Exceptionally Gifted Children: Long-Term Outcomes of ...Terman “Versus” Hollingworth As early as...

404

Exceptionally Gifted Children: Long-Term Outcomes of Academic Acceleration and Nonacceleration

Miraca U. M. Gross

a 20-year longitudinal study has traced the academic, social, and emotional devel-opment of 60 young australians with iQs of 160 and above. Significant differences have been noted in the young people’s educational status and direction, life satisfac-tion, social relationships, and self-esteem as a function of the degree of academic accel-eration their schools permitted them in childhood and adolescence. the considerable majority of young people who have been radically accelerated, or who accelerated by 2 years, report high degrees of life satisfaction, have taken research degrees at leading universities, have professional careers, and report facilitative social and love relation-ships. Young people of equal abilities who accelerated by only 1 year or who have not been permitted acceleration have tended to enter less academically rigorous college courses, report lower levels of life satisfaction, and in many cases, experience significant difficulties with socialization. Several did not graduate from college or high school. Without exception, these young people possess multiple talents; however, for some, the extent and direction of talent development has been dictated by their schools’ academic priorities or their teachers’ willingness or unwillingness to assist in the development of particular talent areas.

Letmeproposetoyouanexperimentalstudy.Letustakeachildofaverageintellectualability,andwhenheis5

yearsold,letusplacehiminaclassofchildrenwithsevereintellectualdisabilities,childrenwhoseIQsareatleastfourstandarddeviationslowerthanhis.Thechildwillstaywiththisgroupforthedurationofhisschoolingandhewillundertakethecurriculumdesignedfortheclass,atthelevelandpaceoftheclass.

Wewillcarefullyobserveandassessatregularintervalshisedu-cationalprogress,hisfeelingsaboutschool,hissocialrelationshipswithclassmates,andhisself-esteem.Wewillalsoobservethechild’sparentsandtheir interactionswith thechild’s teacher, school, and

MiracaU.M.GrossisProfessorofGiftedEducationandDirectoroftheGiftedEducationResearch,ResourceandInformationCentre(GERRIC)attheUniversityofNewSouthWalesinSydney,Australia.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted.Vol.29,No.4,2006,pp.404–429.Copyright©2006PrufrockPressInc.,http://www.prufrock.com

Exceptionally Gifted Children 405

school system. They will, of course, have had no say in the child’sclassorgradeplacement.

Asonecannotgeneralize fromasampleofone, thestudywillbereplicatedwith60childrenincities,towns,andruralandremoteareasacrossthenation.

Ifthisproposalappallsyou,resteasy.Suchastudywillneverbeundertaken.Noeducationsystemwouldcountenanceit.Noethicscommitteewouldapproveit.

Instead, I will report some findings from a real-life study thatisongoingandthatmirrorsthehypotheticalstudydescribedabove.Thisstudyof60youngAustralianswithIQsof160andaboveisinits22ndyear,andthemajorityofthesubjectsareintheirmid-tolate20s.Likethechildreninthehypotheticalstudy,themajorityunder-tooktheirentireschoolinginclasseswheretheaverageIQwas100,at least four standard deviations below theirs. These children, andtheirparents,werelessthanhappy.Theeducationsystemswereunre-sponsiveandnoethicscommitteeraisedawhisper,asthistreatmentiscommonpracticeinAustralia,aswellasintheUnitedStates.

Terman “Versus” Hollingworth

Asearlyas1930,Termanandhiscolleagues(Burks,Jensen,&Terman,1930) in the first few years of his landmark longitudinal study of1,528intellectuallygiftedchildren,warnedthatexceptionallygifted(IQ=160–179)andprofoundlygifted(IQ=180+)studentsarechildrenatrisk.Theypointedoutthattheintellectualfunctioningofa6-year-oldwithanIQof180isonaparwiththeaverage11-year-old,and,bythetimethechildhasreached11,hiscognitivedevelop-mentisnotfarfromthatoftheaveragehighschoolgraduate.Addtothistheacceleratedsocioaffectivedevelopmentgenerallyfoundinsuchchildren,and“theinevitableresultisthatthechildof180IQhasoneofthemostdifficultproblemsofsocialadjustmentthatanyhumanbeingisevercalledupontomeet”(p.264).

Terman(Burksetal.,1930)hadnotoriginallyintendedtomakeaspecialstudyoftheveryhighlygifted;hisinterestwasspurredbythedifficultieswithsocializationthatparentsandteachersreported

Journal for the Education of the Gifted406

fortheseyoungpeopleinadolescenceandwhichappearedmuchlesssevereinthegiftedgroupasawhole.Inthesecondarystudy(above),whichheconsequentlymadeofsubjectswithIQof170+,Termannotedthatby1930,whenthemeanageofthegiftedgroupwas14,60%oftheboysand73%ofthegirlswerereportedasbeingdefi-nitelysolitaryor“poormixers.”

Contemporaneously, Leta Hollingworth (1926, 1931, 1942)wasengagedinwhatisundoubtedlythemostsignificantandinflu-ential study of exceptional intellectual potential yet undertaken.Hollingworth’s interest in theextremelygiftedwas sparkedbyherassociationwith“ChildE,”aboywithanIQof187whoseacademicandsocialprogressshefollowedthroughoutherlife.children above iQ 180 (Hollingworth, 1942), published posthumously, analyzedthethencurrentandpreviousconceptionsofintellectualgiftedness;described19childrenwithIQsof180andabovereportedbyprevi-ousresearchers;anddescribedinremarkabledetailtheintellectual,academic, and social development of 12 New York children withIQsof180andabovewhomHollingworthherselfhadstudiedoverthe23yearsfrom1916untilherdeathin1939.

Hollingworthwasintriguedbythedifferencesshenotedinthecognitive and affective development of moderately and exception-allygiftedchildren.ShedefinedtheIQrangeof125–155as“sociallyoptimal intelligence” (Hollingworth, 1926). She found that whilechildrenscoringinthisrangeweresociallyself-confidentyoungpeo-plewhoenjoyed the friendshipofagepeers, childrenwith IQsof160andaboveexperiencedongoingproblemsofsocialisolation.Shebelievedthatthesedifficultiesarosefromthecognitiveandaffectivedifferencesbetweentheexceptionallygiftedchildandhisorheragepeers(Hollingworth,1931).

IthasbeensuggestedthatTerman’sfindingsregardingextremelygifted children conflicted with those of Hollingworth (Grossberg&Cornell,1988),butthisisnotso.Termanrecognizedthediffer-ence between socialization and social adjustment. Children withIQsbetween170and180tendedtowards“solitariness,”butTermaninterpretedthisasapersonalpreferenceratherthantheoutcomeofpeerrejection.However,whilehereportedgenerallypositivesocialadjustmentwithinhishighlygiftedgroup—possiblybecauseallbut


twohadbeenaccelerated—Terman(Burksetal.,1930)notedthathisfindingsforthechildrenwhoscoredaboveanIQof180werehighlycongruentwithHollingworth’s.

