Historical Perspectives

James B. Conant

The conference was the conception of James B. Conant (1893-1978). Conant had previously been an organic chemist in private industry, a renowned Harvard chemistry professor, President of Harvard (a position he held for 20 years) and Ambassador to the newly formed Federal Republic of Germany after World War II. Upon returning to the United States from Germany in 1957, Conant partnered with the Carnegie Corporation to study the American high school system and over the next decade he authored such texts as The American High School Today (1959), Shaping Educational Policy (1964), and Education in the Junior High School Years (1960; Chemical Heritage Foundation, n.d.; Passow, 1977).

Conant’s own educational background had a deep impact on his future propositions regarding American public schools, especially at the secondary level. Clearly a bright young man, Conant’s father supplied him the basic tools for a homemade chemistry set (including a Bunsen burner) where James could experiment at home. Being from family of modest means, Conant attended public schools until the seventh grade when he won a scholarship to Roxbury Latin School near Boston. It was here he thrived in a rigorous comprehensive college preparatory environment and came under the mentorship of one of his science teachers. These collective experiences prepared him to earn admission to Harvard University, eventually receiving a PhD in chemistry from the institution in 1916 (Chemical Heritage Foundation, n.d.). Conant’s foundational episodes also imbued his belief that to remain relevant as a nation, the United States needed to “replace an aristocracy of wealth with an aristocracy of talent” (Hartman, 2008, p. 180).

The Conference

The conference had been in the planning process well before the launch of Sputnik, but the news from the Soviets only helped to reaffirm the purpose of the conference and issues surrounding academically talented students. The ambitious program scheduled participants for 12-hr days to discuss the identification and education of the most able of American secondary students (Conant, 1958).

Identification

John Stalnaker, President of the National Merit Scholarship Corporation, led the identification discussion with a rather somber reflection of the U.S.’ view of education. He characterized American society as one of anti-intellectualism, where some colleges and universities had abandoned their primary goal of education in favor of promoting athletics, fraternity activities, and social life rather than intellectual pursuits. Stalnaker also observed that in some circles obtaining a college degree increasingly reflected a level of social status rather than an attainment of scholarship and that no respect was given to the “disciplined mind” as noted by the salaries for teachers K-16.

Stalnaker found the universal system of education in the United States both troubling and promising. He felt “mass education must not come to mean reducing the best to the level of the average” (Stalnaker, 1958, p. 22) instead it should be viewed as foundation to be able to identify students with academic promise. He proposed early identification as well as continual identification efforts to capture “late-bloomers.” Stalnaker also recognized the limits of IQ scores, which were not an accurate reflection of the complex mental ability people possessed. He recommended the development of more diverse assessments to capture the various abilities and aptitudes displayed by talented youth (Conant, 1958).

Henry Chauncey, President of the Educational Testing Service, discussed the merits of testing and assessment. Aptitude and achievement testing in general provided a method in which to make a comparable set of observations; however, these tests did not measure the ability to generate novel ideas, creativity, or originality. Also Chauncey pointed out that schools may identify “ability as potential; but if it hasn’t been developed, it won’t do them much good” (Chauncey, 1958, p. 29). In other words, putting in place identification efforts without programming and services to support talent would be a waste of resources and human capital.

Samuel Stouffer, Director of the Social Relations Lab at Harvard University tackled what were described as the “Problems Related to the Use of Academic Ability.” He felt that parents and school counselors were great allies in encouraging and advising the “½ of high school seniors in the upper third of intelligence” to pursue college degrees (Stouffer, 1958, p. 35). What was more curious was Stouffer’s indictment of white-collar parents who needed to “[lower] the level of expectations . . . for those children [who] lack[ed] the ability for successful college work” (Spencer, 1958, p. 39). Stouffer did not ascribe to the idea that college was for everyone even if it was part and parcel of the family culture (Conant, 1958).

Lyle Spencer, Science Research Association President, rounded out this group of presentations on identification, echoing the sentiments of earlier presenters regarding the lack of interest in the bright capable individual. America’s natural support of the “underdog” compounded the issue, as society was more drawn to the student who was battling some type of malady or disadvantage. Spencer identified six benchmarks that would aid in successful programming for talented individuals. These included support from influential public organizations (e.g., Junior League, Chamber of Commerce), support from the local school board that included funding for programming and services, school building leadership that championed talented students and their teachers, a faculty member who would engage and encourage his or her fellow faculty, in-service for teachers, and education for parents regarding their child’s unique learning needs (Conant, 1958).

This group of presenters not only recognized the importance of the identification of talented learners but also saw the limitations of available assessments. They urged that other data points needed to be collected to gather a larger sample of talented youth.

Education

The remainder of the conference program was devoted to discussing educational considerations for the academically talented. A range of topics were discussed—society’s responsibility to talented students, preparation for teachers, issues surrounding motivation, special classes, acceleration, grouping, subject specific recommendations, and a call for research to help guide evidence based practices.

