Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uror20

Download by: [New York University] Date: 15 April 2016, At: 08:51

Roeper Review

ISSN: 0278-3193 (Print) 1940-865X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uror20

Social and emotional education of the gifted: Thediscoveries of Leta Hollingworth

Linda Kreger Silverman

To cite this article: Linda Kreger Silverman (1990) Social and emotional education ofthe gifted: The discoveries of Leta Hollingworth, Roeper Review, 12:3, 171-178, DOI:10.1080/02783199009553265

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783199009553265

Published online: 20 Jan 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 71

View related articles

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

ing of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Washington, D.C

Dauber, S. L. (1988). International Mathe-matical Olympiad. Gifted Child Today, 11,8-11.

Garrison, C G., Burke, A., & Hollingworth,L. S. (1917). The psychology of a prodi-gious child. Journal of Applied Psychology,1,101-110.

Gross, M. (1986). Radical acceleration inAustralia: Terence Tao. Gifted Child Today,9, front cover and pp. 2-11.

Hollingworth, H. L. (1943). Leta StetterHollingworth: A biography. Lincoln: Uni-versity of Nebraska Press.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children:Their nature and nurture. New York:Macmillan.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and develop-ment. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: WorldBook.

Hollingworth, L. S., Garrison, C G., & Burke,A. (1922). Subsequent history of E: Fiveyears after the initial report. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 6,205-210.

Keating, D. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1972). Ex-treme measures for the exceptionally giftedin mathematics and science. EducationalResearcher, 1,3-7.

Lupkowski, A. E., & Stanley, J. C. (1988).Comparing Asians and non-Asians who rea-son extremely well mathematically. Paperpresented at the Cornell Symposium onAsian Americans and Higher Education,Cornell University, May 5-6,1988.

Montour, K. (1976). Three precocious boys:Where are they now? Gifted Child Quarterly,20,173-179.

Stanley, J. C (1951). On the adequacy ofstandardized tests administered to extremenorm groups. Peabody Journal of Education,29,145-153.

Stanley, J. C. (1954). Identification of supe-rior learners in grades ten to fourteen.Supplemental EducationalMonograph,No. 81.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp.31-34.

Stanley, J. C (1958). Providing for the giftedby means of enrichment of the curriculum.Bulletin of the Wisconsin Association of Sec-ondary School Principals, Spring, pp. 5-7.

Stanley, J .C (1959a). Enriching high-schoolsubjects for intellectually gifted students.School and Society, 87,170-171.

Stanley, J.C. (1959b). Test biases of prospec-tive teachers for identifying gifted children.School and Society, 87, \7S-\77.

Stanley, J.C. (1986). Fostering use of mathe-matical talent in the U.S.A.: SMPY'srationale. Journal of the Illinois Council forthe Gifted, 5,18-24. Also appeared (with-out Abstract) in A. J. Cropley, K. K. Urban,& H. Wagner (Eds.), Giftedness: A continu-ing worldwide challenge (pp. 227-243). (NewYork: Trillium Press), and in a German-language version of that book.

Stanley, J.C (1987a). Making the IMO team:The power of early identification andencouragement. Gifted Child Today, 10,22-23.

Stanley, J .C (1987b). Johns Hopkins grouptops Science Talent Search. Gifted ChOdToday, 10,57.

Stanley, J.C. (1988). Some characteristics ofSMPY's "700-S00 on SAT-Jrf before age 13

Group": Youths who reason extremelywell mathematically. Gifted Child Quarterly,32,205-209.

Stanley, J.C. (1989). He did it! Gifted ChadToday,12,40.

Stanley, J. C, & Benbow, C. P. (1986). Youthswho reason extremely well mathematically.In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 362-387).Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Stanley, J. C, Feng, C. D., & Zhu, X. (1989).Chinese youths who reason extremely wellmathematically: Threat or bonanza? Net-work News and Views (Educational Excel-

lence Network), 8,33-39.Stanley, J. C, Huang, J., & Zhu, X. (1986).

SAT-M scores of highly selected studentsin Shanghai tested when less than 13 yearsold. College Board Review, No. 140, pp.10-13 & 28-29. Also Stanley, J. C, Huang,J., & Zhu, X. (1986, Nov.). (in Chinese andslightly changed), China: An abundantresource of talent in mathematics. Educa-tional Research, 11,44-47.

Stanley, J. C, Keating, D. P., & Fox, L. H.(Eds.). (1974). Mathematical talent: Discov-ery, description, and development. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.

Social and EmotionalEducation of the Gifted:The Discoveries ofLeta Hollingworth

Linda Kreger Silverman

Leta Stetter Hollingworth was concerned with the unique adjustment problemsthat gifted children experience. In her writings we find insights into the nature ofthese problems, their impact at different levels of giftedness, and solutions thatcould be implemented today. Although in any one article she limited her discussionto five or six of these "perplexities," as she called them, I found a total of 11different issues among her writings on this topic. This article synthesizes Leta'sthoughts on the psychosocial development of gifted children and presents herprogram for "emotional education" of the gifted.

