By which, he meant the whole TED format, and the format of his own talk. He goes on to draw parallels between that format, the current education system, and the "mainstream" media's failing model. On which topic, see Belmont Club's post about schools trying to ban laptops in classrooms.
I agreed with this from Jarvis:
"Why shouldn't every university - every school - copy Google's 20% rule, encouraging and enabling creation and experimentation, every student expected to make a book or an opera or an algorithm or a company. Rather than showing our diplomas, shouldn't we show our portfolios of work as a far better expression of our thinking and capability? The school becomes not a factory but an incubator."
He also asks this, and here's where we diverge:
"We must stop our culture of standardized testing and standardized teaching. Fuck the SATs.* In the Google age, what is the point of teaching memorization?"
The question shouldn't be rhetorical, because there really is an answer.
The answer is that in order to fit new information in, it requires a framework. Franeworks do require problem-solving skills, but they are NOT all process. They are ALSO made up of things you know. Indeed, they depend on that, or else the framework collapses. Which means the new isn't integrated, just thrown on the wall. And there, alas, goes the value-add of perspective, and much of one's problem solving capability.
The black belt in martial arts is the beginning of real learning. Getting there takes a certain amount of rote. And of collision with unpredictable real sparring, too, so that the rote is integrated and understood.
Engineers do a lot of rote learning before they go out to apply their problem-solving skills and build bridges. The skills are 2 different sets - but I wouldn't drive over a bridge built by someone who hadn't done both sets.
Which is to say that the current model for schools, like that of newspapers, is not 100% wrong. It may be 40% wrong, or even 70% wrong, but not 100%. There's definitely something to Jeff's 20% Rule suggestion. But ditching common sets of things that educated people should know, in favor of pure process or washed-out curricula, has been tried. It has not gone well, and is not the answer.
Why don't we show people our portfolio instead of our credentials? Because, to put it bluntly, by and large that is precisely what they are uninterested in.
There is no law stating that a college must look at an applicant's SAT score. There is no law stating that employers must evaluate employees based on their college degree and grades. The fact that colleges do examine these things, and that employers take them into account, just might mean that they have some sort of predictive power when it comes to success in the program or profession.
If anything, standardized testing is even more important in the Google age, even if the particular topic of the tests might need revision. How do you distinguish a student who breezed through all subjects, one who worked hard to master the material, and one who put all the hard problems up on the web for their friends to do them? Which of those students do you want in your classroom, in your office?
It's a well known secret that every college knows not only SAT scores, but the general success rates of each high school's students in College. A weaker GPA/SAT from a strong high school can actually be stronger than a 4.0 student at a harder high school.
Now, I entirely agree that a base set of problems is needed to move forward. (For my kids, it's the #@*!! cross-multiplying, which is a pre-requisite, yet none of them can do it).
However, to excell, you need to understand more than the base set up, you need to understand how something works, why something works, how it will apply in other situations. But the ability of students to think outside of rules is a talent that students are losing rapidly.
You can't foster that talent with tests, and that's my problem with the current regime.
Alchemist,
It could be more of a generational thing. We've seen that pattern before.
To this snippet, I'll add that you need to know what might cause it to break/ fail:
Imagine what the whole corporate re-engineering movement might have been like, if the consulting firms and corporations trying to implement it had more of that awareness. Fast Company magazine's very first issue tackled that one...
Alchemist- i get that, but if you don't understand the fundamentals you can't think outside the box because you don't understand the box. I'd rather have kids that know their times tables and can't critically think than have kids that don't know their times tables and can't critically think.
My whole point with standardized testing is that, yes, we DO want you to teach to the test. That's the point of the test, that is exactly what we want them to know first. Without the foundation you can't build anything worthwhile.
I'd rather have kids that know their times tables and can't critically think than have kids that don't know their times tables and can't critically think.
Of course having one peice is better than none at all. But humans are not machines, they do better learning context than simple formulas alone.
The context is not only "the next step" it is also how people get excited. The "aha" moment that gives an endorphin rush to the brain comes at the application/recognition of knowledge. That rush is what encourages most people to keep learning. (and wihout it, many students give up)
One of the big problems schools are having is the students saying "X doesn't apply to me". So in some cases they've bought the lessons to the students: fantasy football is a good example. Use algebra, graphs and tables to project worth. Is it the fastest way to teach, no but it is a real world example that students find interesting. If your students come back in every day working on algebra, that's worth something. And it's not something you can test for.
