Options in Education

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.