Real Education

My latest in the American News:

Social scientist Charles Murray has made a living taking criticism for saying things we'd rather not have said. Murray is out with a new book on education, telling yet more inconvenient truths.

In "Real Education," Murray puts it starkly: “The education system is living a lie.” This lie is “educational romanticism.” Education romanticism exaggerates the ability of schools to correct for the real differences in ability among students. In the name of leaving no child behind, we set unrealistic goals for many students who lack the intellectual capacity to meet our arbitrary standards.

Murray considers four truths concerning education. First, ability varies. Educators are enamored with the theory of multiple intelligences that suggests that children vary in how they learn, so if a child is underperforming we just need to cater to that student's “kind” of intelligence. But Murray demonstrates that these multiple intelligences, including linguistic, mathematical and spatial intelligence, tend to correlate with one another. In other words, people who are good at math also tend to have high reading comprehension. Thus we fool ourselves when we claim every child can learn at a high level if we just teach the right way.

This ties into Murray's second truth: half of the children are below average. This is not Lake Wobegon. Why is it that our students perform worse on national tests the longer they are in school? Murray argues that while most students can learn the rudimentary material of fourth grade, by junior year in high school the material will be sufficiently challenging that many students simply lack the intelligence to do well.

This is also why intensive early education tends to produce immediate results that “wear off” over time. Murray notes that studies indicate, “The most we know how to do with outside interventions is to make children who are well below average a little less below average.”

This leads to Murray's third truth: too many people go to college. We push many into college who are not capable of college or whose goals do not necessitate a four year-degree. Modestly intelligent students do not need a four-year degree; they need a job. Vocational education in high school and after can teach useful skills that offer a fulfilling life. There may also be the computer genius who doesn't care to get a liberal education. Why force him into courses that bore him just so he can get a credential?

Finally, Murray argues, “America's future depends on how we educate the gifted.”

“The elite is already smart,” writes Murray, “It needs to be wise.” Wisdom means educating in logic, linguistics, statistical reasoning and pattern recognition. Also, Murray contends, we need to teach students to be good, rather than just “nice.” Thus the elite need education in virtue and how to wisely discriminate between good and bad. Thus the supposed nonjudgmentalism of the contemporary academy works against producing humans who can even discuss the notion of the good life.

Murray speaks in the generalities of social science, thus we all know exceptions to his purported rules. Further, one of Murray's key points is that we only set children up for failure and disappointment by asking them to do more than they can. One may quibble with some of Murray's arguments, but once again he is helpfully challenging us to think about first principles.