Charles Murray on Educational Romanticism
By • 5/13/08Charles Murray just published an excellent article on “educational romanticism,” defined as:
the belief that just about all children who are not doing well in school have the potential to do much better. Correlatively, educational romantics believe that the academic achievement of children is determined mainly by the opportunities they receive; that innate intellectual limits (if they exist at all) play a minor role; and that the current K-12 schools have huge room for improvement.
Educational romanticism results from our refusal to recognize that people have different potentials for learning:
Try to think of the last time you encountered a news story that mentioned low intellectual ability as the reason why some students do not perform at grade level. I doubt if you can. Whether analyzed by the news media, school superintendents, or politicians, the problems facing low-performing students are always that they have come from disadvantaged backgrounds, or have gone to bad schools, or grown up in peer cultures that do not value educational achievement. The problem is never that they just aren’t smart enough.
Both right and left today are educational romantics:
Educational romantics of the Left focus on race, class, and gender. It is children of color, children of poor parents, and girls whose performance is artificially depressed, and their academic achievement will blossom as soon as they are liberated from the racism, classism, and sexism embedded in American education. Those of the Right see public education as an ineffectual monopoly, and think that educational achievement will blossom when school choice liberates children from politically correct curricula and obdurate teachers’ unions.
The “apotheosis of educational romanticism” was the No Child Left Behind Act:
The United States Congress, acting with large bipartisan majorities, at the urging of the President, enacted as the law of the land that all children are to be above average. I do not exaggerate. When No Child Left Behind began in 2002, the nation already possessed operational definitions of proficient in the math and reading tests administered under the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, pronounced “nape”). NAEP is seen as the gold standard in educational testing. Only about 30 percent of American students were proficient in either reading or math by NAEP’s definitions when No Child Left Behind began. In other words, by NAEP’s standard, all students are not just to be brought to the average that existed when No Child Left Behind was enacted. All of them are to reach the level of students at the seventieth percentile.
Many laws are too optimistic, but the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) transcended optimism. It set a goal that was devoid of any contact with reality.
Consequently, NCLB has been a complete failure:
If students were progressing at the rate implied by the Act, more than 60 percent of them would have been at the proficient level by 2007. In math, the actual percentages for NAEP were 39 percent for fourth-graders and 32 percent for eighth-graders. Twelfth-graders were last tested in 2005, when only 23 percent were proficient. The scores for fourth-graders and eighth-graders were higher than in previous years, but psychometricians have yet to untangle the degree of improvement attributable to No Child Left Behind (no NAEP math test was given in 2002, when No Child Left Behind began). Whatever their determination, its effect cannot be more than a few percentage points. NAEP did administer a reading test in 2002, so we have a firm baseline for comparison. Thirty-one percent of fourth-graders were proficient in 2002; 33 percent were proficient in 2007. For eighth- and twelfth-graders, the percentage passing the proficient level fell from 2002 to the most recent tests (from 33 percent to 31 percent in 2007 for the eighth-graders; from 36 percent to 35 percent in 2005 for the twelfth-graders)—changes that for practical purposes amount to zero.
Contemplate these results for a moment. A law is passed that, at least in the first few years, convulses educational practice throughout the nation. It is a law explicitly designed to raise test scores, if only because it produces intense drilling on how to take tests. And it produces trivial increases in NAEP’s math scores and no increases in its reading scores. No Child Left Behind has been not just a failure for educational romanticism, but its repudiation.
Murray doesn’t mention that, even though one of the stated intentions of the act was to close racial achievement gaps, the gaps have stayed the same or even grown larger since 2002.
The fallacious assumption at the heart of educational romanticism is that the quality of the schools students attend has a significant effect on their educational attainment. However,
a large and unrefuted body of evidence says that this tenet is incorrect. Differences among schools do not have much effect on test scores in reading and mathematics…
When Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it included a mandate for a nationwide study to assess the effects of inequality of educational opportunity on student achievement. The study, led by the sociologist James Coleman, was one of the most ambitious in the history of social science. The sample consisted of 645,000 students. Data were collected not only about the students’ personal school histories, but also about their parents’ socioeconomic backgrounds, their neighborhoods, the curricula and facilities of their schools, and the qualifications of the teachers within those schools.