W hat does it feel like tobe a gifted child? Whattypes of adjustment

problems are unique to the gifted?Are there "special perplexities in thelife of the gifted child, and at whatpoint in the range of intellect (do)these perplexities begin?" (1942, p.255)1. What do these children needfor optimal adjustment to occur?These are among the questions LetaStetter Hollingworth raised and at-tempted to answer in her lifetime.

Why were questions such as theseimportant to her? She was not par-ticularly interested in predicting thenext generation of eminent adults or1 All citations with the date but not theauthor's name are by Leta Hollingworth.

Roeper Review, Volume 12, No. 3.Copyright © 1990. Roeper City andCountry School.

in searching for a set of universalprinciples of development. Instead,she was fascinated with the mindsof gifted children and sought to un-derstand each child's personal ex-perience. She prized the individual(Pritchard, 1951); she consideredindividual lives irreducible to sta-tistical averages. Pritchard (1951)suggested that her lack of faith inhighly statistical research was duein part to her training as a clinicalpsychologist and in part to her tem-perament. Consistently ahead of her

Linda Kreger Silverman. Ph.D.. is alicensed psychologist and director ofthe Gifted Development Center.Denver. Colorado. She also serves aseditor of Advanced Development: AJournal on Adult Giftedness and ofUnderstanding our gifted. LetaHollingworth is her matron saint.

R. R., XII, 3, March, 1990/171

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

51 1

5 A

pril

2016

time, the innovative case studymethodology she developed to as-sist her in systematizing her obser-vations, such as photographic rec-ords, (Zimmerman, 1985) is just nowcoming into vogue in the era of natu-ralistic research.

P erhaps it was her struggle tounderstand her own troubledchildhood or the inner con-

flicts that inevitably arose betweenher giftedness and her role as a fe-male in society that drew LetaHollingworth to explore the innerrecesses of the gifted child's psyche.Another plausible explanation isrooted in the unusual depth of hercompassion. Her niece, MargaretOverton, wrote:

She believed that life was veryprecious, talent was a Messing tobe nurtured and shared for thegoodof others, and that people were tobe cherished and helped (M. C. T.Overton, personal communica-tion to Pat Johnson, November,1975).

And this is what Leta sought todo with her own talents: to help.thechildren she studied. To help them,she had to understand them. Thismeant spending a great deal of timewith gifted children—listening tothem, observing, questioning, valu-ing them. The richness and endur-ing quality of the insights she hasleft us attest to her enormous invest-ments of time and love. We havemuch to learn from her.

Special Perplexities ofGifted Children

Leta Hollingworth really knewgifted children. As a clinician, a re-searcher, and a gifted person her-self, she was able to enter theirworlds, to learn from them. Sherecognized their loneliness, theirisolation, their imaginary worlds,their argumentativeness, their zealfor accuracy, their impatience withsuperficiality and foolishness, theirdesire to find like minds, their occa-sional resorting to "benign chican-ery" (1939, p. 589), and the healing

power of their sense of humor.The reason gifted children had

been ignored by society, accordingto Leta's account, is that they werenot "socially annoying": "Societystudies that which is socially annoy-ing. The school attends to those whogive it trouble" (1931, p. 1). At thetime of Leta's writing, several re-searchers had found the gifted to besuperior to the average in emotionalstability and control (Hartshorne &May, 1927; Terman, 1925). The ma-jor flaws of gifted children were seenas "laziness," which Leta attributedto boredom; impatience with drudg-ery; and talkativeness, which she feltwas the result of the "fertility" oftheir ideas and "their eagerness tocommunicate and question" (1932,p. 243).

L eta ascribed the complexitiesof gifted children's adjustmentto their deviation from the

norm during childhood (1942). Ter-man (1931) perceived the problemsimilarly:

Precocity unavoidably complicatesthe problem of social adjustment.The child of eight years with amentality of twelve or fourteen isfaced with a situation almost in-conceivably difficult. In order toadjust normally such a child has tohave an exceptionally well-balancedpersonality and to be well nigh asocial genius. The higher the IQ,the more acute theproblem. (p. 579)

With the loss of the concept ofmental age in modern testing, wehave become blind to this problem.Elsewhere (Silverman, 1989), I'vesuggested that expecting a six yearold with a nine year old mind to re-late well socially to other six yearolds is comparable to expecting ashort nine year old to fit in well withsix year olds.

An idea still novel today, Leta rec-ommended "emotional education"(1939, p. 585) for the gifted to helpthem deal with the special problemsthat beset them in their early years.She only listed five or six of theseissues in any one article, but collec-tively she addressed 11 specific con-cerns:

• finding enough hard and in-teresting work at school

• adjusting to classmates• being able to play with other

children• not becoming hermits• developing leadership abilities• not becoming negativistic to-

ward authority• learning to "suffer fools

gladly"• avoiding the formation of hab-

its of extreme chicanery• conforming to rules and expec-

tations• understanding their origin and

destiny from an early age• dealing with the special prob-

lems of being a gifted girl.(1926,1930,1931,1939,1940a,1942)

The Problem of WorkTo understand Leta Holling-

worth's ideas more fully, it is im-portant to know something abouteducational practices during her era.At the time of her research on gift-edness (from November 4, 1916,until November 27,1939), each gradelevel had a set curriculum consist-ing of basic academic subjects. Chil-dren who mastered the curriculumat a more rapid rate were automati-cally advanced, as they had been inthe one room country schoolhouses.Children who had difficulty wereheld back as long as it took for themto pass the grade-level tests.

