The concept of IQ and intelligence was developing in the beginning of the 1900's for the purpose of eugenics...
Well...this isn't quite accurate. The
IQ test developed by Alfred Binet came about because the French government had mandated universal education, and there was an interest in determining which children belonged in special classrooms that could help slower learners. I doubt very much that they had eugenics in mind...
Please note that sanne did not claim that
IQ testing was developed for eugenics... just that "The concept of IQ and intelligence was developing in the beginning of the 1900's for the purpose of eugenics." Sanne's assertion appears to be correct, Val's facts appear to be correct also.
Several sources cite
eugenics and
attempts to assess intelligence prior to Binet's
IQ testing. For example:
Throughout the early 1900s, eugenicists labored to devise objective methods of measuring and quantifying valued traits, including intelligence, in order to substantiate their hypothesis of Nordic genetic advantage. Some of their more preposterous experiments involved measuring the crania of school children, analyzing the facial asymmetry of criminals, and sketching the toes of prostitutes. Eugenicists struggled for years to produce compelling results, until the advent of Alfred Binet's intelligence scale in 1909 gave rise to standardized intelligence testing, colloquially known as IQ testing.
That said, sanne, do you have sources for the following:
- forced sterilization (which is still totally okay in the USA, btw), and infecting with terminal diseases within institutions.
- Rather than encouraging all students to pursue a degree, educators wrote about intentionally excluding "unfit" students
- The "myths" about gitedness as elitism are WELL FOUNDED in history, as are reservations in IQ testing, sharing IQ test scores, and data tracking in schools.
As to the OP's question... great responses upthread... I'll just add a few thoughts:
- Gifted kids may be
treated differently today:
- Gifted kids may be
identified differently. There is a dichotomy: Defining gifted in terms of achievement
* VS removing achievement from identification to be more inclusive.
- Gifted kids may be
excluded, under-served, and denied opportunity for
appropriate challenge and
academic/intellectual peers, by so-called gifted programs and services in an attempt to create equal outcomes. As one example, schools may create programs (such as math 1 year ahead) then identify students to match to their program, rather than identify gifted students and create programming to serve the needs of these students. There is a large difference between matching the student to the program and matching the program to the student.
*Defining gifted in terms of achievement:
...eminence ought to be the chief goal of gifted education.
...
To frame our discussion, we propose a definition of giftedness that we intend to be comprehensive. Giftedness is the manifestation of performance that is clearly at the upper end of the distribution in a talent domain even relative to other high-functioning individuals in that domain. Further, giftedness can be viewed as developmental in that in the beginning stages, potential is the key variable; in later stages, achievement is the measure of giftedness; and in fully developed talents, eminence is the basis on which this label is granted.
Equating giftedness with eminence may
conflate giftedness with opportunity.
