xt731z41vk3v https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dipstest/xt731z41vk3v/data/mets.xml Kentucky. Department of Education. Kentucky Kentucky. Department of Education. 1959-03 bulletins  English Frankford, Ky. : Dept. of Education  This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.) Education -- Kentucky Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.), "Education for the Gifted", vol. XXVII, no. 3, March 1959 text 
volumes: illustrations 23-28 cm. call numbers 17-ED83 2 and L152 .B35. Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.), "Education for the Gifted", vol. XXVII, no. 3, March 1959 1959 1959-03 2022 true xt731z41vk3v section xt731z41vk3v 5 Commonwealth of Kentucky 0

fl EDUCATIONAL BULLETIN

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDUCATION FOR THE GIFTED

A Report of
the Conference Held January 16
Louisville, Ky.

 

Published by
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ROBERT R. MARTIN

Superintendent of Public Instruction
Frankfort, Kentucky

 

 

 

M

ISSUED MONTHLY

Entered as second-class matter March 21, 1933, at the post office at
Frankfort, Kentucky, under the Act of August 24, 1912.

POSTMASTER: SEND NOTICES OF
CHANGES OF ADDRESS 0N FORM 3579

“ Vol. XXV“ MARCH, 1959 No. 3
u; KEN -

 

LIERA‘M
: f KENTUCS’W

 

 

 

 

  

 

BLANK
PAGES
THROUGHOUT

 

 

  

FOREWORD

In January, 1959, the Department of Education. sponsored a
conference dealing with the education of gifted children. Since the
future welfare of our state and nation largely depends upon the
identification and maximum development of the potentialities of our
citizens, it was felt that this conference should be called for the purpose
of creating an awareness on the part of the public of the importance
of this phase of education.

The conference was also planned to give citizens of the state an
opportunity to express themselves concerning our present school
program and discuss ways of better challenging all of our students,
and, particularly, those who are academically talented.

Approximately two hundred and fifty interested citizens from all
parts of the state and representatives of various phases of life in the
Commonwealth served as delegates to the conference.

. It is hoped that this report of the proceedings of the conference
W111 be of assistance as we continue to plan and work to more

adequately provide for the needs of the gifted students in our several
communities.

ROBERT R. MARTIN
Superintendent of Public Instruction

  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
   

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Remarks of Presiding Officer and
Introduction of Keynote Speaker Robert R. Martin,
Superintendent of Public Instruction ................. 111

 

Address: Problems in Identification of the Gifted
Walter Barbe, University of Chattanooga ................. 113

Introduction of Speaker—
Robert R. Martin, Superintendent of Public Instruction ..... 121

Luncheon Address: Programs of Education for the Gifted

James J. Gallagher, University of Illinois ................. 123
Summary of Group Discussions ............................. 138

Conference Summary

Herman E. Spivey, University of Kentucky ............... 142
Appendix
A. Conference Planning Committee ..................... 147

B. Copy of Program,
Conference on Education for the Gifted ............... 148

C. Persons Accepting the Invitation to
Serve As Delegates to the Conference ................. 149

109

 

 REMARKS OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND
INTRODUCTION OF THE KEYNOTE SPEAKER
by
ROBERT E. MARTIN
Superintendent of Public Instruction

Ladies and Gentlemen, the First State-wide Conference on
Education for the Gifted is now in session.

As we all know, the schools of today are called upon to meet
the educational needs of a wide variety of youth. Sometimes in
attempting to accomplish the tremendous task of educating all of
our population, schools may neglect to challenge the group with
special abilities or gifts. \Nith the increased pressures brought on
education in recent months, it is imperative that we take time to
insure that our educational programs are planned and implemented
in such a way as to do an adequate job of caring for all segments of
our school population.

