In this chapter are presented selected relevant paragraphs
from two of the later papers by the author: "An Enrichment
Curriculum for Rapid Learners" [1] and "What We Know about
the Early Selection and Training of Leaders." [2]
This is neither the time nor the place for discussion of the
techniques of mental measurement, but rather for the discussion
of results. What, first, do we know about the selection of children
who stand in the upper ranges of intelligence? Facts of much
importance have been established since 1905.
In the first place, we have proved that children who rate in
the top one per cent of the juvenile population in respect to
"judgment," as Binet called it, also possess much more often
than others those additional qualities which thinkers have most
frequently named as desirable in leaders. There is a strong
probability that a child who rates as only one in a hundred
for intelligence will also be endowed in superior degree with
"integrity, independence, originality, creative imagination,
vitality, forcefulness, warmth, poise, and stability."
These characteristics are identical with those set forth by
Harvard College as the additional traits desired in boys,
already proved by tests to be highly intelligent, who are to
receive National Scholarships. I believe no one would wish
to delete from the list any trait thus stipulated. I would,
however, add to it audacity, capacity for nonconformity, love
of beauty, and cold courage, as traits to cherish in leaders,
although these are often uncongenial to teachers in the elementary
school, and possibly to other educators.
We find all these qualities in superior measure among highly
intelligent children, according to the ratings of those who
know them. If one would call for a mathematical statement of the
likelihood of finding these traits in combination with high
intelligence, we could give it. I may say that the correlation
coefficients hover around .50. This means that in selecting
any child testing far up in the top one per cent--say at 160 IQ
or above (100 IQ being par)--there is far more than an even
chance of having thus automatically selected a tall, healthy,
fine-looking, honest, and courageous child, with a great love
of adventure and of beauty in his makeup. With a correlation
so far from unity as .50, however, we cannot be at all certain
of such a happy combination. We shall find a minority of cases
where fine judgment is combined with an unstable temper, a crippled
body, an ugly face, a ruthless disregard for others, malign
chicanery, cowardice. (I would say there cannot be a very high
intelligence without the love of beauty.)
Educational psychology works constantly to find ways of knowing
how to identify these additional elements. It will be a long time
before we advance to a point where we can measure these as well
as we can now measure intelligence. Some of these additional
qualifications are undoubtedly as essential to leadership as
intelligence is. A rascal, a coward, a liar, a tyrant, a panderer,
a fanatic, an invalid, is not a desirable leader, no matter whether
his IQ is 200. We must learn to select from among the highly
intelligent those who have the greatest number of additional
qualifications. We must learn what these additional qualifications
are. One knows them when one sees them in action. For example,
an eleven-year-old boy of IQ close to 180 decided to run for
the office of class president in the senior high school to which
he had been accelerated. His classmates were around sixteen
years of age. During the electioneering a proponent of a rival
candidate arose to speak against the eleven-year-old, and he
said, among other things, "Fellows, we don't want a president
in knee pants!"
In the midst of the applause following this remark, the eleven-year-old
arose, and waving his hand casually in the direction of the
full-length portrait of George Washington on the wall, he said,
"Fellows, try to remember that when George got to be the Father
of our country he was wearing knee pants." The eleven-year-old
was elected by a large majority. He gave evidence not only of
an IQ of 180, but also of the additional qualities of political
leadership in highest degree: audacity, presence of mind, good
humor, grace, and, above all, the genuine desire to be a popular
leader. He knew how to bridge, by a debonair gesture, the great
gap between him and those to be led.
This boy had qualities of _political_ leadership. This limiting
adjective opens the large subject of the different kinds of
leaders. Leaders of whom, and for what ends? Observation of
children suggests that there is a direct ratio between the
intelligence of the leader and that of the led. To be a leader
of his contemporaries, a child must be more intelligent, but
_not too much more intelligent_, than those who are to be led.
There are rare exceptions to this principle, as in the case we
have cited. But, generally speaking, a leadership pattern will
not form--or it will break up--when a discrepancy of more than
about 30 points of IQ comes to exist between the leader and the led.
This concept of an optimum which is not a maximum difference
between the leader and the led has very important implications
for selection and training. We cannot do more than to point to it
here, in passing. Among school children--as among the peoples
of all times--the great intellectual leaders are unrecognized,
isolated, and even ridiculed by all but a few in the ordinary
course of mass education. They can develop leadership of their
sort only when placed in special classes.
Observation and investigation prove that in the matter of their
intellectual work these children are customarily wasting much
time in the elementary schools. We know from measurements made
over a three-year period that a child of 140 IQ can master all
the mental work provided in the elementary school, as established,
in half the time allowed him. Therefore, one-half the time which
he spends at school could be utilized in doing something more
than the curriculum calls for. A child of 170 IQ can do all the
studies that are at present required of him, with top "marks,"
in about one-fourth the time he is compelled to spend at school.
What, then, are these pupils doing in the ordinary school setup
while the teacher teaches the other children who need the lessons?
No exhaustive discussion of time-wasting can be undertaken here,
except to say briefly that these exceptional pupils are running
errands, idling, engaging in "busy work," or devising childish
tasks of their own, such as learning to read backward--since
they can already read forward very fluently. Many are the devices
invented by busy teachers to "take up" the extra time of these
rapid learners, but few of these devices have the appropriate
character that can be built only on psychological insight into
the nature and the needs of gifted children.
Before education can discharge this most important task of all
with economy and justice, it must become a science. The science
which is fundamental to education is psychology. Psychology had
to develop the methods of mental measurement before there could
be accurate or humane dealing in a system of compulsory education.
We must take "the measure of a man" before we can know how to
educate him; and it remained for mental measurement to reveal
the astonishing power of learning that is latent in an elementary
school-child of IQ 170 or 180. How shall such pupils be taught?
How shall we educate these rapid learners, these subtle thinkers,
these children of potential genius in the elementary school?
CONSIDERATIONS IN PLANNING THE CURRICULUM [3]
At the outset we must realize and admit that no absolute criteria
exist by which to select from all aspects of human experience
those which are most valuable for a group of gifted children. There
is no body of "revealed" wisdom about this matter. Nevertheless, we
are not altogether at sea. Common sense, accompanied by scientific
facts of psychology, comes to our assistance, and we may note first
such negative considerations as occur to us under this guidance.
It is useless to undertake extensive work in classical languages
or in mathematics as "general discipline" for the minds of these
rapid learners. The education given should be such as will function
specifically and uniquely in their lives. It should afford them
a rich background of ideas, in terms of which they may _perceive
the significant features of their own times_.
