Too Many Kids Are Going to College (and Other Unpopular Truths)

Real Education injects some much needed realism into the never-ceasing education debate. Charles Murray insists we must first dispense with "educational romanticism" before we can better serve students of all academic abilities. It's time, he argues, to admit some brutal truths:

1. By definition, half of all children are of below average academic ability.
2. Children cannot, in reality, be anything they want.
3. Too many people are going to college.
4. We are expecting too much of the lower half of students and too little of the upper twenty percent, and, in doing so, we are failing both.

Murray thinks it important to emphasize that "merit as a person and academic ability are different things" and stop sending the message that people are failures if they do not go to college. Yes, Murray says, we have to improve public education too, but even if we eschew progressive educational theories and return to traditional methods of teaching reading and math, even if we have the best possible schools and the best possible teachers, there is only so much we can improve reading and math scores for those of below average academic ability. Indeed, he points out, extensive research shows that there is limited correlation between the quality of schools and academic achievement; the largest positive correlation is family background.

We should, Murray agrees with many educational reformers, save children from truly abysmal schools through school choice, and we should improve the curriculum of schools by transmitting cultural literacy facts that simply are not being taught most places anymore. But we must acknowledge that natural ability limits how well children can do in the realm of reading comprehension and mathematical logic. Schools "have no choice but to leave some children behind." Not to neglect them, but not to promote them beyond their capabilities either. We have to stop punishing teachers because they cannot enable students to improve their math and reading scores to an unrealistic level.

Most of all, Murray thinks we need to conduct thorough research to determine what the real academic limits of the average child are and what really qualifies as "grade level" reading and math. "One of the most irresponsible trends in modern education has been the reduction in rigorous, systematic assessment of the abilities of all students in their care. To demand that students meet standards without regard to their academic ability is wrong and cruel to children who are unable to meet those standards." And when it comes to educating the "academically gifted" (and by this term he means something like the top 15-25 percent in intellectual ability), we have to emphasize that hard work is a greater virtue than chance brains; we have to challenge the academically gifted; we have to allow them to experience failure so that they can learn humility.

While I don't agree with all of his conclusions or proposals, I do think that, on the whole, Murray says something that desperately needs to be said, particularly with regard to college. The B.A. has become an extremely costly pre-requisite for a great many jobs for which it does not need to be (and at one time was not) a pre-requisite, and this greatly injures those who cannot afford, or do not have the intellectual rigor to obtain, a B.A. Certification for numerous jobs would be a better, more practical, and more affordable course to follow. Not everyone can handle an advanced liberal arts education; as for a basic liberal arts education, Murray argues that can and should be transmitted in elementary and high school, with a return to content based curriculum that focuses on cultural literacy. He describes how school choice is expanding, but we have to make it accessible to the poor as well, not just the wealthy.

I recently read another book on education called, Dumbing Us Down. In the book, John Taylor Gatto said that he really believes every child has the potential to be a genius. That bothered me deeply, but I couldn't quite put my finger on why. Isn't it good to be optimistic about our children, to expect the best of them, to not sell our children short? Don't children largely do what is expected of them, and won't setting low standards mean low performance? Well, yes and no. Children do tend to perform to expectations '" within the limits of their abilities. Set low expectations for the academically gifted, and they will perform at a lower level than they are capable of. But what if you set expectations that are too high? Murray put his finger on what bothers me so much about this benighted "every child is a genius waiting to be discovered" optimism. We all know we have limits. Even if we are academically gifted, we can think of something in which we have no talent'"music, art, athletics, public speaking'"and think what it would be like (or what it was like) to be expected to perform at a level beyond our abilities. "When your smiling, well-meaning person in authority said, 'ËœYou can do it if you try,' *and you knew it was not true*, the well-meaning person was not raising your self-esteem. Not getting you to find untapped resources within you. He was humiliating you."

If we are not good at art, athletics, or music, we are generally allowed to bow out of competition in those areas. Not so in academics. "Only for linguistics and logical mathematical ability are we told that we can expect everyone to do well." Many children are pushed onto college prep tracts regardless of ability or interest, and if they really cannot handle the intellectual challenge, they are made to feel like failures rather than encouraged to excel within their limits. "This is not a call for wooly-headed niceness" or for inflating grades; rather, it is a call for the redefinition of academic success, a definition that would emphasize working hard rather than being smart. Murray insists that it can be counterproductive to praise children for being smart. Better to praise them for working hard. Intelligence is a gift of birth not much within one's means to control; but working hard is a choice anyone can make.

It is not that we do not have good vocational training resources in this country, Murray argues. We do. It is just that we discourage too many children from taking advantage of them because of our misguided notion that everyone should strive to enter college. And the consequence is the deflation of the value of a B.A., a very expensive and time-consuming pre-requisite to workforce entry for many jobs, and a delay in maturity for many young men and women.

"Educational optimism" is a powerful force in today's public schools, and it has been enshrined in legislation through "No Child Left Behind." It is a fixture that will not be easy to dislodge in favor of a realism that may better benefit all students.