InherbookongiftedchildrenProfessorHollingworthpres-entscasestudiesofadozenchildrenwhoseIQ’sequalorsur-pass180.ThedataamassedinthesestudieswouldappeartofullyjustifyhergeneralizationthatthemajorityofchildrentestingaboveIQ180‘playlittlewithotherchildrenunlessspecialconditionssuchasthosefoundinaspecialclassforthegiftedareprovided.Theyhavegreatdifficultyinfindingplaymatesintheordinarycourseofeventswhoarecongenialbothinsizeandinmentalability.Thustheyarethrownbackuponthemselvestoworkoutformsofsolitaryintellectualplay.’ ThechildreninourgiftedgroupwhoseIQsareover180tendtofallintothesocialpatterndescribedbyHollingworth.(pp.173–174)

Terman(Burksetal.,1930)madethedistinctionbetweenthepreferenceforsolitude,whichhebelievedcharacterizedthemajorityofhishighlygiftedgroup,andthelonelinessimposedbypeerrejec-tionorbytheabsenceofacongenialpeergroup.LikeHollingworth,he was aware that the likelihood of finding friends in the regularschoolsettingwasremoteunlessthechild’shighabilitieswereiden-tified as early as possible and unless special opportunities to meetothergiftedstudentsweredeliberatelystructuredbytheschoolortheeducationsystem.

Inthe1920sand1930s, school systemsgrade-advancedgiftedstudentsmuchmorereadilythantheydonow;bythetimetheygrad-uatedfromhighschool,10%ofTerman’sentiresubjectgrouphadskippedtwogradesandafurther23%hadskippedone(Terman&Oden,1947).Bycontrast,themajorityoftheexceptionallyandpro-foundlygiftedchildreninthepresentstudyhavebeenretainedwithagepeersfortheentiretyoftheirschooling,andfewoftheirschoolshaveactivelystructuredsocializationopportunitiesforthem.


The Present Study

Longitudinal comparative case studies allow us to examine differ-encesbothwithinsubjectsandbetweenthemonarangeofvariablesthroughout the period of the study. Within-subject and between-subject differences on each variable are recorded at regular timeintervals.Theresearchercanexaminechangesovertime;forexam-ple, fluctuations in academic achievement as the subjects progressthroughschoolandcollege,shiftsintheirattitudestowardstheirownabilities, andalterations in theircareeror lifeplans. Investigationsmayalsoincludecomparisonsofthesubjects’relationshipswithpar-ents and siblings, the composition of their friendship groups, andthe effect of various interventions on academic and socioaffectivedevelopment. In thepresent study, thishas includedtheeffectsoftwo“passive”interventions:the“Leavehimalone;he’sgifted,sohedoesn’tneedhelp”responseandthe“Leavehimalone;he’sleveledout,sohewasn’tgiftedafterall”response.Ibelievethatineducation,asinmedicine,adecisiontowithholdtreatmentshouldberegardedasanintervention.

In contrast to studies conducted in geographically small butdenselypopulatedregions,the60youngAustraliansinthisstudyarespreadoveranareasimilarinsizetothe48contiguousstatesoftheUnitedStatesbutwithapopulationofonly21million.Distancesbetweensettlementsarevastandtravelcostsenormous.Face-to-facecontactisnotasfrequentasIcouldwishandhasbeensupplementedbymail,phone,and,inthemorerecentyears,e-mail.Sevenoftheyoungpeoplenowliveoverseas;infiveofthesecases,themovewasfor purposes of postgraduate study on scholarships at prestigiousresearchuniversitiesinBritain,Europe,ortheUnitedStates.

Longitudinal studies are extremely time consuming, but fre-quentandregularcontactwithsubjectsisessentialbothtomaintaintheintegrityofthestudyandalsotominimizedropoutrates,which,as Subotnik and Arnold (1994) discuss, are a consistent threat tolongitudinalresearch.Theresearchercannotignorehersubjectfam-iliesforseveralyearsandthenexpectthemtowelcomeher“home”andkillthefattedcalf !However,dropoutratesare,understandably,


significantlylessinsmall-scalethaninlarge-scalestudies;onlyonesubjecthasdroppedoutofthepresentstudy.

As with most studies of populations that are characterized bytheirscarcity,thisstudyhasnotemployedrandomselection.YoungpeoplewithIQsof160appearinthepopulationataratiooffewerthan1in10,000.Withfewexceptions,Ihaverestrictedmembershipofthestudytoyoungpeoplewhowerebetweenages5and13intheyears1988–1989,theperiodduringwhichmuchofthechildhooddata was collected, and whose families were residents in Australiaduringthechild’syearsofelementaryschooling.

Given that Australia’s population in the late 1980s was only16 million, with only 1.7 million children in the 5–13 age range(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1988), we should expect, statisti-cally, thatonlysome170childrenwouldmeetthestudy’sageandIQcriteria.Itisremarkablethatmorethan30%ofthetargetpopu-lationhasbeenidentified.Thestudyhasnocontrolgroup;anum-berofshort-termcomparativestudies(e.g.,DeHaan&Havighurst,1961;Gallagher,1958),andlongertermcomparativestudies(e.g.,Hollingworth, 1926, 1942; Janos, 1983) had already establishedthatchildrenwithIQsof160+differsignificantlyfrommoderatelygiftedagepeersonarangeofcognitiveandaffectivevariables,andIwantedtofollowtheacademic,social,andemotionaldevelopmentof as many young people with IQs of 160+ as I could find in therestrictedpopulationofmycountry.

Subject Identification

The formal commencement of the study was advertised during1986–1987intheBulletinoftheAustralianPsychologicalSociety,inthenewslettersofthenationalandstategiftedchildren’sassocia-tions, through letters to Colleges of Education in Australian uni-versities, through letters to psychologists in private practice, andthrough informal contact with colleagues across the country whohad a special interest in gifted education. In 1987, I was honoredwiththeHollingworthAwardforResearchandthemediapublicitythatensuedfromthisledtoaconsiderableinfluxofreferrals,espe-ciallyfrompsychologistswhohadassessedchildrenwhoscoredin


thecriterionrangeontheStanford-Binet:L-M(SB:L-M;thever-sionofthistestthencurrent),fromparentsofhigh-scoringchildren,andfromteacherswhobelievedtheyhadextremelygiftedchildrenintheirclasses.By1989,atwhichtimethefirstphaseofthestudywas reported in my doctoral dissertation, the study comprised 40childrenwithSB:L-MIQscoresof160orabove.Theyoungestchildwas4yearsoldonentrancetothestudy;theoldestwas13.(Thisgirl,withanIQof180,wasreferredtothestudybythepsychiatristwhowas treatingher for severedepression; shehadbeenretainedwithagepeersinthe“inclusion”classroomfor8yearswithouteventhetemporaryreliefofapulloutprogram.)Anadditional20studentsenteredbetween1990and2002.Childrenenteringafter1992,theyearinwhichAustraliannormsfortheStanford-BinetRevisionIVbecame available, took the SB: L-M as a supplementary test afterhaving ceilinged out on the Revision IV or WISC-III. From thestartofthestudy,mentalagescoreswerecomputedforchildrenwhoreachedthehigheststandardscoresfortheiragelistedonthenorma-tivetablesoftheSB:L-M.

