Testing and Management
Scooter is going to be entering Kindergarden a year from now, so that means it's time to look at schools. We are fortunate to have several viable choices, since we live (literally!) on the line between two good school districts, and there's an outstanding private school only a short distance away. We've visited the private school and one of the two public schools, and some of the things I saw surprised me.
The big thing these days is testing and accountability. Minnesota has statewide exams and graduation standards, and there's the new mandates under the national No Child Left Behind act. Before I get to my opinions of these tests, I have a few observations comparing the private vs. public school:
First, the class sizes at the elementary level are not dramatically different (high school is another matter). The private school classes are slightly smaller, but only by a few students per class.
Second, both schools are engaged in aggressive fundraising. I expected this from the private school (after all, that's what they do), but the public school is also leaning heavily on parents to write checks from $100 to $1,000 to cover recent budget cuts. The public school doesn't have the cushion of an endowment fund, either.
Third, even without the fundraising, the public school is more expensive than I expected. How can that be? Isn't public education free? Well, yes, for the bare minimum education. Beyond that, they charge for everything, since the budget doesn't seem to be there. In particular, if you want an extended-day program (i.e. if both parents work), you're talking as much as $3,000 per year. Summer school and school holidays extra. For full-day Kindergarden (again, essential if both parents work) you can be looking at up to $4,500 per year. This is still a lot cheaper than private school tuition, but the school is clearly making a profit on these services. In contrast, the extended-day program at the private school is more like $1,000 per year (beyond the basic tuition).
Fourth, the public school has what I would describe as a bare-bones curriculum. The four R's (Reading, 'Riting, 'Rithmatic, and Recess), with the fourth R becoming optional in some districts (thankfully, not this one). The private school, in contrast, introduces foreign languages in second grade; they have a full drama program and a full music program and a dedicated art teacher. The public school has no drama or foreign language programs, and only minimal art and music programs. When I asked the principal about this, his response was basically, "we have to cut something, and we have to get the kids to pass the tests."
The Impact of Testing
This last remark is, in my mind, particularly telling. Public schools are under two conflicting pressures today: to cut their budgets, and to raise their test scores. The private schools, in general, don't have this conflict, since they don't have to submit to the standardized testing.
The natural solution--perhaps the only solution--is to eliminate everything which isn't on the test. As a result, we raise a generation of kids very well grounded in the subjects which we put on the achievement and graduation exams, but not much else. Given the pressures the schools are facing, this result is probably unavoidable.
So What If We Only Teach the Test?
If we could do to things, this wouldn't be a problem.
The first thing is that everyone (or nearly everyone) would agree about what kids should learn.
The second thing is that we can create a test capable of measuring all the things we agree kids should learn.
Both of these are impossible: the first because we live in a diverse society, and the second because some things we want kids to learn can't be tested.
What Should Kids Learn?
Most people agree on the basics. The three R's, plus history and science are essential facts and skills. Most people would agree that it is desirable (and maybe essential) for kids to also learn foreign languages, music, drama, civics, health, and art.
But what do we put into each category? Here in Minnesota, the scandal du jour is that the recently revised history standard (i.e. the stuff on the test) seems to have a strongly conservative slant on 20th century history. Lots on Ronald Reagan, nothing on LBJ and the Great Society. We run into similar problems with almost every subject.
In English, should students read Catcher in the Rye? Is evolution a proper part of the science curriculum? Do we teach sex ed, and if so, how? Do we let teenagers study the great nude paintings of the romantic era? Is it better to teach Spanish, Russian, Japanese, or Latin? Do we teach the Constitution as a living document, or as an expression of our founding fathers' intent? Is it more important to know calculus, or basic principles of accounting?
Few parents will agree 100% on these questions, even if they're married to each other. But somehow, a decision has to be made. In the past, these decisions have been generally made at the school or district level, with significant room for the preferences of the individual teacher and parent.
Now, however, the decision has to be made at the state level, since we need to write a standardized statewide test covering whatever we want kids to know. Once the test is written, there's only limited flexibility: if it is on the test, it must be taught in that way. If it isn't on the test, then it probably won't get taught at all.
How Do We Test Everything?
The list of subjects and ideas only goes so far. After all, how many of us can still recite all the presidents in order, or all 50 state capitals? How many 30-year-olds still remember how to do long division?
What we really want to teach goes beyond the knowledge-based curriculum. We want to teach our children a set of skills which will serve them and our country throughout their lives.
For example:
Problem Solving Skills: Given a novel problem and/or constraints, find a solution.
Interpersonal Skills: How to make friends and influence people.
Critical Thinking: How to decide if an idea makes sense; recognizing when someone (a politician, a company, or a person) is lying, manipulating, or playing to emotions.
Learning Skills: How to learn a new subject or skill.
Creativity: Generating new ideas, and expressing them.
Communications: Explaining an idea, expressing it in understandable terms, and persuading someone to change his or her opinion.
The problem is that none of these skills can be effectively tested in a standardized test, but all of them are essential to success both on an individual level and as a society. It does us no good to produce a generation of idiot-savants who are all whizzes at geometry and history, but who can't tell if their leaders are telling the truth.
At the same time, we don't want to abandon the idea of making schools accountable for how their students perform. (If we could somehow make the parents accountable, that would be even better.)
Measuring What's Important
There's a saying that you can't manage what you can't measure. The trend towards standardized testing in the schools is an embodiment of this philosophy.
There's also a corollary: What you measure is what you manage. In other words, by simply measuring one thing instead of another, the thing being measured becomes more important to the people managing the schools.
Ideally, we should be measuring not just the learned facts and rote skills, but also the unmeasurable skills. Unfortunately, we can't do that.
But there are some things which we can measure, things which are related to a person's overall productivity in life and as a citizen. For example:
What percentage of students vote in the first major election after their 18th birthday?
What percentage of students have a higher income than their parents, adjusted for inflation, at age 25? 35?
What percentage of students get a college degree by age 25? An advanced degree by age 30?
What percentage of students are convicted of a crime by age 25?