What Is Wrong With Education Part II

As we all know, people are not defined by their I.Q.'s. Some developmentally-challenged people, with I.Q.'s below 70, have done very well in life. Conversely, in some fast-food restaurants there are Mensa members flipping burgers. While some people fail to live up to their potential, others through sheer force of will and faith in God exceed their mental capabilities.

I mention this to clarify my earlier comments. Just because a person has a particular IQ does not necessarily mean that they will not be able to learn, or that they will not be able to pass their tests. IQ simply measures their natural ability to learn. Although it may take longer for a person with an IQ of 90 to learn than, say, a person with a 110 IQ, the former student may learn more because he pushes himself harder.

Be that as it may, with all other things being equal, a child with a higher IQ will tend to do better at school than a child with a lower IQ. If a child with a 90 IQ has the same educational experience (i.e., the same school, the same teachers, the same books, the same level of parental involvement) as a child with a 110 IQ, the former will probably make lower grades than the latter.

If one child learns at a faster rate than the other, and if they both are given the same amount of time to study for their tests, then by the time the test is given, the faster child will have a greater understanding of the material and a greater confidence as well. Thus, he will do better than the slower child.

Of course, if a faster child has more distractions and the slower child has better focus, the results may be different. (Remember the "Tortoise and the Hare.") But, again, we are assuming that all other things are equal. We are assuming that both children have the same levels of parental involvement, the same levels of social interaction with other children, and the same amount of time to study.

Now, if we adopt a paradigm where a school's performance is measured by its test scores (and only its test scores), and if the teacher's job security is a direct function of the school's performance, then we create a conflict of interest. If a teacher's livelihood may be placed in jeopardy every time she gives a student a failing grade, she will give less "F's." Likewise, if the principal's career may be placed in jeopardy every time a child is held back a grade, he may be inclined to institute a program of "social promotion."

Intuitively, the school's performance should not be measured by any instrument whereby the teacher or the principal can manipulate the results. School performance must be measured objectively; having the teacher or the principal involved makes it purely subjective.

Knowing this, the politicians have created SOL's. And they have created standardized tests. In theory, it puts an end to social promotion, ensuring that no child will be left behind.

Yeah, right!

What would happen if the state set SOL standards too high? If, let's say, the state set SOL standards so high that first graders needed to understand calculus before they could advance to the second grade, no child would pass. Right? (I'll admit that my hypothetical situation is absurd, but stay with me. ) How do you think the parents would react? Would they be thrilled about higher standards? Or would they be enraged that every first grader in the state had just been held back?

Point is, if politicians wanted to, they could make SOL tests really, really hard. So hard that no body would ever be able to pass them. But they would never do this, because if they did, they would be voted out of office in a heartbeat.

On the other hand, if politicians were to set academic standards way too low, would the parents care? Certainly, most parents wouldn't be too upset if their children advanced from the first grade to the second. This is, after all, the normal progression of events. And no parent thinks his child is abnormal (unless, of course, the child really is out there).

Besides, if the parents do care, all they will notice when they read the paper or watch the news is the Governor or the State superintendent of Education announcing record test scores while patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

While it is undisputed that teachers and principals have incentive to advance a social promotion program on a case-by-case basis, it also holds that politicians have incentive to advance a social promotion program on an aggregate level.

If kids fail out of school, the teacher, the principal, and the politician may lose their jobs. But while the teacher or the principal may have incentive to give one child an unearned grade, the politician may be tempted to give every child an easy test. Either way, when it comes to academic standards, the bank robber is in the vault. Certainly, as Ronald Reagan learned back during the Depression, "the first rule of the bureaucracy is to save the bureaucracy."

A SOLUTION

1. First and foremost, children should no longer be viewed as cogs in a wheel. We have adopted a factory mindset in our schools. The child is the capital; the test score is the product. Schools produce test scores. If a school doesn't produce, its workers are given pink slips and the factory is closed.

Unfortunately, such is the byproduct of SOL's. Because school funding is tied to performance on standardized tests--and not to the actual measure of a child's learning--teachers feel extreme pressure to teach the tests. Oh no, they may not have the tests, per se, from which to teach, but they do have the SOL's from which to guide their curricula.

In theory this may not seem wrong, after all the teachers should have some kind of road map. However, if the SOL's are geared to the least common denominator because the politicians/bureaucrats who drafted them do not want to be embarrassed when half of the students are held back at the end of the year, then the road map is flawed ipso facto.

Although one might argue that the SOL's are a minimum and that teachers are encouraged to teach above this floor, this premise does not account for the large class sizes, the discipline problems which abound these days, and other distractions which keep a teacher from adapting lesson plans to the needs of each child. Thus the floor turns into a ceiling very quickly--especially when the test scores are paramount to the needs of the child.