It is important to recognize that even though a pleasing 30%of the theoretical population of the subjects was identified, thesechildrenrepresentaminoritywithinaminority—exceptionallyandprofoundly gifted children whose abilities have been recognized.Equallygiftedchildrenwhohavebeensuccessfulinconcealingtheirabilities,whodeviatesignificantlyintheirbehaviorandoriginfromAustralianteachers’expectationsofgiftedchildren,orwhoseabili-ties have been masked by learning disabilities, may be underrepre-sented.Researchhasrepeatedlyshownthat,asintheU.S.,Australianteachersgenerallybelievethatgiftedchildrenoriginatefromsuccess-ful professional families within the dominant culture. The under-representationofchildrenfromworkingclassandsociallydeprivedfamiliesamongmysubjectsisamatterforconcern.

Data Collection

FulldetailsofthedatacollectionappearinGross(1993);whatfol-lowshereisashortprécisoftheprincipalelements.Totracktheiracademic progress through the school years, subjects undertook


regular assessment in several school subjects, including math andreading,onstandardizedtestsofaptitudeandachievement;above-level testing was required as subjects ceilinged out on virtually allage-appropriatetests.Resultswerecomparedwithteachers’assess-mentofthestudents’academicprogressasrecordedinthewrittenschool reports that Australian schools send home twice each year.Thisenabledacomparisonofteachers’perceptionsofthechildren’sachievementlevelsagainsttheiractualachievements.AsAustralianteachers in the 1980s were strongly opposed to standardized test-ing, most had no idea of the true abilities of the study children.Serious discrepancies were noted between ability and educationalresponse;severalchildrenwhobyage10hadscoredabovethemeanontheScholasticAptitudeTest-Mathematics(SAT-M) weredoingfourth-orfifth-grademathwiththeiragepeerswhilethelevelofthechildren’srequiredreadinginclassandtheirleisurereadingathomevariedbyasmuchas7years.

Records of physical characteristics and health were takenthrough childhood. A series of parent questionnaires elicited dataon early childhood development; family history; and the child’sreading,computeruse,TVviewing,hobbies,interests,playprefer-ences,andinvolvementinmusicandsport;theseweretriangulatedwithchildquestionnairesandwithregularparentandchild inter-views.Subjects’self-esteemwasassessedthroughtheCoopersmithSelf-Esteem Inventory (Coopersmith, 1981) and moral reasoningthroughtheDefiningIssuesTest(Rest,1986).

Naturally,astheyoungsubjectshavemovedthroughadolescenceintoadulthood,themajorityofmycommunicationhascometobedirectlywiththem,butafter20yearstheirparentsstillsharewithmetheirperceptionsofwhatishappeningintheirchildren’slives.Thishasdevelopedinformallyasanotherformoftriangulation.

Early Development of Reading

The first edition of Exceptionally Gifted children (Gross, 1993)describedthechildren’sphysiological,academic,andsocioaffectivedevelopmentandtheirschoolhistoryinchildhoodandadolescence.Thesecondedition(Gross,2004)carriedtheirstoriesforwardinto


adulthood.Thispaper focusesprincipallyontheoutcomesofaca-demic acceleration or nonacceleration; however, brief mentionshouldbemadeof theearlyandaccelerateddevelopmentof read-ingbecauseteachers’responsetothiswasstronglypredictiveofhowtheywouldrespond,ingeneral,tothechild’sacademicprecocity.

Exceptionallygiftedchildrenappeartobecharacterizedbytheearlyonsetofreading.Thisstudyhasadoptedarathercautiousdefi-nition of reading: the capacity to decode and comprehend morethanfivewordsfromaprintedsourcewithouttheuseofpicturesasvisualcues.Underthisdefinition,morethan40ofthe60childrenwerereadingbeforetheirfourthbirthdayandallbutonewereread-ingbeforeschoolentry,whichwasgenerallybetweentheagesof4½and5½.Whileinasmallnumberofcasesthechildren’sfirstteacheraccommodatedthis,themajoritywererequiredtoworkwiththeirclassmates through reading readiness exercises, even though somealready had reading accuracy and comprehension ages of 7 or 8.Whentheparentsattemptedtoexplaintotheschoolthatthechildwasanearlyreader,theyweregenerallydisbelieved.Someweremetwithoverthostility.Whenthemotherof5-year-oldRichardMcLeodaskedhisteacherifhecouldbepermittedtoskipthe“readingreadi-ness”programbecausehehadbeenreadingsinceage2,theteacherangrilyaccusedherofteachingtheboytoread.“Youleavehimtome,”sheadded.“It’smydutytopluckthetallpoppies.”

Outcomes of Acceleration and Nonacceleration

Ibelievethatalltheyoungpeopleinthisstudywouldhavebenefitedgreatly, both academically and socially, from grade advancement,whiletheconsiderablemajoritywouldhavebenefitedfromradicalacceleration.Sadly,only17wereradicallyaccelerated,and indeed,themajority(33ofthe60)wereretainedwithagepeersforthedura-tionoftheirschooling.

Radicalaccelerationisdefinedasanycombinationofaccelera-tiveproceduresthatresultsinastudentgraduatinghighschool3ormoreyearsearlierthaniscustomary(Stanley,1978).Whenthought-fullyplannedandcarefullymonitored,asisgenerallythecase,itisahighlysuccessful interventionforhighlygiftedstudentswhoare


also socially and emotionally mature (Gross & van Vliet, 2005).Interestinganddisturbingdifferencesappearwhenthestudycohortisexaminedintermsofthedegreeofaccelerationtheywerepermit-ted.

two Examples of radically accelerated Students.christopher otway.Chris isayoungmanoftrulyphenomenal

ability.TestingontheSB:L-Monemonthshortofhis11thbirth-dayrevealedamentalageof22.Fivemonthslater,hescored710onthe SAT-M. His remarkable talent in math and language was evi-dentfromhisearliestyears;byage4,hewascapableoffourth-grademath.

Fortunately,theprincipalofChris’sprimaryschoolhadvisitedJohnsHopkinsUniversityonaChurchillFellowship.HehadmetseveralyoungpeoplefromtheStudyofMathematicallyPrecociousYouth(SMPY)whohadbeenradicallyacceleratedandhadfamiliar-izedhimselfwithsomeoftheresearchonacceleration.Accordingly,he was responsive to Chris’ academic and social needs. While inGrade1,Chriswasacceleratedtoworkwithfifth-gradestudentsformathandsixth-gradestudentsforEnglish.Thefollowingyearhedidmath with seventh-grade students. This proved so successful thatattheendofhissecond-gradeyearChrismadeafullgradeskiptofourthgradebuttookmathwiththeeighthgrade.Byage12,hewastheoretically enrolled in 9th grade but took five subjects (physics,chemistry,English,math,andeconomics)with11th-gradestudents5yearsolderthanhe.Hewasextremelyhappy,lovedschool,andwaspopularwithhisclassmatesdespitethedifferenceinage.

