Education, Money, and Standardized Testing (2011)
Laura Diamond (“Many Grads Not College-Ready, AJC 5/30/11) has a quote that uses a phrase that captures my sense: “We need to do a better job of explaining [to high schools] what we need these students to do.” As a college teacher, I like to think I can teach anything to anyone willing to do the work, whatever their backgrounds may be, and indeed I need my students to “do” as opposed to “know [a fact].” As a classics professor, I teach language, literature and culture, so I see many types of students and teach many types of learning. When I teach ancient Greek, I would like to have students who can tell a subject from a verb, but I can teach that: it is students who have thought about how language transfers the meaning of an idea into words who are best able to learn another language. In a history course, it is nice to have a student who has memorized names and dates, but they can get that out of the textbook: I want my students to be able to grasp what it means to read Herodotus and see his underlying attitudes or standards historical accuracy. I don’t believe one can memorize rules and facts for a standardized test in a way that would help a student understand these nuances of language or culture.
In the same issue of the AJC, Maureen Dodd (“A major is not a minor”) quotes Anthony Carnevale: “People with the ability to pay will get learning for its own sake that will allow them to participate in our cultural and political systems. People who don’t have money in their pocket are going to get training.” (Carnevale's research also shows a graduate of a 4-year college with any major will earn more over a lifetime than someone who does not.) I hate to think that we are going to divide our students into those who can “participate in our cultural and political systems” and those who cannot, but that looks like it will be the inevitable result if students who fail a test are steered into the technical colleges where—Carnevale implies—they will never learn the joys of thinking about thinking—all because we as a society don’t want to spend the money to teach them those joys. I have taught or spoken with many older students who did not originally finish high school and yet in their later years have come to college to learn just that, and done it well. Most all students can learn to learn, it should not just be a question of money, but that requires that someone teach them to “do” learning throughout their school careers. I’m also sure it would be more stimulating for teachers and students of all ages to be reading and thinking about such topics in school, not studying for tests.
Sally MacEwen
In the same issue of the AJC, Maureen Dodd (“A major is not a minor”) quotes Anthony Carnevale: “People with the ability to pay will get learning for its own sake that will allow them to participate in our cultural and political systems. People who don’t have money in their pocket are going to get training.” (Carnevale's research also shows a graduate of a 4-year college with any major will earn more over a lifetime than someone who does not.) I hate to think that we are going to divide our students into those who can “participate in our cultural and political systems” and those who cannot, but that looks like it will be the inevitable result if students who fail a test are steered into the technical colleges where—Carnevale implies—they will never learn the joys of thinking about thinking—all because we as a society don’t want to spend the money to teach them those joys. I have taught or spoken with many older students who did not originally finish high school and yet in their later years have come to college to learn just that, and done it well. Most all students can learn to learn, it should not just be a question of money, but that requires that someone teach them to “do” learning throughout their school careers. I’m also sure it would be more stimulating for teachers and students of all ages to be reading and thinking about such topics in school, not studying for tests.
Sally MacEwen