Say this about Charles Murray: he’s very clear about where he stands. Writing in the Times of London — and echoing the themes of his most recent book, Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America’s Schools Back to Reality — Murray rejects the idea that all children can succeed on the academic track if schools do their job. “There are both genetic and moral reasons that children of the professional classes come out on top,” he says. Having limited academic talent is no more remarkable than being limited in art, music or sports, writes Murray, who describes the belief that every child can learn at a high level as nothing more than “educational romanticism.”
And yet to say such things in public is to invite shock and ridicule. The educational romantics will pummel you with four objections: 1) when children are below average we can raise their ability; 2) the schools are so bad that children at all levels of ability can learn much more than they are learning now; 3) the rising test scores of the past decade prove that big improvements are possible; and 4) there’s no reason why the high educational achievement of children of the professional classes cannot be achieved by all classes.
“The bottom line: at best, we can move children from far below average intellectually to somewhat less below average,” Murray concludes emphatically. “No one claims that any project anywhere has proved anything more than that.”
Karin Chenoweth had her way with Murray a few weeks ago on the Britannica Blog, noting that “Murray is ignoring the fact that good instruction makes a huge difference in what kids can and do learn.”
Recent Comments