1st of an occasional
series
Introduction to the series
Last week's VersagiVoice suggested
that, worldwide, the education community is too often preoccupied
with bricks & mortar, with leaving monuments to commemorate their years
of service, volunteer or paid. (See below) Coincidentally, recent school
elections suggest that voters -- even loyalists who prefer May
elections -- are more willing to provide funds for maintenance and
renovation than for new construction.As
important as physical facilities and related taxes are, though,
critics of the school community -- again, worldwide -- consider
the financial dimension just one of several factors for which that
community should be held accountable.
Observers of Education speak of an "input vs.
outcome" debate. In that debate, the school community prefers
to judge success by input: per pupil expenditures, class size,
teacher salaries, age of equipment and buildings. Following
the now-classic1966 "Coleman Report," there began an attempt by
some to measure the success of education by outcome: specify
what students are expected to learn and test to determine whether
they have learned it. (1)
The input/outcome debate has forced
consideration of such topics as Private-Practice Teaching . . .
Vouchers, including Private Vouchers . . . Tax Credits . . . Theme
Schools . . . Charter Schools . . . Home Schooling.
All of which is generating another look at
conventional wisdom:
Does one size (curriculum) fit all? . . . Is everyone
really capable of benefiting from college? . . . If not,
how should schools and curricula be modified to serve the real
world of multiple learning capabilities?
Over the next several weeks and months -- drawing on formal
studies, news reports, anecdotal evidence, private conversations
-- I will publish an occasional series of essays on education
expanding on the above outline. Although most of the information
will deal with K-12, I will touch as appropriate on higher
education. My intention is to provide
VersagiVoice readers with a broad context in which to
consider, perhaps reconsider, their thoughts about schools and
education. -- FJV: 16 May 07
2nd of an occasional
series
Prepare every student for college?
Let's begin at the end, the end being the K-12 students whom public
education attempts to serve, operating with essentially a
one-size-fits-all model. A model which maintains that in today's
economic environment every student must be prepared for college.
Perhaps not.
What if most students are not intelligent enough
to benefit from college? . . . What if half of all children are
below average in intelligence? . . . What if the fact that 36% of
all fourth-graders are below the basic achievement score in
reading simply reflects the mathematics of normal distribution
that 36% of fourth-graders have IQs lower than 95? . . . What if
it is true that "If you don't have a lot of g [intellectual
ability] when you enter kindergarten, you are never going to have
a lot"?
"Half of all children are below average in
intelligence. We do not live in Lake Wobegon."
That is the assessment of Charles Murray,
co-author of The Bell Curve, the 1994 book which was
attacked as racist because it contained statistical comparisons of
group intelligence levels as well as of individual
intelligence levels. This specific quotation, though, is from part
1 of a recent 3-part series by Murray in The Wall Street
Journal. (2)
Insisting that it is wrong and not useful to
pretend that individuals don't differ in intellectual ability
(termed "g" in the literature), Murray explains:
Suppose a girl in the 99th percentile of
intelligence, corresponding to an IQ of 135, is getting a C in
English. She is underachieving, and someone who sets out to
raise her performance might be able to get a spectacular result.
Now suppose the boy sitting behind her is getting a D, but his
IQ is a bit below 100, at the 49th percentile.
We can hope to raise his grade. But
teaching him more vocabulary words or drilling him on the
parts of speech will not open up new vistas for him. It is
not within his power to learn to follow an exposition
written beyond a limited level of complexity, any more than it
is within my power to follow a proof in the American Journal of
Mathematics. In both cases, the problem is not that we have not
been taught enough, but that we are not smart enough.
[Emphasis mine: FJV]
Agreeing that "the importance of IQ in living a
good life is vastly overrated," Murray goes on to contend, "[T]he
culprit for their educational deficit [people with little
education] is often low intelligence. Refusing to come to grips
with that reality has produced policies that have been ineffective
at best and damaging at worst."
[An Aside: Nor does IQ determine moral
behavior. Most of the Nazi war criminals tried at Nuremburg had
high IQs: Goering 138, Schacht, 143.]
Commenting of the one-size-fits-all philosophy,
Murray says, "The widely held image of a golden age of American
education when teachers brooked no nonsense and all children
learned their three Rs is a myth."
In part 2 of his series
(3), Murray considers people with IQs of 100
or higher and immediately makes the point: "{F]ar too many of them
are going to four-year colleges." In his view it makes sense for
"only about 15% of the population, 25% if one stretches it" to get
a 4-year college education. He comments on the lowering of
entrance requirements, criticizes the federal government for
making scholarships and loans too easy to get, and makes the case
for vocational and para-professional training, such as offered in
private and public vocational schools and in 2-year colleges. (I
recall Professor Hayekawa --in California during the Sixties --
rubbing fur the wrong way by maintaining that law schools and
medical colleges are "vocational schools.")
Murray: Journeymen craftsmen routinely make
incomes in the top half of the income distribution while master
craftsmen can make six figures. . . . Their jobs cannot be
outsourced to India. . . . Finding a good lawyer or physician is
easy. Finding a good carpenter, painter, electrician, plumbing,
glazier, mason is difficult.
Implicit in all this is the distinction between
education and training. Murray sees non-college graduates Bill Gates and
Steve Jobs as forerunners of a new high-status, high-income group,
even as he seems to bemoan the difficultly of overcoming "the
social cachet" which a college degree carries.
In part 3 of his series
(4), Murray longs for a return to teaching
college students to be informed and useful citizens, not just
competent workers or occupational professionals. If this
VersagiVoice occasional series reaches college, I'll relay
some of his thoughts. -- 06 June 07 |
Prepare every student for college?
Introduction to the
series
Links to VersagiVoice coverage of
Schools and Education (1) Outcome-Based Education,
Hudson Institute, Sept. 1995 (2)
Intelligence in the Classroom, Charles Murray, WSJ, 16 January
2007 (3) What's Wrong With Vocational
School?, Charles Murray, WSJ, 17 January 2007
(4) Aztecs vs. Greeks, Charles Murray, WSJ,
18 January 2007
In
Education Folder
Royal Oak Schools news
Chinese Teachers in Royal Oak
Comments on Education around the world
VersagiVoice essays re education
Funding the School District
|
