The brave new world of K-12 education, where school choice options like education savings accounts, vouchers, and charter schools are emerging like dandelions in a well-fertilized lawn. It’s a true buffet of educational choices, and everyone wants a bite.
But, like all good buffets, there’s a catch: should these schools—the ones providing taxpayer-funded education—be required to take a test? You know, the kind that makes you sweat like a sinner in church?
On one hand, the accountability advocates are flapping their wings, insisting that if a school is using public funds, it should show some results. They argue that taxpayer dollars should produce measurable outcomes—like a well-planned garden producing tomatoes, not just weeds. You wouldn’t want to fund a school that graduates students who can’t even spell the word voucher, would you?
The defenders of vouchers, waving their banners of autonomy like a proud parent at a kindergarten graduation. They warn that mandatory testing could spell the end for universal vouchers. It will not.
“Let the parents decide!” they shout, asserting that schools are already accountable to the families that choose them. If a school doesn’t meet expectations, parents will simply take their children elsewhere. There is a catch as well: you can’t transfer whenever you want, but we never acknowledge that. Let’s be honest: if you can’t satisfy the people paying the bill, you might as well hang up the going-out-of-business sign.
This debate raises an important question: Is education a public good or a private luxury? Supporters of education as a public good argue that a well-educated population is essential for democracy. We certainly don’t want a society where people can’t read an instruction manual. Education benefits both individuals and society, so it’s crucial to assess whether graduates are prepared to contribute effectively.
But hold onto your hats, because the opinions are as varied as a box of Mama Gump’s chocolates. Some insist that only publicly operated schools can truly serve the public interest, while school choice advocates argue that parents are the best judges of what their children need.
For them, testing requirements are merely bureaucratic red tape—an attempt by the education establishment to tighten control and suppress genuine innovation. If it benefits parents in private schools, it should be just as suitable for parents in public schools, right? We don’t want to hinder innovation.
The discussion about K-12 education is a delicate balance of accountability and independence. As we walk this educational tightrope, we need to consider how different assessment methods can impact teaching approaches and lead to better student outcomes.
Accountability is crucial in education. The saying “what gets measured gets done” remains true in K-12 schooling. Standardized tests, especially common multiple-choice ones, limit what teachers can teach. To improve reading and math scores, many teachers reduce time spent on science, social studies, art, music, and even recess to focus on test prep. As a result, students can choose answers A–D but often lack the background knowledge needed to build strong arguments and understand complex texts.
Shifting to assessments that target specific knowledge can quickly transform education. When tests ask students to explain the French Revolution, compare the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, or analyze the Civil War or World War II, teachers are motivated to teach real history rather than generic “reading comprehension strategies.” Similarly, if a test requires students to use the particle model to explain why heating gas in a sealed container increases pressure, teachers will focus on that model instead of just vocabulary memorization.
International examples show that effective education systems focus on deep understanding. In England, GCSEs and A-levels use essays to avoid a narrow curriculum. Singapore’s PSLE and O-levels offer a broad curriculum, while France’s baccalauréat and Germany’s Abitur include lengthy exams to assess mastery. The International Baccalaureate (IB) emphasizes essays and performance tasks, leading to better classroom instruction. In the U.S., the Advanced Placement program emphasizes deep knowledge rather than memorization, while New York’s Regents exams include essays, thereby improving assessment quality. The Massachusetts MCAS 2.0 pilot demonstrated the potential of open-response assessments, though it was discontinued due to cost concerns. In November 2024, voters eliminated the requirement for high school students to pass MCAS tests to graduate.
The political and logistical challenges are real—grading extended responses is costly, and many states have committed to inexpensive machine-scored tests. So, stop pretending that a bubble test can measure what truly matters, and let’s have the courage to assess and teach real knowledge. Provide our teachers with professional autonomy within a framework of high expectations instead of a scripted test-prep program. Other countries have demonstrated it can be done. There’s no reason Tennessee, with all our amazing resources and talent, can’t do it better.
So, here’s a thought: how can we create assessment strategies that honor the principles of school choice while making sure ALL students using tax funding are truly learning? When will our elected leaders give public schools the same autonomy and flexibility to be innovative?
JC Bowman is the executive director of Professional Educators of Tennessee.
Author
