Equal standard impractical

lewleadbeater.com

notes from the edge

Home

Email Me

				THE
Column Archive				VIRGINIA GAZETTE
				WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA
Equal standard impractical				August 24, 2011

I read with interest John Alewyense’s discussion in the Gazette last week of the most recent Adequate Yearly Progress reports and the more general issue of the No Child Left Behind Act.

His conclusions are compelling on several levels, not the least of which is the utter naivete involved in requiring all students to pass examinations in reading and math by 2013. “We need to reconcile the equalitarian idea of No Child and the actuality of human inequality and limitation,” wrote Alewyense, “ even as we recognize they could never be one.” And amen to that.

As most readers know, I have never been a big fan of No Child and its attendant standardized testing procedures. Both students and teachers suffer as teaching to the tests becomes the grand telos of educational theory, while innovation and expansive curriculums bite the dust.

Beyond that, however, there are other issues that need to be addressed relative to the efficacy and honesty of No Child.

AYP testing involves primarily two subjects: reading and mathematics.

I certainly agree that every high school graduate should be fluent in English, should be able to read on a level that indicates some ability to comprehend and evaluate what is read and should definitely be able to write coherently and logically. The basics of English grammar should not be treated like a bad joke.

On the other hand, why every high school student should be required to pass SOLs in algebra and geometry is quite beyond me.

For many, if not most students, the acquisition of basic skills involving addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and percentages is all they’ll need to get them through the mathematical mine fields they’ll encounter in their lives.

Those students who have a strong interest in scientific fields or in mathematics for its own sake will certainly take courses in advanced math and probably do quite well in them. But why require EVERY student to become involved in the exigencies of x+y or proving again theorems that Euclid proved centuries ago?

The algebra aficionados will tell you that algebra induces logical thinking and helps immensely in the art of problem solving. As one algebraist, E. Gilchrist, put it, “In algebra you learn different strategies to solve problems, such as drawing a diagram, working backwards, using logic, setting up a table and graph, acting out the problem, eliminating possibilities and looking for patterns.”

He then goes on to describe, as a practical application of algebra, a discussion he had with his students about how best to mow a rectangular lawn. Is it more efficient to mow it in rows, in circles or in small segments? And all I’m thinking is, by the time you figure all that out, you probably could have cranked the mower and mowed the lawn.

I guess my point is that algebra is not the only subject that involves logical thinking and problem solving. Philosophy, psychology, music, biology and foreign languages, to name a few, are replete with such benefits. Yet AYP testing includes none of them.

If you don’t believe me, try taking a course in Latin. Or German. Talk about logic and precision! If you don’t know and understand the basic grammar, case endings, verb endings or the complexities of syntax that bear little resemblance to English, you’ll make hash of whatever you read or say. And, unlike algebra, most European foreign languages are excellent confederates for the comprehension of English vocabulary and grammar.

As we review the validity of No Child and the somewhat disastrous results emanating from the present AYP testing procedures, perhaps it’s time to seriously consider dropping the algebra/math component as part of the AYP assessments on the high school level.

Either that, or give students a choice of being tested in other disciplines that are just as rigorous in terms of the development of logical thinking and problem solving. That might be one way, as Alewyense suggests, of reconciling No Child’s equalitarian idea with the actuality of human inequality.