e n t s in f o u r c l a s s e s , math, s c i e n c e , s o c i a l s t u d i e s , and
language a r t s , depending on i n d i v i d u a l needs.

Plans had been made t o

add a c c e l e r a t i o n with en rich m en t because o f i n c r e a s e d time i n t h e
program.
Two d i s t r i c t s , B and K, i n d i c a t e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f expanding
t h e program t o in c l u d e t h e j u n i o r and s e n i o r high programs t o a l l
s c h o o ls by 1981-82.
I t was r e p o r t e d by d i s t r i c t J t h a t w i t h i n a y e a r i t planned
t o use some o f th e f o r m a t i v e da ta t h a t had been g a t h e r e d t o a l t e r t h e
program.
M o d if i c a t i o n s t h a t had been made among th e d i s t r i c t s in vo lved
in th e s tu d y in c lu d e d :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Expansion t o i n c l u d e more s t u d e n t s in t h e program
Change in the c u r ric u l u m
Devised methods o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f p a r t i c i p a n t s in th e
program
Scheduling
Change in personnel
Use o f f a c i l i t i e s and community r e s o u r c e s

83

Research Question 2 :

What a r e t h e r e p o r t e d a t t i t u d e s o f p a r e n t s ,
t e a c h e r s , and s t u d e n t s toward g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
programs in which th e y p a r t i c i p a t e d ?
Q u e s t io n n a ir e Responses

The f o ll o w i n g d a ta p e r t a i n t o t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
a d m i n i s t e r e d to p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and s t u d e n t s .

These d a t a a r e based

on a t o t a l o f 943 res p o n d en ts from 11 school d i s t r i c t s in t h e s t a t e o f
Michigan.
Two groups o f d a t a were o b t a i n e d and an aly zed from t h e t h r e e
questionnaires.

Data from t h e p a r e n t and t e a c h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were

ana ly ze d t o g e t h e r because o f t h e s i m i l a r i t y in t h e d es ig n o f t h e c a t e ­
g o r i e s and t h e i t e m s .

The g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d were r e f e r r e d t o as

"my c h i l d " on t h e p a r e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e and " t h e s t u d e n t " on t h e t e a c h e r
questionnaire.

Because o f t h e l i m i t e d number o f c a t e g o r i e s and th e

de sig n o f t h e items on t h e s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e , i t was n e c e s s a r y to
an aly ze t h e s e d ata s e p a r a t e l y .
In a n a l y z i n g t h e r e s p o n s e s , an e f f o r t was made t o de ter m ine
t h e l e v e l o f p a r e n t , t e a c h e r , and s t u d e n t a c c e p ta n c e o f th e programs
f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .

This was accomplished by means o f

a frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e r esp o nses on a l l items on each o f th e
three questionnaires.

The f re qu en cy d i s t r i b u t i o n , p e r c e n t a g e f o r each

i t e m , mean, and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n a r e shown i n Tables 5, 6 , and 7.
Comparisons a r e made between mean r e s p o n s e s , w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e to
individual responses.

84

R e s u l t s o f t h e P a r e n t and Teacher Q u e s t io n n a ir e s
Category I : Response t o
Program C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
This c a t e g o r y comprised th e a t t i t u d e s p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s
held r e l a t i v e t o t h e s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f
th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.

P a r e n ts were more f a v o r a b l e to t h e

s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program tha n were
t e a c h e r s , based on a comparison o f mean s c o r e s f o r a l l items in t h e
c a t e g o r y (Tables 5 and 6 ) .
My c h i l d ( s t u d e n t s ) would b e n e f i t more from a program w i t h i n
th e home b u i l d i n g where s t u d e n t s can move th ro ugh t h e school y e a r s
faster.

T h i r t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t o f th e p a r e n t s ag re ed t h a t s t u d e n t s

would b e n e f i t more from an a c c e l e r a t i o n program w i t h i n each b u i l d i n g ,
whereas 37 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d and 24 p e r c e n t were undecided (mean o f
3 . 0 ; Table 5 - 1 ) .

In c o n t r a s t t o t h e p a r e n t s ' a t t i t u d e toward th e same

ite m , 8 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s as a group ag reed w h ile 73 p e r c e n t
d i s a g r e e d , and 19 p e r c e n t were und ec ided .

As a gr oup, t e a c h e r s did

not f a v o r o f f e r i n g t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program w i t h i n each b u i l d ­
i n g , w h il e p a r e n t s as a group were undecided ab out t h i s q u e s t i o n .
The methods by which s t u d e n t s a r e i d e n t i f i e d f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n
in t h e program a r e ac c o r d in g t o some w e l l - p l a n n e d p r o c e d u r e s .

P ar en ts

responded f a v o r a b l y t o th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p rocedure s used t o choose
p a r t i c i p a n t s in t h e program.

S i x t y - o n e p e r c e n t o f t h e responding

p a r e n t s ag re ed t h a t t h e methods by which s t u d e n t s were i d e n t i f i e d f o r
p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e program were a c c o r d i n g t o some w e l l - p la n n e d p r o ­
c e d u r e s , w h ile 28 p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s were undec ided .

F ifty percent

85

o f t h e t e a c h e r s agreed on th e p r o cedure s , while 33 p e r c e n t o f the
t e a c h e r s r e j e c t e d th e item and 17 p e r c e n t were undecided (mean o f 2 . 8 ;
Table 6 - 2 ) .
The methods used to s e l e c t s t u d e n t s from t hose i d e n t i f i e d as
q u a l i f i e d f o r t h i s program a r e s a t i s f a c t o r y .

The methods used to

s e l e c t s tu d e n t s a f t e r being i d e n t i f i e d f o r the program were supported
by 65 p e r c e n t o f th e p a r e n t s ; however, 23 p er cen t were undecided, while
11 p er cen t d is a g r e e d .

Teachers as a group were r e l a t i v e l y l e s s sup­

p o r t i v e o f th e methods used to s e l e c t i d e n t i f i e d s tu d e n t s f o r the pr o­
gram.

Only 45 p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s supported the ite m , 41 p e r c e n t

of

this

group r e j e c t e d th e item ,

of

3.0;

Table 6 - 3 ) .

and 11 p er cen t were undecided (mean

Approximately 90 p er cen t o f t h e school d i s t r i c t s surveyed
i n d i c a t e d some s p e c i f i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and s e l e c t i o n procedures were
used in choosing p a r t i c i p a n t s f o r the g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs.
According to the u n s t r u c t u r e d s u g g e s t i o n s , te a c h e r s favored expansion
o f th e program t o in clu d e more s t u d e n t s , i n c l u s i v e o f c r e a t i v e s t u ­
dents and c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f classroom t e a c h e r s ' choices o f p a r t i c i p a n t s
in th e program.
Stu de nts should go t o d i f f e r e n t t e a c h e r s f o r d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t
matter c la s s e s .

F ifty - t w o p e r c e n t o f the p a r e n t s agreed t h a t more

d e p a r t m e n t a l i z a t i o n was needed in t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program, 24
p e r c e n t were undecided, and 23 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d with d e p a r t m e n t a l iz a ­
tion.

Teachers were l e s s s u p p o r t i v e o f th e it em ; f o r example, 47 p e r ­

c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s i n d i c a t e d an u n c e r t a i n a t t i t u d e , whil e only
31 p e r c e n t agreed with th e item and 21 p e r c e n t d isa g r e e d (mean o f 2 . 8 ;

86
Table 6 - 4 ) .

The m a j o r i t y o f t h e school d i s t r i c t s ' d i r e c t o r s i n d i ­

c a t e d some form o f d e p a r t m e n t a l i z a t i o n was used i n t h e g i f t e d and
t a l e n t e d program.

Only one d i s t r i c t r e v e a l e d t h a t a t r a d i t i o n a l - t y p e

clas sro om approach was used in t h e program.
The amount o f time s t u d e n t s s p e n t in t h i s program seems
adequate.

F i f t y p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s responded f a v o r a b l y t o th e

amount o f time s t u d e n t s s p e n t in t h e program.

Fourteen p e r c e n t were

und ec ided , and 31 p e r c e n t responded un fav ora bly t o t h e s t a t e m e n t
{mean o f 2 . 7 ; Table 5 - 5 ) .

Only 43 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s i n d i c a t e d a

p o s i t i v e r e s p o n s e , whereas 22 p e r c e n t were undecided and 35 p e r c e n t
d i s a g r e e d with t h e item (mean o f 2 . 9 ; Table 6 - 5 ) .
Adequate use i s made o f th e community r e s o u r c e s ( f i e l d t r i p s
and p e r so n s ) in th e program.

F i f t y p e r c e n t o f th e p a r e n t s agreed t h a t

ade quate use was made of t h e community r e s o u r c e s , 21 p e r c e n t were
undecided, and 28 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d wit h t h e amount o f use made o f
community r e s o u r c e s (mean o f 2 . 7 ; Table 5 - 6 ) .

F orty-three percent of

th e t e a c h e r s ag re ed with t h e s t a t e m e n t , 37 p e r c e n t were undec id ed , and
18 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d (mean of 2 . 8 ; Table 6 - 6 ) .

In t h e u n s t r u c t u r e d

r e s p o n s e s , p a r e n t s as a group i n d i c a t e d t h a t b e t t e r use shou ld be made
o f community r e s o u r c e s .

They f a v o re d more meaningful f i e l d t r i p s and

use o f p r o f e s s i o n a l s in t h e community.
Category I I : Overall E v a lu a ti o n
o f t h e Program
The second c a t e g o r y comprised t h e a t t i t u d e s p a r e n t s and t e a c h ­
e r s had c o n cerning th e o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
program in t h e i r s c h o o l s .

P a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s responded i d e n t i c a l l y

87
t o t h e c a t e g o r y based on a comparison o f mean s c o re s f o r a l l
it e m s .
G if te d c h i l d r e n should not remain in r e g u l a r c l a s s e s .

F ifty-

one p e r c e n t o f p a r e n t res p o n d en ts were in f a v o r o f g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
s t u d e n t s n o t remaining i n r e g u l a r c l a s s e s .

There were 30 p e r c e n t who

were in d i s a g r e e m e n t , w h ile 18 p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s were undecided
(mean o f 2 . 7 ; Table 5 - 7 ) .

Only 44 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s e xpress ed

s u p p o r t o f t h e it e m , w h il e 35 p e r c e n t were in d is a g r e e m e n t, 17 p e r c e n t
were unde cide d, and 4 p e r c e n t d id not respond t o t h e item (mean o f
3 . 1 ; Table 6 - 7 ) .

I t was i n d i c a t e d i n th e t e a c h e r s ' u n s t r u c t u r e d

r es po nses t h a t th e y were in f a v o r o f s p e c i a l c l a s s e s f o r g i f t e d and
t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s with some m o d i f i c a t i o n s , such as c o o r d i n a t i o n between
clas sro om a c t i v i t i e s and g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program, expanded c u r ­
r i c u l a , b e t t e r communication between th e clas sro om t e a c h e r and t h e
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program t e a c h e r .
This program has had a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on my c h i l d ' s
( s t u d e n t ' s ) a t t i t u d e toward s c h o o l .

Both groups agr eed t h a t th e

g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program had a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on s t u d e n t s '
a t t i t u d e s toward s c h o o l.

Eighty-two p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s and 70

p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s endorsed t h i s s t a t e m e n t .
S pe cial c l a s s e s should be provided wherever p o s s i b l e f o r
gifted students.

Both p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s endorsed t h e s ta t e m e n t

t h a t s p e c i a l c l a s s e s should be provided f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u ­
dents.

Eig h ty - sev e n p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s and 94 p e r c e n t o f the

p a r e n t s s u p p o rte d s p e c i a l c l a s s e s f o r t h e s e s t u d e n t s .

88
I t h i n k t h i s program i s b e n e f i c i a l to t h e s t u d e n t s in volved
in i t .

P ar en ts o f p a r t i c i p a n t s in th e program s t r o n g l y agreed t h a t

th e program was b e n e f i c i a l to t h e s t u d e n t s involved in i t .

Ninety-

s i x p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s responded f a v o r a b l y t o th e ite m , while
85 p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s i n d i c a t e d s u p p o r t o f t h e item .
The program should be expanded t o i n c l u d e more c h i l d r e n .

It

was agreed upon by both groups t h a t t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program
should be expanded t o i n c l u d e more c h i l d r e n .

S i x ty - o n e p e r c e n t o f

th e p a r e n t s and 67 p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s agreed t h a t th e program
should be expanded t o i n c lu d e more c h i l d r e n .

Twenty-five p e r c e n t o f

t h e p a r e n t s were unde cide d, w h ile 19 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s were unde­
cid ed about t h e item.
The program should not be e l i m i n a t e d .

Both groups agr eed t h a t

th e program should not be e l i m i n a t e d f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f th e p a r t i c i ­
p a n t s ; however, th e p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s made s u g g e s t i o n s f o r m o d i f i ­
cations.

N i n e t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s responded f a v o ra b ly t o

th e ite m , w h ile 89 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r resp onden ts were f a v o r a b l e .
S tu d en ts could n o t do j u s t as well w i th o u t t h i s program.

Par­

e n t s and t e a c h e r s ex p r e s s e d agreement with th e s t a t e m e n t t h a t s t u d e n t s
could n o t do j u s t as well w it h o u t th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program as
th ey did w i th i t .

Eighty-two p e r c e n t o f th e p a r e n t s a g r e e d , while

74 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s agr eed with th e item .

P a r e n ts and t e a c h e r s

appeared t o be i n f a v o r o f g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s a t t e n d i n g t h e
program.

89
Category I I I ; S t u d e n t Endorsement
This c a t e g o r y c o n s i s t e d o f th e a t t i t u d e s p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s
had conce rning t h e s t u d e n t s ' approval o r s u p p o r t o f th e program.
P a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s responded in a s i m i l a r manner on t h e items in
t h i s c a t e g o r y based on a comparison o f mean s c o re s f o r a l l ite m s.
My c h i l d ( s t u d e n t s ) en joys th e program.

P a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s

ex p r e ss e d agreement with t h e i d e a t h a t s t u d e n t s enjoy t h e program.
Eig hty-on e p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s a g r e e d , w h ile 95 p e r c e n t o f th e
p a r e n t s agreed with th e s t a t e m e n t .
My c h i l d ( s t u d e n t s ) i s w i l l i n g t o spend time s tu d y i n g f o r th e
c l a s s e s in t h i s program.

According t o t h e p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s , the

s t u d e n t s who p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program were
w i l l i n g t o spend time s tu d y i n g f o r t h e c l a s s e s .

I t was i n d i c a t e d by

both p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s t h a t s t u d e n t s did n o t r e s e n t th e amount o f
time th e y s p e n t in s t u d y i n g f o r t h e c l a s s e s i n t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
program.

Ninety p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s ex p r e ss e d a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e

toward t h e i t e m , w h ile 70 p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s e x p r ess ed a s i m i l a r
attitude.

Twelve p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s who provided u n s t r u c t u r e d

re sp o n s es s u g g e s te d th e amount o f time s p e n t in c l a s s e s should be
increased.

Six p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s pro vid ed u n s t r u c t u r e d respon ses

and o f f e r e d s i m i l a r s u g g e s t i o n s .
My c h i l d ( s t u d e n t s ) f i n d s r e g u l a r c l a s s e s borin g in comparison
t o t h e c l a s s e s in t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.

F ifty-seven percent

o f t h e t e a c h e r s d i s a g r e e d w i th th e s ta t e m e n t t h a t s t u d e n t s found reg u­
l a r c l a s s e s bo rin g in comparison to t h e c l a s s e s in th e g i f t e d and
t a l e n t e d program.

Eleven p e r c e n t o f th e r e sponden ts agr eed with th e

90
idea and 30 p e r c e n t were undecided (mean o f 3 . 6 ; Table 6 - 1 6 ) .

This

mean denotes t h a t t e a c h e r s as a group d i s a g r e e d with th e item .
Forty -one p e r c e n t o f th e p a r e n t s ag re ed w ith t h e i t e m , 39 p e r c e n t
d i s a g r e e d , and 19 p e r c e n t were undecided (mean o f 2 . 9 ; Table 5 - 1 6 ) .
Category IV: S tu d e n t Outcomes
The s t u d e n t outcomes c a t e g o r y comprised t h e a t t i t u d e s p a r e n t s
and t e a c h e r s had conce rning t h e consequences o r r e s u l t s o f s t u d e n t
participation.

P a r e n t s were more f a v o r a b l e t o th e c a t e g o r y than

t e a c h e r s , based on a comparison o f mean s c o r e s f o r a l l items in th e
c a t e g o r y (Tables 5 and 6 ) .
The program i s des ign ed around t h e needs and concerns o f each
child.

F i f t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t resp o n d e n t s were in f a v o r o f

th e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program in
terms o f meeting i n d i v i d u a l n eeds , 15 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d , and 29 p e r ­
c e n t were undecided (mean o f 2 . 4 ; Table 5 - 1 7 ) .
t h a t p a r e n t s as a group agreed with t h e item .

This mean denotes
F if ty - e ig h t percent of

t h e t e a c h e r s responded f a v o r a b l y to t h e i t e m , 15 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d ,
and 21 p e r c e n t were undecided (mean o f 2 . 7 ; Table 6 - 1 7 ) .
P a r e n t s o f f e r e d th e f o llo w i n g s u g g e s t i o n s f o r t h e d es ig n o f
t h e program in u n s t r u c t u r e d r e s p o n s e s :
1.

The c o n t e n t and as sign m en ts made i n th e g i f t e d and
t a l e n t e d programs should be more m ea ni ng ful.

2.

The program should be b e t t e r o r g a n i z e d , and t h e r e should
be more p r e p la n n in g f o r t h e program.

3.

G i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program should be i n c o r p o r a t e d in
each home s c h o o l .

4.

P r o v is i o n s should be made f o r a c c e l e r a t i o n with s p e c i a l
subjects.

91

5.

The c l a s s e s f o r t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s should
be s m a l l e r .

6.

There should be some form o f g r ading o f s t u d e n t s ' e f f o r t .

7.

P a r e n t s shou ld be involved in t h e f o r m u la t io n o f go als and
o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e program.

8.

There should be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d s t a f f i n g in t h e g i f t e d and
t a l e n t e d program.

9.

The number o f t e a c h e r s shou ld be i n c r e a s e d f o r t h e program.

10.

A d d it io n a l h e lp ( p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l ) shou ld be provided f o r
the g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.

11.

The amount o f time s p e n t in t r a n s p o r t i n g s t u d e n t s t o cen ­
t r a l i z e d l o c a t i o n s should be d e c r e a s e d .

Teachers o f f e r e d th e f o ll o w i n g s i m i l a r s u g g e s t i o n s i n u n s t r u c ­
tured responses:
1.

The g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program should be des igned as p a r t
o f th e t o t a l c u r r i c u l u m .

2.

A c u r ric u lu m shou ld be developed f o r t h e g i f t e d and t a l ­
e n te d program.

3.

S tu d en ts sho uld be in vo lved in d e s ig n in g t h e co urse o f
s tu d y .

4.

The g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program should c o n s i s t o f more
departmentali z a ti on .

5.

P r o v i s i o n s should be made f o r th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
program in each home s c h o o l.

6.

Teachers should be provided with a s t u d e n t ' s
report.

7.

A c c e l e r a t i o n c l a s s e s should be prov ided i n each s u b j e c t
area.

8.

E x i s t i n g program sho uld be c o o r d i n a t e d with o t h e r s w i t h i n
th e county o r s t a t e .

9.

S tud ent p a r t i c i p a t i o n should be l i m i t e d t o one y e a r in
th e program.

progress

92

The program helps s t u d e n t s t o t h i n k i n d e p e n d e n t l y .

I t was

r e p o r t e d by 75 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s t h a t th e program helped s t u ­
dents to t h i n k in d e p e n d e n t l y ; 88 p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s expres sed
sim ilar a ttitu d e s.
S tu d en ts r e c e i v e guidance i n f i n d i n g and developing i d e a s .
Both p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s showed f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the
q u a l i t y o f guidance s t u d e n t s e x p e r ie n c e d i n f i n d i n g and develop in g
ideas.

The idea was s upport ed by 86 p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s and 77

p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s .

I t may be i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o te t h a t two o f

th e S t a t e o f M ic higan's o b j e c t i v e s f o r t h e p i l o t programs involved
s t u d e n t s a t t a i n i n g a s a t i s f a c t o r y s c o r e on t h e i r pr o d u cts as well as
th e p r o c e s s .

One o f th e s i m i l a r i t i e s in t h e g o a ls e s t a b l i s h e d f o r

s t u d e n t s by t h e s p e c i f i e d school d i s t r i c t s surveyed was t o improve
p r o d u c tio n through an improved i n t e l l e c t u a l c l i m a t e .
S tu d en ts l e a r n t o deal c r i t i c a l l y with i d e a s in t h e program.
The a t t i t u d e s o f both p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s were f a v o r a b l e in terms o f
how well s t u d e n t s le a r n e d t o deal c r i t i c a l l y w i th id e a s in th e g i f t e d
and t a l e n t e d program.

S i x t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t o f th e p a r e n t s endorsed t h e

i d e a , w h i l e 32 p e r c e n t were unde cided .

S ix ty -tw o p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h ­

e r s endorsed t h e s t a t e m e n t , w h ile 30 p e r c e n t were undecided.
The program he lps s t u d e n t s t o become c r e a t i v e .

The e n co u r ag e­

ment o f c r e a t i v i t y was l i s t e d as a goal o f t h e S t a t e o f M ichig an's
P i l o t Program, as well as one o f t h e s i m i l a r goals r e p o r t e d by t h e
m a j o r i t y o f school d i s t r i c t s sur ve yed .

E ighty-six percent of the

p a r e n t s and 63 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s responded f a v o r a b l y to th e

93
e f f e c t s o f th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program in encouraging s t u d e n t
creativ ity .
The program h e l p s to ar o u s e s t u d e n t s ' i n t e l l e c t u a l i n t e r e s t .
Eighty p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t resp ond en ts and 92 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r
res p o n d en ts agreed t h a t th e program f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s
helped s t i m u l a t e s t u d e n t s ’ i n t e l l e c t u a l i n t e r e s t s .

To improve educa­

t i o n a l m o t i v a t i o n was one o f th e go als g e n e r a l l y l i s t e d by t h e
m a j o r i t y o f school d i s t r i c t s surveyed.
The program helps s t u d e n t s t o d e s i r e t o excel i n t e l l e c t u a l l y .
The a t t i t u d e o f p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s was p o s i t i v e toward t h e e f f e c t s
o f t h e program in h e lp in g s t u d e n t s t o d e s i r e t o excel i n t e l l e c t u a l l y .
S e v e n t y - s i x p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s and 65 p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s
s upport ed th e i d e a .
S tu d e n t s who p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s program a r e encouraged to
develop h o b b i e s .

I t was i n d i c a t e d by 65 p e r c e n t o f p a r e n t re sp on den ts

t h a t s t u d e n t s who p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e program f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
s t u d e n t s were encouraged t o develop h o b b ie s , compared t o 49 p e r c e n t o f
th e t e a c h e r s who i n d i c a t e d a f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e .

T h irty -n in e percent

o f t h e t e a c h e r s were undecided on t h e item (mean o f 2 . 6 ; Table 6 - 2 4 ) .
S tu d e n ts who p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s program have a c c e s s t o a
v a r i e t y o f good book s.

Both groups responded f a v o r a b l y t o t h e q u a n t i t y

o f books t h e s t u d e n t s had ac ces s t o in t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.
S i x t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s su pport ed th e ite m , w h ile 23 p e r ­
c e n t o f them were undecided.

S i x t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s sup­

p o r te d t h e s ta t e m e n t and 26 p e r c e n t were undecided.

94
S tu d en ts a r e missin g t h e “b a s i c s " as a r e s u l t o f t h e program.
Eighty-two p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s and 89 p e r c e n t o f th e p a r e n t s
i n d i c a t e d t h e s t u d e n t s d i d n o t miss t h e " b a s i c s " as a r e s u l t o f the
program.

In th e u n s t r u c t u r e d r e s p o n s e s , p a r e n t s s u g g ested t h e c u r r i c u ­

lum be more d i v e r s i f i e d t o i n c l u d e t h e c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e l e a r n i n g
experiences.

The t e a c h e r s s u g g e ste d b e t t e r c o o r d i n a t i o n between c l a s s ­

room a c t i v i t i e s and g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.
The program h e lp s s t u d e n t s t o have s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e .

P ar en ts

and t e a c h e r s ag re ed t h a t t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program helpe d s t u ­
den ts t o have s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e .

Eighty-four percent of the parents

s u p p o rted th e item and 10 p e r c e n t were undecided.

Seventy-four p er­

c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s s u p p o rte d t h e s t a t e m e n t and 18 p e r c e n t were unde­
c id e d .
Ch ildren b e n e f i t s o c i a l l y by being placed in groups o f s i m i l a r
mental a b i l i t y .

S i x t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t resp ondents

express ed f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward th e s o c i a l b e n e f i t s s t u d e n t s
e xperienced by being plac ed in groups o f s i m i l a r mental a b i l i t y , while
20 p e r c e n t were undecided.

F i f t y - s i x p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s responded

f a v o r a b l y t o t h e s t a t e m e n t , w h ile 25 p e r c e n t were undecided (mean 2 . 5 ;
Table 6 - 2 8 ) .
The o p p o r t u n i t y t o a s s o c i a t e with o t h e r g i f t e d c h i l d r e n helps
my c h i l d ( s t u d e n t s ) a d j u s t s o c i a l l y .

Sixty percent of the parents

responded f a v o r a b l y , w h ile 27 p e r c e n t i n d i c a t e d th e y were undecided
r e l a t i v e t o t h e s o c i a l ad ju s tm e n ts o f s t u d e n t s as a r e s u l t of th e
a s s o c i a t i o n o f g i f t e d s t u d e n t s with o t h e r g i f t e d s t u d e n t s .

Fifty-three

95
p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s responded f a v o r a b l y t o t h e i t e m , w h ile 29
p e r c e n t i n d i c a t e d th ey were undecided (mean o f 2 . 6 ; Table 6 - 2 9 ) .
The o p p o r t u n i t y t o a s s o c i a t e with o l d e r c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s
t o f i n d o t h e r s with t h e i r i n t e r e s t i s an e n r i c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e t o my
child (stu d e n ts).

E i g h t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t o f respond in g p a r e n t s agreed

t h a t th e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s to a s s o c i a t e
with o l d e r c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s to f i n d o t h e r s with s i m i l a r i n t e r e s t
was an e n r i c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e , w h ile 85 p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s agr eed
with th e item.
Category V: I n s t r u c t i o n Methods
and Teacher Competency
This s c a l e was composed o f t h e a t t i t u d e s p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s
e xpres sed co n cerning t h e s k i l l s , a b i l i t i e s , and methodologies o f
t e a c h e r s o f g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .

The ex p r e ss e d a t t i t u d e o f

p a r e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h i s c a t e g o r y was more f a v o r a b l e th an th e t e a c h e r s ' ,
based on a comparison o f mean s c o r e s f o r a l l i te m s .
The t e a c h e r s in th e g i f t e d program should have s p e c i a l q u a l i f i ­
cations.

E i g h t y - n i n e p e r c e n t o f t h e responding p a r e n t s ag re ed t h a t

t e a c h e r s i n g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs should have s p e c i a l q u a l i f i ­
c a t i o n s , whereas 79 p e r c e n t o f t h e responding t e a c h e r s agreed with t h e
statem ent.

I t was sugges ted by 11 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s i n t h e

u n s t r u c t u r e d resp o n s es t h a t only c e r t i f i e d t e a c h e r s should be used,
and p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s sho uld be used only to a s s i s t t h e t e a c h e r in th e
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.

Two p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s s u g g ested in

th e u n s t r u c t u r e d re sp onses t h a t t e a c h e r s in th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
program sho uld have s p e c i a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s .

96
The t e a c h i n g methods used in th e g i f t e d program a r e s a t i s ­
factory.

S e v e n t y - f o u r p e r c e n t o f th e p a r e n t s e x p r e s s e d a f a v o r a b l e

a t t i t u d e toward t h e t e a c h i n g methods used in t h e g i f t e d program.

The

t e a c h e r s were l e s s f a v o r a b l e th an p a r e n t s toward th e t e a c h i n g methods
used in t h e program.

Only 57 p e r c e n t of t h e t e a c h e r res p o n d en ts i n d i ­

c a te d a p o s i t i v e r e s p o n s e .

Tw en ty-e ight p e r c e n t of th e t e a c h e r s i n d i ­

c a t e d a degree o f u n c e r t a i n t y (mean o f 2 . 6 ; Table 6 - 3 2 ) .

The degree

o f u n c e r t a i n t y may be c l a r i f i e d i n terms o f t h e s u g g e s t i o n s below,
made by t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s t o improve t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d p r o ­
gram in terms o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods.
The t e a c h e r s ' s u g g e s t i o n s were as f o l l o w s :
1.

More c o o r d i n a t i o n between r e g u l a r cl as sr oom a c t i v i t i e s
and t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program i s needed.

2.

A g r e a t e r v a r i e t y o f a c t i v i t i e s should be o f f e r e d t o th e
p a r t i c i p a n t s i n th e program.