Before Coleman’s team set to work, everybody expected that the study would document a relationship between the quality of schools and the academic achievement of the students in those schools. To everyone’s shock, the Coleman Report instead found that the quality of schools explains almost nothing about differences in academic achievement. Family background was by far the most important factor in determining student achievement. The Coleman Report came under intense fire, but reanalyses of the Coleman data and the collection of new data in the decades since it appeared support its finding that the quality of public schools doesn’t make much difference in student achievement.
Academic achievement is best predicted by IQ:
No one disputes the empirical predictiveness of tests of intellectual ability—IQ tests—for large groups. If a classroom of first-graders is given a full-scale IQ test that requires no literacy and no mathematics, the correlation of those scores with scores on reading and math tests at age seventeen is going to be high. Such correlations will be equally high whether the class consists of rich children or poor, black or white, male or female. They will be high no matter how hard the teachers have worked. Scores on tests of reading and math track with intellectual ability, no matter what.
The “stereotype threat” theory fails to explain the racial achievement gap:
Still another magic bullet appeared in 1995 when Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson demonstrated experimentally that test performance by academically talented blacks was worse when a test was called an IQ test than when it was innocuously described as a research tool. Steele and Aronson called this phenomenon “stereotype threat.” It has since been extended to stereotypes involving women and math ability. You guessed it: the media interpreted the Steele and Aronson results as meaning that group differences in test scores are illusions that will evaporate if only we can get students to ignore the stereotypes that hold down their performance.
This time, the problem is not that stereotype threat doesn’t really exist. The jury is still out on the magnitude of its effect and the conditions that prompt it, but the reality of the phenomenon is surviving examination. Instead, the problem that gets in the way of this appealing story is that all of the experimental studies have explicitly induced a threat as part of the experiment’s protocol. That threat consists of telling the experimental group that they are about to take a test that measures their innate ability. But tests in K-12 education are never presented that way. The high-stakes tests given in elementary and secondary school are expressly described as measures of what students have learned, not how smart they are. Even tests that do measure innate ability are not presented that way—a case in point being the relentless efforts of the College Board to present the SAT as a measure of acquired skills.
The major cause of “educational romanticism” is “white guilt”:
It is difficult to convey to readers who came of age in the 1970s or thereafter the emotional power of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and early 1960s. The ambiguities associated with affirmative action and the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws were still in the future. The Civil Rights Movement prior to 1964 created a change in the consciousness of white elites that was felt viscerally, and it included an embarrassing awareness of just how unremittingly whites had violated every American ideal when it came to blacks. With that awareness came elite white guilt—honest, deeply felt, and warranted.
Elite white guilt explains much about all kinds of social policy from the last half of the 1960s onward, but especially about education. Until the 1960s, white educators and politicians could look at a class of white children in which a number of students were doing poorly and shrug. The schools try to teach everyone, but some kids can’t handle the material. That’s just the way the things are; it is not a problem that can be fixed. But when the class consisted of black students who were doing poorly, that reaction was not acceptable. These were children growing up in a society where all the odds had been stacked against them, and their failings couldn’t be passed off as “just the way things are.” Elite white guilt made it impossible to say that a lot of black children were going to continue to fail in school and there’s nothing anybody could do about it. Once it could not be said of black children, neither could it be said of white children. In that context, educational romanticism did not just become fashionable during the 1960s. It became emotionally mandatory.
Murray thinks educational romanticism is “teetering on the edge of collapse” because of the accumulation of evidence contradicting it. However, I suspect he’s being unreasonably optimistic: the article makes clear that the data have contradicted educational romanticism for forty years. Why would people start caring about the truth now?
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever IW publishes new entries.
