Join the conversation

Charles Murray is apparently at it again in his forthcoming book, Real Education.

Murray's 1994 book, The Bell Curve, infamously argued that demography is destiny. It held that members of certain racial and socioeconomic groups are poor because they're not smart enough to be otherwise.  Real Education apparently applies this objectionable principle to education, with the expected results.  

If the book excerpts in the Wall Street Journal are any indication, the book will argue that low-performing students lack the intelligence to perform well.  It will counsel schools to put these students out of their academic misery by tracking them into less intellectually-ambitious, more strictly vocational courses.

The implications of Murray's argument are as appalling as they ever were. He proposes the worst kind of social engineering, where adults determine the lifetime prospects of children on the basis of--what?  IQ tests?  Performance on standardized tests? Observations of behavior? Welcome back to the darkest chapters of our history, when we intentionally shunted poor children, children of color and immigrant children into programs that offered little hope for social or economic advancement. 

Without a doubt, widespread inequities both within and beyond schools still ensure that our most vulnerable students lack the educational opportunities of their more fortunate peers.  But at least public education advocates and reformers from across the ideological spectrum are intent on redressing those inequities.  It would be unforgivable to back away from that shared commitment.

Of course, Murray's claims fly in the face of abundant evidence that:

• IQ is very malleable and responds dramatically to changes in environment.
• Poor students and students of color excel when held to high academic expectations and provided comprehensive support, both inside and outside of school. (The success stories on this site support this point.)
• The countries whose students perform best on international assessments minimize the impact of socioeconomic disadvantage.  They do so by giving students at highest risk the academic and social supports they need.

More important, Murray's arguments signal a retreat from fundamental American beliefs in equal opportunity and social mobility.  We haven't realized those goals yet, but we sure shouldn't give up now.