There is growing concern today that many of our talented youth
do not continue their education beyond the high school. In this day
of increased emphasis on technical skills, it is essential that we find
ways of preventing this waste of human resources. Since we need
more and better trained personnel in every walk of life, it is highly
desirable that we pause to evaluate our educational program in order
to insure the type of curriculum that will provide not only for the
average, but will also provide a means whereby the able student will
benefit to the maximum of his potentialities.

It is with this aim in mind that we have called this conference
sponsored by the Department of Education. You, who are serving
as delegates, represent various organizations, professions, and groups
interested in education. We appreciate your willingness to take the

time from your varied activities to examine with us the status of the
gifted youth in Kentucky schools.

_ If we are to adequately provide for the gifted child, it is most
important that he be identified as such at an early age. We are

fortunate to have with us today a person outstanding in the field 0f
identification of the gifted.

111

 

  

 

 

Dr. Barbe 0f the University of Chattanooga is a native of Flori]:
where he had his early education and in which state he tangl-
briefly in the public school system. Dr. Barbe received his 13. 8,11,}
and Ph. D. Degrees from Northwestern University. .In his full perio;
of college and graduate training, he has concent 'ated in the field»
of education, social science, and educational and clinical psychology

In his doctoral program, he specialized in child developmei
and clinical psychology including major study in guidance mi
psychological problems of reading. His doctoral training in the-
areas was enriched through his services as an assistant in t-
Psycho—Educational Clinic of Northwestern University.

Since completing his professional training, Dr. Barbe has be
Instructor in Psychology and Director of the Baylor Universi;
Reading Clinic, and Assistant Professor of Education at Kent Sta’
University. Presently he is Professor of Education at the Univeni;
of Chattanooga, and Director of the Chattanooga Junior Leag‘:
Reading Center. He is also a practicing psychologist licensed byt':
State of Tennessee.

Dr. Barbe is listed in Who’s Who in American Educate
American Men of Science, and Leaders- in Education. He 1101i
membership in several professional organizations in the fields
education and psychology, and is President of the National Asst
ation For Gifted Children.

It is a great pleasure for me to present to you Dr. \Valter B31"

who will speak on the subject of “Problems in the Identification
the Gifted”.

112

 Moritz
taugl:
., M. l
periol
e fielt
hology

.opmel:
Lee 1111
.n the.

in the

1as bee
1iversit
ant Stat
niverslt
' League
d by ll

ducatfm
He ball
fields [
a1 Assoc

.ter Bar‘.
fication:

PROBLEMS IN IDENTIFICATION
OF THE GIFTED
by
WALTER B. BARBE

Interest in the gifted child has sky1ocketed in the past decade.
Beginning in 1947 with the appea1ance of Lewis Te1 man ’s monumental
wor,k The Gifted Child Grows Up p, and continuing with the 1951
presentation of the American Association f01 Gifted Children, The
G7fted Child, the beginning in 1952 of the National Association for
Gifted Child1en, and, of course, the advent of the Space Age 111 1958
when the Russian Sputnik appeared 011 the scene, the need for early
identification of gifted children has become more and more apparent.

More frequently heard has become the plea, “let’s do something
for our gifted children.” In spite of the urgency of this plea,
identification still remains the first step. This is a first step which is
sometimes forgotten. The success or failure of any type of provision
for gifted children depends largely upon how effective the
identification process has been. Ce1tainly, identification alone is not
enough Me1ely identifying gifted child1 e11 how ever, assures a ce1tain
amount of special attention for them. The ve1y awareness that a
particular child is gifted will alert teachers, parents and school
administrators to the need for doing something for this particular
child. The problem of identifying gifted children is only a small part
of the larger problem; that of identifying all children, both those
with superior ability and those with average ability.