Thefollowingyear,Chris then took the ratherunusualcourseof“repeating”11thgradewithanadditionalfivesubjects—English,legalstudies,Australianhistory,accounting,andbiology.Thiswasbynomeansanattempttoreversetheaccelerationprocess; itwasChris’sdecisionbecausehefelthewouldbetooyoungtoenteruni-versityatage13,andthisalternateplanwouldgivehimabreadthofstudiesthatwouldbeotherwiseunavailable.Chrisrepeatedthisprocess in 12th grade, doing twice the number of subjects spreadover2years,andthusgraduatingwith10universityentrancesub-jects instead of 5. In both his 12th-grade years, he was one of the


top-scoringstudentsinhisstate.Heentereduniversityat16years2months,graduatingwithBachelorofScience(First-ClassHonours)incomputerscienceandmathematicsatage20.

ChriswonascholarshiptoamajorBritishuniversityandgrad-uated with a Ph.D. in pure math at age 24. Since then, based inLondon,heworksforaworldwideconsultancyassistingothercom-panieswithfinancialstrategies.

Sally Huang. SallywasborninAustraliatoMalaysianparents.Shescored165ontheSB:L-Mat6years11months.Unfortunately,thepsychologiststoppedthetestbeforeSallyhadreachedherceil-ing,andIbelievehertrueIQissignificantlyhigherthanthis.

Fromherearliestyears,Sallydisplayedphenomenalgiftsinmathand English. Her elementary and high schools, in a large countrytown, arranged a series of carefully planned and monitored gradeskipscoupledwithsubjectacceleration.Sallyenteredsecondgradeatage6,fourthgradethefollowingyear,seventhgradeat9,andcom-pactedthe6yearsofhighschoolinto4,graduatingatage13.

Sally’spaththroughschoolwasassistedbyhermathteacherandtheelementaryschoolprincipal,whohadastronginterestingiftededucationandhassinceearnedapostgraduatedegreeinthisfield.Sheentereduniversity,onscholarship,at13½yearsold,asoneofthetopscoring12th-gradestudentsinherstate.

Sally’sstudiesfocusedonthephysicalandmathematicalsciences,butshealsostudiedChinese,Japanese,andmusic.Shewasallowedtoskipfirst-yearuniversitymathandenrolledinthesciencefaculty’ssecond-yearpureandappliedmathclasses.Herenrollmentinuni-versityrequiredhertomovetothecity,andstay,duringtheweek,inthehomeoffriendsofherparents.Thisgaveheraccessbothtothesociallifeoftheuniversityandtoherfamily.ShegainedaBachelorof Science (First-Class Honours) at 16 years 8 months, and, likeChrisOtway,wonafullpostgraduatescholarshiptoamajorBritishuniversity.

SallygainedherPh.D.intheoreticalphysicsatage21withfivepublicationsinmajorjournals.Sheparticipatedfullyintheacademicandsociallifeoftheuniversityandhadmanywarmandsupportivefriendships. She speaks fluent Chinese and Japanese, is an accom-plishedpianist,andholdsafirst-danblackbeltinTaeKwonDo.


Thefollowingyear,atamajorEuropeanuniversity,shecompletedapostdoctoralMBAaimedspecificallyatpostgraduateswithasci-enceandengineeringbackgroundandin2004acceptedamanage-mentappointmentwiththefirminwhichshedidherinternship.

Sally is certain that acceleration has brought her nothing butbenefits:

IfIhadnotbeenaccelerated,IfeelsurethatIwouldhavebecomequitefrustrated,asindeedIoftendidatvariousstagesandstilldowhenIattendthingslikemixed-abilitylanguageclasses....Butthefrustrationinthatcasewouldhavebeenprolongedandsevere,havingadetrimentaleffectnotonlyonmyloveforlearningbutalsoonmeasaperson.Giventheexistingeducationalframework,accelerationwasthebestoptionformyparticularsituation,andIcertainlydon’tfeelthatI’vesufferedanyilleffectsasaresult;indeed,alltheeffectshavebeenbeneficial.Butthisisonlybecauseofthesupportandwatchfuleyesthatwerekepttrainedonmyprogressacademicallyandasapersonallthroughout.

Young People Who Have Been radically accelerated. Surprisingly,giventhewarinesswithwhichAustralianteachersregardaccelera-tion, 17 of the 60 young people were radically accelerated. Nonehasregrets.Indeed,severalsaytheywouldprobablyhavepreferredtoacceleratestillfurtherortohavestartedearlier.Lubinski,Webb,Morelock,andBenbow(2001)reportsimilarfindingsfromastudyofprofoundlygiftedSMPYaccelerands.

Someofthechildrenhadanunfortunatestarttoschoolbeforetheir abilities were recognized; others were fortunate enough toenroll in schools where a teacher or school administrator recog-nizedtheirremarkableabilitiesandalmostimmediatelyarguedforastronglyindividualizedprogram.Ineverycase,theseyoungpeoplehave experienced positive short-term and long-term academic andsocioaffectiveoutcomes.Thepressuretounderachieveforpeeraccep-tancelessenedsignificantlyordisappearedafterthefirstacceleration.Despitebeingsomeyearsyoungerthantheirclassmates,themajoritytoppedtheirstateinspecificacademicsubjects,wonprestigiousaca-demicprizes,orrepresentedtheircountryorstateinMath,Physics,


orChemistryOlympiads.Themajorityenteredcollegebetweenages11and15.Severalwonscholarshipstoattendprestigiousuniversi-tiesinAustraliaoroverseas.Allhavegraduatedwithextremelyhighgrades and, in most cases, university prizes for exemplary achieve-ment.All17arecharacterizedbyapassionateloveoflearningandalmostallhavegoneontoobtaintheirPh.D.s.

In every case, the radical accelerands have been able to formwarm,lasting,anddeepfriendships.Theyattributethistothefactthat their schools placed them, quite early, with older students towhomtheytendedtogravitateinanycase.Thosewhoexperiencedsocial isolation earlier say it disappeared after the first grade skip.Two are married with children. The majority are in permanent orserious love relationships. They tend to choose partners who, likethemselves,arehighlygifted.

two-year accelerands. Thefiveyoungpeoplewhoacceleratedby2yearsreportasmuch,oralmostasmuch,personalsatisfactionwiththeireducationasdotheradicalaccelerandsalthough,liketheradi-calaccelerands,themajoritysaytheywouldhavelikedtohavebeenaccelerated further. Only two have taken Ph.D.s, but the remain-ingthreehavetakenBachelorHonours(research)degrees.Liketheradicalaccelerands,theyhaveenteredprofessionalcareers,manyofwhichutilizetheirremarkableabilitiesinmathandthesciences.

Ingeneral,theyhaveenjoyedsatisfactorypersonalandloverela-tionships. However, those who were retained with age peers untilfourthgradeorlatertendtofindsocializingdifficult.Exceptionallyandprofoundlygiftedstudents shouldhavetheirfirstaccelerationintheearlyyearsofschoolbeforetheyexperiencethesocialrejec-tion that seems to be a significant risk for such students retainedin mixed-ability classes. The skills of friendship building are firstlearned intheearlyyearsof school,andchildrenwhoarerejectedbytheirpeersmaymissoutontheseearlyandimportantlessonsinformingrelationships.

