What is the ‘Goal’ of Elementary School?

A couple of months back, Tim Kaine (former governor and current senator from Virginia) wrote a column for EdWeekly, describing what he and his wife had learned from their forty years’ experience with public education, particularly as parents.  I thought his observations deserved a more thorough examination, so here are my thoughts, beginning with his take on elementary school. 

First, I share Kaine’s view on the potential of early childhood education.  We are just beginning to understand the science of young brain development.  If that understanding became the basis of a national model for pre-K education, it would certainly help level the proverbial playing field. So I’m encouraged that the concept seems to be gaining momentum, but we’re a long way from consensus, and it’s important that we get it right.  

More intriguing to me, however, was Kaine’s belief that the primary goal of elementary education should be the attainment of “math and language literacy”. Is he right?  If not, what should the goal be?

I think we’re in agreement that standardized, state assessments should focus on math and language competencies. Basic skills are relatively easy to measure, and those scores can help us know whether schools are reaching some minimum threshold of  efficacy.
  
The problem - as Kaine argues - lies with our misuse of these tests, which 1) tend to measure a relatively small subset of what is ‘important’, and 2) are increasingly being used, counter-productively, as a weapon. There’s nothing wrong with testing if the purpose is to inform classroom instruction: how well do my students understand what I’m teaching, and what might I, as a teacher, do differently?  Clearly, if something is important, we should find a way to measure it. How else will we know if we’re doing an effective job? 

But that’s not how these tests are being used and, in fact, they cannot be used this way, since the results of our statewide tests are typically not known for months. This makes the time we spend on them not a particularly wise use of resources. No other civilized country does this.

But my larger point is that Kaine appears to underestimate the capacity of young students.  Sure, every student should become fluent in the basic algorithms of arithmetic: addition, subtraction, fractions, etc. But they are capable of much more. They have the potential – and, in fact, the world they are entering requires – that they become mathematical thinkers who see math as a way to solve real-world problems.  

And obviously, every student needs to know how to read and write. That’s a minimal, easily testable, standard. But even young students have the potential – and the world is insisting – that they become communicators; comfortable with expressing their ideas in various ways; speaking in front of groups; making connections with the characters of literature, etc. – none of which is easily measured with a standardized test. 

I also think that Kaine minimizes the importance of science, which he sees primarily as an adjunct to math. (This is a common misconception.). Science, however, is really about understanding how the physical world works – an area of interest to humans from almost the moment of birth.  It seems silly not to take advantage of this natural curiosity, so I view an understanding of basic science concepts as a worthwhile and attainable goal. (And while we’re at it, we should be teaching the principles of scientific investigation – that is, how science, itself, ‘works’.)  Preferably, both at the same time. 

Kaine correctly asserts that “making young kids memorize historical facts and figures…so that they can pass subject matter tests.. is counter-productive.”  There is no good reason to make an elementary student (or any student, for that matter) memorize the date of the Hoot-Smalley Tariff Act – which my 3rd-grade teacher made me do. 

The problem is that our study of history has traditionally focused more on ‘what’ happened than why it happened - which probably explains Kaine’s perspective.  But young students are deeply curious about the rest of world – other times, cultures and places -  and we should be taking advantage of that, as well. 

Beyond that, if the ultimate goal of social studies (civics) is to help students develop the skills that will prepare them for life as informed and engaged citizens, than it’s just as foundational as math and language. In fact, ‘citizenship preparation’ is the reason we established a system of public education in the first place. If students memorize a bunch of historical facts, but don’t learn how to be citizens, what have we accomplished? 

Elementary school is an ideal place for students to begin to develop an awareness of themselves; to understand the perspective of others (that is, to develop empathy), and to learn how to contribute to their community - beginning with their school community. This is the essence of citizenship; a good example of which is described here:  Democracy in Schools 

So, my ‘foundation’ of an elementary education is somewhat more expansive than Keane’s.  For me, the four cornerstones are math, ‘communications’, science and civics.