The educational world appears to be particularly susceptible to
band wagons. Only a few years ago the band wagon dealt with methods
of teaching reading. Such books as, thy J 07mm] Can’t Read, quickly
became best sellers and spearheaded the drive against public education.
Undoubtedly such attacks on the public schools serve one purpose.
They make us more aware of the fact that problems do exist, and
whlle eve1ything which the critics say is not true, inst1 uction
neve1theless unproves. Attention has now shifted to the gifted child
Mo1e and 11101e people have become interested 111 doing something for
this child We must be ce1tain that the provisions which we a1€ making,
and the types of identification procedures being followed, are ones
which are educationally and psychologically sound. They must be of

113

 

  

 

 

 

the type that will truly benefit the child, and not merely meet the
demand that something be done. The hope is that from this great
interest in the gifted child will come permanent provisions for
identifying and better educating these children who have been called
“our most neglected natural resource.”

Another point which needs to be emphasized in any discussion of
gifted children is that it is the children in whom we are interested, and
the gifted label is only a means of helping us better understand these
children. The methods of identification which we use and the provisions
we make for these children must not in any way deny the fact that
first of all these are normal children. Their gifts, as wonderful as the}~
are, do not any way negate the fact that physically, emotionally and in
some ways mentally they are normal children.

A recent publication of the Association for (Jhildhood Education
was entitled “All Children Have Gifts.” This is an important point
which we as professional people must never forget. All children are
gifted in some ways — at least to a parent his own child is gifted.
To deny this fact is to assure failure for any special program for
children whose gifts are of a particular type. it has been said that all
children have gifts: we must look harder into some children to find
what their gifts are.

Definition of Giftedness

The greatest problem in identification of the gifted is the
ambiguity of the term “gifted.” Fortunately, the term geniUi
has become obsolete. Genius implies international eminence fa
achievement, and is the result of ability, drive and opportunity. T116
gifted children about whom we are speaking have not had thé
opportunity to demonstrate their potential ability, or in soni;
instances, to give much indication of the amount of drive which they
possess. The term “gifted” has also been occasionally questioned
along these same lines, so that Paul \Vitty is now calling the:
children “potentially gifted.” The commonly accepted definitiontJ
the gifted is that given by Dr. \Vitty in which he states that ill:
gifted child is “one who is consistently superior in any wortliwliit
line of endeavor.” This is intentionally a very broad and inclusit
definition. The purpose is to include as many children as possiblel—
the ranks of the gifted, rather than to make the gifted group a highli
selective, and therefore extremely limited, number of individuali

. , . "l.
The term “academically talented” has come 111to use primal":
since the Carnegie Foundation supported a conference on this WP"

114

m r—tHh—J

m

 t the
great
i for
:alled

on of
l, and
these
isions
t that
3 they
ind in

cation
point,
311 are
gifted
,m for
hat all
,0 find

is the
genie
_ce for
ty. The
ad ill
1 SOIDE
ch that
stionel
g thesi
itionnl
hat th
thwhil
1clusitE
;sibleh
1 high]?
vidualS

rimarl‘
1is to?“

in the fall of 1958. This term generally implies high academic
achievement, and is used primarily at the secondary school level.
The term gifted, when applied to children possessing a high level of
mental capability, usually refers to the individual with an LC). of 120
or above. Rarely has the label “gifted” been applied to individuals
with I.Q.’s below this, although it is not uncommon for the lower
limit to be higher —— in some instances even as high as 140.

An important point to remember in defining giftedness is that
the definition must be determined primarily by the purpose for which
we are identifying. If the goal is to provide an enriched or
accelerated program in a particular subject area, then those children
who are to be included should be either those who are potentially
superior in this particular area, or who have demonstrated higher
achievement in this area. If it is to provide enrichment in the fine
arts, then the identification procedures must be entirely different.

The terms gifted, talented, very superior, able, accelerated, rapid
learner and bright are being used interchangeable in current
literature. There is, however, a difference in the meaning of some of
these terms. Basically, the distinction must be made between innate
ability and achievement, between talents in such areas as art and
music and talents in academic subjects, and between the above
average child and the highly gifted child.

