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.

Update: Authoritariansm Avoided (for today)

This past week, I had the pleasure of once again attending the Florida Music Education Association’s annual conference. To update on a previous posting: On Thursday evening, at the FBA business meeting, the contentious issue of restricting marching band performances arose. This came in the form of a motion, already passed by the board, which would have required district secretaries to monitor the activities of other directors, tally the number of marching contests (note: not football games, parades, or other performances), and report violators to the Florida Bandmasters Association. Violators of the rules would have faced financial penalties of up to $500 in addition to referrals for mentoring and re-education to correct deviant philosophies. I am happy to say that this measure was defeated soundly by the membership of the FBA, and that the slippery slope towards authoritarian practices has been averted for now.

That being said, there are real issues regarding marching band which are not going away any time soon. I was privileged to hear a wonderful clinic on the topic of “Building a Band Curriculum Your Way” by Dr. Bentley Shellahamer. Dr. Shellahamer touched on the value of academic freedom: how this has been such a huge part of our heritage as band directors, how this has been lost in most public school classrooms, and how this is in danger in music education classrooms if we don’t take care to build a strong music curriculum for our programs. And I agree that an over-emphasis on competitive marching band/winter guard/indoor percussion will lead some administrators to view band as simply another sport/activity which utilizes a disproportionate share of limited resources. Surely a good music program should teach a student more than a series of 3rd clarinet parts; too many students leave American band programs with memories of a shelf full of trophies and no desire to ever pick up their instrument again. The trick is to find a way to inspire a love and understanding of music without imposing a one-size fits all curriculum approach. All band teachers need to find their path through the polarizing extremes of “all competition is bad” and “I’m a failure if I don’t win state marching championships”; even with the best of advice there are no concrete answers to this one for every situation. Here’s hoping that our profession can maintain that freedom to develop individual programs and philosophies for the indefinite future.

Real Education: Ability Varies

How does our society deal with controversial ideas? Our first reaction (regardless of our place on the ideological spectrum) tends to be to label those with whom we disagree in order to cast them in the worst possible light. If the ideas of those we disagree with happens to have empirical backing, another successful strategy is to simply ignore their arguments. A great example of this is Charles Murray. I hesitated to pick up his new book, Real Education, because of memories of intellectual pressure from my college days: The Bell Curve was supposedly the work of a reactionary, and by extension anyone who read and engaged with a work by such an author was guilty by association.

This knee-jerk reaction is truly unfortunate, as Real Education is an important book which deserves interaction, regardless of where we fall politically. Short, readable, and with a good bibliography, Murray proposes “Four Simple Truths for Bringing America’s Schools Back to Reality.” These four truths are:

• Ability varies


• Half of the Children are Below Average


• Too Many People are Going to College


• America’s Future Depends on How We Educate the Academically Gifted

I plan on addressing each of Murray’s ‘truths’ one at a time, as each is important and deserves consideration.

The first point, “Ability varies”, seems obvious yet offensive at the same time. Murray starts by describing Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences. This is a good point to start, regardless of the theory’s validity, as most educators accept the concept as a matter of faith. Some students excel and have a natural ability to perform well in sports. Others have strong interpersonal skills. Others have a greater degree of musical ability. In many ways this seems to be common sense. I am not gifted with athletic ability and never had “professional athlete” in my future, even though I enjoyed sitting the bench with my basketball team in high school. Similarly, I recognize that some of my students have a greater musical aptitude than others; one student may be capable of majoring in music in college while others might simply enjoy the experience of participating in a high school band. Most people would not find such a perspective controversial.

Suggest that some students have greater mathematical or linguistic abilities, however, and a rotten can of worms has been opened. Making a statement such as this contradicts the Romantic ideal at the heart of our education system: that children come into the world as clean slates and are profoundly malleable by society and the State. Consider the educational truism: ‘All children can learn’. Perhaps so; learning is part of what makes us human. But can all children learn the same things equally well? Our current educational system seems to think so, and operates under the assumption that this should be true. Can every child achieve proficiency on a government test, or will there always be a spectrum of results? I would argue that an approach which confuses equity with sameness (identical results) is fundamentally unfair to all students as it ceases to treat them as individuals.

An additional point which Murray makes which deserves consideration is his contention that ‘abilities’ tend to be linked, citing research which shows a correlation between six of Gardner’s seven ‘intelligences’. In other words, students with a high ability in linguistics tend to also have high spatial and logical-mathematic ability as well. The logical conclusion here is that educators are engaging in mythical speculation when we posit that Gardner’s theory stipulates that every child must have at least one ‘intelligence’ with which they can be labeled ‘gifted’.

At this point I think it is important to avoid falling into the trap of equating ‘intelligence’ or ‘ability’ with ‘value’. Every individual is unique and has value as a human being regardless of their I.Q., or what they are able to “do”. Recognizing that there is always someone who is smarter or more talented is as essential in learning the virtue of humility as is working with individuals who are not. As educators, perhaps we should students to the best of their ability, recognizing that results can and will vary…and that’s okay.