Another definitely negative consideration applies to the avoidance
of all "subjects" which they will have occasion to encounter in
high school and college in later years. These young children can
learn algebra or Latin grammar or chemistry easily enough, but
what is the use of having them do so? The opportunity and the
prescribed necessity for this will come later.
Turning to positive considerations, we know that these pupils--they
and no others--will possess as adults those mental powers on which
the learned professions depend for conservation and advancement.
Also, we know that they will be the literary interpreters of the
world of their generation. And they will be the ones who can
think deeply and clearly about abstractions like the state, the
government, and economics. We know this because we have seen a
group like this "grow up" over a period of fifteen years, and
we know what "became" of every one of them. Below an IQ of 130 no
very large amount of effective thinking about complex abstractions
can be done at any age. That, we are learning, is about the median
mental caliber of college students in first-class colleges, taking
it our country over. In many highly selected, first-class colleges,
the boy or girl of IQ 140 finds himself or herself merely a good
average student, steadily receiving "C's." In such colleges one
must be a very good thinker in order to survive the course, but
no one would consider median students in our first-rate colleges
to be geniuses. The suggestion advanced about twenty years ago
that 140 IQ represents "genius or near-genius" was premature. And
when we remember that 120 IQ and 115 IQ are well below these
median students in mental power, it becomes clear that at and
below those levels conservation and advancement of the abstractions
underlying the learned professions will be very inadequately
handled. Really adequate _conservation_ of the precious stores
of knowledge laid up in medicine, law, theology, education, and
the sciences depends on those not below 130 IQ.
As for _originations_, whereby one generation progresses beyond
another in control of the physical environment and of preventable
evils, we are learning that only a few in the topmost ranges
can produce them in the realm of abstractions. Only a few in the
top one per cent can contribute to actual _progress_. As Franklin
K. Lane has said, "Progress means the discovery of the capable.
They are our natural masters. They lead because they have the
right. And everything done to keep them from rising is a blow
to what we call our civilization." To develop each according
to his ability: this is democracy at its ideal best.
The education of the best thinkers should be an education for
initiative and originality. Effective originality depends, first
of all, upon sound and exhaustive knowledge of what the course
of preceding events has been. To take their unique places in
civilized society, it would seem, therefore, that the intellectually
gifted need especially to know what the evolution of culture has
been. And since at eight or nine years of age they are not as yet
ready for specialization, what they need to know is the evolution
of culture as it has affected _common things_. At present, this
is not taught to children or to adolescents, except in fragmentary
and casual ways. Persons typically graduate from elementary school,
high school, and college, and take postgraduate degrees without
learning much, if anything, about the evolution of lighting, of
refrigeration, of shipping, of clothing, of etiquette, of trains,
of libraries, and of a thousand things which have been contributed
to the common life by persons in past times and which distinguish
the life of civilized man from the existence of the savage. These
things are vaguely taken for granted even by the intelligent,
educated person. No systematic knowledge of how they came into
being enriches his understanding. Nor is he aware of the biographies
of those who have made his comfort and his safety possible. No
more does he understand how dangerous and destructive forces came
to be in the world. Of these vast fields the college graduate
is typically ignorant, as has frequently been proved.
The activities which make up the life of a civilized man may be
variously organized and classified for purposes of study in the
elementary school. A number of the progressive schools have
undertaken projects in these fields. The pupils in such schools
usually test at a median of about 118 IQ, and the work they have
done, while it is helpful and suggestive, is not what is needed
for pupils of the caliber with which we are here dealing.
Topical classifications which have suggested themselves as areas
for study might be stated as follows: food; shelter; clothing;
transportation; sanitation and health; trade; time-keeping;
illumination; tools and implements; communication; law; government;
education; warfare; punishment; labor; recreation. Every one of
these areas of human culture affords the opportunity and necessity
for studying _the evolution of common things_, satisfying the
intellectual curiosity, and challenging the power of learning of
the children here considered.
ENRICHMENT UNITS AT SPEYER SCHOOL
Between the ages of seven and thirteen years, the minds of these
children are occupied primarily with exploration of the world
in which they have recently arrived. They are full of questions
of fact, not yet being distracted by the emotional and dynamic
interests that come with adolescence and adulthood. This is the
golden age of the intellect. Why? How? When? Who? Where? What? are
constantly on their tongues, as any parent of a child in our
classes will testify.
Now, in accordance with the philosophy and psychology which we have
tried all too briefly to indicate, a series of "enrichment units"
is being worked out at Speyer School day by day in our classrooms.
These are being published in the form of teachers' handbooks, in a
series designated "The Evolution of Common Things," the first
numbers of which have been published. It will take five years
to complete the series, at the end of which time we shall know
_from experience_ how much knowledge along the lines indicated
can be organized and learned by children above 130 IQ in the years
of the elementary school.
The handbooks, as they appear in published form, will represent
the actual work of _the pupils themselves_, guided by the teacher.
The teachers did not discover and assemble the materials of
instruction, and "give them out." The children did this work.
In the end, the teacher organized the total work into an orderly
sequence, and verbalized it in final form for presentation. But
no teacher would have the time or energy to carry on the work of
the school and also collect and compile the materials contained
in one of these units.
When an area of knowledge has been circumscribed by the children as
one chosen for study by class discussion, the teacher participating
in the thinking but not leading it, the pupils (there are twenty-five
in each class) divide themselves into "committees." These various
groups of three to five children each bring special knowledge
to the class periods, and all share in the sum total of facts
and ideas thus assembled. Libraries are thoroughly utilized
in this process. Ninety-five per cent of the pupils who were
admitted to our classes in February, 1936 (they were then between
the ages of seven and nine), had and were using "library cards"
from the New York Public Library. They are taken by their teachers
to the nearest branch of the Public Library on days arranged for,
and they "look up" their own materials, following the topics listed.
Librarians were at first skeptical as to the wisdom of admitting
these very young children to the card indices and other facilities
of the library. But librarians are an open-minded group, and they
were persuaded to let the children try. No difficulty at all has
been experienced. Stedman showed long ago that elementary school
children of IQ above 140 can use a library and consult reference
books as well as students in the normal school do.
In addition to work in the Public Library, the classes have
the right to use books from the Teachers College Library; and
to the librarians of Teachers College much credit is due for
their effective coöperation. Also, the library facilities of
the public schools are thoroughly utilized. Current periodical
literature, coming to the homes of the pupils, makes a constant
contribution. It is surprising how few of the books found most
useful were written by professed educators.