Problems in Identification by the Use of Tests

For want of any better means of identification, standardized
tests are often relied upon heavily. Those children scoring in the
upper ranks are labeled “gifted” and are given the benefit of special
provisions. This upper rank includes the upper 15 per cent in
programs following the recommendations of James Conant, while
the upper 10 per cent is more commonly used. The upper 7 per cent
are selected in the program in Quincy, Illinois, under the guidance of
staff members at the University of Chicago and in Cleveland, Ohio,
Where the oldest organized program in the country for gifted
chlldren operates, the group is limited to the upper 1 to 2 per cent.

Let us assume for a moment that group achievement testing and
group intelligence testing is completely valid and reliable. How,
then, can we use these tools to identify giftedness?

. .Iteliance upon achievement tests alone to determine the gifted
1nd1v1dual is fraught with dangers. It is certainly true that how much

an Individual produces should be one indication of how well he is

115

 

  

 

 

 

capable of producing. However, drive is the factor being overlooked
when achievement tests are used for identifying the gifted. Vet;
few, if any, individuals achieve at the top level of their potentialiti
Some are achieving under existing programs close to their top law
of performance. This type will undoubtedly score high, althoug';
usually not the very highest, on an achievement test and “It
therefore be identified as gifted and placed in a special programi:
which they cannot possibly hope to succeed. Drive alone, withot
adequate innate ability, is not sufficient to get this particular studet
through an accelerated or enriched program. In instances whet
achievement testing alone has been used to identify the gifted, tiv
program has usually met with disaster. The student of perhap
slightly higher than average ability, but with great interest at
drive, has achieved in the heterogenous class with much success
When placed in the homogeneous class, however, he is unablei
succeed and often never regains his former position even who
returned to the regular class.

Reliance upon intelligence testing, remembering that we are it
the moment assuming that such tests are both valid and reliable, at
presents problems. Merely because a child receives a high score I;
an intelligence test does not assure that he is a superior student";
all subjects. \Vhilc it is true that the gifted individual appears‘
be best in such subjects as English and reading and poorest?
spelling, handwriting and arithmetic fundamentals, this is been:
the intelligence tests most frequently used measure primarily tl
skills necessary to achieve in the verbal areas.

In the Major \Vork Program in Cleveland, reliance is pho‘
almost entirely upon the ability of the child as measured byii
intelligence test. Achievement test results play little, if any, parti
identifying the gifted child. The reasoning behind this is thatt
child who has the potential ability, when he is challenged, “1
produce at a high level. Therefore, even though the child mightfl
be the one who would ordinarily be chosen as a superior studentl
is nevertheless placed in the Major Work Class if he has a high 1'
With something more than thirty years of experience following ll
procedure, the Major Work Program has a remarkable 1‘9““
of successes with children who would otherwise be lflbtl’
underachievers, if they had even been identified in most situatiflI

The point must be, therefore, that achievement tests alonet
perhaps indications of some of the gifted youngsters. They dot

116

 looket
. Var,
tiality.
p leiti
thongl
d may
:rami
vithon‘
studei'
when
;ed, the
oerhap:
est iii
succes
able Ir.
a she

are for
ble, at:
more 0:
ident i
pears l:
orest i
becaui
.rily th‘

s placi
3 WE
, paiti
that ii
red, “i
lightlll
identi'
high ii
9 recm

labeli-
[math

alone fl
:y do I

identify all of the children, nor are all of the children with high
achievement, gifted. Intelligence tests, if they are valid, are a better
measure. Using a combination of both types of tests, while it does
follow the currently popular middle of the road philosophy so
prevalent in most of American life, only makes the problem greater
and does nothing for the underachiever who is, after all, the
individual whose gift is truly being wasted.