Ruth Strang, a faculty member at Teachers College, led the discussion on motivation focusing on the role both parents and schools played in exerting the “optimum degree” of pressure (Conant, 1958, p. 59). Strang also argued that “most gifted children are underachievers” given that their performance in school was often significantly lower than their capabilities. She also noted that underachievement is a learned behavior stemming from a conflict with parents, teachers, or classmates. Strang suggested the following to help break this pattern of behavior—reconsideration of grading, greater use of independent study, participation in academic clubs and teams, and opportunities to interact with peers of similar ability and interests (Conant, 1958).

Paul Witty and Harry Passow tackled the idea of guidance of the gifted students. Guidance needed to be comprehensive, ongoing, and involve the setting of realistic and attainable goals. Academic programs for talented youth should reflect the diversity of talents and abilities exhibited by students. Good programming was also comprised of courses that not only taught content but also the methods of the discipline. Witty emphasized the inconsistency of programming, services, and resources for talented students rural, urban, and suburban schools. He called for greater research in gifted education and a clearinghouse to exchange information regarding research findings and successful practices (Conant, 1958).

Mariam Goldberg focused on non-specialized classes in which talented students routinely found themselves. She advocated for teacher training in enrichment techniques, the formation of afterschool or Saturday classes or groups, library time for independent study, and inter-disciplinary opportunities between teachers (Conant, 1958).

No discussion regarding academically talented students would be replete without the topic of acceleration. Sidney Pressey and Gertrude Hildreth emphasized the practice of acceleration that had long been in place for advanced learners. It was suggested that through acceleration talented students could exchange out years of schooling to have a greater number of years to engage in creative work. Research evidence had shown that social adjustment had not proven to be an issue for accelerated students and even those students who were rapidly accelerated (2 years or more) could thrive with extra supports. The presenters urged that classes be kept small and a sequence of accelerated courses be offered, but cautioned that enjoyment of learning not be sacrificed for achievement (Conant, 1958).

The dinner meeting held on Friday, February 7 featured U.S. Representative Carl Elliott (D-Alabama). Elliott had recently proposed legislation that would eventually become the National Education Defense Act. He outlined for his audience how portions of the act would benefit youngsters who possessed gifts and talents that Elliott characterized as an “underdeveloped resource . . . a great big backlog of bright boys and girls” (Elliott, 1958, p. 142). The legislation would provide 40,000 scholarships, 40,000 loans, 1,500 graduate fellowships, working study programs, guidance and counseling services, and opportunities to improve teacher quality and expand the number teachers nationwide. Also included were funds for improved science labs at both the high school and post secondary levels. Elliott was careful to recognize that schools were traditionally within the purview of local control. However, there should be “room for cooperation of federal, state, and local governments . . . when conditions reach or approach an emergency” and the launch of Sputnik I by the Soviets represented such a crisis (Conant, 1958, p. 145).

Conant closed out the conference with his own review and reflection of the past 2 days’ events. He found principal obstacle facing academically talented students was that of public opinion, one which Conant felt needed to be “reoriented . . . if we are to get ahead” (Conant, 1958, p. 137). He also summarized the recommendations made regarding high school coursework, which included increasing the minimum numbers of years for each subject—4 to 5 years of math, starting with Algebra in the eighth grade, at least 3 years of science, 3 years of social studies, more than 2 years of a foreign language, and increased offering of Advanced Placement courses. Moreover, Conant recognized that the successful implementation of any of the recommendations from the conference at high schools across the country included support both philosophically and financially from the school board, superintendent, and principal.

Discussion

This conference was held during the heady months following the launch of Sputnik I. The 1950s also represented an era where the American education system came under great scrutiny and with it the recognition that schools were failing to meet the needs of gifted students. With support from the Carnegie Corporation, Conant would spend the next decade critiquing the American secondary school system and providing recommendations to strengthen junior high and high schools across the country. The legacy of his recommendations can be found in schools today.

A synopsis of the proceedings has been presented here which are sobering and illuminating at the same time. Embarrassingly absent from the 1958 conference program was a real discussion involving the barriers faced by females, minorities, and those from low socioeconomic status to pursue opportunities in advanced programming and/or post secondary education—which were and remain challenges for the field of gifted education. The topics discussed by participants are eerily similar to current issues in gifted education. These include identification, programming options, the social and emotional well-being of students, and the low status that talented students are allocated in schooling resources at all levels. Figures and forces outside of the field of gifted education, such as James Conant and the launch of Sputnik I, have raised the profile of gifted children and their educational needs. However, these interventions are fleeting in their permanence. Perhaps, the field would be less volatile, if we were to revisit the idea that local interests remain more constant and look to this type of collaboration that Conant conceded was the key to securing programming and service for talented youth (Conant, 1958).