Intelligence Quotient: Updated

Charles Murray, the controversial author of The Bell Curve, had a very interesting series at the WSJ's Opinion Journal this week. I disagree with a few of his premises, but agree with some of his conclusions.

Intelligence in the Classroom Half of all children are below average, and teachers can do only so much for them.

What's Wrong With Vocational School? Too many Americans are going to college.

Aztecs vs. Greeks: Those with superior intelligence need to learn to be wise.

Enjoy.

Peace

Update:

I meant to add a bit more commentary shortly after I posted these links, but I am in the midst of research paper season so I am glad to get the prompt to expand my comments. It wasn't really fair to say I agree with parts and disagree with parts of what Murray says without giving a hint of what I believe.

In brief, I appreciate Murray's attempt to restart the discussion he began with the publication of The Bell Curve. He has taken many undeserved and unfair hits since then (and some deserved), but he touches a number of taboos that most of us know but cannot discuss without seeming insensitive or elitist. Specifically, he argues that not all students are created equal in ability; some are more gifted intellectually (he measures this exclusively through IQ--a point I strongly disagree with) than others and no amount of schooling can change that.

I think that too often our schools have tried to make everyone feel equal. The only way to create this type of equality is to make everyone equal to the lowest achieving student. In other words, if our goal is universal education in which no child is left behind then the standards have to be set at a level that the least gifted child can achieve. No child will be left behind, but the rest of the students will have had to stay behind so as not to outpace that child. I don't believe that a child can do anything he or she dreams of. The sooner a student (and his or her parents) comes to understand his or hers limitations, the sooner he or she will be able to apply him or herself in an area of real ability. That doesn't mean that I believe that our efforts should only be on the gifted students. I believe that the purpose of education should be to push all students to achieve all that they can achieve. I think we have made great strides at reaching students who need more help, but we need to put the same energy into pushing the gifted to greater heights or we are in danger of achieving national mediocrity. Murray reports that only 1/100th of 1% of the Department of Education's budget in 2006 went to gifted programs and that the 2007 budget includes no money for gifted programs. That should not be. Our nation cannot continue to prosper by settling for basic standards, and Advanced Placement programs are no answer.

Murray also makes some fine points about the need to instruct gifted students (all students, in my opinion) in humility and responsibility. He is right in saying that our leaders need to be wise. I, however, do not think that they must possess a high IQ. I know too many intelligent people that I would not trust to care for my dead cat. Alexander Hamilton was most likely more intelligent than George Washington, but I would much rather have Washington leading my army or my nation. Granted, Hamilton did not exactly possess a high degree of humility, but few highly intelligent people do.

Murray does not quite come out and say it, but it seems that he would restrict gifted programs to those with high IQs. I think that would be waste of all of those with other types of giftedness. Brilliance has many more facets than IQ. Creativity, artistry, and talent are all areas in which schools need to create more avenues for advance.

Lastly, I see no other result from his package of proposals than student tracking based upon IQ. The tracking would have to begin in kindergarten, and a student would probably be labeled before middle school. This would be a great tragedy.

Peace