The Sorting Hat of Education

The sorting hat, for those not familiar with Harry Potter, assigned new students to the four different houses. Apparently, the hat used some magical formula to determine which house suited the student best.

In 1974, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein wrote the original 'Bell Curve' that, although subtle, implied that different racial groups (again, subtly, African-Americans) had different IQ levels (non-white trending at the bottom end of the bell curve according to the tests). It got revisited 20 years later and further expanded with more statistics and bell curves. Since, according to their statistics, wealthier (and thus more intelligent) beings tended to have fewer children than poorer lower intelligence beings (you might guess who they implied these to be), there had to be policies in place so that society wasn't overrun with lower intelligence mobs.

Fast-forward to the American Presidential election 2016 and it all sounds like a bizarre fantasy considering the caliber of some of the candidates. Probably because it is a fantasy. But it's effect has woven itself into our education systems and policies, how we perceive success, our models of reward and untold other areas. Dig deep and you will see it hideously leering at us from its hidden tower. Take this article about standardised testing in America.

Regrettably, it all harks back to the initial Intelligence Quotient , IQ, devised by the industrialised elite in 1916. In Race and Intelligence: ‘The Bell Curve’ 20 Years Later, this is further explained in terms of the socio-political agenda behind this ideology that has now, sadly, become pseudo-science. In education it has been refashioned into a pencil and every conceivable standardised test.

-----Loser------------------- Average--------------Amazing------Wow-

In  their excellent essay 'The History of the Bell Curve: Sorting and the Idea of Normal', Fendler and Muzaffar explain:

"There is a widespread belief that things of the world distribute themselves according to a model depicted by the normal curve. Known popularly as the bell curve, and mathematically as the Gaussian curve, this model holds that most phenomena occur around a middle point, while few occur at either the high or low extreme ends."

But do they? Is the bell curve or Gaussian curve representative of one thing in particular, let alone intelligence or ability? The answer to that is no. It's a very cool and funky mathematical representation of numerical probability and makes great rollercoasters, but apply it to complex organic systems and it just doesn't work.

Take this example, The Myth of Average: Todd Rose at TEDxSonomaCounty

Now, there is one point I would argue with Todd Rose about 'particularly gifted' drop outs. If the only measure we have for giftedness is IQ tests and other standardised tests then we're back to the eugenic sorting hat.

But back to the educational sorting hat. The problem lies with the fact that standardised tests are now designed to create a bell curve as a measure of ability.

Take that in for a moment. Standardised tests are not designed to explain how many people understand what is being presented. They don't just create a test, give it out then accept the scores. No, they re-design the test again and again (this is a very interesting process in itself) until a bell curve appears. They look for the bell curve. NCEA exams are scaled to create a bell curve, just in case one year we get a particularly great bunch of learners. So, there will ALWAYS be a tail end and a top end. ALWAYS. Sorted.

Have standardised and norm-based assessments created a repetitive loop that produces the 'tail-end' we are forever badgered about?

From Fendler and Muzaffar:
" Every time bell-curve thinking is repeated (in test results, in statistical analyses of test items, in predictions of ‘‘normal’’ distributions, by educational record keeping, and by people’s self-identifications on bureaucratic forms), the concocted notion of normal is reinscribed and reinforced. The bell curve is deployed ostensibly as a means to prevent, manage, or at least keep track of failure. However, by locking in the idea of normal-as-average, bell-curve thinking guarantees some degree of failure in all educational projects and makes sorting appear normal."

The biggest rebuttal to the 1994 Bell Curve edition came in the form of the book  'Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth' by Claude S. Fischer, Michael Hout, Martín Sánchez Jankowski, Samuel R. Lucas, Ann Swidler, & Kim Vos. I have only read excerpts at this stage but it points to bell curve thinking as a means to justify inequality. One only needs to think about who is in our 'tail-end' of education (below the 'norm' normal) to find striking parallels. So who gets to be at the bottom and the top? It's the death -or inequity- by a thousand cuts for some, as Toby Morris so eloquently described in this cartoon.

Neuroscience is only now beginning to understand how our brains learn, and the science has advanced enormously, but the nagging sorting hat ideology continues to influence us more than the true potential of our learners. It's all very well to exalt growth mindset, but the subtle messages we send about what ability is or isn't through the sorting hat, have an immense impact on our learners and teachers' disposition to learning.

Dare we, for a moment, take off that sorting hat and look at our learners, really look, carefully, and allow them to show us what they are truly capable of? Dare we resist the sorting hat and let the caged bird sing?