M ost gifted children wereadvanced at least one ortwo years, and half-years

of acceleration were common. Ter-man (1931) located the brightest stu-dents for his study more accuratelyby selecting the youngest child in aclass than by relying on the teacher'sjudgment. In Terman's sample, 85%were accelerated, with the averagerate of acceleration being approxi-mately 14% of age (Stein & Heinze,1983). Witty (1930) reported that hissubjects were typically advancedtwo to four "half-grades," about 16%of their age (p. 19). Even so, bothresearchers considered gifted stu-dents to be educationally retarded(Terman, 1916; Witty, 1930). Wittyindicated that the children in his

172/R. R., XII, 3, March, 1990

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

51 1

5 A

pril

2016

study appeared "to have a knowl-edge of educational subject matterat least two years in excess of theirgrade placements" (p. 19).

A pparently acceleration of ayear or two was an insuf-ficient solution to bore-

dom. The curriculum was stillgeared to the average child, whichleft the gifted child with little to do.Moderately gifted children, thoughtwo years advanced, could achieveexcellent grades without serious ef-fort (1930). Leta frequently re-marked that gifted children received"daily practice in habits of idlenessand daydreaming" (1942, p. 258),because only a small portion of theirabilities was needed for theirschoolwork. Worse, they built upexpectations of an "effortless exis-tence" (1930, p. 442). Children be-yond the moderate level were intol-erably bored all the time. Leta isoften quoted as saying that "childrenof 140 I.Q. waste half their time.Those above 170 I.Q. waste practi-cally all of their time" in school(1939, p. 586). At 180 IQ, childrentended "to regard school with indif-ference, or with positive distaste, forthey find nothing interesting to dothere" (1931, p. 3).

Leta's writings are replete withspecific examples from her casestudies. Readers will be well re-warded by perusing her originalworks, not only because of the richanecdotal material included but alsofor a glimpse at the questioning tech-niques she employed to understandthe child's view of the world, asshown in the following example:

A case in point is that of a six-year-old boy of I.Q. 187, who was re-ported as too immature for the workof the first grade, because he wouldnot attend to the lessons given, butwould "go off by himself, lie downon his back, and look up at the ceil-ing." This child's mental age wastwelve. He could read as well assixth grade children ordinarily can,according to standard tests. Hecould perform all the fundamentalprocesses of arithmetic, could squarenumbers and could read numbersto the billions. Bored with the ma-

terial being presented to beginners,yet not knozving how to formulatehis difficulty, he simply driftedaway from the teacher and thegroup, as his childish solution ofthe situation. When asked what hedid lying on the floor, he said, "Oh,mostly mathematical calculation, ormy imaginary land." (1930, p. 443)

Placing highly gifted childrenwith students 3 or 4 grades moreadvanced in order to meet their in-tellectual needs created even moreserious problems. They were toosmall for the seats, could not writerapidly enough, were unable to par-ticipate with their classmates in ath-letic activities, were out of theirdepth socially and emotionally, andwere likely to be treated as babies(1930,1931).

I n a later article (1942) describ-ing gifted students grouped to-gether, Leta mentioned yet an-

other work-related problem grow-ing out of the versatility of giftedchildren. Instead of finding themone-sided, as so often claimed, shediscovered that they typically hadso many interests and capabilitiesthat they were likely to spread them-selves too thin and be unable to fin-ish all their projects or attain a levelof perfection that suited them. Thisis a typical observation of modernteachers as well.

The Problem of Adjustmentto Classmates

The standard practices of accel-eration for bright students and fail-ure for disabled students created aprecarious social situation in theclassroom. The age span in a typi-cal classroom was often four to fiveyears (1931), with the older, physi-cally more developed students en-vious of the younger, physicallysmaller accelerates. Gifted childrenwere terrorized in these situationsand had no idea how to cope withor escape from the class bullies, withwhom they could not compete insize or strength.

The gross indignities and torturesthus suffered are directly a penaltyof being gifted; for little boys of likeage, in the grade proper to their age,

do not come into classroom contactwith these over-age bullies to any-thing like the same extent, and hencedo not become targets for the latter,(p. 5)

Although failing students is notas prevalent today, the modern ver-sion of "the over-age bully" is cre-ated by the "red shirting phenome-non": holding young boys back ongeneral principle of assumed imma-turity. This trend spreads the age-span in the classroom and increasesthe social hazards for gifted acceler-ates. It has recently come under at-tack by the National Association forthe Education of Young Children(1988), but it is still widely practicedin the United States.

The Problem of PlayThe difficulties the gifted face in

forming friendships stem from theinfrequency of finding persons whoare "like-minded." "The more in-telligent a person is, regardless ofage, the less often can he find a trulycongenial companion" (1942, p. 253).This truism has oft been quoted, butnot always credited.

Many of the highly gifted childrenLeta (1942) studied developed hab-its of solitary play, not because theywere unfriendly and ungregariousby nature but, rather, because theirefforts to relate to others werequickly defeated. Other children didnot share their interests, vocabulary,or the same desire to organize theiractivities.