To return the classroom to its proper focus, we must abolish the SOL's. We must abandon this mindset of "test scores first" and replace it with a more child-centered mentality.

2. Success should be measured one child at a time. Morgan Stanley runs ads which claim that it measures "success one investor at a time." Our schools should adopt the same policy.

Up to now, our schools have focused upon the SOL's. "Children must grasp the SOL's," the state stresses to its schools. So the schools teach the SOL's--and only the SOL's. In turn, students are pigeonholed based upon their grade levels. First graders will know "X". Second graders will know "Y". The fact that some first graders may be capable of also learning "Y" or "Z" is irrelevant; they must go to school to learn "X".

You get the drift. SOL's create a one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter approach to education. All first graders will act a certain way. All second graders will act another way. Deviation from this approach is almost universally questioned. After all, the school must pass the SOL's or it will cease to exist.

May I suggest something different?

What if a school gave second graders a standardized test at the beginning of the year--a test written by experts from outside of the state. The test would cover material up through the fourth grade. For each child, the test would serve as a baseline, indicating exactly what that child knows as of the first day of school. Then, at the end of the year, the child is given the same test again.

The scores of both tests will be sent to a neutral, out-of-state grading company. The company will measure the grade level that the child was on at the beginning of the year and what level the child is now. If, for example, a child was on a first grade level at the beginning of the year, but now is on a third grade level, he would get 2 points (3-1=2).

Each grade-level would have the same type of testing. Fourth graders would get a test for sixth graders; eighth graders for tenth graders; twelfth graders for college sophomores in liberal arts. They would have the same test at the beginning of the year and at the end. And their changes in grade level will be measured the same way, as noted above.

After the marginal change in grade level is measured for each child in each grade-level, all of the scores for a given school will be averaged. Then they will be ranked statewide. The bottom ten-percent will be placed on probation.

Schools on probation will be examined on-site by business leaders from throughout the state, but not from business leaders in and around their community. Average people will go into these schools to investigate why these schools did not advance as quickly as the others. If there is a reason, such as poor parental involvement, the panel of leaders will make recommendations to the school board. The next year, if the school is on probation again, another panel of business leaders will review the implementation of the prior panel's recommendations. If it is determined that the school made no effort to implement those recommendations, it will close. However, if the panel finds that the school made a good faith effort to implement those recommendations, the school will remain on probation, and the new panel will issue more recommendations.

This approach creates accountability. Test scores are still important, but they are designed to measure aggregate improvement in individual performance. In other words, if more students than not are functioning at greater levels than the year before, the school is safe. But if individual students are not advancing, the school is in trouble. Thus, if a teacher knows that Bobby is already two grade levels ahead of his classmates, she will encourage him to study even more to pick up the slack for the rest of the class.

Furthermore, the tests will be written and graded by groups who are outside of the state. Neither the teacher, nor the principal, nor the politician will control what is on the test or how it is graded; the only control will be that each test will operate on a much higher grade level. As such, the fox will no longer guard the hen house.

This approach will create competition between the schools. Granted, there is already some measure of this with respect to SOL testing. However, since these tests are not based upon any set of SOL's, each school will have the freedom--and even the mandate-- to teach things over and above what they would otherwise show their students. For example, a second grade teacher would be free to expose her class to third grade concepts without fear of skipping any SOL. Likewise, a school board will actually develop curricula on their own to adjust to their situations, without unnecessary interference from the state.

Best of all, if a school is in trouble, business leaders will examine the school to see if there are other reasons for this lack of performance. If the leaders see that teachers are doing the best that they can given the lack of parental involvement--or whatever the reason is--they will make recommendations to fix the problem without necessarily calling for the school to close. In other words, the leaders will factor into the mix other concerns that could not be gleaned from a score report.

Right now our public schools operate like a communist nation. Students are viewed as giant groups instead of being treated like individuals. Each child works for the collective "SOL test score" farm. Their individual successes are not as important as the aggregate success of the entire school. Thus, they do not have the inspiration or the drive to learn on their own, much less succeed on their own. Even if they did have this spark to advance beyond their wildest dreams, the teachers are too busy teaching the SOL's to advance any other subjects.

By adopting my plan, our public schools will operate like a capitalist, free market society. Without undue governmental regulation, each school will adopt its own curricula, and each teacher will have the freedom to teach each child on his or her own level, without fear of upsetting the educational bureaucracy. With tests that are designed to see how each child has improved, the child will be challenged to show the world just how smart he really is. Moreover, really bright students will receive the attention they need to thrive in a learning environment.