LOCAL DISTRICTS CAN BEST GAUGE PERFORMANCE AREAS

Standardized tests are all the rage in public schools. States are busily creating a vast system of tests that measure learning at the elementary and high-school levels. And, in the name of accountability, the federal government is pushing for tests that would force tests to measure some sort of national standard, presumably to guarantee that anyone student in a public school anywhere in the country could be assured of the same quality schooling.

This is like putting eggs, milk and sugar in container surrounded by ice and salt hoping the ice cream that results will taste the same whether it's made in Ohio or Utah.

But is that what's best for our youngsters? Some educators do well at scrambling eggs or fortifying young bones with milk or sweetening dry subject matter with a little sugar. But does every student in America have to have ice cream?

The issue of accountability is an important one, as we have said repeatedly in this space. The problem with statewide and federal testing programs, however, is that less and less weight is given to local priorities, needs and desires. In short, the standards of local school boards, administrators, teachers and parents are being usurped by state and federal educrats who not only think they know best, but apparently believe what's best in Missouri is also best in Florida.

There are two aspects of accountability and how to measure it.

One is the performance of students. Are they being taught well? Are they learning the subject matter? Are they being exposed to concepts, ideas and information that will leave them prepared to pursue careers or higher education? In this area of accountability, tests must be devised that gauge a student's understanding of a particular subject. Other tests, such as the SAT and ACT, attempt to measure a student's overall grasp of and familiarity with broad areas of learning.

The other is the performance of teachers. Do they know the subjects they are teaching? Are they capable of getting the attention of sleepy youngsters who would rather be outside playing kickball? Too many teachers have resisted efforts to measure their performance and ability. On the other hand, when it has been done, such teacher testing has too often uncovered poorly prepared teachers who get the same salary-schedule compensation as the best and brightest teachers.

But while measuring sticks are needed for both students and teachers, the question remains: Should the standards be set by state and federal bureaucrats? Or should local standards take precedence?

One danger of state and federal tests has already been exposed. Some teachers and administrators are cheating by giving students the answers to the standardized tests in order to meet mandates that affect performance, overall district ratings and funding.

While state and federal guidelines can assist local districts in meeting educational objectives, the matter of testing -- what to test, how to test and when to test -- can best be left to local districts.