T hese children typically wereattracted to athletic activitiessuch as swimming, skating,

horseback riding, walking, and otherpursuits that did not depend uponbeing included in a group (1931,1942). Only one child in six that Letafound above 180 IQ related well toother children and had typical playinterests in childhood. The other five"were unpopular with children oftheir own age because they alwayswanted to organize the play into a com-plicated pattern, with some remoteand definite climax as the goal"(1931, p. 7).

Whereas children above 170 IQoften showed uncommon play in-terests, children in the 130 to 145

R. R., XII, 3, March, 1990/173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

51 1

5 A

pril

2016

range tended to share the interestsof other children (1926). Leta con-cluded that one reason for moder-ately gifted children's adjustment inplay was that they seek and are ac-cepted by older playmates. Theytend "to play with others of like men-tal age" (1926, p. 136).

H ollingworth (1927), Terman(1931), and Witty (1930) alldescribed gifted children as

seeking older playmates, havingplay interests of children their men-tal ages, having a sophisticated levelof knowledge about games typicalof children much older than them-selves, spending a great deal of timereading, and engaging in severalhobbies and collections. Reports byLeta's group indicated that theyknew:

more games of intellectual skill,such as bridge or chess; that theycare less, age for age, for play whichinvolves predominantly simplesensori-motor activity, without a"score"; and that gifted girls arefar less interested in traditionalgirls' play, as with dolls or teasets...the gifted enjoy more compli-cated and more highly competitivegames..jand outdoor sports hold ahigh place with the gifted, beingalmost as popular among the giftedas reading is. (1926, p . 136)

Terman (1925) also observed thatgifted children played alone slightlymore than average children. Witty(1930) concurred; the children in hissample engaged in the same num-ber of play activities as average chil-dren did but were somewhat moresolitary and sedentary in their play.

The Problem of Social IsolationLeta was deeply concerned with

the psychological isolation of highlygifted children. She noted (1940a)that isolation occurs at both extremesof the IQ continuum, but not at thesame degree of difference. It tendsto occur at 30 points below the norm,but not until 50 or 60 points abovethe norm. The reason she proposedfor this is interesting. Isolation be-gins to take effect in retarded chil-dren when their inadequacies are

perceived by others, but it does notbegin to take effect on the personali-ties of gifted children until it is feltby the individuals themselves. Withhigher IQs come increased aware-ness and greater risk of social aliena-tion.

Leta (1939) observed that the ma-jority of children above 160 IQplayed little with other children"because the difficulities of socialcontact are almost insurmountable"(p. 588). "Reading, calculation, de-signing, compiling collections, con-structing an 'imaginary land,' evok-ing imaginary playmates" were theforms of play most prominentamong the recreational interests ofchildren above 170 IQ (1931, p. 6).Adding to conditions that contrib-ute to isolation was the fact thatmany of the gifted children in Leta'sstudies (1942) were only children, orwere children whose brothers andsisters differed widely from them inage, providing little social experi-ence in the home. Many of the chil-dren solved the problem of loneli-ness by inventing imaginary play-mates. Others absorbed themselvesin reading, which furthered theirisolation.

T hat highly intelligent personssucceed as often as they doin developing well balanced

personalities seemed remarkable toLeta (1940a). Their resiliency sug-gested that compensating functionsaccompanied high intelligence tohelp the gifted overcome social haz-ards. She listed these as self-suß-ciency, the tendency to dominate situ-ations rather than submit to them,and being endowed with a keensense of humor, which she regardedas a "saving sense" (1940a, p. 274).The problem of isolation apparentlydecreases with age; as adults, thegifted naturally seek and find theirown kind (1942).

The Problem of LeadershipIn 1938, just before the outbreak

of World War II, Leta predicted withuncanny accuracy: "The times cryout for leaders to guide the peoplesafely in a world where, withoutvision, more people will perish inmore different ways than have ever

perished before" (written in 1938 asa speech, published in 1939, p. 575).She believed that high intelligenceis a requisite of leadership—"No onehas ever advocated stupidity as aqualification for a leader" (1939,p. 575)—but that other traits wereneeded as well: "integrity, inde-pendence, originality, creativeimagination, vitality, forcefulness,warmth, poise, and stability" (TheDevelopment of the Harvard Na-tional Scholarship Plan, 1936-1937,as quoted in Hollingworth, 1939,p. 577). To these traits Leta added"audacity, capacity for nonconform-ity, the love of beauty, and coldcourage" (p. 577). She believed thatthere was a high correlation betweenthese personality traits and gifted-ness. She also noted parenthetically,"(I would say there cannot be a veryhigh intelligence without a love ofbeauty)" (p. 578)—an observation Ihave found particularly thought-provoking.