Of the trips undertaken, the visual aids supplied, and other
methods of instruction there is not space to tell here. These
are described fully in the units as they appear.
"The Evolution of Common Things" is the chief enrichment project
growing in our classes. However, much in addition to this work
is incorporated in our curriculum. These additions may be described
as follows.
First may be mentioned the study of Biography, because it is very
closely allied to "The Evolution of Common Things." This is planned
to continue for five years, though not being done in every term
continuously. It is inevitable that it should become apparent
to our pupils that all "common things" of the kind being studied
have had their origins in the minds of _people_. Who these people
were is answered by the study of biography. The question "Who?"
is constantly in the air. During the year 1936-1937, about one
hundred persons were "biografied" [4] by our pupils, most of
them persons who have given us very important "common things."
The idea that biography is a study well suited to young gifted
children was given trial experimentally fifteen years ago at Public
School 165, Manhattan, and its suitability was there proved. At the
Speyer School we are able to build upon the previous experiment and
to extend and improve the work, mainly because of the astonishing
improvement in the writing of biography which has taken place
in the recent past.
The French language and literature will be taught for the full
five years. This is done for three reasons: (1) the pupils with
whom we are dealing will, more than others, have occasion to meet
foreign peoples, and to represent their country abroad in the realm
of ideas; (2) it is thought that the earlier a language is studied,
the more thoroughly it can be mastered, especially as regards
pronunciation; (3) the teaching of a modern language enriches,
without anticipating, the opportunities of the high school and
college, since the pupils will have occasion to take _various_
languages later, and may ultimately emerge with three, instead
of the usual two, at their command. French rather than German,
Spanish, or Italian was chosen because teachers of the French
language were available on our staff, and we gladly adopted it.
Another of the important enrichment projects is the formulation
of a curriculum in the Science of Nutrition. This, also, is a
five-year plan, in the course of which a curriculum in nutrition
will be set up in terms of the vocabulary, the concepts, and the
capacity of thinking which are proper to these children.
SPECIAL WORK
Special work in general science has been carried on since the
opening of the classes. For a time the "question-box" method
was tried. A "question-box" dealing with science in any and all
its aspects was opened once a week, and the children's questions
found in it were discussed by a special teacher.
Through the courtesy of the Music and Arts High School, special
teachers of these subjects have been assigned, and many projects
have been carried through. The pupils have made murals founded
on their studies of common things. They have learned French songs,
and have become familiar with many things in music.
Another teacher of the staff of the Speyer School is developing
dramatics for our classes. It is evident that a large opportunity
for the development of the creative abilities of our pupils
lies here.
Handicrafts are taught at least once each week. The handwork of
the rapid learners is very superior, contrary to the current
superstition that highly intelligent children are "poor with
their hands." During the year 1936-1937, the pupils made airplanes
from blueprints, which involved very delicate operations with
glue and small pieces of wood. They were then seven to nine years old.
One afternoon each week, the Games Club meets, and there the
children learn games of intellectual skill. Chess and checkers are
the favorites. It is believed that education for leisure time is a
special responsibility of those who teach highly intelligent
children. The most intelligent tend to become "isolates," through
not finding in the ordinary course of life recreations congenial
both to themselves and to contemporaries. A game like chess or
checkers can be shared with pleasure, irrespective of age, by any
two people who have a sufficient "mental nearness." Hence they help
a very gifted child to "find company" and "enjoy himself" in all
age groups--a very important factor in the social development
of such a child. The interest in these games is kept within bounds
by the restriction to one hour a week and to those pupils who are
up to date in their school work. Possibly more time should be
allowed for the Games Club as pupils grow older.
Having followed our description of the enriched curriculum to this
point, readers who have no direct experience in the education of
children of the caliber being considered may begin to be anxious
for the welfare of "reading, writing, and arithmetic." Let them
be reassured. Mornings are devoted to the established curriculum
of the elementary school, the pupils working by "contracts."
Achievement tests are given at regular intervals to determine
conventional grade status in the various "subjects." In June,
1937, our pupils showed the "educational age" of pupils at the
middle of the seventh grade of the elementary schools as measured
by Stanford Achievement Tests. They were then nine years six months
old, on the median. The "regular" grade status for them would have
been the middle of the fourth grade. The most intelligent tenth
of the pupils were already "through the ceiling" of Stanford
Achievement and of other standard achievement tests in June, 1937.
At this point, it should be mentioned that our pupils do not have
and never have had homework assigned to them.
The intellectual interest and capacity of young children who
test from 160 to 200 IQ is incredible to those who have had no
experience with the teaching of such children. We have in our
classes about a dozen of such extreme deviates. They are truly
_original_ thinkers and doers of their generation. A book could
be made of the incidents constantly occurring which denote the
qualities of their minds. It is these children who suffer most
from ennui in the ordinary situation.
For instance, recently in the discussion of the biography of
Madame Curie, the question was raised by a pupil as to what
"radium _really_ is." One suggested that "radium is a stone."
Another said that "radium is a metal." The person in charge
of the class then said, "What is the difference between a stone
and a metal?" A pupil of an extremely high degree of intelligence
rose and said, "The main difference is that a metal is malleable
and ductile, and a stone is not." He then enlarged very precisely
upon "what these properties are." At the moment of this discussion,
this boy was nine years six months old. The others listened
attentively, and understood the elucidation.
Such incidents, occurring daily, give some idea of the level of
minds being dealt with in our classes. The boy who thought and
said what is set forth above was placed in the sixth grade when
his principal recommended him to our classes. He had then been
"skipped" to a point well out of his age group, and yet he had
nothing whatever to learn from the work of the sixth grade.
The pupils in the classes for rapid learners will go to senior high
school when they are thirteen years old. In the meantime, they will
be learning and thinking in the company of their contemporaries
as regards age and social interests. They will have proper
intellectual training, and will at no time idle their time away,
be practiced in habits of laziness, or become the victims of
boredom. They will emerge into high school with a background of
knowledge richer and fuller by far than that of pupils of equal
mentality, for whom no enrichment program has been provided.
EMOTIONAL EDUCATION
Much more might be said of the program of intellectual training,
but I must pass on to consider what may be even more important--
their training in attitudes, emotions, and drives; in other words,
their emotional education. How shall we avoid the conditions
which, under the prevailing system of mass education, tend to
produce emotional habits destructive of leadership?
