100% Perfection

Several people have mentioned recently the fact that NCLB mandates that by 2014, 100% of students score at grade level or above on their reading, math, and science tests. I seem to have lost track of the liberal argument. At the (terminally boring) American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference in May, I attended a workshop which pitted Richard Rothstein against Fredrick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, a free-market conservative think tank in Washington.

Considered by many to be a "great" scholar in our field, Rothstein made an argument that reminded me of one of the last scenes in Schindler's List, where Schindler looks at his ring and says something to the effect of, "I could have saved one more person with this ring." It's a beautiful scene, one that makes you cry at how a hard-driving businessman has become more human at a time when many were becoming less so. Rothstein essentially stated that the problem with charter schools is that while some students will succeed because of innovative teaching practices and market-driven schools looking at their bottom line, some will fail. The question is, how many is acceptable? This is the question Rothstein posed to the audience with the same sort of fatalism as Schindler - the answer he thought to be acceptable is of course, none. So, 100% of our students must be succeeding in schools. And morally, it is unacceptable that we let children fall "through the cracks," or perhaps more aptly, below the bottom line.

However, unlike Schindler's List, lives are not at stake here. And as morally reprehensible or distasteful as it may be to say this, some children, people, students will not make it. Unless we have a comprehensive social welfare system, some people, for whatever reason, will not succeed in life. This is not ideal. No one wants it to be this way. But even in France, with a comprehensive social welfare system, there are street people. I don't know how or if it's possible to create a society which doesn't let people fall though the cracks completely. Maybe lives are at stake, I don't know. But there's a difference between saving someone's life from a racist, fascist death camp and not being able to get a child to read on grade level, Rothstein fatalism aside.

HOWEVER. 100% is what NCLB regulates. This blog entry on The Education Wonks makes the argument that this stipulation de-professionalizes teaching, because no one expects a doctor to be able to cure all of his patients or a lawyer to win all of his cases. Sometimes the more difficult the patient or case, the better skilled the doctor or lawyer is, but also the more likely it is he will fail. (Orshe. Got it. I know, I hate my own gender. Can we just accept that I'm using "he" as a gender neutral pronoun?)

If we're asking that 100% of students score at grade level or above on assessments, then what happens to students with learning disabilities, mentally handicapped students, and the like? Are they excluded from the 100%? (I'm reminded of President Clinton - "It depends on what the meaning of is is.") It depends on the meaning of what 100% is. Does 100% refer only to children who pass the grade prior to the grade where tests are taken? Sometimes holding children back a grade (especially in kindergarten and 1st grade, it seems) can be beneficial. Some children, because of a September birthday, are younger than their grade by almost a year. But can we hold students back merely because they might not be able to help schools make the 100% mark? I wonder if we won't just alter the tests so that 100% of students can pass them.

I agree that we should set high standards, and I agree that schools (and liberals) sometimes fall into the "soft bigotry of low expectations," to quote (gasp!) President Bush. The discussion at the Cato Institute about teacher quality and school choice reminded me of this, because the "liberal" argued that socioeconomically, racially, ethnically, whatever-ly disadvantaged families won't choose as well as advantaged families for their schools. I think the rapid exodus of DC families from public schools proves this wrong. I mean, it doesn't take a college degree to want to get your kid out of a school where the roof leaks and the teacher's lesson plans are yellowed.

I want to look into this a little more. Along with the 15 papers and 400 pages I have to read. But it's all for you, dear reader!

I know I'm a bit all over the place with this entry. I'm trying to piece my thoughts together. I hate to see a child fall through the cracks. And yet I hate the liberal idea that "everyone should just be who they are and express themselves and we should boost their self esteem and say yay you're all honors students." Because not everyone is an honors student. Not everyone should be an honors student. It's almost as if by making this "let's boost everyone's self esteem" argument, we're saying that if you're not an honors student (or a doctor, or a professional who makes $100,000 a year), your value as a person is less. I wish we could find a way to value everyone's worth as a person without everyone needing to be college-educated and reading above grade level. For some, it is simply not possible.