The Marginalization of Life-Long Learning

By Stepan Mekhitarian

Stepan Mekhitarian is a mathematics instructor at an urban charter school in Los Angeles. He received his Ed.M from the Harvard Graduate School of Education and his BA in Business-Economics from UCLA. Prior to teaching, Stepan worked in the public accounting sector for two Big 5 firms.

Ever since the introduction of No Child Left Behind, educators have criticized high-stakes tests’ negative effects on public education. They have mentioned the tests’ inaccuracy in reporting true student progress and NCLB’s failure to provide educators with the support and resources necessary to improve results. However, high stakes tests’ greatest drawback is their proclivity to reduce students’ all-important desire to become life-long learners. By forcing educators to effectively teach to a test, students miss out on projects, experiments, and other enrichment activities that often inspire students to pursue a particular field and devote themselves to it.

As a high school math teacher, I constantly find myself torn between whether to move on to the next topic covered by the California Standards Test in May or to spend time elaborating on a lesson with an engaging project or experiment. I know the project will pique the students’ interest and will probably drive home the concepts taught in a way a textbook lesson never could, but the sad reality is that a project will use up valuable time without teaching students a new topic that will be on the test. I try to justify the project from a testing standpoint by reminding myself that the project will help students understand the topic better which will ultimately result in a higher test score. However, I cannot escape the fact that I simply do not have enough time to conduct a project or experiment that is truly worthwhile and meaningful.

This is a troubling reality, because it is projects and experiments that can often be the most inspirational learning experiences for students. I vividly remember physics experiments, mock courtroom sessions, chemistry projects, and museum trips from my high school days; the content of the lesson on page 240 in my science textbook is a little hazier in my memory. It is precisely these experiences that can have a profound effect on the educational interests and goals of a student. Such a crucial element of education must surely be preserved.

So where does that leave us? Should we eliminate high-stakes testing in favor of devoting more time in the classroom to activities that encourage a passion for learning? We cannot deny the importance of accountability and standardized tests’ role in providing it. A common measuring tool not only drives accountability, it also provides a system through which educators can compare results, analyze best practices, and inform their instruction. The solution to this problem is not the elimination of standardized testing but rather a rethink of the educator’s role. The current system of accountability is designed to closely monitor educators in a way few other professionals are scrutinized. This is in no small part due to the thousands of classrooms where minimal learning has taken place over the last several decades. Teachers are finally having to report to a governing body outside of the classroom. The stranglehold currently in place on what is taught will only loosen when the teaching profession becomes more professional, forcing ineffective instructors out of the classroom and making teaching an attractive career proposition for the brightest minds coming out of college. Only then will the emphasis on standardized testing lessen and shift to helping educators invoke passion in young hearts through projects and experiments.