INTELLIGENCE 15, 139-149 (1991)

EDITORIAL

Intelligence, Equality, Character, and Education

RONALD FLETCHER

During recent years one of my chief preoccupations has been the study of "The Cyril Burt Scandal": a detailed rereading of Burt's (1943, 1937/1961, 1969) own work (including that lying behind the footnotes which abound in his articles, and which many of his critics seem not to have followed up), and a similar scrutiny of the evidence cited by those who accused him of "fraud." Here, however, I shall not enter into this dispute, but would like simply to mention a few convictions which have gained cumulative strength during the course of this study, and which remain, in my mind, as matters of considerable importance.

THE H E R E D I T Y - E N V I R O N M E N T CONTROVERSY

Most notable has been an ever-growing conviction of how disastrous an influ- e n c e - i n scientific theory and educational practice al ike--has been the long- standing conflict between the Hereditarians and the Environmentalists: between those who hold that intelligence is, to a large extent, determined by heredity, and those who believe that it is an outcome of environmental conditions.

I must be honest, and say that a full comparison of the bodies of argument and evidence advanced on both sides has led me to stand on the side of the Heredi- tarians. Without entering too much into detail, it is plain that a considerable body of work, including replicated studies (I mean of identical twins reared apart in different environments), has been undertaken by eminent scholars from Burt's time onwards (and continues still at the University of Minnesota under the guidance of Professor Thomas Bouchard, 1982, 1983, 1984) which has been, and remains, remarkably consistent in demonstrating the extent to which intel- ligence rests upon hereditary factors. Against this, unless I am very much mis- taken, no such consistent body of work whatever exists to demonstrate the validity of the Environmentalist case.

I do not want, however, even to dwell on this controversy, but only to argue that--had it not been for the strength of ideological passions and distortions--it was always, from the very beginning, misguided and unnecessary.

The idea that those who held that heredity was the primary determinant of intelligence in any way overlooked, denied, or underrated the importance of

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Ronald Fletcher, Cranmere, Halesworth Road, Reydon, Southwold, Suffolk, England IPI86NH.

139

140 FLETCHER

environmental conditions for the development and education of the child was simply never true. It was never true, similarly, that these theorists ignored, or showed a lack of concern for, the inequalities of educational opportunity result- ing from the distribution of intelligence throughout all classes of society. On the contrary, it was this very measurement of intelligence and its social distribution which made them aware of these inequalities and led them to argue for their remedy. This is an extremely important point, and can be demonstrated in the work of Burt with great clarity.

Burt's (1943) ar t ic le--so much criticised by his opponents--s temmed, in fact, entirely from his awareness (and demonstration) of the inequalities of educational opportunity which then existed in London, and strongly expressed his concern that measures should be taken to reduce, and, if possible, eliminate them. Indeed, his pressure to introduce intelligence tests (nonverbal as well as attainment tests) in selective examinations, was entirely an attempt to achieve greater opportunities for working-class children, to move towards a greater de- gree of equality of opportunity. Much earlier, however--"Heredi tar ian" that he was- -Bur t had gone to great lengths to emphasise the importance of environ- mental effects on the educability of the child, and to identify these.

In The Backward Child (Butt, 1937/1961), the discovery of wide regional and local variations in the distribution of backwardness among children led him to study, in detail, the different social conditions prevailing in these areas and districts: a comparison of death rates, birth rates, and rates of infantile mortality; the incidence of juvenile delinquency; the provision and quality of schools; the extent and degree of poverty, welfare relief, and unemployment; the conditions of overcrowding in neighbourhoods and schools; and the size of families. The close association between the material handicaps of families and the extent of backwardness among children in schools was firmly established. Burt was not content, however, with mere concomitance.

To conclude off-hand that in each individual case poverty is the main cause of dullness or incompetence would be neither just nor logical. A bare smattering of biography is sufficient to refute that simple induction. Bunyan, the tinker, Faraday, the blacksmith's son, Sextus V, the child of a shepherd, Adrian V1, the son of a bargee, Bums, Cook, Giotto, all sons of peasants, d'Alembert, the foundling picked up one Christmas night on the snowy steps of a Parisian church, Romney, Opie, lnigo Jones and Abraham Lincoln, each the son of a carpenter--these and many like them have risen to the loftiest intellectual eminence from the lowliest social spheres. The poorest tenements of London contain many youthful geniuses, some of whom win--more of whom merit but fail to win--a free place or schol- arship at a secondary school or college.

