Aging out

 

I never thought I would be the guy who wrote about defending standardized tests, but here we are. I also never thought I would appreciate Taylor Swift, but, like an alligator, she has her time and place.

My usual position is that standardized tests

a) have test maker bias built in

2) can't assess for process

iii) can't assess for skills (or assess only for a narrow range of demonstrated orders of skills including "test taking)

four) assume all students develop identically

⬠) allow grading bias (for free responses)

0110) reward an economic class that can afford in time and money effective tutoring

and I'm sure some other problems. But here's the thing -- I also recognize their utility. As I explain to my classes, X University has no way of comparing a public school student from Duluth and a private school kid from Paramus unless both sit for an identical assessment. Our curricula differ. The socio-cultural values and influences differ. And on and on.

So, flawed as they are, standardized tests, if used properly and considered properly are useful. OK, file that away.

I also believe that a person's age is important in deciding maturity and readiness for a variety of things. Is setting a particular age-limit on anything just begging for exceptions? Yes, but on the whole, it is clear that a 13 year old isn't ready to drive, or get married, or judge candidates maturely enough to vote and a 23 year old is. So we dicker over specifics but agree in principle. I think that the same should hold true at the other end of the spectrum -- we already do this by having, in some industries, mandatory retirement age. This not only allows an organization to phase out higher-earning veterans and cycle in new, cheaper hires, but, theoretically (and a bit less cynically) it establishes the notion that competence wanes over time. And for certain skill areas, I think we all agree that this is true. 

The fact that it is biblically precedented need not be mentioned here, so I won't.

So it might be reasonable to say that, because of the majority of cases, jobs that require heavy lifting are not for people over whatever age the experts in the field see a person's needed strength ebbing. And I don't make that judgment. The age parameters need to be established by experts in the field because I don't want someone whose peak performance is limited by the frailty of age performing a task that could mean the difference between life and death for me. Or some people I know, even.

Therefore, I am proposing age-based testing for a whole lot of stuff. Let's start easy -- driver's licensing. In the same way that you need to take a written and practical test to earn a license, starting at a certain age, testing to maintain licenses should be required. Vision, hearing and response time. 

Is there concern over the thresholds that can be established for competent performance (and aren't they rendered moot by the advent of self driving cars)? I think that baselines can be set up by conference of medical and performative experts. We have a limit called "legally blind" so we know what you need to be able to see to drive. We can determine what one needs to be able to hear when driving, and set that as a limit (if there is no current standard requirement for hearing when driving, then scrap this branch). I think we can also create a standard for response time (I know it is tested to show people who are under the influence the difference between their response time and a sober driver's). 

Is there a concern over cost and implementation? There need not be, not because we already have an infrastructure built, that for road-tests for new drivers, so we could just put people of an age or higher through the same process, but because we also have new technologies. Simulators can be used effectively here because the goal isn't to assess the fundamental skills of driving, i.e. the rules of the road, but just reaction time and critical judgment skills. I assume that this will knock certain people out of contention for holding a license which will drive down insurance rates for everyone, take car-impediments off the road and increase work for drivers of the Uber sort.

Next up, gun licenses. I think that beyond a certain age, when the same (2 or) 3 components degrade, one should risk forfeiture of licensure. And I think that vision, hearing and cognition should be tested to ensure the safety of everyone else. Heck, we should be testing for mental competence from the get go but I don't know how that plays in.

Do we want a policeman, or a fireman, or an EMT who cannot carry, run, see, hold steady or judge a situation properly anymore? We work from the list of desired outcomes we want to check on and work backwards, designing practical (and theoretical) scenarios to ensure continued ability. And, yes, I think the same holds true for politicians. While vision might not be the same sine qua non, the health-physical should be complemented by a mental-acuity assessment yearly to make sure that memory and discernment are still up to snuff. Supreme court justices, at a certain age, aren't thinking as clearly as they once did (though their positions are as much the function of blind political ideology or the efforts of their clerks as they are of the justices' own input so they can stay in their jobs longer because, ironically, less is demanded of them).

Look, I'm aging (EVERY DAY!) and I know that at some point I will be nothing more than an adorable teddy-bear in the classroom, not able to think as quickly as my students, not able to command their attention or handle the physical, emotional and mental rigors of my job. I also know that while the risk to students is limited and that the real crime is defrauding parents of their tuition dollars by sticking their kids into a room with someone unable to provide any return on investment, still, my usefulness in the classroom will eventually be in question. So is my job "safer" for an older person than a job in the field of "bomb disarming technician"? I would assume so. But I'm not looking for a sinecure in which I can do least harm because parents should be looking to fund that. Will I hold on to certain skills even past my freshness date in the classroom? I assume so. The idea that those who can't do, teach, is not wrong. Someone who is past his prime physically can still transmit experiences and lessons learned through mentoring, so there are still spots for those who are not field-strong anymore.

So, yeah, I think we need a combination of age-gates and standardized assessments. I know it will cost money to create and implement and that the results will (as with all assessments) be inexact. But we will also be working to make sure that the productive engine of society continues to be strong.