SUMMARY OF PROJECT REPORT
MANAGING THE EDUCATION OF GIFTED CHILDREN
The importance of developing the potential of gifted children is explained; human resources are our most vital national asset.
The present arrangement for gifted pupils are analysed, and it is seen that many LEAs and teachers either deny or ignore the existence of the problem. Consequently few arrangements are made either to identify gifted children or to provide special facilities for them.
Giftedness is then carefully defined. The designation is considered appropriate to children with a high level of general intelligence, but also to those who are talented in specific areas.
The various procedures for recognising gifted children are analysed. It is suggested that scores on intelligence tests and the systematic observation of teachers are the most important factors in accurate identification, while group intelligence tests are seen to have considerable value as a screening technique.
The needs of gifted children are considered briefly. They should receive challenging work and pass rapidly through the elementary stages of a subject. They need contact with both children of a similar ability and average children.
Different ways of providing for the needs of gifted children are outlined; these are classified under the headings of segregation - total and partial - , acceleration, and enrichment. The advantages of selective secondary schooling are discussed, but political objectives to them are strong. Streaming is considered valuable in secondary schools but not in primary ones. Different types of partial segregation and acceleration are discussed and some are recommended, and enrichment methods are considered especially appropriate to primary education. The setting up of experimental schools for the exceptionally gifted is tentatively suggested. Finally, the suitability, for the gifted, of the traditional system of secondary selection is reiterated.
CONTENTS:
Objectives of the report.
Boundaries of the report.
Note on Evaluation.
Introduction: the need to develop giftedness.
A. Analysis of the existing situation.
1. The lack of concern for the needs of gifted children.
2. The failure to identify gifted children.
3. The failure to provide for the special educational needs of gifted children.
B. Areas of management decision.
1. Defining giftedness.
a. Outstanding in what kind of group?
b. Outstanding in what particular activity?
c. Location as evidenced in what upper proportion of the designated group?
Conclusion.
2. Recognising the gifted child.
a. Intelligence tests.
b. Special aptitude tests.
c. School achievement.
d. Creativity tests.
e. Teacher nomination.
f. Parental information.
g. Personality tests.
Conclusion.
3. Identifying the educational needs of the gifted child.
4. Making appropriate provision for the gifted child.
Criteria.
a. Total segregation.
b. Partial segregation.
c. Acceleration.
d. Enrichment.
Conclusion.
Footnotes.
Bibliography.
Appendices.
1. Provision by LEAs.
2. The incidence of giftedness.
3. Threshold interrelationships.
4. The indicators of giftedness.
5. Gifted children: a teachers checklist (of characteristics).
6. Parental questinonnaire concerning gifted children.
7. Efficiency and effectiveness of screening procedures.
OBJECTIVES OF THE REPORT
By reading this report, the educational manager should be able to:
1. understand the need to develop giftedness;
2. evaluate the present provision for the problems of giftedness;
3. define giftedness;
4. recognise the gifted child;
5. identify the needs of the gifted child; and
6. plan appropriate provision for the needs of the gifted child.
BOUNDARIES OF THE REPORT
The report is concerned with the management of gifted pupils in the schools of the British state sector of education. Although details of practices in other countries are included, their application is to Brit geish schools and their pupils. The methods which might be used to teach gifted pupils, and the problems involved in their general upbringing is outside the scope of the report.
NOTE ON EVALUATION
Evaluation of this report would partly depend upon the extent to which its readers are persuaded of the need to provide special facilities for gifted pupils. The recommendations, if implemented could, and should, be evaluated carefully. Identification procedures could be assessed by a study of the future academic achievements of pupils identified as gifted, and by a comparison of their achievements with those of pupils not so identified. Special provision should be evaluated by comparing the results of gifted pupils for whom such provision is made with the results of control groups of similarly gifted pupils for whom provision is not made. The value of different types of provision could also be assessed by comparing pupils' progress.In all cases, evaluation could be short-term and/or long-term, and a cost/benefit analysis, as well as an assessment of absolute values, should be attempted.
INTRODUCTION: THE NEED TO DEVELOP GIFTEDNESS
The development and utilisation of a nation's human resources are the essential ingredients both of economic prosperity and of social advance. This principle was recognised over 2,000 years ago by Plato, who observed, in his "Republic", that the state's gifted leaders are its foremost asset. They are the agents of economic and social progress; without the contributions of great minds, the ideas of original thinkers, whose innovations and creative ideas advance the frontiers of knowledge, such progress could not occur. In the thermonuclear age of the twentieth century, inventive minds with an array of scientific tools can accomplish almost anything within the scope of man's imagination, and must grapple with the problems which an expanding population and a decline in traditional resources of food and energy must inevitably create. At the judging and decision-making level in government and industry, and in all aspects of social life, a vast pool of intellect is required with the skills, training and personality to provide the necessary leadership. The development of society's human potential is of even greater importance than the acquisition and conservation of those resources of energy, raw material and food, on which so much of the emphasis of modern government focusses.
The first and foremost duty of an educationalist in a democratic society is no doubt to do his best for the mass of the population, who, of course, comprise ordinary mortals of average ability. It is generally felt that the next obligation is to provide remedial care for the subnormal and handicapped, but it is less readily accepted that particular provision should also be made for unusually gifted children, despite the obvious fact that the latter are likely to make far more valuable contributions to the good of society in the future, when they become the scientists, managers and teachers of the next generation. No amount of political dogma or sentiment should be allowed to obscure this point. For, as the late Sir Cyril Burt remarked in a celebrated passage:
"In spite of popular prejudice there is, or there should be, no insuperable conflict between equality as a principle of justice and inequality as a fact of genetics. In education, equal opportunity means the equal opportunity to make the most of differences that are innate. The ideal is a free and fair chance for each individual, not to rise to the same rank in life as everyone else, but to develop the peculiar gifts and virtues with which he is endowed - high ability, if he possesses it; if not, whatever qualities of body, mind and character are latent within him. In this way, and this way alone, can we be sure of realising to the full our untapped resources of talent, and warding off the decline and fall that has in the end overtaken each of the great civilisations of the past" (See Footnote 1).
A. ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING SITUATION
1. The lack of concern for the needs of gifted children.
Although it is a democratic right of the gifted child that his potential for his own self-fulfilment as an individual should be developed, and it is very much in the national interest that this should be done, there is in this country a disquieting lack of concern about the needs of the gifted child. This lack of concern manifests itself both in a failure to recognise that these children have special educational needs, and by a paucity of provision for them.
Until recently, great attention has been paid to the needs of pupils of moderately high ability, that is pupils of a grammar school type. By means of scholarships, selective transfer to various types of secondary school, and selective classification within the schools, some degree of special educational provision was made from the age of eleven onwards. However, even in the grammar school era little or no attention was paid to the exceptionally able, i.e. children whose abilities were as much above the average grammar school pupil, as the abilities of the average grammar school pupil were above those of the general population. This neglect was the result partly of a failure to comprehend just how intelligent the gifted pupils are, and partly of an underestimation of the frequency with which they occur in the population (See Footnote 2). If the selective system of secondary education was insensitive to the needs of gifted children, the recent movement towards comprehensive schools has not served to remedy the situation. When the overall organisation of schooling is so politically controversial one cannot expect the special needs of a tiny, albeit an important, minority to receive much attention. Furthermore, the frankly anti-elitist ethos of many comprehensive schools has encouraged them to avoid the issue of provision for the extra-bright pupil, and in other comprehensives, problems of indiscipline, vandalism and truancy have given senior staff little time to consider the question.
Indeed, the main barrier to the provision of adequate educational facilities for the gifted has been the indifferent attitude of local education authorities and teachers. Some education authorities make little or no provision for their more gifted children because they either fail to recognise, or else deny, the need to do so. Sensitive to the preoccupations of local politics, they have tended to assert that their relatively restricted resources should be used mainly for the average and below average children. This attitude is reflected in correspondence addressed to Dr. E.Ogilvie, who carried out in 1970-1 a study of the teaching of gifted children in primary schools on behalf of the Schools Council (See Footnote 3). Here are some examples of the comments received by Ogilvie from local authorities and headteachers:
"As a small authority we very rarely seem to be faced with the problem of educating the gifted primary school child and indeed I do not recall any problem which has arisen in this way for the past twenty years."
"In this area teachers' study groups are not likely to be welcome in order to study gifted children ... teachers would feel that they had other more pressing problems."
"The education of gifted children seems to be an area where opinions are often subjective and on balance we feel there is little to be said for discriminating in their favour ... [there is] a large proportion of socially deprived children .... and the devising of appropriate educational stimuli for this large group is a much more pressing problem for us."
This reluctance to consider gifted children as a special category requiring separate provision, which the above comments clearly illustrate, emerges again in the recent Government report on gifted children in middle and comprehensive schools. (See Footnote 4). Some of the 130 schools inspected had no wish to identify, or even to consider, special ability among their pupils. "Paradoxically, the staff were not averse to the recognition of a remedial category which was segregated for special treatment, nor to the thesis that individual needs should be identified and provided for." The "strong reluctance" to identify special ability found at many of the schools investigated by the inspectors who compiled the Report often reflected some preconceptions on the part of teachers. "We don't want a jet-set here", was how some expressed themselves. "We've only just come from a selective system", was another oft-encountered statement.
Other schools were indifferent rather than hostile to the concept of separate educational provision for the gifted. "In 'difficult' schools where vandalism, truancy, and classroom control were matters of high concern, the discussion of giftedness might be regarded as a very low priority," says the Report. Another view commonly encountered by the inspectors was that there is no need to make special provision for gifted pupils, since "they can quite well look after themselves". Teachers, it was thought, should concentrate their attention on those at the other end of the scale who find difficulty with their work.
A third group of schools showed neither hostility nor indifference, but had simply not even considered the question. "Heads and teachers manifested great uncertainty about what constituted giftedness and a great reluctance to identify any of their pupils as possessing it."
Further difficulties stem from the attitude of many parents, and even of the children themselves. A further handicap to gifted children is that society tends to be suspicious of the child that is "different", and prefers the child who is well-adjusted socially and emotionally, and who has interests conventional to his or her age and sex to the child who is academically distinguished. Parents of gifted children are very often not of superior intelligence themselves and find precocity very difficulty to handle; the same is true of teachers as well. Not only do most parents and teachers tend to mould children towards conventionality; the peer-group exerts an even more compelling influence towards uniformity in speech, manner and dress. Brighter pupils do not necessarily have the strength of character to oppose these stereotypes, and are apt to conceal their abilities and intellectual interests so as not to seem too different from other children. Sydney Bridges in eight years of experimental work with gifted children (See Footnote 5) found that the majority of them were modest about their ability. They easily accept that school work is too easy for them, and, in fulfilment of the expectations of their teachers, are content to obtain high marks and praise for work which presents them will little challenge. It is, perhaps, just as important that the attitudes of these children should be changed as those of the parents and teachers responsible for their upbringing.
2. The failure to identify gifted children.
The identification of gifted children is a process dogged by difficulties of defining just what giftedness is. Associated with the problem of definition is that of agreeing on suitable criteria for determining who the gifted children are. From the little evidence that is available there is little to substantiate the perception that these children emerge naturally and can look after themselves. In an enquiry conducted by Pegnato and Birch in the junior division of a high school in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (See Footnote 6), only forty-one out of ninety-one children with IQ 136 or more (Binet) were nominated as gifted by their teachers, and it emerged that no one screening procedure by itself was sufficient to identify gifted children with any degree of effectiveness. The experience of the Tempest research group from Liverpool University was very similar (See Footnote 6a). Out of the seventy-two children in the last term of an infant school nominated as gifted by their teachers, only twenty-four had IQs of 127 on the group intelligence test used (D.Young, Non-Readers' Intelligence Test, 1966). Of the top thirty children selected as gifted after individual tests, only fourteen had been included in the nominated group. Tempest concedes that, as the children were only about seven, identifying the gifted among them was a much more difficult task than in the Pegnato and Birch enquiry, but he points out that it is surprising that two children overlooked by their teachers had a reading age six years above their chronological age as measured by the Schonell Word Recognition Test.
The evidence of these two studies suggests that teacher recognition is a very imperfect means of identifying those children who are outstandingly able. It is unfortunately the case, however, that for the majority of schools there is very little alternative. As part of his study on gifted children in primary schools, Ogilvie attempted to assess the extent of special provision designed to help teachers to recognise gifted pupils. LEss were asked to indicate whether advisory staff gave any guidance in this matter and whether headteachers were encouraged to seek advice through a referral system. From the answers to these questions it emerged that only 17.5% of LEAs provided guidance to teachers and only 26.3% had a referral system. Furthermore, there appeared to be little doubt that the referral systems are used for problem children rather than for the specific purpose of identifying gifted children. (The full figures are presented in Appendix 1.)
In view of the ineffectiveness of teacher-recognition of gifted pupils and the widespread neglect of this subject by local authorities, it is evident that there is at present a serious failure to identify giftedness in our schools. This conclusion is borne out both by Ogilvie's study and the recent Government report on middle and comprehensive schools. Ogilvie found that about a half of primary school teachers agree that many gifted children go unrecognised in school. One of the study groups set up by Ogilvie commented that the recogntion of gifted children is "the biggest gamble in the whole educational sphere ... (it is) so dependent on luck". The Government report found that "many schools either have not thought about giftedness or hold very imprecise notions regarding its nature ... ". It also found that school records were poor and that information about special gifts, other than in music or sports, were rarely passed on when children transferred from one school to another. Furthermore, say the inspectors, "There is in our view, a notable lack of cross-checking between the contributory and receiving school records to see if high specific or general achievement in one school is paralleled with that in the other".
3. The failure to provide for the special educational needs of gifted children.
In view of the general tendency of both local authorities and schools to deny or ignore the special needs of gifted children, one would not expect to find any widespread provision for these needs. This is, indeed, the picture that emerges from Ogilvie's questionnaire to LEAs about help given to gifted pupils in primary schools. LEAs were asked to give details of any special arrangements made for such pupils, and the questionnaire was designed to cover almost every type of special provision that could conceivably have been made. The answers indicated clearly the low level of provision (See Appendix 1). Only about one quarter of $LEAs provided Saturday morning classes, and the centres that did exist for this purpose are usually confined to musical activities. Indeed the enquiry revealed that there was not one single example of a Saturday morning class in mathematics, science or languages. With regard to the award of scholarships and exhibitions to pupils gifted in a particular activity, it was found that only a minority of authorities provided for part-time tuition in colleges of music or other specialised institutions, although 50 per cent provided for full-time tuition of this kind. Ogilvie noted in particular the greater opportunity available to children living in London to develop any special talents. Only 4.5 per cent of authorities provided enrichment classes in school hours, and this is clearly a most unpopular way of helping gifted children. When it came to early admission to secondary schools, it was discovered that at least a quarter of authorities have consciously discontinued a policy that was once universal. Ogilvie concludes this part of his survey by remarking of these special arrangements that, "None are universal, and many are not included to any significant extent in the provisions of an appreciable number of authorities. The type of arrangement likely to be most favoured is that which whilst giving opportunity for the gifted child to excel can also be represented as part of 'proper' provision for every child who might wish to take part."
It is often argued that there is a decreasing need to "promote" or make other special arrangements for gifted children in primary schools as there is an increasing emphasis on individualisation of learning within the primary schools themselves. In practice, this individualisation largely refers to what is called "project" work. After very detailed observation of teaching practices in primary schools, Ogilvie asserts with regard to this project method that "Observation in schools reveals what must be regarded as a serious and most difficult situation". For not only do teachers differ widely in what they consider to be acceptable standards of work, but they tend only to mark in a most cursory and general manner. Very rarely are they able to compare what different children achieve in project work with their own previous work or the work of others. Much of the project work produced by children tends to be of a descriptive character, and there is little guarantee that project methods, per se, will stretch the abilities of very able children more than more conventional methods. These difficulties have obvious management implications, as teachers in large classes are rarely able to devote sufficient time to monitor the work of individual pupils to ensure either that the individualised tasks are appropriate to them or that satisfactory development is being achieved.
If the gifted child fares poorly in primary schools, one cannot be confident that his treatment at secondary school will be improved. At the secondary level the very gifted within selective schools are differentiated by the practices of streaming and acceleration. In direct grant schools and grammar schools of high academic standards, these measures no doubt do much to help the development of giftedness, but even here it is difficult to see the extent to which content and teaching method are differentiated for the exceptionally able. The syllabus is largely determined by the requirements of external examinations, and the gifted pupil is often extended only by taking a greater number of subjects than other students. At the sixth form stage the brilliant mathematician or scientist will probably be in a small set of able pupils, but he may still be held back by the relative inability of his contemporaries. In the smaller grammar school this factor will seriously weaken any chance of special provision for the gifted pupil; furthermore, the danger of such a pupil outstripping his teachers becomes acute.
In recent years the main area of debate in secondary education has been that of grouping, both within and without the school. The increasing prevalence of comprehensive schools and of mixed ability teaching groups has increased the likelihood that special ability will be neglected. The greater quantity and range of management problems within comprehensives have reduced the ability and readiness of senior staff to consider the problem of the gifted, and mixed ability grouping, while tending, it is true, towards the individualisation of teaching methods, brings with it the dangers and difficulties associated with project work in primary schools.Whatever the theoretical claims made by comprehensive schools, one can only conclude that wastage of educational talent is more likely to occur within this type of school than in the selective type.
If the selective secondary school is well suited to the reasonably able pupil, and the efforts of the comprehensive school are concentrated more on the needs of the average and below average pupil, it is clear that neither type is designed to cater for the exceptionally able pupil. Some direct grant and independent schools, by virtue of their superior resources, are able to achieve more in this respect, but as schools within the state sector will never be able to match such resources more economic and efficient methods of providing for the gifted must be found.
The above survey has outlined the general neglect of the problem of giftedness within schools. This neglect, it has been shown, stems from a combination of factors - an indifferent attitude, ignorance, lack of resources, and structural difficulties. Above all, it is essential to to recognise fully the fact of giftedness and the wastage of talent that will occur if adequate provision for it is not made. It is scarcely satisfactory that a child of ten with an IQ of 140, and who is therefore able to work at the intellectual level of an average fourteen year-old, should only be doing, albeit very well, the work normally done by children of his own age. Leta Hollingsworth, an American research psychologist, wrote in 1942: "In the ordinary elementary school situation children of 140 IQ waste half their time. Those above 170 IQ waste practically all of their time" (See Footnote 7). In addition, as Dr. Kellmer Pringle has established, lack of cultural or intellectual stimulation, both at home and at school, can contribute to severe behavioural difficulties amongst gifted children (See Footnote 8).
In the past decade a growing interest in the education of gifted children has emerged in Britain. The creation of the National Association for Gifted Children in 1966 was an important date, and the First World Conference on Gifted Children was held in London in 1975. In the interim the literature on the subject has been expanded by various studies and investigations (See Footnote 9), while a number of special programmes for gifted children of primary school age have been undertaken (See Footnote 10). The Schools Council set up in 1969 set up a working party to study the teaching of gifted children, and this led to the commissioning of the Ogilvie report on gifted pupils in primary schools. The D.E.S. published a study on gifted children in 1975 (See Footnote 11) as a preliminary to the investigation by H.M.Inspectorate of Education into the teaching of gifted children in middle and comprehensive schools, the report of which, published in August 1977, coincided with the Second World Conference on Gifted Children in San Francisco. However, in spite of this considerable weight of academic and official interest in the subject, there has, as yet, been little administrative response from either LEAs or schools to deal with the problem of gifted children.
If this interest in gifted children is to be translated into action, the requirements of organising their education must be delineated, alternatives considered, and management implications pondered. Decisions must be concentrated on the following areas:
(1) defining giftedness;
(2) recognising the gifted child;
(3) identifying the educational needs of the gifted child; and
(4) making appropriate provision for the needs of the gifted child.
B. AREAS OF MANAGEMENT DECISION
1. Defining giftedness.
The achievement of a satisfactory definition of giftedness is necessary as the identification of gifted children for any special form of education will turn upon the criteria of giftedness used. The definition provided must therefore indicate the behaviour, or behaviours, that will show whether a child is to be considered gifted or not. Ogilvie suggests the following:
"The term 'gifted' is used to indicate any child who is outstanding in either a general or specific ability, in a relatively broad or narrow field of endeavour ... Where generally recognised tests exist as (say) in the case of 'intelligence', then 'giftedness' would be defined by test scores. Where no recognised tests exist it can be assumed that the subjective opinions of 'experts' in the various fields on the creative qualities of originality and imagination displayed would be the criteria we have in mind".
This definition is an honest one; it faces the criterion problem frankly, and is not based on administrative convenience. Ogilvie prefers the term 'outstanding' to 'gifted' because it is less 'emotive' and 'more obviously relative to given contexts'. However, to be 'outstanding' begs the following questions:
(a) Outstanding in relation to what group?
(b) Outstanding in what particular activity?
(c) Outstanding as evidenced by location in what upper proportion of the designated group?
a. Outstanding in relation to what group?
In this context, a child can be 'outstanding' in two senses. He may be gifted in comparison with the rest of his class or school, but not exceptional in relation to all his coevals. On the other hand, he may be gifted in terms of the total population, i.e. his ability and achievement is outstanding with regard to all children of his age group, not just those within his own school. The child who is outstanding in the first sense may cause problems to his teachers, but he is not the subject of this enquiry. Our concern is with the child who is outstanding in relation to all pupils of his age and who may indeed be outstripping not just his fellow-pupils but his teachers also.
b. Outstanding in what particular activity?
This is by far the most awkward of the three questions and merits particular attention. Superficially, it is concerned with the curriculum: what activities are discriminating enough, or important enough, for gifted pupils to receive special facilities? Or perhaps one might ask what are the subjects where gifted pupils require particular stimulation.
It is tempting to confine ones's definition of giftedness to the traditional subjects of the school curriculum, but there are serious difficulties here. Firstly, there is now a marked lack of consensus at both primary and secondary levels as to what the legitimate subjects of the curriculum are, and, secondly, it is clear that to limit the number of activities is to increase the likelihood of talent remaining undetected. In fact, there is a growing belief today that many "extra-curricular" activities should be supported by public funds, and there is a progressive blurring of the lines that distinguish the "cultural" activities (e.g. music, drama) from the "vocational" (e.g. handicraft, cookery) and the "leisure" (e.g. rock-climbing, photography). Furthermore, schools are providing an increasing range of sorting activities: golf, sailing and orienteering, etc, are often added to the more traditional team games. Some schools now organise "clubs" during the hours of the school day, in which as wide a variety of activities as possible are encouraged and offered as options. Unfortunately, economic constraints are bound to to limit the number of activities in which exceptional talent can be publicly supported, and, as Ogilvie discovered in his survey, teachers are unable to suggest any principle which could justify such support of some extra-curricular activities rather than others.
