Archive: Opinions

My radar went off at Monday's meet the candidate's night when board member Julie Boles said that she thinks Lansing students' high opt-out rate  from state testing was a push from the teacher's union.  She very gently stated her preference that children should be the ones choosing to participate in the testing or not.

I don't know what, if any, involvement teachers had in the the decision, but Boles' statement did make me think about why students should refuse to take the tests.  There is only one answer: parents should be the ones who decide whether their children take these mandated tests, and it should only be for reasons of the children's well-being.

Not for parents or any other adult to make a statement or protest.  And not really for kids to decide, because they're kids.  Not that they shouldn't have input, but they have legal guardians at that age for a reason, and its the guardians' job to guard.  To put the kid's wellbeing before anything else.

There are many great reasons to refuse the testing.  First and foremost is the obvious reason that some kids just naturally stink at test-taking.  They know things, but they express their mastery of that knowledge in other ways.  This puts a lot of stress on them to perform in ways they are incapable of, and it puts too much stress on teachers.

Another reason is that state mandates have gone too far, and teachers are forced to 'teach to the test' instead of teaching actual subjects in ways that might resonate more effectively with their students.  Individuals learn in different ways, and mandated standardized testing doesn't serve a diverse student population.  What it does do is provide statistics that state officials can bandy about as they politicize education.

And politicize it they do.  Teacher performance evaluations are now tied to the test results, with what many say are unfair consequences for teachers whose students score poorly.  It is important to distinguish between these test scores and grades.  We do need some system of evaluation, so I like grades because they are, when used effectively, an indication of the students entire, diverse learning experience in any given class, not just a kid's test-taking skill.

Teachers should be evaluated like anyone else.  It may not be PC to say so, but if kids are the focus of education there has to be a way to identify and remove ineffective teachers, even those with tenure.  But to tie that evaluation so strongly to standardized state testing is wrong, because it is only one aspect of what a teacher does and doesn't come close to identifying good and bad teachers in any reasonable way.  Further, teachers don't have control over how their students natively learn.  What if a really good teacher happens to get a class full of poor test-takers?

I used to be a teacher, and most years I felt my students were, on average, bright and engaged.  I was able to gauge from year to year because I taught the same courses, pretty much the same way, to different class years.  So the variable was the students.  One year I got a batch who didn't do as well.  Luck of the draw, I suppose.  That didn't impact my evaluations much, because they were based on more than just test scores.  And the next year's class was better.

The teachers union would be right to worry that good teachers are being unfairly penalized by the current evaluation system.  We should all be outraged by that.  A lot of the teachers I talk to are all about the students, and I have no doubt that educational excellence and student well-being are a large part of any teacher's motivation who advocates 'opting-out'.

So what is the harm in making a political statement by getting parents to refuse the testing?

The harm is that it loses focus on what is important, and actually could have a backlash on some people's perception of our generally outstanding teachers.  It gives the appearance that kids are being used for adults agendas.  When we should really be looking at what is the best curriculum four our particular local children and the best way of delivering it.  And we, as a district, should have our teacher's backs.

Teachers and parents shouldn't be put in this position in the first place.  If there is a political fight going on, Albany and Washington started it.  Even though it might mean a reduction in school revenue, school districts as a whole should refuse the tests on the grounds that they are harming our students as well as penalizing our teachers.  Why should teachers have to be fighting this fight at all?  School districts should have the courage and fortitude to take a stand in the name of actual education.  Take teachers out of this equation.  Take parents out of it.  And give students the best education possible, not some politicized cookie cutter agenda from on high.

Lansing isn't a failing school district.  It's a pretty successful one.  So our school district should have no qualms about rejecting the political blackmail that ties federal aid to state testing.  Even if that means a reduction in the budget that forces making some program sacrifices because of reduced blackmail aid, it seems to me that our kids' overall education would be better for allowing excellent teachers to give 100% focus on what have proven year after year, in Lansing, they do best.

When school districts are faced with an unacceptable reality it is time to think outside the proverbial box and question the very roots of that reality.  Because its supposed to be all about the kids.  Not just partly about the kids.  All.

v11i19