Of all the speical problems of general conduct which the most
intelligent children face, I will mention five, which beset
them in early years and may lead to habits subversive of fine
leadership: (1) to find enough hard and interesting work at
school; (2) to suffer fools gladly; (3) to keep from becoming
negativistic toward authority; (4) to keep from becoming hermits;
(5) to avoid the formation of habits of extreme chicanery.
In the ordinary elementary school situation children of 140 IQ
waste half of their time. Those above 170 IQ waste practically
all of their time. With little to do, how can these children
develop power of sustained effort, respect for the task, or habits
of steady work? I could entertain you for some time telling you
the various sorts of bizarre and wasteful activities that were
taking up the time of the most intelligent elementary school
children in this nation yesterday in their classrooms, but we
must pass on to other things.
A lesson which many highly intelligent persons never learn as long
as they live is that human beings in general are incorrigibly very
different from themselves in thought, action, and desire. Many a
reformer has died at the hands of a mob which he was trying
to improve. The highly intelligent child must learn to suffer
fools gladly--not sneeringly, not angrily, not despairingly,
not weepingly--but _gladly_, if personal development is to proceed
successfully in the world as it is. Failure to learn how to
tolerate in a reasonable fashion the foolishness of others less
gifted leads to bitterness, disillusionment, and misanthropy,
which are the ruin of potential leaders.
Every day at school the opportunity presents itself to learn this
lesson. Especially hard for these intelligent children to bear
is the foolishness of accepted authority. For instance, our pupils
found it stated in their encyclopedia that Mr. Orville Wright is
dead. As is likely to be the case, a child in the group immediately
identified error. "Mr. Orville Wright is as much alive as I am,"
declared this child. This was subsequently verified by the class as
a whole. They wrote to Mr. Wright, fiercely protesting against the
foolishness of the encyclopedia. They wanted to throw the false
authority out at once.
The teacher discussed the incident on the basis of "glad suffering."
I can't take time to describe the conversation that pivoted on
this incident, but I can say that it was valuable as emotional
education. The pupils still have the offending encyclopedia.
As a form of failure to suffer fools gladly, negativism may
develop. The foolish teacher who hates to be corrected by a child
is unsuited to these children. Too many children of IQ 170 are
being taught by teachers of IQ 120. Into this important matter of
the _selection of the teacher_ we cannot enter, except to illustrate
the difficulty from recent conversation with a ten-year-old boy
of IQ 165. This boy was referred to us as a school problem:
"Not interested in the school work. Very impudent. A liar."
The following is a fragment of conversation with this boy:
What seems to be your _main_ problem in school?
Several of them.
Name _one_.
Well, I will name the teachers. Oh, boy! It is bad enough when
the _pupils_ make mistakes, but when the _teachers_ make
mistakes, oh, boy!
Mention a few mistakes the teachers made.
For instance I was sitting in 5A and the teacher was teaching
5B. She was telling those children that the Germans discovered
printing, that Gutenberg was the first discoverer of it, mind
you. After a few minutes I couldn't stand it. I am not supposed
to recite in that class, you see, but I got up. I said, "No; the
Chinese _invented_, not discovered, printing, before the time
of Gutenberg--while the Germans were still barbarians."
Then the teacher said, "Sit down. You are entirely too fresh."
Later on she gave me a raking-over before the whole class. Oh,
boy! What teaching!
It seemed to me that one should begin at once in this case the
lesson about suffering fools gladly. So I said, "Ned, that teacher
is foolish, but one of the very first things to learn in the
world is to suffer fools _gladly_." The child was so filled
with resentment that he heard only the word "suffer."
"Yes, that's it. That's what _I_ say! Make 'em suffer. Roll a rock
on 'em."
I quote this to suggest how negativistic rebels may seize on
the wrong idea. Before we finished the conversation Ned was
straightened out on the subject of who was to do the suffering.
He agreed to do it himself.
I will cite another conversation, this time with a nine-year-old,
of IQ 183.
What seems to be the _main_ trouble with you at school?
The teacher can't pronounce.
Can't pronounce _what_?
Oh, lots of things. The teacher said "Magdalen College"--at
Oxford, you know. I said, "In England they call it Môdlin
College." The teacher wrote a note home to say I am rude and
disorderly. She does not like me.
Just one more conversation, this time with an eight-year-old,
of IQ 178, Sent as a school problem:
What is your _main_ trouble at school?
My really main trouble is _not_ at school.
Where is it, then?
It is the _librarian_.
How is _that_?
Well, for instance, I go to the library to look for my books
on mechanics. I am making a new way for engines to go into
reverse gear. The librarian says, "Here, where are you going?
You belong in the juvenile department." So I have to go where
the children are all _supposed_ to go. But I don't stay there
long, because they don't have any real books there. Say, do you
think you could get me a card to the other department?
This subject is inexhaustible, but we must go on to speak of
the psychological isolation of these children when they drift
unrecognized. The majority of children above 160 IQ play little
with other children because the difficulties of social contact
are almost insurmountable. Unless special facilities can be
provided, these children tend to become isolates, a condition
not conducive to leadership, except perhaps of a few rare sorts,
later in life. Such children are ordinarily friendly and gregarious
by nature, but their efforts at forming friendship tend to be
defeated by the scarcity of like-minded contemporaries. The
imaginary playmate as a solution of the problem of loneliness
is fairly frequent, but far inferior to the real playmate, could
one be found. Shaw makes Saint Joan say, "I was always alone."
This danger of becoming an isolate and a hermit is one that should
be carefully studied in the interests of leadership. To combat it
we must somehow supply the highly intelligent in their early years
with companions, especially of their own age, who can understand
what they say, and can answer. This difficulty of communication
is illustrated by Voltaire's abortive attempt as an adult to get
into contact with the peasants around him. In _The Ignorant
Philosopher_, Voltaire says, "I discovered such a wide difference
between thought and nourishment, without which I should not think
that I believed that there was a substance in me that reasoned and
another substance that digested. Nevertheless, by constantly
endeavoring that we are two, I materially felt that I was only
one: and this contradiction gave me infinite pain. I have asked
some of my own likenesses, who cultivate the earth, our common
mother, if they felt that they were two? If they had discovered
by their philosophy that they possessed within them an immortal
substance . . . acting upon their nerves without touching them,
sent expressly into them six weeks after their conception? They
thought that I was jesting and pursued the cultivation of their
land without making me a reply."