Subjects accelerated by one year. Thefiveyoungpeoplewhowerepermittedasinglegradeadvancementarenotdeeplysatisfiedwiththeir education. Their school experience has not been happy, andtheywouldhavedearlylovedtohavebeenacceleratedfurther.After


theeuphoriaofhavingnew,challengingwork,schoolbecamejustasboringasithadbeenbeforetheacceleration.

Thesechildren’s schoolshadbeenreluctant toaccelerate themandwereafraidthat,whilethegradeskiphadbeensuccessful,fur-theraccelerationmightleadtosocialoremotionaldamageinlateryears.Intwocases,theschooltoldthechildren’sparentsthattheywere concerned for the self-esteem of other students because theacceleratedstudentwasperformingsomuchbetterthantheywere!

Thisgrouphastendedtotakeundergraduatedegreesandstopthere.Becausetheyhavenothadtheexperienceofpitchingthem-selves successfully and over a period of time at work that is trulychallenginganddemanding,theyhavenoideaofthefullextentoftheircapacities.Perhapsbecauseofthis,theyhavetendedtoenrollinundemandingacademiccoursesandhaveconsequently founduni-versityintellectuallyunchallenging.Itiswiththisgroupthataseri-ousdissatisfactionwithfriendshipsandloverelationshipsstartstoappear.Twohavehadsevereproblemswithsocialrelationships.

Subjects not Permitted acceleration. Theremaining33youngpeoplewereretained,forthedurationoftheirschooling,inalockstepcur-riculumwithagepeersinwhatiseuphemisticallytermedthe“inclu-sion”classroom.Thelastthingtheyfelt,aschildrenoradolescents,was“included.”Withfewexceptions,theyhaveveryjadedviewsoftheireducation.Twodroppedoutofhighschoolandanumberhavedroppedoutofuniversity.Severalmorehavehadongoingdifficul-tiesatuniversity,notbecauseoflackofabilitybutbecausetheyhavefounditdifficulttocommittoundergraduatestudythatislessthanstimulating.Theseyoungpeoplehadconsoledthemselves throughthewildernessyearsofundemandingandrepetitiveschoolcurricu-lumwiththepromisethatuniversitywouldbedifferent—exciting,intellectually rigorous, vibrant—and when it was not, as the firstyearofuniversityoftenisnot,itseemedtobethelaststraw.

Somehavebeguntoseriouslydoubtthattheyare,indeed,highlygifted.Theimpostorsyndromeisreadilyvalidatedwithgiftedstu-dentsiftheyaregivenonlyworkthatdoesnotrequirethemtostriveforsuccess.Itisdifficulttomaintainthebeliefthatonecanmeetand


overcomechallenges ifoneneverhas theopportunity to testone-self.

Several of the nonaccelerands have serious and ongoing prob-lemswithsocialrelationships.Theseyoungpeoplefinditverydif-ficulttosustainfriendshipsbecausehavingbeen,toa largeextent,sociallyisolatedatschool,theyhavehadmuchlesspracticeintheirformativeyearsindevelopingandmaintainingsocialrelationships.Sixhavehadcounseling.Ofthese,twohavebeentreatedforseveredepression.Ifeducatorsweremaderesponsibletoethicscommittees,asare researchers, suchdevelopmentally inappropriateeducationalmisplacementwouldneverbepermitted.

Factors Influencing Schools’ Decisions to Radically Accelerate Students

Inthe20-yearupdateofthisstudy(Gross,2004),Icommentedthatpossiblythegreatestgiftwecangivetoagiftedchildisateacherwhorecognizesthegift,whoisnotthreatenedbyit,butratherrejoicesinitandworkswithjoytofosterit.Themajorityofchildrenwhowereradicallyacceleratedbenefitedfromtheguidance,support,andfriendshipofsuchateacher.Perhapsunsurprisingly, inmanycasesthese teachers had a preexisting interest in gifted children or, in afew cases, academic qualifications in gifted education. This echoesthefindingsofSouthern,Jones,andFiscus(1989)whonotedthateducators with professional or personal experience of accelerationhadmorefacilitativeattitudestowardsaccelerationthanthosewhohadnot.

The considerable majority of radical accelerands have extraor-dinaryabilities inmathematics thatwereevident fromtheearliestyearsofschool.At5years5months,Roshnitestedatthe99thper-centilefor7-year-oldsonastandardizedtestofmathachievement;herschoolrespondedbyacceleratinghertosecondgrade.Byfourthgrade,atage7½,shewastakingmathwiththesixth-gradestudents.She entered university at age 15. Hadley taught himself to add,subtract,multiply,anddividebeforeschoolentry,andat7years9monthstestedatthe78thpercentilefor12-year-olds.Hescored730ontheSAT-Mat11years8months,andatage9enteredseventh


grade,wherehepromptlytoppedhisyearof125studentsinmath.Heachievedthreeuniversitydegreesbyage20andhasasuccessfulcareerasanactuary.Adrian,whobyage4couldmultiplytwo-digitnumbersbytwo-digitnumbersinhishead,scored760ontheSAT-Mbeforehisninthbirthday,bywhichtimehehadgraduatedfromelementary school and was enjoying dual enrolment in secondaryschoolanduniversity.

Bycontrast,equallygiftedchildrenwhosemostvisibletalentslieinEnglisharemuchless likelytobesignificantlyaccelerated.Jade,who was talking in sentences before her first birthday and who at5years2monthsofageobtainedamentalageof9ontheSB:L-M,wasallowedearlyentrancetoschoolbutwasofferednofurtheracceleration or even enrichment. Her school experience, academi-callyandsocially,hasbeendeeplyunhappy.ThepsychologistwhotestedRufusontheSB:L-Matage5½(hisIQwas168,atthetestceiling for his age) assessed his reading at a 10-year-old level. Hisonly educational provision in elementary school was a short-livedpulloutprogram,andhehasneverbeenaccelerated.

Hollingworth(1931)pointedoutthat“societyattendstothatwhich is socially annoying. The school attends to those who giveit trouble” (p. 3). Schools too often assume that exceptional abil-ityinlanguagecanbefosteredpurelythroughanopen-endedcur-riculum. Additionally, when elementary school children who areardentreadersfinishtheirworkearly, teacherstendtoallowthemto “read quietly” rather than provide appropriate enrichment. Themathematicallygiftedchild,however,givestheschoolmore“trou-ble.”Theteacherisunlikelytosuggestthatthesestudentsconstructmathproblemstokeepthemselvesoccupied(shewouldthenhavetomarkthem!);consequently,theschoolismorelikelytoestablishstructureswithinwhichtheirprogresscanbeguidedandmonitored.Additionally, school-based math tends to be more linearly struc-turedthanEnglish,and,fromtheteacher’spointofview,mathper-formancemaybeeasiertojudge,therebeingfewer“shadesofgrey”instudents’responses.Teachersmayfeelitiseasiertoacceleratestu-dentsthroughmathbecausethepathwaysaremoreclearlydefined.

