Number of words: 309<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The IQ debate has been a fundamental one, not only to education, but also to the philosopher and politician. Even to pose the question as to which was more important, heredity or environment, has been dangerous in certain periods of history. To give a particular answer has often been to invite imprisonment for teacher and death. This is because of the intimate connection with the question of authority \u2013 divine or secular. The witch doctor, clergy and emperor have naturally proclaimed the power of inborn factors. The reformer, revolutionary and radical have emphasized the equality of man and potential of education, training and a favourable environment. It is therefore a social and political question first and an educational question only second. Yet, however, we view it remains a game of power politics; how best to win society\u2019s acquiescence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Modern times have seen the fall of monarchs and the appearance of populistic regimes. All men are equal <\/em>has become a slogan paraded ostentatiously by political parties of every complexion. With this the corollary, that every person must receive an equality of educational opportunity. Knowing however, that except in a classless society, this must remain only an abstraction, reformers and theoreticians have contemplated the next alternative: ways to make a society more nearly equal. To Lenin, any liberation must be preceded by a theory of liberation, a way of legitimising one\u2019s actions. And this applies equally to education. In a capitalist society, in order to justify the hierarchical division of labour, the mechanism to place individuals in an equal positions is IQ. It provides the necessary legitimacy. The linking of intelligence to economic success by the educational system strengthens its legitimacy. This accounts for the greater reliance that such a system places on meritocratic mechanisms like the IQ and credentialism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n