Psychiatrist Lawrence Kubie, MD, stated in his analysis of the ills of education, “educators and people generally must first acknowledge that something is amiss before they will begin the search for remedies.” Much remains amiss, such that “the educator who is interested in making education serve the process of maturity must study the ways in which such projections from the past influence four elements in education, i.e.

“1. The setting in which we impart education;

“2. The methods by which we teach and learn;

“3. The data which we try to impart;

“4. The symbolic process.”

This inquiry is not happening!

Referring to changes needed in education, Kubie offered these words of wisdom: “Social phenomena are even more complex than physiological ills, since in social problems physiological, economic, social, psychological, and developmental variables are concurrently operative.” This makes changing/improving education difficult.

Lake Placid Central School District Superintendent Roger Catania’s recent analysis of the problems of standardized testing in language arts and mathematics, grades 3 through 8, includes economic and social issues, but excludes physiological, psychological and developmental variables. Leaving out these variables is especially troubling.

Sooner or later, most school-aged learners normally pass through an invariant sequence in their intellectual development, related to capabilities for thinking logically, unless blocked or driven off course largely by developmentally inappropriate experiences or a physical malady. Learning depends on intellectual capacity, developmentally appropriate experiences and sustained social support.

Research by Herman Epstein, Ph.D, concerning developmental stages based on Jean Piaget’s research on cognitive development, found fifth-grade students to be at four different levels of development, related to neurological patterns of growth. Twelve percent were pre-operational/pre-logical, unencumbered by logic and relatively free to react to experiences with spontaneous creativity. Fifty-two percent reacted to direct, concrete experiences, sometimes with simple beginning logic, and at other times, pre-logically.

Thirty-five percent were consistently logical but only with regard to concrete or direct experiences. One percent could begin to deal insightfully/logically with abstract, hypothetical experiences. None could deal consistently with logic regarding abstract and hypothetical information such as that found on a standardized test.

Students at other ages and grade levels show the members of each group to also be at naturally different levels of developmental capabilities. Guessing and perhaps repetitive rote learning plays a most significant role in performance reported by test results.

The new state standards for acceptable performance are becoming more process-oriented rather than strictly outcomes based. These processes of learning standards expected of students are legitimate, but misplaced among the grade levels. Simply check out what is being expected of kindergarten students, 5 years old, most of whom are pre-operational/pre-logical, and you will get the picture.

Even third-grade students, 8 years old, were found 25 percent pre-operational/pre-logical, 55 percent were beginning to be logical, but only regarding concrete experiences, and 20 percent were able to use logical thinking about concrete or direct experiences. How can they intelligently respond to test questions that require formal logic — that is, the ability to deal logically with abstract and hypothetical information? They can’t. Thirty to 40 percent will fail, due mostly to developmental differences, regardless of what may be presumed to have been taught and memorized. Many will guess about the answers.

These tests are valid and reliable, according to the state, in spite of claims to the contrary by many educators. They are considered valid when they reflect consistently what the state expects students to learn at each grade level. If what they are expecting to be learned is wrong, that does not affect validity in the eyes of the state.

If, every time the tests are given, they consistently show how well the students perform as to what is expected of them, they are considered reliable.

The problem occurs when the tests do not recognize developmental differences in cognitive responses. Those differences are shaped by natural neurological/intellectual development that is programmed to emerge according to each student’s unique genetic code. Individuals will reach the stages at different times, influenced along the way by experiences for better or for worse, and will likely respond accordingly to the test questions. This information must be considered in any analysis of the state’s testing programs.

Robert L. Arnold lives in Willsboro and is a professor emeritus of education at SUNY Plattsburgh.