In spite of these difficulties, the administrator is likely to be faced with a decision, and it is suggested that there should be two types of activity, where special help for the gifted should be given as a priority. The first comprises those "academic" or "intellectual" activities where progress is made on a "sequential" basis, and in which outstanding pupils are especially liable to be retarded by the presence of average ones. Mathematics, the sciences, engineering and foreign languages are the subjects that one has in mind in this context. The second area for particular concern should be those cultural activities which have traditionally been supported from public funds and where early training is necessary for optimum development. Music and ballet are the most obvious subjects here. These are the activities where special provision seems most appropriate, but, while such priorities must be included in our definition, wherever possible giftedness in other areas should be included too: creative writing, literary appreciation, humanities, the visual arts, drama and sport are all areas where arrangements to stimulate exceptional talent would be valuable.
Curricular considerations are however secondary to the deeper questions of the structure of human abilities and of the extent to which this structure is represented in the curriculum at all. Our sole concern with the task of defining giftedness is to assist us in the process of recognising gifted pupils, and before we can organise special programmes for them and decide which activities to emphasise we must decide on the criteria according to which these gifted pupils may be selected. For we shall need to recognise such giftedness long before exceptional ability at, say, engineering or foreign languages will have shown itself. In the identification of gifted pupils three parameters are usually employed today: general intelligence, special abilities, and creativity. All three must be covered in an adequate definition of giftedness.
In the main British psychologists have emphasised that the primary factor determining an individual's potential achievement is his innate allowance of general intelligence (the "g" factor), and early psychologists were content to base definitions of giftedness on tests of intelligence. Performance in one or more of these tests of
general ability has always been the most commonly applied criterion of giftedness in both research and selection.
However, there has been a general tendency in recent years to concentrate on special abilities, and to regard "g" as a secondary factor or indeed as non-existent. American psychologists have specialised in this multi-factorial approach to the composition of intelligence (See Footnote 12). The existence of a polymathic giftedness, which enables a pupil to be outstanding at almost everything, is likely to be so rare a phenomenon as to be non-existent. This is demonstrated clearly in a table, published in Ogilvie's report, which shows the theoretical expectations of the incidence of this type of giftedness (See Appendix 2).With intercorrelations among the dimensions approaching those found among items in intelligence tests, the table clearly shows that where fifty-five children per thousand are considered gifted in one dimension, this number will have fallen to three after three dimensions and to one after seven. Where only eighteen children per thousand are taken as gifted in one dimension, the number drops to one after three dimensions and, with a curriculum including only four dimensions it will be a waste of time to look for polymathic giftedness at all. When Ogilvie looked at the incidence of specific giftedness (See Appendix 2), however, the theoretical expectations were indicative of a more rewarding situation. With the same intercorrelations as above, nearly a quarter of the child population will be in the top 5.5% in one out of the eight dimensions, and a tenth will be in the top 1.8%. It would seem, therefore, that specific giftedness is a more useful quantity to seek than a high general intelligence manifesting itself throughout the curriculum.
Nevertheless, the weight of experimental evidence would suggest the existence of a common factor of general intelligence. Although it is possible to analyse mental qualities in such a way that no "g" factor is found, the results of special ability teats are generally correlated to some degree. The strength of the correlation depends to a great extent on the homogeneity of the group tested. In heterogeneous groups, such as whole age-groups of children, correlation of abilities tends to be high enough to yield a strong "g" component. Thus, most gifted children in a primary school population who show special talents will be high in intelligence, and vice-versa. However, in sixth forms or universities, where the range of ability is restricted, specialised abilities stand out more strongly. Although the status of "g" is difficult to establish, the theory of general intelligence is consonant with the amount of overlapping in curriculum dimensions that occurs. Intelligence correlates strongly with activities such as writing, science, mathematics and languages, but less highly with mechanical, constructional, visual, musical, and dramatic talents, and only slightly with athletic prowess.
The debate about the structure of intelligence has been further complicated in the past fifteen years by the apparent discovery of a new factor, creativity. It has been claimed that the criteria of ability implicit in the usual intelligence tests are too narrow, and that creativity and originality are the hallmarks of true giftedness. Attempts have been made to identify creativity as a factor independent of intelligence (See Footnote 14), and to link originality with a particular cognitive style (See Footnote 15). These studies have been strongly criticised on methodological grounds, and claims that tests of creativity show no correlation with intelligence tests probably only reflect the inefficiency of the tests used. The evidence for the existence of creativity as a special factor of intelligence is nevertheless strong. According to Burt, " ... whatever may be its precise psychological nature, its proportionate contribution, if we may trust the figures obtained in the various factorial studies, is about one-third that of 'general intelligence'. Creativity without general intelligence produces nothing of interest or value".
The dispute over the relative independence of intelligence and creativity can be eased by the concept of "thresholds". The creativity and intelligence correlations that are made available by Ogilvie (See Appendix 3) suggest that in above average IQ groups structured correlations are low, but among groups of average intelligence, they are much higher. A similar threshold is discernible in correlations between intelligence and attainment. Ogilvie concludes significantly as follows: "Taking the two tables together it is apparent that the threshold phenomenon is likely to be widespread in the curriculum and occurs even with regard to those activities like mathematics and languages which have traditionally been regarded as "intellectual" and heavily loaded on "g". One striking implication of this situation ... is that those who argue from the fact that "slow learners" need and receive special education to the idea that the highly intelligent should also receive special treatment, take too simple a view of the situation. Whereas the former will tend to appear as a group, regardless of which particular dimension or dimensions are used for purposes of identification, this will be far less true with regard to the latter." This conclusion has clear implications for any discussion of provision of special educational facilities.
To sum up, although it is probable that creativity is not independent, but a factor, of general intelligence, it would seem likely that there is a threshold on the IQ scale, at about 120 points, below which an intelligence test score is the best predictor of academic achievement, but above which measures of creativity become important in the prediction of the attainment of some children. Thus, creativity, together with general intelligence and special abilities, is a component of giftedness.
c. Outstanding as evidenced by location in what upper proportion of the designated group?
Of course it is impossible to decide exactly at what point a child becomes so intelligent as to require special educational provision. Giftedness is a matter of degree, and precise borderlines cannot be fixed. Once again, however, an administrative decision is necessary, and fortunately statistics relating to the distribution of intelligence in the population helps us to arrive at a satisfactory answer. The figures shown in the table below show the approximate number of children at high IQ levels cut off by different borderlines on the most recently constructed general intelligence tests. (As these figures relate to a total school population they will vary between different schools):
IQ % of Popn.
150+ 0.1
140+ 0.5
130+ 2.5
120+ 10.0
Different cut-off points have been advocated. Terman took 1% as the borderline for his study of gifted children in California (See Footnote 16). De Haan and Havighurst (See Footnote 17), however, suggested that as much as the top 10% should be considered gifted. Gallagher (See Footnote 18) believed that there was general agreement on the top 2%, and this is close to the top 2-3% in which the National Association for Gifted Children is interested. Gold remarks that "the cut-off point is significant because it may defeat its own purpose if set too high or too low, If set too high it may eliminate youngsters of high ability who for one reason or another do not test well. If set too low it may include so wide a range that highly advanced, challenging or difficult programs become impossible because they would result in frustration for a proportion of the selected group" (See Footnote 19).
This advice is crucial to achieving the best cut-off point, and in its light it would seem that IQ 130 or 2.5% is most appropriate as a rough borderline, above which children become too different from the average to adjust well to ordinary schooling and too intelligent for most teachers to be able to provide for their special requirements. However, the need to be flexible in applying such a borderline must be stressed.
It is still necessary to consider those who are distinguished more by special talents or creativity measures than by high IQ. Obviously, decisions taken here must be related to whatever facilities are available in schools, but one would expect that help for this type of giftedness could be provided. Once again the top 2.5% in each curriculum dimension could be included on our definition of gifted, as most high IQ children are specifically talented and vice-versa. De Haan and Havighurst, however, estimated that 20% would be gifted if one considered the top 10% over eight dimensions. Our top 2.5% in each dimension would bring us down to about 5%, that is, double the number considered gifted solely on the basis of an IQ score of 130 points. The discrepancy between this conclusion and the theoretical expectations of the incidence of specific giftedness (See Appendix 2) is probably the greatest number of gifted children for whom schools could afford to provide special facilities. At a rough estimate, for instance, this would entail making special provision for 200,000 out of an approximate secondary school population of four million. (One is not of course suggesting that this provision would be similar for all of these gifted children.)
Conclusion.
The following definition of "giftedness" is suggested:
The term "gifted" is defined as indicating any pupil who is outstanding:
(a) in relation to all children of his age-group within the population;
(b) especially in those academic subjects where progress is made on a sequential basis, in those cultural activities which have traditionally been supported by public funds and where early training is necessary for optimal development;
(c) according to the three parameters of general intelligence, special ability, and creativity; and
(d) as located in the top 2.5% of the population according to tests of general intelligence (i.e. IQ 130), or in the top 2.5% in dimensions of special ability and creativity, provided that his IQ does not fall below 120.
Where recognised tests exist, "giftedness" would be identified by test scores; where no such tests exist, it would be identified by the subjective opinions of experts in the various fields.
The identification or recognition of the gifted pupil is our next concern.
2. Recognising the gifted child.
A variety of methods will be considered individually before a conclusion as to the best combination is made.
a. Intelligence tests.
Intelligence tests have been assailed on a number of grounds: that they favour the verbal or advantaged child, that they are culturally "loaded", or that the child's performance may vary according to the circumstances in which the test is taken. The fact remains, however, that those few children who do well in them are usually among our brightest, and in trained hands the individual test of general intelligence provides the most important predictor of giftedness, particularly in the age range of 6-15. It is advisable to wait until the Second Year Infants Class to apply such tests, due to the variability of intelligence with growth up to the age of six. However, there is some disagreement here, and it has been claimed that gifted children can be reliably identified at the age of four and a half because of their advanced mental age (See Footnote 20). After the age of fifteen, in spite of the continuing growth of intelligence, test results become less representative of general ability because the short items, presented at speed, are a poorer sample of the complex mental processes that make up academic and vocational tasks. At any age a single test is unreliable, and it is preferable for a school to apply tests, say, every two years, and enter the results on a cumulative record card. Consistently high IQ scores or a rising trend are the surest basis to predict future ability.
The best individual intelligence tests are the Terman-Merrill (or Revised Stanford-Binet) with 1972 norms for children from four and a half to eight, and the Revised Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-R), using either the Verbal or the Full Scale. As the standard deviation on the spread of scores is 16 on the former and 15 on the latter, IQ 132 on the Terman-Merrill is equivalent to 130 on the WISC. The WISC is often preferred to the Terman-Merrill for older children, because it has a performance scale, based on items such as "object assemblies" and "block design", as well as a verbal scale. However the interpretation of performance IQs must be cautious. These do not relate highly to scientific or ability as do the paper-and-pencil non-verbal or spatial tests. Verbal IQs alone is a more accurate predictor of most scholastic abilities than the Full Scale which incorporates both verbal and performance IQs. However, when the the performance greatly exceeds the verbal IQ, this may be indicative of a linguistic handicap, such as might be suffered by an immigrant child. In such a case, the performance IQ might be the best indicator of ability.
Although a high score on a properly administered intelligence test is widely accepted as the best single index of giftedness, these tests do have limitations which must be recognised. They discriminate reasonably well between children of different levels of general ability throughout the population but less well when identifying children of high ability whose intellectual response is unusual or "divergent", no doubt because standardised questions cannot, by their very nature, elicit complex or inventive behaviour. Furthermore, because intelligence tests are standardised on a population covering the complete ability range, they will identify the top 2.5-5% according to the criteria built into them, but they do not discriminate well at the top end of scale. Indeed, when dealing with the top 2.5%, re-testing will probably lead to considerable changes in rank order. In addition, the incorporation in the modern tests of "deviation IQs", by which raw scores are converted to a normal distribution with a fixed standard deviation, while producing the advantage of greater consistency among IQs, has considerably restricted the range of scores. Thus in the WISC-R, scores are scarcely ever above 140, and in the Terman-Merrill 166 is now the maximum, whereas under conditions of classical scoring, scores of 160-200 used to occur frequently. If one accepts Burt's claim that the distribution of intelligence does not follow the normal curve, this failure to discriminate at the top end is more serious. According to Burt (See Footnote 21), there are very much greater numbers of children with extremely high IQs of, say, 160+ under classical scoring than would be expected from conventional statistics. Whereas normal curve calculations allow for only 3.3 per million, Burt would claim the existence of 77 per million. Thus, modern IQs discriminate poorly amongst the very bright and this is a serious disadvantage when a child with an IQ of 165 is as much ahead of one with an IQ of 135 as the latter is ahead of the average child. Of course, one cannot expect one test to measure many things well, and the alternative is to use a variety of tests once giftedness has been revealed. Alice Heim has compiled a test of high level intelligence (AH5), but this is designed for secondary school students. Other tests like this need to developed; such tests might have more limited functions, but could be used to complement general intelligence scores.
Because individual testing is time-consuming, and involves the use of trained personnel, it is a very costly process, and the use of group intelligence tests of the initial screening of gifted children should be considered. For children of 10 and over, these tests are particularly useful. Tests which include both verbal and non-verbal sections, such as the Lorge-Thorndike, are particularly appropriate, as they may help to identify the mathematically and scientifically minded child who might not show up particularly well on the verbal section alone. However, entirely non-verbal tests such as Raven's "Progressive Matrices" have a low predictive value. Pictorial group test IQs for young children of 5-8 have poor correlations with later IQs or with academic achievement. More useful for young children from 6-10 would be an orally administered verbal group test such as Cornwell's (1952) (See Footnote 22).
In general, group tests have only limited value. Their norms will differ from test to test, and they may have insufficient ceilings to yield IQs much above 125. Thus, the tester seeking to pick out the top 2.5% (i.e. the group corresponding to IQ 130+ on the WISC-R) would need to collect norms from the school or district and find out which score is actually achieved by the top 2.5%. Futhermore, as Bridges discovered during his "Millfield Experiment", group test results correlate poorly with individual intelligence scores when one takes the very bright as the population. On the other hand, Pegnato and Birch (See Footnote 23) discovered that the group test was the most efficient "screening" method of identifying gifted children (i.e. it identified the fewest students whose IQs were below the cut-off point selected). Group tests, therefore, have value, but mainly as a preliminary screening process. In their use, it would be wise to allow wide limits. If one's aim is to identify all pupils with IQ 130+ or those with special talents and IQ 120+, it would be necessary to take into account the top 10-15% on the group test.
b. Special aptitude tests.
In the light of our definition of giftedness it would be useful to obtain data on special aptitudes. There are, unfortunately, very few tests likely to be of assistance in diagnosing special aptitudes. The ones that do exist are mainly for older adolescents and seldom contribute more to selection than ordinary intelligence tests. As regards mechanical aptitude, the WISC-R Block Design performance sub-test is relevant, though it is really a general ability test. There are time-consuming practical tests, based on assembling mechanical objects, but more widely used are group tests based on mechanical and physical operations. In music the best validated set of tests is Wing's Standardized Tests of Musical Intelligence, for which norms are available for English children of 7-15. Although lengthy in application, this battery of seven sub-tests is useful in deciding whether a child would benefit from music lessons. Also of interest in this context are the series of informal special aptitude tests devised by De Haan and Havighurst (See Footnote 24) for talent identification during a programme for the gifted at Portland, Oregon. They used a "work-sample" method to screen in the areas of art, creative writing, music, drama, physical aptitudes and mechanical skills, while social leadership was assessed by sociometric nominations.
c. School achievement.
Marks or grades given for tests and examinations in school can be of value, particularly if such achievement tests are standardised. Pegnato and Birch found group achievement tests were, after group intelligence tests, the next most efficient screening method for giftedness.However, such achievement tests can be misleading if they do not provide scope for advanced talent. Furthermore, many of the gifted are poorly motivated in the conventional situation, and do not produce work which matches their potential. Thus, to demand a high level of attainment before admitting a child to a programme for the gifted might be to disqualify the ones most in need of special help.
Reading is the aspect of school achievement of greatest importance to the young pupil, and reading combined with comprehension tests, such as Schonell's, Watt's, Burt's, or Vernon's, are easily applied and furnish reading ages, which are of importance in assessing children. By the age of nine they are usually too easy for the verbally gifted child, but, if the teacher discovers this, then he has acquired the information he needs.
d. Creativity tests.
Creativity tests are a much heralded advance, but in fact they have little to recommend them. While creativity tests may be useful in discovering the nature of creativity it is unlikely that they will ever be a major component of selection for special programmes. Vernon exposes their shortcomings as follows; "Most psychologists who write about divergent thinking tests call them creativity tests. But this implies that they are valid measures of the psychological characteristics (of creativity) ... a claim that is certainly not justified. Because divergent thinking tests involve giving unusual associations, this does not mean that they are measuring the same kind of originality as that shown by the creative artist or scientist, or even the normal child or adult who produces something constructive" (See Footnote 26). In addition to this validity problem, creativity tests are most awkward to mark due to their open-ended nature, and it is of course highly doubtful that original behaviour can just be turned on to order in a testing situation.
However, there may be occasions, for instance, when a child is believed to have unusual responses or is a borderline case for special programmes, in which it would be helpful to have scores on divergent thinking. The best known are the Torrance (or Minnesota) Tests of Creativity (See Footnote 27). However, Bridges found them very difficult to score and unsuitable for young children, when he used them in the "Millfield Experiment". In fact, other tests are needed, and the tester should prepare his own stock of common and unusual responses rather than relying on lists devised for different cultural groups such as Torrance's.
e. Teacher nomination.
Due to the limitations of both intelligence and achievement tests, much of the responsibility for recognising gifted children must fall upon their teachers. Although the research of Pegnato and Birch, and later of Tempest, would suggest that teacher nomination is a poor method of screening, teachers' evaluation could become much more accurate if their attention were drawn to the characteristics of gifted children for which they should be looking. To help them do this, several rating scales or checklists of the behavioural characteristics of gifted children have been compiled in America (See Footnote 28).
In this country, Ogilvie has produced, in the course of his invaluable study on gifted children in primary schools, some interesting data concerning teachers' views as to the characteristics of giftedness (See Appendix 4). 370 teachers were asked to rate 20 criteria as reliable indicators of giftedness. The characteristics obtaining the highest recognition rate were "intense curiosity" and "wide vocabulary" (both 65%). Then came "imaginative writing" (56%), high intelligence test scores (53%), rapid reading (48%), and "display of extraordinary initiative" (48%). The fact that no characteristic received more than 65% recognition indicates that teachers do not believe that giftedness reveals itself invariably in one type of behaviour.
A concise checklist of behavioural characteristics was devised by Laycock (1957) (See Footnote 29), and was included in a pamphlet on gifted children issued by the School Psychological Service of West Sussex C.C. It was subsequently published in the recent D.E.S. pamphlet (1975) (See Footnote 30). It consists of only twenty behavioural characeristics, unlike some of the interminably long rating scales that have been devised, and, even though the predictive value of the items has not been validated, the checklist should be of great use to teachers. (It is contained in Appendix 5).
If teacher observation is to be sufficiently systematic to be valuable as a screening method in the identification of the gifted, such observation must be documented in a careful record system. Where a child is known or is thought to be gifted, a checklist such as the one suggested should be raised annually and considered by all his teachers for their comments. When the child moves to another school these records should be passed on. Discrepancies in teacher evaluation or sharp decline in performance should be investigated with care.
It must be emphasised that gifted children need to be given the opportunity for their talents to be both recognised and developed. Schools must provide opportunities for high intelligence and originality to display themselves; such abilities do not just emerge. Teachers, especially in primary schools, must accept that their job is not just to train children in standard skills, but to provide the chances for future potential to be diagnosed. Project work is one important way of providing children with the necessary experiences for their individual abilities to show, but Ogilvie's warnings as to the variable standards of assessment and cognitive assessment in present-day project work (See Section A.3 above) must be heeded.
(f) Parental information.
Parents have more time to observe the intellectual capabilities of their children than teachers, and in particular they are able to provide useful information about their leisure time activities and hobbies. Parents can be asked to fill in standard questionnaires designed to provide details about the characteristics of their children. They could be asked to do this either as a part of a systematic campaign of identification, or in circumstances where they felt that a school had failed to recognise the giftedness of their children. Of course, parental information must be treated with circumspection. Some parents are quite unable to be detached about their children, and exaggerate their abilities greatly; others are too uninterested or uneducated to observe anything unusual in any case. Any considerable reliance on parental diagnoses would tend to favour middle class children. However, parental information, considered judiciously and in conjunction with other data, would be valuable in identifying gifted children. A questionnaire devised for circulation to parents in a Canadian city in order to provide information on the need for special provision for the gifted was published by Vernon in his recent book. The questions which it asked of parents are contained in Appendix 6. The questionnaire not only seeks to elicit information about the abilities and the interests of the children but also requests details about parental help and encouragement.
g. Personality tests.
Cattell and Butcher (1968) (See Footnote 31) suggest that attempts to select children in a way that will predict scholastic achievement must not be too narrow or scope, but should take into account personality, motivation, and extra-curricular accomplishments as well. Some psychologists favour the giving of such things as personality questionnaires, projective devices (such as apperception tests) and interest inventories in diagnosing the gifted. These techniques are not to be recommended however. Personality testing is very expensive and time-consuming, and would require trained psychologists to do their work. Projective devices have their uses in studying the emotionally disturbed but are not appropriate in the identification of the gifted. Interest inventories have been applied to vocational guidance, but have not as yet been applied to finding gifted children.
Before the various recommendations made above are summarised it is appropriate to consider again the research findings of Pegnato and Birch (1959). They sought to find out the most "effective" and "efficient" screening procedures for identifying gifted children in a junior high school at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. They expressed "effectiveness" as the percentage of gifted children located, and "efficiency" as the ratio of the number selected by screening to the number identified as gifted. They discovered that group intelligence tests produced the best combination of effectiveness and efficiency, but, as none of the methods used were particularly accurate, the main implication of their research is that the more criteria are used the more accurate a screening procedure is likely to be. Their most interesting findings, compiled in tabular form, are contained at Appendix 7. Anyone concerned in the identification of gifted children should study them carefully.
It is also instructive to consider the identification procedures actually used to select children for two recent special programmes for gifted children in this country to which we have already made reference. In the Tempest experiment at Southport, children were screened by teacher nomination and by a group test of intelligence; the children selected by the screening were then individually tested by WISC, a Schonell Word Recognition Test, and a number of items designed to measure "creativity" or "divergent thinking". In his experiment at Millfield School, Bridges already had WISC or Terman-Merrill scores for many of his pupils. So, he completed his screening by a group intelligence test (the AH4), and then set two types of creativity test to the most promising. The first type was an essay with a "divergent" title, e.g. "The Monkey that Flies", or "The Girl Who Plays Football"; the second technique used was Torrance's Tests of Creativity - "Thinking Creatively with Words", and "Thinking Creatively with Pictures".
Conclusion.
