«Schools pigeonhole children too early»
Mrs Stern, what do you mean by intelligence?
The ability to think precisely and deductively. Intelligence enables us to understand complex ideas and solve problems, to learn through instruction and to learn from experience. It is also about the efficiency of information processing: people with strong cognitive abilities absorb information more quickly, can link it more easily to existing knowledge and draw conclusions from it that serve their goals.
What factors determine our intelligence?
Genes play an important role. There is no intelligence gene per se, rather an interplay of genetic variations determines our mental abilities. We all have the genetic prerequisites for deductive thinking - how good we are at it depends on the genetic variations. We assume that 50 to 80 per cent of differences in intelligence are hereditary. However, this statement is often misunderstood.
In what way?
It does not refer to the individual, but to the differences within a group, which can be calculated precisely using the statistical measure of variance. Genetic variations have the greatest influence where many people benefit from equally good development opportunities. In Switzerland, all children can attend school, benefit from good learning opportunities and develop their intellectual potential. Differences in cognitive performance can therefore be explained to a large extent by genetic differences.
A lack of linguistic exchange and closeness impairs intelligence.
Where good educational opportunities are reserved for the privileged, the influence of genes is smaller - differences in intelligence are strongly influenced by social differences. It is the same with height: in adults who grew up in Switzerland, height differences are almost 100 per cent genetic - in developing countries, the hereditary factor is much smaller because malnutrition affects many people.
What does a child need in order to realise its genetic intelligence potential?
A fundamental prerequisite is that a growing child is not exposed to the influence of alcohol or drugs in the womb or affected by problems such as severe malnutrition in its later development. Such risk factors damage it to an extent that the best genetic conditions cannot counteract. A lack of emotional closeness and linguistic exchange also impairs intelligence in the long term. A child is dependent on parents who are emotionally attached to it, respond to it and give it plenty of linguistic attention. Otherwise, it doesn't need anything over the top.
There are theories that sport and music in particular have a beneficial effect on intelligence. What is this all about?
Children have a strong urge to move and adults should make sure that they can fulfil this urge so that they can explore the world and develop their motor skills. Parents should also offer the child the opportunity to learn an instrument - but not force it. It's nice to be sporty or musical, but it doesn't make us any smarter and, unlike writing and reading, is not a basic requirement to be able to survive in our society and take advantage of what it has to offer.
At what age can intelligence be reliably measured?
Strong cognitive abilities often become apparent early on, but this does not allow for reliable predictions, as child development is dynamic. Here, too, it is the same as with height: a tall schoolchild will probably not be one of the shortest as an adult, but it may well be that their growth slows down during puberty and they do not end up being as tall as one might have expected.
If an eight-year-old child scores 130 points or more on an IQ test, it is quite possible that two years later they will be somewhere in the normal range. Then they are first diagnosed as gifted - and then they are not. This is not good for self-esteem. A child should be at least ten, preferably twelve years old for such assessments.
Many private providers carry them out earlier, for example because parents fear that their child will not be challenged enough.
If a child needs more stimulation than the school offers, the teacher can provide them with additional material. If they are already practising multiplication while the others are still adding, they can work on other material in the meantime and try out a higher level of performance. The school must offer this flexibility. Teachers today are sensitised to differences in performance and react to them, so there is no need for a diagnosis of giftedness.
It is wrong to assume that intelligence and social skills are independent characteristics.
Incidentally, intelligent people don't get bored so quickly, precisely because of their pronounced mental flexibility they can, to put it bluntly, make something out of every situation - and perhaps bridge lulls by thinking.
So are children who stand out negatively because they are underchallenged a myth?
That can happen. But there are many reasons why children disrupt lessons or get bored. Giftedness is rarely the cause.
Nevertheless, the assertion that high intelligence goes hand in hand with social deficits persists.
There is no scientific evidence for this. On the contrary: gifted children are generally well integrated socially. People act as if intelligence is a kind of insular talent that plays no role in social behaviour. It is wrong to assume that intelligence and social skills are two independent characteristics. Intelligence enables mental flexibility, which also serves us in interpersonal relationships.
What criteria does good learning depend on?
The child should be able to make sense of content. Reading and writing is not simply about learning letters. It opens up new worlds for the child: They can access content that was previously inaccessible to them and communicate in new ways. It is important to show them this. To do this, parents can also work with a mobile phone, let the child write a text message - or swap roles when reading aloud.
Good learning is not about cramming, but about finding answers to questions - this requires good teaching.
They should realise that reading, writing and arithmetic help them to understand the world better, be it when shopping or down by the stream. That it is nice to discover the laws of numbers or natural phenomena. Good learning does not mean cramming, but finding answers to questions - this requires good teaching.
What makes it special?
Good teaching is above all differentiated teaching. Different children can learn different things from the same learning conditions. For example, with the multiplication tables: instead of stubbornly asking the number sequences, you can also ask: how many colouring tasks can be found for a certain number? Children with a greater affinity for maths may notice that seven is greater than six, and yet fewer combinations lead to seven. Or they may realise that two can be multiplied twice by the same factor to make eight. In this way, some develop an initial idea of prime numbers or powers, while others work on basic skills.
Differentiation does not immediately mean forming groups. Rather, you should consider which learning opportunities appeal to all children to different degrees, i.e. design tasks in such a way that each child can solve them in a difficulty range that suits them. This is possible more often than you might think.
Curriculum 21 also aims to meet each child where they are at the moment. But does individualisation work with 20 children?
