Cruising various the Opinion Page of various smalller newspapers I came across the following commentary. My reply follows her commentary.
Standardized tests suck the life out of learning
By KARA (last name omitted)
Saturday, December 9, 2006
Kara is a Eleveth Grade High School Student
The conversation regarding education
today seems strangely inconsistent. The educational conversation should
naturally have the improvement and enlightenment of our nation’s young
minds at its core; however, the current dialogue has transcended the
discussion of education. In fact, education seems to largely have left
the picture.
The entrance of (the School District) into state-mandated Program
Improvement has brought to the surface long-simmering tensions over No
Child Left Behind. This statute represents much of the current
educational conversation — dry, focused on statistics, targets, AYP,
SPSA, AMAOs, EPCs. Yet the problem with the current educational
dialogue is not the program improvement, the statistics, the reading
enrichment and supplemental math classes or the placement of students
into additional support classes. It goes deeper than that. The
fundamental flaw in education today is its reliance on standardized
tests. English teachers may protest the invasion of anthologies and the
death of the novel, students may complain about three math classes in a
six-period day and administrators may challenge the haste with which
these standards have been forced upon them. But if we do not address
the core of the issue, a solution cannot be reached.
Standardized
tests suck the life out of learning. In encouraging instructors to
teach toward and students to pass a single test, the CST, the proposed
educational system will produce students skilled at one thing — passing
the test. Will they be able to look at soil samples and draw
conclusions based upon their knowledge of human impact on local
ecosystems? Will they be able to connect the symbolism of Victor Hugo’s
“Les Misérables” to his commentary on politics, society and human
nature? Will they be able to relate the anti-Communist “red scare” of
the 1950s to Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible” or even to the current war
on terror? Maybe not. But they’ll sure be good at taking that test.
Assessing student ability is not a bad thing; indeed, it is essential
to the constructive criticism necessary to improve as a student and as
an individual. Was the CST a comprehensive, holistic, deliberate
assessment of student ability, growth, achievement and effort, this
would be a moot subject. However, it is not. The CST tests the wrong
things in the wrong way.
In today’s dialogue, the spirit of
learning, of enlightenment, of thought and discussion and discovery,
has been abandoned. With it has gone the purpose. What is the purpose
of education if not to awaken in our children curiosity, inspiration
and realization? What is its purpose if not to prepare young students
for the analytical discussion, challenging decision-making and
uncomfortable realizations they will undoubtedly face in college and in
their adult lives? When these objectives are forsaken, education
disappears as a moral goal and is replaced as a political tool and a
business transaction. As the skills of analytical reading and writing
are undermined and textbook teaching prevails, it seems more and more
like politicians and businessmen are stripping from our children their
most basic right, that of the pursuit of valuable knowledge.
 |
|
|
The
recommendations recently passed by the school board represent not a
failure of our community to protect the rights of the student, but
rather a failure in the higher levels. The current federal
administration has proved itself inept in many areas of national
policy; education is simply an addition to its list. No Child Left
Behind is a paradoxical, backwards and unjust approach to the education
of children. The time must be taken to forsake the standardized test
and to develop a comprehensive, deliberate way to evaluate student
ability. It can be done. The key is to abandon the unflagging, rigid
superficial standards that block creative achievement and adopt
principles that embrace student realization of universal truths. The
institution of education can result in the achievement of education,
but only if such influences as money and political gain remain
peripheral.
--------- my response ----
Congratulations to Kara, the author of “Standardized Tests Suck the Life out of Learning” for a well written, cogent opinion about standardized testing (aka) No Child Left Behind.
If all our students met the standards exhibited by Kara, she’d be correct in her assertions. Sadly, that is not the case. In fact, the case is so far removed from that reality as to make her plea , well ... unrealistic.
Everything she rightly stakes out as a goal for education is unattainable without a high baseline standard of math and language. While I understand her frustration, I think its aimed at the messenger not the culprit.
At this point in time and history, it has become necessary to inflict remedial instruction on our current crop of students. That she, and some percentage of students, don’t need it is really a separate issue. As an aside, Kara and her peers should be allowed to attend a private school, of her choice, with no additional costs to them beyond the school taxes her parents and we already pay. This is a notion that has always been vilified by the educational establishment, called vouchers.
In the mean time, America owes it to their students a knowledge of math and language as a foundation to learn all of the rest. Even if that quest has to be pushed back until after high school for a while.
For example she ponders the question: “Will they be able to look at soil samples and draw conclusions based upon their knowledge of human impact on local ecosystems? “ Not detecting any sarcasm in her question, I have to say that it precisely makes the case for NCLB. How does one meaningfully create, compare and analyze soil samples without some fairly high math skills . Further, how does one then communicate the results without good language skills.
So all in all, I remind the reader and Kara in particular, that I’m very impressed with her commentary. Further, her taking a shot at capitalism in her last paragraph is understandable if one is willing to make some generalized assumptions about the adults which comprise her educational environment.
The fact that students like Kara must pay the price for the misuse of the educational system for the last 10 to 20 years is unfortunate but not wrong. The fact that they don’t have a readily available alternative is sad and hopefully a problem that Kara’s generation will solve.
I hope she and other students will utilize the newspaper to keep us up to date on how they feel and what they know.