3.

The number o f r e q u i r e d w r i t t e n r e p o r t s i n t h e program
sh ould be reduced.

4.

The number o f h o b b y - li k e a c t i v i t i e s should be l i m i t e d in
th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.

5.

The l i a i s o n between clas sro om t e a c h e r s and g i f t e d and
t a l e n t e d program t e a c h e r s i s needed in an a t t e m p t t o meet
t h e needs o f t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s in c l a s s ­
room s i t u a t i o n s .

6.

More i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e program i s
needed.

7.

P r o j e c t s r e q u i r e d i n th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program
should n o t be r e p e t i t i o u s o f t h e p r o j e c t s r e q u i r e d in t h e
r e g u l a r clas sr oom .

The p a r e n t s ’ s u g g e s t i o n s were as f o l l o w s :
1.

P r o v i s i o n s should be made f o r an i n c r e a s e
le n g i n g a c t i v i t i e s f o r s t u d e n t s .

in more c h a l ­

97
2.

There sho uld be p r o v i s i o n s f o r more d i v e r s i f i e d a c t i v i ­
t i e s i n th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.

3.

The c o n t e n t and as sig nm en ts sh ould be more r e l e v a n t t o
s t u d e n t s ' needs in t h e program.

4.

More c o m p e t i t i v e - t y p e a c t i v i t i e s shou ld be o f f e r e d to
p a r t i c i p a n t s in th e program.

5.

An improvement i s needed in t h e l e a r n i n g environment in
t h e classroom t o i n c l u d e a more s t r u c t u r e d appr oach.

6.

There should be a r e d u c t i o n in t h e number o f r e q u i r e d
w ritten reports.

7.

There should be an i n c r e a s e i n t h e amount o f homework
f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s in t h e program.

8.

There sho uld be p r o v i s i o n s f o r more i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n
of in s tru c tio n .

S t u d e n ts r e c e i v e ad equ ate s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r c o n t a c t in th e
program.

P a r e n ts and t e a c h e r s responded f a v o r a b l y t o t h e adequacy o f

s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r c o n t a c t in t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.

S eventy-

e i g h t p e r c e n t o f t h e r esp on ding p a r e n t s and 71 p e r c e n t o f th e re sp o n d ­
ing t e a c h e r s e x p r ess ed p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward t h i s item.

In th e

u n s t r u c t u r e d r e s p o n s e s , s u g g e s t i o n s were made by 7 p e r c e n t o f t h e
t e a c h e r s t o expand t h e amount o f time s t u d e n t s spend in t h e s p e c i a l
c l a s s e s , whereas 13 p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s made s i m i l a r s u g g e s t i o n s —
t h a t t h e amount o f time s p e n t in c l a s s e s sho uld be i n c r e a s e d .
The r e s i s t a n c e o f t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s has p r evented
e f f e c t i v e programs f o r t h e g i f t e d .

P a r e n ts and t e a c h e r s in general

were u n c e r t a i n abou t th e r e s i s t a n c e o f t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
being a f a c t o r in p r e v e n t i n g e f f e c t i v e programs f o r t h e g i f t e d .

Only

26 p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s ag re ed with t h e i t e m , while 41 p e r c e n t o f
th e r esp on di ng p a r e n t s were undecided and 32 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d (mean

98
o f 3 . 0 ; Table 5 - 3 4 ) .

Tw enty-four p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s agr eed

with t h e it e m , while 30 p e r c e n t were undecided and 43 p e r c e n t d i s ­
ag re ed (mean o f 3 . 4 ; Table 6 - 3 4 ) .
Category VI: A v a i l a b i l i t y o f
I n fo r m ati on About th e Program
This ca t e g o r y comprised t h e a t t i t u d e s p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s
ex p r e ss e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r f a m i l i a r i t y with t h e g i f t e d and t a l ­
en ted program.

A s i m i l a r p a t t e r n was e x h i b i t e d by t h e p a r e n t s and

t e a c h e r s i n t h e i r resp o n s es t o t h e items in t h i s c a t e g o r y based on th e
comparison o f mean s c o re s o f a l l ite m s .
I have been pro vid e d with enough i n f o r m a ti o n abou t t h e o b j e c ­
t i v e s o f t h e program.

A f a v o r a b l e resp ons e was i n d i c a t e d by 59 p e r c e n t

o f t h e p a r e n t s t o t h e amount o f in f o r m a t i o n they had been pro vid ed
r e l a t i v e t o th e o b j e c t i v e s o f th e program.

Twenty-seven p e r c e n t o f

th e p a r e n t s d i s a g r e e d with th e s ta t e m e n t and 13 p e r c e n t were undecided
(mean o f 2 . 6 ; Table 5 - 3 5 ) .

There were only 42 p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s

who responded f a v o r a b l y t o th e i t e m , w h ile 44 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d with
th e item and 14 p e r c e n t were undecided (mean o f 3 . 0 ; Table 6 - 3 5 ) .
E ig h t p e r c e n t o f th e p a r e n t s made u n s t r u c t u r e d s u g g e s t i o n s f o r p a r e n t s
t o be b e t t e r informed o f t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.

Similar

o p i n i o n s were e x p r ess ed by 15 p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s i n th e u n s t r u c ­
tured responses.
I have been kept well informed concerning my c h i l d ' s p r o g re s s
in th e program.

S i m i l a r o p in io n s t o t h i s item were ex p r e ss e d by p a r ­

e n t s and t e a c h e r s ab out having been ke pt well informed conce rn in g
s t u d e n t s 1 pro g res s in t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.

Fifty-three

99
p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t r e spondents i n d i c a t e d a f a v o r a b l e r e s p o n s e , while
33 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d and 13 p e r c e n t were undecided (mean o f 2 . 7 ;
Table 5 - 3 6 ) .

T h i r t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r resp ondents i n d i ­

c a t e d a f a v o r a b l e r e s p o n s e , w h ile 49 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d and 11 p e r c e n t
were undecided (mean o f 3 . 2 ; Table 6 - 3 6 ) .

Five p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h ­

e r s i n d i c a t e d i n t h e u n s t r u c t u r e d re sp onses t h a t they would l i k e to
be provided with some form o f p r o g re s s r e p o r t , whereas 6 p e r c e n t o f
th e p a r e n t s made s i m i l a r s u g g e s t i o n s .
I am a c q u a i n t e d with th e program.

Ei ghty-se ven p e r c e n t o f th e

respon ding p a r e n t s i n d i c a t e d th ey were ac q u a i n te d with t h e g i f t e d and
t a l e n t e d program i n t h e i r school d i s t r i c t , w h ile 77 p e r c e n t o f th e
respon ding t e a c h e r s agr eed with t h e it e m .
I would l i k e t o become more a c q u a i n t e d with th e program.
S e v e n t y - s i x p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s and 82 p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s
ex pres sed a d e s i r e to become more a c q u a in te d with th e program.

Accord­

ing t o th e u n s t r u c t u r e d s u g g e s t i o n s and comments from respon ding t e a c h ­
e r s , t h e need t o become more a c q u a in te d with t h e program was r e l a t e d
t o t h e g o a l s , o b j e c t i v e s , and ongoing a c t i v i t i e s in t h e program.
P a r e n t s were l e s s s p e c i f i c than t e a c h e r s about d e s i r i n g t o become more
a c q u a i n te d with t h e program in t h e i r u n s t r u c t u r e d comments and sug­
gestions.
R e s u lts o f th e S tu d e n t Q u e s t io n n a ir e Responses
The r e s u l t s o f t h e s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e resp o n s es a r e p r e ­
s e n t e d s e p a r a t e l y from t h o s e o f t h e p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s because t h e
l i m i t e d number o f c a t e g o r i e s and t h e design o f th e items on th e

T ab le 5 . — Frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s , p e r c e n ta g e s , m eans, and s ta n d a rd d e v ia tio n s - - p a r e n t q u e s tio n n a ir e .

Q u e s tio n s

S t r o n 9 ly
Agree
No.

i

Agree

Undecided
No.

NO.

I

D isa g re e
No.

or

»

S tro n g ly
D isa g re e
No.

%

No
Response
tr
m
No.

T o ta l
No.

T o ta l
%

X2

0

CATEGORY I : RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC
PROGRAM CHARACTEfclSTltS
1. My c h il d would b e n e f i t more from a program w ith in
th e home b u ild in g w here s tu d e n ts can move through
th e sch o o l y e a r s f a s t e r .

22

7 .3

93

3 0 .7

74

2 4 .4

62

2 0 .5

51

1 6 .8

1

.3

303

100

3 .0

2. The m ethods by which s tu d e n ts a r e I d e n t i f i e d f o r
p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e program a r e a c c o rd in g to
some w e ll- p la n n e d p ro c e d u re s .

40

13.2

146

4 8 .2

85

28.1

24

7 .9

8

2 .6

—

—

303

100

2 .3

.906

3. The m ethods used to s e l e c t i d e n t i f i e d s tu d e n ts
f o r t h i s program a r e s a t i s f a c t o r y .

27

8 .9

172

5 6 .8

71

23 .4

28

9 .2

4

1 .3

1

.3

303

100

2 .3

.824

4 . S tu d e n ts sh o u ld go t o d i f f e r e n t te a c h e r s f o r
d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t m a tte r c l a s s e s .

43

14.2

115

3 8 .0

74

24.4

62

2 0 .5

8

2 .6

i

.3

303

100

2 .5

1.0 4

S. The amount o f tim e s tu d e n ts spend in t h i s
program seems a d e q u a te .

14

4 .6

154

5 0 .8

41

13 .5

71

2 3 .4

22

7 .3

1

.3

303

100

2 .7

1 .0 8

6 . A dequate use i s made o f th e cocm unity r e s o u r c e s
in th e program .

29

9 .6

124

4 0 .9

63

2 0 .8

63

2 0 .8

23

7 .6

1

.3

303

100

2 .7

1.21

1.1 2
0

CATEGORY I I : OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM
7. G if te d c h il d r e n sh o u ld n o t rem ain in r e g u l a r
c la s s e s .

53

1 7 .5

102

3 3 .7

55

18.2

66

2 1 .8

3 . T h is program has had a p o s i t i v e I n f lu e n c e on
my c h i l d 's a t t i t u d e tow ard s c h o o l.

128

4 2 .2

121

39.9

36

11.9

18

5 .9

9 . S p e c ia l c l a s s e s sh o u ld be p ro v id e d w herever
p o s s ib l e f o r g i f t e d s t u d e n ts .

189

6 2 .4

96

3 1 .7

11

3 .6

7

2 .3

1 0. I th in k t h i s program i s b e n e f i c i a l to th e
s tu d e n ts in v o lv e d in i t .

167

55.1

123

4 0 .6

9

3 .0

4

1 .3

11. The program sh o u ld be expanded t o in c lu d e
more c h i ld r e n .

77

2 5 .4

107

3 5 .3

75

2 4 .B

39

12.9

4

1 .3

1

1 7 . The program sh o u ld n o t be e lim in a te d .

241

7 9 .5

48

1 5 .8

8

2 .6

4

1 .3

1

.3

1 3 . S tu d e n ts c o u ld n o t do j u s t as w ell w ith o u t
t h i s program .

139

4 5 .9

108

3 5 .6

39

12.9

12

4 .0

3

181

59.7

103

3 5 .6

3

1 .0

9

3 .0

1

27

—

303

100

2 .7

303

100

1 .6

.864

303

100

1.4

.679

303

100

1 .5

.624

.3

303

100

2 .2

1

.3

303

100

1 .2

.607

1 .0

2

.7

303

100

1.7

.891

.3

1

.3

303

100

1 .4

.700

8 .9

—

—

—

—

1 .2 3

1.0 2

CATEGORY I I I : STUDENT ENDORSEMENT
14. My c h il d e n jo y s th e program .

T a b le 5 . —C o ntinued.

Q u estio n

S tro n g ly
Agree

Agree

S tro n g ly
D isa g re e

Ho
R esponse

No.

Ho.

No

X

T o ta l
Ha.

T o ta l
T

X2

a

.718

X

169

5 5 .8

20

6 .6

9

3 .0

1

.3

1

.3

303

100

1 .7

68

2 2 .4

58

19.1

101

3 3 .3

22

7 .3

3

1 .0

303

100

2 .9

128

4 2 .2

88

2 9 .0

41

1 3 .5

4

1 .3

2

.7

303

100

2 .4

.933

181

59.7

31

10.2

6

2 .0

303

100

1 .8

.667

102

60.1

32

10.6

9

3 .0

2

.7

1

.3

303

100

1 .9

.733

„
s

150

4 9 .5

98

32.3

8

2 .6

2

.7

3

1 .0

303

100

2 .2

.753

168

5 5 .4

30

9 .9

10

3 .3

2

.7

1

.3

303

100

1 .8

.764

176

50.1

13

4 .3

5

1 .7

2

.7

2

.7

303

100

1 .7

' .675

151

4 9 .8

59

19.5

10

3 .3

3

1 .0

1

.3

303

100

2 .0

.825

145

4 7 .9

74

2 4 .4

27

8 .9

2

.7

2

.7

303

100

2 .2

.8 7 8

136

4 4 .9

79

26.1

23

7 .6

3

1 .0

1

.3

303

100

2 .2

.8 9 5

14

4 .6

17

5 .6

149

4 9 .2

119

39.3

2

.7

303

100

4 .2

.8 0 5

165

5 4 .5

31

1 0 .2

15

5 .0

2

.7

1

.3

303

100

1 .9

.8 0 3

145

4 7 .9

63

2 0 .8

26

8 .6

5

1 .7

3

1 .0

303

100

2 .2

.927

15. My c h i ld i s w i l l i n g to spend tim e s tu d y in g
f o r th e c l a s s e s in t h i s program .

_

16. My c h i l d f i n d s r e g u l a r c l a s s e s b o rin g in
com parison t o th e c l a s s e s in t h i s program .

„

No.

%

D isa g re e

No.

X

Ho.

Undecided

I

S

1 .2 3

CATEGORY IV: STLDEHT OUTCOME
17.

The program i s d e sig n e d around th e needs
and co n cern s o f each c h i l d ,

18.

The program h e lp s s tu d e n ts to th in k
in d e p e n d e n tly .

.n

,

fi(;
03

,

19. S tu d e n ts r e c e iv e g u id a n c e in f in d in g and
d e v e lo p in g id e a s .
20.

-5 .

S tu d e n ts le a r n to d eal c r i t i c a l l y w ith id e a s
in th e program .

..

Z l.

The program h e l p s s t u d e n t s t o become c r e a t i v e .

92

30.4

22.

The program h e lp s to a ro u s e s t u d e n t s ' I n t e l 1a c tu a l i n t e r e s t .

1nK
IUS

^

1

Z3. The program h e lp s s tu d e n ts to d e s i r e to
ex c e l i n t e l l e c t u a l l y .
24,

S tu d e n ts who p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s program a r e
en couraged to d e v e lo p h o b b ie s .

,,

„

2 5 . S tu d e n ts who p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s program
have a c c e s s t o a v a r i e t y o f good books.
26.

S tu d e n ts a r e m issin g th e " b a s ic s " a s a
r e s u l t o f th e program .

27. The program h e lp s s tu d e n ts to have s e l f c o n fid e n c e .
28. C h ild re n b e n e f i t s o c i a l l y by b e in g p la c e d in
groups o f s i m i l a r m ental a b i l i t y .

,

5

„

.

2

.7

„„

,Q .

.

T able 5 . — C on tinued.

Q u estio n

S tro n g ly
Agree
No.

29.

The o p p o r tu n ity t o a s s o c ia t e w ith o t h e r g i f t e d
c h ild r e n h e lp s rry c h il d a d j u s t s o c i a l l y .

30. The o p p o r tu n ity to a s s o c ia t e w ith o l d e r c h i l ­
d re n and a d u lt s t o f in d o th e r s w ith t h e i r
i n t e r e s t i s an e n r ic h in g e x p e r ie n c e .

„

Agree

£
B

E5 2S.1

Undecided

D isa g re e

No.

£

No.

£

ResJ ° n se
No.

£

T o ta l
£

*2

No.

£

1

.3

303

100

2 .3

.966

2

.7

303

100

1 .9

.722

—

303

100

1 .7

.715

3

1 .0

303

100

2.1

.776

2

.7

303

100

2 .0

.788

303

100

3 .0

1.04

—

303

100

2 .6

1.12

.3

303

100

2 .7

1.22

—

303

100

2.1

.784

.7

303

100

2 .0

.952

No.

£

125

41.3

83

2 7 .4

31

1 0 .2

166

5 4 .3

42

1 3 .9

8

2 .6

149

4 9 .2

27

B.9

7

2 .3

170

56.1

60

1 9 .B

60

5 .3

1

.3

175

5 7 .B

52

17.2

10

3 .3

4

1 .3

53

1 7 .5

124

4 0 .9

74

2 4 .4

23

7 .6

-

143

4 7 .2

40

1 3 .2

65

2 1 .5

18

5 .9

—

117

3 8 .6

41

1 3 .5

74

24.4

27

8 .9

1

6

T o ta l
No.

2.D

CATEGORY V: INSTRUCTION METHODS AND TEACHER
COMPETENCY
31.

The te a c h e r s in g i f t e d program s sh o u ld have
s p e c ia l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s .

u n

c

32.

The te a c h in g methods u sed in th e g i f t e d
program a r e s a t i s f a c t o r y .

53

5

33.

S tu d e n ts r e c e iv e a d e q u a te s t u d e n t- t e a c h e r
c o n ta c t in th e program .

60

8

27

8 .9

34. The r e s i s t a n c e o f te a c h e r s and a d m in is tr a to r s
has p re v e n te d e f f e c t i v e program s f o r th e g i f t e d .

—

—

—

CATEGORY VI: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION ABOUT

the progskm------------------------------------------35. I have been p ro v id ed w ith enough in fo rm a tio n
a b o u t th e program .

„

36. I have been k e p t w ell inform ed co n cern in g
my c h i l d 's p ro g re s s i n th e program .

-

37. I am a c q u a in te d w ith th e program .

3B 1 2 .5

211

6 9 .6

27

8 .9

23

7 .6

4

1 .3

38. I would l i k e t o become more a c q u a in te d w ith
th e program .

a? 27 1
'

147

4 8 .5

42

13.9

24

7 .9

6

2 .0

2

T able 6 . — Frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s , p e r c e n t a g e s , means, and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s —t e a c h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

Q u estio n

S t£°g?eey
No.

%

flgree
No.

t

Undecided

P is a 3r e e

D isa g ree

R esponse

No.

No.

No.

No.

I

%

1

™

x2

I

CATEGORY I : RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC
pfiO&RAH Characteristics
1. S tu d e n ts would b e n e f i t mare from an a c c e l ­
e r a t i o n program w ith in each b u il d i n g .

.

132

100

4 .0

1.02

-

-

132

100

2 .8

1.1 8

-

-

132

100

3 .0

1.1 8

.8

132

100

2 .8

1.0 7

-

132

100

2 .9

1.1 0

2

1 .5

132

100

2 .8

1 5 .2

5

3 .8 .

132

100

3.1

1.7 7

4

3 .0

2

1 .5

132

100

2 .2

1.29

5 .3

2

1 .5

1

.8

132

100

1 .8

1.09

6

4 .5

3

2 .3

-

132

100

1 .8

19.7

15

11.4

2

1 .5

1

.8

132

100

2.1

1.22

9

6 .8

3

2 .3

1

.8

1

.8

132

100

1 .5

1.02

21

15.9

12

9.1

1

.8

1

.8

132

100

2 .0

1.17

3

2 .3

8

6.1

25

18.9

43

32.6

53

4 0 .2

15

1 1 .4

50

37.9

23

17.4

33

2 5 .0

11

8 .3

9

£ .8

49

37.1

20

1 5 .2

39

2 9 .5

15

11.4

4 . More d e p a r tm e n ta liz a tio n i s needed in th e
program .

11

8 .3

31

2 3 .5

62

4 7 .0

22

1 6 .7

5

3.B

1

5. The amount o f tim e s tu d e n ts spend in t h i s
program seems a d e q u a te .

5

4 .5

51

3 8 .6

29

2 2 .0

33

2 5 .0

13

9 .8

—

6 . A dequate u se is made o f th e community
re s o u rc e s in th e program .

8

6.1

49

37.1

49

37.1

15

11.4

9

6 .7

7. G if te d c h ild r e n sh o u ld n o t rem ain in r e g u l a r
c la s s e s .

23

1 7 .4

35

2 6 .5

23

2 7 .4

26

19.6

20

8 . T h is program has had a p o s i t i v e in f lu e n c e on
th e s t u d e n ts ' a t t i t u d e tow ard s c h o o l.

33

2 5 .0

59

4 4 .7

25

18.9

9

6 .3

9 . S p e c ia l c la s s e s sh o u ld be p ro v id e d w herever
p o s s ib le f o r g i f te d s tu d e n ts .

58

4 3 .9

57

4 3 .2

7

5 .3

7

10. I th in k t h i s program i s b e n e f i c i a l to th e
s t u d e n ts in v o lv ed in i t .

54

4 0 .9

58

4 3 .9

11

8 .3

11. The program sh o u ld be expanded to in c lu d e
more c h il d r e n .

45

34. B

42

3 1 .8

26

1Z. The program sh o u ld n o t be e lim in a te d .

87

6 5 .9

31

2 3 .5

13. S tu d e n ts could n o t do j u s t a s w ell w ith o u t
t h i s program .

55

4 1 .7

42

3 1 .8

2 . The m ethods by which s tu d e n ts a r e i d e n t i f i e d
f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n a r e a c c o rd in g t o some
w e ll-p la n n e d p ro c e d u re s .
3. The methods u sed to s e l e c t i d e n t i f i e d s t u ­
d e n ts f o r t h i s program a r e s a t i s f a c t o r y .

/

1.2 3

CATEGORY I I : OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM

-

.92£

T able 6 . — C o ntinu ed .

Q u estio n

S tro n g ly
Agree
No.

1

.
No.

Undecided
tt

No.

S

D isa g ree
No.

S

S tro n g ly
D isa g ree
No.

V
m

No
Response
No.

S

T o ta l
No.

T o ta l
X

x;

CATEGORY I I I : STUDENT ENDORSEMENT
14. S tu d e n ts e n jo y th e program .

48

36.4

59

4 4 .7

16

12.1

6

4 .5

2

1 .5

1

.8

132

100

1 ..9

1 .0 8

15. S tu d e n ts a r e w il li n g tD spend tim e stu d y in g
f o r th e c l a s s e s in t h i s program .

28

21.2

64

4 8 .5

25

1 8 .9

10

7 .6

3

2 .3

2

1 .5

132

100

z,.3

1 .2 5

3

2 .3

12

9 .1

39

2 9 .5

58

4 3 .9

17

12.9

3

2 .5

132

100

2 .7

1.59

17. The program i s d e sig n e d around th e needs
and co n cern s o f each c h i l d .

16

12.1

6]

4 6 .2

28

2 1 .2

17

12.9

5

2 .8

5

3 .8

132

100

2 .7

1.59

18. The program h e lp s s tu d e n ts t o th in k
in d e p e n d e n tly .

29

22.0

70

5 3 .3

23

17.4

3

2 .3

2

1 .5

5

3 .8

132

100

2 .3

1.54

19. S tu d e n ts r e c e iv e g u id an ce in f in d in g and
d e v e lo p in g id e a s .

31

23.5

70

5 3 .0

22

1 6 .7

3

2 .3

2

1 .5

4

3 .0

132

100

2 .2

1.44

20. S tu d e n ts l e a r n t o d e a l c r i t i c a l l y w ith
id e a s in th e program .

26

19.7

56

42.4

39

2 9 .5

4

3.0

2

1 .5

5

3 .8

132

100

2 .4

1.55

21. The program h e lp s s tu d e n ts t o become c r e a t i v e .

26

19.7

57

4 3 .2

37

2 8 .0

5

3 .8

2

1 .5

5

3 .8

132

100

2 .4

1 .5 5

22. The program h e lp s t o a ro u s e s t u d e n ts ' i n t e l ­
le c tu a l i n te r e s ts .

36

27.3

70

5 3 .0

16

12.1

5

3 .8

1

.8

4

3 .0

132

100

2 .1

1.44

23. The program h e lp s s tu d e n ts to d e s i r e t o ex cel
in te lle c tu a lly .

26

19.7

60

4 5 .5

33

2 5 .0

6

4 .5

2

1 .5

5

3 .8

132

100

2 .4

1.56

24. S tu d e n ts who p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s program a r e
en couraged to develop h o b b ie s.

21

15.9

44

3 3 .3

52

39.4

B

6 .2

2

1 .5

5

3 .8

132

100

2 .6

1 .5 3

25

18.9

58

43.9

31

2 3 .5

12

9 .1

2

1 .5

4

3 .0

132

100

2 .4

1 .4 8

4

3 .0

6

4 .5

12

9 .1

68

5 1 .5

40

3 0 .3

2

132

100

4 .1

1.10

29

2 2 .0

69

52.3

25

1 8 .9

3

2 ,3

2

1 .5

4

132

100

2 .2

1 .4 3

16. S tu d e n ts f in d t h e i r r e g u la r c l a s s e s b o rin g in
com parison to t h e i r c l a s s e s in t h i s program .
CATEGORY IV: STUDENT OUTCOMES

26. S tu d e n ts a r e m issin g th e " b a s ic s " a s a
r e s u l t o f th e program .
27. The program h e lp s s t u d e n ts to have s e l f rnnflH ence.

1 .5
3 .0

104

25. S tu d e n ts who p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s program have
a c c e s s to a v a r ie ty o f goad books.

Table 6 . —Con tinued.

Q uestion

S tro n g ly
Agree
No.

X

Agree

Indecided

No.

1o.

X

D isa g re e

S tro n g ly
D isa g re e

Nd
Response

No.

No.

No.

X

X

X

T o ta l
No.

T o ta l
X

xz

a

28. C h ild re n b e n e f i t s o c i a l l y by b e in g p la c e d
i n groups o f s i m i la r m ental a b i l i t y .

19

14.4

55

4 1 .7

33

2 5 .0

17

1 2 .9

4

3 .0

4

3 .0

132

100

2 .6

1.49

29. The o p p o r tu n ity to a s s o c i a te w ith o th e r
g i f t e d c h ild r e n h e lp s th e s t u d e n ts a d j u s t
s o c ia lly .

17

12.9

54 4 0 .9

38

2 8 .8

24

10.6

5

3 .8

4

3 .0

132

100

2 .6

1 .4 8

30. The o p p o r tu n ity to a s s o c i a t e w ith o ld e r c h i l ­
d re n and a d u lt s to f in d o t h e r s w ith t h e i r
i n t e r e s t i s an e n r ic h in g e x p e r ie n c e .

33

2 5 .0

79 5 9 .8

15

1 1 .4

2

1 .5

1

.8

2

1 .5

132

100

2 .0

1.11

49

37‘]

.
55 4 1 ' 7

19

14 .4

7

5 .3

2

1 .5

...

—

132

100

1 .9

.9 3

q B

<=- 1377

aa

28 .8

9

6 .3

6

4 .5

3

2 .3

132

100

2 .6

1.34

CATEGORY V: INSTRUCTION HETHODS AND TEACHER

31. The te a c h e r s in th e g i f t e d program sh o u ld
have s p e c ia l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s .
32. The te a c h in g methods used in th e en rich m en t
program a r e s a t i s f a c t o r y .
33. S tu d e n ts r e c e iv e ad e q u a te s tu d e n t- t e a c h e r
c o n ta c t in th e program .
34. The r e s i s t a n c e o f te a c h e r s and a d m in is tr a to r s
has p re v e n te d e f f e c t i v e program s f o r th e g i f t e d .

105

C S'F E Y e n c y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

24

1D ,
18*2

70

,, 53‘ 3

26

1 9 .7

9

6 .8

2

1 .5

1

.8

132

100

2 .2

1 .0 5

a

6.1

23

17.4

40

3 0 .3

40

3 0 .3

17

12.9

4

3 .0

132

100

3 .4

1 .4 6

13

9 .8

42

31.8

19

14.4

35

2 6 .5

23

17.4

—

—

132

100

3 .0

1 .2 9

15

11.4

45

34.1

20

1 5 .2

2

1 .5

132

100

3 .2

1 .4 6

CATEGORY VI: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION ABOUT

ThTFKBGBM- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

35. I have been p ro v id ed w ith enough in fo rm a tio n
a b o u t th e o b je c tiv e s o f th e program .
36. 1 have been k e p t w e ll inform ed co n cern in g rqy
s t u d e n t 's p ro g re s s in t h e program .

..

37. I am a c q u a in te d w ith th e program .

17 1 2 .9

85 6 4 .4

5

3 .8

18

13.6

6

4 .5

1

.8

132

100

2 .3

1.16

no Jo. 4

bu 45.S

16

12.1

6

4 .5

1

.8

1

.8

132

100

1 .9

1.05

38. I would l i k e to become more a c q u a in te d w ith
tn e program .

„ ,

,q

_

106
q u e s t i o n n a i r e made i t i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o p r e s e n t them with t h e p a r e n t s '
and t e a c h e r s ' r e s p o n s e s .
Category I : S tu dent Outcomes
The s t u d e n t outcomes c a t e g o r y comprised t h e a t t i t u d e s s tu d e n t s
he ld conc er ning t h e consequences o r r e s u l t s o f t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in
th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.
The program he lps me to excel i n t e l l e c t u a l l y .