To conclude this section on the recognition of gifted children, it is clear that intelligence tests are the most valuable single tool of identification but that a range of techniques are most appropriate. Children can be profitably assessed by intelligence tests from the age of six to fifteen, and a systematic assessment using a variety of techniques are most appropriate for children between the ages of nine and fourteen. Procedures for the identification of the gifted should be geared to the overall testing programme of the school, and it should be possible for both primary and secondary schools to run their own schemes to pick out the top 5% of their pupils. Children should be assessed at regular intervals by as wide a range of techniques as possible in order that numerous kinds of ability can be detected. Pupil profiles could be built up, based on the results of standardised group intelligence tests, school achievement tests, and the systematic observations of teachers and parents. So-called "creativity tests" might play some part too.
Trained psychologists working for the education authorities should play a large part in the identification process. It would be desirable if psychologists could test individually all children referred to them by schools as "gifted", but, if this procedure was considered too expensive, this individual testing could be restricted to borderline cases or cases where responses are unusual. Professional psychologists should also advise schools as to the best group tests of intelligence and creativity available, and monitor the whole identification process. Local authorities should ask schools for annual returns of gifted pupils in order that regular checks could be made as to the extent of giftedness in area or a school.
It must be stressed that secondary schools have as a large a part to play in the identification process as primary schools, as the identification of the gifted is an on-going, not a once-and-for-all, assessment. If a school or an authority plans expensive special programmes for the gifted, i.e. special schools or special classes, it would clearly be appropriate to be particularly careful about identification. For instance, all children selected for a special school for the gifted should be individually tested by WISC or Terman-Merrill.
Identification procedures should be monitored and assessed themselves. Numbers of gifted children actually recognised could be compared with the expected frequency as determined in the table for the incidence of specific giftedness at Appendix 2. Where discrepancies occur it might be that recognition was inefficient; on the other hand the environment of the school will play a considerable part in the number of gifted children discovered. Nevertheless, De Haan and Havighurst suggest that the most frequently missed children are those whose parents are of low occupational status, coloureds, those from rural areas, and girls. Furthermore, if more than two-thirds of the identified children come from professional and middle class homes, then the identification process is probably faulty.
Finally, it must be acknowledged that the recognition system must take account of changes. Some children, apparently gifted at an early stage, will fail. to fulfil their promise; others, not appearing much above average at first, should be reconsidered if evidence of superior abilities emerges later. Thus, a constant process of assessment is essential.
3. Identification of the needs of the gifted child.
Once children have been recognised as gifted in accordance with the criteria delineated on our definition, it is necessary to identify their particular educational needs as a group. Of course, we shall be dealing with generalisations. Any child's needs vary according to his background, personality and talents, and not all children have identified needs. At the same time, their needs only differ from the needs of other children by degree, and they share the same basis needs as other children. e.g. physical and emotional security, motivation. However, if we are to organise a learning environment in which talent can be maximised, generalisations about the gifted are unavoidable.
A considerable amount has been written about the needs of gifted children, much of which has the nature of pious admonition. Our concern is with those needs which have direct implication for the management of education. Once again, Ogilvie's report is the most useful source of reference. According to the evidence of his questionnaire, teachers believed it was vitally important to recognise giftedness, i.e. gifted children do not just emerge naturally, and hence we have been greatly concerned with the process of identification. The further needs of gifted children was one of the areas set for the consideration of teachers' study groups. From the reports of the study groups. From the reports of these study groups Ogilvie listed the following as primary needs of gifted children:
1. Contact with their average peers.
2. Contact with children of comparable levels of ability.
3. To be stretched and challenged even to the point of experiencing failure and humbling experiences.
4. To be guided, rather than directed, through a more academic approach to a greater depth of treatment.
5. To avoid being set apart, but to have the opportunity to set self apart on occasions.
6. To pass rapidly through elementary stages and use advanced resources.
7. To pursue their own lines of approach.
8. To be exposed to some form of counselling - and their parents too.
9. To be treated like other children.
10. To have contact with teachers gifted in similar fields.
11. To have the opportunity and encouragement to exercise specific talents.
Ogilvie also invited the Schools Council subject committees to comment on the needs of gifted children. Little of importance was added by them. However, the music subject committee stressed the need for early provision of special provision in that subject, as "delay may prevent the natural unfolding of a creative or executant talent, on account of the complexity of the skills involved in musical expression, and the consequent need for acquiring them very early in life".
Having decided what the educational needs of gifted children are, the educational administrator is now in a position to consider how he can provide them most appropriately.
4. Making appropriate provision for the educational needs of the gifted child.
In framing an effective scheme for gifted children, the administrator is faced by several alternatives. Basically, these alternatives are reducible to a threefold classification under the following headings: segregation - total or partial; acceleration; and enrichment. These can conveniently be considered separately, although in practice they tend to occur in combinations.
Criteria.
When the relative desirability of these practices are considered, the following criteria must be borne in mind:
i. The extent of the problem, i.e. the number of gifted children and their proportion in relation to total school population; and also the range of giftedness.
ii. The density and sparsity of the population. As there will be a greater number of children in the centres of population, a greater variety of provision will be possible in rural areas.
iii. The age of the pupils. Educational needs vary according to age: in the primary school a general education provides the opportunity for a wide range of talent to be diagnosed, while at the secondary level a greater degree of specialisation becomes appropriate.
iv. Financial constraints. As available resources will be limited, any scheme adopted must be both realistically costed, and cost-effective according to cost/benefit analysis. Evaluation of the scheme will therefore be necessary.
v. Political constraints. Provision must be acceptable to both parents and public opinion in general if it is to obtain the necessary backing to survive.
vi. Pupil performance. If will not be sufficient to show that gifted pupils on special programmes do better academically, or in other respects, than average children of their own age; rather it must be demonstrated that they do better than could have been expected in the absence of special provision, or better than a control group of comparable ability who received no such provision. Evaluation should be both short-term and long-term.
vii. Social adjustment. Any scheme adopted must be considered in relation to the personal development of the gifted pupils.
viii. Effects on other pupils. Schemes must also be considered according to their effects, both academic and social, on the non-gifted school population.
ix. The effect to which the needs of the gifted children, as identified in the previous section, are met.
a. Total segregation.
The word "segregation" has pejorative overtones and perhaps "differential grouping" would be a more acceptable phrase. Children can be grouped according to ability into separate schools or into separate classes within schools, both selective and non-selective (this practice is called "streaming"). These are both examples of "total segregation", although the latter method allows contact with average children at various times during the school day. On the other hand, children can be grouped into part-time special classes, or can attend extra-curricular instruction outside normal school hours, or even on Saturdays or during school holidays. These are all examples of "partial segregation".
First, we shall consider the use of special or selective schooling as a method of providing for the needs of gifted children. For a long time such children of secondary age were educated in Britain in grammar schools which contained some 20% of the school population. They did not cater in particular for the top 5% of the population, and, indeed, as has been noted earlier, grammar schools have not always provided very well for the needs of the exceptionally intelligent. Nevertheless, there are many reasons why grammar schools can adjust more effectively to these needs than the comprehensive school that have now largely replaced them.
Schools, specially designed to cater, amongst other things for exceptionally intelligent pupils, have also long been available in the independent sector. Public (boarding) schools, such as Eton and Winchester, admit large numbers of gifted boys by means of prestigious scholarship systems. At Eton, 70 King's Scholars, out of a total of about 1,200 boys are separately housed in the College. At Millfield, in Somerset, fees are even higher than at Eton, but by means of generous scholarships a number of pupils of non-wealthy backgrounds are admitted on the basis of high intellectual promise or ability. Direct grant schools have been particularly able to cater for the needs of the exceptionally able child of all social classes. By enjoying the pick of pupils from across a large centre of population these schools have found themselves with considerable numbers of gifted children on their rolls. The best known of these are St.Paul's School and Dulwich College, both in London, King Edward's School, Birmingham, and Manchester Grammar School. They have maintained high academic standards and have provided over the years a pupil output of formidable quality.
A number of schools have also been set up in this country to nurture special talents. Educational provision for children with exceptional musical ability is made at a few specialist schools such as the Yehudi Menuhin School and Chetham's School, Manchester. Wells Cathedral School caters for few gifted string players, and Pimlico Comprehensive School, under the control of the I.L.E.A., admits each year a half form of entry of pupils selected for their musical ability. The child who shows outstanding promise as a dancer can be awarded a place at the Royal Ballet School, while Millfield gives scholarships for children of outstanding athletic prowess. Such schools provide a thorough academic education as well as specialised instruction.
The traditional selective school, whether in the public or independent sector has obvious advantages for the education of the gifted. Although not catering specifically for them, the streaming and setting practices common to such schools ensure that the top 2.5 or 5% should be able to receive an academic programme appropriate to their abilities. Selective schools are also likely to attract the necessary numbers of highly qualified teachers that are essential if gifted children are to receive the necessary stimulation. In addition, selective schools can provide the range of academic subjects appropriate to the top 5% of the school population but which comprehensive schools are increasingly unable to offer at sixth form level or below. One is thinking in particular here of the separate sciences, modern languages other than French, and the classical languages. The fact that grammar schools select the top 20% of the population, and independent schools a much wider range of ability, also ensures that the gifted 5% have plenty of opportunity to mix with children of lesser ability - one doubts if social adjustment really requires close contact with the whole ability range.
The existence of grammar schools and the use of scholarships to independent or direct grant schools where exceptional talent was involved provided an administratively and educationally satisfactory solution to most of the problems thrown up by giftedness. However, in Britain the political trends have swung dramatically against the selective school in the course of the past decade. 80% of secondary school pupils are now being educated in comprehensive schools, the direct grant is being phased out, and local education authorities have recently been forbidden to take up places for bright pupils in independent schools. It is felt by many that selective schools are socially divisive, and that the advantage of a few is paid for by the majority of children, who will fail to reach their potential due to feelings of inferiority that are the result of failure in the secondary school selection process. How true these criticisms are is highly debatable, but it must be said that unless the pendulum swings back towards the principle of selection, political constraints will make it almost impossible for the needs of the gifted to be met in the traditional selective school. Is any form of selective school possible in these circumstances? In searching for an answer to this question it would be instructive to look at selective schools in other countries.
Interesting examples of selective schools are to be found in both North America and Russia. The United States have a long tradition of comprehensive schooling, but some selective schools are to be found, particularly in New York. Hunter College Elementary School takes children of ages 8-11, admitting them on a competitive basis with a minimum of 130 IQ; many pupils are from backgrounds of low socio-economic status. New York also has a number of specialised high schools for children of talent. Stuyvesant High School, Brooklyn Technical School and The Bronx High School of Science offer a curriculum weighted towards science and mathematics, while the The High School of Music and Art and the High School of Performing Arts take pupil with high aptitudes in these areas. All children accepted in these school are expected to be strong in all-round achievement as well. The Russian educational system is of particular interest to those who believe in special schools for the gifted. Although schooling is based on a system of neighbourhood comprehensives, the Russians practise more intensive selection for special schools than any western country, believing the absence of selection to be a waste of the nation's most valuable resources. Children who are exceptionally gifted are provided for in two ways. Many of the neighbourhood schools are biassed towards particular subjects from the age of eight onwards. In Moscow, for instance, 68 schools specialise in mathematics. At the same time, children in rural areas who are exceptionally gifted in mathematics attend the four university boarding schools from the age of fifteen or sixteen. to do a special two-year course. Recruitment depends on high academic achievement at the local eight-year school (8-16), an entrance test based on mathematics and physics, and an oral examination. These boarding schools are sited at Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev and Novosibirsk, but cater exclusively for children from rural areas. Urban pupils are differentiated by ability after the age of sixteen and are able to study on specialised courses as in this country.
Selective schools undoubtedly achieve high standards, although it has yet to be demonstrated decisively that their pupils do better than they would have done if they had attended non-selective schools. The research of Christie and Griffin (1970) (See Footnote 32) tends to the view that they do not, and it is possible that the stratification systems in selective schools inhibit the performance of those in the lower part of the hierarchy, who would nevertheless have abilities which would put them at the top of a comprehensive school. It is also alleged by some that, according to the "self-fulfilling prophecy" principle, the average child performs less well when the bright children are removed, but the evidence for this is hotly disputed. It seems probable that moderately bright, average and academically dull children may well be happier working with others like themselves than when they are in comprehensive or mixed-ability groups, when the very bright always get the top marks and most of the teacher's approval. In any case these problems of "self-concept", "expectation level", and "self-fulfilling prophecy" are not intractable; if they are faced squarely, the careful and sensitive treatment of pupils can overcome the spin-off effects of selection.
With regard to the secondary schooling of the gifted child, the key factor is probably what C.P.Snow (See Footnote 33) has called the "critical mass". According to the D.E.S.' pamphlet "Gifted Children and their Education": "The central problem at the secondary level turns upon the optimal density of the critical mass. If this is too low, the gifted child might suffer from a lack of stimulation; if it is too high, and formal and/or informal stratification occurs, the achievements of some of these gifted pupils would be lower than they might have been in a critical mass of less density."
However, the argument that selective schools are socially divisive remains, and is difficult to refute. A less divisive, yet clearly successful plan for separate schooling for the gifted is the "Major Works" classes plan which has been operating in Cleveland, Ohio, since 1922. These classes cater for elementary (age9-12) and secondary pupils with IQs of 125 upwards. "Major Works" centres are established in any school with a sufficient number of gifted children over any age range of 2-3 years. If a school has insufficient numbers to form a class, their gifted pupils are "bussed" to a centre in another school. There are three junior and three senior high schools in Cleveland, to which graduates of the "Major Works" elementary classes are directed, and in these the programme continues. Similar schemes to this are in operation in the Canadian cities of Saskatoon and London, Ontario. These arrangements have much to recommend then. They only involve small numbers, say 60-90 a year in a medium-sized city, rather than 20% as in British secondary selection, and thus other schools suffer little because the cream of the pupils has been skimmed off. It has not led to the competitiveness which vitiated secondary selection in this country; nor can it be considered as elitist, since pupils in the "Major Works" classes have daily contact with others in the school, in which their centres are located, because they participate in the regular sporting, craft, and club activities. A particular advantage of the "Major Works" scheme is its low cost. No extra school buildings or teachers are required beyond what would be needed for the same students in other schools, while teachers who specialise in teaching gifted pupils are employed more efficiently in these centres than in schools where only a few gifted children are present. In addition the special classes make use of the libraries, laboratory, workshops and audio-visual equipment of the schools in which they are housed, although, of course, some extra materials are needed. If secondary selection of the traditional kind is rendered impossible for political reasons, the educational administrator would be advised to consider very strongly the setting up of a scheme for gifted children along the lines of the "Major Works" plan.
The second type of total segregation is that of homogeneous grouping, or streaming, within the school. The advantages of, and objections to, this practice are very sidualised basis. imilar to those put forward in regard to segregation by schools. Children in the middle and bottom streams may have their self-esteem and, hence, their motivation, impaired, while those towards the bottom of the top group may have their performance adversely affected by their relatively low marks. Streaming is particularly open to the charge that its classification tends to rigidify, that is, it becomes increasingly difficult for children to switch streams due to their different curricula and pace of progress. Early streaming in the primary schools at the age of seven is particularly unwise, as it consolidates the initial advantages of middle-class children, an advantage which schools should at least be seeking to reduce. It would seem sensible to wait until the children reach the age of eleven or twelve before classifying all of them into homogeneous groups, although as early as nine some sort of selection of the very bright for special programmes should be practised. At the age of eleven it seems reasonable to suppose that the great advantages of modifying the content and methods of instruction to each level of ability will outweigh any psychological disadvantages that may stem from classification. As has been indicated above, streaming in selective schools of the traditional type is likely to be more helpful to the gifted; streaming within the comprehensive school will inevitably be less so. If a comprehensive is divided into three streams, the top groups will include children of the range of IQ 107 and upwards, which will inevitably lead to an exceptionally wide range of ability, while the unsatisfactory practice of packing top stream classes in order to ease discipline problems, or provide more assistance, lower down in the age-group concerned, will only serve to increase this range. The gifted child will inevitably be inadequately accommodated in this situation, unless learning is carried out on an individualised basis. However, it must be stated that any streaming, however wide the range of ability per stream, is an advantage, if only because it reduces significantly the complexity of the learning situation that the teacher must manage. Even more advantageous is the practice of "setting", common to many British secondary schools, by which pupils are regrouped for different academic subjects. While this creates a plethora of time-tabling difficulties, it provides more accurately for variations in ability between the different dimensions of the curriculum, and is more flexible than the practice of allocating pupils to high or lower groups for every subject. Moreover, "setting" blurs the rigid classification which some believe to be harmful to pupil motivation.
b. Partial segregation.
Another method of assisting gifted children is that of partial segregation, i.e. part-time special classes for gifted children who are educated, for the most part, in non-selective schools. These schemes of partial segregation involve children of any age, and are based either on special classes inside the school or on visits to other educational centres for this purpose. In this country, these special programmes are few at present, but they are growing in number.
Most special programmes held during school hours are designed for primary school pupils. A pilot scheme was run by Sydney Bridges at Brentwood College of Education, Essex, in the 1960s. A pilot scheme was run by Sydney Bridges at Brentwood College of Education, Essex, in the 1960s. Gifted pupils from local primary attended the college for half a day each week in order to undertake a programme of academic and creative studies under the guidance of college staff and students (See Footnote 34). Following this experiment, the North-East division of Essex C.C. set up four classes for intellectually gifted children in 1970. Children are withdrawn from their normal primary school lessons to attend these classes, which meet twice weekly. The group sizes are set at between four and eight pupils. In West Sussex, an "Extended Activities Group" has been set up, and this offers a special programme to fourteen children from nine primary schools in one area. The aims of these programmes vary. Sometimes the emphasis is on covering the major subjects, mathematics and English, in greater depth; sometimes, as in the case of the "Extended Activities Group", the emphasis is more on special interests and enrichment of the curriculum. In fact, there is no chance of these part-time programmes speeding up the academic progress of gifted pupils as most of their work is inevitably done in their regular schools. Only where the specialist classes are held in the schools themselves can the rate of progress be advanced.
A good example of partial segregation within the school itself is the Colefax Plan, operated at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Here children of IQ 130 and upwards are segregated for part of the day in special "workshops". The school morning begins with classes in which all children participate, but in the middle of the morning the gifted go their workshops for classes in which there is an emphasis on critical and analytical thinking. Although Colefax is an elementary school, such a plan as this might be particularly suited to a secondary comprehensive school in this country. A comprehensive with an annual intake of, say, 300 pupils could expect to have seven or eight children with an IQ of 130+ in each year, a sufficient number for the school to provide the special classes within its own walls. In fact, the greater distances between secondary schools make common programmes for gifted secondary pupils from a number of schools less feasible, and this reminds us that the schemes of part-time segregation such as in North-East Essex and West Sussex are only possible in urban areas.
An alternative or supplement to the schemes of partial segregation discussed above are extra-curricular courses run on weekends or in the holidays. These courses can be residential and may cover a wide range of subjects and activities. In the Canadian city of Toronto, special Saturday courses are held for about 100 gifted pupils of ages 11-14. Many different subjects are offered, e.g. computer science, philosophy, journalism, and archaeology. In the United States, residential courses in the holidays are very popular, and cover a vast range of interests. They are held in schools and universities and can provide opportunities for teachers to undertake in-service training with gifted pupils. In this country about a quarter of local education authorities provide Saturday classes (See Appendix 1), but this is mainly in music. Other authorities, such as Somerset, are setting up "Saturday clubs" for gifted children. More academic in orientation are the the recently started special residential courses for gifted children attending Lancashire schools. These courses, catering for 50-60 pupils at a time, were set up in 1976 to cover science, mathematics and modern languages during the school holidays and weekends. They have proved so popular that additional courses in English language and literature are to be added in 1977-78, and this Conservative controlled authority has funded courses for the gifted to the extent of £250,000 in that year in order to encourage top ability children to improve still further their academic potential.
A considerable range of measures, involving either total or partial segregation, are available to provide for the special needs of gifted children. Those measures which involve total segregation are very difficult to arrange in the present climate of political thinking. There are many types of partial segregation which can be run in conjunction with mixed ability schooling, but one doubts if they are a satisfactory substitute for more regular provision.
c. Acceleration.
Acceleration is another general method of providing for the educational needs of gifted pupils; it may be an alternative to, but it can be also be combined with, the method of segregation. Acceleration means promoting gifted children to higher classes more rapidly than is usual. It is, in fact, a form of grouping in that it implies differentiation by mental, rather than chronological, age. Usually it involves missing a year's work or "grade skipping", as the Americans call it. It is not a common practice in the United States, and, as has been seen, is probably becoming less common in this country, where changes in the transfer age from primary to secondary schools, and divided schemes of secondary schooling have complicated the issue.
Many teachers and educationalists disapprove of acceleration, believing that it harms the social adjustment of the child. They feel that the gifted child may not be sufficiently mature, either physically or emotionally, to work with those older than himself. In fact, however, Terman concluded from the evidence of his study of gifted children in California (See Footnote 35) that not only do accelerated pupils tend to maintain their academic position fully but that they show no more social maladjustment than bright children who have not been accelerated. On the contrary, there is some evidence (See Footnote 36) that bright children who are held back with their coevals are less well adjusted than those who are accelerated. Furthermore, when one considers the enormous differences in maturation amongst children grouped according to chronological age, psychological objections to acceleration appear very weak. It is more likely that official reluctance to accelerate is related to administrative convenience, although it is significant that schools are often more ready to allow children to repeat a year's work.
Acceleration does, however, cause some difficulties, and it is often an imperfect solution to the problem of giftedness. It may create problems for teachers and pupils in making up work which has been missed, and can lead to frustration, if a child who has been accelerated in the primary school is not accepted early at secondary level. It provides no real answer to the problems posed by the exceptionally gifted, or of those talented in one or two areas only. Three methods of acceleration designed to overcome some of these problems will now be briefly considered. elescoping"
The first of these is the practice of "express" or "fast" streaming, known in the United States as "grade telescoping". In this country the practice is generally confined to secondary schools, but was probably more common in grammar schools than it is now in comprehensives. What it means, in effect, is organising a class of bright pupils to take their "O" Levels at the age of fifteen, and thus to progress to the sixth form a year early. In the USA "grade telescoping" occurs not only in junior high schools but in elementary schools, but in neither case is it common. In Britain its applicability to primary schools would depend on whether authorities were prepared to allow groups of pupils to move to secondary schools a year early. Although the forming of "express" streams has been quite common, it does not really cater well for the exceptionally gifted pupil, nor for the one whose ability is high in some areas but only average in others. "Expressing" is even becoming less popular in independent schools. Although bright pupils in such schools often take some "O" Levels at fifteen, they are thereby encouraged to take more at sixteen, and "A" Levels, as usual, at eighteen. By not "expressing" pupils it is no doubt expected that they will obtain more "O" Levels and better grades at "A" Level - important considerations in an increasingly examination-conscious age.
The second type of acceleration worthy of our attention is that of "continuous progress", although the individualisation of learning that this entails is appropriate to children of all abilities. It involves the division of schoolwork into a sequence of units or "modules", through which children move at their own pace. The system is spreading in elementary schools in the USA and Canada, and it has many advocates in this country.
