TEXAS ASSOCIATION FOR THE GIFTED & TALENTED
Member 01 The National Association tor Gifted Children (NAGel The ASSOciation for Gdle<! ITAG)
Vol. II No. I
TAGTTempo
Contents: T AGT Legislative Reception/Dinner. . . . . . . . . . . . .. Editor's Page .................................. TAGT Executive Board - 1981 ................... President's Report .............................. Parents ..................................... '.
1 2 2 3 3
Regional Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Legislative Report ............................ " 5 G /T Calendar ................................ 6-7 State G/T News ................................ 7 TAGTI ........................................ 8
March 1981
TAGT Hosts State Legislators TAGT hosted a receptionj dinner on Thursday. February 12, 1981, for all its membership and "friends of the gifted" in Austin. In addition to many of OUf state senators, representatives and their aides who attended, more than 50 percent of the members of the Texas State Board of Education were present. The support from parents and educators around the state was impressive. Under the able direction of Dr. Charles Patterson, Asst. Superintendent for Instruction, Killeen ISO, approximately 300 individuals participated in a very important legislative activity for TAGT. The overwhelming feeling of support for gifted education was apparent in the informal one-ta-one interaction.
Action Needed
(L. to R.) Andra Williams, Carolyn Lewis, Pam Smith, Carolyn Lane, Jay Hilliard & ,'ennie Vahrenkamp, all REACH tt'achers from Richardson ISO,
Immediately communicate to the Budget and Authorizing Comnmittees the total unacceptability of the Reagan-OMB Budget proposal which recommends a 20 percent reduction in federal education funds and the consolidation of 57 education programs. Correspond to: President Ronald Reagan. The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20500. MESSAGE: The 20 percent reduction in education funds represents an unacceptable withdrawal of the federal commitment to the education of exceptional children. In fact, such a reduction to P.L. 94-142 would result in a figure Jess than 10 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure (NAPPE) when Congress is authorized to pay 40 percent of the NAPPE. Secondly. the current proposal to consolidate programs and wholly replace existing legislation threatens the very goals for which acts like P.L. 94-142, The Gifted and Talented Act of 1978, and Section 504 were written--to help endure the necessary resourses and protections for the education of our nation's exceptional populations. These guarantees would be altered substantially and funds originally promised to these populations would no longer be guaranteed but rather could be extended for other purposes.