Today's Weather

Click for Sierra Vista, Arizona Forecast

What’s best for our kids?

Published/Last Modified on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 - 05:33:35 am MST

Font Size

What is the best way to test the knowledge of our children to make sure they’re learning what is needed to help them succeed?

That should be the question at the heart of any discussion on what type of test should be used now and in the future. But it always feels that politics gets in the way.

The latest example is the effort to scrap the AIMS test as a graduation requirement. This was made in a provision to the state budget that was put forward by state Rep. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa.

Crandall’s provision made it through without some of his fellow state lawmakers knowing that it was there, and without state School Superintendent Tom Horne’s knowledge either.

But his provision, which would set up a seven-member task force to find a replacement to the AIMS test, is done and the new panel will soon be formed to do its work.

So, just what is best for our children?

It’s hard to tell. The AIMS, or Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards, was put forth as a replacement for another test in 1994. The state School Superintendent at the time, Lisa Graham Keegan, aimed for a year 2000 deadline to make it a requirement for graduation. But politics intervened and lawmakers pushed back that deadline, until the Class of 2006 became the first to have to pass it to graduate. And even then, there were ways to get around that.

And there are other changes since.

The fact is Arizona’s students continue to see changes to the supposed test that plays a role in determining whether they graduate. And that restlessness on the part of lawmakers and officials not only makes it tough on the kids, but also on those who might evaluate whether AIMS is effective.

It’s obvious that Crandall, who is a member of the Mesa public school board, is headed in the direction of replacing AIMS.

Before that type of decision happens, this new panel, if its work is to be effective, needs to be made up of educators who can evaluate the success of AIMS or the possibilities of a new test. This shouldn’t be a lawmaker-dominated forum. It needs to be a decision made by people who have expertise in the field.

There also needs to be a commitment made on behalf of the lawmakers and other state officials. The test shouldn’t change. The deadlines shouldn’t change. This is for the sake of the students who will face taking the tests and having their graduation hanging in the balance.

The AIMS story has been 12 years of continued debate and changes.

It’s time for Arizona to settle the score on the required test and progress so the state’s students know what they’re playing for.

Print this story Email this story

Font Size

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.
Comments appear once they are approved. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

Mark C. wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:55 PM:

" We need to make 3 major shifts with regard to how we view education. First, Schools should be partnering extensively with bussiness and college to insure that both are getting what they need. Second, it all needs to be geared toward the day after the student graduates, they should be prepared to either further thier education or work as skilled labor. Three, only the best should be able to teach. Teaching should be a high prestige job, that attracts the best and the brightest. "

Skeptical wrote on Jul 21, 2008 5:17 AM:

" Respectfully as is possible from an (ex)professional educator, I strongly disagree with your premise that our system of education has evolved into a positive, productive force. If, as you assert, we are at the top of our game in technique and end result, why is it that we've been rated for the past two decades as among the lowest nations in student knowledge and achievement? How do you explain our atrocious drop-out rate in high school? It's impossible to discuss this in 100 words, so I refer you to my humble efforts to treat the subject more comprehensively at www.howardgrant.blogspot.com "

John Skarhus wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:53 AM:

" Skeptical, I appreciate your interest in our kids education . You obviously want what is best, even if we disagree about how to acheive this goal. You describe a K-12 system in "disarray and confusion,"driven by "nonsensical theories,"devoid of "hard learning." I maintain that the majority of educators in our schools use a variety of research-based techniques to meet the needs of our students. We need to improve, to constantly increase our standards. There are definitely problems, but we offer EVERY child opportunities for success. No, our methods are not those of 1950. As professional educators, we've advanced. "

Skeptical wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:09 AM:

" Mr. Skarhus, the worst thing today, given the disarray and confusion that defines our K-12 education, would be to put teachers in a position to devise wide testing. Why? Because most of them are products of the broken system that has evolved since the late 1950s when we abandoned "hard learning" and began fiddling around with nonsensical theories. The circle has come around and is now complete: Education managers are now in charge--they parrot the perverse tenets that ruined us. We need to re-engineer the whole system by blowing away the trash that strangles it and begin anew--redefined. "

Brian wrote on Jul 17, 2008 12:38 PM:

" Why so much focus on a comprehensive test? Why not focus more on the subject tests? Eliminate the tendency to teach-to-the-test by focusing more on ciricculum development. Course development, not test development is where we'll be able see improvement in the quality of education. "

John Skarhus wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:53 AM:

" Thank you for your recognition that "if its work is to be effective,[the panel]needs to be made up of educators who can evaluate the success of AIMS .... This shouldn’t be a lawmaker-dominated forum. Too many education decision are made in this state without any input from educators(the latest ELL plan (nightmare)is a perfect example. People think that because they've been to school, they are education experts. From many local school boards, to the legislature, even the school superintendent (a lawyer, not an educator) we disrespect our educators and hurt our students by leaving educators out of important education decisions. "

Jesse wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:38 AM:

" Tests don't work because they are manipulated by a public school system that's funding is determined by how well the students do. Take Buena High school for example. Last year my son (a freshman) took the first version of a math test. He was told by his math teacher to bomb the test so it would lower the standard for the next year's students. This is not objective testing, this is manipulation of a beauracracy. "

Skeptical wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:08 AM:

" You're asking the wrong question. You're concerned about testing "for success." That's much too vague. You're also hung up on the broken system the Camelot Generation gave us in the 1960s; it insists career-path knowledge today is to measure "life skills." Thus our testing paradigms are in total disarray and serve for nothing. Testing SHOULD BE POSITIVE FEEDBACK to the learner on specific areas (maths, etc.), so that he can fill in the gaps reflected in test results. It should be aimed at specific subject matter, but only in a manner which demonstrates the learner can think, analyze, and project. "