However, the details of organising such schemes are formidable, and the open plan schools which they require are not to the taste of all. Teachers do little class teaching, and concentrate on individual or small group tutoring, and writing the courses of instruction. Pupils work at their own pace in open plan centres, and follow alternative paths depending on their ability and rate of progress. Sometimes the organisation of continuous progress planning is computerised, but this computer managed instruction (CMI) is very costly. Although, in theory, this this type of schooling really does seem to provide an answer to the problems of the gifted pupil, the cost of its introduction for all pupils in this country would seem prohibitive. However, programmed learning units might be of value for use with gifted pupils in conventionally organised schools where such pupils had far outstripped their contemporaries.
The third practice connected with acceleration is peculiar to American schools, and is known as "advanced placement". This means that very able pupils are able to do university work while still at school. Although not entering university until the normal age, they can obtain exemption from certain first year courses. The "credits" which they receive while still at school enable them to take their degrees earlier. The Advanced Placement Scheme is a very popular practice in the United States, but it is not really appropriate in this country as our university work is not similarly organised around set courses and credits, and in any case our universities are flexible about the age of entry.
These various methods of acceleration - grade skipping, grade telescoping, continuous progress and dvanced placement - have their advantages. The chief merit of acceleration for the gifted child is that he can be given challenging work commensurate with his ability rather than his age. The perceived disadvantages principally concern the social adjustment of the accelerated child. If acceleration is not considered suitable for the gifted child, then it must be considered how else a school can compensate him.
d. Enrichment.
The final method of dealing with the educational needs of gifted children is covered by the word "enrichment". The term is so vague that it can be applied to almost anything, but, in so far as it concerns our purpose, it means providing experiences which the average or below average pupil would lack the time, inclination or the ability to understand or benefit from. There are two basic types of enrichment. There is enrichment by depth, whereby a pupil follows a subject in greater depth, and enrichment by breadth, whereby he pursues additional related tasks, which often require work of special quality. As the former type really signifies acceleration, it is the latter which is of distinctive interest. Enrichment by breadth is the method used to occupy children in a heterogeneous or mixed ability classroom, and it is the only method of catering for gifted pupils which is open to schools that reject both acceleration and segregation. It generally involves the processes of individualisation which we encountered under continuous progress schemes, but in this context the aim is not to accelerate the gifted pupil but to "move him along sideways". A variety of teaching methods are appropriate here, but the most common are the setting of special assignments, projects, and subsidiary study programmes. Sometimes, as under the celebrated Dalton Plan, children can be given considerable choice as to what tasks they undertake. This method of providing for the needs of gifted children involves teachers in considerable preparation: they have to compile an extensive repertoire of materials, programmed units and audio-visual aids.
Enrichment is probably the method of catering for gifted pupils which is most in vogue with educationalists. In theory at least, it makes possible the teaching of such children without separating them from their average contemporaries. Unfortunately, enrichment is not in practical terms altogether a realistic concept, and it probably creates as many problems as it solves. For, when enrichment for gifted pupils is written into the aims of a school, the mechanics of this process are very rarely addressed. What enrichment in fact occurs may be very different from what theory has envisaged. The harassed teacher, the majority of whose pupils in a mixed ability class will fall into an IQ range of 80-120, may have little time, and possibly little interest, in devoting much of his effort into preparing materials and work programmes for one or two gifted pupils. Many teachers will probably content themselves with setting the gifted child additional work at the same level rather than tasks which are intellectually more demanding. Ogilvie's criticisms of the practice of much of the project method of teaching in primary schools is worth citing once again. It is probably unrealistic to expect more of the majority of teachers unless more resources are available and the teacher/pupil ratio is significantly reduced.
At this point, however, it must in all fairness be acknowledged that when an enrichment scheme is correctly operated by dedicated teachers that it is an exciting way of dealing with gifted children in primary schools, and of course it does so in a politically uncontroversial manner. Considerable interest has been shown in producing work for gifted pupils in this situation, and the programmes of enrichment which have been used in the segregated classes which has been considered are relevant here. Of particular value has been the work carried out by Bridges at Brentwood and at Millfield, while the purpose of the Tempest research class at Southport was to develop curriculum materials which might be useful to teachers with one or two gifted pupils in a normal primary school (7-11) class. More recently, in 1973, the Schools Council approved a grant to Dr.Ogilvie, the Principal of Northampton College of Education for the purpose of developing learning units for gifted children within the age range of 7-10. It is regrettable that no such work has been done for older pupils. Where the pioneering work of Bridges, Tempest and Ogilvie is intelligently applied the more attractive and feasible will enrichment methods become.
On the other hand, it must also be accepted that enrichment, if adequately implemented, is a more expensive method of providing for the needs of gifted children than acceleration or segregation. Schools will be reluctant to purchase expensive curriculum materials for use by a very few pupils only, and particular teaching expertise in the field of gifted children will not be economically employed in the average comprehensive or primary school. It must also be recognised that the older the gifted pupil becomes the harder it will be to provide for his needs adequately on the basis of enrichment schemes in mixed ability classrooms. By the time a gifted pupil has reached the age of 14-16, his academic needs could be well beyond the capacity of many comprehensive school teachers to manage. The recent level of anxiety about how well gifted children fare in comprehensives has been fully vindicated by the findings of the recent report of HM Inspectorate of Education.
Enrichment appeals to many because it utilises the practice of that "individualisation" of teaching and learning increasingly advocated today. The chief recommendation put forward by Ogilvie in his survey of gifted children in primary schools is the need to maximise individualisation in education. He argues that conventional schooling involves both "artificial ceilings on achievement" and "artificial constraints in the curriculum", and that these, by minimising individual differences, inhibit the emergence and development of giftedness. Arguing that "The more disparate the activities, and the larger the number available, the less likely it is that talent will, remain undetected and undeveloped", he advocates a "cafeteria" or "smorgasbord" curriculum in which pupil sare given considerable choice as to what they study. Furthermore, he asserts that "Problems of giftedness form a part of the total of those concerned with individualisation". The implication of this is that the need to individualise learning as a means of making special provision for the gifted should be viewed as only part of the need to individualise learning for all pupils. There is certainly some merit in this point of view, and some work advocating this approach has been published in recent years (See Footnote 37), but the difficulties and costs of a universal conversion to it would be immense, and it would not be reasonable for special provision for the gifted to be neglected until individualisation for all can be afforded. Furthermore, one doubts whether wholesale conversion is appropriate, since conventional classroom teaching is not only less costly but also has some definite social advantages, including the inspiration which arises from shared experience and the motivation provided by competition.
The applications of enrichment therefore seem limited. In primary schools, where the emphasis is on a broad general education, gifted children's needs could be well catered for under a system of enrichment, based on individualised approaches to learning. However, in spite of the wishes of many of its practitioners, such enrichment in the primary school is quite compatible with acceleration and partial segregation. In the secondary school it would seem to be both an inadequate and, in terms of cost, an unrealistic method of achieving the necessary provision for the gifted.
Conclusion.
A thorough review of existing ways of educating gifted children has been made. Recommendations as to the most appropriate ones for the state sector will now be offered.
In primary schools, the practice of providing for gifted pupils by enrichment methods is to be approved. Primary classes should not be streamed to begin with, since any attempt to differentiate by ability during these early years would probably inhibit as many cases of giftedness as it would promote. However, from the age of nine, some selection should be possible. Acceleration in individual cases seems desirable, and methods of partial segregation would be most valuable. Schemes such as those pioneered in Essex and West Sussex are especially recommended for study, but the extra-curricular provision of weekend and holiday courses should be carefully considered too. Unfortunately, it must be accepted that few measures of partial segregation can cater for gifted children from rural areas. The "Major Works" plan is particularly recommended; although it involves selection, it is not costly, and does not lead to total segregation. However, it too is only applicable to urban areas.
Recommendation for secondary schools are circumscribed by the fact that in the very near future all the secondary schools will be comprehensive. It is desirable, however, that streaming and setting are applied in comprehensives, and that in these circumstances both acceleration and enrichment methods are employed. The formation of express streams is not, on balance, to be recommended. Partial segregation of the gifted within individual schools, on the lines of the "Major Works" (high school) and "Colefax" plans would be valuable. Such schemes would only generate sufficient numbers of pupils to be operable in centres of population, and it is probable that gifted pupils from rural areas would be disadvantaged once more. Saturday classes and holiday courses would also help in providing further facilities, but to provide extra-curricular arrangements alone would seem an almost apologetic method of helping the gifted.
One doubts, however, if any of the methods described above would adequately answer the needs of the exceptionally gifted child, i.e. the child of IQ 160+, especially if he comes from a country district, Lord Snow and Sir Cyril Burt have advocated the formation of special schools for the very gifted, akin to the state boarding schools in Russia, but there is something almost Orwellian about this concept, and it is difficult to believe that the social adjustment of a child would not suffer if he attended such an institution. Yet, if entry was postponed until 15-16, much valuable time might be lost, and adequate provision for high level giftedness cannot wait until then. In spite of some misgivings, it might therefore be wise to found one or two experimental schools for exceptionally gifted pupils of secondary age. Alternatively, such pupils could be awarded scholarships to independent schools, such as Millfield, which have special facilities for them. In the same way the exceptionally gifted pupil of primary age, particularly if he came from a rural area, could be sent to a preparatory school with similar facilities. The use of independent schools is not however possible in the present political climate.
Political considerations apart, it does seem that, for gifted pupils at least, the former system of selective secondary schooling has much to recommend it. Streaming and setting within such schools enables the gifted to be taught in homogeneous groups, a practice both intellectually stimulating and economically efficient. At the same time, the gifted pupil would, in such a school, receive sufficient contact with other children of lesser ability for his social adjustment to be unimpaired. Selective secondary schooling appears on most calculations to be a more satisfactory solution to the problems of giftedness than comprehensive schools with hole-and-corner compensations at extra-curricular courses during holidays and weekends. Finally, it is submitted that it is in selective schools that there exists the best opportunity of creating that "critical mass" in which the abilities and personalities of the gifted child can most fully be developed.
FOOTNOTES:
1. Cyril Burt, "The Gifted Child", Hodder and Stoughton (1975).
2. C. Burt, "Is intelligence normally distributed?" Brit. J. Ed. Psych. 16 (1963).
3. Eric Ogilvie, "Gifted Children in Primary School," School Council Research Studies. Macmillan (1973).
4. "Gifted Children in Middle and Comprehensive Secondary Schools," H.M.S.O. (1977).
5. Sydney Bridges, "IQ-150," Priory Press (1973).
6. C.W. Pegnato and J.W. Birch, "Locating gifted children in junior high schools - a comparison of methods," Exceptional Children, 25 (1959).
7. L.S. Hollingworth, "Children who tested above 180 IQ"; Stanford Binet: Origin and development," World Book Co. (1942).
8. M.L.K. Pringle, "Able Misfits," Longman (1970).
9. See especially J.B. Shields, "The Gifted Child," NFER (1968); M.L.K.Pringle. op.cit.: E.M. Hitchfield, "In Search of Promise," Longman (1973); Eric Ogilvie, op.cit; Sydney Bridges, op.cit.; P.Rowlands, "Gifted Children and their problems," Dent (1974); Cyril Burt, op. cit.; P.E.Vernon et alia, "The Psychology and Education of Gifted Children," Methuen (1977).
10. See S.A. Bridges, "Gifted Children and the Brentwood Experiment," Pitman (1969); N.R.Tempest, "Teaching Clever Children, 7-11," Routledge (1974); S.A. Bridges, "Gifted Children and the Millfield Experiment," Pitman (1975).
11. E.Hoyle and J.Wilkes, "Gifted Children and their Education," D.E.S. (1975).
12. See L.L.Thurstone, "Primary Mental Abilities," D.E.S. (1975).
13. P.E.Vernon, "The Structure of Human Abilities," Methuen (1961).
14. J.W.Getzels and P.W.Jackson, "Creativity and Intelligence," Wiley (1962).
15. L.Hudson, "Contrary Imaginations," Methuen (1966).
16. L.M.Terman et alia, "Genetic Studies of Genius", Volumes I-V, Stanford University Press (1925-59).
17. R.F.De Haan and R.J.Havighurst, "Educationally Gifted Children," University of Chicago Press (1961).
18. J.J.Gallagher, "Teaching the gifted child," Allyn and Bacon (1963).
19. M.J.Gold, "Education of the Intellectually Gifted," Merrill (1965).
20. R.A.Martinson and C.M.Lessinger, "Problems in the identification of intellectually gifted pupils," Exceptionally Children, 26 (1960).
21. See Footnote 2.
22. J.Cornwell, "An Orally Presented Group Test of Intelligence for Juniors", Methuen (1952).
23. See Footnote 10.
24. See Footnote 6.
25. See Footnote 17.
26. P.E.Vernon et alia, op.cit. See Footnote 9.
27. E.P.Torrance, "Rewarding Creative Behaviour", Prentice-Hall (1965).
28. See especially G.M.Hilldreth, "Introduction to the Gifted," McGraw-Hill (1966); and J.S.Renzulli and R.K.Hartman, "Scale for Rating Behavioural Characteristics of Superior Students," Exceptional Children, 38 (1971).
29. S.R.Laycock, "Gifted Children: a handbook for the classroom teacher," Copp-Clark (1957).
30. See Footnote 11.
31. R.B.Catell and H.J.Butcher, "The Prediction of Achievement and Creativity," Bobbs-Merill (1968).
32. T.Christie and A.Griffin. ("The examination and achievements of highly selective schools," Ed. Res. 12, 2)
33. C.P.Snow, "Elitism ad excellence," New Science Teacher, 12 (1968).
34. See Footnote 10.
35. L.M.Terman, op.cit. Vol. IV. "The Gifted Child Grows Up," (1947).
36. D.A.Worcester, "The Education of Children of Above-Average Mentality," Nebraska University Press (1956).
37. See especially G.Taylor, "The Teacher as Manager", NCET (1970); L.C.Taylor, "Resources for Learning", Penguin (1971); and "Resource-based Learning in British Secondary Schools," in Br. J.Ed.Tech. No.2. Vol. 3 (1972).
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
BRIDGES, S.A. (1973): "IQ-150." London, Priory Press.
BURT, C. (1975): "The Gifted Child." London, Hodder and Stoughton.
FRENCH, J.L. (Ed) (1966) "Educating the Gifted." New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
HILDRETH, G.M. (1968) "Introduction to the Gifted." New York, McGraw-Hill.
HOYLE, E. & WILKS, J. (1975) "Gifted Children in Primary Schools." London, D.E.S.
OGILVIE, E. (1970) "Gifted Children in Primary Schools." London, Macmillan.
TEMPEST, N.R. (1974) "Teaching Clever Children, 7-11." London. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
VERNON, P.E., ADAMSON, G. & VERNON, D.F. (1977) "The Psychology and Education of Gifted Children." London, Methuen.
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX 1. PROVISION BY LEAs
The following figures are taken from the results of Ogilvie's questionnaire to LEAs published in Chapter 6 of "Gifted Children in Primary Schools", pp. 129-37.
A. Arrangements for ensuring effective recognition:
Item: Provision: No provision: Qualified reply: Unclear:
Guidance to teachers:
Totals 24 96 3 14
% 17.5 70.1 2.2 10.2
Established referral system:
Totals 36 82 9 10
% 26.3 59.9 6.5 7.3
B. Saturday morning classes:
Provision: No provision: Qualified reply: Unclear:
Totals 49 43 6 37
% 35.7 32.8 4.4 27.0
C. The award of scholarships and exhibitions:
Item: Provision: No provision: Qualified reply: Unclear:
Part-time:
Totals 50 43 11 33
% 36.5 31.4 8.0 24.1
Full-time:
Totals 69 32 11 25
% 50.4 23.4 8.0 18.2
D. Enrichment classes in school hours:
Provision: No provision: Qualified reply: Unclear:
Totals 6 102 2 27
% 4.5 74.3 1.5 19.7
E. Early admission to secondary schools:
Provision: No provision: Qualified reply: Unclear:
Totals 77 37 4 19
% 56.2 27.0 2.9 13.9
APPENDIX 2. THE INCIDENCE OF GIFTEDNESS
These figures are taken from tables calculated by Gilbert Peaker and published in "Gifted Children in Primary Schools", pp.12-13.
A. The incidence of polymathic giftedness:
Coefficient of Numbers of dimensions of giftedness:
correlation (r) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
5.5% 0.00 5.5 0.3
gifted 0.25 5.5 0.7 0.2
0.50 5.5 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1
1.8% 0.00 1.8
gifted 0.25 1.8 0.1
0.50 1.8 0.3 0.1
B. The incidence of specific giftedness:
Numbers of dimensions of giftedness:
r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
5.5% 0.00 5.5 10.7 15.6 20.2 24.6 28.7 32.6 36.3
gifted 0.25 5.5 10.2 14.4 18.2 21.6 24.6 27.4 30.0
0.50 5.5 9.6 12.9 15.6 18.0 20.0 21.9 23.5
1.8% 0.00 1.8 3.5 5.3 7.0 8.6 10.3 11.9 13.4
gifted 0.25 1.8 3.5 5.0 6.5 7.9 9.3 10.5 11.8
0.50 1.8 3.5 4.6 5.7 6.8 7.7 8.6 9.4
APPENDIX 3. THRESHOLD INTERRELATIONSHIPS
These figures are taken from "Gifted Children in Primary Schools", p.15.
A. Creativity and intelligence correlations:
(Haddon) (Ogilvie) (Yamamoto)
IQ r IQ r IQ r
70-135 0.480 70-140 0.540
115+ 0.076 130+ 0.04
100+ 0.164 108-140 0.195 110-130 0.08
100- 0.512 70-107 0.492 100- 0.31
B. Intelligence and attainment correlations:
(Entwistle) Boys Perf. Girls Perf.
Mean IQ VRQ(r) IQ(r) VRQ(r) IQ(r)
115 0.434 0.220 0.515 0.286
85 0.592 0.446 0.557 0.345
References:
Haddon, F.A., and Lytton, H., "Teaching Approach and the Development of Divergent Thinking Abilities in Primary Schools", Br. J. Ed.Psych. Vol.38. No.2, 1968.
Ogilvie, E., "Creativity, Intelligence, and Concept Development", Ph.D. thesis, Southampton University, 1970.
Yamamoto, K., "Thresholds of Intelligence in Academic Achievement of Highly Creative Students", J. Experimental Education. Vol.32, No.4, 1964.
Entwistle, N.J. and Welsh, J., "Correlates of School Attainment at Different Ability Levels", Br. J. Ed.Psych. 1969.
APPENDIX 4. THE INDICATORS OF GIFTEDNESS
The following table contains the results of Ogilvie's questionnaire to teachers on this subject ("Gifted Children in Primary Schools", p.70):
Item %
1. Display of extrordinary initiative. 48
2. Intense curiosity. 65
3. Day dreaming. 18
4. Delinquent behaviour. 1
5. Divergent behaviour. 45
6. Memorising reams of poetry, etc. 8
7. Inability to understand aggression in others. 6
8. Imaginative writing. 56
9. Rapid reading. 48
10. Wide vocabulary. 65
11. Extraordinary perseverance. 36
12. Extreme independence. 36
13. Extreme unpopularity. 5
14. High achievement test scores. 38
16. High creativity test scores. 21
17. Rejection of school work. 6
18. Exasperation in the face of constraint. 28
19. Exceptional physical characteristics. 9
20. Any others.* 21
*N.B. Those characteristics most frequently added: selection and discrimination; creation of images and perception of relationships; general enfacts; desire to excel; thusiasm and co-operation; "butterfly" behaviour due to rapid absorption of facts; desire to excel; exceptional energy.
APPENDIX 5. GIFTED CHILDREN: A TEACHER'S CHECKLIST (OF CHARACTERISTICS)
Devised by S.R.Laycock and published in Gifted Children and their Education", D.E.S. (1975) pp.10-11.
1. Possess superior powers of reasoning, of dealing with abstractions, of generalising from specific facts, of understanding meanings, and of seeing into relationships.
2. Have great intellectual curiosity.
3. Learn easily and readily.*
4. Have a wide range of interests.
5. Have a broad attention-span that enables them to concentrate on, and persevere in, solving problems and pursuing interests.
6. Are superior in the quantity and quality of vocabulary as compared with other children of their own age.
7. Have ability to do independent work effectively.
8. Have learned to read early (often well before school age).*
9. Exhibit keen powers of persuasion.
10. Show initiative and originality in intellectual work.
11. Show alertness and quick response to new ideas.
12. Are able to memorise quickly.
13. Have great interest in the nature of man and the universe.
14. Possess unusual imagination.
15. Follow complex directions easily.
16. Are rapid readers.*
17. Have several hobbies.
18. Have reading interests which cover a wide range of subjects.
19. Make frequent and effective use of the library.*
20. Are superior in mathematics, particularly in problem solving.*
*N.B. A child showing most characteristics on the checklist, but not those starred, is likely to be a gifted child who is under-achieving educationally.
APPENDIX 6. PARENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE CONCERNING GIFTED CHILDREN
The following questions were included in a questionnaire for circulation to parents in a Canadian city in order to provide information about gifted children. (See P.E.Vernon et al., "The Psychologyistica and Education of Gifted Children" (1977), pp. 110-12.
1. What are the characteristics of this child which makes you think that he or she is much above average in ability? Please check any of the following that apply, and add others if you wish.
a. Spoke fluently, and used difficult words, by three years old.
b. Learned to read at 4 to 5 years old.
c. Showed an intense, continuing interest in some special area from an early age.
d. Shows exceptional understanding of advanced topics and ideas.
e. Shows remarkable knowledge of many topics, and a very god memory.
f. Shows unusual imagination and original ideas in his leisure time activities.
g. Shows exceptional initiative and independence in games or hobbies, or doing things for himself.
h. Says that his school work is boring because it is too easy.
i. Always gets very high grades at school.
2. What do you do to encourage him or her to develop their special talents and interests?.
a. Supply more advanced books.
b. Supply scientific, model-making, painting, or other equipment.
c. Encourage use of the school library.
d. Arrange for music lessons.
e. Family excursions to museums or other places of interest.
f. Encourage him to watch serious TV programmes.
g. Give help with homework.
h. Teach him or her more advanced maths, science, foreign language, etc. than is available at school.
i. Go to theatres, concerts, or good films.
j. Discuss political or world news with him or her.
APPENDIX 7. EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF SCREENING PROCEDURES
The following table shows the results of Pegnato's research at a Pittsburgh junior high school (See J.L.French, "Educating the Gifted", p.77).
Screening No. selected by No. identified Effectiveness* Efficiency*
methods screening methods as gifted by % %
Binet IQ 130+
Teacher judgment 154 41 45.1 26.6
Honour roll 371 67 73.6 18.0
Creativity 137 14 15.5 10.2
Student Council 82 13 14.3 15.8
Maths achievement 179 50 56.0 27.9
Group intelligence tests:
Cut-off point IQ 115 450 84 92.3 18.7
Cut-off point IQ 120 240 65 71.4 27.1
Cut-off point IQ 125 105 40 43.9 38.1
Cut-off point IQ 130 36 20 21.9 55.5
Group achievement tests 335 72 79.2 21.5
Total 781
*N.B. Effectiveness: Percentage of Gifted Located; Total Gifted = 91.