Despite their visible exceptionality in math, the radical accel-erandsarewhattheirteacherswouldprobablycall“well-rounded.”


They have a wide range of interests that are socially acceptablewithin theAustralianculture.Roshni is a talentedactressandhasperformedprofessionally.Hadley,Chris,Roshni,andSallyexcelatsports.Roshni,atage5butinthesecondgrade,swamaswellasthemajority of her classmates. Sally gained her first-dan black belt inTaeKwonDoatage12.Atage14,Hadleycaptainedtheunder-16soccerteam,andin12thgrade(age15,)heplayedontheschool’selitecricketteam,whichtouredEngland,playingagainstarangeofEnglishschools.Chriscaptainedandplayedinseveralsportsteamsat school and university. The majority of the radical accelerandsaremusicallytalented.Allarehumorousandquick-witted,andalldeeply enjoy socializing with friends. They have been forgiven forbeing intellectually gifted because they displayed a range of inter-eststhattheirclassmatesandteacherscouldreadilyrelatetoandfeelcomfortablewith.Schoolsweremuchmorereluctanttoaccelerateequallygiftedstudentswhoseinterestsweremoreesoteric, likeIanwho,byage5,haddevelopedaconsumingpassionforcartographyandFredwho,by11,wasreadingpsychologytextbooks.Bothspenttheirfirst5yearsofschoolwithagepeersinthemixed-abilityclass-room

Interestingly, teachers also appear to be much less threatenedbyexceptionallygiftedstudentswhohaveacceleratedbymorethanoneyear.Theiracademicachievementscannowbeviewedagainstthe performance of children 2 or more years older, and paradoxi-cally,appearlessoutoftheordinary.Additionally,thestudentsnowrequire less curricular differentiation and are therefore easier toteach.Teachersfindtheirpresenceintheclasslessofanirritant.

Acceleration and Self-Esteem

The Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, which the subjects com-pleted in childhood and adolescence, measures self-esteem alongfour factors: home/family, academic, social, and general. Theyoung people in this study enjoy close and loving family relation-ships,andthemajorityscoredat,orcloseto,theceilingonthissub-scale.Generalself-esteem,likewise,wasalmostuniversallypositive.However, substantial differences appeared in academic and social


self-esteembetweensubjectswhohadbeenacceleratedby2ormoreyearsandthosewhowereacceleratedbyonly1yearorretainedwithagepeers.

The social self-esteem of subjects who had been substantiallyacceleratedwasatleastonestandarddeviationabovethemeanfortheirage.Theseyoungpeoplewerehappilylearningandsocializingwithstudentsatleast2yearsolderwithwhomtheyhadmoresimi-laritiesthandifferences.Theywerelikedandaccepted;indeedsome,likeHadley,haddevelopedassocialleaders.Socialself-esteemwasparticularlyhighforsubjectswhohadearlierbeendeeplyunhappywithagepeersandhadsubsequentlybeenaccelerated.“KindergartenandYear1wereaslowdeath,”saysAnna.“IcamealivewhenIskippedtoYear3,andthesecondskiptoYear5waslikegettingtoheaven.Ihadfriendsforthefirsttime—kidswhosharedmyquirkysenseofhumor,peoplewholaughedwithme,notatme.”

By contrast, the social self-esteem of one-year accelerands andnonaccelerandswaslow,andinmanycases,disturbinglylow.Ian,thecartographer,whoceilingedoneverysubtestoftheWISC-III andlaterwasassessedontheSB:L-Mwithamentalageexactlytwicehischronologicalage,wasdeeplyunhappywithagepeersandscored1.97standarddeviationsbelowthemean.Anastasia,whohadbeenadvancedbyonegradebutwhowasstillsociallyrejected,scored2.59standarddeviationsbelow.

Differenceswerealsonotedintheacademicself-esteemofsub-stantiallyacceleratedsubjectsandtheone-yearandnonaccelerands.While the academic self-esteem of almost all subjects during theelementaryandearlysecondaryschoolyearswasabovethemeanfortheiragepeers,itwasthenonaccelerandswhoscoredmorethanonestandarddeviationabovethemean.Bycontrast,subjectsacceleratedby2ormoreyearshavepositivebutmoderateself-esteem—specifi-cally,betweenthemeanfortheirageand.7ofastandarddeviationabove.

In a critique of this study, Marsh and Craven (1998) claimedthatwhile theacademic self-esteemscoresofnonaccelerandswere“realisticallyhigh,”themoremodestscoresoftheaccelerandswereafunctionofthebig-fish-in-the-little-pondeffect(BFLPE)—apre-dicteddipinacademicself-esteemarisingfromthechangeinclass


rankingthatmayoccurwhenagiftedchildisacceleratedtobewitholderstudentsorisplacedinanability-groupedsetting.

Earlierinthispaper,exceptionallygiftedstudentsretainedintheregularclassroomwerecomparedtochildrenofaverageintellectualabilitywhohavebeenplacedwithagepeerswithIQsof40orbelow.Theaveragechildwouldexcelacademicallywithouteffortinsuchasettingandheracademicself-esteemmightwellbehigh;however,itwouldderivefromacompletelyinvalidcomparison.Equally,theaca-demicself-esteemofstudentswithIQsof160+canhardlybecalled“realistic”whenitderivesfromacomparisonoftheirperformanceagainst age peers whose cognitive ability is four or more standarddeviationsbelowtheirs.

TheBFLPEtheoryrestsontheassumptionthatgiftedstudents’classrankingwillchangewiththeirnewplacement,yetthisdidnothappenforthemajorityofsubjectsinthisstudy.Childrenandado-lescentswhowereacceleratedcomparedtheirachievementsagainstolder students, and they stilloutperformedtheir classmates!GenaLeungcompletedheruniversityentrancemathqualificationsatage13,toppingherschooldespitebeingatleast4yearsyoungerthantheothercandidates.ChrisOtwayceilingedontheuniversityentrancemathtestatage14.Sallyentereduniversityat13asoneofthetophigh school graduates in her state. Hadley topped his year of 125seventh-gradestudentsinmathdespitebeingtheyoungestbyamar-ginof3years.Roshni, a fourth-grade studentatage7,was in thetopabilitygroupineverysubject.Seanwasdux(highestscoringstu-dent)ofhiselementaryschoolatage9.Because,accordingtoMarshandCraven(1998), theBFLPEdependsonachange inacademicranking,itwaspatentlynotoperatingwiththeseyoungpeople.

I believe the positive, but not inflated, academic self-esteemof studentswhowere substantiallyacceleratedmayoriginate fromsomethingquitedifferent.Inastudyconductedduringthe1990s,I noted that academically gifted students were significantly morelikely than age peers of average ability to possess a task-involved,rather than ego-involved, motivational orientation (Gross, 1997).The modest academic self-esteem of substantially accelerated stu-dentsmaynot,therefore,havebeenassociatedwiththeego-involvedprocessofwantingtooutperformtheirolderclassmates(becomea


veryvisibly bigfishinalittlepond),butwiththetask-involvedgoalofwantingtomasterthemorechallengingworktheywerenowpre-sentedwith.

