Back to School

Synchronicity is more than just the best Police album.
Earlier this morning I was reading more Neil Postman, this time from Technopoly, specifically a section that describes the relative absurdity of defining intelligence numerically (ala IQ tests).  First of all, intelligence is a word that can possibly signify an incredibly wide range of mental faculties, and as some of the wiser guides will tell you there are different kinds of intelligence.  Second, as Postman points out, intelligence is a word that signifies an idea, not an object.  If I were to say I have five cans of soda, you would know exactly what I was talking about.  If I were to say I have five intelligences, you might think I was talking some sort of new Oprah-self-help-babble, or, if you were actually intelligent, you might realize that I actually had very little grasp of the English language.  Yet, when we rank people in order of Intelligence Quotient, essentially that is exactly what we're doing.
I have taken IQ tests, I know what they test.  I have had psychology courses, and I know that, in some frames of thought, there is certain validity to such instruments.  However, if we are to assume in a pseudo-scientific manner that IQ is the only measure of intelligence we are probably proving that we have an IQ of about 90.  The fact of the matter is that IQ tests only test a very narrow band of human intelligence, and the idea that a number defines our intellectual potential is a little offensive to our humanity.
So, dinner comes and we are talking about the fact that Jack will have a new teacher this year in the Gifted program at his school, which he is in primarily because he performed quite well on those tests that like to grade intelligence numerically.  Cate, teacher's pet that she is, wonders if she should be in the program as well.  She almost certainly will be once they apply those numerical intelligence meters to her.  While I am explaining these realities to my privileged and gifted children I had Postman's spot-on critique of the very idea ringing in my ears.
I am certainly proud of my children and their precociousness. I am certainly glad that their school will give them the opportunity for a little extra push.  But I wonder how many intelligent and wonderful children we will fail because we don't happen to have a good number to define them.  Jack is artistic and mechanically inclined, and his talents in these areas probably far outstrip his numerical scores, he's lucky that the numbers opened a gateway that will allow him to more fully explore his talents.  But what about the children who don't have a high enough number?
The challenges of mass public education are such that it is probably impossible to function without numerical measures of intelligence, but maybe, just maybe, we should at least ask a few questions about the nature of intelligence that prove that it's more than just a number.