Education: Beating the I.Q. Test

From first grade to college, and in industry and the military as well, the intelligence quotient is the chief U.S. measuring rod for separating the bright from the dull. But to a growing body of angry critics. I.Q. tests are unfair. They argue that too many teachers peg children by one I.Q. test. Yet many of the challenges —typically, picture puzzles, number games or scrambled sentences—do not measure native intelligence so much as cultural advantages such as familiarity with vocabulary and material objects. Thus I.Q.s. instead of being fixed for life, can be raised by training. Then why not train children to do so?

So argues balding Sam Rosenfeld, 40, veteran chemistry teacher at Hewlett (N.Y.) High School. This week he published a 188-page blueprint titled 30 Days To A Higher I.Q. For Your Child (Crown; $2.95), which consists of more than 700 problems and puzzles in the pattern of I.Q. tests. They will not make him brighter. But because “a poor showing on an I.Q. test can ruin your child’s educational progress—perhaps forever,” says Rosenfeld. “it is proper, even urgent that all children be taught how to take these tests.”

41 Sets of Scales. An I.Q. of 100 is supposed to represent the performance of average youngsters of a given age. But beyond that simple point, confusion sets in. There are now four individually administered I.Q. tests, including the granddaddy Stanford-Binet Scales. But in crowded classrooms, schools generally use one of some 37 less reliable, group-administered tests. Since each test measures different qualities that the test writers believe reflect “intelligence.” it is theoretically possible to get 41 different scores for one child. Even on the same test, a child’s score may vary 5 to 20 points, depending on his health and state of mind. Yet many schools take each score as gospel.

Rosenfeld offers himself as an example of I.Q. oddities. In World War II the Army pegged him at 119 on one test, at 134 on another. While later studying for his master’s degree in science education at New York University, Rosenfeld volunteered to take a Stanford-Binet test in front of the class. He wound up with a “genius” I.Q. of 145 (which he hopefully regards as accurate). Later he saw more than one able student with top grades thrown out of honors programs because of low I.Q.. with teachers rationalizing that “he’s obviously working beyond his capacity.”

Test-Wise Neurotics? Incensed at this notion of penalizing the “overachiever.” Rosenfeld nine years ago began test-training his neighbors’ children. He wrote his book to illustrate “the kind of reason ing used on I.Q. tests.” Most helpful exercises are in speedier reading, such as the art of skimming, and such test-taking tips as how to mark machine-graded answers to save precious seconds. “Just knowing the technique of taking the test can increase the score.” says Rosenfeld.

Many educators disagree sharply with the idea that children should be trained in the art of I.Q. improvement, and fear that overanxious parents may employ books such as Rosenfeld’s. to make their child test-wise but no wiser, and perhaps more neurotic.