WilliamJames(ascitedinCampbell,1984)proposedthatself-esteemderivesfromacomparisonofone’sperformanceagainstone’sexpectations of how one should perform. Substantial accelerationallowsexceptionallygiftedchildrentorealize,oftenforthefirsttime,thefullextentoftheirabilitiesandthereforewhattheycanrealisti-callyexpectofthemselves.Theirmoderatelevelsofself-esteemreflectarealizationofhowfartheystillhavetogoiftheyaretobecomeallthattheycanbe.

In this study, academic self-esteem in childhood has not beenshowntobepredictiveofacademicsuccessinadolescenceoradult-hood.However,boththeformationofgoodsocialrelationshipsatuniversityandlatersuccessinprofessionaloccupationsthatinvolvecloseandproductiveteamworkhavebeenmorereliablypredictedbyhealthysocialself-esteeminchildhood.

Lessons Learned From the Study

Issues of Multipotentiality

Multipotentialityisbestdefinedasthepossessionofarangeofabili-tiesofsuchanorderthattheindividualiscapableofsucceedingat extremely high levels in several fields (Colangelo, 2003). It shouldnotrefersimplytothepossessionofmultipleinterests.Asignificantadvantage of longitudinal studies is that the researcher can trace,through an individual’s childhood, adolescence and young adult-hood,thedevelopmentorunderdevelopmentofrelativetalentareasandthereasonsforthesediscrepancies.

Multipotentialitywasclearlyapparentinmanyofthesubjectsofthisstudyintheearlyyearsofschool.Asdiscussedearlier,mostofthechildrenceilingedoutonage-appropriatetestsofacademicabilityandachievement in most elementary school subjects. It was only whenabove-leveltestingwasappliedthatrelative“peaksandhigherpeaks”became apparent (Gross, 1993, 2004). Follow-up studies of young


peopleinthevariousSMPYcohortshavefoundthesamephenom-enon (see, e.g., Achter, Lubinski, & Benbow, 1996). It is importantthatwedonotmisinterpretmultipotentialityasequipotentiality.

Ironically,inmanycases,theacademicfieldsinwhichtheyoungpeoplecametospecializewerenotdictatedbythestudent’sareaofgreatesttalentorevenbyhisorherown“passionarea.”Rather,spe-cializationwasgenerallydictatedbywhattheschool’steaching staffviewed as the most important of the student’s multiple talents. Incaseswherestudentsshowedoutstandingabilityinbothmathandthehumanities,theywerealmostinvariablyencouragedtoacceleratein math and were thus “steered” into math specialization; reasonsforthisarediscussedabove.Sometimesthepracticesthroughwhichteachers manipulated this were less than admirable. When, at age11years4months,ChrisOtwayscored710ontheSAT-Mand580ontheSAT-V hewasastonishedbyhisverbalscoreandaskedmetohavethetestrescored.“Icouldn’thavedoneaswellasthat,”hetoldme.“TheteachersreckonI’mjustaverageinEnglish.”

Duringthelate1980sandearly1990s,AustralianeducatorswerestronglyinfluencedbyGardner’smultipleintelligencetheory(MI),whichencouragedtheperceptionofhumanabilitiesasdiscreteorquasi-discrete (Gardner, 1983). Before this time, teachers observ-ing a student with outstanding potential in one cognitively medi-atedsubject,suchasmath,wouldhavebeenphilosophicallyopentotheideathatthismightindicatesuperiorabilityinotheracademicsubjects.Now,however,manyadherentstoMItheoryassumedthatthefieldinwhichachild’stalentwasmostreadilyobservedwasthatchild’s“intelligence”—andceasedtolookfurther.Thestrongegal-itarian sociopolitical focus of the times (see Gross, 1993) did nothelp;heavenforbidthatabrightchildshouldpossessmorethanher“fairshare”oftalent.

Inmanycases,subjectsfollowedtheiralternatepassionsoutsideschool. Chris, aged 12, while taking five subjects with 11th-gradestudents,wasdevouringDickens,theBrontës,ThomasHardy,andarangeofthemore“serious”sciencefictionauthors.Whenheenrolledinuniversityshortlyafterhis16thbirthday,hejoinedthesciencefic-tionclubandwaspromptlyelectedtothecommittee.SallyHuang,who entered university at age 13, and Jonathan Otway, Chris’s


youngerbrotherwhoacceleratedby2years,wereabletopursuetheirpassionformusicoutsidetheiracademicprogram.Whilejustifiablyproudofhisacademicsuccesses(hecompletedhisPh.D.inartificialintelligenceandnowholdsa researchpositionataBritishuniver-sity),Jonathon,atalentedpianist,recountsasoneofthepeakexperi-encesofhislifeplayingGershwin’srhapsody in Bluetoanaudienceof 200; one of Sally’s peak experiences was giving a recital on thegreatorgan in thechapelof the famousEnglishuniversitycollegewheresheobtainedherPh.D.

Imostcertainlyamnot suggestingthatweshouldnotacceler-ate students in their areas of special talent; however, we shouldnot require young people with multiple talents to make decisionsregardingspecializationbeforetheyhaveexploredpossiblepathwaysthrough which several of their talents might be optimized. It wasChrisOtway’sawarenessofthisthatledhimtotakethelast2yearsofhighschoolover4years rather than2,broadeninghis rangeofsubjectsfrom5to10.

WhenIwasayoungteacher,theslangwordforahighlygiftedkidwas“awhiz”(e.g.,“She’samathwhiz.”or“He’sasciencewhiz.”)Far from supporting the multiple intelligences theory of discreteabilities,thesubjectsofthisstudyare“gwhizzes.”

The Necessity for Early Identification and Placement

Hollingworth (1942) reported that, in her longitudinal study ofprofoundlygiftedyoungpeople, themost successful interventionsoccurredwhenthechildrenwereidentifiedearlier,ratherthanlater,intheirelementaryschoolingandwereeitheracceleratedorplacedinaclasswithothergiftedchildren.Sheclaimedthatitwasbetweentheagesof4and9thatthesocialdifficultiesexperiencedbychildrenwithIQsof160+weremostacute.

ThepresentstudymirrorsHollingworth’s(1942)findings.Theseedsofwhathappenedinlaterchildhood,adolescence,andadult-hoodhavebeensowninthefirst3yearsofschool.Manyoftheyoungpeopleinthisstudywhoexperiencedsocialrejectionintheseearlyyearsdeliberatelyunderachievedforpeeracceptancethroughmuchof their school career. Some deliberately moderated their perfor-


manceinthehopethatitwouldmakethemmoreacceptabletotheirclassteachers.IanBaker,whoamonthbeforehissixthbirthdaywasassessedwiththereadingandcomprehensionskillsofa12-year-old,developedwhathecalledhis“camouflagevocabulary”inanattempttoblendin.Itmimicked,withdisturbingfidelity,thevocabularyandsyntaxofhis5-year-oldclassmates.

