One of my daughters is active in the anti-standardized
testing movement here in our little state. They call it “opting out”. Some in the
movement object to the heavy-handed way the federal and state educational
agencies dictate policies to local districts. Others are against standardized
testing in general, citing its useless collection of bureaucratic data that
proves nothing and provides no benefit for students. Some of those against
testing also claim that the constant emphasis and pressure to do well on
mandated tests brings a great deal of useless stress to kids who might already
be struggling with school work. And then there are many teachers who are
against testing because it is a drain on their classroom time, discourages
innovation in teaching and is also used as an unfair measure of a teacher’s
effectiveness.
All those folks are correct. But there is
a powerful movement of administrators, educators and government officials
countering the arguments of the anti-testers. They have experts and
pseudo-scientific studies that back up the “need” for federally mandated,
corporately designed testing. As always, when we look at some big move to push
a program into something as large as the educational system, we need to wonder
who is benefiting financially. What entity or which people will profit the
most? After some rather casual research it looks to me like computer
manufacturers, software manufacturers, a select group of consultants and
experts, and a growing bureaucracy of record keeping and analyst types will
make a ton of money.
With absolutely no real research or hard
evidence I’ll also go out on a limb and say that some way, somewhere a bunch of
politicians are finding ways to line their pockets as a reward for pushing
these programs through the legislative process. I might be wrong about that,
but in my cynical old age, I believe there’s a good chance this is happening.
Of course some progressive idealists think
it’s a fine idea that federally centralized control of education should come to
pass. They think all those smart folks in Washington would be much better at
running the schools, setting curriculum requirements, administering everything
from building maintenance to the distribution of high school diplomas. Me, I’m
not so convinced.
Personally I’m all for testing. If a kid
takes a class in English or Math or basket-weaving he or she should take a test
to see if anything stuck in his or her brain. If enough material was retained
then the kid passes the class. But I happen to believe that all of that could
(and should) be handled by local districts, perhaps under the aegis of a
loosely structured state educational agency. Some districts would prove to be
effective, some less so. If a district consistently produced a low grade of
graduates, too high a drop-out rate or too many grade failures then the school
boards would be compelled to change administrators and bring in the state
watchdogs to evaluate teachers and programs. I suppose that is simplistic
thinking, but it might work.
Another measure of a district’s
performance would be the college acceptance rate of graduates. How many are
getting into college, and into which colleges. This could be measured fairly easily
on a local level. But again, this is kind of a simplistic approach.
So friends, I just want to voice my
support for those anti-testing folks, whatever their motivations might be. I’d
especially like to voice support for those who believe that parents should have
a substantial say in how their kids are educated, including those who decide to
“opt-out” their kids from standardized big government, common core testing.
They’re being brave as they stand up for their children. And bravery will be
much needed in the years ahead.
Have a fine day.
