Mary Kempen

6/24/14
Reflection paper on issues presentations
EDUP 550: Introduction to Education

The class presentations on bilingual education and high-stakes testing, my readings in
preparation for our presentation on high-stakes testing, and our class discussions on these
presentations have made me more aware of how pervasive the values of an economic, capitalist
ideology are in American schools. People in favor of high-stakes testing and against bilingual
education seem to believe that the purpose of school is to form competitive, efficient business
tools out of children. Few people seem to ask why efficiency or competitiveness are so
important for what must a child become efficient? Why is it so crucial that students
outcompete others and learn to suffer harsh consequences for failure? What area of life other
than economics, in which the business that comes in last place fails then disappears, demands
this emphasis?
The primary supporters of high-stakes tests for American K-12 students seem to lurk in
places like the Brookings Institute, which professes a faith in the supremacy of free-market
capitalist economics. Fears about economic competitiveness drive a demand for tests under the
assumption that children and teachers are just not motivated enough to fit themselves into the
mold of business needs, and we will all suffer if the next generation does not conform to future
business needs. I think Americans need to reflect deeply on this cultural assumption. Is business
success really the ultimate end of all our endeavors? Do we really want all our formal education
in life to be directed to meeting the needs of business? What would really happen if American
productivity did not increase perpetually, like some kind of Ponzi scheme?
The presentation and discussion about bilingual education conveyed latent values similar
to the expressed values that emerged in our presentation on high-stakes testing. For many of the
participants in the class or the voices cited in their sources, the purpose of bilingual education
was to achieve the most efficient progress to English-language proficiency in order to transform
children into the most efficient American workers in an economic system dominated by English-
speakers. Some treated the idea of a multilingual culture as a waste of resources; these persons
sighed that things would be so much easier and more efficient if only everyone spoke the same
language everywhere. Such comments make me wonder why Americans are so eager to
purchase only the minimum education they feel necessary for business success. Why must we be
efficient with education dollars, and why is efficiency defined as limiting education to basic
skills useful for a workforce? Once we become the most efficient workers we can possibly be,
what are we going to do with our excess time? Or what are we going to do with our excess
people if we do not need very many to perform all the tasks we decide we need in our efficient
economy? Why is learning or knowledge for its own sake not considered a good worth
purchasing of value at least equal to that of a premium cable t.v. package or a vacation at a
resort? Why do American taxpayers of late believe dollars spent on arts or non-core subjects at
their local schools bring them less reward than dollars spent at their local entertainment venues?
And do they really think that they can dissolve a child who fails a high-stakes test the way a
failed business dissolves into nothing? Or do Americans just not think about these issues at all?