Recently, I received an email from a reader who declined to comment on any of my specific posts, but wondered why I thought that public schools had improved with the recent advent of standardized tests. It was this reader's opinion that the testing had, if anything, made schools worse, because teachers were "teaching to the test" at the expense of real education, which to this reader meant critical thinking, independent thinking, and problem solving among other things. This reader also thought that many schools currently force kids to learn in time with the slowest of the group, so that the brightest kids were bored or unfulfilled.
For starters, I certainly hope that I never gave the impression on here that I think testing in and of itself will improve teaching, or fix a bad school. Testing is only a measurement gauge, neither inherently bad nor good. Right now, most tests used in K-12 schools do measure very basic and objective skills, but tests need not by definition be that narrow. Certainly, tests can measure problem-solving abilities and independent thinking (and "teaching to the test" is not a bad thing if it's a good test.)
I do think testing is one of the necessary components to fixing a bad school, though, and I think there are many more bad public schools today than people realize. Testing certainly can be used in the wrong way, and if schools just test more often without modifying teaching or curricula in order to improve education, then teachers and students will just get frustrated. But tests used well can indeed help bring all students up to better performance, and there's some evidence now that previously-failing schools have improved.
I'm not surprised to find that some of my readers dislike the tests because they believe their kids are bored by them, or because they believe the teaching is now dumbed down in order to help the slower kids on the tests. In some places, I'm sure this is the case. This frustration has arisen because the current political climate mandates that schools focus on their worst performers, and that schools be graded according to how all their students do, rather than how the best students do. Does this mean that some schools have been forced to neglect the brighter students in favor of the slower ones? I'm sure it has.
My correspondent then pointed me towards a website for the Cedarwood Sudsbury School. The website makes the place sound like heaven, and for some kids, I'm sure it is. This school for 5-to-18-year-olds is all about "self-initiated learning" in a "democratic environment" that is "diverse." Their educational program focuses on self-knowledge, communication, social, and entrepreneurial skills, and creativity. Do they focus on the basics, the core curriculum? On literacy and elementary mathematics, yes; the rest is dismissed as not essential to a successful life, "an almost random selection from a large universe of useful and interesting information." This school makes it clear that they do not believe that pushing kids to learn algebra or history will actually help kids succeed in life.
For some kids, though, this kind of school would be hell. Some kids flourish in schools that focus on discipline, facts, structured learning, and lots of testing. Some kids are never going to be exposed even to basic literacy at home, and a school that can cram as much knowledge into them as possible is what is going to help those kids succeed in life. The Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) schools, also called "no-excuses" schools, are one example. These schools are all about goal, leadership, discipline, rigorous learning schedules - and testing, testing, testing. The students at these schools are the demographic that too many "educators" have given up on, or are too hasty to make excuses for. The kids at KIPP schools give lie to the declaration that test scores measure only SES.
Maybe the problem with many public schools now is that they're trying to be both creative and demanding, both "self-initiated" and on task. They have no choice - they don't want all their bright kids to leave for better schools, but they are forced by law to bring the slower kids up to speed. Public schools are now trying to be all things for all kids, and I don't think they're doing too well.
Some kids would do great in that Cedarwood School, because they're bright kids with lots of motivation who feel trapped in public school. But some kids would do nothing in Cedarwood except goof off, fall behind, and feel frustrated because there's no one showing them exactly what to do. Some kids need that, some don't, and it's not necessarily related to intelligence. I know that I've always done better in structured learning environments than in open ones.
If nothing else, my reader's email strengthens my belief that school choice, charter schools, and the ability of parents to send their kids to schools that are targeted to their childrens' needs are essential for the future. The era of the one-room school house has been long-gone; the days of one public school for all may be coming to an end as well.
Posted by kswygert at November 6, 2003 09:22 PM