The special problem that besetsthe gifted is that in order to be se-lected as "a leader of his contempo-raries, a child must be more intelli-gent, but not too much more intelli-gent, than those who are to be led"(1939, p. 581). Leta (1926) observedthat a group having an average IQof 100 would most likely choose aleader whose intelligence was in therange of 115 to 130 IQ. A child hav-ing an IQ of 160 would be an un-likely choice for leadership in sucha group but could become a leaderin a gifted group having a mean IQof 130. Children in the 125 to 155range are "enough more intelligentthan the average to win the confi-dence of large numbers of their fel-lows, which brings aboutleadership...but those of 170 IQ andbeyond are too intelligent to beunderstood by the general run ofpersons with whom they make con-tact" (1942, pp. 264-265).

W arner's earlier study(1923) indicated thatleaders and followers

are similar in mental age rather thanin chronological age. Later research-ers of leadership further confirmedthat if the discrepancy between thegroup's intelligence and the child's

174/R. R., XII, 3, March, 1990

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

51 1

5 A

pril

2016

intellectual level is too great, com-munication will pose a major bar-rier to leadership (Stogdill, 1974).

Avoiding Negative AttitudesToward Authority

Negativism toward authoritytends to develop when the giftedchild perceives those in authority asillogical, irrational, erroneous, orunjust (1939, 1940a, 1942). "It isespecially unfortunate, therefore,that so many gifted children have inauthority over them persons of nospecial fitness for the task, who can-not gain or keep the respect of thesegood thinkers" (1942, p. 261).

I n some cases, gifted childrenmay rebel against all persons inauthority because of earlier

negative experiences. If they aremishandled in their youth, somegifted individuals become incapableof dealing with subordination of anykind. Because some form of subor-dination usually precedes leadershippositions, their contentiousnessmight render them ineffectual in thework world. Negativism and cyni-cism can seriously hamper one'scareer goals. Fortunately, Leta (1942)noted that gifted children are en-dowed with a keen sense of humorand, with maturity, seem to be ableto surmount cynicism in most cases.

Learning to "Suffer Fools Gladly"A lesson which many gifted per-sons never learn as long as they liveis that human beings in general areinherently very different from them-selves in thought, in action, in gen-eral intention, and in interests....This is one of the most painful anddifficult lessons that each giftedchild must learn....It is more neces-sary that this be learned than thatany school subject be mastered.Failure to learn how to tolerate in areasonable fashion the foolishnessof others leads to bitterness, disil-lusionment, and misanthropy.(1942, pp. 259-260)

It is ironic that this importantpiece of Leta's wisdom has been somisunderstood in modern times.We put the emphasis on the "fools"and become offended, whereas

Leta's emphasis was on the "gladly,"as this next passage clearly indicates:"The highly intelligent child mustlearn to suffer fools gladly—notsneeringly, not angrily, not despair-ingly, not weepingly—but gladly, ifpersonal development is to proceedsuccessfully in the world as it is"(1939, p. 586).

An essential responsibility of spe-cial programs for the gifted, in Leta'sthinking, was to teach these childrentolerance and how to handle theapparent foolishness of others withpatience and love. This was a majorpart of her "emotional education."

Avoiding Habits of ExtremeChicanery

Leta's views on "chicanery" alsohave been lost to modern times, andthey are equally instructive. A basicpart of emotional education wasteaching children to differentiatebetween "benign" and "extreme"chicanery (1939, p. 589). She con-sidered extreme chicanery (trickery),conducted for the purposes of self-aggrandizement, to be immoral. Shewas concerned that gifted childrenmight develop habits of extremechicanery simply out of boredomwith their contemporaries—habitsthat could become fixed as a way oflife (1940a).

N evertheless, Leta condoned"benign chicanery" as anecessary skill for self-pro-

tection of the gifted. Gifted childrentend to be honest and straightfor-ward with their thoughts—often totheir detriment. Learning when notto tell the truth is an important skillto be mastered. "Perhaps the arts ofbenign chicanery are absolutelynecessary to a child of highest intel-ligence, compelled to find his spiri-tual way through mass education"(1939, p. 589).

She gave as examples the cases oftwo Speyer School students whomtheir previous teachers thought tobe hard-of-hearing:

Both of them have very keen ears,but they had learned not to hear theinsupportable drill on things theyhad known for years, and in self-defense they listened so little that

their teachers thought them deaf. AtPublic School 500 their hearing isgood—almost too good! (1939,p. 589)

H er infusion of "the arts of be-nign chicanery" into theemotional curriculum of the

gifted may be one of her most un-usual contributions:

Guidance in regard to this matterof chicanery is absolutely necessary.Here we have one of the most deli-cate of all aspects of the training ofa leader. By teaching these chil-dren that they should at all timesact with complete candor andstraightforwardness, in all sorts ofcompany, shall we be educatingthem for self-destruction? (1939,p. 589)

The Problem of ConformityHighly intelligent children tend to

be more easily disciplined than theirless gifted peers (1931). But Leta didpoint out one troublesome areawhen gifted children are placed to-gether in special classes: orderlydiscussion! Gifted children havedifficulty remaining silent whenthey have an idea they want to ex-press, and so "the tendency is foreveryone to speak at once, each striv-ing to outspeak the others" (1931, p.9). It is no easy task to get them tohold their tongues, "to listen quietlyand respectfully to others, to speakaccording to some order of proce-dure, and to restrain their disap-pointment at failure to be heard atall" (1931, p. 9). But, she found that,in time, the children gradually learnself-government in these respects.