E igh ty -seve n

p e r c e n t o f t h e r esp ond ing s t u d e n t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e program helped
them t o excel i n t e l l e c t u a l l y , w h ile 11 p e r c e n t were undecided.
S e v e n t y - s i x p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s and 66 p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s
endorsed t h e item.

P a r e n ts and t e a c h e r s were l e s s s u p p o r t i v e o f t h e

i tern.
I g e t more out o f t h i s c l a s s than t h e c l a s s e s a t my r e g u l a r
school.

S i x t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f th e s t u d e n t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t they got

more out o f t h e c l a s s f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s th an t h e c l a s s e s
a t t h e i r r e g u l a r s c h o o l, w h ile 22 p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s were unde­
cided.

The t e a c h e r s responded l e s s f a v o r a b l y t o t h i s item when com­

pared w ith t h e s t u d e n t s and p a r e n t s .

Fifty-seven percent of the

t e a c h e r s d i s a g r e e d with t h e ite m , 11 p e r c e n t endor sed t h e i t e m , and
30 p e r c e n t were undecided.

T h i r t y - n i n e p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s sup­

p o r t e d t h e it e m , 47 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d , and 19 p e r c e n t were undecided.
I make good use o f my t a l e n t in t h i s c l a s s .

According t o 81

p e r c e n t of t h e s t u d e n t r e s p o n d e n t s , good use was made o f t h e i r t a l e n t
i n t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.
were undecided about th e item.

Sixteen percent of the students

107
What I l e a r n in t h i s c l a s s should be very h e l p f u l in my r e g u ­
l a r school work.

S e v e n ty - n in e p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t resp onden ts

ex p r e ss e d a f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e toward th e e f f e c t s o f what they l e a r n e d
in th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program as being h e l p f u l in t h e i r r e g u l a r
school work.

Twelve p e r c e n t o f th e res p o n d en ts were undecided.

The program helps me t o t h i n k w ith o u t hel p from o t h e r s .
According to 73 p e r c e n t o f t h e responding s t u d e n t s , th e program helped
them to t h i n k i n d e p e n d e n t l y , w h ile 19 p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s were
undecided.

In comparing th e r e s u l t s o f t h i s item w ith t h e r esp onses

from p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s , p a r e n t s were more f a v o r a b l e th an were th e
t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t s .

E i g h t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s agr eed

with th e item, and 75 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s were in agreement.
My own id e a s a r e b e t t e r ac c e p t e d by t h e s p e c i a l program t e a c h e r
than by my r e g u l a r cl as sr oo m t e a c h e r .

In g e n e r a l , s t u d e n t s tended to

e x p r e ss f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program,
but only 54 p e r c e n t o f them agreed t h a t t h e s p e c i a l program t e a c h e r
acc epted t h e i r id e a s more r e a d i l y than d i d t h e i r r e g u l a r classroom
teacher.

T h i r t y p e r c e n t o f th e s t u d e n t s were undecided.
The program help s me t o l e a r n t o g iv e reaso ns f o r a g r e e i n g or

d i s a g r e e i n g w it h i d e a s .

In comparing t h e s t u d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e toward t h e

program h e l p i n g them t o t h i n k c r i t i c a l l y w it h t h e a t t i t u d e s o f p a r e n t s
and t e a c h e r s , an o v e r a l l f a v o r a b l e r espons e was i n d i c a t e d .

However,

t h e s t u d e n t s responded l e s s f a v o r a b l y th a n th e p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s .
Only 54 p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s ag re ed with t h i s item i n comparison t o
63 p e r c e n t o f t h e r esp on ding p a r e n t s and 62 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s .
T h i r t y - s i x p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s i n d i c a t e d they were undecided.

108

The program h e lp s me t o become c r e a t i v e .

Eighty-six percent

o f t h e s t u d e n t s and p a r e n t s agreed t h a t the program helped s t u d e n t s to
become c r e a t i v e .

Te achers were l e s s f a v o r a b l e ; on ly 63 p e r c e n t o f

them were in agreement w ith t h i s item.
The program helps t o make my schoolwork i n t e r e s t i n g .

Stud ents

responded l e s s f a v o r a b l y t o t h i s item th an d id p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s .
S e v e n t y - n in e p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s responded f a v o r a b l y t o t h e i d e a ,
whereas 80 p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s and 92 p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s i n d i ­
c a te d a f a v o r a b l e r e s p o n s e .

This goal i s common to both t h e S t a t e

o f M ic higan's P i l o t Program and t h o s e schools su rv e y e d .
The program en courages me t o develop h o b b i e s .

I t was i n d i c a t e d

by 73 p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t r e sp o n d e n ts t h a t th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
program encouraged them to develop h o b b i e s , w h il e 16 p e r c e n t were
undecided and 10 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d .

When compared with t h e p a r e n t

and t e a c h e r r e s p o n d e n t s , t h e s t u d e n t s were more f a v o r a b l e to t h i s item
than were t h e p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s .

S ix ty -f iv e percent of the parents

and 49 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s responded in f a v o r o f th e item.
I have th e same neighborhood f r i e n d s now t h a t I had b e f o r e
e n t e r i n g th e program.

P a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program

did n o t a p p e a r t o measurably a f f e c t th e p a r t i c i p a n t s ' neighborhood
f r i e n d s h i p s s i n c e 80 p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s ag re ed o r s t r o n g l y ag re ed
w i th t h i s s ta t e m e n t w h il e 11 p e r c e n t were undecided and 9 p e r c e n t d i s ­
a greed.
Be i n g i n t h i s program has caused me problems w ith o t h e r s t u ­
d e n ts a t m,y r e g u l a r s c h o o l .

P a r t i c i p a n t s in th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d

program r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e program d id not

109
cause any s i g n i f i c a n t problems w i th o t h e r s t u d e n t s a t s c h o o l.

More

s p e c i f i c a l l y , 79 p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s d i s a g r e e d t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i n g
i n t h e program caused them problems with o t h e r s t u d e n t s a t s c h o o l.
The s t u d e n t s in t h i s program were more fun to be with than my
r e g u l a r school c l a s s m a t e s .

S tu d e n ts d i d not show a d e f i n i t e t r e n d

toward r esp on ding t o t h i s item .

T h ir ty - f o u r percent of the students

agre ed w it h th e i te m , 33 p e r c e n t were undec ided , and 33 p e r c e n t d i s ­
agre ed with t h e idea (mean o f 2 . 9 ; Table 7 - 1 3 ) .
Category I I : I n s t r u c t i o n Methods
and Teacher Competency
This s c a l e was composed o f t h e a t t i t u d e s s t u d e n t s e x p r ess ed
co nce rning t h e s k i l l s , a b i l i t i e s , and methodologies o f t e a c h e r s o f
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .
I l i k e t h e way th e t e a c h e r in t h i s program t e a c h e s .

A posi-

t i v e a t t i t u d e was i n d i c a t e d by t h e s t u d e n t s t o t h e way th e t e a c h e r in
t h e program t a u g h t .

E i g h t y - n i n e p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s responded

p o s i t i v e l y to t h e item.
The c l a s s i s very i n t e r e s t i n g .

According t o 88 p e r c e n t o f t h e

s t u d e n t r e s p o n d e n t s , t h e c l a s s e s f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s were
very i n t e r e s t i n g .

Nine p e r c e n t were undecided and 3 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d

w it h t h e item.
The c l a s s was n o t as i n t e r e s t i n g as I th o u g h t i t would b e .
Fourteen p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s i n d i c a t e d t h e c l a s s was not as i n t e r ­
e s t i n g as th ey a n t i c i p a t e d i t would b e , 11 p e r c e n t were und ec ided , and
74 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d with t h e item.

no
Category I I I : Over all E v a lu a ti o n
o f th e Program
This c a t e g o r y comprised th e a t t i t u d e s s t u d e n t s had con ce rn ing
th e o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n o f th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program i n t h e i r
school.
I would gain more from a program l i k e t h i s in my own b u i l d i n g .
Only 19 p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s agreed t h a t th ey would gai n more from
a g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program in t h e i r own b u i l d i n g .

F ifty -six per­

c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s were un decided, 23 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d , and 2 p e r ­
c e n t d i d n o t respond t o t h e item (mean o f 3 . 1 ; Table 7 - 1 7 ) .

Four o f

th e school d i s t r i c t s surveyed i n d i c a t e d t h a t s t u d e n t s a t t e n d e d c l a s s e s
in th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program in t h e i r own b u i l d i n g .

S tudents

in t h e s e school d i s t r i c t s tended t o respond undecidedly t o t h e item on
th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
The c l a s s l a s t s too l o n g .

Eig hty-o ne p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s

responded n e g a t i v e l y t o t h e l e n g t h o f t h e c l a s s .

Six p e r c e n t o f the

resp ondents ag re ed t h a t t h e c l a s s l a s t e d too long and 10 p e r c e n t were
undecided.
The program i s n o t worth my time and e f f o r t .

Three p e r c e n t

o f t h e r esp on ding s t u d e n t s ag re ed t h a t t h e program was n o t worth t h e
time and e f f o r t , w h ile 88 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d and 7 p e r c e n t were unde­
c id e d .
I t h i n k t h e program i s g r e a t .

E i g h t y - s i x p e r c e n t o f th e

re sp o n d en ts i n d i c a t e d they t h o u g h t t h e program was g r e a t , while 9 p e r ­
c e n t were undecided and 5 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d .

Ill

The program i s b o r i n g .

According t o 90 p e r c e n t o f th e r es pon d­

e n t s , th e program was n o t b o r i n g ; only 4 p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s
responded p o s i t i v e l y t o t h e idea and 7 p e r c e n t were undecided.
I am p le a s e d with t h e amount o f time I spend in t h i s program.
S i x t y - s i x p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s su gges ted th ey were p l e a s e d with th e
amount o f time th ey s p e n t in th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program, while
14 p e r c e n t were undecided and 20 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d .
I have b e n e f i t e d from t h i s program.

A t t i t u d e s con ce rn ing th e

g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program being b e n e f i c i a l t o t h e s t u d e n t s appeared
f a v o r a b l e , as 87 p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s f e l t they had b e n e f i t e d from
th e program, 10 p e r c e n t were und ec id ed , and 2 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d .

When

compared t o t h e t e a c h e r and p a r e n t r e s p o n s e s , t h e s t u d e n t s responded
more f a v o r a b l y to t h e item than did 85 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s and
l e s s f a v o r a b l y t o t h e item than 96 p e r c e n t o f t h e p a r e n t s .
S p ecial c l a s s e s should be provided f o r g i f t e d c h i l d r e n .
E i g h t y - f o u r p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s were i n f a v o r o f s p e c i a l c l a s s e s
being provided f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s , 11 p e r c e n t were unde­
c i d e d , and 5 p e r c e n t d i s a g r e e d .

N i n e t y - f o u r p e r c e n t o f th e p a r e n t s

and 93 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s endorsed t h e i d e a .

S tu d en ts were l e s s

s u p p o r t i v e o f t h e item.
The program should be d i s c o n t i n u e d .

Ninety-four percent of

t h e s t u d e n t s responded un favora bly t o t h e item o f d i s c o n t i n u i n g th e
program.

Only 2 p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s fav ore d t h e i d e a , and 4 p e r ­

c e n t were undecided.

N i n e t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f th e p a r e n t s and 89 p e r ­

c e n t of th e t e a c h e r s were i n f a v o r o f c o n t i n u i n g th e program.

112

I would
Only 58 p e r c e n t

l i k e t o s e e more s t u d e n t s in c lu d e d in t h e program.
o f th e s t u d e n t s i n d i c a t e d th ey would l i k e t o s e e more

s t u d e n t s i n c lu d e d in t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.
p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s were undecided about t h e item .

Twenty-five
S ix ty p e r c e n t

o f th e p a r e n t s and 66 pec en t o f th e t e a c h e r s i n d i c a t e d a p o s i t i v e
r es ponse to th e

item.

Teachers i n d i c a t e d a more f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e

toward th e item

than p a r e n t s o r s t u d e n t s .

I a t t e n d th e c l a s s because m.y p a r e n t s encourage me t o do s o .
S i x t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t o f th e s t u d e n t resp onden ts s t a t e d th ey did not
a t t e n d t h e c l a s s because o f p a r e n t a l encouragement, whereas 18 p e r c e n t
i n d i c a t e d they a t t e n d e d t h e c l a s s because t h e i r p a r e n t s encouraged
them t o do s o.

T h i r t e e n p e r c e n t o f t h e res p o n d en ts were undecided.

Category IV; S tu d e n t Endorsement
This s c a l e c o n s i s t e d o f th e a t t i t u d e s s t u d e n t s had con ce rn in g
t h e i r approval o r s u p p o rt o f t h e program.

According to t h e mean

s c o r e o f each item based on t h e n e a r e s t whole number, th e s t u d e n t s
agr ee d on t h r e e o f t h r e e {100 p e r c e n t ) it e m s .

S tu d e n ts responded

more f a v o r a b l y t o t h i s c a t e g o r y than did t h e p a r e n t s o r t e a c h e r s .
I am w i l l i n g to spend tim e s tu d y i n g f o r th e c l a s s .

Sev enty-

n in e p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t resp onden ts i n d i c a t e d a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e
toward th e amount o f time they s p e n t s tu d y in g f o r th e c l a s s .
p e r c e n t o f t h e res p o n d en ts were undecided.

Fifteen

When compared t o 90 p e r c e n t

o f th e p a r e n t s and 70 p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s who e x p r ess ed a f a v o r a b l e
a t t i t u d e toward t h e i te m , t h e s t u d e n t s i n d i c a t e d a l e s s f a v o r a b l e a t t i ­
tude th an p a r e n t s and a more f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e th a n t e a c h e r s .

113
I enjoy t h e program.

N i n e t y - f o u r p e r c e n t o f th e s t u d e n t s

i n d i c a t e d they enjoyed t h e program, while only 4 p e r c e n t were unde­
c id e d .
I f I were chosen t o be in th e c l a s s a g a i n , I would a t t e n d .
According t o 90 p e r c e n t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s , th ey would a t t e n d th e
c l a s s ag ai n i f they were chosen.
In summary, t h e e x p r e s s e d a t t i t u d e s o f s t u d e n t s toward th e
g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program were g e n e r a l l y f a v o r a b l e .

According to

t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h e m a j o r i t y o f th e s t u d e n t s i n d i ­
c a t e d they enjoyed p a r t i c i p a t i n g in th e program and b e n e f i t e d i n t e l ­
l e c t u a l l y from t h e e x p e r i e n c e s .

As e x p r ess ed by th e s t u d e n t s , they

did n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e program had any s i g ­
n i f i c a n t s o c i a l e f f e c t on them.
R e l i a b i l i t y A nalys is o f C a t e g o r i e s
The r e l i a b i l i t y o f th e t h r e e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s - - p a r e n t , t e a c h e r ,
and s tu d e n t - - w a s determined using th e r e s u l t s gained from a d m i n i s t e r ­
ing th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s in t h i s s tu d y .

This s e c t i o n

r e p o r t s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h a t work.
Cronbach's alp ha t e s t o f r e l i a b i l i t y was performed on t h r e e
c a t e g o r i e s { s t u d e n t outcome c a t e g o r y , th e o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n c a t e g o r y ,
and t h e endorsement c a t e g o r y ) t h a t appeared on a l l t h r e e q u e s t i o n ­
n a i r e s ( p a r e n t , t e a c h e r , and s t u d e n t ) .

Each o f t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s con­

s i s t e d o f items t h a t were a l i k e (Cronbach, 1949).
Alpha v a lu e s were determined t h a t i n d i c a t e t h e deg re e o f r e l i a ­
b i l i t y based on t h e v alu e o f 1; t h a t i s , t h e c l o s e r th e al pha v alu e i s
t o 1, t h e more r e l i a b l e t h e d ata a r e .

T able 7 .— F requency d i s t r i b u t i o n s , p e r c e n ta g e s , m eans, and s ta n d a rd d e v i a ti o n s —s tu d e n t q u e s tio n n a ir e .
S tro n g ly
Agree

Agree

Undecided

D isag ree

No.

No.

S tro n g ly
D isa g ree
«
No.

No
Response

T o ta l
No.

T o tal
X

X2

a

--

508

100

1 .7

.732

—

—

508

100

2.1

.2

—

—

508

100

1 .8

.805

2

.4

—

—

508

100

1 .8

.927

6 .5

5

1 .0

—

—

508

100

2 .0

.915

49

9 .6

28

5 .5

—

—

508

100

2 .4

3 5 .6

47

9 .2

6

1 .2

—

—

508

100

2 .4

.909

57

11.2

15

2 .9

508

100

1 .6

.789

4 2 .6

84

16.5

17

3 .3

4

.8

—

—

508

100

1 .8

.352

206

4 0 .5

81

15.9

47

9 .2

7

1 .4

—

--

508

100

2 .0

.990

4 1 .8

193

3 7 .9

54

1 0 .6

29

5 .7

19

3 .7

—

—

508

100

1.9

1 .0 4

20

3 .9

45

8 .8

43

8 .4

124

2 4 .4

276

54 .2

—

-

508

100

4.1

1 .1 4

95

18.7

78

15.3

16B

33 .0

96

1 8 .9

71

13.9

—

-

508

100

2 .9

1 .2 8

14. 1 l i k e th e way th e te a c h e r in t h i s program
te a c h e s .

280

55.0

174

3 4 .2

32

6 .3

13

2 .6

8

1 .6

1

.2

508

100

1 .6

.903

15. The c l a s s i s v ery i n t e r e s t i n g .

263

51.7

185

3 6 .3

44

8 .6

9

1 .8

6

1 .2

1

.2

508

100

1 .6

.871

22

4 .3

52

1 0 .2

55

1 0 .8

147

28.9

231

4 5 .4

1

.2

508

100

4.0

Q uestion

X

m

No.

X

No.

X

1. The program h e lp s me t o ex c e l i n t e l l e c t u a l l y .

205

4 0 .3

236

4 6 .4

58

11.4

8

1 .6

1

2 . I g e t more o u t o f t h i s c l a s s th a n t h e c l a s s e s
a t my r e g u l a r sc h o o l.

166

32.6

167

3 2 .8

115

2 2 .6

49

9 .6

11

2 .2

3. I make good u se o f my t a l e n t in t h i s c l a s s .

1B6

36.5

227

4 4 ,6

79

1 5 .5

14

2 .8

2

4. What I le a r n in t h i s c l a s s sh o u ld be very
h e lp f u l in my r e g u l a r sc h o o l w ork.

205

4 0 .3

199

39.1

63

12,4

39

7 .7

5. The program h e lp s me to th in k w ith o u t h e lp
from o th e r s .

150

29.5

221

4 3 .4

99

19.4

33

6 . My own id e a s a r e b e t t e r a c c e p te d by th e s p e c ia l
program te a c h e r th an by my r e g u la r classro o m
te a c h e r .

128

25.1

146

2 8 .7

157

3 0 .8

7. The program h e lp s me to g iv e re a so n s f o r
d is a p p ro v in g id e a s .

83

16.3

191

37 .5

181

8 . The program h e lp s me t o become c r e a t i v e .

253

4 9 .7

183

3 6 .0

9. The program h e lp s to a ro u s e my i n t e l l e c t u a l
in te re s t.

166

36.5

217

10. The program e n co u rag es me to d evelop h o b b ie s .

167

3 2 .8

11. 1 e n jo y th e same neighborhood f r i e n d s h i p I
d id b e f o re e n te r in g th e program .

213

12. Being in t h i s program has cau sed me problem s
w ith o t h e r s tu d e n ts a t sc h o o l.
13. The s t u d e n ts in t h i s program w ere more fu n to
be w ith th an my r e g u la r school c la s s m a te s .

No.

X

CATEGORY I : STUDENT OUTCOMES
.2

1 .0 5

1 .12

CATEGORY^: ^INSTRUCTIONAL HETHOOS AMD

16. The c l a s s was n o t a s i n t e r e s t i n g as I
th o u g h t i t would b e.

l.ia

T able 7*—Co ntinu ed .

Q uestion

S tro n g ly
Agree
No.

*

Undecided

D isa g ree

I

No.

X

No.

Agree
No.

t

S tro n g ly
D isa g re e

No
R esponse

No.

X

No.

Z

T o ta l
No.

T o ta l
X

X2

0

CATEGORY I I I : OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM
51

10.0

45

6 .8

287

56.4

79

1 5 .5

36

7.1

10

2 .0

50B

100

3.1

1 .2 7

10. The c l a s s l a s t s to o lo n g .

10

2 .0

20

3 .9

53

1 0 .4

150

2 9 .5

263

5 1 .7

12

2 .4

508

100

4 .3

1 .1 8

7

1 .4

7

1 .4

36

7.1

124

24.4

322

6 3 .3

12

2 .4

503

100

4 .6

1 .0 5

317

6 2 .3

120

2 3 .6

47

9 .2

18

3 .5

6

1.2

—

—

508

100

1 .5

.836

7

1.4

12

2 .4

33

6 .5

116

2 2 .8

340

6 6 .8

—

—

503

100

4 .5

.830

2 2 . I am p le a s e d w ith t h e amount o f tim e I Spend
in t h i s program .

152

2 9 .9

185

3 6 .3

71

13.9

58

11.4

42

8 .3

—

—

508

100

2 .3

23. I have b e n e f ite d from t h i s program .

250

49.1

193

3 7 .9

53

10.4

9

1 .8

3

.6

—

—

508

100

1 .6

.781

24. S p e c ia l c l a s s e s sh o u ld be p ro v id e d f o r
g i f t e d c h ild r e n .

263

5 1 .7

164

32 .2

54

1 0 .6

16

3.1

11

2 .2

—

508

100

1 .7

.931

8

1 .6

4

.8

18

3 .5

89

17.5

389

7 6.4

—

—

508

100

4 .6

.728

142

27.9

151

2 9 .7

127

2 5 .0

62

12 .2

26

5.1

—

—

SOB

100

2 .3

1.16

34

6 .7

58

1 1 .4

68

1 3 .4

144

2 8 .3

204

40.1

—

—

508

100

3 .8

1 .2 5

28. I am w i l l i n g to spend tim e s tu d y in g f o r
th e c l a s s .

176

3 4 .6

226

4 4 .4

75

1 4 .7

22

4 .3

9

t .8

—

-

508

100

1 .9

.908

29. 1 e n jo y th e program .

335

6 5 .8

144

2 8 .3

19

3 .7

7

1.4

3

.6

—

—

508

100

1 .4

.638

30. I f I w ere chosen to be in th e c l a s s a g a in ,
1 would a tt e n d .

365

7 1 .7

94

I B .5

29

5 .7

11

2 .2

9

1 .8

--

--

508

100

1.4

.839

19. The program i s n o t w orth th e tim e and
e f f o r t r e q u ir e d .
20. I th in k t h e program i s g r e a t .
21. The c l a s s i s b o rin g .

25. The program sh o u ld be d is c o n tin u e d .
2G. I would l i k e to s e e more s tu d e n ts in c lu d e d
in th e program .
2 7 . 1 a tte n d th e c l a s s b e c a u se ipy p a r e n ts
en co u rag e me to do s o .

1.24

CATEGORY IV: STUDENT ENDORSEMENT

i

115

1 7 . I w ould g a in more from an en rich m en t program
in my awn b u ild in g .

116

The purpose o f th e t e s t o f r e l i a b i l i t y was t o de term in e how
c o n s i s t e n t t h e items were w i t h i n t h e c a t e g o r y and to o b t a i n an e s t i ­
mate o f t h e amount o f random e r r o r .
The r e s u l t s o f th e r e l i a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s o f t h e t h r e e c a t e ­
g o r i e s t h a t c o n s i s t e d o f s i m i l a r items on t h e t h r e e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a r e
shown in Table 8.

This t a b l e shows th e degree t o which items in a

c a t e g o r y measured th e same u n d e r ly in g a t t i t u d e .

In t h e s t u d e n t o u t ­

come ca t e g o r y t h e r e were f i v e items t h a t were s i m i l a r on t h e t h r e e
q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t h a t showed an al pha .73597.

The o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n

c a te g o r y c o n s i s t e d o f f i v e items t h a t were s i m i l a r on th e t h r e e q u e s ­
t i o n n a i r e s t h a t showed an alp ha .55527, whereas t h e endorsement c a t e ­
gory c o n s i s t e d o f two s i m i l a r items on a l l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s with an
alph a value o f .64365.

The alpha value s i n d i c a t e d a r e a s o n a b l e degree

o f c o n s i s t e n c y in t h e i te m s.
A more i n - d e p t h as ses sm ent o f t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f a l l c a t e g o r i e s
on each q u e s t i o n n a i r e was performed t o d eterm ine wh ethe r th e r e l i a b i l ­
i t y c o e f f i c i e n t was a c c e p t a b l e in t h e r e l i a b i l i t y i n d i c e s f o r th e
p a r e n t , t e a c h e r , and s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s in a l l c a t e g o r i e s .
r e s u l t s a r e r e p o r t e d i n Table 9.

These

Where no alpha v a lu e s a r e shown on

t h e t a b l e , t h i s i n d i c a t e s th e c a t e g o r y was not in c l u d e d on t h a t p a r ­
t i c u l a r questionnaire.
Table 8 shows t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s o f items as the y app ea re d in
d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s on th e t h r e e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a d m i n i s t e r e d to
s t u d e n t s , p a r e n t s , and t e a c h e r s in t h e t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n .
The al pha v a l u e s , which were based on t h e Cronbach alph a t e s t
o f r e l i a b i l i t y , i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e items in t h e s e t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s

Table 8 . — Item s i m i l a r i t i e s on th e s t u d e n t , p a r e n t , and t e a c h e r q u e s tio n n a ir e s ad min istered in
the 11 school d i s t r i c t s in the sample populatio n.
Student
Ques tionna ire

Parent
Ques tionnair e

Teacher
Ques tio nn aire

Total No. o f
S im ila r Items

Student Outcome
Category
Item numbers
1,5,8,9,10

Student Outcome
Category
Item numbers
23,18,21,22,24

Student Outcome
Category
Item numbers
23,18,21 ,22,24

Student Outcome
Category

Overall Evalua­
t i o n Category
Item numbers
22,23,24,25,26

Overall Evalua­
t i o n Category
Item numbers
5,10,9,12,11

Overall Evalua­
t i o n Category
Item numbers
5,10,9,12,11

Overall Evalua­
t i o n Category

Student Endorse­
ment Category
Item numbers
28, 29

Student Endorse­
ment Category
Item numbers
14,15

Student Endorse­
ment Category
Item numbers
14,15

Student Endorse­
ment Category

Alpha
Values

.73597

.55527

.64365

118

measured t h e same a r e a s .

They were an e s t i m a t e o f how much o f what

was r e p r e s e n t e d by a s co re was due t o measuring th e same phenomenon,
r a t h e r than random e r r o r .

The s t u d e n t outcome c a t e g o r y (alpha val ue

.73597) had .26 e s t i m a t e e r r o r .

The o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n c ate g o r y

( alph a value .55527) had .44 e s t i m a t e e r r o r .

The s t u d e n t endorsement

c a te g o r y (alpha value .64365) had .35 e s t i m a t e e r r o r in t h e measure­
ment.
The c l o s e r t h e alpha value was t o 1, th e l e s s e r the e s ti m a t e d
e r r o r ; and t h e c l o s e r t h e valu e was t o 0 , th e g r e a t e r t h e e s ti m a t e d
error.

The alp h a values shown in Table 8 i n d i c a t e t h e items in th e

t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s approached Mehrens' av erage f o r a t t i t u d e s c a l e s o f
.75.
P a r e n t R e l i a b i l i t y I n d ic e s
The r e l i a b i l i t y o f c a t e g o r i c a l items f o r th e p a r e n t , t e a c h e r ,
and s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i s shown in Table 9.

The r espons e t o s p e ­

c i f i c program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c a t e g o r y (items 1-6) f o r th e p a r e n t s had
an alp ha v alu e o f .52433.

In t h e o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n c a t e g o r y (items

7 - 1 3 ) , th e a lp h a val ue was .70096.

The s t u d e n t endorsement c ateg o r y

( items 14-16) had an alph a v alu e o f .58652.

The al pha v alu e of t h e

s t u d e n t outcome ca te g o r y (items 17-30) was .88807, w h ile t h e i n s t r u c ­
t i o n a l methods and t e a c h e r competency c a t e g o r y (item s 31-34) had an
a lp h a v alu e o f .73513.

In t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f i n fo r m a ti o n ca te g o r y

( items 3 5 - 3 8 ), t h e al p ha value was .75859.
The i n d i c a t e d alp ha value s f o r th e c a t e g o r i c a l items on t h e
p a r e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e approached o r exceeded Mehrens' av er ag e f o r
a t t i t u d e s c a l e s o f .75.