Even so, the ten-year-old, of IQ 175, wishes to discuss with his
"own likenesses" the events of medieval history, but he finds that
they make him "no reply." And if he persists, they become annoyed,
hurling at him the dreadful epithet, "Perfesser." If he still
persists, they pull his hair, tear his shirt from his back, and
hit him with a beer bottle. (I am speaking of _real_ life.)
Turning now to habits of chicanery, it would be a question for long
and close debate, as to whether a highly gifted leader can ever
live and do his work among the mass of men without developing a
technique of benign chicanery. Many of the great political leaders
have been past masters of benign chicanery, often exploiting
the people for the good of the social order. Perhaps the arts
of benign chicanery are absolutely necessary to a child of highest
intelligence, compelled to find his spiritual way through mass
education. Certain it is that these children learn all sorts of
devious ways to self-preservation. For instance, two of our
pupils of Public School 500 came to us followed by notes from
teachers, saying they were hard-of-hearing. Both of them have
very keen ears, but they had learned not to hear the insupportable
drill on things they had known for years, and in self-defense they
listened so little that their teachers thought them deaf. At Public
School 500 their hearing is good--almost too good!
Guidance in regard to this matter of chicanery is absolutely
necessary. Here we have one of the most delicate of all aspects of
training of a leader. By teaching these children that they should at
all times act with complete candor and straightforwardness, in all
sorts of company, shall we be educating them for self-destruction?
We could spend hours in discussing this. We cannot do much more
here than mention it.
MATTERS OF GENERAL POLICY
I am unwilling to close these remarks without touching upon some
matters of general policy, which go beyond selection and training.
What of those children, gifted for leadership, who through accidents
of fate are without means for the development of their gifts? At
our school we are compelled to witness daily the sight of children
of fine quality, who do not have enough to eat or wear, to say
nothing of having about them beauty or comfort. It is thought by
those who have given no precise attention to the matter that
"bright children will take care of themselves." This is the
routine answer given by foundations established to promote human
welfare, when requests are made for grants to study and meet the
need of such children. The concern of American philanthropy in
the present state of public knowledge is for the chronic dependent,
forever incapable of development. This criticism may be justly
extended to include not only the leaders of philanthropy today, but
political, educational, and other kinds of leaders, who would give
all to the burdens of society and nothing to the burden-bearers.
To such tendencies of those in power today some halt should be
called. For a people to deny its natural aristocracy is a social
error in the broader sense.
Now the truth is that children of great ability are virtually
as helpless as any others under authorities blind to their
exceptionality. It would be an impossibly strong and shrewd
child who could today conduct his own education under the
compulsory school laws; make money to live on and accumulate
funds for his own higher education under the child-labor laws--all
in the first eighteen years of his life. Yet this seems to be what
elderly society has vaguely in mind, when reiterating that "the
bright will take care of themselves."
It is common to refer in this connection to the fact that Mr. John
D. Rockefeller had earned and saved a large sum of money by the
time he was sixteen years old. However, in this day and age Mr.
Rockefeller would have been arrested on the double charge of
truancy and violation of the child-labor law, and would have
had no savings whatsoever at sixteen years of age. It is shocking
to think of Mr. Rockefeller standing at ten years of age before
the Juvenile Court, but such would be his situation were he a
ten-year-old child _today_ instead of having been such nearly
a hundred years ago. In our day a ten-year-old acquires no merit
by staying out of school and engaging in the egg business. He
acquires, instead, a court summons.
What is needed for the support and development of those children
whom we see before us daily, and who represent scores of others
in the same economic condition, is what we may call a revolving
foundation. By this is meant a fund from which the gifted young
could draw at any age the means for their development, with the
moral (not legal) obligation to repay according to ability to do
so, after twenty years, without interest. By this plan the superior
could invest in themselves; very little money would actually be
spent, because it would come back again, and the nation would
always benefit in ways not now fully foreseeable. The establishment
of a revolving fund for the development of tested children would be
another "new thing under the sun." It would be a great experiment
in social science, now rendered possible for the first time by
inventions and discoveries in the field of child psychology.
[1] _Teachers College Record_, Vol. 39, No. 4 (1938), pages 296-306.
[2] _Teachers College Record_, Vol. 40 (1939). Also reprinted in
_Public Addresses of Leta S. Hollingworth_, Science Press Printing
Company, Lancaster, Pennsylvania; 1940.
[3] The curriculum here described is that organized by Leta S.
Hollingworth and her collaborators in Speyer School, P.S. 500,
Manhattan, for two experimental classes of "rapid learners."
For an early account of this project see "The Founding of Public
School 500," _Teachers College Record_, Vol. 38, No. 2 (November,
1936). Also "What is Going On at Speyer School?" Chapter 21 of
_Public Addresses of Leta S. Hollingworth_, Science Press Printing
Company, Lancaster, Pennsylvania; 1940.
[4] A word coined by the pupils.
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
PROBLEMS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS
IN THE CASE OF HIGHLY INTELLIGENT PUPILS
An address before the National Committee on Coördination
of Secondary Education at a symposium on "The Education of
Pupils of High Intelligence," Cleveland, February 27, 1939 [1]
I shall not dwell here upon the present knowledge of gifted
children as organisms. Our findings in follow-up studies on
tested children in New York City confirm in all particulars
Professor Terman's researches on the Pacific coast. Since these
several studies have been carried on in complete independence, one
in the East, the other in the West, for nearly twenty years, we may
certainly feel justified in the conclusion that we are arriving
at truth about the mental and physical traits and development of
highly intelligent persons, coming as we do to the same results.
My remarks here will deal, rather, with certain problems of the
_education_ of the highly intelligent. I may say at the outset
that my direct contacts with the education of gifted pupils have
all been on the level of the elementary school. I consider that
the problems are most urgent on this level, because it is in the
primary and elementary school that the very intelligent child
most especially needs a supplement to the standard curriculum.
The program of progress through the elementary grades is based
on what pupils at, or only very slightly above, the average can
master at given ages, so that the extremely intelligent child
has little or nothing to do there. His interest is not engaged,
and his power is not challenged. The situation of such children
has been well exemplified in a recent biography [2] which sets
forth the sense of futility from which many of them suffer at
school in the early years.
When the child reaches senior high school, however, the case is
somewhat different. The college preparatory course of the secondary
school was originated with and for pupils of college caliber.
