Class assignment of children based on intelligence

Children Should Be Assigned to Classes on the Basis of Their Intelligence

Assignment of children and intelligence

The issue of the allocation or assignment of children to different classes on the basis of intelligence is a controversial issue. On the one hand there are numerous practical and pedagogical reasons for this process of differentiation and assignment. On the other hand there are many counter arguments which tend to emphasize the advantage of an inclusive and heterogeneous class situation. However these arguments are dependent to a great degree on the meaning and the application of the term 'intelligence'. Modern theoretical views show that there are many competing views of this term and a general rejection of more conventional assessments. This would tend to invalidate or at least problematize the argument for the assignment of classes on the basis of intlelligence. After taking these arguments into consideration it would appear that there is more in favor of not assigning classes on the basis of intelligence.

1. Introduction

In an article entitled Education - Our Fundamental Resource the author states one of the basic premises of all education. This ideal if described as follows:

Education is the keystone of democracy. It provides communication between the diverse elements of our complex society and aids in the elimination of barriers of race and religion. It holds the greatest promise for breaking the cycle of failure which is at the core of the problems of the disadvantaged area. Hope centers on education.

Education - Our Fundamental Resource)

This point-of-view which is close to the center of all teaching idealism implies that education is more than just the teaching and advancement of the single child and that education has an integral objective based on the assimilation of knowledge form various quarters and on many different levels of expertise and achievement. This point-of-view would be opposed to the separation of students and their assignment to classes on the basis of intelligence. This stance suggests that separation on the basis of intelligence would run counter to the more democratic, integrative and assimilative aims of broad education.

On the other hand the view that children should be assigned to classes on the basis of their intelligence has many proponents. Many teachers and educationists are of the opinion that the separation or assignment of children on the basis of intelligence and ability is a necessary process so as not to retard advanced children. Others argue that this separation in classes has numerous advantages; including the assertion that children have different levels and types of intelligence that need to be catered for and that this necessities a separation to classes that are more appropriate for each intelligence. This argument also points to the problem of teacher capability and teaching preferences and that the separation of classes on the basis of types of intelligence helps to facilitate a better teacher rotation. This argument is complicated and made even more controversial by intelligence theory and the recent prominence of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. The following sections section will attempt to explore these arguments and aspects relating to intelligence and class assignation.

2. The advantage of whole-class teaching

As has been briefly referred to, many educationists and practicing teachers make a strong case for not separating or assigning student on the basis of intelligence. One of the main reasons for this view is that a mixed capability class provides important educational advantages in terms of integration and social mixing.

An... important justification of whole-class teaching made by many teachers and parents we spoke with was the belief that mixed-ability classrooms provide social as well as pedagogical benefits. It is assumed that through whole-class participation in mixed-ability classrooms, students learn that the world consists of many different kinds of people, and through their daily experiences acquire satisfactory ways of interacting with children and adults who are not like themselves or their family and friends. (Dealing with Differences in Academic Ability)

In Pedagogical terms, in the non-segmented class system, "The level of instruction in the mixed-ability classrooms is aimed at the average student. To help slow learners understand the lesson, the teacher begins with easy material and gradually increases the level of difficulty" (Dealing with Differences in Academic Ability). However it is asserted that this does not slow down or retard the faster and more 'intelligent" student in that these students are often asked to explain the more difficult issues to their fellow students. This refers to a form of peer -instruction which is considered to be beneficial to all pupils. More importantly, "A fundamental assumption behind whole-class teaching... is that students need to hear alternative interpretations and responses to problems and that through skillful guidance from the teacher, they come to differentiate among answers in terms of their efficiency and effectiveness" (Dealing with Differences in Academic Ability).

In other words, the integrated and non-segmented approach provides for a broader base and expansiveness in the educative process, which many educationists consider to the essential for a well - rounded and integrated education.

3. Assignment according to intelligence

Those in favor of the process of assigning student to classes on the basis of intelligence claim that a central advantage of this system is the facilitation of a more comprehsive and appropriate learning environment for all levels of intelligence. In other words, in pedagogical terms, it allows for the best education and access at each appropriate level. It also facilitates easier and more comprehensive teaching as the teacher is able to formulate more effective and focused teaching methodologies.

