Testing Holds Education Establishment Accountable

By Skip Murphy

Growing up I heard "Finish your plate - starving kids in China would love it". Nowadays, we can add "Finish your studies - not only are they still hungry, they are hungry for your job too!" Costs of all types have plummeted over the last decade leading to globalization. Not only have manufacturing jobs left but white collar "knowledge worker" jobs are being offshored. Much to the dismay of my friends that have been directly affected, not only should we worry about Wang and Li, but Gupta and Anatoloy as well.

It is imperative that our children are sufficiently prepared to go out into an extremely competitive global marketplace. I worry when I read articles in American media from American educational specialists stating that competition is not good and should be downplayed. In fact, while listening to John Stossel's 20/20 report, one teacher exclaimed "...competition is inhuman...".

No, competition actually is the norm of life. Ignoring this is illogical at best and destructive long term (for individuals or a society). This is common sense in the private sector – it is survival of the fittest.

With globalization, the emphasis on the highest quality product for the lowest price has yielded manufacturing processes highly dependent on standards and metrics of all kinds. Nothing is left to chance.

Yet it seems that the educational establishment still believes that they are not a business, that what they do (providing an educational service to taxpayers) cannot be accurately measured. The reality is that education just in Gilford a $21 million a year business.

Dr. DeMinico's article (3/30/06) seems to push this notion by having us believe that the NECAP and NEHEIAP tests are not worth much in evaluating Gilford’s schools. One feels his disdain for the No Child Left Behind law. Buttressing his argument are facts that every parent already knows - each child is unique, learns at different rates, interested in different things, and so on. And pushes these factoids as the most important in how well (or not) the overall test scores fare.

By concentrating on just “variability of children”, he downplays the responsibility of his administrative and teaching staffs by not mentioning them. In short, he allows the insinuation that it is the kids that succeed or fail, leaving his staff without responsibility in the outcome.

How convenient! By making this argument, he provides the proof that "we may effectively subordinate NCLB to its rightful place in school accountability...." and instead concentrate on "… each and every student, and his and her intellectual, emotional and physical growth through their formative years…" Effectively, this makes the assertion that we cannot measure in the aggregate – our schools.

Yet, the process of taking and reporting on tests is familiar to us all, as all of us have taken tests as we progressed through the system. The only difference is that the teachers set their own standards for testing. Now, national standards are being enforced. Why? In the aggregate across the country; the voters determined through their representatives that the education system is failing to provide an adequate product.

In short, we, the consumers of these educational services, are not happy campers.

Apparently, educators are upset that this oversight (and by association,

accountability) is being placed upon them. To me, teaching to a test and administering a test does not seem to be the huge problem that it is made out to be. Again, in the private sector, businesses are formally measured constantly with standard metrics. We finally now have a measurement that we can use that is applicable across the nation, and thus, in Gilford.

Part way into his article, he compares his lack of homework (not looking at relevant statistics) when purchasing his BMW (a car that most taxpayers cannot afford) to evaluating our schools. While I disagree with the analogy, he set the precedent so I shall continue with it.

There are multiple sources that can give consumers automobile reviews.

They test against multiple criteria that are combined to come up with a composite rating (i.e., 1 to 5 stars). While agreeing that this single fact does not tell the entire story, it does give the consumer a baseline in judging the relative worth of a product compared to similar ones. Then, the underlying analysis can be reviewed to give a more balanced picture of a product. Something that Dr. DeMinico failed to do and wishes he had.

Yet, by denigrating the value of NCLB and NECAP, he wants us to evaluate our schools by exactly his failed method of choosing a car – how do the schools look, how intelligent do our kids seem to be – rather than by looking at statistics.

As with cars, we can and should use NCLB / NECAP results (giving us the equivalent of “stars”), as well as other across the board tests, to get an idea of how the Gilford School system is doing. Yes, while the individual children take the test, it is the responsibility of the staff to ensure that the relevant material is taught well. Frankly, this oversight is needed and given that it is our taxpayer money, we have the right to determine how it is to be spent as well as the measurement thereof.

Dr. DeMinico continues by making the plea of "need the continued support of Gilford's taxpayers to provide the resources necessary...which we expect will bring student to the requisite levels of proficiency and beyond in a reasonable time frame". In short, the old pitch to “give us more money and time”.

As if we haven’t right along (e.g., additions to the elementary school, a brand new middle school, a refurbished high school)? Forgive me if I seem just a tad cynical for this pitch for even more from a village of just 7,400 residents. The hard truth is that Gilford is already providing more than sufficient resources. At 40% above national per pupil spending, is Gilford receiving a 40% better results? According to the latest results, while Gilford is above the NH average, we are not 40% better.

Why should taxpayers continue to blithely give money to the only large system that has been in place for the last 100 years that has given rise to the phrase “the dumbing down of America”? While certainly absurd in some cases, one only has to watch “Jay Walking” segments of the Tonight Show. Listen to those proclaiming to be attending college and then stun us (frankly speaking) with their stupidity. Remember, before reaching college, some elementary, middle, and high schools had to pass them forward.

The answer is not just more money (generally, private schools yield better results for far fewer dollars), but more accountability and choice. National tests bring levels of accountability that have not been available before, as the educational establishment has given us few measures for evaluating schools across the board. Now having one, comparing performances across a broad range of situations across schools can give us valid data for excellence.

The real discussion is "how do we, as parents, know that our children are being educated in such a way that they can be competitive?" How else do we as taxpayers figure out that our above average cost is giving us above average results? Not against just other students in Gilford, the next town over, or even in other states, but against the best in the world?

Is Gilford getting five out of five stars, or only one? The time for asking for more in Gilford has all but reached apogee. No, it is not the time to “show me the money”; rather, it is time for “show us the results” – climbing national test scores will help.

We, taxpayers and parents, deserve nothing less.

Skip Murphy is a resident of Gilford, New Hampshire. This OpEd piece originally appeared in The (Laconia, N.H.) Citizen on April 6, 2006. See LINK.