*N.B. Efficiency: Ratio of No. Selected by Screening to No. Identified as Gifted in Percentage.
The various procedures for recognising gifted children are analysed. It is suggested that scores on intelligence tests and the systematic observation of teachers are the most important factors in accurate identification, while group intelligence tests are seen to have considerable value as a screening technique.
The needs of gifted children are considered briefly. They should receive challenging work and pass rapidly through the elementary stages of a subject. They need contact with both children of a similar ability and average children.
Different ways of providing for the needs of gifted children are outlined; these are classified under the headings of segregation - total and partial - , acceleration, and enrichment. The advantages of selective secondary schooling are discussed, but political objectives to them are strong. Streaming is considered valuable in secondary schools but not in primary ones. Different types of partial segregation and acceleration are discussed and some are recommended, and enrichment methods are considered especially appropriate to primary education. The setting up of experimental schools for the exceptionally gifted is tentatively suggested. Finally, the suitability, for the gifted, of the traditional system of secondary selection is reiterated.
CONTENTS:
Objectives of the report.
Boundaries of the report.
Note on Evaluation.
Introduction: the need to develop giftedness.
A. Analysis of the existing situation.
1. The lack of concern for the needs of gifted children.
2. The failure to identify gifted children.
3. The failure to provide for the special educational needs of gifted children.
B. Areas of management decision.
1. Defining giftedness.
a. Outstanding in what kind of group?
b. Outstanding in what particular activity?
c. Location as evidenced in what upper proportion of the designated group?
Conclusion.
2. Recognising the gifted child.
a. Intelligence tests.
b. Special aptitude tests.
c. School achievement.
d. Creativity tests.
e. Teacher nomination.
f. Parental information.
g. Personality tests.
Conclusion.
3. Identifying the educational needs of the gifted child.
4. Making appropriate provision for the gifted child.
Criteria.
a. Total segregation.
b. Partial segregation.
c. Acceleration.
d. Enrichment.
Conclusion.
Footnotes.
Bibliography.
Appendices.
1. Provision by LEAs.
2. The incidence of giftedness.
3. Threshold interrelationships.
4. The indicators of giftedness.
5. Gifted children: a teachers checklist (of characteristics).
6. Parental questinonnaire concerning gifted children.
7. Efficiency and effectiveness of screening procedures.
OBJECTIVES OF THE REPORT
By reading this report, the educational manager should be able to:
1. understand the need to develop giftedness;
2. evaluate the present provision for the problems of giftedness;
3. define giftedness;
4. recognise the gifted child;
5. identify the needs of the gifted child; and
6. plan appropriate provision for the needs of the gifted child.
BOUNDARIES OF THE REPORT
The report is concerned with the management of gifted pupils in the schools of the British state sector of education. Although details of practices in other countries are included, their application is to Brit geish schools and their pupils. The methods which might be used to teach gifted pupils, and the problems involved in their general upbringing is outside the scope of the report.
NOTE ON EVALUATION
Evaluation of this report would partly depend upon the extent to which its readers are persuaded of the need to provide special facilities for gifted pupils. The recommendations, if implemented could, and should, be evaluated carefully. Identification procedures could be assessed by a study of the future academic achievements of pupils identified as gifted, and by a comparison of their achievements with those of pupils not so identified. Special provision should be evaluated by comparing the results of gifted pupils for whom such provision is made with the results of control groups of similarly gifted pupils for whom provision is not made. The value of different types of provision could also be assessed by comparing pupils' progress.In all cases, evaluation could be short-term and/or long-term, and a cost/benefit analysis, as well as an assessment of absolute values, should be attempted.
INTRODUCTION: THE NEED TO DEVELOP GIFTEDNESS
The development and utilisation of a nation's human resources are the essential ingredients both of economic prosperity and of social advance. This principle was recognised over 2,000 years ago by Plato, who observed, in his "Republic", that the state's gifted leaders are its foremost asset. They are the agents of economic and social progress; without the contributions of great minds, the ideas of original thinkers, whose innovations and creative ideas advance the frontiers of knowledge, such progress could not occur. In the thermonuclear age of the twentieth century, inventive minds with an array of scientific tools can accomplish almost anything within the scope of man's imagination, and must grapple with the problems which an expanding population and a decline in traditional resources of food and energy must inevitably create. At the judging and decision-making level in government and industry, and in all aspects of social life, a vast pool of intellect is required with the skills, training and personality to provide the necessary leadership. The development of society's human potential is of even greater importance than the acquisition and conservation of those resources of energy, raw material and food, on which so much of the emphasis of modern government focusses.
The first and foremost duty of an educationalist in a democratic society is no doubt to do his best for the mass of the population, who, of course, comprise ordinary mortals of average ability. It is generally felt that the next obligation is to provide remedial care for the subnormal and handicapped, but it is less readily accepted that particular provision should also be made for unusually gifted children, despite the obvious fact that the latter are likely to make far more valuable contributions to the good of society in the future, when they become the scientists, managers and teachers of the next generation. No amount of political dogma or sentiment should be allowed to obscure this point. For, as the late Sir Cyril Burt remarked in a celebrated passage:
"In spite of popular prejudice there is, or there should be, no insuperable conflict between equality as a principle of justice and inequality as a fact of genetics. In education, equal opportunity means the equal opportunity to make the most of differences that are innate. The ideal is a free and fair chance for each individual, not to rise to the same rank in life as everyone else, but to develop the peculiar gifts and virtues with which he is endowed - high ability, if he possesses it; if not, whatever qualities of body, mind and character are latent within him. In this way, and this way alone, can we be sure of realising to the full our untapped resources of talent, and warding off the decline and fall that has in the end overtaken each of the great civilisations of the past" (See Footnote 1).
A. ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING SITUATION
1. The lack of concern for the needs of gifted children.
Although it is a democratic right of the gifted child that his potential for his own self-fulfilment as an individual should be developed, and it is very much in the national interest that this should be done, there is in this country a disquieting lack of concern about the needs of the gifted child. This lack of concern manifests itself both in a failure to recognise that these children have special educational needs, and by a paucity of provision for them.
Until recently, great attention has been paid to the needs of pupils of moderately high ability, that is pupils of a grammar school type. By means of scholarships, selective transfer to various types of secondary school, and selective classification within the schools, some degree of special educational provision was made from the age of eleven onwards. However, even in the grammar school era little or no attention was paid to the exceptionally able, i.e. children whose abilities were as much above the average grammar school pupil, as the abilities of the average grammar school pupil were above those of the general population. This neglect was the result partly of a failure to comprehend just how intelligent the gifted pupils are, and partly of an underestimation of the frequency with which they occur in the population (See Footnote 2). If the selective system of secondary education was insensitive to the needs of gifted children, the recent movement towards comprehensive schools has not served to remedy the situation. When the overall organisation of schooling is so politically controversial one cannot expect the special needs of a tiny, albeit an important, minority to receive much attention. Furthermore, the frankly anti-elitist ethos of many comprehensive schools has encouraged them to avoid the issue of provision for the extra-bright pupil, and in other comprehensives, problems of indiscipline, vandalism and truancy have given senior staff little time to consider the question.
Indeed, the main barrier to the provision of adequate educational facilities for the gifted has been the indifferent attitude of local education authorities and teachers. Some education authorities make little or no provision for their more gifted children because they either fail to recognise, or else deny, the need to do so. Sensitive to the preoccupations of local politics, they have tended to assert that their relatively restricted resources should be used mainly for the average and below average children. This attitude is reflected in correspondence addressed to Dr. E.Ogilvie, who carried out in 1970-1 a study of the teaching of gifted children in primary schools on behalf of the Schools Council (See Footnote 3). Here are some examples of the comments received by Ogilvie from local authorities and headteachers:
"As a small authority we very rarely seem to be faced with the problem of educating the gifted primary school child and indeed I do not recall any problem which has arisen in this way for the past twenty years."
"In this area teachers' study groups are not likely to be welcome in order to study gifted children ... teachers would feel that they had other more pressing problems."
"The education of gifted children seems to be an area where opinions are often subjective and on balance we feel there is little to be said for discriminating in their favour ... [there is] a large proportion of socially deprived children .... and the devising of appropriate educational stimuli for this large group is a much more pressing problem for us."
This reluctance to consider gifted children as a special category requiring separate provision, which the above comments clearly illustrate, emerges again in the recent Government report on gifted children in middle and comprehensive schools. (See Footnote 4). Some of the 130 schools inspected had no wish to identify, or even to consider, special ability among their pupils. "Paradoxically, the staff were not averse to the recognition of a remedial category which was segregated for special treatment, nor to the thesis that individual needs should be identified and provided for." The "strong reluctance" to identify special ability found at many of the schools investigated by the inspectors who compiled the Report often reflected some preconceptions on the part of teachers. "We don't want a jet-set here", was how some expressed themselves. "We've only just come from a selective system", was another oft-encountered statement.
Other schools were indifferent rather than hostile to the concept of separate educational provision for the gifted. "In 'difficult' schools where vandalism, truancy, and classroom control were matters of high concern, the discussion of giftedness might be regarded as a very low priority," says the Report. Another view commonly encountered by the inspectors was that there is no need to make special provision for gifted pupils, since "they can quite well look after themselves". Teachers, it was thought, should concentrate their attention on those at the other end of the scale who find difficulty with their work.
A third group of schools showed neither hostility nor indifference, but had simply not even considered the question. "Heads and teachers manifested great uncertainty about what constituted giftedness and a great reluctance to identify any of their pupils as possessing it."
Further difficulties stem from the attitude of many parents, and even of the children themselves. A further handicap to gifted children is that society tends to be suspicious of the child that is "different", and prefers the child who is well-adjusted socially and emotionally, and who has interests conventional to his or her age and sex to the child who is academically distinguished. Parents of gifted children are very often not of superior intelligence themselves and find precocity very difficulty to handle; the same is true of teachers as well. Not only do most parents and teachers tend to mould children towards conventionality; the peer-group exerts an even more compelling influence towards uniformity in speech, manner and dress. Brighter pupils do not necessarily have the strength of character to oppose these stereotypes, and are apt to conceal their abilities and intellectual interests so as not to seem too different from other children. Sydney Bridges in eight years of experimental work with gifted children (See Footnote 5) found that the majority of them were modest about their ability. They easily accept that school work is too easy for them, and, in fulfilment of the expectations of their teachers, are content to obtain high marks and praise for work which presents them will little challenge. It is, perhaps, just as important that the attitudes of these children should be changed as those of the parents and teachers responsible for their upbringing.
2. The failure to identify gifted children.
The identification of gifted children is a process dogged by difficulties of defining just what giftedness is. Associated with the problem of definition is that of agreeing on suitable criteria for determining who the gifted children are. From the little evidence that is available there is little to substantiate the perception that these children emerge naturally and can look after themselves. In an enquiry conducted by Pegnato and Birch in the junior division of a high school in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (See Footnote 6), only forty-one out of ninety-one children with IQ 136 or more (Binet) were nominated as gifted by their teachers, and it emerged that no one screening procedure by itself was sufficient to identify gifted children with any degree of effectiveness. The experience of the Tempest research group from Liverpool University was very similar (See Footnote 6a). Out of the seventy-two children in the last term of an infant school nominated as gifted by their teachers, only twenty-four had IQs of 127 on the group intelligence test used (D.Young, Non-Readers' Intelligence Test, 1966). Of the top thirty children selected as gifted after individual tests, only fourteen had been included in the nominated group. Tempest concedes that, as the children were only about seven, identifying the gifted among them was a much more difficult task than in the Pegnato and Birch enquiry, but he points out that it is surprising that two children overlooked by their teachers had a reading age six years above their chronological age as measured by the Schonell Word Recognition Test.
The evidence of these two studies suggests that teacher recognition is a very imperfect means of identifying those children who are outstandingly able. It is unfortunately the case, however, that for the majority of schools there is very little alternative. As part of his study on gifted children in primary schools, Ogilvie attempted to assess the extent of special provision designed to help teachers to recognise gifted pupils. LEss were asked to indicate whether advisory staff gave any guidance in this matter and whether headteachers were encouraged to seek advice through a referral system. From the answers to these questions it emerged that only 17.5% of LEAs provided guidance to teachers and only 26.3% had a referral system. Furthermore, there appeared to be little doubt that the referral systems are used for problem children rather than for the specific purpose of identifying gifted children. (The full figures are presented in Appendix 1.)
In view of the ineffectiveness of teacher-recognition of gifted pupils and the widespread neglect of this subject by local authorities, it is evident that there is at present a serious failure to identify giftedness in our schools. This conclusion is borne out both by Ogilvie's study and the recent Government report on middle and comprehensive schools. Ogilvie found that about a half of primary school teachers agree that many gifted children go unrecognised in school. One of the study groups set up by Ogilvie commented that the recogntion of gifted children is "the biggest gamble in the whole educational sphere ... (it is) so dependent on luck". The Government report found that "many schools either have not thought about giftedness or hold very imprecise notions regarding its nature ... ". It also found that school records were poor and that information about special gifts, other than in music or sports, were rarely passed on when children transferred from one school to another. Furthermore, say the inspectors, "There is in our view, a notable lack of cross-checking between the contributory and receiving school records to see if high specific or general achievement in one school is paralleled with that in the other".
3. The failure to provide for the special educational needs of gifted children.
In view of the general tendency of both local authorities and schools to deny or ignore the special needs of gifted children, one would not expect to find any widespread provision for these needs. This is, indeed, the picture that emerges from Ogilvie's questionnaire to LEAs about help given to gifted pupils in primary schools. LEAs were asked to give details of any special arrangements made for such pupils, and the questionnaire was designed to cover almost every type of special provision that could conceivably have been made. The answers indicated clearly the low level of provision (See Appendix 1). Only about one quarter of $LEAs provided Saturday morning classes, and the centres that did exist for this purpose are usually confined to musical activities. Indeed the enquiry revealed that there was not one single example of a Saturday morning class in mathematics, science or languages. With regard to the award of scholarships and exhibitions to pupils gifted in a particular activity, it was found that only a minority of authorities provided for part-time tuition in colleges of music or other specialised institutions, although 50 per cent provided for full-time tuition of this kind. Ogilvie noted in particular the greater opportunity available to children living in London to develop any special talents. Only 4.5 per cent of authorities provided enrichment classes in school hours, and this is clearly a most unpopular way of helping gifted children. When it came to early admission to secondary schools, it was discovered that at least a quarter of authorities have consciously discontinued a policy that was once universal. Ogilvie concludes this part of his survey by remarking of these special arrangements that, "None are universal, and many are not included to any significant extent in the provisions of an appreciable number of authorities. The type of arrangement likely to be most favoured is that which whilst giving opportunity for the gifted child to excel can also be represented as part of 'proper' provision for every child who might wish to take part."
It is often argued that there is a decreasing need to "promote" or make other special arrangements for gifted children in primary schools as there is an increasing emphasis on individualisation of learning within the primary schools themselves. In practice, this individualisation largely refers to what is called "project" work. After very detailed observation of teaching practices in primary schools, Ogilvie asserts with regard to this project method that "Observation in schools reveals what must be regarded as a serious and most difficult situation". For not only do teachers differ widely in what they consider to be acceptable standards of work, but they tend only to mark in a most cursory and general manner. Very rarely are they able to compare what different children achieve in project work with their own previous work or the work of others. Much of the project work produced by children tends to be of a descriptive character, and there is little guarantee that project methods, per se, will stretch the abilities of very able children more than more conventional methods. These difficulties have obvious management implications, as teachers in large classes are rarely able to devote sufficient time to monitor the work of individual pupils to ensure either that the individualised tasks are appropriate to them or that satisfactory development is being achieved.
If the gifted child fares poorly in primary schools, one cannot be confident that his treatment at secondary school will be improved. At the secondary level the very gifted within selective schools are differentiated by the practices of streaming and acceleration. In direct grant schools and grammar schools of high academic standards, these measures no doubt do much to help the development of giftedness, but even here it is difficult to see the extent to which content and teaching method are differentiated for the exceptionally able. The syllabus is largely determined by the requirements of external examinations, and the gifted pupil is often extended only by taking a greater number of subjects than other students. At the sixth form stage the brilliant mathematician or scientist will probably be in a small set of able pupils, but he may still be held back by the relative inability of his contemporaries. In the smaller grammar school this factor will seriously weaken any chance of special provision for the gifted pupil; furthermore, the danger of such a pupil outstripping his teachers becomes acute.
In recent years the main area of debate in secondary education has been that of grouping, both within and without the school. The increasing prevalence of comprehensive schools and of mixed ability teaching groups has increased the likelihood that special ability will be neglected. The greater quantity and range of management problems within comprehensives have reduced the ability and readiness of senior staff to consider the problem of the gifted, and mixed ability grouping, while tending, it is true, towards the individualisation of teaching methods, brings with it the dangers and difficulties associated with project work in primary schools.Whatever the theoretical claims made by comprehensive schools, one can only conclude that wastage of educational talent is more likely to occur within this type of school than in the selective type.
If the selective secondary school is well suited to the reasonably able pupil, and the efforts of the comprehensive school are concentrated more on the needs of the average and below average pupil, it is clear that neither type is designed to cater for the exceptionally able pupil. Some direct grant and independent schools, by virtue of their superior resources, are able to achieve more in this respect, but as schools within the state sector will never be able to match such resources more economic and efficient methods of providing for the gifted must be found.
The above survey has outlined the general neglect of the problem of giftedness within schools. This neglect, it has been shown, stems from a combination of factors - an indifferent attitude, ignorance, lack of resources, and structural difficulties. Above all, it is essential to to recognise fully the fact of giftedness and the wastage of talent that will occur if adequate provision for it is not made. It is scarcely satisfactory that a child of ten with an IQ of 140, and who is therefore able to work at the intellectual level of an average fourteen year-old, should only be doing, albeit very well, the work normally done by children of his own age. Leta Hollingsworth, an American research psychologist, wrote in 1942: "In the ordinary elementary school situation children of 140 IQ waste half their time. Those above 170 IQ waste practically all of their time" (See Footnote 7). In addition, as Dr. Kellmer Pringle has established, lack of cultural or intellectual stimulation, both at home and at school, can contribute to severe behavioural difficulties amongst gifted children (See Footnote 8).
In the past decade a growing interest in the education of gifted children has emerged in Britain. The creation of the National Association for Gifted Children in 1966 was an important date, and the First World Conference on Gifted Children was held in London in 1975. In the interim the literature on the subject has been expanded by various studies and investigations (See Footnote 9), while a number of special programmes for gifted children of primary school age have been undertaken (See Footnote 10). The Schools Council set up in 1969 set up a working party to study the teaching of gifted children, and this led to the commissioning of the Ogilvie report on gifted pupils in primary schools. The D.E.S. published a study on gifted children in 1975 (See Footnote 11) as a preliminary to the investigation by H.M.Inspectorate of Education into the teaching of gifted children in middle and comprehensive schools, the report of which, published in August 1977, coincided with the Second World Conference on Gifted Children in San Francisco. However, in spite of this considerable weight of academic and official interest in the subject, there has, as yet, been little administrative response from either LEAs or schools to deal with the problem of gifted children.
If this interest in gifted children is to be translated into action, the requirements of organising their education must be delineated, alternatives considered, and management implications pondered. Decisions must be concentrated on the following areas:
(1) defining giftedness;
(2) recognising the gifted child;
(3) identifying the educational needs of the gifted child; and
(4) making appropriate provision for the needs of the gifted child.
B. AREAS OF MANAGEMENT DECISION
1. Defining giftedness.
The achievement of a satisfactory definition of giftedness is necessary as the identification of gifted children for any special form of education will turn upon the criteria of giftedness used. The definition provided must therefore indicate the behaviour, or behaviours, that will show whether a child is to be considered gifted or not. Ogilvie suggests the following:
"The term 'gifted' is used to indicate any child who is outstanding in either a general or specific ability, in a relatively broad or narrow field of endeavour ... Where generally recognised tests exist as (say) in the case of 'intelligence', then 'giftedness' would be defined by test scores. Where no recognised tests exist it can be assumed that the subjective opinions of 'experts' in the various fields on the creative qualities of originality and imagination displayed would be the criteria we have in mind".
This definition is an honest one; it faces the criterion problem frankly, and is not based on administrative convenience. Ogilvie prefers the term 'outstanding' to 'gifted' because it is less 'emotive' and 'more obviously relative to given contexts'. However, to be 'outstanding' begs the following questions:
(a) Outstanding in relation to what group?
(b) Outstanding in what particular activity?
(c) Outstanding as evidenced by location in what upper proportion of the designated group?
a. Outstanding in relation to what group?
In this context, a child can be 'outstanding' in two senses. He may be gifted in comparison with the rest of his class or school, but not exceptional in relation to all his coevals. On the other hand, he may be gifted in terms of the total population, i.e. his ability and achievement is outstanding with regard to all children of his age group, not just those within his own school. The child who is outstanding in the first sense may cause problems to his teachers, but he is not the subject of this enquiry. Our concern is with the child who is outstanding in relation to all pupils of his age and who may indeed be outstripping not just his fellow-pupils but his teachers also.
b. Outstanding in what particular activity?
This is by far the most awkward of the three questions and merits particular attention. Superficially, it is concerned with the curriculum: what activities are discriminating enough, or important enough, for gifted pupils to receive special facilities? Or perhaps one might ask what are the subjects where gifted pupils require particular stimulation.
It is tempting to confine ones's definition of giftedness to the traditional subjects of the school curriculum, but there are serious difficulties here. Firstly, there is now a marked lack of consensus at both primary and secondary levels as to what the legitimate subjects of the curriculum are, and, secondly, it is clear that to limit the number of activities is to increase the likelihood of talent remaining undetected. In fact, there is a growing belief today that many "extra-curricular" activities should be supported by public funds, and there is a progressive blurring of the lines that distinguish the "cultural" activities (e.g. music, drama) from the "vocational" (e.g. handicraft, cookery) and the "leisure" (e.g. rock-climbing, photography). Furthermore, schools are providing an increasing range of sorting activities: golf, sailing and orienteering, etc, are often added to the more traditional team games. Some schools now organise "clubs" during the hours of the school day, in which as wide a variety of activities as possible are encouraged and offered as options. Unfortunately, economic constraints are bound to to limit the number of activities in which exceptional talent can be publicly supported, and, as Ogilvie discovered in his survey, teachers are unable to suggest any principle which could justify such support of some extra-curricular activities rather than others.
In spite of these difficulties, the administrator is likely to be faced with a decision, and it is suggested that there should be two types of activity, where special help for the gifted should be given as a priority. The first comprises those "academic" or "intellectual" activities where progress is made on a "sequential" basis, and in which outstanding pupils are especially liable to be retarded by the presence of average ones. Mathematics, the sciences, engineering and foreign languages are the subjects that one has in mind in this context. The second area for particular concern should be those cultural activities which have traditionally been supported from public funds and where early training is necessary for optimum development. Music and ballet are the most obvious subjects here. These are the activities where special provision seems most appropriate, but, while such priorities must be included in our definition, wherever possible giftedness in other areas should be included too: creative writing, literary appreciation, humanities, the visual arts, drama and sport are all areas where arrangements to stimulate exceptional talent would be valuable.
