This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

Illinois School Board Journal
January/February 2004

Achievement or happiness: Where is our focus?

by Donald C. Wold

Donald C. Wold is an assistant professor at Aurora University. He was a junior high and high school principal before becoming superintendent of a suburban unit district.

In the 20 years since the Nation at Risk report, much has been written with respect to the test scores of students in the United States versus their counterparts in Europe and the Pacific Rim countries. One of the issues is whether or not our scores are in fact inferior, or merely a statistical difference due to our universal schooling philosophy.

Since our public schools are being held accountable, it is no surprise that education leaders are rather defensive about the comparisons. From all of the analysis, however, it seems likely that there is a difference, even when comparing similar groups, such as the top 10 per cent from the various nations in any given test. What has not been addressed is the reason for the difference, other than to say the public schools must "fix" it — hence No Child Left Behind legislation.

Four somewhat related reasons could account for the lower scores in the United States. Let's begin with the one that cannot be changed:

Some years ago, while serving as a school district superintendent, I met a Finnish foreign exchange student being hosted by our high school. Eager to find out about her homeland, and in particular the educational system, we invited her to speak at a board meeting where we were treated to a slide show and informative presentation. All the young people in her village looked similar, had a common heritage, spoke the same language and even had the same religion. Having a common set of expectations at school with respect to homework, achievement and even behavior was clearly easier than in this country.

It would be difficult to imagine the challenge in the United States of trying to have all students strive for the same high standard when everything else about them is so diverse. So what do we do about this "cause" of lower scores? Nothing, just celebrate our rich diversity and heritage. If diversity and heritage do not add to our test scores, they certainly add a wealth of experience and perspective that are not captured in a standardized test.

A second possible cause of lower scores may, in part, be attributable to our shorter school year. If "time on task" means anything, and we universally argue that it does, then students are likely to learn more testable skills and knowledge in class than in summer activities. The solution to this problem is obvious, albeit somewhat costly: a longer year. It should be mandated and funded immediately. And while we are at it, 10 days added to the students' year and an additional two or three days to the teachers' would allow for the much needed staff development while not taking teachers out of the classroom.

Realistically, the lack of air conditioning in many schools would appear to be a limiting factor. However, we must begin thinking "outside the box" and consider the additional two weeks in perhaps an 8 a.m. to noon time frame. This would allow for all academic courses to be held on a daily basis and still avoid the summer afternoon heat, since non-academic courses would not have to be held during this time frame.

For the final two causes of poor test scores, we must delve into the very fabric of American society. First, we are hedonistic fun lovers. This characteristic appears in almost everything we do, but did not really occur to me until a few years ago when engaged in professional discussion with several European educators.

In their countries, young children are asked by their parents: "What did you do in school today?' or "What did you learn today?" Here, we ask our new kindergartners "Did you like school today?" Our concern for our children's happiness has become an end in and of itself. Ask the Europeans for their translation of "school spirit" and expect a blank stare.

While a large high school spends a million dollars on co-curricular activities, our foreign counterparts spend that same money on academic education. "Activities" as we think of them are private clubs, paid for individually by participants and their parents. Think for a moment about the time, energy and money we spend on all after-school activities and what we might accomplish in the test score arena if those same resources were dedicated to improving academic performance.

We could easily lower class size and extend the school year with no additional taxes. The reason we have not already made this move is that we are not convinced the trade off is worth the effort. To eliminate school sponsorship of extra activities would cause a loss of "school spirit" and less-happy children. There is also the real possibility of reducing the opportunity to develop skills in cooperation and team building, often thought of as a rationale for school sponsored co-curricular activities.

The fourth cause for lower scores in the United States is closely related to the third. This involves our lack of focus, perhaps also the single biggest difference between the public and private schools in this country.

As an example, check the school code for most any state and review the extensive list of mandated teaching units, often with a political origin. Then, visit any high school during "homecoming week," any middle school during "spirit week," or any elementary school as students prepare for the winter music program. Sadly, the activities surrounding these events far out shadow, for an extended period of time, the original "focus" of the school experience.

In private schools, they generally control co-curricular activities to the extent that academic achievement remains the school's prime focus. Again, we have collectively shown neither the interest nor the intestinal fortitude necessary to change these very correctable detriments to better academic performance.

We were not always as concerned about test scores and the accountability for them as we are today. But if we are serious about academic skill improvement, then we have to look beyond adopting a "new, improved" text, program or instructional method. We have to correct our four shortcomings and further convince ourselves that the benefits presumably derived from them are not as important as better academic performance.

These issues need to be addressed before any more targets such as in No Child Left Behind are promulgated upon the American public as though there were any realistic possibility of them being attained.