There are differences in intelligence between individuals and races, and schools are taking more than their share of blame. That much is true. These differences in mental ability should be acknowledged. However, I have doubts about how beneficial it is to anyone(of any race) to place much emphasis on these differences over and over. I don’t think it is a good idea for a number of reasons. For one, it sounds elitist. I don’t think Ian wants to come off as elitist, and I don’t see anything wrong with posting findings on intellectual differences. But we shouldn’t attribute more significance to these facts than they deserve. Do White people have to necessarily be “superior” in order for us to deserve fair treatment? Is our supposed “superiority” the argument upon which our plea for dignity and fairness hinges? I don’t believe in the unqualified “superiority” of any race. And I doubt Ian does either. It’s much easier to slur a realist with the “supremacist” label when they wax profusely on the differences in mental ability between races.
Some races are better at some things than other races. And I think it is okay to talk about those things. But we should always be tactful and as considerate as possible when we talk about these differences. I do not think it’s a good idea to put much weight on this. Some people are born smarter than others. Congratulations to them on getting dealt good DNA. I am sure many here are aware that Asians outscore us on IQ tests. That by itself is a pretty good reason(but not the only reason) to use restraint when discussing intellectual differences.
I think Ian’s “What is the West?” series is pretty good. It is much more beneficial than descriptions of Whites that just amount to “we are smarter than blacks”. If someone just reads information about IQ tests and other statistics(including those regarding habits and physical characteristics), it would be easy to come away from those findings with an impression of White people as just some intermediary form between Blacks and Asians. And too much emphasis on intellectual differences in races does a good deal to perpetuate that misconception.
By on 5/14/08 at 12:12 am
What Murray calls “educational romanticism” is merely one among countless manifestations of something much deeper, namely, the core belief system of all leftist ideologies. This belief system can be summed up like this:
All problematic human behaviors, from poor school achievement to criminality to the desire to make war, are the result of environmental influences only, not of any innate or genetic predisposition.
Thus, if you want better human behavior, you must change the environment.
If you want to change the environment, you cannot leave it to chance, but must actively manage it.
The only institution in society that can actively manage the environment by imposing its will even by force if necessary is the government.
Government’s influence on the environment cannot be left to the whims of an unpredictable and unenlightened electorate.
Society’s best and brightest, i.e. its most altruistically, progressively thinking individuals, must therefore control the government, and use it as a tool to bring about positive change in the environment, and ultimately, humanity itself.
To admit that the very first premise of this belief system is wrong would bring the whole system down. Moreover, it would rob leftist elites of the only justification of their elite position—namely, their role as architects of an infinitely malleable better future.
To put it another way: our elites (whether overtly liberal, or crypto-leftist “neoconservative”) derive their power from the basic leftist belief system I just described in much the same way as medieval monarchs derived theirs from the doctrine of divine right. Like the kings and queens of old, today’s rulers can only preserve their position of power by preserving the belief system on which it rests. This means, among other things, suppressing alternative belief systems, and persecuting those who promote them.
Thus, it should come as no surprise that our ruling class still clings to “educational romanticism” just as it does to its belief that “racism” (an environmental factor) is solely responsible for the gap between black and white achievement, and to the belief that immigrants of any race or culture will become “Americans” once exposed to the American environment. If our elites were ever to deviate from these beliefs, or to allow alternative views (e.g. race realism) to gain a toehold in American intellectual discourse, they would be sowing the seeds of their own demise. And they know it.