A second problem she identifiedwas that, if given the choice, giftedchildren avoid routine drudgery,such as learning the multiplicationtables, in favor of more stimulatingprojects (1931). The third, and mostsalient, issue of conformity she de-scribed was their tendency to argue.

There is with intelligent children astronger tendency to argue aboutwhat is required of them than isfound with the average child. Thistendency to argue as to the why andwherefore of a requirement is met

R. R., XII, 3, March, 1990/175

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

51 1

5 A

pril

2016

both at home and at school, and callsfor thought in proper handling onthe part of parents and teachers.(1931, p. 10)

O ne of the reasons so manygifted children seem like"walking arguments" is

their need for "exactness in all men-tal performances" and their "keenlove of precise facts" (1927, p. 4).They cannot resist the temptation toset someone straight if they perceivethe slightest loophole in a statement.This tendency appears to increasewith higher levels of intelligence.

To cope with this characteristic,as part of her program of emotionaleducation Leta introduced specialtraining in "disputation" to the eightchildren who scored above 170 IQat the Speyer School (1939, p. 584).This program was designed andconducted by Dr. Herbert Carroll:

A training in forensics is here con-templated, covering the whole areaof argument: argument with one-self, involving logic and the psy-chology of thinking; argument withothers in private, involving eti-quette and the art of polite disagree-ment; argument in public, involv-ing parliamentary law, the rules oforder, the nature of evidence, andthe art of the persuasion of crowds.(1939, p. 585)

This curricular device needs to berediscovered and implemented intoday's gifted programs.

Understanding Origins andDestinies

One of the conspicuous symp-toms of intellectual acumen, accord-ing to Leta, is early interest in ori-gins and in destinies. "Where didthe moon come from?" "Who madethe world?" "Where did I comefrom?" "What will become of mewhen I die?" "Why did I come intothe world?" (1931, p. 11)

Leta observed that children do notbegin to require logically coherentanswers to these questions until theyreach the mental age of 12 or 13 yearsof age. She discovered that religiousideas and needs also originate when-ever these children develop to a

mental level past 12 years of age.The higher the IQ, the earlier thechild develops a pressing need foran explanation of the universe. Incases of children who tested above180 IQ, a desire for a systematic phi-losophy of life and death developedwhen they were only 6 or 7 (1931, p.11). Problems of good and evilplague the gifted at an early age(1940a). They are also interested inan explanation of reproduction at a"tender age" (1931, p. 12).

G ifted children's dysyn-chrony in developmentleads to difficulties unlike

those of other children. Intellectu-ally they are adolescent, but theiremotional control and physicalpowers are still very young. Prob-lems of right and wrong, and evil inthe abstract, become troublesome forvery highly gifted children. Theyhave the awareness but not theemotional maturity to deal with theirawareness (1931, p. 12).

Special Problems of the Gifted GirlLeta (1926,1931,1942) found that

gifted girls were less interested intraditional girls' play and that theyshowed a preference, instead, forboys' books and boys' play. Theywere more competitive and aggres-sive than girls were "supposed tobe." Some mothers were very con-cerned about their girls becoming"tomboys" and tried to break themof it (1931, p. 8). Terman also foundthat gifted girls deviate significantlyfrom the norm in the direction ofmasculinity (Stein & Heinze, 1983).The masculine identification ofgifted girls makes sense in light ofthe relationship between masculin-ity, independence, and achievement.The feminine role is too restrictivefor many gifted girls.

The intelligent girl begins veryearly to perceive that she is, so tospeak, of the wrong sex. From athousand tiny cues, she learns thatshe is not expected to entertain thesame ambitions as her brother. Herproblem is to adjust to a sense of sexinferiority without losing self-re-spect and self-determination, on theone hand, and without becomingmorbidly aggressive, on the other.

This is never an easy adjustment toachieve, and even superior intelli-gence does not always suffice toaccomplish it. The special problemof gifted girls is that they have strongpreferences for activities that arehard to follow on account of theirsex, which is inescapable. (1931,pp. 8-9)

What is Needed for OptimalAdjustment?

Leta (1940a, 1942) concluded fromher research that a certain level ofintelligence is "optimal" for adjust-ment to school and society: 130 to150 IQ. Within this range the indi-vidual "comprehends more clearly,but not too much more clearly"(1940a, p. 274) than the majority andcan, therefore, become accepted as aleader. The person's vocabulary andinterests have enough in commonwith contemporaries to enable co-operation and mutually fulfillingrelationships. Beyond this rangemutual rejection tends to occur.

Special ClassesThe prognosis for children be-

yond 150, however, does not haveto be bleak. Leta's solution to thesocial and emotional problems of thehighly gifted, and to the develop-ment of their leadership abilities,was segregated classes of childrenwith similar abilities. She did nottry to accelerate the content in theseclasses, because getting students tolearn more rapidly was not her goal.Instead, her aim was to create hap-pier, more well-adjusted humanbeings. She was not opposed to ac-celeration, however; the main formof it that she employed was com-pressing a full day's work into halfa day—a practice now referred to as"telescoping" or "compacting."

