Classifying The Obvious, Needlessly

Americans can be divided into two general groups: those who are good at taking standardized tests and those who aren’t.

Standardized tests grew in importance when the education establishment embraced them in the 1960s. This four-decade love affair between educators and the testing services has made it tough on those who don’t score high on the PSAT, SSAT, SAT, ACT, LSAT, GRE et al.

Thankfully, there still are many routes to success and a variety of fields to succeed in without high test scores. Poor test takers with talent, grit and perserverance succeed fabulously in business, art, music, athletics and, yes, even academics.

It is so obvious that intelligence and ability come in various forms that the continued reliance on manufactured testing as the ultimate measure of aptitude is baffling.

But story after story of low-percentile testers or dropouts inventing new products, building businesses or making millions from technology hasn’t budged the education establishment from its love affair with testing.

Now President Clinton, a good test taker for sure, is stumping for a national test for every child in the fourth and eighth grades. Even if Clinton and his supporters believe a test will identify those who need help, the fifth grade is too late to begin meaningful remedial work because there is too much catching up to do.

A national test is certain to divide students into their respective test-taking cohorts earlier than ever. It would place top testers in one group, the average in another and the poor ones in a third, much like the now-disparaged “academic, general, basic” categories used to track students in school years past.

Groupings exist in schools today, of course, although we don’t like to discuss it. Magnet schools, honors classes and gifted and talented programs push students who are ready to go faster. Remedial classes, although we don’t call them that, are there for those who need them.

That is inevitable because students mature and learn at wildly different rates. Some eighth-grade students are algebra whizzes. Others struggle with basic math. A national test would be another barrier for those students most in need of something besides another obstacle in school.

Fill-in-the-bubble tests are severely limited in what they measure. A test can never discern political ability, business savvy, courage, leadership, determination or talent in painting, music, sports and drama.

Not one of the alphabet-soup tests could predict Winston Churchill’s greatness or Toni Morrison’s talent.

But it is easy to see how poor test scores could damage potential, threaten blossoming talent and kill the spirit.

Public school has evolved as a system to teach the greatest number of students as cheaply as allowable. And woe to those for whom it is too fast, too slow or an ill fit.

I cannot see how more and earlier testing is going to benefit any student today or tomorrow. It is no secret in the schools which students need extra help, extra time and more attention. The teachers know. National testing is only going to affirm, in most cases, what the schools have already learned about students.

Thankfully, the world beyond the schoolyard is more accommodating. The student who isn’t sure of the definition of “insouciant’ or “jejune” but is a whiz with computers can find a good job. A student who doesn’t know the formula for finding the area of a triangle but is fluent in foreign languages will not lack for work.

Looking at the working world, educators - and the president - might consider that what schools need is variety and flexibility, not another standardized test straightjacket. Knowing that the mold of public school misses or crushes so much talent and drive, educators could be trying different ways to teach and evaluate students.

Testing has a value. It’s just not as high as the value that educrats have assigned to it over four decades.

It’s time they acknowledge that and move on, looking for more solutions and fewer measurements.

xxxx