The biggest problem connected with the use of tests to identify
the gifted is that neither a high IQ. or a very superior academic
record is a guarantee of success in later life. While either of these,
or both, are probably strong indications that the individual will be
successful, the attitude of the American public is only to the point
where they are only too willing to remember the straight “A”
student who is now out digging ditches, or the high IQ. who is in a
mental institution. There are still too many intangible factors which
contribute to the success or failure of an individual, many of which
he has no control over, for any testing in early life to measure in
such a way that any definite success or failure pattern can be
predicted. For this reason, identification of the gifted cannot be
100 per cent perfect, if the measuring stick is to be the latter success
of those identified in childhood as gifted. The justification for early
identification, however, must be that there are some successful

individuals who would not have been successful had they remained
unidentified.

Another major problem connected with identification by the use
of tests is the manner in which test results are interpreted. It has
often been stated that no test is any better than the person who
interprets it. In identification of the gifted this is particularly true.
Those responsible for identifying the gifted are in a key position and
must understand the limitations of any testing program.

Because identification is so closely related with scores, and
particularly IQ. scores, let us examine some of the ways in which I.Q.
scores should be used. As a label the IQ. has great limitations. Its
greatest danger is that it becomes a label, a hole from which the child
cannot escape. If he is tested in the area of his true ability, then the
label may not be harmful. But if, somehow, his score is not indicative
of his true ability, then great harm can be done. Saint Exupery, in
The Little Prince, states this clearly when he discusses why he has
called the Asteroid from which the Little Prince came Asteroid B-612.
He says that he merely gave the Asteroid a number, “because adults

117

 

  

love figures.” And how true Saint Exupery was about us, even though
he wasn’t specifically talking about l.Q.’s.

The LQ. then, assuming still that the test is both valid and
reliable, gives some idea of the general area in which the child is
capable of achieving. Most l.Q.’s should reveal far more than just an
IQ. in points, but this other information is usually either never
recorded or ignored if it is recorded. For example, the difference
between verbal and non—verbal IQ. is often very important. lll
identifying gifted children any great difference becomes particularh
important in planning school programs for them. There may also be
clinical significance to the difference. 0n the Stanford-Binet, the
highest age level at which the child can successfully pass all of the
items is called the Basal Age. This score alone is vitally important.
and could probably be used better to identify the gifted youngster
than the [.Q., and yet the term “basal age” is rarely heard and is,
almost never recorded on the child ’s record. Also from the Stanford
Binet should come the range in the child’s abilities, beginning at the
age level where he could pass all of the items and continuing 011111)
through the level where he fails all of the items. The child witha
smaller range at a level above his chronological age is more likely
the all-around superior child than the child with the widespread of
success and failures, although they may both have the same IQ. Tht
strength and weaknesses as determined by the test would
also be an aid in identification, but is seldom even mentioned in
identification procedures. The mental age is, of course, a more
important score on the Stanford—Binet, but the IQ. is talked
about more.

\Vith the appea 'ance of so much literature on the gifted child.
indicating that the child must have an IQ. of 130 or 140 and abort.
some classroom teachers have come to feel that they have no gift“
children. A reminder that they have as many gifted children as that
have retarded children, for statistically this is what giftedness ant
retardation is, may serve to point up the presence of some gifted
children. The problem is basically that group IQ. tests have a lower
ceiling than individual tests, and therefore do not identify the ehihl
with high potentiality as readily. In Cleveland, Ohio, where the.Yarr
searching for children with I.Q.’s above 125 for their Major Worl’
Program, all children who receive an IQ. of 116 on a gl‘Oul‘
intelligence. test are screened 011 an individual test. Through the PM.
thirty odd years they have discovered that often the Child wht

118

 hough

1 and
iild is
ustai
never
arenee
at. In
ularly
else be
et, the
of the
)rtaiit,
ngster
and is
interd-
at the
on up
witha
likely
card of
Q. The
would
tned in
i, more
talked

1 child,
above-
) gifted
as they
ess and
i, gifted
a lower
ie child
hey all
r Wort
, grout
the P353
tld \th

receives an 1.6),. of 116 on the group test will score over 125 on the
individual test. The teacher who feels that she has no gifted children
because none are receiving group IQ. scores in the 120’s and 130’s
may be underestimating the ability of some of her students. Group
IQ. tests are best when they are measuring scores around 100. They
are less valid for measuring the abilities of either superior or below
average children.