Curricular considerations are however secondary to the deeper questions of the structure of human abilities and of the extent to which this structure is represented in the curriculum at all. Our sole concern with the task of defining giftedness is to assist us in the process of recognising gifted pupils, and before we can organise special programmes for them and decide which activities to emphasise we must decide on the criteria according to which these gifted pupils may be selected. For we shall need to recognise such giftedness long before exceptional ability at, say, engineering or foreign languages will have shown itself. In the identification of gifted pupils three parameters are usually employed today: general intelligence, special abilities, and creativity. All three must be covered in an adequate definition of giftedness.
In the main British psychologists have emphasised that the primary factor determining an individual's potential achievement is his innate allowance of general intelligence (the "g" factor), and early psychologists were content to base definitions of giftedness on tests of intelligence. Performance in one or more of these tests of
general ability has always been the most commonly applied criterion of giftedness in both research and selection.
However, there has been a general tendency in recent years to concentrate on special abilities, and to regard "g" as a secondary factor or indeed as non-existent. American psychologists have specialised in this multi-factorial approach to the composition of intelligence (See Footnote 12). The existence of a polymathic giftedness, which enables a pupil to be outstanding at almost everything, is likely to be so rare a phenomenon as to be non-existent. This is demonstrated clearly in a table, published in Ogilvie's report, which shows the theoretical expectations of the incidence of this type of giftedness (See Appendix 2).With intercorrelations among the dimensions approaching those found among items in intelligence tests, the table clearly shows that where fifty-five children per thousand are considered gifted in one dimension, this number will have fallen to three after three dimensions and to one after seven. Where only eighteen children per thousand are taken as gifted in one dimension, the number drops to one after three dimensions and, with a curriculum including only four dimensions it will be a waste of time to look for polymathic giftedness at all. When Ogilvie looked at the incidence of specific giftedness (See Appendix 2), however, the theoretical expectations were indicative of a more rewarding situation. With the same intercorrelations as above, nearly a quarter of the child population will be in the top 5.5% in one out of the eight dimensions, and a tenth will be in the top 1.8%. It would seem, therefore, that specific giftedness is a more useful quantity to seek than a high general intelligence manifesting itself throughout the curriculum.
Nevertheless, the weight of experimental evidence would suggest the existence of a common factor of general intelligence. Although it is possible to analyse mental qualities in such a way that no "g" factor is found, the results of special ability teats are generally correlated to some degree. The strength of the correlation depends to a great extent on the homogeneity of the group tested. In heterogeneous groups, such as whole age-groups of children, correlation of abilities tends to be high enough to yield a strong "g" component. Thus, most gifted children in a primary school population who show special talents will be high in intelligence, and vice-versa. However, in sixth forms or universities, where the range of ability is restricted, specialised abilities stand out more strongly. Although the status of "g" is difficult to establish, the theory of general intelligence is consonant with the amount of overlapping in curriculum dimensions that occurs. Intelligence correlates strongly with activities such as writing, science, mathematics and languages, but less highly with mechanical, constructional, visual, musical, and dramatic talents, and only slightly with athletic prowess.
The debate about the structure of intelligence has been further complicated in the past fifteen years by the apparent discovery of a new factor, creativity. It has been claimed that the criteria of ability implicit in the usual intelligence tests are too narrow, and that creativity and originality are the hallmarks of true giftedness. Attempts have been made to identify creativity as a factor independent of intelligence (See Footnote 14), and to link originality with a particular cognitive style (See Footnote 15). These studies have been strongly criticised on methodological grounds, and claims that tests of creativity show no correlation with intelligence tests probably only reflect the inefficiency of the tests used. The evidence for the existence of creativity as a special factor of intelligence is nevertheless strong. According to Burt, " ... whatever may be its precise psychological nature, its proportionate contribution, if we may trust the figures obtained in the various factorial studies, is about one-third that of 'general intelligence'. Creativity without general intelligence produces nothing of interest or value".
The dispute over the relative independence of intelligence and creativity can be eased by the concept of "thresholds". The creativity and intelligence correlations that are made available by Ogilvie (See Appendix 3) suggest that in above average IQ groups structured correlations are low, but among groups of average intelligence, they are much higher. A similar threshold is discernible in correlations between intelligence and attainment. Ogilvie concludes significantly as follows: "Taking the two tables together it is apparent that the threshold phenomenon is likely to be widespread in the curriculum and occurs even with regard to those activities like mathematics and languages which have traditionally been regarded as "intellectual" and heavily loaded on "g". One striking implication of this situation ... is that those who argue from the fact that "slow learners" need and receive special education to the idea that the highly intelligent should also receive special treatment, take too simple a view of the situation. Whereas the former will tend to appear as a group, regardless of which particular dimension or dimensions are used for purposes of identification, this will be far less true with regard to the latter." This conclusion has clear implications for any discussion of provision of special educational facilities.
To sum up, although it is probable that creativity is not independent, but a factor, of general intelligence, it would seem likely that there is a threshold on the IQ scale, at about 120 points, below which an intelligence test score is the best predictor of academic achievement, but above which measures of creativity become important in the prediction of the attainment of some children. Thus, creativity, together with general intelligence and special abilities, is a component of giftedness.
c. Outstanding as evidenced by location in what upper proportion of the designated group?
Of course it is impossible to decide exactly at what point a child becomes so intelligent as to require special educational provision. Giftedness is a matter of degree, and precise borderlines cannot be fixed. Once again, however, an administrative decision is necessary, and fortunately statistics relating to the distribution of intelligence in the population helps us to arrive at a satisfactory answer. The figures shown in the table below show the approximate number of children at high IQ levels cut off by different borderlines on the most recently constructed general intelligence tests. (As these figures relate to a total school population they will vary between different schools):
IQ % of Popn.
150+ 0.1
140+ 0.5
130+ 2.5
120+ 10.0
Different cut-off points have been advocated. Terman took 1% as the borderline for his study of gifted children in California (See Footnote 16). De Haan and Havighurst (See Footnote 17), however, suggested that as much as the top 10% should be considered gifted. Gallagher (See Footnote 18) believed that there was general agreement on the top 2%, and this is close to the top 2-3% in which the National Association for Gifted Children is interested. Gold remarks that "the cut-off point is significant because it may defeat its own purpose if set too high or too low, If set too high it may eliminate youngsters of high ability who for one reason or another do not test well. If set too low it may include so wide a range that highly advanced, challenging or difficult programs become impossible because they would result in frustration for a proportion of the selected group" (See Footnote 19).
This advice is crucial to achieving the best cut-off point, and in its light it would seem that IQ 130 or 2.5% is most appropriate as a rough borderline, above which children become too different from the average to adjust well to ordinary schooling and too intelligent for most teachers to be able to provide for their special requirements. However, the need to be flexible in applying such a borderline must be stressed.
It is still necessary to consider those who are distinguished more by special talents or creativity measures than by high IQ. Obviously, decisions taken here must be related to whatever facilities are available in schools, but one would expect that help for this type of giftedness could be provided. Once again the top 2.5% in each curriculum dimension could be included on our definition of gifted, as most high IQ children are specifically talented and vice-versa. De Haan and Havighurst, however, estimated that 20% would be gifted if one considered the top 10% over eight dimensions. Our top 2.5% in each dimension would bring us down to about 5%, that is, double the number considered gifted solely on the basis of an IQ score of 130 points. The discrepancy between this conclusion and the theoretical expectations of the incidence of specific giftedness (See Appendix 2) is probably the greatest number of gifted children for whom schools could afford to provide special facilities. At a rough estimate, for instance, this would entail making special provision for 200,000 out of an approximate secondary school population of four million. (One is not of course suggesting that this provision would be similar for all of these gifted children.)
Conclusion.
The following definition of "giftedness" is suggested:
The term "gifted" is defined as indicating any pupil who is outstanding:
(a) in relation to all children of his age-group within the population;
(b) especially in those academic subjects where progress is made on a sequential basis, in those cultural activities which have traditionally been supported by public funds and where early training is necessary for optimal development;
(c) according to the three parameters of general intelligence, special ability, and creativity; and
(d) as located in the top 2.5% of the population according to tests of general intelligence (i.e. IQ 130), or in the top 2.5% in dimensions of special ability and creativity, provided that his IQ does not fall below 120.
Where recognised tests exist, "giftedness" would be identified by test scores; where no such tests exist, it would be identified by the subjective opinions of experts in the various fields.
The identification or recognition of the gifted pupil is our next concern.
2. Recognising the gifted child.
A variety of methods will be considered individually before a conclusion as to the best combination is made.
a. Intelligence tests.
Intelligence tests have been assailed on a number of grounds: that they favour the verbal or advantaged child, that they are culturally "loaded", or that the child's performance may vary according to the circumstances in which the test is taken. The fact remains, however, that those few children who do well in them are usually among our brightest, and in trained hands the individual test of general intelligence provides the most important predictor of giftedness, particularly in the age range of 6-15. It is advisable to wait until the Second Year Infants Class to apply such tests, due to the variability of intelligence with growth up to the age of six. However, there is some disagreement here, and it has been claimed that gifted children can be reliably identified at the age of four and a half because of their advanced mental age (See Footnote 20). After the age of fifteen, in spite of the continuing growth of intelligence, test results become less representative of general ability because the short items, presented at speed, are a poorer sample of the complex mental processes that make up academic and vocational tasks. At any age a single test is unreliable, and it is preferable for a school to apply tests, say, every two years, and enter the results on a cumulative record card. Consistently high IQ scores or a rising trend are the surest basis to predict future ability.
The best individual intelligence tests are the Terman-Merrill (or Revised Stanford-Binet) with 1972 norms for children from four and a half to eight, and the Revised Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-R), using either the Verbal or the Full Scale. As the standard deviation on the spread of scores is 16 on the former and 15 on the latter, IQ 132 on the Terman-Merrill is equivalent to 130 on the WISC. The WISC is often preferred to the Terman-Merrill for older children, because it has a performance scale, based on items such as "object assemblies" and "block design", as well as a verbal scale. However the interpretation of performance IQs must be cautious. These do not relate highly to scientific or ability as do the paper-and-pencil non-verbal or spatial tests. Verbal IQs alone is a more accurate predictor of most scholastic abilities than the Full Scale which incorporates both verbal and performance IQs. However, when the the performance greatly exceeds the verbal IQ, this may be indicative of a linguistic handicap, such as might be suffered by an immigrant child. In such a case, the performance IQ might be the best indicator of ability.
Although a high score on a properly administered intelligence test is widely accepted as the best single index of giftedness, these tests do have limitations which must be recognised. They discriminate reasonably well between children of different levels of general ability throughout the population but less well when identifying children of high ability whose intellectual response is unusual or "divergent", no doubt because standardised questions cannot, by their very nature, elicit complex or inventive behaviour. Furthermore, because intelligence tests are standardised on a population covering the complete ability range, they will identify the top 2.5-5% according to the criteria built into them, but they do not discriminate well at the top end of scale. Indeed, when dealing with the top 2.5%, re-testing will probably lead to considerable changes in rank order. In addition, the incorporation in the modern tests of "deviation IQs", by which raw scores are converted to a normal distribution with a fixed standard deviation, while producing the advantage of greater consistency among IQs, has considerably restricted the range of scores. Thus in the WISC-R, scores are scarcely ever above 140, and in the Terman-Merrill 166 is now the maximum, whereas under conditions of classical scoring, scores of 160-200 used to occur frequently. If one accepts Burt's claim that the distribution of intelligence does not follow the normal curve, this failure to discriminate at the top end is more serious. According to Burt (See Footnote 21), there are very much greater numbers of children with extremely high IQs of, say, 160+ under classical scoring than would be expected from conventional statistics. Whereas normal curve calculations allow for only 3.3 per million, Burt would claim the existence of 77 per million. Thus, modern IQs discriminate poorly amongst the very bright and this is a serious disadvantage when a child with an IQ of 165 is as much ahead of one with an IQ of 135 as the latter is ahead of the average child. Of course, one cannot expect one test to measure many things well, and the alternative is to use a variety of tests once giftedness has been revealed. Alice Heim has compiled a test of high level intelligence (AH5), but this is designed for secondary school students. Other tests like this need to developed; such tests might have more limited functions, but could be used to complement general intelligence scores.
Because individual testing is time-consuming, and involves the use of trained personnel, it is a very costly process, and the use of group intelligence tests of the initial screening of gifted children should be considered. For children of 10 and over, these tests are particularly useful. Tests which include both verbal and non-verbal sections, such as the Lorge-Thorndike, are particularly appropriate, as they may help to identify the mathematically and scientifically minded child who might not show up particularly well on the verbal section alone. However, entirely non-verbal tests such as Raven's "Progressive Matrices" have a low predictive value. Pictorial group test IQs for young children of 5-8 have poor correlations with later IQs or with academic achievement. More useful for young children from 6-10 would be an orally administered verbal group test such as Cornwell's (1952) (See Footnote 22).
In general, group tests have only limited value. Their norms will differ from test to test, and they may have insufficient ceilings to yield IQs much above 125. Thus, the tester seeking to pick out the top 2.5% (i.e. the group corresponding to IQ 130+ on the WISC-R) would need to collect norms from the school or district and find out which score is actually achieved by the top 2.5%. Futhermore, as Bridges discovered during his "Millfield Experiment", group test results correlate poorly with individual intelligence scores when one takes the very bright as the population. On the other hand, Pegnato and Birch (See Footnote 23) discovered that the group test was the most efficient "screening" method of identifying gifted children (i.e. it identified the fewest students whose IQs were below the cut-off point selected). Group tests, therefore, have value, but mainly as a preliminary screening process. In their use, it would be wise to allow wide limits. If one's aim is to identify all pupils with IQ 130+ or those with special talents and IQ 120+, it would be necessary to take into account the top 10-15% on the group test.
b. Special aptitude tests.
In the light of our definition of giftedness it would be useful to obtain data on special aptitudes. There are, unfortunately, very few tests likely to be of assistance in diagnosing special aptitudes. The ones that do exist are mainly for older adolescents and seldom contribute more to selection than ordinary intelligence tests. As regards mechanical aptitude, the WISC-R Block Design performance sub-test is relevant, though it is really a general ability test. There are time-consuming practical tests, based on assembling mechanical objects, but more widely used are group tests based on mechanical and physical operations. In music the best validated set of tests is Wing's Standardized Tests of Musical Intelligence, for which norms are available for English children of 7-15. Although lengthy in application, this battery of seven sub-tests is useful in deciding whether a child would benefit from music lessons. Also of interest in this context are the series of informal special aptitude tests devised by De Haan and Havighurst (See Footnote 24) for talent identification during a programme for the gifted at Portland, Oregon. They used a "work-sample" method to screen in the areas of art, creative writing, music, drama, physical aptitudes and mechanical skills, while social leadership was assessed by sociometric nominations.
c. School achievement.
Marks or grades given for tests and examinations in school can be of value, particularly if such achievement tests are standardised. Pegnato and Birch found group achievement tests were, after group intelligence tests, the next most efficient screening method for giftedness.However, such achievement tests can be misleading if they do not provide scope for advanced talent. Furthermore, many of the gifted are poorly motivated in the conventional situation, and do not produce work which matches their potential. Thus, to demand a high level of attainment before admitting a child to a programme for the gifted might be to disqualify the ones most in need of special help.
Reading is the aspect of school achievement of greatest importance to the young pupil, and reading combined with comprehension tests, such as Schonell's, Watt's, Burt's, or Vernon's, are easily applied and furnish reading ages, which are of importance in assessing children. By the age of nine they are usually too easy for the verbally gifted child, but, if the teacher discovers this, then he has acquired the information he needs.
d. Creativity tests.
Creativity tests are a much heralded advance, but in fact they have little to recommend them. While creativity tests may be useful in discovering the nature of creativity it is unlikely that they will ever be a major component of selection for special programmes. Vernon exposes their shortcomings as follows; "Most psychologists who write about divergent thinking tests call them creativity tests. But this implies that they are valid measures of the psychological characteristics (of creativity) ... a claim that is certainly not justified. Because divergent thinking tests involve giving unusual associations, this does not mean that they are measuring the same kind of originality as that shown by the creative artist or scientist, or even the normal child or adult who produces something constructive" (See Footnote 26). In addition to this validity problem, creativity tests are most awkward to mark due to their open-ended nature, and it is of course highly doubtful that original behaviour can just be turned on to order in a testing situation.
However, there may be occasions, for instance, when a child is believed to have unusual responses or is a borderline case for special programmes, in which it would be helpful to have scores on divergent thinking. The best known are the Torrance (or Minnesota) Tests of Creativity (See Footnote 27). However, Bridges found them very difficult to score and unsuitable for young children, when he used them in the "Millfield Experiment". In fact, other tests are needed, and the tester should prepare his own stock of common and unusual responses rather than relying on lists devised for different cultural groups such as Torrance's.
e. Teacher nomination.
Due to the limitations of both intelligence and achievement tests, much of the responsibility for recognising gifted children must fall upon their teachers. Although the research of Pegnato and Birch, and later of Tempest, would suggest that teacher nomination is a poor method of screening, teachers' evaluation could become much more accurate if their attention were drawn to the characteristics of gifted children for which they should be looking. To help them do this, several rating scales or checklists of the behavioural characteristics of gifted children have been compiled in America (See Footnote 28).
In this country, Ogilvie has produced, in the course of his invaluable study on gifted children in primary schools, some interesting data concerning teachers' views as to the characteristics of giftedness (See Appendix 4). 370 teachers were asked to rate 20 criteria as reliable indicators of giftedness. The characteristics obtaining the highest recognition rate were "intense curiosity" and "wide vocabulary" (both 65%). Then came "imaginative writing" (56%), high intelligence test scores (53%), rapid reading (48%), and "display of extraordinary initiative" (48%). The fact that no characteristic received more than 65% recognition indicates that teachers do not believe that giftedness reveals itself invariably in one type of behaviour.
A concise checklist of behavioural characteristics was devised by Laycock (1957) (See Footnote 29), and was included in a pamphlet on gifted children issued by the School Psychological Service of West Sussex C.C. It was subsequently published in the recent D.E.S. pamphlet (1975) (See Footnote 30). It consists of only twenty behavioural characeristics, unlike some of the interminably long rating scales that have been devised, and, even though the predictive value of the items has not been validated, the checklist should be of great use to teachers. (It is contained in Appendix 5).
If teacher observation is to be sufficiently systematic to be valuable as a screening method in the identification of the gifted, such observation must be documented in a careful record system. Where a child is known or is thought to be gifted, a checklist such as the one suggested should be raised annually and considered by all his teachers for their comments. When the child moves to another school these records should be passed on. Discrepancies in teacher evaluation or sharp decline in performance should be investigated with care.
It must be emphasised that gifted children need to be given the opportunity for their talents to be both recognised and developed. Schools must provide opportunities for high intelligence and originality to display themselves; such abilities do not just emerge. Teachers, especially in primary schools, must accept that their job is not just to train children in standard skills, but to provide the chances for future potential to be diagnosed. Project work is one important way of providing children with the necessary experiences for their individual abilities to show, but Ogilvie's warnings as to the variable standards of assessment and cognitive assessment in present-day project work (See Section A.3 above) must be heeded.
(f) Parental information.
Parents have more time to observe the intellectual capabilities of their children than teachers, and in particular they are able to provide useful information about their leisure time activities and hobbies. Parents can be asked to fill in standard questionnaires designed to provide details about the characteristics of their children. They could be asked to do this either as a part of a systematic campaign of identification, or in circumstances where they felt that a school had failed to recognise the giftedness of their children. Of course, parental information must be treated with circumspection. Some parents are quite unable to be detached about their children, and exaggerate their abilities greatly; others are too uninterested or uneducated to observe anything unusual in any case. Any considerable reliance on parental diagnoses would tend to favour middle class children. However, parental information, considered judiciously and in conjunction with other data, would be valuable in identifying gifted children. A questionnaire devised for circulation to parents in a Canadian city in order to provide information on the need for special provision for the gifted was published by Vernon in his recent book. The questions which it asked of parents are contained in Appendix 6. The questionnaire not only seeks to elicit information about the abilities and the interests of the children but also requests details about parental help and encouragement.
g. Personality tests.
Cattell and Butcher (1968) (See Footnote 31) suggest that attempts to select children in a way that will predict scholastic achievement must not be too narrow or scope, but should take into account personality, motivation, and extra-curricular accomplishments as well. Some psychologists favour the giving of such things as personality questionnaires, projective devices (such as apperception tests) and interest inventories in diagnosing the gifted. These techniques are not to be recommended however. Personality testing is very expensive and time-consuming, and would require trained psychologists to do their work. Projective devices have their uses in studying the emotionally disturbed but are not appropriate in the identification of the gifted. Interest inventories have been applied to vocational guidance, but have not as yet been applied to finding gifted children.
Before the various recommendations made above are summarised it is appropriate to consider again the research findings of Pegnato and Birch (1959). They sought to find out the most "effective" and "efficient" screening procedures for identifying gifted children in a junior high school at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. They expressed "effectiveness" as the percentage of gifted children located, and "efficiency" as the ratio of the number selected by screening to the number identified as gifted. They discovered that group intelligence tests produced the best combination of effectiveness and efficiency, but, as none of the methods used were particularly accurate, the main implication of their research is that the more criteria are used the more accurate a screening procedure is likely to be. Their most interesting findings, compiled in tabular form, are contained at Appendix 7. Anyone concerned in the identification of gifted children should study them carefully.
It is also instructive to consider the identification procedures actually used to select children for two recent special programmes for gifted children in this country to which we have already made reference. In the Tempest experiment at Southport, children were screened by teacher nomination and by a group test of intelligence; the children selected by the screening were then individually tested by WISC, a Schonell Word Recognition Test, and a number of items designed to measure "creativity" or "divergent thinking". In his experiment at Millfield School, Bridges already had WISC or Terman-Merrill scores for many of his pupils. So, he completed his screening by a group intelligence test (the AH4), and then set two types of creativity test to the most promising. The first type was an essay with a "divergent" title, e.g. "The Monkey that Flies", or "The Girl Who Plays Football"; the second technique used was Torrance's Tests of Creativity - "Thinking Creatively with Words", and "Thinking Creatively with Pictures".
Conclusion.
To conclude this section on the recognition of gifted children, it is clear that intelligence tests are the most valuable single tool of identification but that a range of techniques are most appropriate. Children can be profitably assessed by intelligence tests from the age of six to fifteen, and a systematic assessment using a variety of techniques are most appropriate for children between the ages of nine and fourteen. Procedures for the identification of the gifted should be geared to the overall testing programme of the school, and it should be possible for both primary and secondary schools to run their own schemes to pick out the top 5% of their pupils. Children should be assessed at regular intervals by as wide a range of techniques as possible in order that numerous kinds of ability can be detected. Pupil profiles could be built up, based on the results of standardised group intelligence tests, school achievement tests, and the systematic observations of teachers and parents. So-called "creativity tests" might play some part too.