It is therefore based on what very intelligent adolescents, and
they only, can learn. Hence it offers to the pupil at and above
130 IQ (S-B) tasks of sufficient interest and difficulty to
engage his powers of learning.
Laying aside, for purposes of the moment, argument as to whether
the content of the college preparatory course is what it should
be from all angles, we maintain that it is sufficiently abstract,
complex, and difficult to operate as an intellectual stimulus
for quite highly intelligent adolescents. I shall return to this
point later, raising it here merely to explain why it has seemed
to me especially important to work in the elementary school.
One cannot work for long in the elementary school, however, without
becoming involved in research which has to do with the secondary
school. There are many problems of coördination that require for
their adequate study the joint efforts of both elementary and
secondary school. We are currently trying to find answers to these
problems at Public School 500, Manhattan, for we shall begin
sending pupils from there to the senior high schools in June, 1939.
THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
For some years, beginning about 1918, experimentation has been
sporadically undertaken in New York City on the initiative of
individual principals to find out what should be done in the
elementary school for highly intelligent children. It was not,
however, until January, 1936, that the Board of Education itself
took official action in cognizance of the presence of these pupils
in the school system. On January 28, 1936, Public School 500,
Manhattan (Speyer School, [3] was founded by formal action of the
Board of Education and Teachers College, jointly, for the study
of intellectual deviates, other than the feeble-minded, in the
elementary school.
Two classes for rapid learners were included in the setup of this
school, to accommodate twenty-five pupils each. These classes have
now (1939) been in progress for three years. Their chief purpose
has been to find experimentally and to establish a curriculum that
would provide a genuine education for children of mental calibers
above 130 IQ (S-B); an education that would extend their minds and
interest them in the interests of society during the years of the
elementary school.
Pupils were selected for this experiment on the basis of three
criteria: (1) they must test at or above 130 IQ (S-B); (2) they
must be at least 7 years 0 months old, and at most 9 years 6 months
old; (3) they must be representative as a group of the various
ethnic stocks composing the population of New York City. This
constitutes what we consider a perfectly democratic selection.
Nothing "counts" toward selection except the tested quality
of the pupil himself.
The organization is that of an 8B elementary school, designed
to run for five years as an experiment. Promotion to the ninth
grade of the senior high schools at the age of 13 years was
planned for our pupils. The school also includes seven classes
for slow learners (IQ 75-90), the pupils of which mingle freely
with those of the rapid learner classes except for purposes
of classroom instruction.
The teachers were selected from a long list of applicants for the
posts among licensed elementary-school teachers of New York City.
Criteria for selection rested on personality, degree of education,
and desire to undertake experimental work.
Enrichment of the curriculum has been going forward for three
years. Pupils at and above 130 [IQ] (S-B) need, on the average,
about one half of their time in the elementary school for mastering
the standard curriculum set up for "all the children." "Mastering"
here means not "passing" with a mark of 65 per cent, but genuine
_mastery_ with marks of 90 per cent and above.
In the half day thus left to spare, an enrichment curriculum
has been pursued, which has elsewhere been described in some
detail. [4] The chief features of this enrichment curriculum
are a series of units, one each term in each class, on "The
Evolution of Common Things" and the French language and literature.
TRANSITION FROM ELEMENTARY TO SECONDARY SCHOOL
The time comes when pupils thus selected and educated are to
pass to the ninth grade of the senior high school. At this point
questions arise which call urgently for discussion as a joint
responsibility of both elementary and secondary schools. Some of
these questions are as follows:
1. Why is 13 years to be chosen as the optimum age for the
transition?
2. Why is junior high school omitted from the picture?
3. What ceremony, if any, should mark the transition to senior
high school?
4. What items of cumulative record should accompany the pupil
as he or she enters high school?
5. What differences are there in the demands of high school,
as compared with the elementary school, which would affect the
minimum IQ at which enrichment is needed in the high school?
Is enrichment needed in the high school at 130 IQ (S-B)?
6. The point at which enrichment begins to be needed having been
determined experimentally, how should the secondary school organize
to provide a genuine education for pupils at and above that level?
7. Assuming an enrichment program for pupils above 150 IQ (S-B)
desirable or imperatively necessary in high schools, what matters
shall be agreed upon to enter into the curriculum?
8. Shall we guide all of our highly intelligent elementary-school
pupils into the college preparatory courses? Or shall some of them
be so guided that they will end high school without the "credits"
for college?
9. What can and should public schools do for those few pupils
who test at or above 170 IQ (S-B), for whom no experimental
work so far done is of much real effect, either in elementary
or secondary school?
CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTIONS ARISING
Not all the foregoing questions proposed can be fully discussed
here. Whatever is said, however, is an outgrowth of our own
professional observations, extending over the past seventeen
years. In particular these observations result from the current
obligation at Public School 500, Manhattan (Speyer School), to
promote to senior high school our first group of children now
reaching the thirteenth birthday.
It is obvious that we have to determine upon _an age_ for promotion
to the senior high school. This must take into consideration "the
whole child." We cannot isolate the intellect for this purpose.
"Body, mind, and soul" must pass as a unit to secondary school.
The brightest of our pupils were fully ready for the scholastic
work of the ninth grade when they were 8 years old; several others,
when they were 10 years old. Ability to "pass examinations" set for
8B pupils cannot, therefore, reasonably become our criterion for
promoting these children, unless we wish to assume responsibility
for placing prepubescent, 8-, 9- and 10-year-old children in a
scholastic milieu that is determined by the physical size and
social maturity of adolescents.
After much discussion, we fixed upon 13 years as the age for
transition to senior high school. We came to this largely as
a result of our pooled professional experience, but not wholly
on that basis. We gave considerable weight to the follow-up study
of pupils identified in 1922, and kept together for three years
in special classes at Public School 165, Manhattan. [5] There
were 56 of these children whom we promoted to the ninth grade
at an average age of 11 years; and the high-school careers of all
of them were followed through sixteen different high schools. [6]
In the course of this follow-up, the question was repeatedly
asked, "What would be the best age to enter the ninth grade?"
Sixty per cent of these pupils gave 13 years as the "best age"
to enter high school, and twenty-six per cent gave 14 years or
older. Only one child gave an age younger than 12 years as optimum
for entering high school. This group, as a whole, would have
preferred to enter the ninth grade at an age older than that at
which they entered, and gave cogent reasons for the preference
during their high-school careers.