T his left half the day for en-richment. Her afternooncurriculum was designed

largely around the students' inter-ests. She asked them to select topicsfor individual and group projects,had them read biographies of fa-mous individuals, taught them theetiquette of argument, allowed them

176/R. R., XII, 3, March, 1990

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

51 1

5 A

pril

2016

to engage in lively discussions, in-troduced modern languages, litera-ture, and the history of civilization,and involved them in other enrich-ment activities not usually a part ofthe school curriculum (1930,1940b).After three years she found that stu-dents in this enriched program didjust as well in their academic sub-jects as students who had studiednothing but academics, that they hadlearned a great deal besides, and thatthey were happier, having foundfriends and true peers—some ofthem for the first time in their lives.They weren't bullied, and theyweren't bored (1930).

I n smaller communities thatcouldn't provide special classes,Leta (1931) recommended "a

moderate degree of acceleration,combined with enrichment of thecurriculum" (p. 4). Both of theseprovisions are essential today.

Non-ElitismIt is not surprising that there was

a great deal of skepticism when Letabegan these special classes in the1922-23 school year at P.S. 165.People were afraid that putting allthese gifted children together wouldcause "elitism." Exactly the oppo-site proved to be true (1930). Chil-drenused to being at the top of theirclasses without trying learned hu-mility, not arrogance, when theydiscovered other children just assmart as themselves. She noted withamusement that the children ad-justed easily to losing their place asthe best in the class but that some oftheir parents couldn't adjust. A fewparents removed their children fromthe special program so their childrencould continue to enjoy the privi-leged position of being head of theirclass. Ironically, this is exactly whatbreeds arrogance.

MaturityIf special classes are not possible,

the next best alternative is growingup! Many problems of the giftedchild are a function of age and tendto lessen after the child reaches age12. Leta (1931) observed that mostof her students' problems began todisappear as they developed greater

physical and mental maturity.

T o have the intelligence of anadult and the emotions of achild combined in a childish

body is to encounter certain difficul-ties. It follows that (after babyhood)the younger the child, the greater thedifficulties, and that adjustmentbecomes easier with every addi-tional year of age. The years be-tween four and nine are probablythe most likely to be beset with theproblems mentioned.

The physical differences betweena child of six whose IQ is 150 andchildren of nine years (whose men-tal age corresponds to his) are unbr-idgeable, and so are the differencesof taste, due to differences in emo-tional maturity, (p. 13)

High school is much easier thanelementary school, because the cur-riculum is adapted to the brigherstudents.

It is during childhood that the giftedboy or girl is at the mercy of guardi-ans, whose duty it is to know hisnature and his needs much morefully than now they do. (p. 14)

Conclusion

A half-century later, the psycho-social development of the gifted andthe other issues to which Leta de-voted her career still stand outsidemainstream psychology. "She con-sidered as central issues what mostof the rest of the discipline consid-ered quite peripheral" (Shields, 1988,p. 6). But for those of us who areconcerned with the welfare of thegifted, these issues remain of cen-tral importance. Gifted children arestill underchallenged in school mostof the time, and many are still indanger of becoming socially isolated.Little is being done to help themdevelop leadership ability or learnthe differences between themselvesand others. Leta's research on thebenefits of special class placementcould be used today to combat thegrowing trend toward egalitarian-ism in our schools that continues topunish the gifted.

Emotional education is an ideawhose time has come. Gifted chil-

dren need exactly the kind of cur-riculum, programming, and appre-ciation for their social and emotionaldevelopment that Leta Hollingworthprovided almost 70 years ago.Through her rediscovery in giftededucation, I hope we will be able toimplement many of her timelessideas in modern programs for thegifted.

REFERENCESHartshorne, H., & May, M.A. (1927). Stud-

ies in deceit. New York: Macmillan.Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children:

Their nature and nurture. New York:Macmillan.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1927). Who are giftedchildren? Child Study, 5(2), 3-5.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1930). Personality de-velopment of special class children. Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Bulletin. Seven-teenth Annual Schoolmen's Week Proceedings,30, 442-446.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1931). The child of verysuperior intelligence as a special problemin social adjustment. Mental Hygiene, 15(1),3-16.

Hollingworth, L.S. (1932). Who is the giftedpupil? University of Pennsylvania Bulletin,Nineteenth Annual Schoolmen's WeekProceedings, 32, 239-246.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1939). What we knowabout the early selection and training ofleaders. Teachers College Record, 40, 575-592.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1940a). Intelligence asan element in personality. In G. M.Whipple (Ed.), Intelligence: Its nature andnurture: Part I. Comparative and critical ex-position. 39th yearbook of National Soci-ety for the Study of Education (pp.271-274). Bloomington, IL: Public SchoolPublishing.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1940b). Old heads onyoung shoulders. Public Addresses(pp. 104-110). Lancaster, PA: Science PressPrinting.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and develop-ment. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: WorldBook

National Association for the Education ofYoung Children. (1988). NAEYC positionstatement on developmentally appropriatepractice in the primary grades, serving 5-through 8-year-olds. Young Children, 43(2),64-84.

Pritchard, M.C. (1951). The contributions ofLeta S. Hollingworth to the study of giftedchildren. In P. Witty (Ed.), The gifted child(pp. 47-85) (American Association forGifted Children). Boston: D. C Heath.

