MEAP Standards Change: to what point?

Under new MEAP (Michigan Educational Assessment Program) standards, an awful lot of Michigan students are far from ready for college. This assertion is based on revised guidelines which purport to show that fewer students, in the lower grades especially, are proficient enough in math, science, reading, and social studies to be expected to do well in college.

Before the change, a student was considered proficient if he passed an exam with about 39% of the questions answered correctly. That standard has been hiked to 65%. Our first question is why anyone with a score of less than 40% (that's 6 out 0f 10 wrong, folks) could be considered proficient at anything. Before you draw the baseball analogy that .400 is considered a fantastic batting average, consider that physical sports aren't the same thing as mental acumen. No one is throwing curves and sliders at third graders. They're simply given them words on paper which the kid must interact with and manipulate.

Part of the trouble with measuring academic ability lies in the disparity between schools. Schools in poorer areas, schools with less parental involvement, are going to do poorly on standardized assessments. Some kids cannot or will not learn no matter where they are. Some areas have better teachers than others; we could go one, but the point is made. It is for these reasons that demands for 100% compliance with any standard, such as what is demanded of Michigan schools by 2014 under the No Child Left Behind Act, is patently absurd. Expectations must be realistic or they serve no purpose.

Yet one question which simply does not get asked is, why do all kids need a long regimen of formal training? If a kid is happy with the long range plan of doing whatever work doesn't actually, practically, require college or even, quite frankly, high school, why are we trying to force or shame them into things they don't care about? Spare us the arguments about how important math is in our daily lives: anyone who can do basic math at, say, at an 8th Grade level, can get along in the world. They don't need advanced algebra. True, those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it; but surely that only applies to those who make it. A plumber, carpenter, or store owner ain't gonna have much affect on history anyway.

In short, if education is all about training someone to be able to make it in the world, then maybe raising standards isn't really useful anyway. After a point: it's one thing for a guy to know addition and multiplication because he'll actually use that day in and day out. He doesn't need differential calculus or quantum physics, or even a seminar on the American Presidency. He just needs the basics.

So teach him, hard and fast, the necessary skills and then let him get on with his life. Leave the more exacting standards for those who move on to work which requires them. At the end of the day, we rather believe it would lead to happier, more productive and decent people. It would probably save us a few bucks in the cost of education as well. Those who scream against that you'll find are those with a vested interest in the education behemoth they've contrived to build. Are they protecting their students' best interest or their own jobs?

We'll leave that question hanging. We think you know the answer anyway.