These ideas persisted through the college careers, especially
among the boys, many of whom felt they were misplaced in college
at 15 years of age. Entering high school near the thirteenth
birthday, a child saves time, and yet is not made subject to the
tensions which may result from trying to meet social and physical
requirements for which he is too immature.
Junior high school is omitted from the picture as ours was a
five-year plan. Such a plan of curriculum enrichment as ours fits
best into the 8B setup, for such a program cannot be supervised
if the pupils are scattered and the situation made subject to the
transition from 6B to junior high school. In the metropolitan
situation it is not feasible to take the pupils for special
classes until they are at least 7 years old. The infrequency
of their occurrence makes it necessary to assemble them from
several districts, and they are not mature enough to come from
a distance when they are 6 years of age. Parents cannot assume the
burden of accompanying them twice a day. Our pupils were 8 years
old, on the median, when they entered our rapid learner classes.
We have found it feasible to organize classes for 8-year-olds, give
them a five-year program of special studies, and have them fully
ready for senior high school at 13 years of age. This plan has
worked out well, whereas, if we had had to consider a transition
to the junior high school in the midst of our work, difficulties
would have arisen, and it is not clear how our program could have
been carried out at all. However, a field for _experimentation_
lies here for those who would be predisposed to favor the
junior-high-school plan of school organization.
We decided that no ceremony of graduation should mark the promotion
to senior high school. Our pupils will make the transition not
in a body, but a few at a time at the end of each term. Some
informal social event may take place, but no ceremony of graduation
as such.
The question, "What items of cumulative record should accompany
each child from the elementary school?" is one requiring much
study. Here we are working quite experimentally. The public schools
of Altoona, Elkins Park, and Fort Wayne, Pennsylvania, are reported
to have formulated a cumulative record card for rapid learners,
which we hope later to consult. The records of mental tests,
the record of scholastic-achievement tests, and a statement of
teachers' ratings on a variety of character traits should no doubt
be included with the health record and attendance record in the
elementary school.
Ideally, the secondary school should receive these pupils already
tested mentally, with cumulative records; but, since in the
existing state of affairs this is not possible, because such
tests have not been generally made, the high schools are wondering
what methods to use in selecting the highly intelligent as they
arrive, in the ordinary course of events, for admission.
We must agree that we have, in fact, no method at present generally
available of distributing the top percentile of the adolescent
population. The Army Alpha, which strictly speaking pertains to
adults, is no doubt the most nearly appropriate instrument we have
for distributing the top one per cent of adolescents. No other
group test has sufficient "top" for this purpose, and no individual
test has a "ceiling" high enough to prevent the best from "going
through." Two forms of Army Alpha combined will give as good an
approximation as is at present available to a correct distribution
of adolescents at and above 130 IQ (S-B).
There exist tests of scholastic aptitude which pertain to
adolescents of college caliber, but these are not generally
available, being limited to the organizations which make specific
use of them.
From observations of the progress of highly intelligent children
tested at an early age, I offer the hypothesis that pupils of 130
to 150 IQ (S-B) have quite enough to do in the truly efficient
pursuit of the college preparatory curriculum of the senior high
schools, and do not need any enrichment of this curriculum as far
as challenge to ability is concerned. What these pupils need is
merely freedom from the presence of great masses of classmates
who are mentally unadapted to the college preparatory course, and
the opportunity to work unhampered, in segregated groups, such as
are now being formed in many secondary schools under the concept
of _the honor school_.
Pupils above 150 IQ (S-B) are, however, probably in definite
need of an enrichment of even the college preparatory course
as it exists currently in senior high schools. If experimental
observation should prove this hypothesis to be true, how should
the secondary school set about it to provide for the genuine
education of such pupils? Should the huge high schools of a great
city, like New York, organize an enrichment curriculum within
the honor schools for these extreme deviates? Should honor schools
have faculties proper to them only? Assuming an enrichment program
for pupils above 150 IQ (S-B) to be found desirable or necessary in
secondary school, what matters shall find place in such a curriculum?
The answers to these questions cannot be stated from the swivel
chair or the arm chair. Years of realistic hard and intelligent
work will have to be done, by way of experiment with various
groups of adolescents. As regards the question pertaining to
enrichment of curriculum, I dare offer the suggestion that there
are "common things" the evolution of which would be more properly
worked out at the adolescent level than at the level of childhood
by highly intelligent pupils. Thus at Public School 500, Manhattan
(Speyer School), we often find ourselves wishing that we might
have our pupils at adolescence in order to take up with them the
evolution of law and order, of trade and money, of warfare, of
punishment, and many other things concerning which no systematic
instruction is ever given outside of professional schools.
One may suggest that in the elementary school the enrichment
curriculum might proceed by covering the evolution of "common
things" which are concrete, as we have been doing, leaving for the
secondary school those "common things" which are relatively
abstract and involve especially concepts of social-economic
consequence.
It is to be considered, also, that each of these pupils, at and
above 150 IQ (S-B), would have the capacity to master a manual
trade, in addition to mastering a profession, if time were allowed
during adolescence. At 13 years of age, the hand then being
developed, such pupils might be trained for skilled trades,
in their spare time, as an enrichment of curriculum. In a changing
world it is perhaps a good thing for those who are capable of
_both_ profession and skilled manual craft to have _both_ at
their service as adults, and to be capable of serving society
and themselves in more than one specialized vocation, as was and
is actually the case with many able Americans, reared and educated
under pioneering conditions of the nineteenth century and earlier.
To this point we have been speaking of enrichments accompanying
and supplementing the college preparatory course for pupils testing
above 150 IQ (S-B). But shall we guide _all_ our highly intelligent
pupils into college preparatory courses? Or shall some of them be
positively guided so that they will end high school without the
"credits" for college? Shall all whose circumstances tend to force
them into vocational high schools be allowed to drift in that
direction? Here is a question of fundamental importance for
society, which at this moment we hardly know enough to raise,
much less answer. Only one in every hundred tests at or above
130 IQ (S-B). What does society most _need_ from this little
handful of persons? These can perform socially desired functions
which none of the other ninety and nine can possibly perform.
They can be educated in ways which are forever out of the reach
of all who test below them. What should we, as educators, the
publicly appointed guardians of their intellectual lives, do
with these children for their own and society's best interests?
