After we've caught up with each others' news, looked at any writings, books, articles, quotes you'd like to share, I'm hoping t

5.15-7.15 1WN 3.8, Tuesday 13^th and Thursday 15^th November 2007

After we've caught up with each others' news, looked at any writings, books, articles, quotes you'd like to share, I'm hoping that we can help each other to develop our creative and critical engagements with the ideas of others. If you have writings that you'd like us to respond to in a 'validation' mode with the four questions modified from Habermas' criteria of social validity do please bring copies:

i) Is my explanation as comprehensible as it could be?

ii) Could I improve the evidential basis of my claims to know what I am doing?

iii) Does my explanation include an awareness of historical and cultural influences in what I am doing and draw on the most advanced social theories of the day?

iv) Am I showing that I am committed to the values that I claim to be living by?

When I say that I'd like us to develop our creative and critical engagements with the ideas of others I like us to develop an easy familiarity with the ideas that we are influenced by the history of the contexts we are working in and by ideas in our culture.

Both historical and cultural influences can be seen in Marie's review of John White's book on the ideological roots of intelligence testing.

John White's book has two foci: the psychology of intelligence; and the school curriculum. He claims that the two go together both intellectually and practically:

"However influential the two core notions have been, if you look for sound supporting arguments behind them, you will be disappointed. There are no solid grounds for innate differences in IQ, and there are none for the traditional subject-based curriculum. (p.1)

In her review Marie picks out the start of the story of general intelligence:

"The 'modern' story starts in 1865 with Galton who was

"... the creator of the notion of intelligence which has been transmitted... No one before him had come up with the thought that we all possess different degrees of an ability which is intellectual, general and limited." p. 25

White, J. (2006) Intelligence, Destiny and Education: The ideological roots of intelligence testing. London; Routledge.

Looking forward to seeing you on Thursday evening and to sharing our ideas.

Here's Marie's review. It would be good if you'd time to browse through it before Thursday, but I'll check to see if we need time in the session to read it:

Review of John White 2006 book 11th Nov 07

White, J. (2006) Intelligence, Destiny and Education: The ideological roots of intelligence testing. London; Routledge

John White introduction page starts with two simple sentences which had my attention from the start:

"This book has two foci: the psychology of intelligence; ad the school curriculum. The two go together; intellectually and practically." p. 1

And he had me glued to the book when he ended the page with:

However influential the two core notions have been, if you look for sound supporting arguments behind them, you will be disappointed. There are no solid grounds for innate differences in IQ; and there are none for the traditional subject-based curriculum. p. 1

At last; someone who has the courage and intellectual argument to say that the emperor has no cloths and offer an explanation of the roots and persistence of the myth that has entered our lives in education as the prevailing wisdom.

I have been interested in the debates about 'intelligence' since studying for a degree in psychology in the early 70's when the arguments about race and intelligence were raging along with the nature/nurture and comprehensive schooling debates. I joined a profession which has recognisable origins with Cyril Burt and was uneasily wrestling with issues of 'labelling', 'medical models of diagnosis and treatment' at a time when Warnock introduced 'contextual models of educational need and intervention'. Most of the arguments over the years has been about the colour and weave of the emperors robes but few have dared to question the existence of the clothes; accepting as a given a notion of 'intelligence' as having a real existence rather than treating with it as a hypothesis that someone, somewhere came up with; an answer to a long forgotten question. I have never come across the questions 'where does the concept come from' and 'how has it gained and maintained such a powerful influence that has permeated through the whole of our schooling system'. John White asks these questions eloquently and offers very compelling arguments as to the genesis and continuing power of the concept and the related practices.

If you have a feeling of dissatisfaction or a lack of ease with the current insistence on defining and categorising children and are struggling to know what implications this has for your teaching and the educational influence this has on the children you have responsibilities towards as an educator, you will find this book a thought provoking, if not revolutionary, read.

In the book White proposes that concepts of intelligence, as expressed in England and America, and the school curriculum are, and have been, linked at the level of policy for centuries. He provides evidence to support the assertion that the two ideas have common origins which can be traced back to the radical forms of Protestantism in the sixteenth century and more recently to the men with the same cultural roots and affiliations who are responsible for the current notions of intelligence and our present school system. The 'modern' story starts in 1865 with Galton who was

and through a line of influential English and American men with similar cultural roots continues to influence the lives of millions and is still very clearly in evidence in today's schools, government education policy and strategies. I was stunned by the similarities in language and practices that have continued almost unchanged over the last century as exemplified by the current National Gifted and Talented strategy.

"The 1904 Elementary Code (Board of Education 1929:9) stated that:

It will be an important though subsidiary object of the School to discover individual children who show promise of exceptional capacity, and to develop their special gifts (so far as this can be done without sacrificing the interests of the majority of the children), so that they may be qualified to pass at the proper age into Secondary Schools, and be able to derive the maximum of benefit from the education there offered them". p. 8

You have to remember that this is at a time when the rich man was in his castle and the poor man was at his gate – and had already been sorted into the appropriate schools; the former into private and exclusive schools to equip them for their destiny as the ruling classes and the latter, into the state schools for the masses to learn how to serve. Yet we still have the language 'discover individual children who show promise...' It is even clearer when juxtaposing these quotes from Terman in the 1920's and Eyre in the 21^st century.