Advocates of this view point out that although the ideal of inclusive, non-segmented and heterogeneous classes is laudable, educationists should also be clear about the realities teachers face" (Gottfredson, 2004). They refer to the sobering reality of the "....'heterogeneous' classes created by the demise of grouping, tracking..." (Gottfredson, 2004). They point to the difficulty for teachers working in classes where the variation and variety in intelligence levels as well as other criteria make the work of the teacher almost impossible and creates an atmosphere where every few students really benefit.

With regard to the arguments that non-segmented classes in fact provide for forms of peer-tutoring and cooperative learning, many educationists claim that the reality is that this view is only partially valid. "Only the fine print reveals that the experiments deal just with basic skills, not with higher levels of understanding"(Gottfredson, 2004). They also refer to the fact that many student tend to 'lean on' the more intelligent and diligent pupils. Views such as these have resulted in a rejection of the idea of integrated and non-segmented classes on the grounds that in the final analysis they do benefit the student.

It has always been the task of America's public schools to facilitate social mobility, and, historically, they have performed the job well. They should now turn their attention to optimizing the development of all children. For that to happen, we'll have to acknowledge that God or nature did not make us all equal intellectually. (Gottfredson, 2004)

It is also interesting to note the attitude towards this issue in other counties. It is usually the case that whole - school teaching is practiced in the lower standards, with differentiation taking place in the higher standards. This is the case in many schools, for example, in Germany. While "Teachers said that they regard it as their duty to try to reduce the differences in ability within each class by making sure the "weak" children are "brought along" with the rest of the class" in the later standards this changes radically and."..at the beginning of the fifth year when the children are assigned to one of the tracks that lead to the various kinds of secondary school." The justification given for this separation of pupils is that Teachers and parents attributed this change to the belief that students' academic as well as social development can be fostered best in an environment that is most appropriate for them.

2.1. Theories off intelligence

As an important point of reference in this discussion it is necessary to provide a very brief and cursory introduction or overview to some of the dominant theories of intelligence that influence ideas about classroom management and educational methodology in general. The point of this section is to clarify the issue of intelligence and to show, as part of the central argument, that the assignment of students on the basis of the term " intelligence" is a contentious issue due to the simple fact that intelligence is by no means an element that is easily measurable or even easily identifiable. This factor is an essential variable in the present argument or discussion in that allocation or assignment of students to classes on the basis of intelligence becomes problematic if there is disagreement or dissention about what intelligence actually is.

One important view of intelligence is that is a "construct" which has altered and changed over time and which has been shaped by various social and cultural norms. This refers to the relativity of intelligence and giftedness. Borland (1997) states that,"...the construct of giftedness has undergone significant changes in recent times." (Borland, 1997, p. 13) the author also refers to modern educationists and theorists of intelligence such as Gardner and his Theory of Multiple Intelligences.

Howard Gardner has put forward his Theory of Multiple Intelligences in contradiction to the older hierarchical view of intelligence which, Gardner asserts, privileges some types of intelligence over others. The "types" of intelligence that Gardner has isolated includes the following: Visual or Spatial Intelligence; Musical Intelligence; Verbal or Linguistic Intelligence; Logical and Mathematical Intelligence; Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Intelligence and the Bodily or Kinesthetic Intelligence. He later added an eighth to the list, which is the Naturalist Intelligence. These intelligences he sees as natural propensities in every child that may be obscured to hidden due to cultural and social factors. In the past linguistic and rational models and ideals of intelligence have trended to dominate over other forms of intelligence.

Porter is another theorist who questions more traditional notions of intelligence. Porter is of the opinion that the hierarchical view of the giftedness is no longer seen as a tenable estimation and assessment of the term intelligence. "In the past, there was a hierarchical view of giftedness and talent which upheld that giftedness referred to academic skills while talent referred to nonacademic abilities -- for example, in the fine arts. But this hierarchy cannot stand up to scrutiny..." (Porter, 2005, p. 4)

There are of course many other views about intelligence in the educational context. However the object here is not to explore these theories in depth but rather to make a central point that influences this discussion. This is that, with new and often contradictory views of intelligence and especially with regard to the view that there are multiple and hidden intelligences an important question is raised: how are we to apply and condone the separation and assignment of children on the basis of intelligence when this is a disputed and relatively unclear term?