Individualisation does not mean that I have to be aware of every child's progress at all times. That is a misunderstanding. As a teacher, I'm not a doctor, I don't have to make precise diagnoses. But I have to be aware that I am dealing with children who are different in terms of their prior knowledge, their way of working, their mental abilities and so on. With every learning topic, misunderstandings arise somewhere. I don't necessarily need to know which child is or isn't good - I just need to know that this is the case.
And then?
I make different demands: sometimes easier, sometimes more difficult. The children don't have to have a new realisation every five minutes, but everyone should have made some progress by the end of the lesson. I recommend that teachers regularly carry out formative assessments, for example multiple-choice tests - but anonymously and without subsequent grading. This makes it easy to determine where the class stands.
Many teachers think that good maths performance is the result of innate talent. That is nonsense.
As a teacher, I'm not interested in what Susanne can already do and what Peter can't, I just want to know how many children have already mastered it and where there is still a need for explanation. At the end of a learning topic, the questionnaires can also be filled out with names so that I can see which children may need extra support.
What else does a good teacher need to bring to the table?
She should enjoy discovering new things and not consider herself to be «out of her depth». This requires good access to children and young people and enthusiasm for their own subject. However, subject teachers at higher levels sometimes forget that they don't have specialists in front of them and then tend to label those who can't follow their instructions as lacking a grasp of the subject.
I think it's bad when teachers cling to clichés that should have been done away with a long time ago. For example, there is a widespread belief that good maths performance is the result of innate talent - and that those who are blessed with it understand things on their own.
What do you think?
That's rubbish. Mathematical skills depend on cognitive abilities; you shouldn't encourage a person with below-average intelligence to learn differential calculus. But it is unacceptable if young people with an IQ in the upper normal range achieve poor maths grades - then there is a high probability that something went wrong didactically.
There are many children and young people who may not be predestined to study maths, but who have the cognitive tools to learn to do maths well. The problem is that they became convinced early on that maths is not for them and fall far short of their potential.
Apart from poor teaching, what are the reasons for this?
The school self-concept is largely determined by feedback such as grades. In my opinion, this should be avoided in the first two years of school. Instead, I would make great offers, ensure that no children are left behind and make sure that the others get their food.
46 per cent of grammar school pupils do not have the intelligence required for this level.
If a child has a five in maths and a six in German, they will say: I am a language person. The classmate with a D in German and a F in maths will classify herself as a maths person. Yet both children have the same maths grade. People tend to form categorisations - at school it often happens too early.
What's the story behind the myth of the language or maths guy?
From a scientific point of view, not much. On the contrary: there is a strong correlation between maths performance and reading and writing skills. People who perform very well in word and language comprehension are not below average in maths - and vice versa. This is logical, as both maths and language skills are influenced by intelligence. Nevertheless, we certainly all have our tendencies.
To what extent can intelligence be compensated by diligence?
A lot can be achieved through motivation, perseverance and discipline. Overall, these factors are not as powerful as intelligence, but a child can get very far with them, at least in primary school, where a lot of material is learnt by heart or trained according to a certain pattern. Later, when learning content requires greater cognitive flexibility, it becomes more difficult.
At grammar school?
Many even manage to drag themselves through secondary school. This requires a lot of additional support, i.e. extra tuition and so on, and the young people have to adapt to the effort. This is where the commitment of parents is noticeable. Without their support, these young people would be long gone.
They even say that a third of secondary school pupils are in the wrong place.
This is shown by our IQ tests with high school students in Switzerland. 46 per cent of the young people we tested do not have the necessary intelligence for this school level. Of course, IQ tests are not perfect and it is possible for a child to have a bad day. This has to be taken into account in the evaluation, which is why our - rather conservative - estimate is a good 30 per cent.
How can the intelligence required for grammar school be quantified?
The Swiss Matura quota stipulates that no more than 20 per cent of children should go to grammar school. Ideally, this would be the most intelligent 20 per cent of a year group. Based on this, the minimum IQ for grammar school would have to be 112 points. This value corresponds to a percentile rank of 80 in relation to the population as a whole. Around one third do not fulfil this requirement. In cases of doubt, social background beats intelligence: well-off families finance exam preparation courses and tutoring that others cannot afford.
We need to make schools more socially just. This is not just for reasons of fairness, we need capable people in positions of responsibility. There are also intelligent children in less well-off families - they should be encouraged to go to grammar school.
How?
Teachers certainly play a key role here. A first step would be to consciously focus on children who stand out due to their comprehension skills, but whose parents are not even thinking about grammar school.
Not all children who have the cognitive potential for grammar school also achieve top grades. I'm thinking in particular of children who are not native German speakers. They would therefore probably have difficulties in the entrance exam. An IQ test would help to map their intellectual potential more reliably. I am not in favour of IQ tests across the board, but I think they make sense in individual cases like these to improve equal opportunities.
Speaking of fairness: how well do grades reflect intelligence?
It is not the case that school grades and intelligence are independent of each other. There is a statistically relevant correlation, but it is anything but perfect: there are many children who would be predicted to have a better school grade based on their intelligence, and vice versa. The reasons for this are manifold and are not only due to the teaching and support provided by parents. Children are also guided by their interests and are prepared to accept lower grades in certain subjects. However, mental abilities and grades should not be too far apart. As I said at the beginning: It cannot be that a child with an IQ in the upper average range fails in maths.