Severalofthenonaccelerandscannotrecallatimeintheirliveswhen camouflage has not been an automatic survival mechanism,acceptedasapainfulbutnecessarypartofliving.Bycontrast,youngpeopleinthisstudywhowereacceleratedby2ormoreyearsbelievethattheywerenowmoreappropriatelyplacedintermsoftheiraca-demic,social,andemotionalneeds.

InbothAustraliaandtheUnitedStates, schoolstendtodelayaccelerationandabilitygroupinguntilthemiddleyearsofelemen-tary school. This policy is fundamentally flawed. It is in the earlyyearsofschoolthatweshouldbeidentifyingexceptionallyandpro-foundlygiftedchildrenanddevelopingprogramsofaccelerationandgrouping to provide a more effective response to their acceleratedintellectualandemotionaldevelopment.

The earlier exceptionally and profoundly gifted children areplacedinasettingthatisdeliberatelystructuredtoallowthemaccesstochildrenatsimilarstagesofcognitiveandaffectivedevelopment,thegreaterwillbetheircapacitytoformsoundfriendshipsintheirlaterchildhood,adolescent,andadultyears.

ForRoshni,whoentereduniversityat15andwonmajorprizesinherfirstandthirdyears,academicsuccessstilltakessecondplacetosocialacceptance:

IcannotevenbegintoimaginehowdesperateIwouldhavefelttobeleftwithmyagepeers.ThebestwaytodescribehowIanticipateIwouldhavefeltistosaythatifIhadn’tacceleratedIwouldhavesuffocated....Myentirelifeandhappinessrevolvearoundmysatisfactioninpersonalrela-tionships.Thatiswhy,asachild,thehostilityoftheotherchildrenhadsuchadevastatingimpactonme.

AliceMarlow,evenafteragradeadvancement,foundmuchofherprimaryandsecondaryschoolingunrewarding.Itwas“notdone”


tospeakof,ortakevisiblepleasurein,academicsuccess.Shespentmuchofhertimeconformingtothecultureoftheschool,“talkingdown,”andconcealinghergradessothattheotherstudentswouldnotfeelbad.Asecondaccelerationgaveheraccesstomorechalleng-ing work and a small group of academically gifted classmates. Thefollowing year, in law school at university, she felt she had finallycomehome.

Thereissuchasenseofbelonging.Ididn’thavethatinpri-maryorhighschool,buthereit’ssuchajoyfulinteraction.It’snotjustbeinginterestedinthesamethings,it’sbeingpas-sionateaboutthesamethings.EverythingIhopedtofindishere—intellectualandemotionalgrowth—anongoingsenseofdiscovery—it’sworld-expanding.

As educators, our goal should be to expand, rather than con-strict, theacademicandsocialworldsofgiftedstudents, includingthemosthighlygifted.Radicalaccelerationcanprovideastructuredpathwaytoadevelopmentallyappropriateplacement.

References

Achter,J.A.,Lubinski,D.,&Benbow,C.P.(1996).Multipotentialityamongtheintellectuallygifted:“Itwasneverthereandalreadyit’svanishing.”Journal of counseling Psychology, 43,65–76.

AustralianBureauofStatistics.(1988).national schools statistics collection, australia, 1988: Preliminary.Canberra,NewSouthWales:CommonwealthofAustralia.

Burks,B.S.,Jensen,D.W.,&Terman,L.M.(1930).the promise of youth: Volume 3: Genetic studies of genius.Stanford,California:StanfordUniversityPress.

Campbell,R.N.(Ed.).(1984).the new science: Self-esteem psychol-ogy.Lanham,MD:UniversityPressofAmerica.

Colangelo,N.(2003).Counselinggiftedstudents.InN.Colangelo&G.A.Davis(Eds.),Handbook of gifted education(2nded.,pp.373–387).Boston:AllynandBacon.


Coopersmith,S.(1981).Self-Esteem inventories: Manual.PaloAlto,CA:ConsultingPsychologistsPress.

DeHaan,R.F.,&Havighurst,R.J.(1961).Educating gifted children(Rev.ed.).Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Gallagher,J.J.(1958).Peeracceptanceofhighlygiftedchildrenintheelementaryschool.Elementary School Journal,58,465–470.

Gardner,H.(1983).frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelli-gences.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Gross,M.U.M. (1993).Exceptionally gifted children.London:Routledge.

Gross,M.U.M.(1997).Howabilitygroupingturnsbigfishintolittlefish—ordoesit?Ofopticalillusionsandoptimalenviron-ments.australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 6(2),18–30.

Gross,M.U.M.(2004).Exceptionally gifted children (2nded.).London:RoutledgeFalmer.

Gross,M.U.M.,&vanVliet,H.E.(2005).Radicalaccelerationandearlyentrancetocollege:Areviewoftheliterature.Gifted child Quarterly, 49,154–171.

Grossberg,L.N.,&Cornell,D.G.(1988).Relationshipsbetweenpersonalityadjustmentandhighintelligence:TermanversusHollingworth.Exceptional children, 55,266–272.

Hollingworth,L.S.(1926).Gifted children: their nature and nur-ture.NewYork:Macmillan.

Hollingworth,L.S.(1931).Thechildofverysuperiorintelligenceasaspecialprobleminsocialadjustment.Mental Hygiene,15(1),3–16.

Hollingworth,L.S.(1942).children above iQ 180: their origin and development.NewYork:WorldBooks.

Janos,P.M.(1983).the psychological vulnerabilities of children of verysuperior intellectual ability.Unpublisheddoctoraldisserta-tion,NewYorkUniversity,NewYork.

Lubinski,D.,Webb,R.M.,Morelock,M.J.,&Benbow,C.P.(2001).Top1in10,000:A10-yearfollow-upoftheprofoundlygifted.Journal of applied Psychology, 86,718–729.

Marsh,H.W.,&Craven,R.G.(1998).Thebigfishlittlepondeffect,opticalillusions,andmisinterpretations:Aresponseto


Gross(1997).the australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 7(1),6–15.

Rest,J.R.(1986).defining issues test: Manual.Minneapolis,MN:CenterforEthicalDevelopment,UniversityofMinnesota.

Southern,W.T.,Jones,E.D.,&Fiscus,E.D.(1989).Practitionerobjectionstotheacademicaccelerationofgiftedchildren.Gifted child Quarterly,33,29–35.

Stanley,J.C.(1978).Radicalacceleration:Recenteducationalinno-vationatJHU.Gifted child Quarterly, 22,62–67.

Subotnik, R . E., & Arnold, K. D. (1994). Beyond terman: contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.

Terman,L.M.,&Oden,M.H.(1947).the gifted group at mid-life: Volume 5: Genetic studies of genius.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Exceptionally Gifted Children: Long-Term Outcomes of ...Terman “Versus” Hollingworth As early as...

Documents

Transcript of Exceptionally Gifted Children: Long-Term Outcomes of ...Terman “Versus” Hollingworth As early as...