A FAILURE I N RETROSPECT JAMES R. HOBSON

Brookline Public Schools, Massachusetts

This is an account of an early experiment in public school provision for gifted children which must be classified as a failure except for the many illustrations it af- fords of how not to do it. The events to be recounted took place in a suburban city of approximately 75,000 in the late twenties and early thirties, during the period when the research and writings of Lewis Terman and Leta Hollingworth were begin- ning to have a real impact on elementary education.

The city of Middlebridge, which is not its name, is located toward the center of a large metropolitan area and not far from a famous university. At the time a special class for gifted pupils was established it had four junior high schools, a trade school, and a senior high school. This account is based upon personal observation a t the time, including visits to the class, talks with the teacher, conferences with the school Principal and Assistant Principal, and the Research Associate who organized and supervised the class, as well as informal reports some years later from two of the senior high school teachers whom the writer chanced to have as students in a grad- uate course at the same university, and recent inquiry which it is hoped was diplo- matic.

This experiment was begun as a research project to furnish data for a doctorate thesis for a graduate research associate. In other words, it was something imposed from the outside, the motivation for it probably being respect for and perhaps obli- gation to the Professor involved. Here was violated the first axiom in making pro- vision for gifted children, namely, fruitful plans for the education of gifted children must grow out of felt needs, with the initial impetus coming from within the system.

The class was organized in the junior high school in the section of the city having the highest socio-economic status. The twenty-two pupils selected for the class all attended this junior high school and no provision was made for gifted pupils in the other junior high schools. This caused some resentment on the part of the principals and teachers in these schools and eventually led to poor public relations about the entire project. This illustrates the second axiom concerning public school education of the gifted. In a public school systcm, you are borrowing trouble when you make special provision for any child or group of children if you are not prepared to provide for all children who can qualify under the same criteria. If qualified pupils from the other schools had been invited to join the class and transportation provided, the un- favorable reaction could have been avoided.

The pupils were selected for this special class for the gifted on the basis of group test IQ’s followed by a Stanford-Binet, 1916 revision, administered by the Research Associate. This is a very common method of initial selection up to the present and no serious fault can be found with it as far as it went. It is assumed that school records were reviewed and teachers consulted in choosing the pupils for this special class. However, two criticisms must be secorded. IQ was practically the sole criterion and no attempt was made to provide for those pupils gifted in music, art, mechanics, science, etc. This is the point of axiom number three. There are many kinds of gift- edness other than verbal intelligence and scholastic aptitude. If a school is to furnish

28 6 JAMES R. HOBSON

the climate and facilities for the flowering of genius, all kinds of giftedness must be recognized and provided for.

Although the original intention had been to admit to the class only those with IQ’s above 130, not enough were obtained to form a class and the twenty-two pupils finally chosen actually ranged from 114 to 159 I&, which is quite a range for a spe- cial class. Such a range might be expected in three-level, slow, average, and bright, grouping but not in a special class for gifted children with a special curriculum. This is the foundation for, if not an axiom, at least a postulate, to the effect that special classes for the gifted should be designed for and reserved for the truly gifted and not for merely bright pupils and good students who have been getting good marks but having their needs fairly well met in the regular program.

A particular classroom was set aside for the gifted class with library tables and chairs rather than the usual desks, which was an innovation thirty years ago. A small reference library was also provided.

The curriculum followed included the regular English, mathematics, science, and social studies carried on at a somewhat advanced level. Approximately three- fifths of the two-session schoolday was spent on these subjects. The remainder of the day was spent on such subjects as French, art, International Law, drama, visits to the industrial and business establishments, and a number of special projects and activities. This program offered variety and has much in it to commend. However, it wasn’t long before the basic subjects began to be neglected and more and more time spent on the less structured and less demanding subjects and activities. Also, several of the girls in the class spent considerable time in the office doing clerical work, asnwering the phone, and running errands, none of which have any particular merit as educational activities for gifted children.

The axiom here is obvious, no educational program for the gifted can com- promise on providing the basic and sequential knowledges, skills, habits, attitudes, and appreciations which are important in our culture. Busy work must be avoided, quantity cannot be substituted for quality, less drill may be called for, and the pro- gram cannot be too narrowly circumscribed, but future progress is impossible with- out a very superior foundation.

Next we come to the matter of a suitable teacher for gifted children. The teach- er chosen for this class was a pleasant, nice-looking, well-meaning, not too indus- trious, semi-socialite young lady who had been something less than a success as a seventh-grade English and social studies teacher. She had had considerable trou- ble with discipline and had been quite casual about lesson plans. She undoubtedly had above average mentality but probably three-quarters of the class had higher IQ’s than she had. Since she was not a definite planner to begin with and anything but a forceful person, the majority of the class had no difficulty in avoiding any work they didn’t want to do. Inevitably, the pupils failed to develop good work habits and an attitude of self-responsibility for progress and mastery, and, just as inevit- ably, the teacher began to feel herself threatened by pupils who were more gifted than she and who showed more ingenuity and persistence in avoiding work than she did in planning it and putting it across.

