In the Winter 2001 issue of the Free Press, P. Thomas Harker wrote on “The Scoop on Proficiency Tests.” In short, he disapproved of the present statewide testing system. One of several reasons Harker gave, “Schools cannot mass produce uniform children . . .”

This taxpayer is a proficiency test supporter, of a sort. Accordingly, I’ll offer a different viewpoint.

Most people will agree that, strategically speaking, having a successful public school system is very simple. First, citizens collectively define what the students should learn. And, then teachers teach this curriculum to their students. The purpose of testing is to see if, in fact, the kids have learned the stuff they are supposed to. If not, the students restudy what they missed on the test. Then they get retested. Etc., etc.

Please note, the root word “test” is used three times in the above paragraph. I zoomed right through the first step of: define what the students should learn. In the conventional teach-learn-test loop, teachers don’t “teach to the test,” they teach to the curriculum. Testing is just one of the teaching/learning tools in the educational process.

To me, the overall goal of public education should be to prepare our children to be economically productive and politically responsible citizens. Unfortunately, I have no firm opinions on what this curriculum should be. That is why the public debate needs to focus mostly on what we want the students to learn.

Certainly, the minimum reading goals for each grade level need to be defined by a list of core words. Learning the meaning of the words on these vocabulary lists should require a reasonable time burden for the typical child with an average teacher. Naturally, learning goals in spelling, math, social studies, etc. should also be incorporated into the core curriculum.

Once the public debate results in a consensus on core K-12 curriculum, the test controversy will be greatly reduced. Students, who are slow learners in one or more subjects, will have to spend more “time on task.” Students, who study enough to learn above and beyond the core curriculum, will then have time to spend on enrichment academics.

Students who have mastered the K-12 core curriculum would receive a standard high school diploma. Those who go beyond the core curriculum would receive a high school diploma with XYZ extra credits. Students who do not master the full K-12 curriculum would receive either an 8th grade, 9th grade, 10th grade or 11th grade diploma. To water down the K-12 core curriculum standard diploma is not fair to either the students, their parents or potential employers.

In his essay, Harker didn’t have space to outline his ideas on a K-12 core curriculum. I would like to hear what Harker has to say on what the students should learn.

Bill Buckel