Evening star., 1938-11-03
An l. O. Test
Not Final
Measure
High Rating Early
In Life May Not
Stand Later.
BY ANGELO PATRI.

Why did you leave my son back?
How could he be left back when he
has the I. @. of genius?"
David has to repeat his work in
mathematics. He goes ahead with
his group in the other subjects. He
had to, repeat the work because 1t
was plain he had not understood it,"
But he must have understood it.
He had to understand it. He has
the l. @. of genius. Look on his
card. You can't leave a genius
back"
How simple life would be if one
could go on that basis. You get a
genius rating and up you 90 forever.
But when was life simple? Never
in school, you can be sure. There is
nothing so complicated as the
growth of a child unless it is his
mental, moral and physical equip
ment. Nobody is wise enough to
understand the being who is the
sum of these elements, and there Is
no measure that can be accepted
for them. Genius defies all meas
ures, and so does imbecility.
The tests that give the I. O. can
not be final measure of a child's
ability. 1t should never be the sole
factor in making a decision about
a child because it reflects the con-
dition of the child's mind and body
only of those matters it touched
upon and only at that time In his
growth. There were so many mat
ters untouched by the tests that the
result cannot be anything like q
sentence pronounced by learned
judge. But some folk seem to think
they are just that, final decree
from the source of all wisdom, the
educational tester.
The purpose of a child, his will,
his family background. his attitude,
his future growth are not shown in
the usual l. @. How could they be?
Will and purpose, all-powerful forces
in the mental life of a child cannot
be tested so as to give result that
can be taken as fixed and certain
and unchanging. Attitudes change
with the environment and that
changes as the child moves. Future
growth is sealed secret. But the
future of child is going to be
modified, changed, set by these un-
measurable qualities.
Is an I. @. no good for purposes
OF measurement? Yes, just as other
ratings are useful, it is useful. But
I would just as soon accept the
statement of an able teacher on
the abilities of pupil as to take
the I. @. The experienced and able
teacher knows what the tester and
the test cannot know, the express
sion of the total child, mind as
shown in purpose, will, attitudes and
abilities.
I. Q.'s change with the changing
circumstances of the child, with his
growth, with the development of
his powers, and also with the check
OF those expressions. 1t is possible
for a child to get high I. @. at
one period of his life and a lower
one later, and the other way about.
One uses these ratings judiciously,
never with stern f1nality.
One point we must make clear and
sure: It is rarely possible for a
child, whose I. @. showed q decided
deficiency, to rise beyond the class
termed subnormal. It has happened,
but so rarely as to make 1t an ex-
ception that throws doubt on the
accuracy of the first test. A mental
defective is not normal, and cannot
be, but often he can be- trained to
some useful service which makes
him happy. Even here, one waits
for the decision of time, and the re-
port of the teachers who have tried
to overcome the deficiency. An I.
@. is challenge. never 4 sentence
pronounced upon child.
tcepyrtsht. 1eSSJ