By on 5/14/08 at 1:44 pm
Anonymous White American: racial differences in IQ is very taboo. I don’t know where you live but if any prominent person such as a politician or educator publicly suggested the quest for equal academic results was unattainable due to racial differences in average IQ, their careers would instantly vaporize. The scientific facts of racial differences in IQ must be suppressed to continue the flow of money to that bottomless pit “education”. Racial activists, teachers unions and others know as long as unequal racial academic results can be blamed on the usual suspects such as racism, white teachers, “underfunded” schools instead of the real cause :IQ differences, the extensive “redistribution” of money from successful whites and Asian to people of color will continue. FYI some white groups such as Ashkenazi Jews have higher average IQs than asians
By on 5/14/08 at 10:21 pm
Joe Hamilton, I did not mean to suggest that IQ differences are too common of a topic in general public discourse. It is true that the subject of racial IQ differences is considered a taboo subject in society. The purpose of my post was to caution ourselves against placing too much emphasis on racial IQ gaps. Pointing out these differences is okay in moderation. But we shouldn’t be a one-trick pony. IQ statistics are very useful for illustrating the reality of racial differences. And IQ statistics can be used to argue that racial differences are more than skin-deep. But how relevant are IQ statistics to beliefs that we deserve to be treated equally before the law or to not be forced into associating with other races?
“FYI some white groups such as Ashkenazi Jews have higher average IQs than asians”
FYI, probably every person that posts on this site already knows that. Although in your post you seem to imply something that is new to me. You implied there are other groups of Whites who have higher average IQs than Asians, and that you just used Ashkenazi Jews as an example of such a group. I wouldn’t mind if you elaborated. And when I say “Asians”, I mean “East Asians”(like Japanese, Koreans, and Han Chinese). Maybe you meant that other White groups(or Whites in general) have outscored some Asian groups such as Thais or Laotians or whatever. And I don’t see what your point was in mentioning Ashkenazi Jews. Ashkenazim are a very small portion of the White population. I don’t think that number of scores increases the average White IQ very much. Am I wrong? So I don’t see how that will necessarily help any non-Ashkenazi Whites feel better about how White IQ scores stack up against East Asian IQ scores.
By on 5/15/08 at 4:26 pm
From my observations, it seems that at the scientific level, the nature nurture debate has already been won by the nature crowd but it is yet to be accepted by the education establishment, which continues to be a left liberal stronghold.
Race however is a different issue, the scientific community has yet to officially accept the racial conclusions of the Bell Curve despite accepting its conclusions on genetics and IQ.
The current stance of right and centrist liberals is that IQ is stongly influenced by genetics, but that it’s too difficult to assess cognitive differences between races.
In my view at least three things are going to be needed to crack the liberal consensus:
the retirement of the baby boomers
a major recession which rocks the liberal establishment and raises questions about its managerial competence
serious funding for contrary viewpoints. Unless race realists, paleos etc can get some serious funding its difficult to see how they are going to be able to get their message across to a wide enough audience.
Maybe such funding will come from countries like Japan, Switzerland and Russia, which are threatened by aspects of western-style liberalism. I’ll bet Japan for example, is frustrated by the US’s lack of investment in robotics etc and would prefer the US closed its borders and pumped money into labour saving technology.
By on 5/18/08 at 6:08 am
It is unfortunate that political correctness and leftist ideology are the determining factor in this nation’s approach to public education. Regardless of the influence of innate ability on student performance, a major shift that has resulted from leftist approaches to education has been the refutation of the American ideal of personal responsibility in public schools. As a high school teacher in Los Angeles, a lynchpin issue seems to be the fact that all schools can truly offer as a motivating factor for participation in the educational process (Which I percieve, as a math teacher, to be consistent, ongoing cooperation and study), is a letter grade for specific classes and an chronological accounting of this grading process over the student’s school career. The primary factor that I notice as affecting students’ lack of performance in my classes (60-70% D/F grades in Algebra 1 for LAUSD district-wide which is usually reflected in the grades of my classes) is the fact that these pupils and their families regard grades as little more than an abstract concept, rather than something that results from and reflects upon an individual’s effort in a particular class. A lesson that bores a ‘regular’ education class to tears is different when it is given to an ‘honors’ class (Which amounts to a ‘regular ed’ high school classroom of the 70’s/early 80’s). Presenting the same lesson to the ‘honors’ seems like throwing bloody meat to sharks. While I believe that teaching can be refined and improved, my experience has been that achievement is a function of the students’ participation, rather than the teaching methods.
By lausd teacher on 5/13/08 at 10:28 pm