Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia
[permission
to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]
The association of
potential and ability was very much influenced by Alfred Binet’s and Theodore
Simon’s[1]
efforts to develop measures of mental measurement for the purpose of better
matching instruction to the abilities (aptitudes, potential) of children:
“. . . a profound knowledge of the normal intellectual development of the child would not only be of great interest but useful in formulating a course of instruction really adapted to their aptitudes” [p. 261] . . .the instruction should always be according to the natural evolution of the child, and not precede it by a year or two. In other words the child should be taught only what he is sufficiently mature to understand; all precocious instruction is lost time, for it is not assimilated. [p. 262]
But what about
students who are seen to be out of the “normal” range of development or
aptitude?
Adapting instruction
to cultivate the intelligence of the learner was Binet’s and Simon’s intention.
But it is not difficult to see how the concept of potential can be used to restrict
the education that might be provided to students whose potential, abilities,
and aptitudes were perceived as “limited.” Indeed, the techniques Binet and
Simon developed to measure metal abilities were perverted by others to deny
education to some, stream others and, worse, to abet eugenicists bent on improving
the genetic stock and eliminating “inferiors.”[2]
When applied to
students, “their potential” and “their individual potential” are synonymous
with “to the best of their ability.” The term is so strongly connected to
schools that the Cambridge
Online Dictionary uses the following example of its use in sentences: “I
have children in my class of very mixed abilities (= different levels of skill
or intelligence).”
There are many
contemporary manifestations of categorization of students with the intention of
providing educational programs adapted to their “potential.” The most notable
example is students with special needs defined as: “students
who have a disability of an intellectual, physical, sensory, emotional or
behavioural nature, have a learning disability, or have exceptional gifts or
talents . . .”
Categorization of
students using the standard of “the normal intellectual development of the
child” makes, by definition, deviations from that standard “abnormal” and potentially
stigmatizing. Those who are categorized often internalize the label applied to
them and become confirmed in the identity associated with the label. Such
confirmation makes addressing the needs of that student more complicated.
Students with special
needs bring additional resources to many school boards because of the
additional effort and resources that are thought to be necessary for their
education. Parents cognizant of the challenges their children face often seek
diagnoses and labels that will qualify them for categorization and the
attention that the additional resources are supposed to provide.
The association of
extra funding to categories of students with special needs creates an incentive
to seek such designations. Collective agreements that place limits on the
number of designated children in a class, sharpens the demarcation between
“normal” students and those the system considers “abnormal.”
One only needs to look at definitions across jurisdictions to see how fluid designation and language are. Consider students who manifest externalizing behaviour and symptoms of mental illness. As Tong[3] points out
In British Columbia, the category is titled “Behavioural Needs or Mental Illness” and within this category, students can be identified in one of two ways, “Students Requiring Moderate Behaviour Support or Students with Mental Illness” or “Students Requiring Intensive Behaviour Intervention or Students with Serious Mental Illness” (BC Ministry of Education, 2011). Alberta Education also identifies two categories of students with behaviour disorders and mental illnesses using the terminology “Emotional/Behavioural Disability” and “Severe Emotional/Behavioural Disability” (Alberta Education, 2011). . . . British Columbia does not formally categorize students with mild behaviour disorders and mental illnesses whereas Alberta Education includes students identified with mild behaviour disorders and mental illnesses in the “Emotional/Behavioural Disability” category.
One wonders
whether and how much the educational programs for such students differ.
Our education
system is predicated on age-related definitions of normality that make
deviations from those norms stand out. It is a deficit model of schooling that
begins before children enter school. Getting children “school ready” is
predicated on such thinking. As I have argued before, maybe we
need to rethink the assumptions behind the way we organize education and
take children as they are and not as we wish them to be.
Language matters. It
reflects our cultural assumptions. And when enshrined in policy and practice to
which funding is linked, and in contracts, it gets baked into the system and
becomes systemic. Terms like potential, ability, and aptitude have significant
consequences for the way the persons to whom they are applied are treated. And
the ways they are treated have consequences for them.
In British
Columbia, Indigenous students are overrepresented among students categorized because
of behaviour disorders and mental illnesses. The graduation rate for these
Indigenous students is significantly lower than those of their peers. When one
finds that some groups of students are over-represented in a category, you must
ask whether some form of systemic discrimination is at work.
[1]
Binet, A. and T. Simon. The development of intelligence in children (The
Binet-Simon Scale).; Kite, E. S., (Trans); Baltimore, MD, US: Williams &
Wilkins Co; 1916. 337 pp.
[2]
See, for example, Thompson, G. (1999), Remove from our Midst These
Unfortunates: A Historical Inquiry Into the Influence of Eugenics, Educational
Efficiency as well as Mental Hygiene upon the Vancouver School System and its
Special Classes, 1910-1969. The University of British Columbia, Ph.D. Thesis.
[3]
Tong, J. (2017) An Exploration of School Related Factors Associated with School
Completion for Children and Youth with Behaviour Disorders and Mental Illness
in BC. The University of British Columbia, Ph.D. Thesis.