119
Table 9 . - - R e l l a b i l i t y i n d i c e s f o r the p a r e n t , t e a c h e r , and s tu d e n t
q u e s t i o n n a i r e s according to c a t e g o r i e s , based on Cronbach's
alpha t e s t o f r e l i a b i l i t y .
Categories

Parent
Alpha Value

Teacher
Alpha Value

Student
Alpha Value

Response to s p e c i f i c
program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

.52433

.61643

—

Overall e v a l u a t i o n

.70096

.81836

.63359

Student endorsement

.58652

.73472

.66500

Student outcomes

.88807

.97261

.64886

I n s t r u c t i o n methods and
t e a c h e r competency

.73513

.60350

.77311

A v a ila b ility of in fo r­
mation

.75859

.79324

—

Teacher R e l i a b i l i t y Indices
The response to s p e c i f i c program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s cat eg ory
(items 1-6) f o r t e a c h e r s had an alpha value o f .61643.

The o v e r a l l

e v a l u a t i o n category (items 7-13) showed an alpha value o f .81836.

In

the s tu d e n t endorsement ca t e g o r y (items 14-16), the alpha value was
.73472.

The s t u d e n t outcome category (items 17-30) had an alpha value

of .97261.

The i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods and t e a c h e r competency cat eg ory

(items 31-34) showed an alpha value o f .60350, whereas t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y
o f in fo r m ati o n cate gory (items 35-38) showed an alpha value o f .79324.
The i n d i c a t e d alpha values f o r the c a t e g o r i c a l items on the
te a c h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e approached o r exceeded Mehrens' average f o r
a t t i t u d e s c a l e s o f .75.

120
S tu d e n t R e l i a b i l i t y I n d ic e s
The s t u d e n t outcome c a te g o r y (items 1-13) showed an alp ha
v al ue o f ,64886.

In th e i n s t r u c t i o n methods and t e a c h e r competency

c a t e g o r y (items 1 4 - 1 6 ) , th e al pha val ue was .77311.

The o v e r a l l

e v a l u a t i o n ca te g o r y (item s 17-27) showed an alph a value o f .63359,
whereas t h e s t u d e n t endorsement c a t e g o r y (items 28-30) had an al pha
v al ue o f .66500.
The i n d i c a t e d alp h a v a lu e s f o r t h e c a t e g o r i c a l items on th e
s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e approached Mehrens' av er ag e f o r a t t i t u d e s c a l e s
o f .75.
Ta ble 9 shows th e r e l i a b i l i t y i n d i c e s f o r th e p a r e n t , t e a c h e r ,
and s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a c c o r d in g t o c a t e g o r i e s based on Cronbach's
alp ha t e s t o f r e l i a b i l i t y .
Where no alp ha valu es a r e shown in t h e t a b l e , i t i n d i c a t e s
t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s were not i n c l u d e d on t h a t p a r t i c u l a r q u e s t i o n n a i r e
(student questionnaire:

r espons e t o s p e c i f i c program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

and a v a i l a b i l i t y o f i n f o r m a ti o n c a t e g o r i e s ) .

The al ph a v a l u e s were

an e s t i m a t e o f how much o f what was r e p r e s e n t e d by a s c o r e was due t o
measuring t h e same phenomenon, r a t h e r than random e r r o r .

The alpha

v alues o b t a i n e d i n d i c a t e d an a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l o f r e l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e s e
categories.
M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a ly s is o f Variance
The r e s u l t s o f t h e m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e a r e
shown i n Table 10.

This te c h n i q u e was performed f o r t h e purpose o f

comparing t h e t h r e e groups o f resp o n d e n ts ( p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and

121

s t u d e n t s ) over a l l t h r e e dependent v a r i a b l e s ( s t u d e n t outcome, o v e r ­
a l l e v a l u a t i o n , and s t u d e n t endorsement c a t e g o r i e s ) which c o n s i s t e d
o f i d e n t i c a l s t a t e m e n t s on t h e t h r e e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s to determine i f
t h e t h r e e g roups' resp o n s es t o t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s were i d e n t i c a l .

Table 1 0 . - - R e s u l t o f m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e between p a r e n t ,
t e a c h e r , and s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and t h e i r c o n t r a s t i n g
c a t e g o r i e s ; s t e p down t e s t s .
MAN0VA T e s t

Contrasting Categories
Questionnai res

S tuden t
Outcome

Overall
E v a lu a tio n

S tuden t
Endorsement

F-Value

P

Teacher-parent

+

X

+

13.8633

.0001

Student-parent

4-

+

X

6.6420

.0002

Teacher-student

+

+

+

22.1259

.0001

R e s u l t s o f t h e s t e p down F ' s :

+ = The c o n t r a s t was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r
th a t variable.
x = The c o n t r a s t was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t
for th a t variable.

The F - t e s t was used t o compare t h e t h r e e groups over a l l
t h r e e dependent v a r i a b l e s and t o determine which v a r i a b l e c o n t r i b u t e d
t o th e outcome.

The l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e was .05.

This t e s t i n d i ­

c a t e d t h a t a comparison between th e t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s on a l l t h r e e
v a r i a b l e s d id r ev eal d i f f e r e n c e s .

However, t h e d i f f e r e n c e shown by

t h e o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e program c a t e g o r y was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ,
whereas a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was shown when t h e s t u d e n t outcome
and s t u d e n t endorsement c a t e g o r i e s were involved (F = 13.8633,
p = .0 0 0 1 ).

A s i m i l a r comparison i n v o l v i n g t h e s t u d e n t s and p a r e n t s

122

in t h e s t u d e n t endorsement c a t e g o r y did not re veal any s i g n i f i c a n t
difference.

However, a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was r e v e a l e d as a

r e s u l t o f th e s t u d e n t outcome and o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s
{F = 6. 6420, p = . 0 0 2 ) .

Inde ed , a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was shown

between t h e t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t s on a l l t h r e e v a r i a b l e s (F = 22. 1259,
p = .0 001 ).
Research Question 3:

What i s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e p a r e n t a l
e d u c a t i o n a l background, socioeconomic s t a t u s o f
p a r e n t s , and r e p o r t e d a t t i t u d e s toward programs
f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s ?

C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n and Chi-Square o f P a r e n t s '
Education by C a t e g o r i c a l Items
The f o llo w in g d a t a p e r t a i n to t h e r e s u l t s o f c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s
o f demographic v a r i a b l e s with p a r e n t - r e p o r t e d a t t i t u d e s toward p r o ­
grams f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .

C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s o f th e

c a t e g o r i c a l items on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e with e d u c a t i o n a l and income
l e v e l s o f t h e responding p a r e n t s were made.

Further c ro ss-ta b u la tio n s

were performed on t h e t e a c h e r s ' e x p e r i e n c e and t h e c a t e g o r i c a l i t e m s .
A c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n i s a j o i n t frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n o f cases a c c o r d ­
ing to two o r more c l a s s i f i c a t o r y v a r i a b l e s .

C h i- sq u a r e t e s t s were

performed on each c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n to determine i f ca te g o r y r esp onses
were indep en de nt of t h e s e demographic v a r i a b l e s .
t e s t of s ta t i s t i c a l significance.

C h i- s q u a r e i s a

I t h e lp s t o det er m ine wh ethe r a

s y s t e m a t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between two v a r i a b l e s .
s i g n i f i c a n c e i s .05 (Nie e t a l . , 1975).

The l e v e l o f

123
C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n and Chi-Square o f
P a r e n t s ' Education by S p e c i f i c
Program C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
The r e s u l t s o f th e c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f t h e m o th ers ' a t t a i n e d
e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l and t h e s p e c i f i c recommendation ca te g o r y were shown
to be u n r e l a t e d a c c o r d in g t o th e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
The c h i - s q u a r e val ue o f t h i s c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n showed a s i g n i f i c a n c e
l e v e l o f p = .4573 (Table 11).

The c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f t h e f a t h e r s '

a t t a i n e d e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l and t h e s p e c i f i c recommendation c a t e g o r y
s uggested a lack o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e s e v a r i a b l e s a ccordin g
t o th e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (p = .0827, Table 12).
C r o s s - T a b u la t io n and Chi-Square
o f P a r e n t s ' Education by Overall
E v a lu a ti o n o f Program
The o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n c a t e g o r y c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d with th e
moth ers' e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l i n d i c a t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between
t h e s e two v a r i a b l e s a cco r d in g t o t h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e
(p = .0041, Table 13).

In a s s o c i a t i n g th e f a t h e r s ' e d u c a tio n with th e

overall evaluation category, the chi-square t e s t of s ig n ific a n c e
(p = .3244, Table 14) i n d i c a t e d a l a c k o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e
two v a r i a b l e s .
C r o s s - T a b u la t io n o f P a r e n t s '
Educ ation by S tu d e n t Endorsement
The c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n between m o t h e r s ’ e d u c a ti o n and s t u d e n t
endorsement c a t e g o r y i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e s e two v a r i a b l e s were u n r e l a t e d
a cco r d in g t o th e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (p = .5799, Table 15).
In a s s o c i a t i n g t h e f a t h e r s ' e d u catio n with t h e s t u d e n t endorsement

T a b le 11 . - C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f m others' ed u c a tio n by s p e c i f i c program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

Level Attaine d

8th grade
9th-12th grade
1-3 y r s . c o ll e g e
College grad. &
po s t- g r a d .
No response
Chi-square = 11.85665

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

2

1.7

30
26

24.8
33.3

4
66
37

66.7
54.5
47.4

2
23
14

33.3
19.0
17.9

1

1.3

14

20.3

40

58.0

13

18.8

2

2.9

No
Response
No.

29
d f = 12

S ig n ifi c a n c e = .4573

Table 1 2 . —C r o s s - t a b u la ti o n of f a t h e r s ' education by s p e c i f i c program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

Level Attaine d

8th grade
9th-12th grade
1-3 y r s . c o lleg e
College grad. &
po s t- g r a d .
No response
C h i-s q u a re = 1 9 .2 4 9 2 8

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree
No.

%

3

3.1

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

2

1.9

2
37
11

25.0
35.2
19.3

4
45
34

50.0
42.9
59.6

2
21
12

25.0
20.0
21.1

18

18.4

60

61.2

17

17.3

No
Response
No.

35
d f = 12

S ig n if ic a n c e = .0827

T a b le 1 3 . - - C r o s s - t a b u la t i o n o f m others' e d u ca tio n by o v e r a ll e v a lu a tio n o f th e program.

Level Attained

8th grade
9th-12th grade
1-3 y r s . c o lleg e
College grad. &
p ost-grad .
No response
Chi-square = 24.10383

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree
No.

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

3
1

2.5
1.3

1
84
57

20.0
69.4
74.0

3
33
18

60.0
27.3
23.4

1
1
1

20.0
.8
1.3

6

8.7

41

59.4

21

30.4

1

1.4

%

No
Response
No.

—

31
df = 9

S ig n if ic a n c e = .0041

Table 1 4 . —C r o s s - ta b u la ti o n o f f a t h e r s ' education by overall e v alu atio n of th e program.

Level Attained

8th grade
9th-12th grade
1-3 y r s . c o lleg e
College grad. &
p ost-grad .
No response
C h i-s q u a re = 10 .330 33

5trongly
Agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree
No.

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

2

1.9

6
75
40

75.0
72.8
69.0

2
25
17

25.0
24.3
29.3

1
1

1.0
1.7

57

58.8

31

32.0

2

2.1

7

7.2

%

%

No
Response
No.

—

37
df = 9

S ig n ific a n c e = .3244

126
c a t e g o r y ac co rding to c h i - s q u a r e (p = .4691, Table 16) i n d i c a t e d th e
la c k o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e s e two v a r i a b l e s .
Cross-Tabulation o f P aren ts'
Education by S tu d e n t Outcome
The c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e used t o show a s s o c i a t i o n
by c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f th e m o th ers ' e d u c a ti o n with th e s t u d e n t outcome
ca t e g o r y r e v e a l e d t h e l a c k o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p (p = .4808, Table 1 7 ) .
In a s s e s s i n g t h e c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f t h e f a t h e r s ' e d u c a t i o n with th e
s t u d e n t outcome c a t e g o r y , a l a c k o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f
th e m o th e rs ' was observed (p = .3927, Table 1 8 ) .
Cross-Tabulation o f P arents'
Education by I n s t r u c t i o n
Methods and Teacher Competency
A r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e m o th e r s ' e d u c a t i o n and t h e i n s t r u c ­
t i o n methods and t e a c h e r competency c a te g o r y ac c o r d in g t o t h e c r o s s ­
t a b u l a t i o n d a t a did not e x i s t as i n d i c a t e d by th e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t of
s i g n i f i c a n c e (p = .4143, Table 1 9 ) .

In a s s o c i a t i n g t h e f a t h e r s ' edu­

c a t i o n with t h e i n s t r u c t i o n methods and t e a c h e r competency c a te g o r y
ac c o r d in g t o c h i - s q u a r e (p = .0845, Table 20) i n d i c a t e d th e l a c k o f
a r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e s e two v a r i a b l e s .
Cross-Tabulation of P a r e n ts '
Education by A v a i l a b i l i t y o f
In fo rm ation About t h e Program
C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s s i m i l a r t o t h e above made between the
m o th e rs ' e d u c a t i o n and per so na l knowledge c a t e g o r y i n d i c a t e d no r e l a ­
t i o n s h i p between t h e s e two v a r i a b l e s ac c o r d in g t o t h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t
o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (p = .1273, Table 2 1 ) .

F i n a l l y , th e c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n

T a b le 1 5 . — C r o s s -ta b u la tio n o f m others' ed ucatio n by s tu d e n t endorsement.

Level Attained

Strongly
Agree
No.

8th grade
9th-12th grade
1-3 y r s . co llege
College grad. &
post-gr ad .
No response

%

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

1
13
7

16.7
10.8
9.0

1
59
34

16.7
49.2
43.6

3
43
35

50.0
35.8
44.9

1
4
1

16.7
3.3
1.3

1
1

.8
1.3

8

11.8

32

47.1

25

36.8

1

1.5

2

2.9

No
Response
No.

31

Chi-square = 10.41199

df = 12

Signifi ca nce i = .5799

Table 16 .—C r o s s - t a b u la ti o n of f a t h e r s ' education by stud ent endorsement.

Level Attained

8th grade
9th-12th grade
1-3 y r s . co lleg e
College grad. &
post-grad .
No response
C h i-sq u are = 11 .711 86

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree
No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

1
12
3

12.5
11.5
5.3

3
48
33

37.5
46.2
57.9

4
40
20

50.0
38.5
35.1

1
1

1.0
1.8

3

2.9

13

13.3

39

39.8

40

40.8

5

5.1

1

1.0

%

No
Response
No.

36
d f = 12

S ig n ific a n c e = .4691

Ta b le 1 7 , — C r o s s -ta b u la tio n o f m others' ed u ca tio n by s tu d e n t outcome.

Level Attained

8th grade
9th-12th grade
1-3 y r s . co lle g e
College grad. &
post- grad.
No response
Chi-square = 8.53945

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree
No.

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

2
1

1.7
1.3

2
51
41

33.3
43.2
53.2

3
61
32

50.0
51.7
41 .6

1
4
3

16.7
3.4
3.9

2

2.9

23

33.8

39

57.4

4

5.9

%

No
Response
No.

—

34
df = 9

S ig n ifi c a n c e == .4808

Table 18.—C r o s s - ta b u la tio n o f f a t h e r s ' education by s tu d e n t outcome.

Level Attained

Strongly
Agree

C h i-sq u are = 9 .4 968 9

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

%

No.

—

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

2

1.9

3
53
18

37.5
51.5
32.7

5
44
35

62.5
42.7
63.6

4
2

3.9
3.6

3

3.1

41

41.8

48

49.0

6

6.2

No.
8th grade
9th-12th grade
1-3 y r s . co llege
College grad. &
pos t-g ra d.
No response

Agree

%

No
Response
No.

39
df = 9

S ig n ific a n c e = .3927

T a b le 1 9 . — C r o s s -ta b u la tio n o f m others' ed ucatio n by in s t r u c t i o n a l methods and te a c h e r competency.

Level Attained

8th grade
9 t h - l 2 t h grade
1-3 y r s . co lleg e
College grad. &
post-grad .
No response

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree
No.

%

1

1.4

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

1
16
8

16.7
13.3
10.3

2
71
43

33.3
59.2
55.1

3
31
23

50.0
25.8
29.5

2
4

1.7
5.1

13

18.8

36

52.2

14

20.3

5

7.2

%

No
Response
No.

40

Chi-square = 12.39799

d f = 12

S ignifica nce! = .4143

Table 2 0 . —C r o s s - ta b u la ti o n of f a t h e r s ' education by i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods and t e a c h e r competency.

Level Attained

8th grade
9th-12th grade
1-3 y r s . c o lleg e
College grad. &
p os t- g r ad .
No response
C h i-sq u are = 19.17221

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree
No.

%

1

1.0

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

1
19
1

12.5
18.1
1.8

3
57
35

37.5
54.3
61.4

4
26
20

50.0
24.8
35.1

3
1

2.9
1.8

17

17.3

53

54.1

20

20.4

7

7.1

%

No
Response
No.

35
d f = 12

S ig n ific a n c e = .0845

130
o f t h e f a t h e r s ' e d u c a tio n with t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f i n fo r m a ti o n about
t h e program c a t e g o r y i n d i c a t e d no r e l a t i o n s h i p a cco r d in g to th e c h i sq u are t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (p = .0557, Table 2 2 ) .
C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s o f t h e p a r e n t s ' e d u c a tio n with v a r io u s com­
ponents o f th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e using t h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e
s u g g e s t e d no r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between th e f a t h e r s ' e d u c a tio n and
th e c a t e g o r i c a l ite m s.

The c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s o f th e m others ' educa­

t i o n appear ed to be s i g n i f i c a n t with

only th e o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n o f

th e program c a t e g o r y a cco r d in g t o t h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
The remaining c a t e g o r i e s did not prove t o be s i g n i f i c a n t .
C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n s Between Family Income
and C a t e g o r i c a l Items
C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n s Between Family
Income and S p e c i f i c Program
C h a r a c t e r i s e cs
A s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was shown between fa mily income
and s p e c i f i c program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a cco r d in g t o th e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t
of s i g n i f i c a n c e (p = .0000, Table 2 3).
C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n s Between Family
Income and Overall E v a lu a tio n
o f th e Program
The l a c k o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h i s v a r i a b l e and fa m ily
income was demonstrated by t h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (p =
.4181, Table 24 ).

T a b le 2 1 . - C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f m others' ed u c a tio n by a v a i l a b i l i t y o f in fo r m a tio n about th e program.

Level Attained

8th grade
9th-12th grade
1-3 y r s . c o ll eg e
College grad. &
post-gra d.
Ho response

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

4
8

3.3
10.3

1
43
34

16.7
35.2
43.6

1
39
21

16.7
32.0
26.9

3
29
12

50.0
23.8
15.4

1
7
3

16.7
5.7
3.3

7

10.1

26

37.7

25

36.2

10

14.5

1

1.4

%

No
Response
No.

28

Chi-square = 17.63240

d f = 12

Signifi ca nce = .1273

Table 2 2 . —C r o s s - ta b u la ti o n of f a t h e r s ' education by a v a i l a b i l i t y o f information about the program.

Level Attained

8th grade
9th-12th grade
1-3 y r s . co lleg e
College grad. &
p o s t- g r a d .
No response
C h i-sq u are = 20 .650 64

Strongly
Agree
No.

%

M M

MM

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

8
1

7.6
1.7

1
43
18

12.5
41.0
31.0

2
31
21

25.0
29.5
36.2

3
19
16

37.5
18.1
27.6

2
4
2

25.0
3.8
3.4

10

10.2

40

40.8

30

30.6

15

15.3

3

3.1

No
Response
No.

34
d f = 12

S ig n ific a n c e = .0557

T a b le 2 3 . - - C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f f a m i l y ' s income by s p e c i f i c program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

Income

$3,000 or l e s s
$3,000- 7,000
$7,000-10,000
$10,000-15,000
Over $15,000
No response

Strongly
Agree
No.

%

1

100.0

1

3.1

Agree
No.

%

4
5
6
51

33.3
33.3
18.8
25.2

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

58.3
60.0
59.4
54.5

1
1
6
39

8.3
6.7
18.8
19.3

2

1.0

7
9
19
110

No
Response
Ho.

41

Chi-square = 138.01345

df = 16

S ig nifi cance = .0000

Table 2 4 . —C r o s s - ta b u la tio n o f f a m il y 's income by overall e valuation o f the program.

Income

Strongly
Agree
No.

$3,000 or l e s s
$3,000- 7,000
$7,000-10,000
$10,000-15,000
Over $15,000
No response
C h i-sq u are = 12 .349 24

1
1
7

%

5.7
3.2
3.5

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

81.8
86.7
80.6
62.9

1
2
1
5
65

100.0
18.2
6.7
16.1
32.2

3

1.2

- -

Agree
No.

9
13
25
127

%

No
Response
No.

43
d f = 12

S ig n ific a n c e = .4181

133
C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n s Between Family
Income and S t u d e n t Endorsement
S i m i l a r t o t h e above v a r i a b l e , a r e l a t i o n s h i p was n o n e x i s t e n t
ac c o r d in g to t h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e {p = .9730, Table 2 5).
C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n s Between Family
Income' and S tudent Outcome
Again t h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e did not s u g g e s t a
r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e s e v a r i a b l e s (p = .1240, Table 2 6).
C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n s Between Family
Income and I n s t r u c t i o n a l M e t h o d s
and Teacher Competency
The c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f fa m ily income with t h i s v a r i a b l e did
n o t e x h i b i t a r e l a t i o n s h i p a cco r d in g t o t h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g ­
n i f i c a n c e (p = .9957, Table 27).
C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n s Between Family
Income and A v a i l a b i l i t y of
In fo r m ati o n About t h e Program
A s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was shown between t h e f am ily income
and th e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f in f o r m a t i o n about t h e program c a t e g o r y ,
ac c o r d in g to t h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (p = .0274, Table 2 8).
I t appea rs t h a t a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between t h e f a m i l y ' s
income and t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward th e s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e i r s t i c s and
a v a i l a b i l i t y o f i n f o r m a tio n ab out t h e program c a t e g o r i e s , a c cording
to the chi-square t e s t of s ig n ific a n c e .

No a p p a r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was

shown by t h i s t e s t to e x i s t between t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods and
t e a c h e r competency, o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e program, s t u d e n t e n d o r s e ­
ment, and s t u d e n t outcome c a t e g o r i e s with fa m il y income.

T a b le 2 5 . — C r o s s -ta b u la tio n o f f a m i l y 's income by s tu d e n t endorsement.

Income

$3,000 o r l e s s
$3,000- 7,000
$7,000-10,000
$10,000-15,000
Over $15,000
No response
Chi-square = 7.01366

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree
No.

%

4

2.0

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

2
1
3
21

18.2
6.7
9.4
10.4

1
4
9
17
86

100.0
36.4
60.0
53.1
42.8

5
5
12
84

45.5
33.3
37.5
41.8

6

%

3.0

No
Response
No.

43
df = 16

Signifi ca nce = .9730

Table 26 .—C r o s s - t a b u la ti o n of f a m i l y ' s income by s tu d e n t outcome.

Income

Strongly
Agree
No.

$3,000 or l e s s
$3,000- 7,000
$7,000-10,000
$10,000-15,000
Over $15,000
No response
C h i-s q u a re = 17.73319

Agree

%

No.

%

1

6.7

4

2.0

1
5
12
15
77

100.0
50.0
80.0
50.0
38.3

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

No.

No.

No.

5
2
15
109

%

50.0
13.3
50.0
54.2

%

%

No
Response
No.

—

11

5.5
46

df = 1 2

S ig n if ic a n c e = .1240

T a b le 2 7 . - - C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f f a m i l y 's income by in s t r u c t i o n a l methods and te a c h e r competency.

Income

$3,000 o r l e s s
$3,000- 7,000
$7,000-10,000
$10,000-15,000
Over $15,000
No response
Chi-square = 5.01132

Strongly
Agree
No.

%

1
3
4
26

9.1
20.0
12.9
12.8

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

100.0
54.5
66.7
54.8
54.7

4
2
9
55

36.4
13.3
29.0
27.1

1
10

3.2
4.9

Agree
No.
1
6
10
17
111

1

%

No
Response
No.

.5
42

d f = 16

S i g n if i c a n c e = .9957

Table 2 8 . —C r o s s - t a b u la ti o n o f f a m i l y ' s income by a v a i l a b i l i t y o f information about th e program.

Income

$3,000 o r le s s
$3,000- 7,000
$7,000-10,000
$10,000-15,000
Over $15,000
No response
Chi-square = 28.52157

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

1
2
1
1
14

100.0
16.7
6.7
3.1
6.9

4
9
14
69

33.3
60.0
43.8
34.0

1
5
10
69

8.3
33.3
31.3
34.0

3

25.0

2

16.7

6
42

18.8
20.7

1
9

3.1
4.4

No
Response
No.

40
d f = 16

S i g n if i c a n c e = .0274

136

Research Question 4:

What i s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e t e a c h e r s '
y e a r s o f e x p e r ie n c e and t h e i r r e p o r t e d a t t i t u d e s
toward programs f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s ?

C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n s o f T e a c h e rs ' Experience
and C a t e g o r i c a l Items
The f o llo w in g d a t a p e r t a i n t o th e r e s u l t s o f c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n
o f t e a c h e r s ' y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e with t h e i r r e p o r t e d a t t i t u d e s toward
programs f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .
C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n s o f T e a c h e rs '
Experience and S p e c i f i c
Program C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
The r e s u l t s o f th e c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n between th e t e a c h e r s '
e x p e r ie n c e and s p e c i f i c program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s u g g e ste d t h a t t h e s e
two v a r i a b l e s were not r e l a t e d a cco r d in g t o t h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f
s i g n i f i c a n c e (p = .2808, Table 29).
C r o s s - T a b u la t io n s o f T e a c h e r s '
Experience and Overall Evalua­
t i o n of Program
As in t h e above c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n , no r e l a t i o n s h i p was shown
between t h i s v a r i a b l e and t h e t e a c h e r s ' e x p e r ie n c e ac co rding t o t h e
c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (p = .3805, Table 30).
Cross-Tabulations of Teachers'
Experience and S tuden t Endorsement
The s t u d e n t endorsement c a t e g o r y was shown to be unreal ted
t o t h e t e a c h e r s ' e x p e r ie n c e by t h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e
(p = .2994, Ta ble 31) .

Ta b le 2 9 . — C r o s s -ta b u la tio n o f te a c h e rs ' ex p e rie n c e by s p e c i f i c program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
c
.
Experience

1-5 year s
5-10 years
10-15 years
15-20 years
20-25 years
25-30 years
30 yea rs o r more
No response
Chi-square = 20.97227

SJ I ™ 9 ly
Agree
No.

%

—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
--

a
No.
6
5
5
2
—
1
1

Agree

Undecided

Disagree
a

%

No.

%

No.

%

21.4
12.2
16.1
14.3
—
25.0
50.0

13
18
18
4
9
2
—

46.4
43.9
58.1
28.6
90.0
50.0
—

7
15
7
6
—
—
1

25.0
36.6
22.6
42.9
—
—
50.0

s tr o n g ly
Disagree
No.

No
Response
No.

%

2
7.1
3 7.3
1 3.2
2 14.3
1 10.0
1 25.0
2

df = 1 8

S ig n ific a n c e = .2808

Table 3 0 . —C r o s s - t a b u la ti o n o f t e a c h e r s ' experience by o v e r a ll e v alu atio n of the program.

Experience
No.
1-5 year s
5-10 years
10-15 ye ar s
15-20 years
20-25 years
25-30 years
30 years or more
No response
C h i-sq u are = 25 .471 60

%

2
7.1
1 2.4
1 3.4
1 7.7
1 10.0
—
—
—
—

^ ! L No.
%
17 60.7
20 48.8
20 69.0
8 61.5
6 60.0
—
—
1 100.0

No.

%

9 32.1
18
43.9
5
17.2
2
15.4
3
30.0
4 100.0

No.

%

S
L
No.
%

«
No.

2
4.9
2
6.9
1
3.4
2
15.4
..............................................
6

d f = 24

S ig n ific a n c e = .3805

T a b le 31 . - C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f te a c h e r s ' ex p e rie n c e by s tu d e n t endorsement.

Experience

1-5 yea rs
5-10 years
10-15 years
15-20 years
20-25 years
25-30 years
30 year s or more
No response
Chi square = 27.10803

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Undeci ded

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree
No.

%

3

100.0

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

1

3.6

9
13
4
3
3
1
1

32.1
31.7
13.3
21.4
30.0
25.0
50.0

15
25
19
8
5
1

53.6
61.0
63.3
57.1
50.0
25.0

3
3
4
3
2
2
1

10.7
7.3
13.3
21.4
20.0
50.0
50.0

No
Response
No.

3
df = 24

S i g nifi cance = . 2994

Table 32.—C r o s s - ta b u la ti o n of t e a c h e r s ' experience by s tu d e n t outcome.

Experience
1-5 years
5-10 years
10-15 years
15-20 years
20-25 years
25-30 years
30 years or more
No response
Chi-square = 19.95646

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree
No.

