Compare The Different Opinions Of Burt And Vygotsky On The Educational Potential Of Social Classes

The educational theorists Cyril Burt and Lev Vygotsky represent two very different views on a pupil s educational potential, with Burt basing his theories on genetic inheritance of intelligence and Vygotsky basing his on a learner s social interactions with their environment. Their findings have also profoundly influenced education systems, especially those of Cyril Burt. His findings influenced elements of the 1944 Education Act in Britain, which introduced the eleven plus exam and the subsequent tripartite system, a system that formed the basis of the British education system for over thirty years until 1976. Vygotsky, and other constructivist theorists, influence on education is more contemporary and continues to this day. The aim of this essay is to analyse the two different standpoints and how they saw the question of social status in relationship to the question of social status, and to review their impact on education both today and in the past.

Cyril Burt s belief was that intelligence was largely inherited. In 1947 he stated that if intelligence is innate, the child s degree of intelligence is permanently limited. No amount of teaching will turn the child who is genuinely defective in general intelligence into a normal pupil. (Burt 1947, cited in Eysenck and Kamin, 1981) This shows that Burt s belief was that intelligence was not only inherited, but that the amount a pupil could learn was limited by his or her genes. One study he conducted to prove his theory was discussed in his work The Inheritance of Mental Ability in 1958. This study involved sets of identical twins raised apart from each other, which were later tested in several different areas including reading, spelling, arithmetic and general IQ. The tests showed that children raised together had very similar results in the reading, spelling and arithmetic tests. However, the closest results by far were seen in the IQ tests conducted on identical twins living apart. The closeness of these results, Burt argued, was proof of his theory that intelligence was more about nature than nurture, and that genetics were paramount in learning. This belief in inheritance of intelligence also extended to social classes, as several of his studies revealed middle and upper class pupils to be of greater intelligence or hold higher IQs. One of his earliest studies was in conducted in Oxford in 1909 and involved the testing of two distinct groups of children. One set were the sons of Oxford Dons and Royal Society Fellows, the other being the children of ordinary townspeople. Burt maintained that the children of higher social class performed better than those of a lower social class, proving that intelligence is inherited. (Eysenck, Kamin 1981) However, these tests have been dismissed as crude by Eysenck and Kamin and that the test groups observed were very small. Indeed, Burt s methods and findings throughout his career have been strongly argued against by a number of educationalists and psychologists. Phillip E. Vernon (1979) states that he was often careless in reporting his data and that there were certain discrepancies within it. While some were seen as honest miscopying of data and therefore carelessness, there were other more serious errors including, Vernon (1979) asserts, the reporting of identical correlation coefficients for different sized sets of twins. Kamin and Eysenck (1981) go into more detail by stating that it seems almost incredible that Burt s data could ever have been taken seriously due to his lack of information as to how his data had been collected. This even extended to the fact that no information can be found within his data as to which IQ test was used to obtain the correlation of results, meaning that there was no way of proving or disproving his theories. His 1943 study comes in for particular criticism in terms of its lack of quantifying evidence, the only reference to procedure being that some of the inquiries had been published in LCC (London County Council) reports or elsewhere but the majority remain buried in typed memoranda or degree thesis The fact that Burt has made it clear in this statement that the evidence for his findings is inaccessible can be seen to devalue the legitimacy of his findings, and this is part of the reason for their being discredited. Another major reason is the Sunday Times expose in 1976 that showed that two of Burt s research associates , Misses Conway and Howard, had never actually met Burt. In fact, there was documentary evidence to be found to prove they even existed, and Burt s colleagues, secretary or housekeeper had never met them. There was also the fact that two of Burt s most distinguished former students had supported the allegations of fraud. (Eysenck, Kamin 1981) Kamin (1976) stated that, because of these factors, that the numbers left behind by Professor Burt are simply not worthy of our current scientific attention.

Lev Vygotsky s beliefs in the inheritance of intelligence were very different to those of Burt. Vygotsky believed that intelligence was formed primarily by experiences rather than genetic factors. In other words, Vygotsky considered that nurture of children was more important than factors inherited at birth. His most recognised and well known educational theory is the Zone of Proximal Development. Vygotsky himself defined it as the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978) Theoretically, this Zone of Proximal Development and its potential growth are limitless, so long as there is a more knowledgeable other or teacher to guide them at each stage. This means that, unlike Burt, Vygotsky did not believe in the idea of children who are inherently limited, simply that they lack a more capable peer to assist them in their learning. It is also true that Vygotsky was a known Marxist, and that this influenced his work. (Liu and Matthews, 2005) To Vygotsky therefore, genetics and inheritance are of little relevance because all children are essentially born as blank slates that require guidance in learning. Vygotsky also believed that development was actually highly variable, and that the idea of all children being fully developed by a set age, or even developing at the same rate was flawed. Development was largely intertwined with culture, especially language, which Vygotsky regarded as the single most important tool of development. Language, argued Vygotsky, is the most important tool of learning because it is required to communicate effectively with others, and that for a child to learn effectively they must be spoken to by a teacher as this form of communication is essential to a child s development. (Mathison 2006) So, in essence, Vygotsky s belief is that if two children are allowed the same methods of learning and access to equally able teachers, there is no reason why they cannot be equally intelligent. However, Vygotsky has been criticised by some educationalists. He has come in for particular criticism from Rasmussen (2001, in Mathison (2006) for his insistence on the importance of distinction between psychic and social processes . He states that if some of Vygotsky s systems thinking is applied to these psychic and social processes, then they do in fact converge. Vygotsky s belief in these two processes being wholly separate is therefore flawed and contradictory believes Rasmussen. In spite of his Marxist standpoint, some other Marxists have criticised Vygotsky for proposing non-Marxist views (Lloyd and Fernyhough, 1998) Also, according to Davydov and Radzikhovskii (1985), Vygotsky ignored biological development of children, such as sexual maturation in his work and focused almost exclusively on socio-cultural factors, which appears to undermine the prospect of his results regarding nurture being more important than nature being conclusive.

To compare Burt and Vygotsky is to compare two very different views on social class and education attainment. To Burt, social class is linked to genetics. Genetics to Burt are clearly all important, and limit the potential of a student however good the teaching they receive. The result that could be drawn from his findings is that social classes exist because that has been the natural alignment of society as per the intelligence of the different social classes, a belief that appears to have permeated through the British educational system with the introduction of the eleven plus and tripartite system. His findings certainly carried a lot of weight within the academic community until his death in 1971, but discoveries about his flawed methods since have undermined that fact. The fact that there are such serious doubts as to the legitimacy of his research means that his findings should be used with caution. Vygotsky s findings started to come to prominence in Britain around the time that Burt s began to be publicly discredited, which is perhaps unsurprising when it is considered how different Vygotsky s approach is. Simply, social class is not an issue to Vygotsky as all pupils have equal ability to succeed so long as they have the same level of education. Genetic inheritance of intelligence does not feature in Vygotsky s work at any level, doubtless a factor in his own popularity and that of constructivist theorists like him since the 1970s. Vygotsky also considered the idea of all children being equally developed by a certain age to be flawed, as development of intelligence is too variable. There has been criticism of Vygotsky in spite of his popularity based on his neglect of biological factors and heavy focus on socio-cultural factors. This could be said to undermine the definitiveness of his findings, as biological and genetic factors could well have had an influence in his findings but were never fully investigated. Overall, the comparison between the two theorists is a difficult one because of their differences but Vygotsky s theories appear better equipped to stand the test of time.