Jumping through the hoops of education

In Scott McLeod's blog post Tuesday morning he shares a quote from the Washington Post about cramming for tests, and summarizes his daughter needing to this for her AP test by simply stating "I hate it."

Why, Scott?

I've gone off on this before, but our education system mission is not really about preparing grads for a vocation, cultivating a well-rounded personalities, or helping individuals gain some sort of self-fulfillment. That's the cover story. The primary mission of education is to prevent - or at least slow - cultural change, thereby keeping society stable - keeping those in power, in power.

When my high-school-honors-student daughter returned from her first semester at the University of Minnesota, she complained that her classes lacked relevance to her intended vocational goals. Well, in so many words anyway. (I think she actully said "Why do I have to take all this crap?") While the U would probably say those "core" courses are there to make sure a student is well-rounded and culturally literate, I suggested to Carrie that this is simply society using education as a means of slowing cultural change by only allowing students who are willing to conform and delay gratification to gain positions of responsibility in society. "You play by our rules and jump through our hoops* or you don't play at all." And it works very nicely. thank you.
. 

I suggested to both my kids that they weigh the advantages and disadvantages of abiding by education's social contract. Play nice and you get a degree and you are qualified for entry level positions of a professional nature. "Yes, you may now be an accountant, a dentist, a teacher, a social worker, etc." In exchange for one's time and independence and obedience, one gets a large degree of safety and security. It's the deal most of us strike and it's not really a bad one. Right, Dr. McLeod?

Or don't follow the rules, quit or get kicked out of school, and get an early start inventing your own product/service/scheme or business. Or a 9-5 work job that pays the bills and pursue your passion outside of work - fishing or thieving or sculpting or smoking pot or complaining about the rest of society while living in your parents basement. It's the deal that seems to work either really, really well or very, very badly. Bill Gates and the guy with his life in a shopping cart down by the Salvation Army both took a non-academic route.

Graduating from school depends far more on a student's EQ than IQ, if EQ is the ability to conform to societal norms.  And how much of EQ is knowing when to simply shut up, go with the flow, and keep on keeping on? Cramming for AP tests even knowing it's is a waste of time in grand scheme. I believe the current term du jour is "grit." 

You really should let your daughter know her options, Scott. 

* I would say most of the debate on standards, pedagogy, and even general educational philosophy is about what the rules and what hoops society expects from a traditionally educated person. It's about using education to help put disenfranchised people into the system - not about changing the purpose of the system itself. 

Top 10 Social Media Competencies Infographic

It's always a happy day when I see something I've written improved upon by another person. Embellishment, re-mixing, re-design, whatever, it's wonderful - and Med Karbach's inforgraphic on his Educational Technology and Mobile Learning blog is no exception. (You can find my original post here.) Enjoy!

http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2014/01/10-social-media-skills-for-21st-century.html

Data blinded or data informed?

 

Over the past few days, three articles caught my eye that speak to the role of data in making educational choices for kids.

Diane Ravitch writes about Campbell's Law: "The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor." Ravitch adds "Campbell’s Law explains why high-stakes testing promotes cheating, narrowing the curriculum, teaching to the test, and other negative behaviors." 

I would add that it also de-values education in the eyes of our students (It's just a hoop through which I must jump), stifles creativity being asked for and being given in assignments, and offers false comparisons to parents in attempting to select good schools for their children (high test scores at the sake of good extra-curricular opportunities, a variety of electives, positive school climate, etc.)

John Kuhn at The Chalk Face writes about "The Tyranny of the Datum." Kuhn writes that "The best-case scenarios [of data use] –individualized highly-effective remediation, personalized educational experiences, de-tracking and de-grading students, a great flourishing in American schools–are dizzying in their hopeful promise." But worries "data should come with some serious warnings" and lists these four:

1. While data (plural) should inform, each datum wants to rule alone. "Data-informed quickly gives way to data-driven, and then data-driven gives way to datum-blinded."
2. Data wants all your time and money and effort. "it is practically inevitable that end users will short-circuit the system in a single-minded effort to get good test scores." See Campbell's Law above.
3. Data is useful for correcting course, but it is also useful for charting a course straight for the iceberg. "The vocal opposition we see to data collection efforts l... can all be traced back, largely, to two things: (1) dismay over how much class time is sacrificed for the all-encompassing data hunt, and (2) a foundational mistrust regarding the aims of those who gather and control the data." 
4. Big Data hates little data. "Data has always been gathered by teachers, and it has always informed their instruction. Teachers give assignments and grade them–not because they like to grade, but because they want their students and themselves to see whether or not students are learning the material. But Big Data isn’t apparently interested in this arrangement..."

Which finally brings us to Paul Thomas writing on Alternet about "Why Teachers' Voices Matter in Education Reform Debate." After describing a  typical teaching day (that I found very familiar) to provide his bona fides, he writes:

I continue to see a number of people weighing in on the education reform debate bristle as classroom teachers call for their voices to be heard and point out that education debates and policies are being driven by people with little K-12 classroom experience (such as Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Bill Gates and Michelle Rhee).

Although not a simple argument, it is an essential argument: Classroom teaching experience and teachers’ voice should matter, by driving the education reform debate as well as informing education policy.

....

What I am saying is that education is a field rich in experience and expertise and bankrupt by the unwillingness not to tap into that goldmine. 

Evidence. Meaning. Direction. Creativity. Leadership. All should be sought from both the Big Data and the little data. I want to hear from everyone with a concern about children's futures - from the Arne Duncans and Diane Ravichs to the naive first year kindergarten teachesr to the burnt-out high school math teachers.

Good drivers listen to the voice of the GPS, but they look at a road map and use common sense when getting from point A to point B as well. Is educational reform really all that different?