%

1
1
1

2.5
3.2
7.7

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

1
1

3.8
2.5

8
14
16
4
2
2
1

30.8
35.0
51.6
30.8
20.0
50.0
50.0

15
24
12
8
8
1
1

57.7
60.0
38.7
61.5
80.0
25.0
50.0

2

7.7

2

6.5

1

25.0

%

No
Response
No.

6
df = 24

S ig nifi cance = .6992

139

Cr oss- Tabulation o f Te achers'
Experience and Stude nt Outcome
The c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e suggested t h a t t h e r e was
no r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t u d e n t outcome and the t e a c h e r s ' e x p er ien ce
(p = .6992, Table 32).
Cro ss- Tabulations o f Te ac hers'
Experience and I n s t r u c t i o n a l
Methods and Teacher Competency
This c a t e g o r y , ac co rding t o th e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e ,
was u n r e l a t e d t o t h e t e a c h e r s ' ex per ien ce (p = .4945, Table 33).
Cr o s s- T a b u la ti o n s o f Te ac he rs'
Experience and A v a i l a b i l i t y of
Information About th e Program~
As in th e c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n between i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods and
t e a c h e r competency, the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f i n form ati o n about th e program
ca tegor y was shown to be u n r e l a t e d to th e t e a c h e r s ' experience acco r d ­
ing to t h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (p = .3300, Table 34).
The above data s u g g e st t h a t t h e r e was no r e l a t i o n s h i p between
the t e a c h e r s ' e x p er ien ce and t h e a t t i t u d i n a l c a t e g o r i e s ac cording to
th e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .

T a b le 3 3 . — C r o s s - t a b u la t io n o f te a c h e r s ' e x p e rie n c e by i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods and te a c h e r competency.

Experience

Strongly
Agree
No.

1-5 years
5-10 years
10-15 years
15-20 years
20-25 years
25-30 year s
30 yea rs o r more
No response

3
2
3

C7
to

11.0
4.9
10.0
—

—

—
—
1

—
—

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

17
16
15
7
5
1

63.0
39.0
50.0
46.7
50.0
25.0

5
18
9
5
5
3
1

18.5
43.9
30.0
33.3
50.0
75.0
50.0

2
4
2
3

7.4
9.8
6.7
20.0
—

,_

50.0

—

—

—

1
1

%

No
Response
No.

3.4
3.3

—
—
—

3

Chi-square = 23.43059

df = 24

S i g n if ic a n c e = .4945

Table 34.—C r o s s - t a b u la ti o n o f t e a c h e r s ' experience by a v a i l a b i l i t y o f information about the program.

Experience

1-5 ye ar s
5-10 year s
10-15 yea rs
15-20 year s
20-25 years
25-30 years
30 ye ar s o r more
No response
Chi-square = 26.46417

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Undecided

No.

%

No.

%

No.

5
2
2

17.9
5.0
6.5

5
8
12
4
2
1
1

17.9
20.0
38.7
26.7
20.0
25.0
50.0

10
11
6
1
2
1
1

—

—

—

—

—

—

Of
to

35.7
27.5
19.4
6.7
20.0
25.0
50.0

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

No.

%

No.

%

10
15
6
7
5
2

35.7
37.5
19.4
46.7
50.0
50.0

8
4
5
3
1
—

28.6
10.0
16.1
20.0
10.0
—

No
Response
No.

2
df = 24

Significance =

3300

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The review o f th e l i t e r a t u r e l e n t c r e d i b i l i t y to th e concept
o f employing a program f o r th e purpose o f making s p e c i a l p r o v is i o n s
to meet th e needs o f t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s in o u r s c h o o ls .
I t f u r t h e r provided an i n s i g h t i n t o t h e t h r e e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a p p r o a c h e s,
e n r i c h m e n t, a c c e l e r a t i o n , and g ro u p in g , t h a t a r e f r e q u e n t l y used in
meeting th e needs o f g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s , and some o f th e
major f a c t o r s ( i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , s t a f f s e l e c t i o n , and e v a l u a t i o n ) t h a t
should be c o n s id e r e d in any program f o r th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d .
F i n a l l y , i t e s t a b l i s h e d a framework t h a t was usefu l in t h e examination
o f d a ta in t h i s study o f p i l o t programs f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u ­
de nts .
S tu d i e s o f such programs r e v e a l e d t h a t d i f f e r e n t segments o f
ou r s o c i e t y tend t o endorse t h e p r o v is i o n s made f o r g i f t e d and t a l ­
en ted s t u d e n t s ; however, i t was a l s o r e v e a l e d t h a t p a r e n t s may tend
t o develop s p e c i a l a t t i t u d e s toward t h e s e programs because o f t h e i r
c h i l d ' s involvement.
The i n t e n t o f th e w r i t e r was t o o b t a i n the a t t i t u d e s o f p a r ­
e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and s t u d e n t s toward an e d u c a tio n a l program t h a t d i f ­
f e r e d from th e t r a d i t i o n a l approach o f p r o v id i n g f o r above-average
students.

141

142
The g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs t h a t were funded by t h e S t a t e
Aid Acts o f 1973-1977 i n th e s t a t e o f Michigan e x h i b i t e d both s i m i l a r i t y
and v a r i a b i l i t y in im ple m entation.

Of t h e 11 school d i s t r i c t s t h a t

re spond ed , 10 o f t h e s e d i s t r i c t s have p u l l - o u t o r p a r t i a l p u l l - o u t
enrich men t programs.
The d a t a c o l l e c t e d from th e p a r e n t , t e a c h e r , and s t u d e n t ques ­
t i o n n a i r e s were analyz ed by doing a f re qu en cy d i s t r i b u t i o n o f th e
resp o n s es on a l l items and d ete r m in in g th e mean response o f t h e group
f o r t h e purpose o f d e s c r i b i n g and comparing t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e
sampled p o p u l a t i o n .

S ca le s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d , and s c a l e means

and v a r i a n c e s were an aly zed in o r d e r t o c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e a t t i t u d e s o f
th e sample and to de term in e th e v a r i a b i l i t y o f r e s p o n s e s .
Cronba ch 's al pha r e l i a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s was performed on th e
c a t e g o r i c a l items t o det er m ine t h e degree to which items in a ca t e g o r y
measured t h e same u n d e r l y in g a t t i t u d e .
A m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e (MANOVA) was performed
between p a r e n t , t e a c h e r , and s t u d e n t resp o n s es t o d eter m in e i f th e
t h r e e groups d i f f e r e d in t h e i r r esp onses on t h r e e common a t t i t u d e
categories.
C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s o f t h e c a t e g o r i c a l items on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e
with th e e d u c a t i o n a l and income l e v e l s o f t h e responding p a r e n t s were
made.
F i n a l l y , c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s were performed on t h e t e a c h e r s 1
e x p e r ie n c e and c a t e g o r i c a l it e m s .

C h i- s q u a r e t e s t s were performed on

each c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n t o determine i f c a te g o r y respo nses were in d ep en ­
d en t o f t h e demographic v a r i a b l e s .

143
Space was provide d on t h e p a r e n t and t e a c h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
to make u n s t r u c t u r e d r e a c t i o n s t o t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.
These resp o n s es a r e p r e s e n t e d u n e d i te d in th e Appendix.
Summary o f R e s u lt s
Research Question 1
What a r e t h e g en er al c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f 11 o f t h e 18 p i l o t
programs r e p o r t e d in Michigan by t h e Department o f Education
and funded by t h e S t a t e Aid Acts o f 1973 through 1977?
The pro ce dures used f o r i d e n t i f y i n g and s e l e c t i n g s t u d e n t s
f o r th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs were t h e use o f :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Achievement t e s t b a t t e r i e s
Intelligence te s t
Former school performance
Reading l e v e l
P a r e n t , t e a c h e r , and s t u d e n t recommendations

The go als s e t f o r s t u d e n t s tende d t o vary among th e r e p o r t i n g
districts.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Those goa ls t h a t were s i m i l a r were t o :
I n c r e a s e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r academic growth
Improve e x t e n s i v e development o f academic s k i l l s
Improve work and stu d y h a b i t s
Expand i n t e r e s t s
I n c r e a s e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r i n d i v i d u a l r a t e o f growth
Improve p e r s o n a l , s o c i a l , and emotional development
Improve e d u c a t i o n a l m o t i v a t i o n
Improve p r o d u c t io n through improved c l i m a t e
Enhance a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e c r e a t i v e pro cess

Among t h o s e d i s t r i c t s t h a t r e q u i r e d s p e c i a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f
t e a c h e r s f o r t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d , t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s involved f i v e
factors:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Some p r e p a r a t i o n in g i f t e d e d u c a ti o n
Teaching e x p e r ie n c e
I n t e l l e c t u a l background
D es ir e to work wit h g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s
Creativity

144
Of t h e 11 d i s t r i c t s , a l l ex c e p t two i n d i c a t e d t h a t p a r e n t s ,
t e a c h e r s , and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were i n i t i a l l y in volv ed in th e gener al
scheme o f t h e program through workshops o r i n s e r v i c e m eetings.

In

most d i s t r i c t s , a d v i s o r y committees were formed t o o f f e r ad vice in
th e implementation and development o f t h e program.
During t h e f i r s t t h r e e y e a r s , which was th e d u r a t i o n o f t h e
p i l o t programs, e v a l u a t i o n was performed by pe rsonnel from th e S t a t e
Department o f E ducation.

T h e r e a f t e r , e v a l u a t i o n s were conducted by

l ocal d i s t r i c t s t a f f members.
Most d i s t r i c t s ' d i r e c t o r s o f th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs
were chosen by th e c e n t r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .

There was a l a c k o f com­

m o nality among th e school d i s t r i c t s as t o t h e p e r c e n ta g e o f th e
d i r e c t o r ' s time d e s ig n a te d toward th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.
Four d i s t r i c t s used t h e R e n z u i l l i Enrichment T r i a d model o f
c u r r i c u l u m , and one d i s t r i c t used t h e Memphis Clue f o rm a t.
Of th e d i s t r i c t s s u rv e y e d , t h r e e school d i s t r i c t s ' programs
had been in o p e r a t i o n f o r f i v e y e a r s , two d i s t r i c t s ' programs had
been i n o p e r a t i o n f o r t h r e e y e a r s , f o u r d i s t r i c t s ' programs had o p e r ­
a t e d two y e a r s , and one d i s t r i c t ' s program had been i n o p e r a t i o n f o r
only one y e a r .
The b a s i c p a t t e r n s o f funding f o r t h e s e programs were:
1.
2.
3.

S tate aid
Local funds
Local funds with s t a t e supplement

Because o f t h e des ig n o f g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs in d i s ­
t r i c t s in which s t u d e n t s a r e removed from t h e r e g u l a r clas sro om f o r a
le n g t h o f time dur in g t h e day and then r e t u r n e d t o th e r e g u l a r

145
cl as sr o o m , no p r o v i s i o n s were claimed f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u ­
d e n ts i n r e g u l a r clas srooms in any o f th e r e p o r t i n g d i s t r i c t s .
M o d if i c a t i o n s t h a t have been made among t h e d i s t r i c t s involved
in t h e s tu dy i n c lu d e d :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Expansion to in c l u d e more s t u d e n t s
Change in t h e c u r r ic u lu m
Devised methods o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f p a r t i c i p a n t s in th e
program
Scheduling
Change in personnel
Use o f f a c i l i t i e s and community r e s o u r c e s

Data r e p o r t e d by d i s t r i c t c o n t a c t persons were t a b u l a t e d ,
a n a l y z e d , and r e p o r t e d .
Research Question 2
What a r e t h e r e p o r t e d a t t i t u d e s o f p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and
s t u d e n t s toward g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs i n which they
participated?
Table 34 r e p r e s e n t s t h e summary o f t h e r e s p o n s e s o f p a r e n t s ,
t e a c h e r s , and s t u d e n t s by c a t e g o r i e s .

The p e r c e n t a g e o f p a r e n t s ,

t e a c h e r s , and s t u d e n t s who a g r e e d , combined with t h e p e r c e n ta g e who
s t r o n g l y agree d w ith t h e i t e m s , a r e shown in each c e l l .
As deter m ine d by th e p a r e n t s ' and t e a c h e r s ' mean s c o r e s on t h e
s p e c i f i c program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c a t e g o r y , t h e p a r e n t s agreed on 50
p e r c e n t o f t h e i t e m s , whereas t h e t e a c h e r s were undecided on 83 p e r ­
c e n t o f th e ite m s.

On t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a t e g o r y , t h e p a r e n t s were more

s u p p o r t i v e th an t e a c h e r s , in t h a t th ey ag re ed t h a t th e i d e n t i f i c a ­
t i o n and s e l e c t i o n p ro cedure s used f o r t h e program were well planned.
Both groups f a v o re d d e p a r t m e n t a l i z a t i o n .

There was consensus between

t h e two groups about t h e amount o f time s t u d e n t s s p e n t in th e program

146
and how adeq ua te use was made o f community r e s o u r c e s by i n d i c a t i n g a
degree o f u n c e r t a i n t y .

Table 3 5 . —Summary o f p a r e n t , t e a c h e r , and s t u d e n t responses {p ercentage
o f ag re em ent).
Category

P ar en ts

Teachers

S tu den ts

Responses t o s p e c i f i c program
characteristics

50

0

__

Overall e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e program

86

86

45

S tu d e n t endorsement

67

67

100

S tudent outcome

93

64

84

I n s t r u c t i o n methods and t e a c h e r
competency

75

50

67

A v a i l a b i l i t y o f in f o r m a tio n about
th e program

50

50

—

The mean s c o r e s on t h e o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e program
ca te g o r y i n d i c a t e d t h a t p a r e n t s agreed on 86 p e r c e n t o f th e items and
were undecided on 14 p e r c e n t o f th e i t e m s , w h ile th e t e a c h e r s agreed
on 86 p e r c e n t o f th e items and were undecided on 14 p e r c e n t o f th e
item s.

There was a consensus between th e p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s by a

degree o f u n c e r t a i n t y on th e i d e a t h a t s t u d e n t s should remain i n r e g u ­
l a r clas sr o o m s.

These two groups ag re ed on t h e id ea t h a t th e program

had had a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on t h e s t u d e n t s , s p e c i a l c l a s s e s should
be prov ided f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s , th e program was bene­
f i c i a l , t h e need f o r expansion o f th e program, th e c o n t i n u a t i o n o f th e
program, and t h e concept t h a t s t u d e n t s could n o t do j u s t as well

147
w ith o u t t h e program.

The s t u d e n t s were l e s s f a v o r a b l e than th e

p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s on t h i s c a t e g o r y .

The s t u d e n t s agreed t h a t t h e

program was g r e a t , t h a t th ey were p l e a s e d with t h e amount o f time
they s p e n t in t h e program, t h a t they had b e n e f i t e d from t h e program,
t h a t s p e c i a l c l a s s e s should be pro vid e d f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d c h i l ­
d r e n , and t h a t more s t u d e n t s sho uld be in c lu d e d in t h e program.

They

were undecided ab out wh ether th ey would gain more from an en richm ent
program l o c a t e d in t h e i r own b u i l d i n g s .
According t o t h e mean s c o r e s on t h e s t u d e n t endorsement c a t e ­
gory, t h e p a r e n t s agr eed on 67 p e r c e n t o f t h e items and were undecided
on 33 p e r c e n t o f t h e i t e m s , whereas th e t e a c h e r s ag re ed on 67 p e r c e n t
o f t h e items and d i s a g r e e d on 33 p e r c e n t o f t h e i t e m s .

Again, a

consensus was r e v e a l e d by both groups a g r e e i n g t h a t s t u d e n t s enjoyed
th e program and c h i l d r e n were w i l l i n g t o spend time s tu d y i n g f o r th e
c l a s s e s in t h e program.

The p a r e n t s were undecided ab out r e g u l a r

c l a s s e s being b or in g t o s t u d e n t s , w h i l e t h e t e a c h e r s d i s a g r e e d with
th e i d e a .

On t h i s same c a t e g o r y , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e mean s c o r e , th e

s tu d e n t s agreed on 100 p e r c e n t o f th e ite m s .

They i n d i c a t e d they were

w i l l i n g t o spend time s tu d y i n g f o r t h e c l a s s , th e y enjoyed t h e program,
and, i f chosen, th ey would p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e program a g a i n .
On t h e s t u d e n t outcome c a t e g o r y , ac c o r d in g t o th e mean s c o r e s
o f p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s , th e p a r e n t s ag re ed on 93 p e r c e n t o f t h e items
and d i s a g r e e d on 7 p e r c e n t o f th e i t e m s , whereas t h e t e a c h e r s ag re ed
on 64 p e r c e n t o f th e i t e m s , d i s a g r e e d on 7 p e r c e n t o f t h e i t e m s , and
were undecided on 29 p e r c e n t o f t h e it em s.

P a r e n ts and t e a c h e r s agreed

t h a t t h e program helped s t u d e n t s t o t h i n k i n d e p e n d e n t l y , s t u d e n t s

148
r e c e i v e d guid an ce in l o c a t i n g and developing i d e a s , s t u d e n t s l e a r n e d
t o deal c r i t i c a l l y with id e a s in t h e program, t h e program encouraged
c r e a t i v i t y , i t helpe d ar o u se s t u d e n t s to d e s i r e t o excel i n t e l l e c ­
t u a l l y , t h e a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f books f o r s t u d e n t s , t h e e n r i c h i n g e x p e r i ­
ence o f s t u d e n t s ' a s s o c i a t i o n with o l d e r c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s , and th e
program helped s t u d e n t s t o have s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e .

On t h i s p a r t i c u l a r

c a te g o r y t h e s t u d e n t s agr eed on 84 p e r c e n t o f t h e i t e m s , d i s a g r e e d on
8 p e r c e n t o f t h e i t e m s , and were undecided on 8 p e r c e n t o f t h e i te m s.
They agreed t h a t th e program helped them t o excel i n t e l l e c t u a l l y , they
got more o u t o f t h i s c l a s s than t h e i r r e g u l a r c l a s s e s , th ey made good
use o f t h e i r t a l e n t in t h e c l a s s , t h e m a t e r i a l l e a r n e d in t h i s c l a s s
should be h e l p f u l in r e g u l a r school work, th e program helped them to
t h i n k in d e p e n d e n t l y , th e acce p ta n c e o f t h e i r id eas by th e s p e c i a l p r o ­
gram t e a c h e r , t h e program encouraged c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g , t h e program
encouraged c r e a t i v i t y , i t aroused t h e i r i n t e l l e c t u a l i n t e r e s t , th e
program encouraged t h e development o f h o b b i e s , and th ey enjoyed t h e
same neighborhood f r i e n d s h i p as b e f o r e .
According t o t h e mean s c o re s on t h e i n s t r u c t i o n methods and
t e a c h e r competency f o r p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s , th e p a r e n t s ag re ed on
75 p e r c e n t o f t h e items and were undecided on 25 p e r c e n t o f t h e i t e m s ,
whereas t h e t e a c h e r s agr eed on 50 p e r c e n t o f th e items and were unde­
cid ed on 50 p e r c e n t o f th e i te m s .

These groups ag re ed on th e idea o f

t e a c h e r s o f th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs' q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and the
adequacy o f s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r c o n t a c t .

Both groups were undecided on

th e ide a t h a t t e a c h e r s ' and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' r e s i s t a n c e had prev en ted
e f f e c t i v e programs f o r th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d .

On t h i s same c a t e g o r y ,

149
th e s t u d e n t s ag re ed on 67 p e r c e n t o f th e items and d i s a g r e e d on
33 p e r c e n t o f t h e i t e m s .

They ag re ed t h a t t h e y l i k e d th e way t h e

t e a c h e r in th e program t a u g h t and t h a t t h e c l a s s was very i n t e r e s t i n g .
The mean s c o r e s on t h e perso na l knowledge c a t e g o r y f o r p a r e n t s
and t e a c h e r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t p a r e n t s ag re ed on 50 p e r c e n t o f th e items
and were undecided on 50 p e r c e n t o f t h e i t e m s , whereas t h e t e a c h e r s
ag re ed on 50 p e r c e n t o f t h e items and were undecided on 50 p e r c e n t o f
the items.

P a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s ag re ed th ey were a c q u a i n t e d w ith th e

program b u t would l i k e t o become more ac q u a in te d with th e program.
Both groups were undecided about having been pro vided with enough
i n f o r m a t i o n ab out t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e program and ab out having been
kept well informed o f s t u d e n t s ' p r o g r e s s .
U n a lte r e d Responses
The u n a l t e r e d resp o n s es t h a t were made by p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s
abou t t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n / m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d p r o ­
grams o f t h e p i l o t s c h o o ls and t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s
who made th e resp o n s es a r e shown in Appendix B.

Sugges ti ons o f p a r ­

e n t s and t e a c h e r s a r e summarized i n Table 36.
Research Question 3
What i s th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e p a r e n t a l e d u c a ti o n a l
background, socioeconomic s t a t u s o f p a r e n t s , and r e p o r t e d
a t t i t u d e s toward programs f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s ?
In one c a t e g o r y a r e l a t i o n s h i p seemed t o e x i s t between th e
p a r e n t a l e d u c a t i o n a l background and r e p o r t e d a t t i t u d e s toward th e
programs f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .

A r e l a t i o n s h i p was found

150
Table 3 6 . — P a r e n t and t e a c h e r s u g g e s t i o n s f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
programs.
Suggestion

No. o f
Responses

Pe r c e n t

P a r e n t Sugges ti ons

1.

Expand c u r r i c u lu m

2.

Program sho uld be de sig ne d t o meet i n d i ­
vidual needs and i n t e r e s t s

18

37.5

9

18.8

17

35.4

3.

Make b e t t e r use o f community r e s o u r c e s

4.

Expand program t o in v o l v e more c h i l d r e n

8

18.8

5.

I n c r e a s e amount o f time s p e n t in c l a s s e s

38

79.0

6.

More p a r e n t - t e a c h e r c o n t a c t

19

39.5

7.

Provide p a r e n t s with some form o f p r o g r e s s
report

18

37.5

P a r e n t s should be b e t t e r informed o f program

25

52.0

7

13.0

I n s e r v i c e f o r classr oom t e a c h e r s on o b j e c ­
t i v e s o f program

10

18.5

C e r tif ie d te a c h e r s , not p a r a p r o f e s s io n a ls ,
u n l e s s the y a r e used t o a s s i s t t h e t e a c h e r

14

26.0

B e t t e r communication between g i f t e d program
t e a c h e r and clas sro om t e a c h e r

20

37.0

P rovide t e a c h e r s w ith some form o f p r o g r e s s
report

36

67.0

6.

Expand t h e amount o f time s t u d e n t s spend in
special classes

9

17.0

7.

Expand program t o i n c l u d e more s t u d e n t s ,
i n c l u s i v e o f c r e a t i v e s t u d e n t s , and give some
c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f clas sro om t e a c h e r ' s ch o ice

20

37.0

8.

Teacher Su gg estions

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

C oo r d in atio n between c la ssr oom a c t i v i t i e s
and g i f t e d program

151
between t h e f a m i l y ' s income and r e p o r t e d a t t i t u d e s toward programs
f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s on two c a t e g o r i e s .
Research Question 4
What i s th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e t e a c h e r s ' y e a r s o f
e x p e r ie n c e and t h e i r r e p o r t e d a t t i t u d e s toward programs
f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s ?
There seemed t o be no r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e t e a c h e r s ' y e a r s
o f e x p e r ie n c e and r e p o r t e d a t t i t u d e s toward t h e programs f o r g i f t e d
and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .
Conclusions
As t h e r e s u l t of th e i n f o r m a t io n o b t a i n e d through th e ques ­
t i o n n a i r e s and th e comments re cord ed by p a r e n ts and t e a c h e r s , t h e
f o llo w in g c o n c lu s io n s were drawn.
All t h r e e groups in most c a t e g o r i e s had a h i g h e r p e r c e n t a g e
o f agreement than d i s a g r e e m e n t.

I t could be concluded t h a t p a r e n t s ,

t e a c h e r s , and s t u d e n t s sh ared f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward t h e g i f t e d
and t a l e n t e d program as measured by t h i s s tu d y .

P a r e n ts were g e n e r a l l y

more f a v o r a b l e toward a l l c a t e g o r i e s than were t e a c h e r s .

The major

c o n c lu s io n s drawn as t h e r e s u l t o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and u n s t r u c t u r e d
r esp onses were:
1.

P a r e n t s responded more f a v o r a b l y t o t h e r e sp o n s e t o s p e ­

c i f i c program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c a t e g o r y than did th e t e a c h e r s .

Teachers

were t h e most u n c e r t a i n about t h e p r a c t i c e s and pro ce dure s used f o r
i d e n t i f y i n g and s e l e c t i n g s t u d e n t s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e program.

152
2.

Both p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s responded f a v o r a b l y to t h e o v e r ­

a l l e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e program c a t e g o r y .

The s t u d e n t s appeared l e s s

f a v o r a b l e to t h i s ca te g o r y th a n p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s .
3.

Both p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s responded f a v o r a b l y to th e

s t u d e n t endorsement c a t e g o r y .

The s t u d e n t s responded more f a v o r a b l y

than e i t h e r group.
4.

P a r e n t s responded more f a v o ra b ly t o t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l

methods and t e a c h e r competency c a te g o r y than did t e a c h e r s .

The s t u ­

dents responded more f a v o r a b l y than t e a c h e r s to t h i s c a t e g o r y .
5.

P a r e n ts and t e a c h e r s responded e q u a l l y on agreement and

u n c e r t a i n t y on the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f i n f o r m a t i o n ab out t h e program
category.
6.

P a r e n t s responded most f a v o r a b l y t o th e ca t e g o r y t h a t

s t r e s s e d t h e c o g n i t i v e a s p e c t o f t h e program.
8.

Teachers appeared t o respond most f a v o r a b l y t o t h e c a t e ­

gory in which they were given t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o e v a l u a t e t h e program.
9.

The m a j o r i t y o f t h e s t u d e n t s enjoyed p a r t i c i p a t i n g in th e

program, and th ey b e n e f i t e d i n t e l l e c t u a l l y from t h e e x p e r i e n c e s .

They

did n o t f e e l t h a t t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e program had had any
ad ver se s o c i a l e f f e c t on them.
10.

All t h r e e groups responded f a v o r a b ly t o th e c a t e g o r i c a l

i t e m s , which may imply t h a t th ey f e l t t h e program f o r g i f t e d and
t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s was e f f e c t i v e .

However, t h e p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s

i n d i c a t e d a d e s i r e t o have t h e program c o n ti n u e d w ith some m o d i f i c a ­
tions.

153
When th e demographic v a r i a b l e s were c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d with the
c a t e g o r i c a l items from t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , only l i m i t e d p o s i t i v e r e l a ­
t i o n s h i p s were r e v e a l e d .

Of t h e e x i s t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s found, i t was

d i f f i c u l t t o o f f e r l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h e observed r e l a t i o n s .
The major c o n c lu s io n s drawn as t h e r e s u l t o f t h e c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s
were:
11.

A p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between t h e mothers'

e d u c a ti o n and th e o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n o f th e program c a t e g o r y .

The

more e d u c a tio n t h e mothers had a c q u i r e d , t h e more p o s i t i v e l y th ey
responded t o t h i s c a t e g o r y .
12.

There was a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e f a m i l y ' s

income and t h e res ponse t o t h e s p e c i f i c program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c a t e ­
gory.

As th e income i n c r e a s e d , th e p a r e n t s responded l e s s f a v o r a b ly

t o t h e s ta t e m e n t s in t h i s c a t e g o r y .
13.

There was a r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e f a m i l y ’s income and

th e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f i n f o r m a tio n ab out t h e program c a t e g o r y .

As th e

income le v e l i n c r e a s e d , t h e p a r e n t s tended t o respond l e s s f a v o r a b l y
t o t h e items in t h i s c a t e g o r y .
14.

No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between m oth ers '

e d u c a ti o n and t h e s p e c i f i c program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , s t u d e n t e n d o r s e ­
ment, s t u d e n t outcome, i n s t r u c t i o n methods and t e a c h e r competency, and
a v a i l a b i l i t y o f i n f o r m a tio n about th e program.
15.

There was no r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e f a t h e r s ' e d u catio n

and t h e i r re sp onses t o t h e c a t e g o r i c a l ite m s .
16.

No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between th e

f a m i l y ' s income and o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n o f th e program, s t u d e n t

154
endorsement, s t u d e n t outcome, and i n s t r u c t i o n methods and t e a c h e r
competency.
17.

There was no p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e t e a c h e r s '

e x p e r i e n c e and t h e i r r es pon ses t o t h e items on th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
Implications
As a r e s u l t o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , t h e f o ll o w i n g i m p l i c a t i o n s
were drawn:
1.

In th o s e d i s t r i c t s p lanning t o implement a s p e c i a l program

f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s , a needs as se ssm en t sh ould be made
to a s s u r e t h a t arrangements made f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d l e a r n e r s a r e
appropriate.
2.

There seems t o be no one b e s t method used f o r i d e n t i f y i n g

p a r t i c i p a n t s in g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs.

The use o f m u l t i p l e

measures i s i m p o rta n t in re duc ing e r r o r and b i a s i n t h e proce ss o f
identification.
3.