Another problem in identifying gifted children by means of
tests is the dependency placed upon reading ability in order for the
child to score on a group intelligence test. Academic retardation
immediately influences the results obtained on a group measure of
intelligence. This means that the gifted underachiever has little
chance of being identified on any group measure of his mental
ability. One authority has stated that a poor reader should have at
least eight points added to the score he receives on a group IQ. test.

A problem which we in the South face particularly is that of
either poor vocabularly, or pronunciation different from that used 011
oral tests. Even such slight changes in pronunciation such as
“orange” and “orange” may change the results of even the best tests.
Carelessness in pronunciation, choice of words and definitions of
words will result in an actual penalty for many Southern children.

While individual testing is better than group testing as a means
of identification, testing alone is not an adequate means of identifying
gifted children. Observation, by parents and teachers must play a
large part in any identification procedure.

Problems in Identification by Use of Observation

Perhaps no problem in identifying the gifted is greater than
the attitude which has been prevalent so long that everyone is equal
mentally, and the difference between one child and another is only
inhow hard they each try. 'We, as teachers, have helped perpetuate
this by urging students to work harder, when in some instances no
amount of work will make the child capable of achieving at a high
level. On the other side, however, it is true that children do have an
ability to achieve much better when more is expected from them.

The adage holds much truth: “What you think of me, I’ll think 0f
me; and what I think of me, will be me.”

‘ift Sortlfllalfely, the attitude of parents that they do not want a
g e child is changing. What was formerly considered bad about

119

 

  

 

 

the superior child has been so (-oinpetely disproved that the usual
parent comment, “All I want is an average child,” is rapidly
changing. There are still some remains of this long-held
attitude, however, and this often stands in the way of identification
procedures.

Another hindrance to observation as an identification procedure
is that both teachers and parents can, at best, only compare the
child with other children in the same classroom. Little, if any,
attention is given to the child’s chronological age. The brighter child
more often enters school sooner than the average child, or by one
means or another is ahead of his age group. \Vhen compared with
his classmates, he is not particularly superior. This is undoubtedly
the reason that teacher judgment was found by Tcrman to be such
a poor means by which gifted children could be identified. Today.
teachers know more about testing and understand better mental
abilities so that they are better judges of mental superiority.

Check lists can assist in identification by observation onlyii
they are carefully prepared, and are adjusted to the particular group
with which they are being used.

Comprehension, particularly listening comprehension, has been
mentioned many times as a possible informal method by which
classroom teachers can identify gifted youngsters. The danger in
using such aids to supplement observation is that the teacher will
look for only one facet of intelligencc—memory and will overlook
such other factors as reasoning and actual creative thinking.

 

What Can Be Done to Overcome These Problems?

The first major step in overcoming problems in identification 03
the gifted is to recognize that problems exist. Classroom teachers
have been the first to recognize that something needs to be done for
the gifted. Now that the general public has come over to this sami
line of thinking, the next step must be to understand that
identification of the gifted is more complex than merely saying tilt
child is gifted and this one is not. The very complexity of ilk
problem hinders progress toward its solution. Remembering that ill?
purpose for which the child is being identified must influence “15
identification procedure simplifies the problems greatly. Using test
of all types to aid in better understanding the child is essential, 311‘?
from this better understanding will come better provisions for hill

120

 usual
apidly
.g-held
lcatiun

cedure
.re the
f any,
r child
by on
d with
1btedly
)e such
Today,
mental

only if
r group

as been

which
nger in
1er wil
verlool

ationol
teacheu
lone for
us saw?
1d that
'ing till
r of the
that the
ence til?
ing test
tial,3116
for hill

INTRODUCTION OF THE SPEAKER
by
ROBERT R. MARTIN

Superintendent of Public Instruction

In the excellent morning address by Dr. Barbe we were given
helpful suggestions 011 ways of identifying the student whom we
term gifted. After the person has been identified as one who possesses
these special abilities or gifts, the problem then becomes that of
finding a program which will not hamper but challenge him during
the time he acquires his education.