This situation exemplifies axiom number six. The teacher of a special class for gifted children must be a very capable, industrious, ingenious, well-balanced person. While she need not be a genius so far as I& is concerned, she should be an intelligent

A FAILURE IN RETROSPECT 287

person with plenty of imagination. She must be sufficiently experienced, successful, and mature, as not to feel threatened by and hence subconsciously resentful to- ward pupils who have more intellectual, or musical, or artistic ability than she has.

This brings us to consideration of a somewhat different aspect of this whole problem. The Research Associate and to some extent the teacher made pets of many of the children in the class. They were given almost complete physical and territorial freedom. They were told their IQ’s and in general were made to feel that they were something pretty special. I recall the afternoon in the Assistant Princi- pal’s office when one of the gifted girls who had served as an unofficial office assis- tant on other occsions was asked to do a rather routine sorting and counting clerical job. Quite seriously she said to the assistant principal, “Miss X, I don’t care to do that, you know I have an IQ of 144.” I shan’t repeat what the assistant principal said. She was inclined to cast a rather jaundiced eye a t the whole project anyhow.

The axiom for which this incident serves as an illustration might be stated as follows: A gifted child should of course have knowledge of his level of ability but it must be interpreted to him in terms of his responsibility for developing it and using it in socially useful and acceptable ways and not in terms of his superiority to his fellows.

Nearly ten years later I got a first-hand report of the senior high school careers of these gifted children from two senior high school teachers who were graduate stu- dents of mine. They said that when these pupils from the special class for the gifted reached senior high school and entered college-preparatory classes with other stu- dents they were, to quote a teacher, “a bunch of stuck-up little prigs.” They lacked the superior grounding in necessary fundamentals the better students from the other junior high schools had. They regarded themselves as superior to their fellows and couldn’t understand why others did not so regard them. And probably even more crippling was the fact that they hadn’t learned to work and to practice self-direction and self-responsibility. The moral is clear and it is our eighth axiom. Provisions for gifted children once begun must be continued in Iater grades. Failure to do so cre- ates an adjustment problem which negates any advantage gained by earlier pro- visions.

Recent cautious inquiry has served to complete my vignette of what might have been. There have never been any other special classes for gifted children in Middle- bridge and no other special provisions have ever been made aside from the intra- class subject groupings practiced by the more capable and industrious classroom teachers and advanced sections in a few college-preparatory subjects. When asked about their attitude toward special provisions for gifted children, the older teachers assume a knowing look and shake their heads. Middlebridge tried that a long time ago and it didn’t work.

As a postlude to my story, I’d like to add a ninth axiom which I regard as the as the most important of all. Briefly stated it is this: Provisions for gifted children are most successful and gain the widest support and acceptance when they are part of a comprehensive plan for meeting the needs and providing for the individual dif- ferences of all children.

The foregoing paper is presented as the final item on an annual program of orientation in June for parents of fourth-grade pupils who have been invited to en-

288 JAMES R. HOBSON

roll them in the Advanced Fifth Grade class in September. The following comments are then appended.

I had no contact with the parents of the children involved in the experiment whose failure is recounted above and from which an attempt has been made to de- rive principles for our guidance. Consequently, I do not know the parents’ reactions to the program, in what ways they helped or in what ways they hindered.

However, I have full confidence that their School Principal, their Home Room Teacher and the other teachers with whom your children will come in daily contact will see to it that they develop self-responsibility and responsibility to their fellows to match their scholastic ability and the magnitude of the privilege and opportunity that is to be theirs.

In closing I should like to suggest some attitudes to be developed and some actions to be taken or refrained from which I regard as your specific responsibility. 1. If you regard the selection of your child for this class as a symbol of status for

yourselves and superiority on his part, his best interests will not be served. It must be regarded as a privilege and an opportunity. If your very natural pride in your child expressed to him or to others leads to delusions of grandeur on his part, the damage to his relationships with his fellows will outweigh any benefit he may receive through widened opportunities for learning. The motto of the Brookline Public Schools is “We Serve Youth that Youth May Learn to Serve.” Mental giftedness and high scholastic accomplishment are to a great extent God-given gifts. Their possession imposes on a child and his parents a responsibility, indeed an obligation, that they be developed and ad- vanced to their optimum not only for the realization of the individual’s full potential but for the service to and benefit of his fellow men.

2.

3.

T H E RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THERAPISTS AND EDUCATORS DANIEL KELLEHER AND CARLAH LYTLE

Child Study and Treatment Center linivcrsity of Washington

The problem of psychological and psychiatric consultation to the school has been mentioned often in the literature (Hirning, 1958; Icitano, 1961 ; Krugman, 1958; Mariner, Brandt, Stone, & Mirmow, 1961). In general, these papers have stressed the role of an outside consultant coming in to the schools and providing diagnostic and program consultation, or have spoken of various attempts to provide therapeu- tic services within the school setting. In these papers, particularly those in the for- mer category, much mention has been made of the problem of defining and under- standing the respective roles of the consultant and the educator. For example, Berlin (1956) speaks of the somewhat opposite goals of the psychiatrist and the teacher, and tries to establish a basis of community of interests and communication about a given child.