... (Terman 1922:657-9, quoted in Minton 1988:99), stated that... It is to the highest 25 percent of our population, and more especially to the top 5 percent, that we must look for the production of leaders who will advance science, art, government, education, and social welfare generally... p. 24

Professor Deborah Eyre in 2004 who headed NAGTY (the National Academy of Gifted and Talented Youth) set up by the government for the 'most able' 5 per cent of pupils in the country wrote.

'today's gifted pupils are tomorrow's social, intellectual, economic and cultural leaders and their development cannot be left to chance'. She goes on: 'A major reason for a dedicated educational focus on gifted and talented pupils is their potential to play a leading role in their adult lives. If England is to be successful in a globalised world then it will need to produce leaders who can compete with the best'. p. 143

I have often been told that having a register of Gifted and Talented is not important; the children and parents may not even know it exists or who is on it, but in practice it is being used to reduce opportunities for those not on the register:

By the end of 2004 the path to leadership was made easier for NAGTY members by requiring sixth-formers applying to university to confirm whether or not they belonged to the Academy. 'The Academy hopes that this will enable universities to better identify the most able pupils' (TES, 3 December 2004). p. 143

White goes on to suggest current popular notions of intelligence, such as Gardner's multiple intelligences, are variations on the same theme which have persisted over a century and a half:

"Today, intelligence is still bound up with the school curriculum, but often differently. In England, for instance, the academic curriculum – once only for a few – is now, in the shape of the National Curriculum, the daily experience of all. IQ tests have receded, and with them the idea that intelligence is a unitary ability for abstract thinking. In their place many teacher now believe that children come hard-wired with combinations of multiple intelligences. These closely fit the areas of the traditional curriculum – not only at its more abstract end, but also in artistic and other subjects like physical education. Non-abstract thinkers can now be bright, too: a curriculum for all coheres with a theory of intelligence for all.

In these ways intelligence and curriculum are, and have been, linked at the level of policy. But the intellectual connexion between them goes far deeper. It is this book's purpose to explore this". p. 1

To understand a theory I think I need to understand something of the theorist; what are their values and the theories they hold about the world, what is the story they are trying to tell and why, how should I understand the words they use? I feel White is of a similar view when he writes:

"Why did these pioneers on both sides of the Atlantic develop the theories and tests and the educational arrangements they did? What impelled them to make the comments quoted from them in this text?

...Most of these take us back to Galton – not surprisingly, since many of the oddities in others' positions can be explained by their Galtonian origin. Galton was the first of the line. If we can understand more clearly what motivated him, we will be in a good position to understand the others." p. 25

White gives an interesting exposition of Galton's cultural background and religious affiliations and the parallels in his theories of intelligence and eugenics. He then goes on to show the shared cultural heritage, (even though some may have disavowed a theistic faith or commitment to a church), of many of those who followed and bore the torch to the 1970's; Morant, Burt, Terman, Cattell, Thorndike, Vernon, Eysenck to name a few. It is no surprise to learn that many of these men actually knew one another; Eysenck for instance being a student of Burt or belonged to the Eugenics Society.

Even though the people who continue the work today do not share the family connections with the puritan past the language and the prevailing logics dominate. For instance teachers often talk of 'fulfilling potential'; White shows how the language and logics we use has its roots in the sixteenth century puritan's religious view of the world and Man's preordained destiny. He suggests that the dominating logic is not Aristolelean but can be traced back to a French sixteenth-century scholar called Pierre de las Ramee, also known as Ramus. It is this thinking that underpins the curriculum and accommodated changes that empirical scientific thinking brought.

The subject-based school curriculum which has been mandatory in England since 1988 has faced repeated attacks on its justifiability. This is not surprising, because it was introduced without any accompanying aims to speak of: ministers seemed to take it as read that it was a good thing, without onus of further backing. ....

How far have we moved or are we still trapped by the values of previous generations? I do wonder when I think of the 'catch up' and 'enrichment and extension' programmes in the 21^st century and reflect on some of the quotes that White offers, for instance by Burt which underpinned so much of the work in schools in the middle of the last century described here:

Part of a memorandum on 'backward children' he wrote while working as a psychologist for the London County Council in 1925 was attached as an appendix to the Handbook of Suggestions for Teachers (i.e. elementary school teachers), which went through many reprints until as late as 1944. in it he stated:

The ideal plan would perhaps comprise a 'treble-track' system – a series of backward classes for slow children, a series of advanced classes for quick children, both parallel to the ordinary series of standards for children of ordinary average ability (Board of Education 1929:422) p. 9

White concludes:

The school curriculum is not a thing in itself. It is a vehicle to realise larger aims. ... The school curriculum is – or should be – a vehicle to enable young people not only to lead a fulfilled personal life, but also to help other people, as friends, parents, workers and as citizens, to lead as fulfilled a life as their own .p. 151

I would recommend you to read the book. The myriad of quotes of those now dead which I still here echoed today has helped me question the very basis of a lot of what is taken for-granted in our school system today and the policies and strategies we are forcefully encouraged to implement. See if it does the same for you.