Stupidity, therefore, is not the inevitable result of poverty, though poverty seems its commonest concomitant; and to discover more precisely how the two interact, an analysis, not of districts, but of individual cases, will be required. Is it the lowest stocks and the dullest families that gravitate to the slums, and there, by their poor intelligence, perpetuate and even aggravate the squalor that they find? Or do the

INTELLIGENCE, EQUALITY, CHARACTER, AND EDUCATION 141

underfeeding, the overcrowding, and the many daily deprivations, tend to de- vitalize minds that originally were normal? And if they devitalize some minds, how is it that they leave others apparently unimpaired? (p. 105)

The heredity-environment question could hardly have been more clearly posed, and Burt then proceeded to examine each particular feature of the social environment in more detail. First, he examined the school conditions in each area: the record of attendance at each school (and the reasons given for absence); the qualities of its teachers, their degree of efficiency, their career conditions, and so on, and the nature and efficiency of each school's organization. Then he considered the social conditions lying beyond the school: the material conditions of homes (their level of income, degree of poverty, etc.); the material conditions of their dwelling places; the intellectual and cultural level of the parents (the level of knowledge, stimulation, and encouragement they provided within the home); the emotional and moral conditions of the family ("the moral attitudes, the cultural background, the emotional relationships between the different relatives," etc.); and the conditions of all these same factors in the neighbourhood within which the families lived.

A great deal could be said about Burt's many findings in all these areas, but, for my purpose (as will be seen), two particular points are of interest. First, when considering the cultural quality of the family's background, Burt found it es- pecially important to focus upon the vocabulary (impoverished or otherwise) used by the family, and available to the children. Second, when considering relationships within the family itself, Burt found it of crucial importance to emphasise the quality and role of the mother.

Having studied the nature and influence of these environmental factors, Burt's conclusion was clear.

The characteristics of the backward child's home, family, and neighbourhood 1 have discussed in some detail, because, though older teachers must be sufficiently familiar with all 1 have described, the inexperienced have still to learn what a powerful influence is exercised upon their pupils' work by circumstances outside the school walls. In huge cities like London, the teacher often lives miles away from his pupils; and though the parents may come to school, the masters seldom visit the homes. It is only when a teacher has moved from one district to another, and taught a wide variety of children, that he begins to appreciate how differences in social conditions may entirely alter the type of mind with which he has to cope. (1937/1961, p. 134)

It is important to see how firm and continual an emphasis this was throughout Burt's work. Elsewhere, he wrote:

Intelligence is by no means the only factor determining the child's educational progress. There are the special aptitudes and disabilities that emerge and mature during the years of growth; there are his qualities of temperament and character--

142 FLETCHER

the ambitions that he cherishes and the aims that he forms. These, like general intelligence, are also largely influenced by the child's inborn constitution; but they are far more liable to be swayed by the conditions and events of his daily life, at home, at school, and wherever he meets his boon companions. (1969, pp. 92-93)

My essential point so far--demonstrated, I hope, beyond doubt--is simply that the holding of the Hereditarian position in no way whatever implied any ignoring or underrating of the influences of environmental conditions (material, social or cultural) upon the mental development and educability of the child; neither did it imply any blindness to the inequalities of educational opportunity in society, any insensitivity to them, or lack of concern for them. Yet, Burr and Hereditarians, generally, were violently attacked by their Environmentalist oppo- nents as being on the extreme "Right" politically: standing for the preservation of privilege, for "Elitism," and as obstacles in the way of achieving "Equality" and educational and social progress. By contrast, they themselves stood decided- ly on the "Left"; radically criticized "mental tests" as being no more than a reflection of the existing nature of class conditions; radically criticized educa- tional selection on this basis as being no more than social selection; believed passionately in "Equality", and advocated radical reforms of both social condi- tions and educational provisions to make this an actuality.

Readers will not need reminding of the unrelenting virulence which charac- terised the controversy from the immediate post-war years until now. What does need noting, however, is that--though, apart from its criticism of its opponents, having no positive body of work to support its own fundamental theory (i.e., to demonstrate, satisfactorily, that levels of intelligence and the existence of partic- ular aptitudes in individuals were determined by environmental factors)--it was the Environmentalist position which, throughout this period, became the domi- nant ethos in both science and educational practice.

