Education for All or One?

Is it possible to reconcile the two approaches to education that are at odds these days?

     On the one hand, there is an emphasis on using standardized tests to evaluate students, teachers, and schools. Even writing assignments require a student to follow a standardized five paragraph format that begins with a thesis followed by three paragraphs presenting arguments to justify the thesis and a conclusion.

    The other approach to education recognizes everyone's need for decent housing, health care, food, clean water, a certain amount of sleep (See the blog post, "Sleep Deprived Test Scores."), and, yes, education. But this approach also sees individuals with different abilities and argues that setting the same goals for every student is a waste of time, money, and energy. It unfairly blames students for not working hard enough and/or not wanting success badly enough. Yong Zhao, a professor of education at the University of Oregon, also observes that what is not measured, such as creativity, sports ability, and music, unfortunately becomes unimportant.

     Researchers David Z. Hambrick, Fernanda Ferreira, and John M. Henderson point to skilled Olympic sprinters who were faster than competitors even before they were trained. They found the popular idea of a certain amount of deliberate practice only explained 26% of the variation in the skill of expert chess players and novices; 21% of variation in musical skill, and 18% of the variation in skill in sports. Genes could explain up to half the variations between experts and less skilled performers. Innate talent makes a big difference.

     In response to these differences, some have suggested engaging students in more project-based opportunities, where they can put their individual interests and talents to work creating products and services that satisfy particular needs. Through interactions with other cultures, students also can broaden their interests and discover they are good at foreign languages or new styles of painting, music, or dance (See the blog post, "Introduce Disadvantaged Kids to the World.")

     Recognizing the different abilities of students leads to the idea of evaluating students differently in ways that do not involve standardized tests. Software might be used to: 1) monitor day-to-day answers students give in math and reading assessments and in video games that test higher order thinking, 2) provide feedback, and 3) allow students to make corrections and proceed at their own paces.

     Findings that social and emotional qualities account for at least half of a student's long-term chances of success also suggest the value of learning to interact with each other during periods of undirected free play (See the earlier blog post, "Learning Can Be Fun,") and using something like the Gallup student poll to help each student understand how important his or her maturity is.

     Finally, standardized tests given on a few days during a student's education are no substitute for portfolios that look at multiple factors, such as a student's projects, group presentations, teacher-created assessments, and technology proficiency. Nor can an occasional standardized test measure the graduation rates, demographic information, and future student employment that indicate how well a school is accommodating various student abilities.