symposium

Insight on the News, March 6, 2000 by Patricia S. Temple, Augustus J. Itzo Pesce

Q: Are statewide school standards doing more harm than good?

Yes: The obsession with high-stakes tests subverts learning and gobbles up valuable class time.

The driving force behind today's school-reform movement is the demand for so-called "state standards." These are a compilation of specific understandings and facts for each grade level, along with annual tests to measure their mastery. They are referred to as "high-stakes" tests because students can't graduate or be promoted without passing them. At least 27 states have adopted such requirements.

The individual states write their own standards according to guidelines agreed upon by government and business leaders at their national education-summit meetings. The standards are rigorous. In Illinois, for example, social-studies goal 16.D.2(w) for upper-elementary grades states, "Describe the various roles of men, women and children in the family, at work and in the community in various time periods and places (e.g., ancient Rome, medieval Europe, ancient China, sub-Saharan Africa)."

While it's a fine thing to know the roles of men and women in faraway places, it seems like a lot to ask of children who are 8 to 10 years old. I start the year for my fifth-graders with a unit on the continents and oceans, and it's a struggle for some just to identify and name them. This fall we concurrently hatched butterflies in science class and, on our unit test, I was taken aback to see that one student labeled North America as a caterpillar.

There is a growing discontent among teachers and parents over these standards. Mine is far from the only classroom where they simply are not workable. Some 893 out of 3,700 schools (in Illinois) didn't have even 50 percent of their students performing at minimum standards; 40 percent of pupils failed to meet every educational standard, according to the Chicago Tribune's Michael Martinez.

The concept of a test where failure means retention is not compatible with sound pedagogical practices. Individuals learn at different paces. Albert Einstein was 4 years old before he talked and couldn't read until he was 7, and Winston Churchill spent five years in the low track at his school, never excelling in anything. High-quality education doesn't apply the same goals and time frames to each child; it is sensitive to the needs of all children.

The accountability for meeting the standards is the same for every child, whether they come from homes immersed in poverty with few educational toys and scant enriching experiences or from more-privileged backgrounds. According to Royal van Horn, professor of education at the University of North Florida, some children come to school with as little as 300 hours of "early language experience," while others come with as many as 3,000 hours. Bear in mind that the latter form a swiftly moving target; they, too, are participating in kindergarten classes. To evaluate and judge children without taking into account the context of their lives is indefensible.

We now know that early life experiences determine the capability of the brain and lay the foundation for development later in life. Pulitzer Prize winner Ronald Kotulak marvels at the great part experience plays in determining how our brains get put together. Children can't suddenly become able learners if the brain's basic wiring hasn't been set first. There is an irreversibility that sets in. After the initial shaping of brain cells and their connections at age 2, 3 or 4, the brain is unlikely to change very much more. Children still can learn but, if the early learning period isn't optimized, learning becomes much harder later on.

Standards testing has fostered many questionable educational practices. Too much valuable learning time is spent getting ready for and taking the tests. Some teachers report that they spend 60 percent or more of educational time preparing for the tests. Last year my bilingual children took a whopping 15 major exams. As we prepared to take No. 12 or 13, one boy folded his arms, slunk down in his chair and refused to take part. I would have liked to slink down in a chair beside him. As it was I had to head off a fledgling mutiny before we could get started.

Unfortunately, test-preparation exercises lend themselves to passive children memorizing facts (most soon to be forgotten) at the expense of sound pedagogical practices that promote deep understanding. AIMS (Activities Integrating Mathematics and Science), an outstanding nonprofit foundation begun with a grant from the National Science Foundation, begins every workshop and text with a Chinese proverb to emphasize the need for hands-on learning: "I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand." Good educational practices promote understanding more than remembering.

Another unfortunate but common response to standards testing is a narrowing of the curriculum. It is a tremendous temptation to teach to the test. For example, in Illinois fourth-graders are tested in science and social studies, so in some schools they are taught only science and social studies at the expense of math and reading. The opposite occurs for fifth-graders who are taught little or no science and social studies because they are tested in math and reading. Testing, not sound educational practices, in too many instances, drives the curriculum.