ON EDUCATION: Intelligence in the Classroom

opinionjournal.com ^ | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 | CHARLES MURRAY

[yoe]

"One word is missing from these discussions: intelligence."

Because it is a vote getter, we spend more on Education than we do on the entire Military. And in his misguided attempts to be nonpartisan, President Bush let Ted Kennedy take charge of the No Child Left Behind frame work. Education in America is a political foot ball that wins votes and spends endless amounts of tax payer $$$ to no avail.

There are two problems: Poorly educated teachers; federal rules and regulations that blanket a nation of varying situations as if there were only one. Then there are the teachers unions which have nothing to do with teaching and or learning yet the lobbies from teachers continue to mask the real problems, mainly the Federal Government; remove the Federal rules and regulations, make a real accounting of the people in charge and demand a finished product from you local schools. Those bumper stickers that proclaim ‘Johnny is an honor student at XXXX’ doesn’t tell you Johnny can read a tad better than Sally but neither have a clue as to real learning…………….

[aberaussie]

bttt

[whd23]

[luckystarmom]

Also, IQ really should be broken down into it's different categories, verbal vs non-verbal, memory, processing speed.

My 10 year old daughter has brain damage, and her overall IQ on tests has varied from 89-100.

She has speech and auditory problems that bring down her IQ. However, she is a math whiz and routinely scores in the 95% (or higher) on math tests for kids her age.

My daughter routinely gets As & Bs in school (private Christian school) because she works hard. I know other kids don't have her problems, and they do not get as good of grades.

The other day she sang a song about herself she sang "I'm the girl that sets goals in my path and gets them." That is what makes her a winner compared to other kids.

[Pharmboy]

I think the teachers would do better if they 1) worried less about indoctrinating the kids with socialist and greenie crapola and 2) did not condcern themselves with "self esteem" and made demands on the students.

As far as intelligence goes, I wish I were smarter too!

[T-Bird45]

Despite the splitting of semantic and statistical hairs by Chickensoup, the article you posted does present items worthy of discussion. The NCLB with its required "improvement" and ties to funding was the largest mistake of the GWB first term. The particulars of how to overcome that mistake are the crux of the matter.

Thanks for posting the article.

[Pharmboy]

You're most welcome. Chickensoup is quibbling, IMO, and his/her statistical arguments do not help advance things.

[Chickensoup]

Thank you for posting this.

[Chickensoup]

There is no question that movtivation and tailored learning can overcome IQ deficits. This is why I object to Murry's opening sentence. It locks out half the population but say they are below average when many on the other side of the point called 100, are motivated and sucessful.

[Chickensoup]

You're most welcome. Chickensoup is quibbling, IMO, and his/her statistical arguments do not help advance things.

Noting that Murry is setting up a straw man is not quibbling. By saying half of the population's IQ is below average, Murry is playing the sky-is-falling card just like MSM. I think that explaining the statistic's use correctly is responsible.

[Chickensoup]

Despite the splitting of semantic and statistical hairs by Chickensoup

Range is the most approptiate measure used in statistical discussion of IQ. Murry is playing games.

[RKV]

Thanks for posting this. Murray nails it when he points out that we need to have schools which train kids to perform to their level of ability. You wouldn't suggest that the average joe play football in the pros, so don't suggest that persons with below average intelligence get Ph.D.'s. That said, most kids can and should get better instruction and would benefit by the time spent.

[Chickensoup]

I think the teachers would do better if they 1) worried less about indoctrinating the kids with socialist and greenie crapola and 2) did not condcern themselves with "self esteem" and made demands on the students.



Personally I think children would be bettr off with vouchers and a free market in education.

[Pharmboy]

No--you are missing the (non-statistical) point. He is NOT saying the sky is falling, he is merely pointing out that our abilities (including those endowed by our genes--and this area is MY bread and butter) vary, and no amount of money, wishful thinking or whining will change that.

Keep it real...

[Pharmboy]

Personally I think children would be bettr off with vouchers and a free market in education.

Well, at least you line up with the FR position on THIS one...

[Essie]

The schools are trying to make everyone a scholar. When my children went to grammar school, I knew many kids who were being stuck with all kinds of labels because they could not perform up to "expectations". Anyone with enough humanity to see them as they were would have seen that it was not there. When these low achievers went to high school, most of them dropped out or went to alternative high schools.
Modern educational theory assumes that all people can learn anything or are equally talented. That is utter nonsense. It also assumes that teachers can teach a classroom with mildly retarded children through gifted; this is not possible either. Tracking is supposed to be a form of discrimination, but not tracking is the real discrimination. In an untracked class, the smartest are held back and the slowest never catch up. And if you believe that a teacher can effectively teach a mixed class, I have a bridge in Brooklyn with your name on it. Modern educational ideas have made it impossible for most teachers to teach effectively and for most kids to learn.

[Chickensoup]

No--you are missing the (non-statistical) point. He is NOT saying the sky is falling, he is merely pointing out that our abilities (including those endowed by our genes--and this area is MY bread and butter) vary, and no amount of money, wishful thinking or whining will change that.


I understand this. I agree with many of Murry's points. All I was doing is pointing out that his introduction was not statistically useful, appropriate or correct.

[neocon1984]

Murray is simply repeating what wise psychotherapists often say, "You need to change your expectations to better fit reality". Murray is talking about realistic limitations. We need to educate children to the best of their abilities to become productive members of society. However, that will not happen with the entrenched educational establishment.

The real issue is not the IQs of students, but the IQs of people who receive educational degrees. Most evidence suggests that these are the worst performing and least intelligent college students. However, they have a powerful union, the Democratic party and the Oprah/soccer moms on thier side.

[Chickensoup]

Thanks for posting this. Murray nails it when he points out that we need to have schools which train kids to perform to their level of ability. You wouldn't suggest that the average joe play football in the pros, so don't suggest that persons with below average intelligence get Ph.D.'s. That said, most kids can and should get better instruction and would benefit by the time spent.


No question about this. Good training and career plotting for many children. Example, my son is not college material. I homeschool hima and he will enter a homeschool/voc training school/trainee postion when he turns fourteen. He will come out of it with a master's license by the time he is 20. That will support a family well and permit him to have employees.

[wintertime]

There are two problems: Poorly educated teachers;

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

We have STUPID teachers!

Students in our colleges of education have some of the lowest SAT scores on campus. SAT scores and intelligence are related.