Shields, S.A. (1988, August). Reconciling sci-ence and values: Leta Steller Hollingworth asscientist, educator, and feminist. Paper pre-sented at the 96th annual convention ofthe American Psychological Association,Atlanta, GA.

Silverman, L. K. (1989). Reclaiming lost gift-edness in girls. Understanding Our Gifted,2(2), 7-9.

Stein, M. I., & Heinze, S. J (1983). A sum-mary of Terman's Genetic Studies of Genius,

R. Ry XII, 3, March, 1990/177

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

51 1

5 A

pril

2016

Volumes I and III. In R. S. Albert (Ed.),Genius and eminence: The social psychologyof creativity and exceptional achievement (pp.75-84). Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon Press.

Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership:A survey of theory and research. New York:Free Press.

Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement ofintelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of gen-ius: Vol.1. Mental and physical traits of athousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stan-ford University Press.

Terman, L.M. (1931). The gifted child. In C.Murchison (Ed.), A handbook of childpsychology (pp. 568-584). Worcester, MA:Clark University Press.

Warner, M. L. (1923). Influence of mentallevel in the formation of boys' gangs. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 7, 224-236.

Witty, P. A. (1930). A study of one hundredgifted children. University of Kansas Bulle-tin of Education, 2(7), 3-44.

Zimmerman, E. (1985, April). To test allthings: The life and work of Leta StetterHollingworth. In M. A. Stankiewicz & E.Zimmerman, (Eds.), Women art educatorsII (pp. 64-81). Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity.

WRITING FOR THEROEPER REVIEW

We welcome manuscripts about allaspects of gifted education andsubject areas that are perspectiveson the field. Papers should be writ-ten In a direct readable style and belimited to fifteen typed pages,double spaced. We reserve the rightto edit for brevity, clarity, and con-sistency of style.

References are listed at the endof the article. We prefer that foot-notes are not used. For form of ref-erence citations in the text and ref-erence lists follow the PublicationManual of the American Psychologi-cal Association (APA), or see a re-cent Issue of the Review.

Please submit three copies of yourarticle, double-spaced, and follow-ing APA format. We would appreci-ate an Apple, DOS, or Macintoshdisk of your article after It is re-viewed, for typesetting purposes.All disks and rejected manuscriptswill be returned In your stamped,self-addressed envelope.

Roeper Review, P.O. Box 329,Bloomfield Hills, Ml 48013

Leta Hollingworth/sLegacy to Counselingand Guidance

H ow does one describe thelegacy of Leta Hollingworthto counselors when so many

of them have never heard her name?Many of Hollingworth's gifts to thehelping professions come to us in-directly. Although her research ar-ticles and books were largely forgot-ten in the decades of the 1950s andearly 1960s, along with the accom-plishments of so many womenscholars, her work nevertheless livedon among the educators and psy-chologists she trained. And, belat-edly, we are able to experience herideas directly through the republi-cation of her books, the restorationof her place in the history of psy-chology (Shields & Mallory, 1987),and the recent coming together ofscholars and practitioners to honorher work at the Leta HollingworthConference in Lincoln, Nebraska.

I believe Leta Hollingworth's con-tributions to counseling and guid-ance can be described in three majorcategories: As a model of the scien-tist-practitioner, as a de-bunker ofmyths about the psychology ofwomen, and as the first and greatestcounselor to the gifted and talented.

A Model of theScientist-Practitioner

The "scientist-practitioner" is anideal toward which many counsel-ors and psychologists aspire. Sincethe Boulder Conference (Shakow,1965), the goal of professional psy-chology training programs has beento educate scientist-practitioners.This type of professional is one whocombines scholarly and therapeutic

Roeper Review, Volume 12, No. 3.Copyright ° 1990. Roeper City andCountry School.

Barbara Kerr

expertise. More important, how-ever, is that scientist-practitionersbase their practice on research, andthey form research questions fromthe experience of practice. There-fore, according to this model, thecounselor must seek a balance be-tween scientific inquiry and helpfulresponsiveness (Garfield, 1982).

One of the earliest examples of thescientist-practitioner was LetaHollingworth. Her faith in the sci-entific method as a means of discov-ering truth was profound. She be-lieved that science could enlightenwhere religion was no longer potent.A poem she wrote included the line(Hollingworth, 1943, p. 107):

God has never spoken since mankindLet go fair, flashing fancy and seized

thought.

She also believed that science wasthe servant of humankind, and thatinnovations in psychological tech-nology could be used in the serviceof democracy. For example, she sawobjective intelligence testing as ameans by which talented childrenof all races, classes, and ethnic back-grounds could be brought to the at-tention of educators and given anequal opportunity to develop theirtalents (Hollingworth, 1926).

A s a true scientist-practitio-ner, however, she was wellaware of the limits of the

scientific method in helping indi-viduals. Whether working with herstudents, clients, or research sub-jects, she never failed to acknowl-edge the uniqueness of eachindividual's case. She often was

Barbara Ken is at the University of Iowa.She is a Contributing Editor for thisjournal.

178/R. R., XII, 3, March, 1990

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

51 1

5 A

pril

2016