Something was bugging me about this article. After writing 3 potential comments, then deleting them all, I finally got it.

This is formulaic.

I have seen this article, or radio stories like it, over and over again over the past few years. As I understand the situation, in the United States we decided to have common tests for reading and writing -- you cannot manage what you do not measure -- and since then, the people being measured have written dozens or hundreds of variations on this theme.

The formula goes something like this: pick a topic not covered by the tests. Could be music, history, science, or civics. Demonstrate how poorly students are doing in this area. Demonstrate (or just give a good rant) about how important this area is for the future of our society. Complain about teachers having to teach so much to the tests and how bad that is. Argue that getting rid of the tests would free up time and resources so that we could regain some of what we desperately need.

There are many logical problems here. First there is the problem of limited resources. We must make funding decisions and choose some things to emphasize over others. Governance is about making choices. Second, and it amazes me that this isn't obvious, unless you can read and write effectively your choices in life are severely restricted. A good reader and writer who shows an interest in science, art, underwater basket weaving or whatever? They can go learn more. They can choose a subject, dive in, and self-educate. Somebody who is functionally illiterate but loves Beethoven? Aside from a kid with nice tastes, whose life is probably a tiny bit happier, we're not accomplishing much. Reading and writing are multipliers in a way other subjects are not. If you don't like or agree with that position, fine. Then choose something else you want to stress. Then measure it. Waving your arms around about how important each and every subject is does not constitute a system of making choices.

I am especially befuddled with this argument about teachers teaching to the tests. It's as if we are using the way teachers act as some kind of rationale for justifying the testing -- which is exactly backwards. Obviously we've had teachers create literate students over the past several hundred years without testing, and they didn't teach to the test. Why do we assume that because teachers are acting a certain way now that it is in their best interests to do so? Maybe most systems of teachers just don't know how to educate kids, and focusing on testing is the only thing they've got? If so, then we need to improve education systems, not eliminate the measurement. You don't make people better basketball players by taking away the scoreboard. I have no idea why this reasoning passes as informed logic in this debate.

My opinion as an interested observer is that once we actually starting measuring how poor of a job we do, all hell has broken loose. Not surprisingly, there's a huge push to stop measuring. This is not a good idea.

Yes, science literacy is a great thing. Let's work on general literacy first, then take whatever resources we have left over and instill a love for science. General literacy will get you a lot farther than scientific literacy will. (I also have some serious questions about what passes for scientific literacy which I'll save for another day.)