More By Author
June 08, 2011
June 09, 2011
November 05, 2008
September 23, 2009
October 02, 2009
The entire school reform movement is predicated on a
hypothesis: Boosting student achievement, as measured by standardized tests,
will enable greater prosperity, both for individuals and for the country as a
whole. More specifically, improving students’ skills and knowledge in reading,
math, and science will help poor children climb out of poverty, and will assist
all children to prepare for the rigors of college and the workplace. By
building the “human capital” of the American workforce, rising achievement will
also spur economic growth, which will lift all boats.
It explains reformers’ enthusiasm for test-based
accountability; for “college- and career-ready standards”; for teacher
evaluations based, in significant part, on student outcomes; for “data-based
instruction”; and for much of the rest of the modern-day reform agenda. After
all, if reading, math, and science knowledge and skills are so directly linked
to the life chances of individual kids, and of the livelihood of the country as
a whole, why not get the education system focused like a laser on them?
But is this hypothesis correct? Is stronger academic
performance related to better life outcomes for kids and better economic
outcomes for nations?
In a word: yes. As Kevin Carey noted
recently, the big Chetty et al
study didn’t just demonstrate the importance of teacher effectiveness. It
also offered strong support for the Test Score Hypothesis.
Then there’s the international evidence. As Eric Hanushek and
colleagues have been arguing (and
documenting) for years, there’s a direct link between academic achievement (as
measured by math and science tests) and a country’s economic growth.
Hanushek further contends that the only way to solve our country’s
long-term fiscal challenge is to grow our way out of it. If we could indeed
boost the cognitive skills of our students, even by a little, our structural
deficit would go away.
It’s hard to make the case anymore that test scores are
irrelevant. But what remains unknown is whether reading, math, and science are
the most important things that
schools could and should teach.
As Dana Goldstein noted
back in December,
We might all want schools to walk and chew gum at the same
time—to boost “academic achievement” while also developing “moral, cultured,
socially-responsible people.” But our policies—especially school-level
accountability and test-based teacher evaluations—focus on academic achievement
The nagging question then—the “known unknown”—is whether
other stuff may matter more—both to kids’ life chances and to the country’s
economic success. What if, for instance, “social and emotional
intelligence”—knowing how to relate to others—is more important than many
reformers have been willing to acknowledge? What if these interpersonal skills
are what help lift poor kids out of poverty and enable economies to succeed? Or
other “soft skills” and attributes like grit, perseverance, industriousness,
the ability to delay gratification, and so forth?
In that case, is it smart to push Head Start centers to
focus overwhelmingly on pre-literacy and pre-numeracy skills (as many of us
have)? Is it wise to cut time for recess, to trim extra-curriculars, or to push
for ever-more homework, to be completed by solitary scholars? Does it make
sense to ask teachers to obsess about student achievement over all else?
The private-school sector, which many reformers admire, is
not so conflicted. Every high-end school boasts about its commitment to the “whole child,” to kids’
intellectual, emotional, social, and physical development. These schools would
never consider their graduates to be well educated without an appreciation for
the arts, participation in sports, a commitment to community service, and the
development of strong character. And judging by the admissions policies of the
nation’s great universities, our elite higher education institutions hold this
holistic view, too. Are these non-academic attributes just “extras”—luxuries
that schools serving poor or working-class kids simply cannot afford? Or are
they as essential as academics, for everyone? And, if so, how to instill them?
Reading, math, and science matter a lot, but they are almost
certainly not enough. That is why we must tread gingerly when designing
next-generation school-accountability and teacher-evaluation systems. If we
accidentally create incentives for schools and teachers to focus solely on
academic achievement and ignore the rest, we could be making our children and
our nation less competitive, not more