The extent to which this became true in science--and the demonstration of the character of Environmentalism in achieving and continuing its dominance--may be unmistakably seen in one outstanding piece of evidence.

In the American Psychologist of July, 1972, some 50 internationally eminent scientists (in psychology and associated subjects) recorded their experience that simply to hold the Hereditarian view brought them "under extreme personal and professional abuse at Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, Connecticut, Illinois, and elsewhere" and that the situation had hardened into one of stark intolerance. Citing instances of intellectual "suppression and censorship" in the past, they claimed that

today, a similar suppression, censure, punishment, and defamation are being ap- plied against scientists who emphasise the role of heredity in human behaviour. Published positions are often misquoted and misrepresented; emotional appeals replace scientific reasoning; arguments are directed against the man rather than

INTELLIGENCE, EQUALITY, CHARACTER, AND EDUCATION 143

against the evidence (e.g., a scientist is called a "fascist", and his arguments are ignored.)

A large number of attacks come from nonscientists, or even antiscientists, among the political militants on campus. Other attackers include academics com- mitted to environmentalism in their explanation of almost all human differences. It is virtually heresy to express a hereditarian view, or to recommend further study of the biological bases of behaviour. A kind of orthodox environmentalism dominates the liberal academy, and strongly inhibits teachers, researchers and scholars from turning to biological explanations or efforts. (p. 660)

This domination of the one point of view had also come to exert intolerance (and therefore censorship) even in the field of publishing and editing.

We deplore the evasion of hereditary reasoning in current textbooks, and the failure to give responsible weight to heredity in disciplines such as sociology, social psychology, social anthropology, educational psychology, psychological measure- ment, and many others. (p. 660)

The equally powerful influence of Environmentalism in shaping educational practice can best be demonstrated in England, for here, in pursuit of "Equality" and "equality of opportunity," one kind of school - - the Comprehensive Schoo l - - came to be imposed, from the centre, upon the greater number of secondary schools in the state system of education. The imposition was well nigh universal, and, coupled with this, was a large-scale rejection of selection, includ- ing, even within the school, all kinds of "streaming". At its most extreme, but quite widely spread, was even a rejection of placing pupils in "sets" according to their abilities in different subjects. The practice of "mixed-ability teaching" was insisted on, and teachers were (and are still) constrained to accord with this "philosophy of the school". It must be noted, too, that the ideological disputa- tions underlying the making of these changes were on occasion no less extreme than those noted by the American intellectuals. There, the Hereditarian scholars had been designated "fascists". In England (on the basis of an extreme in- terpretation of "eugenics") selection for secondary education was likened to "Hitler 's excesses".

In England, too, these positions in educational practice were widely thought to have the support of the social sciences. Much of the work on which these insistent efforts towards equality of opportunity for equality of treatment rested with the sociologists of education, and it is here that I want to point out a quite surprising thing.

Following the end of World War I1 and the 1944 Education Act (which, for the first time provided "secondary education for all"), a group of scholars at the London School of Economics-- ini t ia l ly led by Professor David Glas s - -were convinced that selection for secondary education (i.e., the achievement or other- wise of a grammar school education) was the vital key to occupational and social

144 FLETCHER

mobility. Their focus of study was therefore on "social class and educational opportunity" and their concern was to study the actual effects of the 1944 Act in achieving (or otherwise) an increase in the equality of opportunity. Since the emphasis of their work throughout was on assessing the influence of environ- mental factors upon the educational chances and the educability of the child, it came to be thought of as standing in direct opposition to the Hereditarian position of Burt. They and their work (it was thought) stood on the political "Left", supporting, if not theoretically underpinning, the political and educational efforts towards "Equality"; whereas Burt stood on the "Right", defending the in- equalities of the status quo.

Yet what do we find when all of this work is examined? Astonishingly: that their position in no way whatever differed from that of Burt!

In every case (without exception) their studies rested on the acceptance of the fact that intelligence was primarily determined by heredity and could be satisfac- torily measured by carefully devised ("nonverbal" as well as "attainment") tests. On this basis--of the "measured potential" of the child--they then studied the effects of various environmental influences (social class, the home, and its conditions, family size, language and speech differences, etc.) to see how far this "measured potential" was accurately identified in the selection process, and, thereafter, fulfilled, or otherwise, in the child's educational career. Indeed, it takes but a moment's thought to see that without some such measurement of the child's intelligence it would, in fact, be quite impossible to measure any subse- quent fulfillment of expectations or, with deterioration, educational "wastage".

