Leave my 2nd grader alone, Arne Duncan

This quote and stunning portrait of Secretary Duncan popped up on social media last week. It’s from his speech during a 2009 visit to a Brooklyn elementary school. It is, of course, taken out of context here.  But that just means it’ll fit right in with every other quote on the internet, ever. Here’s a post about Mr. Duncan addressing the “educational crisis” in this speech.

He seems to be claiming that you can tell where kids will end up, higher education-wise, because of how they’re testing in second grade. Reading this on a friend’s wall, I actually said aloud,  “You leave my second grader ALONE, Arne!”  Yes, that’s a tad dramatic, but Arne is a fun name to say aloud.

Though well-meaning, this is some serious oversimplification, and rhetoric to sell the need to test small children.  I teach K-5 and let me tell you: By second grade, a couple of them haven’t even really mastered holding a #2 pencil yet, let alone having one help decide their future.  In second grade, they’re about 8 years old. Meaning that every bit of their little life has occurred in a shorter time than Seinfeld was on the air. Just let that sink in.

No, Arne, we should not.  I mean, I can totally pick out the future trophy wives by the time they’re leaving 5th grade, but that’s as cynical as I’ll allow myself to get as a teacher.

Let’s put aside the fact that college is not the right path for every person in the first place. We’ll also try to excuse the elitist undertones in his poor choice of the phrase “good college”.  Although I would never rule it out, I have no iron clad plan for Ivy League schools in my children’s futures. Arne would probably not approve.

But I do have my own second grader. Right now she is, if I may brag, one of those kids who is intrinsically motivated to learn and madly in love with reading and writing. She also thinks practical applications of Math is “neat”. Sadly, her school is already test-happier than I’d like them to be.  Last Thursday night she gloomily announced that she had three the next day. My kid is 7, but she’s known for years how to fill in test bubbles because how-to-take-a-test knowledge is woven into their little homework sheets each night. This is the direction that education is moving, and it’s quotes like Arne’s up there that point to the cause.

I think we’ll be lucky; my kid will still love reading and writing and (dare I wish it) probably even Math when all is said and tested.  Others definitely won’t be so lucky.

I’m fortunate enough to work for a school district that still clings (some years by its fingernails) to the ideal of growing the whole child. The humanity, not just the testable parts. The arts are still offered, and the students have easy access to artistic and performing groups within their regular school day. I’ve also had a close view of others that weight the tested subject areas doubly in the student schedule, and jam in some test-prep classes for good measure. If scores go up, on paper, it looks like students are learning, and all is supposedly right with the world.

A September article in the Washington Post explains what this emphasis on testing does in lower-income districts. The arts, proven for years to improve acquisition of testable knowledge and life in general, are not offered to all students equally. As the Post article states, the kids who need arts education the most are often the ones not receiving it, as their “failing” schools opt instead to focus energy and funds on performance of a much less humanistic sort. Non-tested subjects (and sometimes, the people who teach them) are not valued, because frankly, there are tests to take. And there are no mandated score growth objectives for Art and Music that relate to the school’s status or funding. Do not get me started on the concept of punishing failing schools by removing funding. I kick stuff when I get angry, and I presently not wearing any shoes. Ouch. 

I’m sure we’ll find other sources of funding somewhere.

However, in a quote from August 22,d 2014, Mrs. Duncan said, “[I]n too many places, it’s clear that the [testing] yardstick has become the focus.” And, “No school or teacher should look bad because they took on kids with greater challenges. Growth is what matters. No teacher or school should be judged on any one test, or tests alone — always on a mix of measures.”

 Am I nuts, or does this sound more reasonable?  What a different tune he’s singing than the one usually sung by those who legislate education reform. Probably because somebody reinstated the choir program that got cut in 2009? This is also coming from someone who had an idea (test the crap out of kids to prove we’re teaching something), ran with it, and found it wasn’t working exactly the way he planned. Could it be, after some hands-on experience and trial and error, he’s acquiring new knowledge and gaining a better understand that may help in the future? Isn’t it great when actual education takes place?