Reprinted Opinion Column from the Arcata Eye, Spring 2001

By David R. Narum

Reprinted from the Arcata Eye, Spring 2001.

The range of factors we considered is not well represented by the current fashion today in public education: school standards and "accountability." The emphasis on standards and accountability focuses attention on test scores, on how well students and schools are "performing." Schools are ranked (and thus compared) based on their API, or academic performance index. This exercise in reductionism leads one to believe that the product of an education can be adequately represented by a number, and/or that one school may be "better" because it scores higher on standardized tests. Logically, then, one would seek out schools for their children that have high API scores, as surely that is where the best "education" is being provided.

Given today's emphasis on standardized tests, you might think that poor student performance is a result of a lack of such tests. You might even get the idea that the role of students in school is to "perform," what ever that means. Perhaps we are to believe that the threat of a test leads teachers to teach better, or students to overcome any personal and social factors that may contribute to how well they do in school. Even so, "if you're API does not increase three points, we will cut your funding" is not a particularly inspiring incentive to teach or to learn.

Schools may be producing students who do not test well, and indeed, such students may not be "performing" as well as they should in school. But it is simplistic to think that standardized tests are the answer. Do schools "fail" because they do not have such tests, and would tests ensure that schools do not fail? Is it possible to identify failing schools because of their test performance and make appropriate educational reforms based on test results?

This may depend on what you see as the goal of an education, and thus toward what end you design your reform efforts. While it is important to gauge the progress of students, and to hold schools accountable, one can wonder whether teaching or learning with standardized test scores in mind may actually undercut academic achievement. As an educational goal, the ability to perform well on a test pales in comparison to the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and to the instillment of a life-long curiosity and love of learning. Further, what do we teach our children when we suggest that the sum total of what they do in school can be expressed as, for example, "800"?

Smaller classes, one-on-one contact with committed teachers and caring adults, peer interaction, contact with the natural world, teachers and administrators who are valued (both for what they do and how we pay them for what they do), making sure that children are schooled both at school and at home--this is what makes for good education. And the caring, committed and watchful oversight of parents and the local community can go a long way to ensuring accountability.

The logic that the route to educational improvement is found in raising API test scores is defensible only if you assume that test scores can indicate whether an education is being provided. Yet if students test well but cannot solve problems and think critically, do not love and see the value in learning, cannot get along with their peers and with adults, or do not understand how people fit into the natural world, what kind of education is that? If we are to design effective methods of assessment and keep our schools truly accountable--and not in the reductionist way currently in vogue--it seems we must first come to an agreement about what constitutes an "education." Only then can we know if we are providing one.