Nothing in this entire body of work was in any way supportive of Environ- mentalism. Floud, Halsey, and Martin (1972), investigating educational selection in two differing areas of Britain (Hertfordshire and Middlesbrough, in the early 1950s) found, indeed, that, in terms of the results of intelligence tests, equality of educational opportunity had actually been achieved. All children with the required level of intelligence--from all social classes, even the lowestwhad, in fact, gained places in grammar schools. In Douglas's book The Home and the School the very chapter-headings could have been taken directly from the outline of environmental factors set out and considered by Butt (1937/1961) in The Backward ChiM. All these investigators were, in fact, studying--in more detail and with more sophisticated methods and research design, but on the same conceptual basis--the very environmental influences to which Burt had pointed, and on the importance of which he had insisted.

This is especially, and interestingly, demonstrated in Bernstein's analysis and investigation of "primary socialization". As noted earlier, Boat had emphasised the importance of the range and quality of the vocabulary available to the child in his family and neighbourhood community. Bernstein and his colleagues, as is well known, based their entire research on their similar persuasion about the high degree of significance of language and speech usages. Burt had also emphasised the crucial importance, for the child's mental development, of the "quality and

INTELLIGENCE, EQUALITY, CHARACTER, AND EDUCATION 145

efficiency" of the mother in the family. Bernstein and his colleagues, similarly, became so persuaded of the importance of the mother as to find it necessary to set up a specially designed "maternal communication index" for the satisfactory carrying out of their investigations. And Bernstein's investigation of the effect of these environmental influences rested, entirely as Burt had thought necessary, on tests of intelligence and the "measured potential" of the child--the level of which he fully accepted as being primarily determined by heredity.

Astonishing though this may seem, the truth of the matter, therefore, is that there were no differences whatever between these two bodies of work. Here, no Environmentalism was opposed to Hereditarianism. The sociologists of educa- tion were carrying out in more detail the study of the effects of those environmen- tal influences which Burt had identified and emphasised.

From the beginning, then, the Hereditarian-Environmentalist controversy was quite without foundation. But what, then, was the ground of that compelling ideological feeling, motivation and commitment which, after World War lI, became so powerful as to successfully distort and over-ride scientific clarities?

EQUALITY

Unquestionably, it was the powerful belief in "Equality" as a principle of social justice. Simple though this. diagnosis seems, is it not perfectly clear, however that it is this basic idea of "Equality" itself, which--loosely, if not falsely, conceived; clothed in unclarified ambiguities--has been forced hastily and ag- gressively upon the post-war educational scene, wreaking havoc in political policy-making and educational practice? It is an enormous question to be ad- dressed briefly, but, still, it must be asked: In what ways can, and should--and in what ways should not--this principle be conceived?

First, there is the great principle stated in the American Declaration of Inde- pendence: "that all men are created equal, that they are e n d o w e d . . , with certain unalienable Rights"; and no exception whatever need be taken to this-- the basis of justice within the political community.

A second notion, however, is plainly false: namely, that all human individuals are, in fact, equal. Plainly (whatever one may think about heredity or environ- ment), individuals--in height, weight, strength or frailty, rate of growth and development, colour of eyes and hair, mental ability, possession of aptitudes, indeed with regard to all their attributes--are, in fact, different from each other. The task of one generation in educating another (again whatever one may think about heredity and environment) is always faced not by a factual equality among its children, but by diversity.

A third conception of equality--as a principle of justice in education--is also plainly false: namely, the idea of equality of treatment. It cannot be thought sensible, practicable, or even possible, let alone just, to impose precisely the same uniform pattern of education upon all children whatever their levels of

146 FLETCHER

ability and other differences. What is important is that society should provide that education which is most appropriate to each child's particular level of ability and needs--and provide the best education of which it is capable at all such required levels.

The fourth conception is that of "equality of opportunity", and this, clearly, is rooted in the first principle of the equality of rights which every individual possesses within the political community. How should this principle be correctly regarded?

