On standard testing students in US...

There's an interesting article in New York times -- http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/education/27education.html?pagewanted=all -- on how some counties in NY have been dealing with standard tests and the issue of immigrant children.

There should be some upfront disclosure of my view in standard tests. I grew up with standard tests, in a country where everything is very homogeneous, and as a kid, I dealt with it pretty well, all in all.

Now that I have kids of my own who're starting out their schooling, I've come to see and be more concerned with the education system in US. There're a few things that struck me --

(1) Why does it take so long for a regulation like No Child Left Behind Act to be enacted?!? Why is it so wrong to test your kids in order to see how they're doing, and whether they need help or not?

(2) Having said that, this Act is exactly like all of those regulations and things that the Bush administration pushed forward -- well-intentioned, but amazingly naive, and very poorly executed.

(3) Why do I say that? Well, for one, if you say what you mean, you do what you say. I'm 100% behind testing the kids, but you (Bush) do not going about saying it, without backing it up with resources (funding is a thorny issue).

(4) In the execution of this Act, there is only stick and no carrot (which is a more powerful motivation tool). Schools are penalized, with the immediate side-effects of kids falling through the cracks (either get kicked out, or schools avoiding the tests for potentially marginal students, as the above article shows).

(5) Sometimes, in dealing with human and social issues, it's not as easy as doing a performance review of employees, and fire them when you want to get rid of them. In a society, you do not want to give up on anyone. I don't see that happening with this "compassionate conservative" administration. That's what's happening, in effect, with this Act. And there's no Plan B, which is exactly like how this administration deals with everything else, like the war in Iraq.

(6) Schools must be smoking if they claim that they can't standard-test immigrant children with 5 years. Five years is a long time. If the family is new immigrant, and no one speaks English, then yes, testing the children within 1 year is unrealistic. Kids need time to learn. But 2 years of rigorous learning should bring the kids up to speed.

(7) There is something else though: While we should never give up on any kids (or adults), we should accept the fact that some kids just don't like schools, or they're good at something else. These kids could be bright and all, but they quite likely won't do well in standard tests. It seems to be very politically incorrect to accept this fact, to acknowledge that some kids just won't do well in schools. Problem is, there are very few alternatives for these kids. If only there are more advocates on other vocational avenues that these kids could choose from. Just look at the shortages of all the craftsmen, like electricians, and even watchmakers. But this country seems to see that all kids should do straight-A's, given time. I respectfully disagree.

We, as parents, would also hope and wish that our kids will be the ones who do well in schools. But there's little hope that innovative approach will come out of the federal government. Let's hope that bodies like the Gates Foundation, with their clout and enthusiasm, would come up with alternatives; and other institutions will step up to the plate, and offer other choices for kids.