If you were to ask the typical teacher in the public school system what makes a child smart, they would probably answer "raw intellgence."

Raw intelligence is perceived to be the ability to solve problems, utilize logic and to think critically. Traditionalists think intelligence is contained in the general intellect, and can be easily assessed and measured. This mindset led to the development of the Stanford-Binet IQ test and the development of the SAT tests for college bound students.

The idea was to identify what made a person "smart" and then to devise a curriculum that led to the acquisition of that knowledge. Testing was the means to determine if the child developed"mastery" in an area.

But are IQ and good test scores sufficient enough to identify real intelligence and academic excellence ? I don't think so.

What if a child merely has a good short term memory and can effectively produce the "correct" answers on a test? Does that mean they can later apply that knowledge in a useful way? Maybe not.

What if a child is highly intelligent, but has test anxiety? Do poor grades indicate a lack of mastery in a core area of learning? Not necessarily.

Testing can pigeonhole a student, perhaps incorrectly and unfairly. Should we seek to measure or grade a student, like we are categorizing meat? Certain kinds of smartness are like the finer parts of the cow that are more desired and carry a higher price tag. Doctors command respect and get high wages.Construction workers are lower on the totem pole, and are paid far less.

I think Howard Gardner was correct to assert there are several kinds of intelligence, and we should develop all of them in our students. They would be more well rounded in their education.Children who were "smart" in other ways would have an opportunity to express their unique talents and nurture their innate genius.

Can you really quantify human potential, creativity, a passion for learning, and a desire to contribute to the world?

Should we even try?...