A high degree o f s i m i l a r i t y e x i s t e d in t h e h i g h l y d i v e r s i ­

f i e d goals s e t f o r s t u d e n t s by th e v a r i o u s r e p o r t e d d i s t r i c t s .

These

s i m i l a r i t i e s focused on improving, d e v e l o p i n g , and i n c r e a s i n g academic,
p e r s o n a l , s o c i a l , and emotional development.

D i s t r i c t s p la n n in g to

implement a program f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s should c o n s i d e r
a l l o f t h e s e domains in s e t t i n g program g o a l s .
4.

Sinc e t h e r e

seem t o be no w idely a ccepted c r i t e r i a f o r

s e l e c t i o n o f s t a f f , d i s t r i c t s a r e autonomous in t h e r e q uir em ents s e t
f o r t h e s e l e c t i o n o f s t a f f and c u r ric u lu m f o r t h e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d
programs.

155

5.

The involvement o f p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

in th e developmental and e v a l u a t i v e s t a g e s o f the programs i s seen as
c o n t r i b u t i v e to t h e success o f t h e program by t h e r e p o r t i n g d i s t r i c t s .
6.

D i s t r i c t s t h a t a c c e p t c a t e g o r i c a l funds f o r g i f t e d and

t a l e n t e d programs need t o c o n s i d e r ways t o c o n t i n u e and m a in ta in p r o ­
grams a f t e r o u t s i d e funds a r e t e r m i n a t e d .
7.

P a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and s t u d e n t s were p le a s e d with t h e c h a r ­

a c t e r i s t i c s and q u a l i t y o f th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs i n meeting
th e needs o f s t u d e n t s , with p a r e n t s r e p o r t i n g s l i g h t l y more f a v o r a b l e
attitudes.

D i s t r i c t s planning t o implement a program f o r g i f t e d and

t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s need t o d e v i s e ways t o communicate wit h t h e s e t h r e e
groups about th e program t o m a i n t a in f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e s .
8.

The more formal e d u c a t io n t h e mothers a c q u i r e d , th e more

p o s i t i v e were t h e i r a t t i t u d e s when given an o p p o r t u n i t y to e v a l u a t e
th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.

Perhaps more a t t e n t i o n should be

given t o maintenance o f communication chan ne ls f o r t h e p a r e n t s o f
s t u d e n t s in g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d programs with l e s s formal e d u c a t i o n .
9.

E v a lu a ti o n s t h a t a r e c a r r i e d o u t during t h e pr og ram 's

o p e r a t i o n should be used t o i n d i c a t e n e c e s s a r y m o d i f i c a t i o n s and
determine t h e t o t a l r e s u l t s o f t h e program.
10.

L o c ally des igned programs tend t o be i s o l a t e d from the

r e g u l a r i n s t r u c t i o n a l program.

A t t e n t i o n should be given t o i n t e g r a t ­

ing them i n t o t h e e n t i r e e d u c a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e school system.
11.

As p a r e n t s ' income i n c r e a s e d , t h e y were d e s i r o u s o f more

in f o r m a t io n conc er ning th e g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d program.
should be pr epare d t o accommodate t h i s d e s i r e .

D istricts

156
12.

T e a c h e r s ' r e p o r t e d a t t i t u d e s were n o t r e l a t e d to th e

number o f y e a r s o f t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e .

Teachers' years o f e x p e ri­

ence a lo n e should not be a c r i t e r i o n f o r s t a f f s e l e c t i o n f o r g i f t e d
and t a l e n t e d programs.

APPENDICES

157

APPENDIX A
PARENT SURVEY

158

APPENDIX A
PARENT SURVEY
Your c h i l d has been o r i s p r e s e n t l y a member o f a s p e c i a l program f o r
g i f t e d and aca d e m ic a l ly t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .
Below is a l i s t o f s t a t e m e n t s des igned t o survey th e a t t i t u d e s p a r e n t s
o f t h e s t u d e n t have toward th e program. I hope you w i l l t a k e a few
minutes to f i l l o u t t h i s form and r e t u r n i t in t h e s e l f - a d d r e s s e d
env elo pe.
P le a se i n d i c a t e t h e e x t e n t t o which you ag r ee or d i s a g r e e with each o f
th e f o ll o w in g s ta t e m e n t s by c i r c l i n g th e a p p r o p r i a t e l e t t e r ( s ) . P le a s e
respond t o each item.
S t r o n g l y A g r e e . . . . ...............SA
Agr ee ............................................. A
Undecided o r N e u t r a l ............ U
D i s a g r e e .......................................D
S tr o n g l y D i s a g r e e ...................SD
DEMOGRAPHIC
Number o f y e a r s you have l i v e d in t h i s c i t y :
5 y e a r s o r l e s s ________
5-10 y e a r s
10 y e a r s o r more
Optional
Occupation o f p a r e n t s :

( P la c e a check a f t e r th e one o ccupation
t h a t b e s t d e s c r i b e s each p a r e n t . )

Mother

F ather

Housewife
O f f i c e Work_
Sales Work__
Professional
Laborer
]
Other

Laborer
_______
Managerial
ProfessionaT
S ales Work |
O f f i c e Work__
Other

159

160
E d u c a tio n a l B ackground:

(P la c e a check a f t e r t h e l e v e l t h a t b e s t
d e s c r i b e s each p a r e n t . )

Mother

Father

Below 8th grade_____
Completed 8 th grad e_
Below 12th gr ad e
_
H.S. g r a d u a te _______
1-3 y e a r s o f c o l l e g e
C o lleg e g r a d u a t e
^
P o s t - g r a d u a t e _______

Below 8 t h gr a d e _____
Completed 8th grad e_
Below 12th grade____
H.S. g r a d u a te _______
1-3 y e a r s of c o l l e g e
C ollege g r a d u a t e
^
P o s t - g r a d u a t e _______

Family Income:

( P la c e a check a f t e r th e income t h a t most n e a r l y
a p p l i e s t o y o ur f a m i l y . )

Less than $3,000 pe r y e a r _______
$ 3,0 00 -$7, 00 0 p e r y e a r ___________
$7,000-$10,000 per y e a r __________
$10,000-$15,000 p e r y e a r _________
More than $15,000 p e r y e a r ______
RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS
1.

My c h i l d would b e n e f i t more from a program
w i t h i n h i s or h er b u i l d i n g where s t u d e n t s can
move th rough t h e school y e a r s f a s t e r than
usual by promotion.

SA A

U D SD

2.

The methods by which s t u d e n t s a r e i d e n t i f i e d
f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e program a r e a c c o r d ­
ing t o some w e l l - p la n n e d p r o c e d u r e s .

SA A

U D SD

3.

The methods used to s e l e c t i d e n t i f i e d s t u d e n t s
f o r t h i s program a r e s a t i s f a c t o r y .

SA A

U D SD

4.

S tu d en ts should go t o d i f f e r e n t t e a c h e r s f o r
d iffe re n t subject-m atter classes.

SA A

U D SD

5.

The amount o f time s t u d e n t s spend i n t h i s
program seems a d e q u a t e .

SA A

U D SD

6.

Adequate use i s made o f th e community r e s o u r c e s
( f i e l d t r i p s and p e r s o n s ) i n t h e program.

SA A

U D SD

161
OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM
7. G i f te d c h i l d r e n should n o t remain in r e g u l a r
classes.

SA A U D SD

8.

This program has had a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on
my c h i l d ' s a t t i t u d e toward s c h o o l.

SA A

U D SD

9.

S pecial c l a s s e s should be prov ided wherever
possible f o r g ifte d students.

SA A

U D SD

SA A

U D SD

10.

I t h i n k t h i s program i s b e n e f i c i a l t o th e
s t u d e n t s in v o lv e d i n i t .

11.

The program sho uld be expanded to i n c l u d e more
chiIdren.

SA A

U D SD

12.

The program should not be e l i m i n a t e d .

SA A

U D SD

13.

S tu d e n ts could n o t do j u s t as well w i t h o u t
t h i s program.

SA A

U D SD

STUDENT ENDORSEMENT
14.

My c h i l d en joys th e program.

SA A

U D SD

15.

My c h i l d i s w i l l i n g t o spend time s tu d y i n g f o r
t h e c l a s s e s in t h i s program.

SA A

U D SD

16.

My c h i l d f i n d s r e g u l a r c l a s s e s b o r in g in
comparison to h i s / h e r c l a s s e s in t h i s program.

SA A

U D SD

STUDENT OUTCOMES
17.

The program i s des ign ed around the needs and
concerns o f each c h i l d .

SA A U D SD

18.

The program helps s t u d e n t s to t h i n k i n d e peridently.

SA A

U D SD

19.

Students r e c e i v e guidance in f i n d i n g and
developing i d e a s .

SA A

U D SD

20.

Students l e a r n to deal c r i t i c a l l y w ith id e a s
in th e program.

SA A

U D SD

21.

The program helps s t u d e n t s t o become c r e a t i v e .

SA A

U D SD

22.

The program help s t o ar o u s e s t u d e n t s ' i n t e l lectual in te r e s t.

SA A

U D SD

162

23.

The program helps s t u d e n t s to d e s i r e t o
excel i n t e l l e c t u a l l y .

SA A

U D SD

24.

S tu d en ts who p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s program a r e
encouraged t o develop h o b b i e s .

SA A

U D SD

25.

S tu d en ts who p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s program have
a c c e s s to a v a r i e t y o f good books.

SA A

U D SD

26.

S tu d en ts a r e m iss ing th e " b a s i c s " as a r e s u l t
o f t h e program.

SA A

U D SD

27.

The program helps s t u d e n t s t o have s e l f confidence.

SA A

U D SD

28.

C h ild ren b e n e f i t s o c i a l l y by being placed i n
groups o f s i m i l a r mental a b i l i t y .

SA A

U D SD

29.

The o p p o r t u n i t y t o a s s o c i a t e with o t h e r g i f t e d
c h i l d r e n h e l p s my c h i l d a d j u s t s o c i a l l y .

SA A

U D SD

30.

The o p p o r t u n i t y t o a s s o c i a t e with o l d e r c h i l d r e n
and a d u l t s to f i n d o t h e r s with t h e i r i n t e r e s t i s
an e n r i c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e t o my c h i l d .

SA A U D SD

INSTRUCTION METHODS AND TEACHER COMPETENCY
31.

The t e a c h e r s in the g i f t e d program sho uld have
special q u a lif ic a tio n s .

SA A

U D SD

32.

The t e a c h i n g methods used in th e g i f t e d program
are s a ti s f a c t o r y .

SA A

U D SD

33.

S tu d e n ts r e c e i v e ad eq u ate s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r
c o n t a c t in t h e program.

SA A U D SD

34.

The r e s i s t a n c e o f t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
has p revented e f f e c t i v e programs f o r th e g i f t e d .

SA A U D SD

AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
35.

I have been p ro vided with enough i n f o r m a t i o n
abou t th e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e program.

SA A

U D SD

36.

I have been k ep t well informed co ncernin g my
c h i l d ' s p r o g r e s s i n t h e program.

SA A

U D SD

37.

I am a c q u a in te d w ith t h e program.

38.

I would l i k e t o become more a c q u a in te d with
th e program.

What s u g g e s t i o n s do you have f o r improving t h e program

Comments:

APPENDIX B
TEACHER SURVEY

164

APPENDIX B
TEACHER SURVEY
Your s t u d e n t ( s ) has been a member o f a s p e c i a l program f o r g i f t e d and
a c ad em ically t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s .
Below i s a l i s t o f s ta t e m e n t s designed to survey t h e a t t i t u d e s t e a c h e r s
have toward t h e program. I hope you w i l l t a k e a few minutes t o f i l l
out
t h i s form and r e t u r n i t in th e s e l f - a d d r e s s e d en ve lope.
P le ase i n d i c a t e t h e e x t e n t t o which you agree o r d i s a g r e e with each o f
th e f o llo w i n g s t a t e m e n t s by c i r c l i n g th e a p p r o p r i a t e l e t t e r ( s ) . P le a s e
respond to each item.
S tro n g ly Agre e....................................SA
Agr ee ........................................................A
Undecided o r N e u t r a l .......................U
D i s a g r e e ................................................. D
S tro n g ly D i s a g r e e ............................. SD
RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS
1.

Studen ts would b e n e f i t more from an a c c e l e r a t i o n program w i t h i n each b u i l d i n g .

SA A

U D SD

2.

The methods by which s t u d e n t s a r e i d e n t i f i e d f o r
p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e program a r e s y s t e m a t i c .

SA A

U D SD

3.

The methods used t o s e l e c t i d e n t i f i e d s t u d e n t s
f o r t h i s program a r e s a t i s f a c t o r y .

SA A

U D SD

4.

More d e p a r t m e n t a l i z a t i o n i s needed in t h e
program.

SA A

U D SD

5.

The amount o f time s t u d e n t s spend i n t h i s p r o gram seems adequate.

SA A

U D SD

6.

Adequate use i s made o f th e community r e s o u r c e s
in t h e program.

SA A

U D SD

OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM
7.

G i f te d c h i l d r e n shou ld n o t remain in r e g u l a r
classes.

SA A

U D SD

8.

This program has had a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on
t h e s t u d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e toward s c h o o l.

SA A

U D SD

165

166
9.

Spec ial c l a s s e s should be pro vid ed wherever
possible for g ifte d students.

SA A U D SD

10.

I t h i n k t h i s program i s b e n e f i c i a l t o th e
s t u d e n t s in volv ed i n i t .

SA A U D SD

11.

The program should be expanded to i n c l u d e more
children.

SA A U D SD

12.

The program should not be e l i m i n a t e d .

SA A U D SD

13.

S tud en ts could not do j u s t as well w i t h o u t t h i s
program.

SA A U D SD

STUDENT ENDORSEMENT
14.

S tu d en ts enjoy th e program.

SA A

U D SD

15.

Stude nts a r e w i l l i n g to spend time s tu d y i n g f o r
t h e c l a s s e s in t h i s program.

SA A

u

D SD

16.

S tu d e n t s f i n d t h e i r r e g u l a r c l a s s e s bo r in g in
comparison t o t h e i r c l a s s e s i n t h i s program.

SA A

u

D SD

STUDENT OUTCOMES
17.

The program i s des igned around th e needs and
concerns o f each c h i l d .

SA A

u

D SD

18.

The program h e l p s s t u d e n t s t o t h i n k i n d e ­
p en d e n t ly .

SA

A

u

D SD

19.

S tuden ts r e c e i v e guidance i n f i n d i n g and
de ve loping i d e a s .

SA

A

u

D SD

20.

S tu d en ts l e a r n t o deal c r i t i c a l l y with id e a s
i n t h e program.

SA

A

u

D SD

21.

The program helps s t u d e n t s t o become c r e a t i v e .

SA A

u

D SD

22.

The program he lp s t o ar o u se s t u d e n t s ' i n t e l lectual in te re s ts .

SA A

u

D SD

23.

The program helps s t u d e n t s t o d e s i r e t o excel
intellectually.

SA A U D SD

24.

S tu den ts who p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s program a r e
encouraged t o develop h obbies.

SA A U D SD

167
25.

Students who p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s program have
acces s to a v a r i e t y o f good books.

SA

A U D SD

26.

S tud en ts ar e missing th e " b asics " as a r e s u l t
o f th e program.

SA

A U D SD

27.

The program helps s t u d e n t s t o have s e l f confiden ce .

SA

A U D SD

28.

Children b e n e f i t s o c i a l l y by being placed in
groups o f s i m i l a r mental a b i l i t y .

SA

A U D SD

29.

The o p p o r t u n i t y to a s s o c i a t e with o t h e r g i f t e d
c h i l d r e n helps the s tu d e n t s a d j u s t s o c i a l l y .

SA

A U D SD

30.

The o p p o r tu n i t y t o a s s o c i a t e with o l d e r c h i l d r e n
and a d u l t s to f in d o th e r s with t h e i r i n t e r e s t i s
an e n r i c h i n g experience t o th e s t u d e n t .

SA

A U D SD

INSTRUCTION METHODS AND TEACHER COMPETENCY
31.

The t e a c h e r s in th e g i f t e d program should
have s p e c i a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s .

SA

A U D SD

32.

The te a c h i n g methods used in th e enrichment
program a r e s a t i s f a c t o r y .

SA

A U D SD

33.

Students r e c e i v e adequate s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r
c o n t a c t i n the program.

SA

A U D SD

34.

The r e s i s t a n c e o f t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
has prevented e f f e c t i v e programs f o r th e g i f t e d .

SA

A U D SD

AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
35.

I have been provided with enough in fo rm ation
about the o b j e c t i v e s o f the program.

SA

A U D SD

36.

I have been kept well informed concerning my
s t u d e n t ' s progre ss i n t h e program.

SA

A U D SD

37.

I am acquain te d with th e program.

SA

A U D SD

38.

I would l i k e t o become more ac qua inted with
th e program.

SA

A U D SD

168

TEACHING EXPERIENCE:

( P la c e a check a f t e r th e number o f y e a r s o f
experience t h a t b est describes you.)

1-5 y e a r s ___________
5-10 y e a r s __________
10-15 y e a r s __________
15-20 y e a r s __________
20-25 y e a r s __________
25-30 y e a r s __________
more than 30 y e a r s ____________
What s u g g e s t i o n s do you have f o r improving t h e program?

Comments:

APPENDIX C
STUDENT SURVEY

169

APPENDIX C
STUDENT SURVEY
Below a r e some s t a t e m e n t s about t h e s p e c i a l program f o r g i f t e d and
a ca d e m ic a ll y t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s which you have been a p a r t o f . The
s ta t e m e n t s a r e meant t o f i n d out y o u r f e e l i n g s abou t t h e program.
P le a s e i n d i c a t e th e e x t e n t t o which you ag ree o r d i s a g r e e with each
of t h e f o llo w i n g s ta t e m e n t s by c i r c l i n g th e a p p r o p r i a t e l e t t e r ( s ) .
P le a s e respond t o each item.
S t r o n g ly A g ree....................... SA
Ag re e........................................... A
Undecided or N e u t r a l
U
D i s a g r e e .....................................D
S tro n g ly D i s a g r e e .................SD
STUDENT OUTCOMES
1.

The program helps me to excel i n t e l l e c t u a l l y .

SA A U D SD

2.

I g e t more o u t o f t h i s c l a s s th an t h e c l a s s e s
a t my r e g u l a r s c h o o l.

SA A U D SD

3.

I make good use o f my t a l e n t i n t h i s c l a s s .

SA A

4.

What I l e a r n in t h i s c l a s s should be very
h e l p f u l i n my r e g u l a r school work.

SA A U D SD

5.

The program he lps me to t h i n k w i t h o u t help
from o t h e r s .

SA A U D SD

6.

My own i d e a s a r e b e t t e r ac c e p te d by th e
s p e c i a l program t e a c h e r th an by my r e g u l a r
classr oom t e a c h e r .

SA A U D SD

7.

The program helps me t o give rea so ns f o r
disapproving id eas.

SA A U D SD

8.

The program he lp s me t o become c r e a t i v e .

SA A U D SD

9.

The program helps t o make my school work
interesting.

SA A U D SD

10.

The program encourages me t o develop hobb ies.

SA A U D SD

11.

I have t h e same neighborhood f r i e n d s now t h a t
I had b e f o r e e n t e r i n g t h e program.

SA A U D SD

170

U D SD

171
12.

Being in t h i s program has caused me problems
w ith o t h e r s t u d e n t s a t my r e g u l a r s c h o o l.

SA A

U

13.

The s t u d e n t s in t h i s program were more fun t o
be with than my r e g u l a r school c l a s s m a t e s .

SA A

U D SD

D SD

INSTRUCTION METHODS AND TEACHER COMPETENCY
14 .

I l i k e t h e way t h e t e a c h e r i n t h i s program
teaches.

SA A

U

D SD

15.

The c l a s s i s very i n t e r e s t i n g .

SA A U

D SD

16.

The c l a s s was n o t as i n t e r e s t i n g as I th ou g ht
i t would be.

SA

A

u

D SD

OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM

17.

I would gain more from a program l i k e t h i s
i n my own b u i l d i n g .

SA A

u

D SD

18.

The c l a s s l a s t s too long.

SA A

u

D SD

19.

The program i s n o t worth t h e time and e f f o r t
requi red.

SA A

u

D SD

20.

I t h i n k th e program i s g r e a t .

SA A u

D SD

21.

The program i s b o r in g .

SA A

u

D SD

22.

I am p l e a s e d with th e amount o f time I spend
in t h i s program.

SA A

u

D SD

23.

I have b e n e f i t e d from t h i s program.

SA A

u

D SD

24.

S pecia l c l a s s e s should be provided f o r g i f t e d
chi 1dren.

SA A

u

D SD

25.

The program should be d i s c o n t i n u e d .

SA A

u

D SD

26.

I would l i k e t o s e e more s t u d e n t s in clu d ed in
t h e program.

SA

A

u

D SD

27.

I a t t e n d t h e c l a s s because my p a r e n t s encourage
me t o do so.

SA A

u

D SD

172
STUDENT ENDORSEMENT
28.

I am w i l l i n g t o spend time s tu d y i n g f o r
th e c l a s s .

SA A U D SD

29.

I en jo y th e program.

SA A U D SD

30.

I f I were chosen t o be in t h e c l a s s a g a i n ,
I would a t t e n d .

SA A U D SD

31.

I am a g i r l . Yes

32.

I am a boy. Yes

33.

I am in t h e

No
No_________
grade.

APPENDIX D
QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTORS OF GIFTED AND
TALENTED PROGRAMS

173

APPENDIX D
QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTORS OF GIFTED AND
TALENTED PROGRAMS
1.

What program p r o to t y p e was used?

2.

What pro ce dures were used f o r i d e n t i f y i n g s t u d e n t s ?

3.

What were t h e go als s e t f o r s t u d e n t s ?

4.

What q u a l i f i c a t i o n s were r e q u i r e d o f t e a c h e r s o f t h e g i f t e d ?

5.

What p r o v i s i o n s were made f o r i n s e r v i c e f o r s t a f f and p a r e n t s ?

6.

How were p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n i t i a l l y involved
in th e ge neral scheme o f th e program?

7.

How was t h e program e v a l u a t e d and what use was made o f the
evaluation?

8.

How was t h e d i r e c t o r chosen?

9.

What percentage o f h i s / h e r jo b was d e s i g n a t e d toward th e g i f t e d
program?

10.

What model o f c u r r i c u l u m was used?

11.

How long was t h e program c onti nued?

12.

How was t h e program funded?

13.

What was t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n se rved ?

14.

Was a p u l l o u t t e c h n iq u e used?

15.

What i s t h e geogra phic makeup o f t h e d i s t r i c t ?

16.

What m o d i f i c a t i o n s have been made i n t h e program?

174

APPENDIX E
PARENT COMMENTS

175

APPENDIX E
PARENT COMMENTS

1.

This program has helped my c h i l d a d j u s t to h e r r o l e in l i f e not
only in s c h o o l , a l s o in t h e f a m i l y . I do hope th e program i s
allowed to c o n t i n u e .

2.

As w ith any school program, t h e r e i s not enough time s p e n t with th e
s t u d e n t s . Regardles s whether o r n o t a c h i l d i s i n t e l l i g e n t o r
slow, th ey a l l need a l o t o f time s p e n t with them. I hope t h i s
program c o n t i n u e s .

3.

Some c l a s s e s a r e not up t o p a r .

4.

My c h i l d enjoys th e program.

5.

We a r e very s a t i s f i e d with the program.

6.

I was very proud when njy c h i l d was s e l e c t e d f o r t h i s program.
It
has been a very good e x p e r i e n c e f o r h e r . Since she s t a r t e d th e
program she has become more s e l f - c o n f i d e n t .

7.

I t would be wonderful f o r a l l c h i l d r e n t o have t e a c h e r s l i k e th e
ones in t h i s program.

8.

My d a u g h t e r has th r o u g h ly enjoyed th e program.

9.

I hope t h i s d i s t r i c t se es t h e val u e o f t h e p i l o t program and w i ll
co n t in u e a f t e r th e i n i t i a l 3 y e a r s .

10.

No re sp onses were made due t o t h e la ck o f knowledge conce rning th e
program and program communication. Communication can pro v id e a
s t r o n g l i n k between school and community and s u p p o rt f o r t h i s and
o t h e r programs b u t people need t o know e s p e c i a l l y i n a r e l a t i v e l y
n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l community such as o u r s .
I f e e l very s t r o n g l y t h a t
a g i f t e d program sho uld i n c l u d e c h i l d r e n long b e f o r e f o u r t h grade.

11.

My c h i l d d i s l i k e d school and t r i e d to be s i c k a t l e a s t 1 o r 2 days
a week b e f o r e t h i s c l a s s . Also he d i d not g e t good g r a d e s . Now
he l i k e s school and does not miss u n le s s he i s r e a l l y s i c k .

12.

I did not u n d er stan d why my c h i l d was s e l e c t e d f o r th e program in
which she s t a r t e d two y e a r s ago. I have n o t hear d an y t h in g about
h er p r o g r e s s and I was neve r informed o f what t h e program i s about.

13.

I do not t h i n k t h e r e i s enough p a r e n t c o n t a c t .

176

177
14.

I t h i n k some o f th e c l a s s p r o j e c t s were p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l in
expanding my c h i l d ' s h o r iz o n .

15.

We need more ti m e .
of thing.

15.

I'm s o r r y I'm not t h a t informed on th e program and d o n ' t f e e l I
can g iv e h ones t o p i n i o n s .

17.

I only know ab out t h e program from what my 10 y e a r old t e l l s me.
She loves to a t t e n d t h e c l a s s and she l i k e s th e t e a c h e r r e a l w e l l .

18.

Why a r e s p e c i a l e d u c a tio n s t u d e n t s on th e low range given more
s p e c i a l programs and provided w ith t r a n s p o r t a t i o n w h i le th e b r i g h t
s t u d e n t s have few programs ( o f t e n c u t from budget) and must p r o ­
vide own t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ?

19.

Being b r i g h t in t h e s e days i s not enough. Developing a s en se
o f perso nal worth and achievement i s one o f t h e g r e a t e s t t h i n g s a
school can g i v e .

20.

I am very s o r r y t o say t h a t I am n o t a l l t h a t f a m i l i a r with th e
program. This q u e s t i o n n a i r e has brought t h a t t o my a t t e n t i o n .
When my second g r a d e r d i d n ' t want t o go t o school anymore because
o f boredom and r e p e t i t i o u s school work, I was th ankful t h a t our
school had t h i s program a v a i l a b l e t o h e r .

21.

This program has been very h e l p f u l to my c h i l d .
was expanded t o i n c l u d e more c h i l d r e n .

22.

My s o n ' s t e a c h e r (cl as sro om ) ta k e s away h i s g i f t e d program p r i v i 1edges i f he g e t s o u t o f l i n e in anyway, which I f e e l i s very
unfair.

23.

C hild ren should have t h e m ix tu re o f s p e c i a l c l a s s along wit h
regular cla ss.

24.

I have two c h i l d r e n i n t h i s program and th ey seem t o enjoy th e
program and I b e l i e v e when c h i l d r e n enjoy t h e t h i n g s th ey a r e
in volved in th e y te n d to gain more from them.

25.

My c h i l d wrote a l e t t e r t o th e Board o f Education r e q u e s t i n g
they
pro v id e t h i s program in high school as i t does mean t h a t much t o
him.

26.

In r e g u l a r c l a s s e s too l i t t l e i s done f o r th o s e who want t o l e a r n .
Too much s t r e s s i s plac ed on equal e d u c a t i o n .

27.

I d i d n ' t even know we had a g i f t e d c h i l d .
ab ou t t h i s program.

My c h i l d would l i k e a f u l l day o f t h i s kind

I only wish i t

I wasne v e r informed

178
28.

Our son was chosen f o r t h i s program to give him more c o n f i d e n c e
in h i m s e l f .
I t h i n k th e program along w ith t h e t e a c h e r has done
our son a g r e a t deal o f good. He has t h e c o n f id en ce he needed,
which has improved h i s grades d r a m a t i c a l l y .

29.

These q u e s t i o n s got me involved more deeply in y o u r s u b j e c t than
what I had e x p e c t e d . Right now t h e s e l e c t i o n seems t o be on th e
b a s i s o f good gr ades and good work, e t c . but what about t h o s e who
may not g e t good grades but can draw, a c t , o r w r i t e good s t o r i e s or
poems a t t h i s very young age. I t seems t o me t h e s e would be g i f t e d
but over lo ok ed because o f n o t having good g r a d e s .
I re a lly appre­
c i a t e being a p a r t o f your s u r v e y , p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t h i s time when
many p a r e n t s f e e l t h a t t h e i r c h i l d r e n a r e not l e a r n i n g enough in
school to d a y .

30.

I t h i n k t h e program has i n s t i l l e d t h e hunger f o r more e d u c a t io n
and t o keep going t o b e t t e r o n e s e l f .

31.

The s o l u t i o n t o a l l our problems l i e s w ith th o s e who have th e
knowledge and a b i l i t y t o make t h i s world a b e t t e r p l a c e t o l i v e .
I t h e r e f o r e b e l i e v e t h a t programs t o develop t h e i n t e l l e c t o f our
g i f t e d c h i l d r e n should be given to p p r i o r i t y i n our e d u c a t i o n a l
system.

