It’s hard to shake off very easily the things we’re reading about Charles Murray’s new book, Real Education: Four Simple Truths…
We mentioned the book earlier (here), and we’ll need to keep considering it, it seems. We’ll get our hands on a copy and report back.
In the meantime, there’s a pretty interesting article in the September New Criterion. If you’re willing to read something that you might disagree with — have you noticed how scarce that ability is of late? — you might find youself questioning some of your previous assumptions.
Here’s article author James Piereson’s take on Murray’s purpose:
Murray’s main target is an outlook or ideology that he calls “educational romanticism” …, which consists in the belief that all children can do well in school if given appropriate opportunities, that there are few limits to achievement, and that lackluster performance is caused by weaknesses in the schools. All children in America, like those in Lake Wobegon, are “above average” according to this view—and thus failures to perform at that level are attributed to the schools. The emphasis in school reform should be on improving the academic performance of the less gifted students. From this standpoint, reform of the schools is the key to improving student performance and to narrowing gaps in achievement. The nearly universal acceptance of this dogma among educators, parents, and politicians is the driving force behind our seemingly endless cycles of educational reform. As each cycle fails or at least does not live up to expectations, we respond by redoubling our efforts to reform the schools.
The crux of Murray’s argument is stated (by Piereson) thus:
1) students vary considerably in ability and aptitude, 2) half the children are below average and are likely to remain so, 3) too many students are going to college, and 4) the nation’s future depends on how we educate the gifted
Harsh, cruel, a complete flipping-over of the applecart!
But look at what this argument — hold it in your mind for a while as a kind of thought-experiment — explains, before you dismiss it.
One citizen-reviewer at the Amazon page says this:
Be careful with this book. While Murray acknowledges Gardner’s argument that there are very different abilities, he then concludes that only those who score high on traditional tests, in other words those with the most verbal ability (especially) and math ability, should be the focus of our primary educational efforts.
He’s right in arguing that college isn’t for everyone and that we make a mistake by pushing all kids to go to college. But without an alternative well financed vocational training thrust and evaluations that measure all student abilities this will only help create an elite who have never been assessed for integrity, creativity, self-knowledge, street smarts, or technical gifts, and we will have a solution that will create far many more problems than it solves.
Murray’s perspective is filled with a combination of insights worth reading and myopic elitist thinking that fails to provide solutions to our most pressing educational problems.
Should the book be read? Sure, but with a very skeptical and critical eye.
I’ll accept that!