Mids 101 "Final"

An issue that grabbed my attention (and kept it) that I encountered in Mids 101 was that of standardized testing in schools, and the nationwide standards we now have in place, affecting every public school in the United States. Since I attended a public school (and know its great value, especially for children who wouldn’t be able to receive an education otherwise), complete with horribly condescending standardized “MAP” tests, I think I can speak on this and not be completely off the mark.

Standardized testing (brining with it standardized curriculum) has obvious advantages, but carries with it disadvantages that have to be recognized. Of course, parents know their children are receiving a satisfactorily rounded education—not too much time spent on one subject, nothing neglected completely. We also can be assured that students are indeed being taught, not sat down in a room for seven hours a day without something to show for it, and that they are generally well-informed adults. But the problem comes when a subject, or facet of a subject, must be ignored completely in favor of those standardized teachings.

In the International Baccalaureate program at my own high school, for example, rigorous methods of standardized testing are employed—each subject has an exam to be taken at its end, an exam that’s rewritten every year, yes, but one that still demands certain standards of knowledge. In psychology, for example lower level classes teach the development of psychology over the years, and leave mental disorders and treatments to those who chose to advance to the next level. For the exams knowledge of studies was paramount—when and by whom it was conducted—in receiving a good score.

Teachers in these situations must teach for an exam if they want their students to be “successful” and in many cases if they want any funding for their own school. They must ask themselves, “Should I teach this? Can I teach this? Is it in the best interest of my students?” Many times in their career a teacher may find subjects completely itnored, or barbarously maimed; subjects with real academic value and validity. Richard Dawkin’s essay, “The Joy of Living Dangerously”, presents an example of teachers forced to teach to someone else’s standards. This is not to say that teachers do not teach to standards other than their own—they must, there is too much in the world to be contained in the beliefs of one person. But some standards can be disappointing. In this case, the teachers lament that they barely cover the subject of evolution in their higher level biology classes because of its exclusion from the exams and syllabus. They simply can’t risk covering it, or they would risk the future of their own charges.

In these situations I believe that the true goal of education is forgotten. Passion is forgotten. Students who want to follow a path not included in the courses offered by their school are denied the chance, teachers not allowed to teach what they love lose interest in the subjects they do have to teach and lose faith in the system that moves them. Maybe that's how we stifle creativity, by not allowing deviation from what a "higher power" has mandated. It's definitely a problem public schools now have to deal with.