Trained psychologists working for the education authorities should play a large part in the identification process. It would be desirable if psychologists could test individually all children referred to them by schools as "gifted", but, if this procedure was considered too expensive, this individual testing could be restricted to borderline cases or cases where responses are unusual. Professional psychologists should also advise schools as to the best group tests of intelligence and creativity available, and monitor the whole identification process. Local authorities should ask schools for annual returns of gifted pupils in order that regular checks could be made as to the extent of giftedness in area or a school.
It must be stressed that secondary schools have as a large a part to play in the identification process as primary schools, as the identification of the gifted is an on-going, not a once-and-for-all, assessment. If a school or an authority plans expensive special programmes for the gifted, i.e. special schools or special classes, it would clearly be appropriate to be particularly careful about identification. For instance, all children selected for a special school for the gifted should be individually tested by WISC or Terman-Merrill.
Identification procedures should be monitored and assessed themselves. Numbers of gifted children actually recognised could be compared with the expected frequency as determined in the table for the incidence of specific giftedness at Appendix 2. Where discrepancies occur it might be that recognition was inefficient; on the other hand the environment of the school will play a considerable part in the number of gifted children discovered. Nevertheless, De Haan and Havighurst suggest that the most frequently missed children are those whose parents are of low occupational status, coloureds, those from rural areas, and girls. Furthermore, if more than two-thirds of the identified children come from professional and middle class homes, then the identification process is probably faulty.
Finally, it must be acknowledged that the recognition system must take account of changes. Some children, apparently gifted at an early stage, will fail. to fulfil their promise; others, not appearing much above average at first, should be reconsidered if evidence of superior abilities emerges later. Thus, a constant process of assessment is essential.
3. Identification of the needs of the gifted child.
Once children have been recognised as gifted in accordance with the criteria delineated on our definition, it is necessary to identify their particular educational needs as a group. Of course, we shall be dealing with generalisations. Any child's needs vary according to his background, personality and talents, and not all children have identified needs. At the same time, their needs only differ from the needs of other children by degree, and they share the same basis needs as other children. e.g. physical and emotional security, motivation. However, if we are to organise a learning environment in which talent can be maximised, generalisations about the gifted are unavoidable.
A considerable amount has been written about the needs of gifted children, much of which has the nature of pious admonition. Our concern is with those needs which have direct implication for the management of education. Once again, Ogilvie's report is the most useful source of reference. According to the evidence of his questionnaire, teachers believed it was vitally important to recognise giftedness, i.e. gifted children do not just emerge naturally, and hence we have been greatly concerned with the process of identification. The further needs of gifted children was one of the areas set for the consideration of teachers' study groups. From the reports of the study groups. From the reports of these study groups Ogilvie listed the following as primary needs of gifted children:
1. Contact with their average peers.
2. Contact with children of comparable levels of ability.
3. To be stretched and challenged even to the point of experiencing failure and humbling experiences.
4. To be guided, rather than directed, through a more academic approach to a greater depth of treatment.
5. To avoid being set apart, but to have the opportunity to set self apart on occasions.
6. To pass rapidly through elementary stages and use advanced resources.
7. To pursue their own lines of approach.
8. To be exposed to some form of counselling - and their parents too.
9. To be treated like other children.
10. To have contact with teachers gifted in similar fields.
11. To have the opportunity and encouragement to exercise specific talents.
Ogilvie also invited the Schools Council subject committees to comment on the needs of gifted children. Little of importance was added by them. However, the music subject committee stressed the need for early provision of special provision in that subject, as "delay may prevent the natural unfolding of a creative or executant talent, on account of the complexity of the skills involved in musical expression, and the consequent need for acquiring them very early in life".
Having decided what the educational needs of gifted children are, the educational administrator is now in a position to consider how he can provide them most appropriately.
4. Making appropriate provision for the educational needs of the gifted child.
In framing an effective scheme for gifted children, the administrator is faced by several alternatives. Basically, these alternatives are reducible to a threefold classification under the following headings: segregation - total or partial; acceleration; and enrichment. These can conveniently be considered separately, although in practice they tend to occur in combinations.
Criteria.
When the relative desirability of these practices are considered, the following criteria must be borne in mind:
i. The extent of the problem, i.e. the number of gifted children and their proportion in relation to total school population; and also the range of giftedness.
ii. The density and sparsity of the population. As there will be a greater number of children in the centres of population, a greater variety of provision will be possible in rural areas.
iii. The age of the pupils. Educational needs vary according to age: in the primary school a general education provides the opportunity for a wide range of talent to be diagnosed, while at the secondary level a greater degree of specialisation becomes appropriate.
iv. Financial constraints. As available resources will be limited, any scheme adopted must be both realistically costed, and cost-effective according to cost/benefit analysis. Evaluation of the scheme will therefore be necessary.
v. Political constraints. Provision must be acceptable to both parents and public opinion in general if it is to obtain the necessary backing to survive.
vi. Pupil performance. If will not be sufficient to show that gifted pupils on special programmes do better academically, or in other respects, than average children of their own age; rather it must be demonstrated that they do better than could have been expected in the absence of special provision, or better than a control group of comparable ability who received no such provision. Evaluation should be both short-term and long-term.
vii. Social adjustment. Any scheme adopted must be considered in relation to the personal development of the gifted pupils.
viii. Effects on other pupils. Schemes must also be considered according to their effects, both academic and social, on the non-gifted school population.
ix. The effect to which the needs of the gifted children, as identified in the previous section, are met.
a. Total segregation.
The word "segregation" has pejorative overtones and perhaps "differential grouping" would be a more acceptable phrase. Children can be grouped according to ability into separate schools or into separate classes within schools, both selective and non-selective (this practice is called "streaming"). These are both examples of "total segregation", although the latter method allows contact with average children at various times during the school day. On the other hand, children can be grouped into part-time special classes, or can attend extra-curricular instruction outside normal school hours, or even on Saturdays or during school holidays. These are all examples of "partial segregation".
First, we shall consider the use of special or selective schooling as a method of providing for the needs of gifted children. For a long time such children of secondary age were educated in Britain in grammar schools which contained some 20% of the school population. They did not cater in particular for the top 5% of the population, and, indeed, as has been noted earlier, grammar schools have not always provided very well for the needs of the exceptionally intelligent. Nevertheless, there are many reasons why grammar schools can adjust more effectively to these needs than the comprehensive school that have now largely replaced them.
Schools, specially designed to cater, amongst other things for exceptionally intelligent pupils, have also long been available in the independent sector. Public (boarding) schools, such as Eton and Winchester, admit large numbers of gifted boys by means of prestigious scholarship systems. At Eton, 70 King's Scholars, out of a total of about 1,200 boys are separately housed in the College. At Millfield, in Somerset, fees are even higher than at Eton, but by means of generous scholarships a number of pupils of non-wealthy backgrounds are admitted on the basis of high intellectual promise or ability. Direct grant schools have been particularly able to cater for the needs of the exceptionally able child of all social classes. By enjoying the pick of pupils from across a large centre of population these schools have found themselves with considerable numbers of gifted children on their rolls. The best known of these are St.Paul's School and Dulwich College, both in London, King Edward's School, Birmingham, and Manchester Grammar School. They have maintained high academic standards and have provided over the years a pupil output of formidable quality.
A number of schools have also been set up in this country to nurture special talents. Educational provision for children with exceptional musical ability is made at a few specialist schools such as the Yehudi Menuhin School and Chetham's School, Manchester. Wells Cathedral School caters for few gifted string players, and Pimlico Comprehensive School, under the control of the I.L.E.A., admits each year a half form of entry of pupils selected for their musical ability. The child who shows outstanding promise as a dancer can be awarded a place at the Royal Ballet School, while Millfield gives scholarships for children of outstanding athletic prowess. Such schools provide a thorough academic education as well as specialised instruction.
The traditional selective school, whether in the public or independent sector has obvious advantages for the education of the gifted. Although not catering specifically for them, the streaming and setting practices common to such schools ensure that the top 2.5 or 5% should be able to receive an academic programme appropriate to their abilities. Selective schools are also likely to attract the necessary numbers of highly qualified teachers that are essential if gifted children are to receive the necessary stimulation. In addition, selective schools can provide the range of academic subjects appropriate to the top 5% of the school population but which comprehensive schools are increasingly unable to offer at sixth form level or below. One is thinking in particular here of the separate sciences, modern languages other than French, and the classical languages. The fact that grammar schools select the top 20% of the population, and independent schools a much wider range of ability, also ensures that the gifted 5% have plenty of opportunity to mix with children of lesser ability - one doubts if social adjustment really requires close contact with the whole ability range.
The existence of grammar schools and the use of scholarships to independent or direct grant schools where exceptional talent was involved provided an administratively and educationally satisfactory solution to most of the problems thrown up by giftedness. However, in Britain the political trends have swung dramatically against the selective school in the course of the past decade. 80% of secondary school pupils are now being educated in comprehensive schools, the direct grant is being phased out, and local education authorities have recently been forbidden to take up places for bright pupils in independent schools. It is felt by many that selective schools are socially divisive, and that the advantage of a few is paid for by the majority of children, who will fail to reach their potential due to feelings of inferiority that are the result of failure in the secondary school selection process. How true these criticisms are is highly debatable, but it must be said that unless the pendulum swings back towards the principle of selection, political constraints will make it almost impossible for the needs of the gifted to be met in the traditional selective school. Is any form of selective school possible in these circumstances? In searching for an answer to this question it would be instructive to look at selective schools in other countries.
Interesting examples of selective schools are to be found in both North America and Russia. The United States have a long tradition of comprehensive schooling, but some selective schools are to be found, particularly in New York. Hunter College Elementary School takes children of ages 8-11, admitting them on a competitive basis with a minimum of 130 IQ; many pupils are from backgrounds of low socio-economic status. New York also has a number of specialised high schools for children of talent. Stuyvesant High School, Brooklyn Technical School and The Bronx High School of Science offer a curriculum weighted towards science and mathematics, while the The High School of Music and Art and the High School of Performing Arts take pupil with high aptitudes in these areas. All children accepted in these school are expected to be strong in all-round achievement as well. The Russian educational system is of particular interest to those who believe in special schools for the gifted. Although schooling is based on a system of neighbourhood comprehensives, the Russians practise more intensive selection for special schools than any western country, believing the absence of selection to be a waste of the nation's most valuable resources. Children who are exceptionally gifted are provided for in two ways. Many of the neighbourhood schools are biassed towards particular subjects from the age of eight onwards. In Moscow, for instance, 68 schools specialise in mathematics. At the same time, children in rural areas who are exceptionally gifted in mathematics attend the four university boarding schools from the age of fifteen or sixteen. to do a special two-year course. Recruitment depends on high academic achievement at the local eight-year school (8-16), an entrance test based on mathematics and physics, and an oral examination. These boarding schools are sited at Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev and Novosibirsk, but cater exclusively for children from rural areas. Urban pupils are differentiated by ability after the age of sixteen and are able to study on specialised courses as in this country.
Selective schools undoubtedly achieve high standards, although it has yet to be demonstrated decisively that their pupils do better than they would have done if they had attended non-selective schools. The research of Christie and Griffin (1970) (See Footnote 32) tends to the view that they do not, and it is possible that the stratification systems in selective schools inhibit the performance of those in the lower part of the hierarchy, who would nevertheless have abilities which would put them at the top of a comprehensive school. It is also alleged by some that, according to the "self-fulfilling prophecy" principle, the average child performs less well when the bright children are removed, but the evidence for this is hotly disputed. It seems probable that moderately bright, average and academically dull children may well be happier working with others like themselves than when they are in comprehensive or mixed-ability groups, when the very bright always get the top marks and most of the teacher's approval. In any case these problems of "self-concept", "expectation level", and "self-fulfilling prophecy" are not intractable; if they are faced squarely, the careful and sensitive treatment of pupils can overcome the spin-off effects of selection.
With regard to the secondary schooling of the gifted child, the key factor is probably what C.P.Snow (See Footnote 33) has called the "critical mass". According to the D.E.S.' pamphlet "Gifted Children and their Education": "The central problem at the secondary level turns upon the optimal density of the critical mass. If this is too low, the gifted child might suffer from a lack of stimulation; if it is too high, and formal and/or informal stratification occurs, the achievements of some of these gifted pupils would be lower than they might have been in a critical mass of less density."
However, the argument that selective schools are socially divisive remains, and is difficult to refute. A less divisive, yet clearly successful plan for separate schooling for the gifted is the "Major Works" classes plan which has been operating in Cleveland, Ohio, since 1922. These classes cater for elementary (age9-12) and secondary pupils with IQs of 125 upwards. "Major Works" centres are established in any school with a sufficient number of gifted children over any age range of 2-3 years. If a school has insufficient numbers to form a class, their gifted pupils are "bussed" to a centre in another school. There are three junior and three senior high schools in Cleveland, to which graduates of the "Major Works" elementary classes are directed, and in these the programme continues. Similar schemes to this are in operation in the Canadian cities of Saskatoon and London, Ontario. These arrangements have much to recommend then. They only involve small numbers, say 60-90 a year in a medium-sized city, rather than 20% as in British secondary selection, and thus other schools suffer little because the cream of the pupils has been skimmed off. It has not led to the competitiveness which vitiated secondary selection in this country; nor can it be considered as elitist, since pupils in the "Major Works" classes have daily contact with others in the school, in which their centres are located, because they participate in the regular sporting, craft, and club activities. A particular advantage of the "Major Works" scheme is its low cost. No extra school buildings or teachers are required beyond what would be needed for the same students in other schools, while teachers who specialise in teaching gifted pupils are employed more efficiently in these centres than in schools where only a few gifted children are present. In addition the special classes make use of the libraries, laboratory, workshops and audio-visual equipment of the schools in which they are housed, although, of course, some extra materials are needed. If secondary selection of the traditional kind is rendered impossible for political reasons, the educational administrator would be advised to consider very strongly the setting up of a scheme for gifted children along the lines of the "Major Works" plan.
The second type of total segregation is that of homogeneous grouping, or streaming, within the school. The advantages of, and objections to, this practice are very sidualised basis. imilar to those put forward in regard to segregation by schools. Children in the middle and bottom streams may have their self-esteem and, hence, their motivation, impaired, while those towards the bottom of the top group may have their performance adversely affected by their relatively low marks. Streaming is particularly open to the charge that its classification tends to rigidify, that is, it becomes increasingly difficult for children to switch streams due to their different curricula and pace of progress. Early streaming in the primary schools at the age of seven is particularly unwise, as it consolidates the initial advantages of middle-class children, an advantage which schools should at least be seeking to reduce. It would seem sensible to wait until the children reach the age of eleven or twelve before classifying all of them into homogeneous groups, although as early as nine some sort of selection of the very bright for special programmes should be practised. At the age of eleven it seems reasonable to suppose that the great advantages of modifying the content and methods of instruction to each level of ability will outweigh any psychological disadvantages that may stem from classification. As has been indicated above, streaming in selective schools of the traditional type is likely to be more helpful to the gifted; streaming within the comprehensive school will inevitably be less so. If a comprehensive is divided into three streams, the top groups will include children of the range of IQ 107 and upwards, which will inevitably lead to an exceptionally wide range of ability, while the unsatisfactory practice of packing top stream classes in order to ease discipline problems, or provide more assistance, lower down in the age-group concerned, will only serve to increase this range. The gifted child will inevitably be inadequately accommodated in this situation, unless learning is carried out on an individualised basis. However, it must be stated that any streaming, however wide the range of ability per stream, is an advantage, if only because it reduces significantly the complexity of the learning situation that the teacher must manage. Even more advantageous is the practice of "setting", common to many British secondary schools, by which pupils are regrouped for different academic subjects. While this creates a plethora of time-tabling difficulties, it provides more accurately for variations in ability between the different dimensions of the curriculum, and is more flexible than the practice of allocating pupils to high or lower groups for every subject. Moreover, "setting" blurs the rigid classification which some believe to be harmful to pupil motivation.
b. Partial segregation.
Another method of assisting gifted children is that of partial segregation, i.e. part-time special classes for gifted children who are educated, for the most part, in non-selective schools. These schemes of partial segregation involve children of any age, and are based either on special classes inside the school or on visits to other educational centres for this purpose. In this country, these special programmes are few at present, but they are growing in number.
Most special programmes held during school hours are designed for primary school pupils. A pilot scheme was run by Sydney Bridges at Brentwood College of Education, Essex, in the 1960s. A pilot scheme was run by Sydney Bridges at Brentwood College of Education, Essex, in the 1960s. Gifted pupils from local primary attended the college for half a day each week in order to undertake a programme of academic and creative studies under the guidance of college staff and students (See Footnote 34). Following this experiment, the North-East division of Essex C.C. set up four classes for intellectually gifted children in 1970. Children are withdrawn from their normal primary school lessons to attend these classes, which meet twice weekly. The group sizes are set at between four and eight pupils. In West Sussex, an "Extended Activities Group" has been set up, and this offers a special programme to fourteen children from nine primary schools in one area. The aims of these programmes vary. Sometimes the emphasis is on covering the major subjects, mathematics and English, in greater depth; sometimes, as in the case of the "Extended Activities Group", the emphasis is more on special interests and enrichment of the curriculum. In fact, there is no chance of these part-time programmes speeding up the academic progress of gifted pupils as most of their work is inevitably done in their regular schools. Only where the specialist classes are held in the schools themselves can the rate of progress be advanced.
A good example of partial segregation within the school itself is the Colefax Plan, operated at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Here children of IQ 130 and upwards are segregated for part of the day in special "workshops". The school morning begins with classes in which all children participate, but in the middle of the morning the gifted go their workshops for classes in which there is an emphasis on critical and analytical thinking. Although Colefax is an elementary school, such a plan as this might be particularly suited to a secondary comprehensive school in this country. A comprehensive with an annual intake of, say, 300 pupils could expect to have seven or eight children with an IQ of 130+ in each year, a sufficient number for the school to provide the special classes within its own walls. In fact, the greater distances between secondary schools make common programmes for gifted secondary pupils from a number of schools less feasible, and this reminds us that the schemes of part-time segregation such as in North-East Essex and West Sussex are only possible in urban areas.
An alternative or supplement to the schemes of partial segregation discussed above are extra-curricular courses run on weekends or in the holidays. These courses can be residential and may cover a wide range of subjects and activities. In the Canadian city of Toronto, special Saturday courses are held for about 100 gifted pupils of ages 11-14. Many different subjects are offered, e.g. computer science, philosophy, journalism, and archaeology. In the United States, residential courses in the holidays are very popular, and cover a vast range of interests. They are held in schools and universities and can provide opportunities for teachers to undertake in-service training with gifted pupils. In this country about a quarter of local education authorities provide Saturday classes (See Appendix 1), but this is mainly in music. Other authorities, such as Somerset, are setting up "Saturday clubs" for gifted children. More academic in orientation are the the recently started special residential courses for gifted children attending Lancashire schools. These courses, catering for 50-60 pupils at a time, were set up in 1976 to cover science, mathematics and modern languages during the school holidays and weekends. They have proved so popular that additional courses in English language and literature are to be added in 1977-78, and this Conservative controlled authority has funded courses for the gifted to the extent of £250,000 in that year in order to encourage top ability children to improve still further their academic potential.
A considerable range of measures, involving either total or partial segregation, are available to provide for the special needs of gifted children. Those measures which involve total segregation are very difficult to arrange in the present climate of political thinking. There are many types of partial segregation which can be run in conjunction with mixed ability schooling, but one doubts if they are a satisfactory substitute for more regular provision.
c. Acceleration.
Acceleration is another general method of providing for the educational needs of gifted pupils; it may be an alternative to, but it can be also be combined with, the method of segregation. Acceleration means promoting gifted children to higher classes more rapidly than is usual. It is, in fact, a form of grouping in that it implies differentiation by mental, rather than chronological, age. Usually it involves missing a year's work or "grade skipping", as the Americans call it. It is not a common practice in the United States, and, as has been seen, is probably becoming less common in this country, where changes in the transfer age from primary to secondary schools, and divided schemes of secondary schooling have complicated the issue.
Many teachers and educationalists disapprove of acceleration, believing that it harms the social adjustment of the child. They feel that the gifted child may not be sufficiently mature, either physically or emotionally, to work with those older than himself. In fact, however, Terman concluded from the evidence of his study of gifted children in California (See Footnote 35) that not only do accelerated pupils tend to maintain their academic position fully but that they show no more social maladjustment than bright children who have not been accelerated. On the contrary, there is some evidence (See Footnote 36) that bright children who are held back with their coevals are less well adjusted than those who are accelerated. Furthermore, when one considers the enormous differences in maturation amongst children grouped according to chronological age, psychological objections to acceleration appear very weak. It is more likely that official reluctance to accelerate is related to administrative convenience, although it is significant that schools are often more ready to allow children to repeat a year's work.
Acceleration does, however, cause some difficulties, and it is often an imperfect solution to the problem of giftedness. It may create problems for teachers and pupils in making up work which has been missed, and can lead to frustration, if a child who has been accelerated in the primary school is not accepted early at secondary level. It provides no real answer to the problems posed by the exceptionally gifted, or of those talented in one or two areas only. Three methods of acceleration designed to overcome some of these problems will now be briefly considered. elescoping"
The first of these is the practice of "express" or "fast" streaming, known in the United States as "grade telescoping". In this country the practice is generally confined to secondary schools, but was probably more common in grammar schools than it is now in comprehensives. What it means, in effect, is organising a class of bright pupils to take their "O" Levels at the age of fifteen, and thus to progress to the sixth form a year early. In the USA "grade telescoping" occurs not only in junior high schools but in elementary schools, but in neither case is it common. In Britain its applicability to primary schools would depend on whether authorities were prepared to allow groups of pupils to move to secondary schools a year early. Although the forming of "express" streams has been quite common, it does not really cater well for the exceptionally gifted pupil, nor for the one whose ability is high in some areas but only average in others. "Expressing" is even becoming less popular in independent schools. Although bright pupils in such schools often take some "O" Levels at fifteen, they are thereby encouraged to take more at sixteen, and "A" Levels, as usual, at eighteen. By not "expressing" pupils it is no doubt expected that they will obtain more "O" Levels and better grades at "A" Level - important considerations in an increasingly examination-conscious age.
The second type of acceleration worthy of our attention is that of "continuous progress", although the individualisation of learning that this entails is appropriate to children of all abilities. It involves the division of schoolwork into a sequence of units or "modules", through which children move at their own pace. The system is spreading in elementary schools in the USA and Canada, and it has many advocates in this country.
However, the details of organising such schemes are formidable, and the open plan schools which they require are not to the taste of all. Teachers do little class teaching, and concentrate on individual or small group tutoring, and writing the courses of instruction. Pupils work at their own pace in open plan centres, and follow alternative paths depending on their ability and rate of progress. Sometimes the organisation of continuous progress planning is computerised, but this computer managed instruction (CMI) is very costly. Although, in theory, this this type of schooling really does seem to provide an answer to the problems of the gifted pupil, the cost of its introduction for all pupils in this country would seem prohibitive. However, programmed learning units might be of value for use with gifted pupils in conventionally organised schools where such pupils had far outstripped their contemporaries.