It can only mean, surely, that each child should enjoy an equal opportunity to give (unhindered and unbiased by social circumstances) full evidence of his (or her) qualities; to receive recognition of these; and to secure from his or her political community that education which is most appropriate to his or her partic- ular level of ability, direction of aptitudes, rate of personal development, and needs. It cannot mean that all children deserve equal opportunity to be given precisely the same (equal) educational treatment, on the assumption that they are, in fact, equal, because such a notion rests upon fundamentally false founda- tions. The principle as we have articulated it requires, however, that in and throughout its educational provisions, society should be concerned to distinguish as accurately as possible the differing levels and needs of all children (of children as individuals), and to select them appropriately for their most appropriate educa- tion. Testing and selection, properly conceived, should be in the service of social and individual justice. A gross and insensitive imposition of "equality of treat- ment", as though individuals were, "in fact, equal", would be an obstacle in the way of its achievement.

My second major conviction, then, is that the idea of "Equality" itself has been misconceived (too loosely and variably conceived) and misapplied, and that it is this which has fuelled that ideology of the "Left" which has ridden rough° shod over both educational theory and practice.

CHARACTER

There is, however, a third conviction. Under the violent storm-clouds of the Hereditarian-Environmentalist controversy; within the large-scale preoccupa- tions with the issues of political and educational justice; Burt emphasised a third element within education which he considered to be of vital importance, but which (I think) has come to be almost lost from sight. This was the matter of individual character.

Burt's continual focus of attention and concern (employed, as he was, as an official pragmatic psychologist) was upon the uniqueness of the individual child. (It was this that led to that occasional "adjustment of test scores" for which he was much criticised). Boat believed that neither genetically established intel- ligence on the one hand, nor the objectively given features of the environment on

INTELLIGENCE, EQUALITY. CHARACTER, AND EDUCATION 147

tions) were enough for a satisfactory account (or explanation) of a child's person- al and educational development. Given a certain inherited endowment, given a certain environmental context, each child, with its own nature, temperament, and dispositions, was an experiencing, judging, learning individual, accommodating himself or herself creatively to the people, qualities of life and society, models and goals of behaviour, ideals and values, which he (or she) encountered. In short, character--something involving personal evaluation, choice, decision, will, commitment, self-discipline, endeavour, and, in all this, creativity--was also quite centrally involved.

The very business of learning itself, from before school, during the school career, and thereafter, involved matters of intellectual and moral judgment; ines- capable elements of inwardly perceived morality: the perception of the impor- tance of truth, for example, of ways of seeking it, and of a commitment to it once discovered--rather than an evasion or distortion of it in the pursuit of other ends; or the growing awareness of qualities of excellence in subjects and activities and the effort and self-discipline needed in order to achieve them. This growing knowledge of the world, society, and the human qualities within them, were also accompanied by (and were a part of) the growth of self-knowledge. The process involved was that of the self-creation of character: something of vital importance for the individual's exploration and ordering of his (or her) entire life. At its heart, therefore, in addition to providing information, inculcating skills, "train- ing children for employment", "fitting them for society", education should also--within the context of all this--be centrally concerned with assisting the cultivation of personal character. This entailed all the dimensions of the human spirit--and Burr himself was sensitively aware of all of these, advocating, for example, the exploration of literature, music, and the most careful approaches to the study of religion. His conception was closely akin to that of Matthew Arnold, who (approving the "admirable" teachings of men like Epictetus) had insisted that " . . . the formation of the spirit and character must be our real concern." "As to the usefulness of knowledge," said Arnold (1946, p. 53), "a single line of poetry, working in the mind, may produce more thought and lead to more light, which is what man wants, than the fullest acquaintance with the processes of d ig e s t i on . . . " Burt would have agreed.

My conviction here, then, is that this is a dimension of education which--in all the noisy high-level battles for public justice and the intense competitive pressure for acquiring qualifications--has tended to be overlooked, if not lost from sight altogether; and yet, for individuals, it may well prove to be the most fundamentally important dimension of all.

EDUCATION

My fourth conviction--stemming from all these foregoing considerations--is, quite simply, how far our present-day systems of education are from what they

148 FLETCHER

ought to be. I will be brief in these final points, as this subject, clearly, is so large as to call for the treatment of a book rather than an essay. But what, by way of summary and conclusion, can be said?

The first plain poin t - - for science, moral philosophy, and educational theory themselves--is that the Hereditarian-Environmentalist controversy should be laid to rest, relegated to the past, and be seen to be unnecessary, having rested on completely false foundations.