The person who is with us this afternoon comes ably prepared
to discuss with us possible programs for educating the gifted.

Dr. James J. Gallagher, Associate Professor of Education at the
University of Illinois, received his Bachelor’s Degree from the
University of Pittsburgh in 1948. His graduate work was pursued at
Pennsylvania State University where in 1951 he was awarded a
PhD. in Child and Clinical Psychology and in Speech Correction.
While pursuing his doctoral studies he was an intern in psychology
at Southbury Training School for the Mentally Retarded.

Upon the completion of his graduate study, he became Director
of Psychological Services at the Dayton Hospital for Disturbed
Chlldren. After a period of successful experience in this position, he
went to Michigan State University as Assistant Professor of

Education and Assistant Director of the Michigan State Psychology
mm.

For the past four years, Dr. Gallagher has been a member of the
staff of the University of Illinois, where he first held a position with
the Institute for Research on Exceptional Children. He now is an
ASsociate Professor of Education at the University. He also heads a

(301 ' . . . . . . .
ch'lllgnttee on giaduate trainlng 1n spec1al education for exceptional
1 ren.

dEEEGallalgher is recognized among his colleagues both in the
exceptiongiych-iflogy and education, as an authority in problems of
extei ‘ c 1 dren—béth the retarded and the gifted. He has done

1s1ve research on gifted children and on brain—injured children.

fiel

121

 

 Reports of This research have, been published in two monographs i111

leading: psychology journals. He has also written some 15 fll‘tir‘.
‘ i for the professional journals on problems in {he field of exception
i 1 children and on the predie‘riou of sueeess iu psyn’eho—ifiherap)’.

It is a pleasure to present to you, Dr. James J. Gallagher ii":
i i will talk on the subject of, “Programs of Education for the Gifted

f 122

 

 )hs in t
i articl
ceptioii
v.

gher Wi
. Gifted

PROGRAMS OF EDUCATION FOR THE GIFTED

by
JAMES J. GALLAGHER

If I can sense the tenor of the country, educators are no longer
in a position where they can defend the methods of the past 20 years
for educating gifted children in a heterogeneous mass with all other
students. The choice that they have to make is to which of the many
new ideas, or old ideas dressed in new clothes, they will subscribe.
The air is filled with educational panaceas. The characteristics of a
good educational panacea is that (1) it must cost the public nothing,
(2) it must contain one simple change which will at one swoop elimi-
nate all of the school’s problems. Examples of such panaceas would be
teaching reading by phonics, the reinstitution of algebra and
geometry in the high schools and others of such ilk.

Some strange alliances have been formed here. One of these
alliances seems to consist of the classicists on one hand and a group
of admirals and generals on the other. A friend of mine once
succinctly summed up their educational recommendations as follows,
“Teach the best and shoot the rest.”

. Fortunately these ideas have had limited appeal but the public
is stlll waiting and if the educators do not give leadership in this
area we can count on some other group filling the gap.

One of the most remarkable developments on the educational
scene in the past decade has been the rapid growth of public interest
In the educational programs of the gifted child. This interest is
manifested in the unusual amount of attention given the subject by

popular magazmes, TV and radio panels, seminars, and meetings such
as ours today.

. t We need not dwell too long upon the obvious reason for this
in erest. Qulte bluntly we are afraid, and we now come to the, not
unleasonable, conclusion that our intellectually superior children

seem to Offer our best long—range investment and protection for
the future.

ma I think it would be fair to sum up the conclusions of the many
ed ugaztln