The Tug-Of-War Nobody Wins: Allocation of Educational Resources for Handicapped, Gifted, and “Typical” Students

The movement in support of education for handicapped persons and the movement in support of education for children labeled have both grown more powerful and more visible in recent years. The United States, Canada, Britain, and other Western European countries have enacted legislation and changed school policies in this area. Prominent among the policy issues addressed in the United States, Britain, and Canada is the concept of mainstreaming (integrating handicapped children with their nonhandicapped peers). Less attention has been paid to the area of education of children labeled gifted, but there are indications that this issue is attracting increased attention (Passmore, 1982). The Marland Report in the United States (1972) identifies gifted students as a neglected minority group, and new special education legislation in Canada's province of Ontario includes gifted students as well (Wilson and Hanson, 1983). In most instances, however, the social forces behind the movement to improve education for handicapped students (legislation, parent groups, educational associations) and those behind the education for the gifted movement have had little shared dialogue. Although there is a dearth of research in both areas, particularly regarding the effects of different organizational models on students' cognitive and social outcomes, more research has been done on education for the retarded than on the education of gifted children. Advocates of education for gifted students have rarely drawn on the research base of special education, although such comparison might prove illuminating. There are strong arguments to be made for examining similarities and differences between these two educational thrusts.' First, the two move-