There is no more serious question than this in all education. How
shall a democracy educate the most educable? At present these
children are to a great extent lost in the vast enterprises of
mass education, and are left to handle their special problems
as they may, by themselves, while the energies of teachers are
bent upon the main business of dealing with the ninety-nine per
cent who test below 130 IQ (S-B). Common sense would tell us that
a child who tests as far above the average as a feeble-minded
child tests below cannot escape having special problems under
conditions of mass education. We cannot go into this matter
in detail here. These problems have been set forth in another
place. [7] It is for us to consider them carefully, for educators
are the sole group appointed by society to guard the interests
of children. We are their official guardians, adding our guidance
to that of their natural guardians, parents, who are often helpless
either to recognize these children's abilities or to develop them.
WHAT ABOUT GENIUS?
We come finally to what may be the most important point of all--the
point to where we inquire into the responsibility of the public
schools for children who are as far above those of 130 IQ (S-B) as
the latter are above 100 IQ (S-B). I refer to those very rarely
occurring pupils who test at or above 170 IQ (S-B). These children
are important for civilization in inverse ratio to their infrequency
of occurrence. They are the ones who can not only _conserve_
thought in its abstract reaches, but who can _originate_ new
thoughts, new inventions, new patterns, and who can solve problems.
When, about twenty years ago, Terman [8] began to attempt
classifications of high deviates, on the basis of IQ, he called
140 IQ (S-B) "genius or near genius." The intervening years have
proved that this idea must be revised. Seniors in many of our
first-rate colleges test at a median of 140 IQ (S-B) or even
higher, and about a quarter of _all_ college graduates test
at or above this level.
That point in the distribution of IQ where mental products
suggestive of genius, as defined by lexicographers, begin to
appear, seems to be as far above 140 IQ as 140 IQ is above average.
Somewhere between 170 and 180 IQ (S-B) we begin to see merging
in early adulthood that "highly unusual power of invention or
origination," that "original creative power, frequently working
through the imagination," which is ordinarily called "genius." [9]
This element in our juvenile population, so significant and so
rarely found, passes unrecognized at present through the public
schools. We have not even commenced to evolve an education suitable
for a child who at 9 or 10 years of age is able to think on
a college level. The idea that such children exist at all is even
laughed at to scorn by teachers and principals who have a quarter
of a century of "experience" behind them. These children have
no way of making themselves known. The _mental tests_ make them
known. They become known only to those educators who "believe
in" mental tests.
The most interesting problem in education is to discover how
these children, testing above 170 IQ (S-B) can and should be
educated; to devise ways and means whereby these far deviates
may get the full use of their abilities in school and society,
especially when they have no money. The concept of democracy
on which the United States was founded is one of equality of
opportunity. The intention of our educational policy is that every
child should have a chance to develop as his natural abilities may
entitle him to do, all artificial distinctions being eliminated.
Now at last psychological science has provided an effective
instrument for achieving this democracy in education, namely
the mental test, by means of which a child may be recognized
for his own ability, regardless of age, sex, race, creed, or
economic condition.
How shall we as educators utilize this instrument of genuine
democracy? How shall we proceed under conditions in which the
founding fathers are now mistaken by many citizens to have
proclaimed and promised biological equality!
Perhaps we should take another leaf from the book of the French
Republic, where the delusion of biological equality has always
been successfully avoided; where the State continually reviews
its attempt to secure equality of opportunity by explicit efforts
to find and foster the natural élite, and to know where the gifted
are located in the French population. [11]
We may also consider the Belgian policies, with regard to subsidy
of the gifted, [12] "Ce principe fondamental: Que chaque enfant,
quelle que soit la situation de fortune des parents, soit mis en
état d'acquérir par l'instruction tout le développement intellectuel
et professionnel dont il est capable."
All the questions here raised call for definite answers _at the
present time_. Such questions could not be effectively raised
prior to the twentieth century, because psychologists had not
previously advanced to a point of supplying a scientific method of
determining intelligence in childhood. It is the most significant
contribution of psychology to education, in this century--and
perhaps in all centuries--that we are now enabled to know the
mental caliber of a human being in his early years.
More and more it becomes clear that human welfare on the whole
is much more a matter of the activities of _deviates_ than it is
a matter of what the middle mass of persons does. Those educators
who make a joke of the genius and regard the dullard as a mere
figment of the imagination of psychologists, or who solve the
educational problems which these children present by the simple
device of "not believing in" them, fiddle while Rome burns. It
is the deviate who takes the initiative and plays the primary part
in social determination. How shall we, then, educate him in
a democracy?
[1] Reprinted from _The Journal of Educational Sociology_ (October,
1939), pages 90-102.
[2] Bridgman, Amy S. _My Valuable Time: The Story of Paul Bridgman
Boyd_. (109 pages.) Stephen Daye Press, Brattleboro, Vermont; 1938.
[3] Hollingworth, Leta S. "The Founding of Public School 500:
Speyer School," _Teachers College Record_, Vol. 37 (November,
1936), pages 119-128.
[4] Hollingworth, Leta S. "An Enrichment Curriculum for Rapid
Learners at Public School 500: Speyer School," _Teachers College
Record_, Vol. 39 (January, 1938), Pages 296-306. See also Chapter
21 of this book.
[5] Lamson, E. E. "A Study of Young Gifted Children in Senior
High School." _Contributions to Education_ No. 424 (117 pages).
Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University,
New York; 1930.
[6] Lamson, E. E. "High School Achievement of Fifty-Six Gifted
Children." _Journal of Genetic Psychology_, Vol. 47 (1935),
pages 233-238.
[7] Hollingworth, Leta S. "The Child of Very Superior Intelligence
as a Special Problem in Social Adjustment." _Proceedings_ of the
First International Congress on Mental Hygiene, Vol. II, pages
47-69. The International Committee for Mental Hygiene, Inc., New
York; 1932.
[8] Terman, Lewis M. _The Measurement of Intelligence_ (362
pages). Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston; 1916. Also, Terman,
Lewis M. _Genetic Studies of Genius_, Vol. I (663 pages). Stanford
University Press, Stanford University, California; 1925.
[9] Webster's New International Dictionary, 1935.
[10] Butler, Nicholas Murray. "Is Thomas Jefferson the Forgotten
Man?" Address delivered at the Parrish Art Museum, Southampton,
September 1, 1935. Published at 405 West 117th Street, New York.
[11] Bouglé, C. _Enquêtes sur le Baccalauréat_. (120 pages.)
Librairie Hachette, Paris; 1935.
[12] Bauwens, Léon. _Fonds des mieux doués_. (Cinquième édition,
77 pages.) Librairie Albert Dewit, Bruxelles; 1927.