Real Education: Half of the Children are Below Average

Here is the most controversial of Charles Murray’s four points in his recent book, Real Education. Murray spends a good deal of time discussing IQ scores, which will undoubtedly raise some eyebrows…perhaps understandably given the accusations of racism which accompanied the publication of The Bell Curve. I am going to state up front that I have never read The Bell Curve, and it isn’t on any of my reading lists right now. I do not know a great deal about IQ, of how accurate it is in predicting academic success, or of how much academic success is correlated with actual success in life. What I do understand is that our philosophical presuppositions regarding what it means to be human often act as filters on the very questions we ask or will consider. At its core, we come back to the question of whether we are products of our nature or our nurture; most reductionist approaches fail to accept the messy symbiosis between the two which characterize real life. My own speculation as a layman in this area is that human beings are most malleable from birth to about four or five years of age, but not infinitely so. Each of us has innate strengths and weaknesses. By the time we walk through the door of a “school” for the first time, formal education will probably have a limited impact on our core aptitudes. Teachers should be in the business of maximizing individual potential, not creating potential ex nihilo.

So how do we deal with the assertion that “half of all children are below average”? Leaving aside the thorny issue of IQ for a moment, I think that Murray’s consideration of multiple intelligence theory again provides a useful starting point. Murray points out that the real area of controversy surrounds linguistic ability and logicial-mathematical ability; most of us have an intuitive grasp of what it means to be below average with spatial ability, or musical ability, or bodily-kinesthetic abilities. Most schools recognize this in music and P.E.; everyone might be expected to take these subjects, but no school that I know of would expect every student to excel in the top orchestra, or to be capable of being a starter on the basketball team. His conclusion is that just as some students are below average in music or sports, some students are ‘just not smart enough’ to function at the top levels of logical/mathematical/linguistic ability, and that school curriculum design should recognize this. If even reading such a statement makes your blood pressure rise, I strongly recommend a careful reading of Murray’s arguments for this position. For most progressive educators even asking this question would be sacrilege; yet it is important nonetheless. Murray lists three objections to his assertion, and responds to each of them: the ideas that #1) the measure of academic ability (IQ) is invalid (Murray obviously thinks it is); #2) we can raise academic ability (Murray argues that past a certain point, we can’t); and #3) the schools are so bad that even low-ability students can learn a lot more than they can right now (Murray argues that it isn’t really the school’s fault).

Again, what I find most interesting about all this is the failure of the education community to address these ideas from a rational perspective. Philosophically many educators would find these ideas patently offensive based on a Romantic view of human nature and children. My gut feeling is that too many of us already have our minds made up on these issues, and then look for ‘research’ or ‘evidence’ to back up the views we already hold. Any data which doesn’t support our preferred view is simply ignored, rather than worked through and integrated. Or worse yet, we attack the people who challenge us to rethink or refine our views. After all, ad hominem attacks are so much easier than real discourse.