The second is that the continuing influence of misconceived ideological pres- sures upon political policies and educational practice--resting, still, on a shal- low Environmentalism and equally confused conceptions of "Equali ty"--should be resisted, and, if possible, overcome.

I do not know how things are in America, but in England, for example, even governments of the "Right" have now inherited, and are cumbered by, the little- thought-out notions of "Equality". Doubts have arisen about "The Comprehen- sive School", yet, even now, a "National Curriculum" is being imposed on all schools (primary, now, as well as secondary) and on all children; with tests for the attainment of required standards to be set at the same ages (from 7-years-old onwards) for all. The emphasis is on raising the standards of attainment in our schools to those of "our competitors in Europe", and on making our education "relevant" to our "modern technological society". Epictetus and Matthew Ar- nold (and even Butt) have disappeared from view! Education is centrally devised and directed by politicians.

Third, it must somehow be made clear (and acceptable to politicians and educationists) that mental testing and selection do not aim at separating "the intelligent" from "the unintelligent", the "superior" from the "inferior", so that resources can then be concentrated on the "intelligent and superior" and the rest can be forgotten, but are a necessary way of most accurately distinguishing the levels of ability, aptitudes, and needs of all children (of children as individuals), and providing the most appropriate education for them. Educational provisions should be the best that society can offer in relation to all levels of ability, not to the highest alone.

Fourth, it must also somehow be made clear that an achievement of "equality of opportunity", far from meaning the imposition of some centrally devised "equality of treatment", means the making available of as great a "diversity" of educational provisions as possible (or found to be necessary--in whatever kinds of schools seem best), so that the most appropriate education can be given to the greatest number of children; ideally to all. And in this an eye should be turned again to what should be a central concern: for assisting the cultivation of personal character.

In one of his last articles, Burt quoted Jensen with approval in this way:

The polemics of the heredity-environment question have revolved around certain misconceptions. That individual differences are largely hereditary is now well

INTELLIGENCE, EQUALITY, CHARACTER, AND EDUCATION 149

established. The goal should not be literal equality of opportunity; individual differences and group differences must be studied--in both their genetic and their environmental aspects--for the purpose of creating an optimal diversity of educa- tional opportunity. A vigorous renewal of scientific enquiries into the nature- nurture problem will do more to implement the humanitarian aims of a free society than the dogmatic insistence that environment alone is responsible for all important human differences.

It seems a fit t ing conclus ion .

REFERENCES

Adams, LA., et al. (1972). Comment: Behavior and heredity. American Psychologist, 27. 660-661. Arnold, M. (1946). Culture and anarchy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bemstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control (Vol. 1). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bouchard, T.J., Jr. (1982). Identical twins reared apart: Reanalysis or pseudoanalysis (Review of

S.L. Farbcr). Contemporary Psychology, 27, 190-191. Bouchard, T.J., Jr. (1983). Do environmental similarities explain the similarity in intelligence of

identical twins reared apart? Intelligence, 7, 175-184. Bouchard, T.J., Jr. (1984). Twins reared together and apart: What they tell us about human diversity.

S.W. Fox (Ed.), lndividuali~ and diversi~_. New York: Plenum. Bouchard, T.J., Jr., & Segal, N.L. (1985). Environment and IQ. In B.B. Wolman (Ed), Handbook of

intelligence. New York: Wiley. Bouchard, T.J., Jr., Lykken, D.T., McGue, M., Segal, N.L., & Tellegen, A. (1990). Sources of

human psychological differences: The Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Science, 250, 223-228.

Brandis, W., & Henderson, D. (1970). Social class, language and communication. London: Rout- ledge & Kegan Paul.

Burr, C. (1943). Ability and income. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 13, 83-98. Burt, C. (1961). The backward child (5th ed.). London: University of London Press. (Original work

published 1937) Burt, C. (1969). Intelligence and heredity: Some common misconceptions. Irish Journal of Educa-

tion, 3(2), 75-94. Douglas, J.W.B. (1964). The home and the school. London: MacGibbon & Kee. Floud, J.E., Halsey, A.H., & Martin, F.M. (Eds.). (1972), Social class and educational opportunity.

Bath: Cedric Chivers. Glass, D. (Ed.). (1954). Social mobili~ in Britain. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.