<p>WSJ
By CHARLES MURRAY</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531</a></p>
<p>“It is true that many social and economic problems are disproportionately found among people with little education, but the culprit for their educational deficit is often low intelligence. Refusing to come to grips with that reality has produced policies that have been ineffectual at best and damaging at worst.”</p>
<p>In PC world of today no one likes to admit that their children have low intelligence. It is easy to hide that during pre-college years, but when highschool graduations come along and when their children don’t do well on standardized tests, it is often painful to accept that fact. Then what do we do? We champion fairtest.org or greatschools.net or the colleges that don’t require SAT. </p>
<p>“I am among the most emphatic of those who think that the importance of IQ in living a good life is vastly overrated.”</p>
<p>I would also agree to that too.</p>
<p>We can’t all be the person Hotlips Houllihan admires, Col. Frank Burns</p>
<p>“Oh Frank, You’re so above average.”</p>
<p>If a person is of below average intelligence, it becomes doubly important to teach them how to learn.</p>
<p>Many jobs require little more than the ability to read and do some basic math. You have to be about two standard deviations below the norm before that becomes impossible, but giving up on kids because they’re dumb is way easier.</p>
<p>In the country I lived for 14 years, an emerging economy, there was an article in the newspaper 13 years ago which I will never forget.</p>
<p>The minister of education was trying to explain the miserable achievement of the country on any number of measures of academic well being. </p>
<p>The direct quote of the minister was “No matter how bad your education is it cannot make you any more stupid.”</p>
<p>There is not much brilliance (in my opinion) in taking bright kids from educated families and turning out bright achievers. The real heroes and talents in educationa are those that take children with challenges of all sorts (intellectual, economic, motivational, environmental, etc) and turning out kids who are purposeful, have a sense of what they are good at, responsible, healthy and on the way to the next stage of life.</p>
<p>As pathetic as the defense of the minister was-- I am sure he was wrong.</p>
<p>People always want to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear…and sometimes, you just can’t.</p>
<p>No matter how many opportunities the below average child is given, he will not match the aptitude of the above average child. It seems simple enough, but education is far too PC to truly follow that line of reasoning. </p>
<p>People do not celebrate the average child, and still are of the mindset that more money and programs will make all children learn equally and achieve similarly. Sadly, it just isn’t the case.</p>
<p>Everyone would be better off helping kids find and utilize their own areas of talent, some of which are not academic.</p>
<p>“Everyone would be better off helping kids find and utilize their own areas of talent, some of which are not academic.”</p>
<p>The most brilliant fellow I ever did know was a West Virginian boat builder, football player, rock climber and head techie at a major bank. Brilliance and academia do not necessarily go arm in arm.</p>
<p>This is a big pile of BS. Large numbers of our kids attend grossly inadequate schools and do not have reasonable educational opportunities. Many of these kids also live in poor inner city areas, where there is often a sense of despair and hopelessness. Their families are often poor and are not able to provide additional opportunites. Family members are likely to also have a minimal education and may not understand the importance of education. We need to break these patterns and fund schools adequately.</p>
<p>I agree with edad. </p>
<p>Half of all children will be below average. So what? All, or very nearly all, children can be educated to understand enough to support themselves and to lead lives of dignity and happiness while contributing to the general good. The lower-half children deserve a proper education–not another scholarly, condescending excuse for inaction.</p>
<p>Sure half are below average, but the question is what the highest reasonable standards that some reasonable percentage of the population should be expected to attain? I don’t think in most states the standards are too low - it’s the teaching and parenting that is substandard.</p>
<p>I agree with both vowel-Dads. However, I also agree with FS’s article that all kids will never test above average, which is one of the (many) basic flaws of NCLB. “Flunking” schools and taking away their funding based on a premise that by a certain date all kids must pass the standardized test, including LD, ESL, and profoundly developmentally disabled kids, is truly a damaging system.</p>
<p>Environment can play a large role in how well kids do
For example take a child
born 30 weeks gestation- 1130 gms, to parents in their early 20’s with little family support, ( father high school education, addicted to alcohol and drugs, abusive- mother 11th gd education, depressive, suicide attempts )</p>
<p>Suffered intercranial hemorrages during ( as well as throughout body) first weeks, followed for failure to thrive as well as gross motor delay.
During the high risk study through the university, learning disabilties were identified.