32.

I would l i k e t o see more s c h o o ls in volved in t h i s p r o j e c t . We a r e
moving t o a d i f f e r e n t school d i s t r i c t and I have hear d th ey do not
have a s i m i l a r program.

33.

I f e e l t h e program i s ver y much improved over l a s t y e a r . My c h i l d
i s much h a p p i e r in t h e program and i s doing many i n t e r e s t i n g
pro jects.

34.

I was kept informed o f my c h i l d ' s p r o g r e s s by h e r and i n some ways
I t h i n k p a r e n t s can p a r t i c i p a t e o r h e lp t h e c h i l d i n some programs,
i f possible.

35.

A w e l l - p r o v i d e d program f o r s t u d e n t s who t e a c h e r s f e e l can b e n e f i t
from i t . The program h e l p s s t u d e n t s t o excel in t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r
fie ld s of in te re s t,
I l i k e th e program and f e e l i t has helped my
c h i l d t o seek and l e a r n more about h i m s e l f and o t h e r s around him.

36.

I have two c h i l d r e n in t h e program, both have enjoyed i t immensely.

37.

The program has been a g r e a t h e l p t o my c h i l d and I would l i k e t o
see i t expanded to a l l s c h o o l s .

38.

I have two c h i l d r e n i n t h e program and i t r e a l l y give s thema b o o s t
t o be r eco g n ized as s p e c i a l people.

39.

My c h i l d enjoys t h e time s p e n t in t h e en richm ent c l a s s e s .
t e a c h e r en courages him i n h i s s t u d i e s .

The

179
40. I t h i n k t h e r e a r e too few c h i l d r e n allowed t o t a k e ad vantage o f a
program o f t h i s ty p e . Many g i f t e d c h i l d r e n a r e not given th e
o p p o r t u n i t y t o channel t h e i r t a l e n t s i n t o an a r e a o f i n t e r e s t o r
future careers.
I f e e l t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f monies d i v i d e d among
educational f ie ld s are inadequately d i s t r i b u t e d .
41. My c h i l d has only been in t h e program a s h o r t tim e . He was so
proud t o become e l i g i b l e f o r t h e en rich men t c l a s s . Because h i s
r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s e t s g o a ls f o r him, he has worked hard to complete
t h e s e goals hoping t o be a b l e to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e en richm ent
c l a s s . I t has helped h i s problem with shyness and growing up. I
am very p le a s e d with h i s p r o g r e s s . I would l i k e t o become more
f a m i l i a r with th e program and p o s s i b l y meet h i s enrich m en t c l a s s
t e a c h e r . This would h e l p me t o become f a m i l i a r with my c h i l d ' s
a b i l i t i e s and p r o g r e s s he i s making in t h i s c l a s s .
42.

G i f te d c h i l d r e n need a program l i k e t h i s t o be a b l e t o develop
th e ir full p o te n tia ls.

43.

My c h i l d loves t h e program and I would l i k e t o s e e i t c o ntinued
and expanded t o i n c l u d e o t h e r c h i l d r e n .

44.

As a p a r e n t , I f e e l t h i s program i s very good. I would l i k e to see
a n o t h e r program formed f o r middle l e v e l c h i l d r e n to hold t h e i r
i n t e r e s t in school as w e l l .

45.

This program has been very b e n e f i c i a l to two o f our c h i l d r e n who
have a t t e n d e d elem entary school h e r e .

46.

I am very p le a s e d with t h e program and my c h i l d i s doing many
in te r e s tin g things.

47.

I t has been a good program f o r my c h i l d .

48.

I t would be n i c e i f more c h i l d r e n could p a r t i c i p a t e . We spend
b i l l i o n s t r y i n g t o t e a c h and t r a i n t h e r e t a r d e d and han dica pped ,
e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e who can never be on t h e i r own and I would l i k e to
see some o f t h i s money go t o b e n e f i t t h e s m a r t e r c h i l d .

49.

The enric hm en t program i s a good one.

50.

I f e e l t h i s program has given our c h i l d s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e and i t
w i l l b e n e f i t her i n t h e f u t u r e .

51.

This i s a good program.

52.

I am g r a t e f u l f o r t h e time and money s p e n t on g i f t e d programs,
so few systems pro v id e anything f o r t h e s e c h i l d r e n .

53.

My c h i l d loves t h e program and t h e t e a c h e r . On t h e days when
en ric hm ent c l a s s e s a r e h eld t h e r e i s no grumbling ab ou t going to
s c h o o l. Her r e g u l a r classr oom was a b o r in g e x p e r i e n c e .

180

54. My c h i l d has been i n t h e program f o r 2 y e a r s . The few times I have
v i s i t e d t h e c l a s s i t has seemed t o be very d i s o r g a n i z e d and
u n d i s c i p l i n e d . The c h i l d r e n were a l l p a r t i c i p a t i n g and seemed to
be en jo y i n g themselves b u t in such a d i s o r g a n i z e d way. I do not
know i f th e t e a c h e r s have s p e c i a l t r a i n i n g f o r t h i s type o f work.
55.

This program i s very good f o r my c h i l d because he i s in a slow
l e a r n i n g cl as sr oo m and t h i s program gives him a chance t o use h is
mind more.

56.

By t h e 2nd s e m e s te r our son d i s l i k e d t h e program so much he would
p u r p o se ly miss t h e bus so he could s t a y in h i s r e g u l a r cl as sr oom .
His d a i l y c l a s s t e a c h e r was e x c e l l e n t and he d i d n ' t l i k e t o miss
ou t on fun with h e r .

57.

Many t e a c h e r s ( r e g u l a r cl as sr oom ) a r e opposed t o th e en richm ent
c l a s s and do n ot l i k e t o giv e t h e s t u d e n t s t h e i r work when they
r e t u r n t o t h e i r clas sr o o m .

58.

I would l i k e f o r my c h i l d to be in t h i s program u n t i l she completes
high s c h o o l.

59.

I am p l e a s e d w it h my c h i l d ' s r e p o r t . Her t e a c h e r kept me well
informed on he r p r o g r e s s .
I t i s h e lp in g h er t o g e t along with
children regardless of race.

60.

This has been an e x c e l l e n t program f o r our c h i l d . She i s
wanting t o t r y new t h i n g s and needs t o be k e p t busy; t h i s
provided t h i s f o r h e r .

61.

My c h i l d d id very well in t h e program. I have had 3 c h i l d r e n in
t h i s program. Academically t h e r e a r e t h r e e grad es above grade
l e v e l . This program te a c h e s them everyday common s e n s e , th e y a r e
l o s t i f something d o e s n ' t come from a book.

62.

I feel

63.

This kind o f program has helped my c h i l d t o look f o r b e t t e r ways
t o improve h i m s e l f .

64.

My d a u g h te r r e a l l y loved t h i s program.
I wish they would keep i t
i n o u r community; however, t h e school d i s t r i c t f e e l s t h e r e i s n ot
enough community concern ab ou t i t .

65.

I can s ee where t h e en rich men t program has r e a l l y he lped my c h i l d
i n becoming a b e t t e r s t u d e n t and a b e t t e r p e r so n .

66.

The g i f t e d program has helped my c h i l d enjoy some t h i n g s he l i k e s
and e n j o y s .

th e

always
program

program i n o u r school i s well planned and a d e q u a te ,

181
67.

Both our c h i l d r e n enjoy ed t h e program and would l i k e t o be in i t
a g a i n ; however, t h e y d i d not f e e l i t was f a r more b e n e f i c i a l than
t h e i r r e g u l a r clas sroo m. They were very d i s a p p o i n t e d in m is sing
s e v e r a l good a r t p r o j e c t s in t h e i r home s ch o o l.

68.

I am s o r r y t h a t my comments were n o t more p o s i t i v e b u t o u r e x p e r i ­
ences with the program were n o t a l l t h a t g r e a t , p o s s i b l y because
o f my d a u g h t e r ' s age and o t h e r t h i n g s going on i n h e r p e r io d o f
r a p i d development.

69.

The enric hm en t program was a good supplement t o o u r s o n ' s education
a t h i s r e g u l a r s c h o o l.
I f e e l i t s t i m u l a t e d h i s i n t e r e s t but I
do n o t f e e l a c h i l d should go i n t o a t o t a l program o f t h i s type or
be pushed ahead a gr ad e o r two, many problems ( s o c i a l l y ) develop
from t h i s . Many thanks t o t h e school d i s t r i c t f o r a l lo w i n g him to
participate.

70.

The program i s e x c e l l e n t .

71.

I ' v e been thoro ughly e x c i t e d and p le a s e d t o watch my son grow so
much d u r in g h i s exposure in t h e program.

72.

I do f e e l t h i s program he lped my c h i l d b u t I p e r s o n a l l y t h ought
more e f f o r t should have been made t o inform p a r e n t s o f what i s
happening in t h e program and what th e o b j e c t i v e s a r e .

73.

Our c h i l d has enjoyed t h e c l a s s p a r t i c u l a r l y meeting o t h e r s a t h is
l e v e l . We have been p a r t i c u l a r l y p l e a s e d with h i s r e g u l a r school
and th e e f f o r t s made by t h e s t a f f t o i n d i v i d u a l i z e work and keep
him i n t e r e s t e d and working up t o h i s a b i l i t y so I do not f e e l as
s t r o n g a need f o r a " s p e c i a l program," alt hough i t was a p o s i t i v e
e x p e r i e n c e f o r him.

74.

I f e l t t h a t t h e s p e c i a l program t e a c h e r s d i d n ' t a t t e m p t t o know
th e s t u d e n t s as they should have. When we a t t e n d e d c o n f eren c e the
t e a c h e r d i d n ' t even know our d a u g h t e r ' s f i r s t name; t h i s i s i n e x ­
cusable.

75.

Our c h i l d now has w e l l - d e f i n e d op in io n s on t h e program, mostly
p o s i t i v e ones. The problems she had wit h s t u d e n t s a t her r e g u l a r
school were caused by c a r e l e s s n e s s on t h e p a r t o f th e s t a f f and
o t h e r p a r e n t s who focu se d too much a t t e n t i o n on t h e " s p e c i a l p r o ­
gram" and t h e r e f o r e " b e t t e r " n a t u r e o f our d a u g h t e r ' s involvement.
This i n i t i a t e d our e f f o r t s t o p lay down t h i s " s p e c i a l " concept.
We wanted h e r t o remain i n a f f e c t e d by t h e r e c o g n i t i o n and a t t e n t i o n
so t h a t h e r s e lf - i m a g e would remain n a t u r a l .
I t seems from our
d i s c u s s i o n s w i th h e r , t h a t she gained i n s t e a d some s o r t o f stigma
among h er p e e r s . The c o m p e t i t i v e n a t u r e o f l i f e w i l l c e r t a i n l y
become a p p a r e n t in due t im e . The value of t h e program o r o t h e r
such programs t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d can be gained w i t h o u t th e
perception of loss to o th e rs.

182
76.

I f e e l t h a t j u s t because a c h i l d is g i f t e d many times th e " b a s ic s "
a r e over looke d and j u s t taken f o r g r a n te d t h a t he knows them.

77.

This program has met w ith c o n s i d e r a b l e o p p o s i t i o n i n our ar ea ev er
s i n c e i t was i n t r o d u c e d . I b e l i e v e p a r t o f i t i s due t o t h e l i m i ­
t a t i o n in s i z e .
I f more c h i l d r e n could be in v o l v e d , i t would be
b e t t e r r e c e i v e d . The co nce pt o f t h e program was very b e n e f i c i a l
t o my own c h i l d b u t i t i s a r e a l i t y t h a t not a l l c h i l d r e n (perhaps
most c h i l d r e n ) do not belong in t h i s type o f program. I t has
e n r i c h e d her growth and I am s u r e she i s b e t t e r pr ep are d f o r j u n i o r
and s e n i o r high school than th e av erage c h i l d in our community.
My own o p in i o n now i s t h a t t h e r e s t o f h e r e d u c a ti o n he r e w i l l be
a c h a l l e n g e as t h e r e i s l i t t l e t o s t i m u l a t e h e r i n t e r e s t s s i n c e
t h e r e a r e l i m i t e d r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e in j u n i o r and s e n i o r h ig h.

78.

I f e e l t h i s program g iv e s th e c h i l d r e n a chance to excel w ith o u t
t h e p e e r p r e s s u r e t o be ashamed o f "doing w e l l . " The s t u d e n t s
encourage and hel p each o t h e r to move ahead. The " i n t h i n g " in
t h i s c l a s s i s t o meet a c h a l l e n g e and conquer i t .
I lik e th a t idea.
My c h i l d f e e l s b e t t e r ab out school now t h a t he can work ahead when
h e ' s f i n i s h e d with h i s r e g u l a r as s i g n m e n t s . In th e " r e g u l a r c l a s s ­
room" he was a l i t t l e bored and f r u s t r a t e d a f t e r f i n i s h i n g his
a s s i g n e d work q u i c k l y . His t e a c h e r s d i d n ' t have time t o gi ve
en ric hm ent as signments and l e t him work ahead as th ey had to deal
w ith t h e av erage and slow er s t u d e n t as w e l l . My c h i l d ' s t e s t
s c o r e s have averaged almost two y e a r s h i g h e r in t h i s program than
they were b e f o r e he e n t e r e d . He has been much h a p p i e r and much
more enthus ed abou t school s i n c e e n t e r i n g th e program. Needless
t o s a y , I'm very s u p p o r t i v e o f th e program.

79.

The program i s d e f i n i t e l y an a s s e t to th e e d u c a t i o n a l program and
should be c o n t i n u e d .
I t h i n k th e program would be more r e a d i l y
ac c e p te d by o t h e r s t u d e n t s and p a r e n t s i f th e name was changed.

80.

There i s always money f o r c h i l d r e n who a r e low a c a d em ically b u t i t
i s always a b a t t l e t o g e t money f o r th o s e on t h e end o f th e s c a l e .

81.

This community i s r e s i s t a n t t o change and new i d e a s . Peer p r e s s u r e
among th e t e a c h e r s , a school board la c k i n g i n e x p e r ie n c e and ed uca­
t i o n i t s e l f , p a r e n t s o f c h i l d r e n who d i d n ' t g e t i n t o t h e c l a s s , a l l
have c o n t r i b u t e d to our overwhelming r e s i s t a n c e t o th e o r i g i n a l
co nce ptu al o r g a n i z a t i o n o f th e program.

82.

I was in such a program as t h i s when I was in school and I s t i l l
f e e l t h a t t h e e x p e r i e n c e was i n v a l u a b l e .

83.

The program has made school a much more i n t e r e s t i n g and c h a l l e n g ­
ing p l a c e t o be f o r our c h i l d .

183
84.

I hope th e program f o r g i f t e d c h i l d r e n goes beyond t h e 8th grade
so t h a t t h e r e a r e more o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r advanced l e a r n i n g a c c o r d ­
ing to t h e s t u d e n t s ’ c a p a b i l i t i e s .

85.

I am very g r a t e f u l t o t h i s program because my c h i l d r e n were becom­
ing very bored with r e g u l a r classroom p r o c e d u r e s .

86.

This i s my c h i l d ' s t h i r d y e a r i n t h e program and t h i s i s th e f i r s t
y e a r t h a t I have n o t had t o g e t a f t e r h e r ab ou t completing a s p e c i a l
p r o j e c t as signm ent. Her t e a c h e r gives them time du r in g c l a s s to
work on s p e c i a l a s s i g n m e n t s , a l s o , she has used th e school l i b r a r y
f o r r e f e r e n c e m a t e r i a l s when needed.

87.

My s t r o n g e s t c r i t i c i s m o f th e program i s t h e a t t i t u d e o f r e g u l a r
t e a c h e r s and t h e school a d m i n i s t r a t i o n on b e h a l f o f r e s i s t a n c e
toward t h e program.

88.

The su c c e ss o f t h i s program in our middle school has been p r i m a r i l y
due t o t h e p e r s o n a l i t y and t e a c h i n g a b i l i t y o f t h e t e a c h e r in
charge. He has o r g an ized a program which f i t s t h e needs o f many
students.

89.

I t h i n k t h e g i f t e d program i s a wonderful e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r ie n c e
t h a t should be c o n tin u e d and s p r e a d o v e r t h e U.S.

90.

My only n e g a t i v e comment i s t h a t t h e t e a c h e r s o f t h e s e s t u d e n t s
should be b e t t e r informed as t o what i s happening i n th e program
and how they can h e lp t h e s e c h i l d r e n i n t h e r e g u l a r cl as sr oom .
Each c h i l d i s d i f f e r e n t , but a g i f t e d c h i l d has l e a r n i n g d i f f i ­
c u l t i e s , such as boredom from r e p e t i t i o n t h a t many t e a c h e r s do not
r e c o g n i z e . As t h e s e c h i l d r e n p r o g r e s s and a r e n o t c h a l l e n g e d ,
they t u r n - o f f on school and become problems. I would l i k e t o see
th i s a t t i t u d e elim inated.

91.

The government should spend more money on g i f t e d programs.

92.

This type o f program i s long over d u e, i t sho uld be c o n ti n u e d and
r e c e i v e s u f f i c i e n t funding t o do a s i g n i f i c a n t j o b f o r ALL s t u ­
dents who q u a l i f y .

93.

I would l i k e t o know more ab ou t my c h i l d ' s i n d i v i d u a l res ponse to
th e program.

94.

My c h i l d seems to enjoy t h e c l o s e a t t e n t i o n t h a t t h e t e a c h e r p r o ­
vides f o r h e r . She has p r o g r e s s e d f a r t h e r th an t h e av erage c h i l d
o f th e same age and t h i s could only have been made p o s s i b l e through
t h i s program. I t gives h e r a chance t o expand he r mind and she can
s t i l l enjoy h e r f r i e n d s o f t h e same age group when she r e t u r n s to
regular cla ss.
I s i n c e r e l y hope t h a t t h e program i s c o n ti n u ed f o r
her sake and f o r th e sake o f o t h e r s .

184
95.

We t h i n k the program i s g r e a t .
The t e a c h e r i s what a t e a c h e r
should be. She does a s u p e r j o b and b r in g s out t h e very b e s t in
our c h i l d . Because o f t h i s program we have dec id ed to remain in
t h i s community.

96.

The program i s f a n t a s t i c .

97.

The t e a c h e r was a f i n e ch oic e as a t e a c h e r f o r t h i s group.
has good i d e a s f o r t h e program.

98.

Many o f o u r o p in io n s r e g a r d i n g th e program a r e based on i t s s h o r t
l i f e and t h e r e f o r e tend toward th e u n c e r t a i n c a t e g o r y .

99.

My c h i l d has improved in many a r e a s as a r e s u l t o f t h i s program
mainly in t h e a r e a o f shyness and being a p e r f e c t i o n i s t . My c h i l d
is no l o n g e r a f r a i d t o t r y something new and t o make a m i s t a k e .

She

100.

Since t h i s
f i c u l t to
about th e
fantastic

is a new con ce pt in t h e school s y stem , i t i s very d i f ­
e v a l u a t e t h e program. Our c h i l d i s very e n t h u s i a s t i c
c l a s s and t h e t e a c h e r .
I f e e l t h e t e a c h e r has some
ideas.

101.

I'm very p le a s e d my c h i l d has had t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y and hope th e
program i s c o n tin u ed and expanded.

102.

Programs f o r t h e g i f t e d a r e extr em ely i m p o r t a n t t o keep a c h i l d
from becoming bored and becoming an u n d e r a c h ie v e r . A s s o c i a t i o n
with c h i l d r e n o f equal a b i l i t y i s i m p o r t a n t to keep t h e c h i l d
from f e e l i n g t h a t he i s s t r a n g e o r d i f f e r e n t .
I t ' s very easy f o r
a c h i l d to t r y t o be l i k e everyone e l s e and not develop t h e t a l ­
e n t s t h a t make him unique .

103.

Many o f t h e p r o j e c t s have c r e a t e d a j e a l o u s o r envious a t t i t u d e
among p e e r s . Is t h e r e some way t h e s e n e a t l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s
could be sh ared more?

104.

One p o s i t i v e a s p e c t o f having t h e program in our school i s t h a t i t
h e l p s my c h i l d to f e e l l e s s " d i f f e r e n t " th an he would o t h e r w i s e .
G if te d c h i l d r e n o f t e n h id e t h e i r a b i l i t i e s in t h e r e g u l a r classroom
in o r d e r t o n o t ap p ear d i f f e r e n t .
I t h i n k t h e program has helpe d
some c h i l d r e n t o f e e l i t i s good t o have s p e c i a l a b i l i t i e s and t o
f e e l proud o f i t .

105.

My c h i l d enjoys t h i s e x p e r i e n c e . We a r e very happy with h i s
i n t e r e s t and enthusias m toward s c h o o l , p a r t o f which we f e e l i s a
r e s u l t of t h i s experience.

106.

Our s p e c i a l p r o j e c t program i s a s t e p in t h e r i g h t d i r e c t i o n .
sho uld be expanded.

It

185
107.

My d a u g h te r has developed both i n t e l l e c t u a l l y and s o c i a l l y i n
t h i s program. She is now very e x c i t e d abou t school whereas in
t h e p a s t she found i t most b o r in g .

108.

I t h i n k my c h i l d i s becoming a very i n t e l l i g e n t young lady and
t h i n k i n g f o r h e r s e l f . Her t e a c h e r i s a very n i c e p erson.

109.

The program i s g e t t i n g t h e kinds worked o u t . My c h i l d would p r e ­
f e r going away from r e g u l a r school f o r t h e whole day over having
t h e program in th e same b u i l d i n g .

110.

I hope t h i s le a d s you t o work with and f o r g i f t e d c h i l d r e n .
do need t e a c h e r s on t h e i r s i d e .

111 .

What e f f e c t w i l l t h i s program have on my c h i l d ' s permanent r e cord
as to a b i l i t y i n one given a r e a o f achievement?

11 2 .

The g i f t e d program does not f u l f i l l my e x p e c t a t i o n s .
much room f o r improvement.

113.

My son has enjoyed t h i s program and hopes t o c o n t i n u e with i t in
th e f u t u r e .

114.

A d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t e a c h e r s t r e a t g i f t e d programs as rewards f o r
good gr ades r a t h e r than as a n e c e s s i t y to p r e v e n t t h e l o s s o f our
most g i f t e d and i n t e l l i g e n t s t u d e n t s .

115.

I am g r a t e f u l t h a t my son had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y to be a p a r t o f
t h i s program. I know he th o ro u g h ly enjoyed i t .

They

There i s

APPENDIX E
PARENT SUGGESTIONS

186

APPENDIX E
PARENT SUGGESTIONS
1.

S tu d e n ts need t o be c h a l l e n g e d ....................................................................

3

2.

P r o v is io n s sho uld be made f o r more d i v e r s i f i e d a c t i v i t i e s f o r
s t u d e n t s ( e . g . , games, d e b a t e s , s c i e n c e e x p e r i m e n t s , com­
p u t e r programming, and i n v e s t i g a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s )
...........................

6

Expand t h e c u r ric u lu m f o r g i f t e d s t u d e n t s t o i n c l u d e math,
s c i e n c e , a r t , w r i t i n g and o t h e r c r e a t i v e s k i l l s , f o r e i g n
lang uag e, computer s c i e n c e , s o c i a l awar en es s, a t t i t u d e s ,
f i n e a r t s , astronomy, news media ( e . g . , newspaper, s e l f awa re nes s, i n d u s t r i a l a r t s and val ue c l a r i f i c a t i o n ) ......................

18

4.

The c o n t e n t and as sig nm en ts should be more meaningful ...................

2

5.

Provide more c o m p e t i t i v e ty pe s o f a c t i v i t i e s ( e . g . , s p e l l i n g
bees and q u i z z e s ) ..................................................................................................

1

6.

More s t r u c t u r e d approach sho uld be used in c l a s s e s

.......................

4

7.

Less w r i t i n g o f r e p o r t s ......................................................................................

1

8.

Ch ildren need more h om ew ork .............................................................................

3

9.

More i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n

2

3.

......................................................................................

10.

B e t t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n and p r e p la n n in g o f program

................................

2

11.

Program should be des ig ne d t o meet i n d i v i d u a l needs and
i n t e r e s t ....................................................................................................................

9

12.

Begin program e a r l i e r du r in g t h e y e a r ......................................................

3

13.

Make b e t t e r use o f community r e s o u r c e s ( e . g . , meaningful
f i e l d t r i p s and p r o f e s s i o n a l s ) ........................................................................ 17

14.

More r e s o u r c e m a t e r i a l s ......................................................................................

1

15.

Program should be expanded i n t o J u n i o r High and S e n io r
High S c h o o l ..........................

3

16.

Expand program to in v o lv e a l l grades

1

17.

Program should be expanded i n t o lower grades

.....................................

2

18.

Expand program t o in v o lv e more c h i l d r e n ..................................................

9

187

.......................................................

188
19.

I n i t i a t e program ag ain in school d i s t r i c t ............................................

20.

I n c r e a s e t h e amount o f time s p e n t in c l a s s e s .........................................38

21.

I n c o r p o r a t e g i f t e d programs in home school ..........................................

6

22.

A c c e l e r a t i o n o f s t u d e n t s (g rad e s k ip p i n g ) ............................................

1

23.

Acceleration within special subjects

.....................................................

3

24.

S maller c l a s s e s .....................................................................................................

2

25.

Grading o f e f f o r t .................................................................................................

1

26.

B e t t e r d i s c i p l i n e .................................................................................................

1

27.

More s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r c o n t a c t

......................................................................

1

28.

More p a r e n t - t e a c h e r c o n t a c t ...........................................................................

19

29.

P a r e n t a l involvement in t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f goa ls and
o b j e c t i v e s ...............................................................................................................

5

30.

2

Provide p a r e n t s with some form o f p r o g r e s s r e p o r t .................................. 18

31.

P a r e n ts should be b e t t e r informed o f program ......................................

32.

Provide i n s e r v i c e workshops and open house f o r p a r e n t s

. . . .

25
2

33.

D i f f e r e n t i a t e d s t a f f i n g ....................................................................................

3

34.

Special q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r t e a c h e r s .........................................................

6

35.

More t e a c h e r s f o r th e program and a d d i t i o n a l h e l p ...............................

6

36.

Less t e a c h e r b i a s on ch oice o f p r o j e c t s ..................................................

1

37.

Teacher should be more f l e x i b l e ...................................................................

1

38.

B e t t e r c o o p e r a t i o n from classroom t e a c h e r ............................................

4

39.

B e t t e r communication between program t e a c h e r and
classroom t e a c h e r ..................................................................................................

6

40.

B e t t e r - d e f i n e d s e l e c t i o n pro cedure s .........................................................

6

41.

C o n t i n u i t y a f t e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ..................................................................

2

42.

Screen s t u d e n t s p r i o r t o f a l l ......................................................................

1

43.

Less b u i l d i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' power .........................................................

3

189
44.

More funds a l l o c a t e d f o r programs ...............................................................

6

45.

Attempt t o s o lv e s o c i a l problems

...............................................................

3

46.

Provide t r a n s p o r t a t i o n

......................................................................................

2

47.

Less time t r a n s p o r t i n g s t u d e n t s to c e n t r a l i z e d

a r ea ........................

3

48.

Provide bus ing f o r s p e c i a l c l a s s e s only where t h e r e a r e
too few c h i l d r e n t o w a r r a n t a c l a s s ..........................................................

1

APPENDIX G
TEACHER COMMENTS

190

APPENDIX G
TEACHER COMMENTS
1.

We do not have a s m o o t h - f u n c t i o n i n g program. I t e x i s t s in name
o n ly . We have a " g r e a t books" program f o r 3 r d , 4 t h , and 5th g r a d e r s ;
i t does not f i l l t h e i r need f o r a c t i v e c h a l l e n g e s .
I'm not impressed
by i t .
Give us a program t h a t i s an a c t i v e and growing t h i n g , - - a
l i v i n g e n t i t y . Give us a good s o l i d c r i t e r i o n f o r ju d g i n g and d i s ­
c o v e r i n g t h e s e " g i f t e d " o n e s , then show us how to be f l e x i b l e with
them. Help us u n d er sta n d and work w ith t h e s e young people by g iv in g
us a n e w s l e t t e r t h a t s h a r e s t h e s e e x p e r i e n c e s , g iv e s h i n t s , o f f e r s
s u g g e s t i o n s , h o n e s tl y e v a l u a t e s t h i n g s t h a t t u r n s o u r , go wrong o r
t u r n k id s o f f . A f t e r a l l , o u r grown-up id e a s about what t h e s e kids
need o r would l i k e a r e n ' t what th ey want o r work b e s t w ith .

2.

A program must have funds t o be s u c c e s s f u l . Our program depends on
t e a c h e r v o l u n t e e r tim e ; i t i s n o t enough. When school boards w i ll
pay f o r e d u c a ti o n f o r a l l s t u d e n t s th e n we w i l l be a b l e t o begin
meeting g i f t e d s t u d e n t s ' needs.

3.

Some c h i l d r e n , whose s c o r e s (SAT) d o n ' t q u a l i f y them, would q u a l i f y
i f t e a c h e r judgment was i n v o lv e d . My c h i l d r e n seemed t o be d i s ­
couraged by the r e s e a r c h format o f t h e program.