The third practice connected with acceleration is peculiar to American schools, and is known as "advanced placement". This means that very able pupils are able to do university work while still at school. Although not entering university until the normal age, they can obtain exemption from certain first year courses. The "credits" which they receive while still at school enable them to take their degrees earlier. The Advanced Placement Scheme is a very popular practice in the United States, but it is not really appropriate in this country as our university work is not similarly organised around set courses and credits, and in any case our universities are flexible about the age of entry.
These various methods of acceleration - grade skipping, grade telescoping, continuous progress and dvanced placement - have their advantages. The chief merit of acceleration for the gifted child is that he can be given challenging work commensurate with his ability rather than his age. The perceived disadvantages principally concern the social adjustment of the accelerated child. If acceleration is not considered suitable for the gifted child, then it must be considered how else a school can compensate him.
d. Enrichment.
The final method of dealing with the educational needs of gifted children is covered by the word "enrichment". The term is so vague that it can be applied to almost anything, but, in so far as it concerns our purpose, it means providing experiences which the average or below average pupil would lack the time, inclination or the ability to understand or benefit from. There are two basic types of enrichment. There is enrichment by depth, whereby a pupil follows a subject in greater depth, and enrichment by breadth, whereby he pursues additional related tasks, which often require work of special quality. As the former type really signifies acceleration, it is the latter which is of distinctive interest. Enrichment by breadth is the method used to occupy children in a heterogeneous or mixed ability classroom, and it is the only method of catering for gifted pupils which is open to schools that reject both acceleration and segregation. It generally involves the processes of individualisation which we encountered under continuous progress schemes, but in this context the aim is not to accelerate the gifted pupil but to "move him along sideways". A variety of teaching methods are appropriate here, but the most common are the setting of special assignments, projects, and subsidiary study programmes. Sometimes, as under the celebrated Dalton Plan, children can be given considerable choice as to what tasks they undertake. This method of providing for the needs of gifted children involves teachers in considerable preparation: they have to compile an extensive repertoire of materials, programmed units and audio-visual aids.
Enrichment is probably the method of catering for gifted pupils which is most in vogue with educationalists. In theory at least, it makes possible the teaching of such children without separating them from their average contemporaries. Unfortunately, enrichment is not in practical terms altogether a realistic concept, and it probably creates as many problems as it solves. For, when enrichment for gifted pupils is written into the aims of a school, the mechanics of this process are very rarely addressed. What enrichment in fact occurs may be very different from what theory has envisaged. The harassed teacher, the majority of whose pupils in a mixed ability class will fall into an IQ range of 80-120, may have little time, and possibly little interest, in devoting much of his effort into preparing materials and work programmes for one or two gifted pupils. Many teachers will probably content themselves with setting the gifted child additional work at the same level rather than tasks which are intellectually more demanding. Ogilvie's criticisms of the practice of much of the project method of teaching in primary schools is worth citing once again. It is probably unrealistic to expect more of the majority of teachers unless more resources are available and the teacher/pupil ratio is significantly reduced.
At this point, however, it must in all fairness be acknowledged that when an enrichment scheme is correctly operated by dedicated teachers that it is an exciting way of dealing with gifted children in primary schools, and of course it does so in a politically uncontroversial manner. Considerable interest has been shown in producing work for gifted pupils in this situation, and the programmes of enrichment which have been used in the segregated classes which has been considered are relevant here. Of particular value has been the work carried out by Bridges at Brentwood and at Millfield, while the purpose of the Tempest research class at Southport was to develop curriculum materials which might be useful to teachers with one or two gifted pupils in a normal primary school (7-11) class. More recently, in 1973, the Schools Council approved a grant to Dr.Ogilvie, the Principal of Northampton College of Education for the purpose of developing learning units for gifted children within the age range of 7-10. It is regrettable that no such work has been done for older pupils. Where the pioneering work of Bridges, Tempest and Ogilvie is intelligently applied the more attractive and feasible will enrichment methods become.
On the other hand, it must also be accepted that enrichment, if adequately implemented, is a more expensive method of providing for the needs of gifted children than acceleration or segregation. Schools will be reluctant to purchase expensive curriculum materials for use by a very few pupils only, and particular teaching expertise in the field of gifted children will not be economically employed in the average comprehensive or primary school. It must also be recognised that the older the gifted pupil becomes the harder it will be to provide for his needs adequately on the basis of enrichment schemes in mixed ability classrooms. By the time a gifted pupil has reached the age of 14-16, his academic needs could be well beyond the capacity of many comprehensive school teachers to manage. The recent level of anxiety about how well gifted children fare in comprehensives has been fully vindicated by the findings of the recent report of HM Inspectorate of Education.
Enrichment appeals to many because it utilises the practice of that "individualisation" of teaching and learning increasingly advocated today. The chief recommendation put forward by Ogilvie in his survey of gifted children in primary schools is the need to maximise individualisation in education. He argues that conventional schooling involves both "artificial ceilings on achievement" and "artificial constraints in the curriculum", and that these, by minimising individual differences, inhibit the emergence and development of giftedness. Arguing that "The more disparate the activities, and the larger the number available, the less likely it is that talent will, remain undetected and undeveloped", he advocates a "cafeteria" or "smorgasbord" curriculum in which pupil sare given considerable choice as to what they study. Furthermore, he asserts that "Problems of giftedness form a part of the total of those concerned with individualisation". The implication of this is that the need to individualise learning as a means of making special provision for the gifted should be viewed as only part of the need to individualise learning for all pupils. There is certainly some merit in this point of view, and some work advocating this approach has been published in recent years (See Footnote 37), but the difficulties and costs of a universal conversion to it would be immense, and it would not be reasonable for special provision for the gifted to be neglected until individualisation for all can be afforded. Furthermore, one doubts whether wholesale conversion is appropriate, since conventional classroom teaching is not only less costly but also has some definite social advantages, including the inspiration which arises from shared experience and the motivation provided by competition.
The applications of enrichment therefore seem limited. In primary schools, where the emphasis is on a broad general education, gifted children's needs could be well catered for under a system of enrichment, based on individualised approaches to learning. However, in spite of the wishes of many of its practitioners, such enrichment in the primary school is quite compatible with acceleration and partial segregation. In the secondary school it would seem to be both an inadequate and, in terms of cost, an unrealistic method of achieving the necessary provision for the gifted.
Conclusion.
A thorough review of existing ways of educating gifted children has been made. Recommendations as to the most appropriate ones for the state sector will now be offered.
In primary schools, the practice of providing for gifted pupils by enrichment methods is to be approved. Primary classes should not be streamed to begin with, since any attempt to differentiate by ability during these early years would probably inhibit as many cases of giftedness as it would promote. However, from the age of nine, some selection should be possible. Acceleration in individual cases seems desirable, and methods of partial segregation would be most valuable. Schemes such as those pioneered in Essex and West Sussex are especially recommended for study, but the extra-curricular provision of weekend and holiday courses should be carefully considered too. Unfortunately, it must be accepted that few measures of partial segregation can cater for gifted children from rural areas. The "Major Works" plan is particularly recommended; although it involves selection, it is not costly, and does not lead to total segregation. However, it too is only applicable to urban areas.
Recommendation for secondary schools are circumscribed by the fact that in the very near future all the secondary schools will be comprehensive. It is desirable, however, that streaming and setting are applied in comprehensives, and that in these circumstances both acceleration and enrichment methods are employed. The formation of express streams is not, on balance, to be recommended. Partial segregation of the gifted within individual schools, on the lines of the "Major Works" (high school) and "Colefax" plans would be valuable. Such schemes would only generate sufficient numbers of pupils to be operable in centres of population, and it is probable that gifted pupils from rural areas would be disadvantaged once more. Saturday classes and holiday courses would also help in providing further facilities, but to provide extra-curricular arrangements alone would seem an almost apologetic method of helping the gifted.
One doubts, however, if any of the methods described above would adequately answer the needs of the exceptionally gifted child, i.e. the child of IQ 160+, especially if he comes from a country district, Lord Snow and Sir Cyril Burt have advocated the formation of special schools for the very gifted, akin to the state boarding schools in Russia, but there is something almost Orwellian about this concept, and it is difficult to believe that the social adjustment of a child would not suffer if he attended such an institution. Yet, if entry was postponed until 15-16, much valuable time might be lost, and adequate provision for high level giftedness cannot wait until then. In spite of some misgivings, it might therefore be wise to found one or two experimental schools for exceptionally gifted pupils of secondary age. Alternatively, such pupils could be awarded scholarships to independent schools, such as Millfield, which have special facilities for them. In the same way the exceptionally gifted pupil of primary age, particularly if he came from a rural area, could be sent to a preparatory school with similar facilities. The use of independent schools is not however possible in the present political climate.
Political considerations apart, it does seem that, for gifted pupils at least, the former system of selective secondary schooling has much to recommend it. Streaming and setting within such schools enables the gifted to be taught in homogeneous groups, a practice both intellectually stimulating and economically efficient. At the same time, the gifted pupil would, in such a school, receive sufficient contact with other children of lesser ability for his social adjustment to be unimpaired. Selective secondary schooling appears on most calculations to be a more satisfactory solution to the problems of giftedness than comprehensive schools with hole-and-corner compensations at extra-curricular courses during holidays and weekends. Finally, it is submitted that it is in selective schools that there exists the best opportunity of creating that "critical mass" in which the abilities and personalities of the gifted child can most fully be developed.
FOOTNOTES:
1. Cyril Burt, "The Gifted Child", Hodder and Stoughton (1975).
2. C. Burt, "Is intelligence normally distributed?" Brit. J. Ed. Psych. 16 (1963).
3. Eric Ogilvie, "Gifted Children in Primary School," School Council Research Studies. Macmillan (1973).
4. "Gifted Children in Middle and Comprehensive Secondary Schools," H.M.S.O. (1977).
5. Sydney Bridges, "IQ-150," Priory Press (1973).
6. C.W. Pegnato and J.W. Birch, "Locating gifted children in junior high schools - a comparison of methods," Exceptional Children, 25 (1959).
7. L.S. Hollingworth, "Children who tested above 180 IQ"; Stanford Binet: Origin and development," World Book Co. (1942).
8. M.L.K. Pringle, "Able Misfits," Longman (1970).
9. See especially J.B. Shields, "The Gifted Child," NFER (1968); M.L.K.Pringle. op.cit.: E.M. Hitchfield, "In Search of Promise," Longman (1973); Eric Ogilvie, op.cit; Sydney Bridges, op.cit.; P.Rowlands, "Gifted Children and their problems," Dent (1974); Cyril Burt, op. cit.; P.E.Vernon et alia, "The Psychology and Education of Gifted Children," Methuen (1977).
10. See S.A. Bridges, "Gifted Children and the Brentwood Experiment," Pitman (1969); N.R.Tempest, "Teaching Clever Children, 7-11," Routledge (1974); S.A. Bridges, "Gifted Children and the Millfield Experiment," Pitman (1975).
11. E.Hoyle and J.Wilkes, "Gifted Children and their Education," D.E.S. (1975).
12. See L.L.Thurstone, "Primary Mental Abilities," D.E.S. (1975).
13. P.E.Vernon, "The Structure of Human Abilities," Methuen (1961).
14. J.W.Getzels and P.W.Jackson, "Creativity and Intelligence," Wiley (1962).
15. L.Hudson, "Contrary Imaginations," Methuen (1966).
16. L.M.Terman et alia, "Genetic Studies of Genius", Volumes I-V, Stanford University Press (1925-59).
17. R.F.De Haan and R.J.Havighurst, "Educationally Gifted Children," University of Chicago Press (1961).
18. J.J.Gallagher, "Teaching the gifted child," Allyn and Bacon (1963).
19. M.J.Gold, "Education of the Intellectually Gifted," Merrill (1965).
20. R.A.Martinson and C.M.Lessinger, "Problems in the identification of intellectually gifted pupils," Exceptionally Children, 26 (1960).
21. See Footnote 2.
22. J.Cornwell, "An Orally Presented Group Test of Intelligence for Juniors", Methuen (1952).
23. See Footnote 10.
24. See Footnote 6.
25. See Footnote 17.
26. P.E.Vernon et alia, op.cit. See Footnote 9.
27. E.P.Torrance, "Rewarding Creative Behaviour", Prentice-Hall (1965).
28. See especially G.M.Hilldreth, "Introduction to the Gifted," McGraw-Hill (1966); and J.S.Renzulli and R.K.Hartman, "Scale for Rating Behavioural Characteristics of Superior Students," Exceptional Children, 38 (1971).
29. S.R.Laycock, "Gifted Children: a handbook for the classroom teacher," Copp-Clark (1957).
30. See Footnote 11.
31. R.B.Catell and H.J.Butcher, "The Prediction of Achievement and Creativity," Bobbs-Merill (1968).
32. T.Christie and A.Griffin. ("The examination and achievements of highly selective schools," Ed. Res. 12, 2)
33. C.P.Snow, "Elitism ad excellence," New Science Teacher, 12 (1968).
34. See Footnote 10.
35. L.M.Terman, op.cit. Vol. IV. "The Gifted Child Grows Up," (1947).
36. D.A.Worcester, "The Education of Children of Above-Average Mentality," Nebraska University Press (1956).
37. See especially G.Taylor, "The Teacher as Manager", NCET (1970); L.C.Taylor, "Resources for Learning", Penguin (1971); and "Resource-based Learning in British Secondary Schools," in Br. J.Ed.Tech. No.2. Vol. 3 (1972).
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
BRIDGES, S.A. (1973): "IQ-150." London, Priory Press.
BURT, C. (1975): "The Gifted Child." London, Hodder and Stoughton.
FRENCH, J.L. (Ed) (1966) "Educating the Gifted." New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
HILDRETH, G.M. (1968) "Introduction to the Gifted." New York, McGraw-Hill.
HOYLE, E. & WILKS, J. (1975) "Gifted Children in Primary Schools." London, D.E.S.
OGILVIE, E. (1970) "Gifted Children in Primary Schools." London, Macmillan.
TEMPEST, N.R. (1974) "Teaching Clever Children, 7-11." London. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
VERNON, P.E., ADAMSON, G. & VERNON, D.F. (1977) "The Psychology and Education of Gifted Children." London, Methuen.
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX 1. PROVISION BY LEAs
The following figures are taken from the results of Ogilvie's questionnaire to LEAs published in Chapter 6 of "Gifted Children in Primary Schools", pp. 129-37.
A. Arrangements for ensuring effective recognition:
Item: Provision: No provision: Qualified reply: Unclear:
Guidance to teachers:
Totals 24 96 3 14
% 17.5 70.1 2.2 10.2
Established referral system:
Totals 36 82 9 10
% 26.3 59.9 6.5 7.3
B. Saturday morning classes:
Provision: No provision: Qualified reply: Unclear:
Totals 49 43 6 37
% 35.7 32.8 4.4 27.0
C. The award of scholarships and exhibitions:
Item: Provision: No provision: Qualified reply: Unclear:
Part-time:
Totals 50 43 11 33
% 36.5 31.4 8.0 24.1
Full-time:
Totals 69 32 11 25
% 50.4 23.4 8.0 18.2
D. Enrichment classes in school hours:
Provision: No provision: Qualified reply: Unclear:
Totals 6 102 2 27
% 4.5 74.3 1.5 19.7
E. Early admission to secondary schools:
Provision: No provision: Qualified reply: Unclear:
Totals 77 37 4 19
% 56.2 27.0 2.9 13.9
APPENDIX 2. THE INCIDENCE OF GIFTEDNESS
These figures are taken from tables calculated by Gilbert Peaker and published in "Gifted Children in Primary Schools", pp.12-13.
A. The incidence of polymathic giftedness:
Coefficient of Numbers of dimensions of giftedness:
correlation (r) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
5.5% 0.00 5.5 0.3
gifted 0.25 5.5 0.7 0.2
0.50 5.5 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1
1.8% 0.00 1.8
gifted 0.25 1.8 0.1
0.50 1.8 0.3 0.1
B. The incidence of specific giftedness:
Numbers of dimensions of giftedness:
r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
5.5% 0.00 5.5 10.7 15.6 20.2 24.6 28.7 32.6 36.3
gifted 0.25 5.5 10.2 14.4 18.2 21.6 24.6 27.4 30.0
0.50 5.5 9.6 12.9 15.6 18.0 20.0 21.9 23.5
1.8% 0.00 1.8 3.5 5.3 7.0 8.6 10.3 11.9 13.4
gifted 0.25 1.8 3.5 5.0 6.5 7.9 9.3 10.5 11.8
0.50 1.8 3.5 4.6 5.7 6.8 7.7 8.6 9.4
APPENDIX 3. THRESHOLD INTERRELATIONSHIPS
These figures are taken from "Gifted Children in Primary Schools", p.15.
A. Creativity and intelligence correlations:
(Haddon) (Ogilvie) (Yamamoto)
IQ r IQ r IQ r
70-135 0.480 70-140 0.540
115+ 0.076 130+ 0.04
100+ 0.164 108-140 0.195 110-130 0.08
100- 0.512 70-107 0.492 100- 0.31
B. Intelligence and attainment correlations:
(Entwistle) Boys Perf. Girls Perf.
Mean IQ VRQ(r) IQ(r) VRQ(r) IQ(r)
115 0.434 0.220 0.515 0.286
85 0.592 0.446 0.557 0.345
References:
Haddon, F.A., and Lytton, H., "Teaching Approach and the Development of Divergent Thinking Abilities in Primary Schools", Br. J. Ed.Psych. Vol.38. No.2, 1968.
Ogilvie, E., "Creativity, Intelligence, and Concept Development", Ph.D. thesis, Southampton University, 1970.
Yamamoto, K., "Thresholds of Intelligence in Academic Achievement of Highly Creative Students", J. Experimental Education. Vol.32, No.4, 1964.
Entwistle, N.J. and Welsh, J., "Correlates of School Attainment at Different Ability Levels", Br. J. Ed.Psych. 1969.
APPENDIX 4. THE INDICATORS OF GIFTEDNESS
The following table contains the results of Ogilvie's questionnaire to teachers on this subject ("Gifted Children in Primary Schools", p.70):
Item %
1. Display of extrordinary initiative. 48
2. Intense curiosity. 65
3. Day dreaming. 18
4. Delinquent behaviour. 1
5. Divergent behaviour. 45
6. Memorising reams of poetry, etc. 8
7. Inability to understand aggression in others. 6
8. Imaginative writing. 56
9. Rapid reading. 48
10. Wide vocabulary. 65
11. Extraordinary perseverance. 36
12. Extreme independence. 36
13. Extreme unpopularity. 5
14. High achievement test scores. 38
16. High creativity test scores. 21
17. Rejection of school work. 6
18. Exasperation in the face of constraint. 28
19. Exceptional physical characteristics. 9
20. Any others.* 21
*N.B. Those characteristics most frequently added: selection and discrimination; creation of images and perception of relationships; general enfacts; desire to excel; thusiasm and co-operation; "butterfly" behaviour due to rapid absorption of facts; desire to excel; exceptional energy.
APPENDIX 5. GIFTED CHILDREN: A TEACHER'S CHECKLIST (OF CHARACTERISTICS)
Devised by S.R.Laycock and published in Gifted Children and their Education", D.E.S. (1975) pp.10-11.
1. Possess superior powers of reasoning, of dealing with abstractions, of generalising from specific facts, of understanding meanings, and of seeing into relationships.
2. Have great intellectual curiosity.
3. Learn easily and readily.*
4. Have a wide range of interests.
5. Have a broad attention-span that enables them to concentrate on, and persevere in, solving problems and pursuing interests.
6. Are superior in the quantity and quality of vocabulary as compared with other children of their own age.
7. Have ability to do independent work effectively.
8. Have learned to read early (often well before school age).*
9. Exhibit keen powers of persuasion.
10. Show initiative and originality in intellectual work.
11. Show alertness and quick response to new ideas.
12. Are able to memorise quickly.
13. Have great interest in the nature of man and the universe.
14. Possess unusual imagination.
15. Follow complex directions easily.
16. Are rapid readers.*
17. Have several hobbies.
18. Have reading interests which cover a wide range of subjects.
19. Make frequent and effective use of the library.*
20. Are superior in mathematics, particularly in problem solving.*
*N.B. A child showing most characteristics on the checklist, but not those starred, is likely to be a gifted child who is under-achieving educationally.
APPENDIX 6. PARENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE CONCERNING GIFTED CHILDREN
The following questions were included in a questionnaire for circulation to parents in a Canadian city in order to provide information about gifted children. (See P.E.Vernon et al., "The Psychologyistica and Education of Gifted Children" (1977), pp. 110-12.
1. What are the characteristics of this child which makes you think that he or she is much above average in ability? Please check any of the following that apply, and add others if you wish.
a. Spoke fluently, and used difficult words, by three years old.
b. Learned to read at 4 to 5 years old.
c. Showed an intense, continuing interest in some special area from an early age.
d. Shows exceptional understanding of advanced topics and ideas.
e. Shows remarkable knowledge of many topics, and a very god memory.
f. Shows unusual imagination and original ideas in his leisure time activities.
g. Shows exceptional initiative and independence in games or hobbies, or doing things for himself.
h. Says that his school work is boring because it is too easy.
i. Always gets very high grades at school.
2. What do you do to encourage him or her to develop their special talents and interests?.
a. Supply more advanced books.
b. Supply scientific, model-making, painting, or other equipment.
c. Encourage use of the school library.
d. Arrange for music lessons.
e. Family excursions to museums or other places of interest.
f. Encourage him to watch serious TV programmes.
g. Give help with homework.
h. Teach him or her more advanced maths, science, foreign language, etc. than is available at school.
i. Go to theatres, concerts, or good films.
j. Discuss political or world news with him or her.
APPENDIX 7. EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF SCREENING PROCEDURES
The following table shows the results of Pegnato's research at a Pittsburgh junior high school (See J.L.French, "Educating the Gifted", p.77).
Screening No. selected by No. identified Effectiveness* Efficiency*
methods screening methods as gifted by % %
Binet IQ 130+
Teacher judgment 154 41 45.1 26.6
Honour roll 371 67 73.6 18.0
Creativity 137 14 15.5 10.2
Student Council 82 13 14.3 15.8
Maths achievement 179 50 56.0 27.9
Group intelligence tests:
Cut-off point IQ 115 450 84 92.3 18.7
Cut-off point IQ 120 240 65 71.4 27.1
Cut-off point IQ 125 105 40 43.9 38.1
Cut-off point IQ 130 36 20 21.9 55.5
Group achievement tests 335 72 79.2 21.5
Total 781
*N.B. Effectiveness: Percentage of Gifted Located; Total Gifted = 91.
*N.B. Efficiency: Ratio of No. Selected by Screening to No. Identified as Gifted in Percentage.