Received outside funding to attend specialized private schools, K-12.</p>
<p>Major feature of elementary school was small class size and experiential student led learning. ( very few tests- virtually zero group administered standardized tests in elementary- the curriculum and teaching was evaluated and examined to much greater detail than students- the only one looking at how students were doing was classroom teacher)</p>
<p>Graduated from Reed college in 2006 with biology degree.</p>
<p>I don’t think that necessarily throwing more money at the “system” without measuring if it is doing what we want is the way to go- but I believe that if given proper support, virtually everyone is educable, and can go much farther than anyone dreams possible.</p>
<p>I do not think that there is a “so-what” involved.</p>
<p>For starters, Garland rightly mentioned an enormous answer to the “so-what” slam: NCLB.</p>
<p>A financial boondoggle with absolutely no relationship to the reality on the ground, as we now say. What’s more, I believe the author dealt with the objections of both E & A dad.
Sadly, outside of Lake Wobegone, not all kids are above average; worse, most are below average (as currently defined).</p>
<p>Emeraldkity, I totally, completely agree. When I think how much energy goes into creating a little life…I am awestruck. Every child. Some have lots of strikes against them but, hey, sometimes that is the key to a successful life.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that the “basic achievement score” is not the “average” grade. It is the basic minimum required for advancing to the next grade level. Most kids are capable of this.</p>
<p>I agreee with this dmd quote:
</p>
<p>Have you ever seen the reading level of a McGuffy reader or the high expectations for kids taught in one room schoolhouses on the prairie during westward expansion? It was achievable then, why not now? Basic literacy & arithmetic skills are within the grasp of most people. I like Charles Murray & agree that a rewarding life can be lived with a below average I.Q. Everyone, regardless of his “g,” can be happily matched with life’s work that matches aptitude.</p>
<p>Stickershock, I agree with you.</p>
<p>Something that I always wonder about is how is it that in our public hs about 98% (+/- 1%) of students continue on to a 4 year college? Does every graduate every year have at least an IQ of 90+ (lower end of average) to be able to accomplish these numbers? Somehow I doubt it. In our hs, vocational training is not encouraged. It seems almost shameful to the students to have aspirations like gaining carpentry skills, going to culinary school, or seeking automotive training. Most of the students feel pressure to at least state that they got into a 4 year mediocre university. I cannot believe that every student has an average-above average IQ. I always wonder what happens to the student with an IQ of 88-95? Do they go along with the pack to a 4 year mediocre college, and if so, do they graduate, or just rack up college debt? I always wonder whether a hs guidance office has done such a student a favor, by not encouraging learning a trade. I guess that it is a tough question to answer.</p>
<p>Interesting reading by Jay Greene (based on his book) on the seven education myths: the money myth; the teacher pay myth; the myth of insurmountable problems; the class size myth; the certification myth; the rich school myth; the myth of ineffective school vouchers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.19233/article_detail.asp[/url]”>http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.19233/article_detail.asp</a></p>
<p>Who is saying that any child, regardless of intellect, doesn’t deserve an education? I am saying that expecting that a child of an IQ of 90 is the same as one with an IQ of 120 is simpy ridiculous, and to have the same academic, intellectual, etc. aspirations, equally ridiculous.</p>
<p>It is exactly this attitude that has shot any attempt at gifted education, differentiated instruction, “ability grouping” or "tracking, totally in the foot. It’s why we don’t have one penny in gifted education while 35% of our budget goes to special education. And the kids who have suffered from this inequity are not the below average kids, but the gifted kids.</p>
<p>
Northeastmom, a partial answer involves the self-selection of the population in some school districts. School district has good reputation>>parents focused on education move there, bringing their “above average” children and expectations>>school district thrives/excels>>parents focused on education move there, etc. and so on.</p>
<p>In such locales, high % going on to four-year colleges is explained as much by who enters the school as by what the school does with/for them.</p>
<p>Still, I agree with your point. My town is as I described above with similar % going to 4-year colleges as yours. Still, the occasional student (excluding the special needs population) marches to a different drummer - becoming a boatbuilder, going directly from high school to a real estate career. How much they had to “fight the system,” how well or poorly the school served them I don’t know. And that still leaves the possibility that several of those who go on to college would have been happier following the alternate path but either didn’t know it, didn’t know how, or didn’t have the cojones to march to that different drummer.</p>
<p>n our hs, vocational training is not encouraged. It seems almost shameful to the students to have aspirations like gaining carpentry skills, going to culinary school, or seeking automotive training.</p>
<p>I would agree.
I think that all high schools should educate virtually all students so that they are ready to continue their education.
However- spending a few more years at a great vocational program, is more relevant than attending a mediocre college, just because to not do so may label the student and parent as * failures*</p>
<p>Schools don’t often have good vocational programs in the high school & if they do, those kids are isolated from other students as the programs are off site and “they aren’t college bound” which makes some parents nervous.</p>
<p>Also from what i have seen- high school is what 8th grade used to be.
Why is high school meaningful depending on how many AP classes are offered?</p>