4.

I have in a d e q u a te i n f o r m a t i o n abou t t h e program.

5.

I want some o t h e r d a t a o t h e r than c h i l d ' s notebook.

6.

I t would be n e a t t o have a person who could come and h e lp t e a c h e r s
meet t h e needs o f t h e s e s p e c i a l c h i l d r e n .

7.

I f e e l i t i s an e x c e l l e n t program. I j u s t do not know how t h e
c l a s s i s t a u g h t o r what t h e kids do.

8.

My s t u d e n t has been i n th e g i f t e d program f o r t h e p a s t y e a r .
I have
very l i t t l e knowledge as to what r e a l l y i s going on in th e program.
There i s no communication from h i s c l a s s t o me so I can ex tend h i s
activities.

9.

Our program f o r n e x t y e a r w i l l be d i f f e r e n t ; o u r c h i l d r e n w i l l have
d e f i n i t e s u b j e c t s as p a r t o f t h e program. They w i l l n o t have to do
work th e y missed by being drawn from our r e g u l a r c l a s s e s . This
method i s p r e f e r r e d by s t u d e n t s and t e a c h e r s in v o l v e d .

10.

I f i r m l y b e l i e v e t h a t t h e program h er e a t o u r school i s a poor
excuse f o r even t h e s i m p l e s t program f o r t h e g i f t e d .

11.

Our c o u n t r y has s o r e l y n e g l e c t e d t h e development o f t h e b r a i n power
o f th e f u t u r e .
191

192
12.

Our program t e n d s to be a b a b y s i t t i n g j o b with g i f t e d c h i l d r e n .
How n ice! This program i s r i d i c u l o u s .

13.

Our t e a c h e r f o r t h e g i f t e d i s e x c e l l e n t .

14.

We have an e x c e l l e n t person running t h e program.

15.

The t e a c h e r in our school has done an o u t s t a n d i n g j o b with t h e
c h i l d r e n ; in f a c t she has done t h e b e s t o f a l l t h e t e a c h e r s who
preceded h e r . I d i s a g r e e t h a t t h e g i f t e d t e a c h e r should have
special q u a lif ic a tio n s .

16.

Classroom t e a c h e r s need e x t r a he lp and m a t e r i a l s f o r th e g i f t e d
c h i l d r e n . These c h i l d r e n u s u a l l y f i n i s h t h e i r work e a r l y and
need e x t r a l e a r n i n g t o go on . . . f o r t h e s e s t u d e n t s .

17.

I have mixed f e e l i n g s about g i f t e d e d u c a t io n e s p e c i a l l y when t h e r e
a r e so many kids w i th l e a r n i n g problems and lower a b i l i t y t h a t need
so much e x t r a time and he lp (and d o n ' t always g e t i t ) .

18.

I f e e l our program i s a g r e a t s u c c e s s .

19.

With t h e program t h e clas sro om work i s l e s s b or in g i f t h e t e a c h e r
co o p e r a t e s and d o e s n ' t r e q u i r e make-up work f o r t h e time s t u d e n t s
a r e o u t o f t h e room.

20.

Since t h i s program i s r e l a t i v e l y new, t h e r e a r e many t h i n g s about
th e program t h a t I have n o t formed op in io n s on y e t . My c h i l d r e n
a r e young so I d o n ' t s ee a l o t o f advanced t h i n g s on t h e i r own y e t .

21.

I have had 3 s t u d e n t s i n volved in AIC, a l l have n o t been i n t e r e s t e d
in going t o t h e c l a s s . Our i n - b u i l d i n g program appear s more i n t e r ­
e stin g to the students.

22.

I would l i k e t o see p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s involved more.

23.

I 'm not so s u r e t h a t using t h e SAT in choosing kids f o r t h e program
i s an a p p r o p r i a t e t o o l .

24.

I f e e l c l o s e r c o n t a c t between th e c e n t r a l i z e d program and i n d i ­
vi dual s c h o o ls would be h e l p f u l . The e v a l u a t i o n a t th e end was not
too b e n e f i c i a l .

25.

Good idea and needs t o expand.

26.

My s t u d e n t s were e x c i t e d and r e a l l y enjoyed t h e c l a s s e s . This i s
a g r e a t program. I wish I co uld send more th an 2 s t u d e n t s .

27.

The g i f t e d program t e a c h e r sho uld c o n t a c t t e a c h e r s , i f s t u d e n t s
a r e having d i f f i c u l t i e s conce rni ng a d j u s t m e n t , b e h a v i o r , i n t e r e s t ,
o r co mpleting a s sig n m e n ts.

193

28.

Have a t e a c h e r s ' v i s i t a t i o n day where t e a c h e r s can go see c h i l d r e n
a t work.

29.

Some p a r t i c i p a n t s need some c o u n s e l i n g or time with s p e c i a l t e a c h ­
e r s . Ch il d ren can be a c c e l e r a t e d and a l s o have many problems o f
t h e i r own. Spec ial t e a c h e r s should be t r a i n e d enough t o s p o t
t h e s e c h i l d r e n and o f f e r he lp and encouragement when needed.

APPENDIX H
TEACHER SUGGESTIONS

194

APPENDIX H
TEACHER SUGGESTIONS
1. Expand c u r ric u lu m to in c l u d e re a d in g and r e s e a r c h .............................
2.

1

Look a t program as a p a r t o f t o t a l c u r r i c u l u m , n o t as an
" e x t r a " ........................................................................................................................

3

3.

Develop a c u r ric u lu m o u t l i n e

1

4.

Permit s t u d e n t s to help des ig n th e co u r se o f s tudy

5.

C oo r d in atio n between clas sro om a c t i v i t i e s and g i f t e d
program ( e . g . , l o n g -r a n g e g o a l s , p r o j e c t s , p l a n s ) . . . . . . .

7

6.

Less w r i t t e n r e p o r t s ..........................................................................................

1

7.

B e t t e r ch oice o f a c t i v i t i e s

2

8.

More d e p a r t m e n t a l i z a t i o n in s p e c i f i c b u i l d i n g s r a t h e r than
removal from r e g u l a r b u i l d i n g .......................................................................

3

Fewer h o b b y - lik e a c t i v i t i e s

.............................................................................

1

Make s u g g e s t i o n s to classr oom t e a c h e r on how t o meet th e
needs of th e g i f t e d c h i l d r e n in th e c l a s s r o o m ....................................

1

9.
10.

.........................................................................
........................

.................................... .

2

11.

I n s e r v i c e f o r clas sro om t e a c h e r s on o b j e c t i v e s o f th e
p r o g r a m ............................................................................................................................. 10

12.

More i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n

......................................................................................

2

13.

P ro vide m a t e r i a l s to use i n r e g u l a r clas sroo m .....................................

1

14.

Less r e p e t i t i o n o f c l a s s p r o j e c t s ...............................................................

2

15.

Provide f o r more s e l f - e x p r e s s i o n

1

16.

Provid e a f u l l - t i m e t e a c h e r f o r t h e g i f t e d

17.

More s t a f f team t e a c h i n g / e x t r a s t a f f

18.

...............................................................
.........................................

1

......................................................

1

B u ild in g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s should n o t be in charge o f g i f t e d
c l a s s e s o r programs ..............................................................................................

2

19.

C e r t i f i e d t e a c h e r s , not p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s u n le s s they a r e
used to a s s i s t t h e t e a c h e r ................................................................................. 14

20.

U t i l i z e community r e s o u r c e s ............................................................................
195

2

196
21.

Involve more t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s ................................................................

2

22.

B e t t e r communication between g i f t e d program t e a c h e r and
classroom t e a c h e r ..................................................................................................

20

B e t t e r communication between g i f t e d program t e a c h e r and
p a r e n t s ........................................................................................................................

2

Release time f o r clas sro om t e a c h e r f o r v i s i t a t i o n to
observe g i f t e d program .....................................................................................

3

25.

Provide t e a c h e r with some form o f p r o g re s s r e p o r t .............................

6

26.

Program in each b u i l d i n g ..................................................................................

5

27.

Do not t a k e c h i l d o u t o f r e g u l a r c l a s s r o o m ..........................................

1

28.

Require s t u d e n t s to do r e g u l a r clas sro om work .....................................

1

29.

S tu d e n t e v a l u a t i o n o f program .........................................................................

1

30.

Expand th e amount o f time s t u d e n t s spend i n s p e c i a l c l a s s e s . .

9

31.

Special c l a s s e s should be held d u r in g r e g u l a r school hours

. .

1

32.

Expand f a c i l i t i e s ...................................................................................................

4

33.

Expand program to i n c l u d e more s t u d e n t s , i n c l u s i v e o f
c r e a t i v e s t u d e n t s , and give some c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f
clas sro om t e a c h e r c h o ice ................................................................................

20

23.
24.

34.

Expand program to i n c l u d e a l l grad es

35.

Improve e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r a l l s t u d e n t s

........................

1

36.

P rovide a c c e l e r a t i o n c l a s s e s f o r g i f t e d s t u d e n t s in each
s u b j e c t a r e a ...........................................................................................................

2

Use school lunch time and r e c e s s time f o r in dependent
p r o j e c t s ....................................................................................................................

1

38.

Expand program i n t o high s c h o o l ....................................................................

1

39.

B e t t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n ...............................................................................................

1

40.

Make p r o v i s i o n s f o r m i n o r i t y s t u d e n t involvement w it h o u t
i n s u l t ........................................................................................................................

3

C oor dinate e x i s t i n g program with o t h e r s in c o u n t y / s t a t e . . . .

2

37.

41.

.......................................................

1

197
42.

Have s t a t e g u i d e l i n e s t o p r o v id e f o r i d e n t i f i e d s t u d e n t s
who may move from one school d i s t r i c t t o a n o t h e r ...........................

1

43.

I n i t i a t e programs o f t h i s kind i n o t h e r school d i s t r i c t s

2

44.

B e t t e r d e f i n e d s e l e c t i o n pro ce dures ( e . g . , more g u i d e l i n e s ,
..................................................................................................
special te s tin g )

3

G r e a t e r weight sho uld be given t o t e a c h e r recommendation
than to t e s t s c o re s in s e l e c t i o n o f s t u d e n t s ....................................

1

Once i d e n t i f i e d , s t u d e n t sho uld be picked up a c t i v e l y
so oner .........................................................................................................................

1

Limit s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o 1 y e a r so o t h e r s t u d e n t s
can p a r t i c i p a t e .......................................................................................................

2

SAT s c o r e s may n o t be a p p r o p r i a t e as an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
d e v i c e ........................................................................................................................

1

49.

More a p t i t u d e t e s t i n g ..........................................................................................

1

50.

Scr ee ning shou ld be done so a g i f t e d s t u d e n t i s not place d
i n t h e program when i t may be d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e s t u d e n t
as a c h i l d who i s an u n d e r a c h i e v e r may f e e l p r o d u c t io n i s
uni m por ta nt ................................................................................................................

1

51.

Co nsider wh ethe r

1

52.

P rovide time f o r s p e c i a l t e a c h e r c o u n s e l in g with s t u d e n t s

53.

Ev a lu a te s t u d e n t s each y e a r i n June f o r l a t e r placement . . . .

2

54.

More funding f o r

5

45.
46.
47.
48.

c h i l d can a f f o r d t o miss t h e b a s i c s

g i f t e d programs

. . .

..................
. . .

......................................

1

BIBLIOGRAPHY

198

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Abraham, W. Common Sense About G i f te d C h i l d r e n .
and B r o t h e r s , 1958.

New York:

Harper

Barbe, Walter B. Psychology and Education o f th e G i f t e d : S e l e c t e d
R e a din gs . New York: A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , 1965.
, and R e n z u l l i , Joseph S. Psychology and Education o f th e
G i f t e d . 2nd ed. New York: I r v i n g t o n P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . , 1975.
Cronbach, Lee J . E s s e n t i a l s o f Psycholo gica l T e s t i n g .
Harper and Row, 1949.

New York:

Crow, L e s t e r , ed. Educating t h e Academically Able: A Book o f
Rea din gs. New York: David McKay C o . , I n c . , 1963.
DeHaan, Robert F. " E s s e n t i a l s o f a T a l e n t Development." In Working
With S u p e r io r S t u d e n t s . Edited by Bruce S h e r t z e r . Chicago:
Science Research A s s o c i a t e s , 1960.
_________, and H a v i g h u r s t , Ro ber t. Educating G i f t e d C h i l d r e n .
Chicago: The U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1961.
Dennis, Wayne, and Dennis, Margaret W., ed. The I n t e l l e c t u a l l y G i f t e d :
An Overview. New York: Grune and S t r a t t o n , 1976.
Durr, William K. The G i f t e d S t u d e n t .
P r e s s , 1964.

New York:

Oxford U n i v e r s i t y

E p s t e i n , Carol B. The G if te d and T a le n te d Programs That Work.
A r l i n g t o n , Va.: National School P ublic R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n ,
1979.
F i n d l e y , Warren G. , and Bryan, Miriam M. A b i l i t y Grouping: 1970,
S t a t u s , Impact and A l t e r n a t i v e s . Athens: Cen ter f o r Educationa l
Improvement, U n i v e r s i t y o f Geor gia, 1971.
F i s h b e i n , M art in. B e l i e f , A t t i t u d e , I n t e n t i o n and Behavior: An I n t r o ­
d u c t i o n to Theory and R es earch. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley
P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1975.
F r e e h i l l , Maurice F. G i f te d C h i l d r e n , T h e i r Psychology and E d u c a t io n .
New York: The Macmillan C o . , 1961.
199

200
French, J . L. Educating th e G i f t e d : A Book o f R ea din gs .
Henry H o l t, 1959.

New York:

G a l l a g h e r , James J . A nalys is o f Research on th e Education o f G if te d
C h i l d r e n . Urbana: S t a t e o f I l l i n o i s , O f f i c e o f t h e S u p e r i n t e n ­
dent o f P u b lic I n s t r u c t i o n , 1960.
_________. "The G i f te d Child in Elementary S c h o o l ." In The I n t e l l e c ­
t u a l l y G i f t e d : An Overview. E d ited by Wayne Dennis and Margaret W.
Dennis. New York: Grune and S t r a t t o n , 1976.
_________.

Teaching t h e G i f t e d C h i l d .

Boston:

Allyn and Bacon, 1975.

_________, ed. Teaching G i f t e d S t u d e n t s : A Book o f Rea d in gs.
Allyn and Bacon, 1965.
Goddard, Henry H. School T r a i n i n g o f G if te d C h i l d r e n .
Hudson, N.Y.: World Book C o . , 1928.

Boston:

Yonkers-on-

Gowan, John D . , and Demos, George. The Education and Guidance o f t h e
A b l e s t . S p r i n g f i e l d : Ch ar les C. Thomas, 1964.
Gowan, John C., and T o r r a n c e , E. P a u l , e d s . Educating th e A b l e s t:
A Book o f Readings on th e Education o f t h e G i f te d C h i l d r e n .
I t a s c a : 1971.
Har ing, Norris G . , and Cruickshank, George G, A t t i t u d e s o f Educators
Toward Exceptio na l C h i l d r e n . New York: Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y
P r e s s , 1958.
H i l d r e t h , G er tru d e H. Educating th e G i f te d a t Hunter C ollege Elemen­
t a r y S c h o o l . New York: Harper and B r o t h e r s , 1 9 5 2 .
_________. I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e G i f t e d .
Co ., 1966.

New York:

McGraw-Hill Book

Hunt, H. C. P r a c t i c e s o f School A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
M i f f l i n Co., 1958.

Boston:

Houghton-

Kough, J ack. P r a c t i c a l Programs f o r t h e G i f t e d .
Research A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . , 1960.

Chicago:

Science

Lemon, N igel.
1973.

A t t i t u d e s and T h e ir Measurement.

London:

Batsford,

Lin dsey, M ar garet. T r a i n i n g Teachers o f t h e G if te d and T a l e n t e d .
New York: Teachers C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1980.
M a rt inson, Ruth A . , and L e s s i n g e r . "Problems in th e I d e n t i f i c a t i o n
o f I n t e l l e c t u a l l y G i f t e d P u p i l s . " In Teaching G i f t e d S t u d e n t s :
A Book o f Rea din gs. Ed ited by James J . G a l l a g h e r . Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, I n c . , 1965.

201
McMillan, J . " I d e n t i f y i n g G i f t e d Elementary School C h i l d r e n . " In
G if te d C h i ld r e n Looking t o T h e ir F u t u r e . Ed ited by Joy Gibson
and Prue Chennels. Great B r i t a i n : The Anchor P r e s s , L t d . , 1976.
Mehrens, W. A. S t a n d a r d iz e d T e s t s i n E d u c a t i o n .
H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1973.

2nd ed.

Chicago:

Newland, T. E r n e s t . The G i f te d i n S o c io e d u c a t io n a l P e r s p e c t i v e .
Englewood C l i f f s T N.J’.V ' P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1976.
Nie, Norman H., e t a l . S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r th e So cial S c i e n c e s .
New York: McGraw-Hill Book C o . , 1975.
Oppenheim, Abraham N. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Design and A t t i t u d e Measurement.
New York: Basic Books, 1966.
P a r r i s h , Beryl M. Education o f t h e G i f t e d .
l i s h e r s , I n c . , 1964.
P r e s s e y , S. L.
Columbus:

New York:

Twayne Pub­

Educ ational A c c e l e r a t i o n A p p r a i s a l s and Basic Problem s.
Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1949.

R e n z u l l i , Joseph S. The Enrichment T r iad Model: A Guide f o r Develop­
ing D e f e n s ib le Programs f o r t h e G i f te d and T a l e n t e d . W e t h e r s f i e l d :
C r e a t i v e Learning Press', 1977.
R ice, Joseph P. The G i f t e d : Developing Total T a l e n t .
111.: Ch ar les C. Thomas, 1970.
S a n d e r l i n , Owenita.
and C o . , 1973.

Teaching G i f te d C h i l d r e n .

Springfield,

New York:

A. S. Barnes

Shannon, G a i l . " E v a lu a ti n g Programs f o r S u p e r i o r and T a le n te d S t u ­
d e n t s . " In Working With S u p e r io r S t u d e n t s : Theori es and P r a c t i c e s .
Ed ited by Bruce S h e r t z e r . Chicago: Scien ce Research A s s o c i a t e s ,
1960.
S h e r t z e r , Bruce, ed. Working With S u p e r io r S t u d e n t s : T h e o rie s and
P r a c t i c e s . Chicago: S cience Research A s s o c i a t e s , 1960.
S t a n l e y , J u l i a n C .; George, William C.; and Sola no, C e c i l i a . The
G i f t e d and t h e C r e a t i v e : A F i f t y - Y e a r P e r s p e c t i v e . B a l tim o r e :
The "Johns Hopkins UniversTty T r e s s , 1977.
T o r r a n c e , E. P. G if te d C h il d r e n in th e Clas sroom.
Macmi1lan C o . , 1965.

New York:

_________, ed. T a le n t and E d u c a t i o n .
Minnesota P r e s s , 1960.

University of

M in nea polis:

The

202
V a i l , P r i s c i l l a L. The World o f t h e G i f te d C h i l d .
and C o . , 1965.

New York:

Walker

Ward, V i r g i l S. Educating t h e G if ted-- An Axiomatic Approach.
Columbus: Charles M e r r i l l Books, I n c . , 1961.
_________. "Program O r g a n iz a ti o n and I m p lem en ta tio n ." In Psychology
and Education o f t h e G i f t e d . Edited by W alt er B. Barbe and
Joseph S. R e n z u l l i . New York: I r v i n g t o n P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . , 1975.
Periodicals
Batesman, Richard M. "The C o n s t r u c t i o n and E v a lu a ti o n o f a S ca le t o
Measure A t t i t u d e Toward Any Ed ucatio na l Program." J o u rn a l o f
Educ atio nal Research 36 (1943).
Dye, M yrt le. " A t t i t u d e o f G i f t e d C h ild r e n Toward S c h o o l."
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and S u p e r v i s i o n 42 (1956).
F o n t a in e , A.
(1941).

" S u p e r i o r M e n t a l i t i e s i n Our S c h o o l s . "

Goldner, R. " S p ecial C la s se s f o r th e G i f t e d . "
c a t i o n 44 (1957).

Edu cational

High P o i n t s 23
-------------

New York S t a t e Edu­

Hal p e r t , R. L . , and Vredevoe, L. E. " A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and E v a lu a ti o n of
Programs f o r G i f te d S t u d e n t s . " National A s s o c i a t i o n o f Secondary
School P r i n c i p a l s B u l l e t i n 305 (1965).
Hamilton, Norman K. " A t t i t u d e s Toward Special Educational Programs
f o r G i f te d C h i l d r e n . " Exceptio na l C h i ld r e n 40 (1963).
Hin ckley , S. "Plan f o r th e G if te d C h i l d . "
t i o n 33 (1956).

Peabody J o u rn a l o f Educa­

J a c o b s , Jon C. "Teacher A t t i t u d e Toward G i f te d C h i l d r e n . "
Ch ild Q u a r t e r l y 16 (1972).

The G i f t e d

Justman, J .
"Academic Achievement o f I n t e l l e c t u a l l y G i f t e d A c c e l e r a n t s
and N o n acceler an ts i n J u n i o r High S c h o o l s . " School Review 26
(1954).
_________ , and W r ig h ts to n e , J . W. "The Expressed A t t i t u d e s o f Teachers
Toward Special C la s se s f o r I n t e l l e c t u a l l y G i f t e d C h i l d r e n . "
Edu catio na l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and S u p e r v is io n 52 (1956).
MacLean, M. S. "Should t h e G i f te d Be S eg r eg ated ?"
L e aders hip (1956).

Educational

203
Mann, H. "How Real Are t h e F r ie n d s h i p s o f G i f t e d and Typical C h ildren
in a Program o f P a r t i a l S e g r e g a tio n ? " Ex cep tio nal C h ild r e n 23
(1957).
McGehee, W illiam , and Lewis, W. D. " Edu ca tional Research and S t a t i s ­
t i c s . P a r e n t a l A t t i t u d e s o f Men tally S u p e r i o r , Average and
Retarded C h i l d r e n . " School and S o c i e ty 51 (1940).
Mirman, Norman J .
"Teacher Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r Educating t h e G i f t e d . "
The G i f te d Ch ild Q u a r t e r l y (1964).
Morgan, A. B. " C r i t i c a l F a c to r s in t h e Academic A c c e l e r a t i o n o f
G i f te d C h i l d r e n : Hypotheses Based on C l i n i c a l D a t a . " P s y c h o lo g i ­
cal Report 3 (1957).
Musgrove, Walter J . , and E s t r o f f , E l s i e H. "Scale t o Measure A t t i t u d e
o f I n t e l l e c t u a l l y G i f t e d Toward an Enrichment Program." Excep­
t i o n a l C h ild r e n (1977).
Peachman. M. C. " A t t i t u d e s : T h e ir S i g n i f i c a n c e in Education f o r th e
G i f t e d . " J o u rn al o f Ed ucational Psychology ( 1942) .
P r e s s e y , S. L. " A c c e l e r a t i o n : Basic P r i n c i p l e s and Recent R e s e a r c h ."
I n v i t a t i o n a l Conference on T e s t i n g Problems. School and S o c i e ty
75 (1954).
_________. "Education A c c e l e r a t i o n : Occasional Pro ce dure o r Major
I s s u e ? " Personnel Guidance J o u rn al 41 (196 2).
_________. "That Most Misunderstood Concept—A c c e l e r a t i o n . "
and S o c i e t y 79 (1954).

School

Si l a n c e , E l l a B . , and Remmers, H. H. "An Experimental G e n e r a l iz e d
Master S c a l e : A S c a le t o Measure A t t i t u d e Toward Any School
S u b j e c t . " J o u rn a l o f Socia l Psychology 5 (1934 ).
Smidchens, U l d i s , and S e ll i n , Donald. " A t t i t u d e s Toward M en ta ll y
G i f t e d L e a r n e r s . " The G i f te d Child Q u a r t e r l y 20 ( 1976 ).
S t e n d l e r , C e l i a B. "Social Class D i f f e r e n c e s in P a r e n t a l A t t i t u d e
Toward School o f Grade I L e v e l . " Ch ild Development 22 (1951).
Terman, L. M. "The Discovery and Encouragement o f Ex cep tio nal T a l e n t . "
American P s y c h o l o g i s t 9 (1954).
_________, and Oden, M. "Major I s s u e s i n t h e Educ ation o f G i f t e d
C h i l d r e n . " J o u rn al o f Teacher Education 5 ( 1954 ).
T o r r e y , R. D. " C i t i z e n s h i p Educ ation f o r th e G i f t e d A d o l e s c e n t . "
P r o g r e s s i v e Educ ation 32 (1956).

204
T r e z i s e , Robert L. "The G i f te d C h il d : Back i n t h e L i m e l i g h t . "
Del ta Kappan (197 6).
Whitmore, Joanne R.
o f E d u c a tio n . "

Phi

" G ifte d S t u d e n t s , Social S t u d i e s : The Li feb lood
S oc ial Education (1979).

Wiener, Jean L . , and O'Shea, H a r r i e t E. " A t t i t u d e s o f U n i v e r s i t y
F a c u l t y , A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , T e a c h e r s , S u p e r v i s o r s , and U n i v e r s i t y
S tu d en ts Toward th e G i f t e d . " Ex ceptional Ch ildren 30 (1963).
W i tty , Paul.
U.S.A."

"The Education o f t h e G if te d and th e C r e a t i v e in th e
The G i f t e d Child Q u a r t e r l y 25 (1971).

Government and P r i v a t e - O r g a n i z a t i o n P u b l i c a t i o n s
Anderson, Kenneth E. Research on t h e Academically T a le n te d S t u d e n t .
Washington, D.C.: National Education A s s o c i a t i o n , 1961.
Conant, J . B., Chairman. The I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Education o f th e
Academically T a le n te d ~ i n American Secondary S c h o o l s . NEA Conf e r e n c e R e po rt. Washington, D.C.: NEA, 1958.
Ed ucat io nal P o l i c i e s Commission. Education o f th e G i f t e d .
t o n , D.C.: National Education A s s o c i a t i o n , 1950.

Washing­

Horace Mann-Lincoln I n s t i t u t e o f School Ex pe ri m en ta tion ( C u r r e n t
Research P r o j e c t ) . T a le n te d Youth P r o j e c t . New York: Teachers
C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1957.
Marland, S. P . , J r . Report t o t h e Subcommittee on E d u c a tio n , Committee
on Labor and P u b l ic Welfarie, U.S. S e n a t e . Washington, D.C.:
Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1972.
Michigan Department o f E duc atio n. E v a lu a tio n Report f o r t h e 1976-77
Michigan P i l o t Programs f o r t h e G i f t e d and T a l e n t e d . Lansing:
Michigan Department o f E d u c a tio n , 1977.
_________. Info rm ation on M ic h ig an's P i l o t Programs f o r t h e G i f t e d and
Talented^ Lansing: Michigan Department o f E d u c a t io n , n . d .
National Education A s s o c i a t i o n . A d m i n i s t r a t i o n : Proc ed ures and School
P r a c t i c e s f o r t h e Academically T a le n te d S t u d e n t in t h e Secondary
S c h o o l . Washington, D . C . : National Education A s s o c i a t i o n , 1960.
Unpublished M a t e r i a l s
Caraway, Sarah H. "A Study o f t h e Program f o r G i f te d S tu d en ts in
Needham B. Broughton High S c h o o l." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Univer­
s i t y o f North C a r o l i n a , 1959.

205
Dunn, Harry C. "A Study o f P a r e n ta l A t t i t u d e s Concerning a Program
f o r Academically G i f t e d C h i l d r e n . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , In dia na
U n i v e r s i t y , 1969.
F r a z e r , Donald W. "A Study o f P a r e n t a l A t t i t u d e s Toward t h e Special
Education Class f o r t h e Men tally G i f te d S ix th Grade S tu d en ts in
A t c h i s o n , Kansas." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Nebraska
Teachers C o l l e g e , 1963.
Gregory, John W. "The A t t i t u d e s o f Academically G i f te d S t u d e n t s , T h e ir
P a r e n t s and Other S e l e c t e d Community Members Toward Educ ational
O f f e r i n g s f o r t h e G i f t e d . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , United S t a t e s
I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y , 1975.
Myers, Kent C. "The R e l a t i o n s h i p o f S pec ial Programming f o r G i f t e d
Ch ild r e n t o P a r e n t A t t i t u d e s Toward S c h o o l ." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , 1963.
Paul us, Vimala. "A Study o f t h e Levels o f A s p i r a t i o n o f G i f te d P u p i l s . "
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Oregon, 1962.
Smith, G j e r t r u d H j o r t h .
" P r o f e s s i o n a l and Lay A t t i t u d e s Toward t h e
Education o f t h e I n t e l l e c t u a l l y G i f te d High School S t u d e n t . "
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 1959.
S t e w a r t , Jack C., J r .
"A Survey o f A t t i t u d e s o f S u p e r in t e n d e n ts
Toward Ed ucat io nal Programs f o r G i f te d C h i l d r e n . " Ph.D. d i s s e r ­
t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Alabama, 1972.