Now, you definately need to step back and make sure they understand the basic math as well, and review other appliations. But gettign students excited about learning is important, maybe more important than anyting else.
yes, we DO want you to teach to the test
But how well does success on the test relate to success as a student, in high school and beyond? It's been known for years that the SAT is a bad measurement of student success. Here's a blog I just found that looks at college readiness with passing NCLB . Basically, the two are not exclusive.
For example: passing the test does not measure quality of writing, a neccessary criteria that is neccessary for college, but is not practiced in many high schools. Simply because it's not on the test, and so it's less important for funding.
"If your students come back in every day working on algebra, that's worth something. And it's not something you can test for."
You can test if they ultimately know any algebra. Isn't that the point? Having kids jazzed to go to math class is great, but its also trivial if they don't actually learn any math.
I think this argument is self-defeating. To take your example, if the kids learn a lot about how to apply math to fantasy football, but they don't learn how to apply math for its own sake, the in fact haven't learned how to do anything except play fantasy football. The argument is that these real world lessons are better able to take fundamentals and apply them universally. But that demonstrably isn't true if they can't apply them in a standardized test where they have an additional advantage of knowing that this is a situation where what they are supposed to know is directly applicable (as opposed to most situations in real life).
"But how well does success on the test relate to success as a student, in high school and beyond? It's been known for years that the SAT is a bad measurement of student success."
Perhaps its rather like Democracy as being the worst except for all the others. Clearly SATs are not definitive. But what would be preferable? The top flight schools require writing samples and all sorts of other criteria come into play, as they should. Nobody said standardized testing is a silver bullet, but it is and should be the basis for everything else. Which I think is how we got here- it seems to me that there is a drive to get away from the premise that education is a series of foundations you build upon. Instead, lets jump right to the end and students 'become' cohesive writers and critical thinkers. I don't think that's possible and even if it is, you still need something to think about.
"For example: passing the test does not measure quality of writing, a neccessary criteria that is neccessary for college, but is not practiced in many high schools."
Maybe you're the next Steinbeck but if you don't know how to make your verbs agree with your nouns you have a big problem, and if you can't demonstrate it on a test you don't know how to do it.
It's worth noting that these days some amount of standardized testing is done as a check on the teachers and schools, rather than students. The combination of self-esteem grading and untouchable teachers' unions have left parents wondering what their children were learning, and taxpayers wondering what they were paying for. And you see some conservatives supporting programs like NCLB that they would normally loathe as Federal interference, simply to restore a modicum of accountability.
The first one is my fault for not being specific.
Sure you can test math, but you can't test enthusiasm which is an incredibly important indicator for future learning. I have lots of students who are smart enough to excell without really caring. Sure, they can do well on the SAT/NCLb/prelims, but I have lower expectations for their long-term success... because they've never been taught why they should excell above "a test". It's something I push hard.
Instead, lets jump right to the end and students 'become' cohesive writers and critical thinkers.
This is not something a student can learn in 1 day, or just start in college. It's intended to be gradual, peice by peice from 1st grade through college. And you refine everything below it as you go.
if you can't demonstrate it on a test you don't know how to do it.
Microsoft word has over a 1,000 grammar rules programmed into it, can identify scentence fragments, improper punctation etc. But MSWORD cannot write a paper, it can't organize an outline, it can't assemble unrelated ideas into a cohesive argument. I have lots of college students who know the rules, but don't know how to use them in antyhing longer than a paragraph.
Again, colleges have already figured out the best way to measure students: the success rate of the students afterwards. It's more important than any other aspect of a college application. This measurement takes much longer, but you'll get a much better understanding of ability than any short term test can. And it gives a much greater incentive for schools to only graduate those who are worthy of the degree.
It's worth noting that these days some amount of standardized testing is done as a check on the teachers and schools, rather than students.
In my opinion, parent infleunce is easily as important as a school system. I saw a STAT a few years back that indicated that if you control for money, education and supplies, fatherhood invovlement in the PTA had a larger impact on male learning than any other criteria. This is why many succesful school experiments have started giving out 'parent homework':
Have your child teach you x,y & z.
Have your child apply XXXX to something on our weekend.
What did you child learn today?
Parents who are involved in the system shouldn't need a test to tell them if their kids are learning enough. You should be able to tell EVERY NIGHT they come home.
Amen to point #9. But what the tests do is both a clue and a lever. Because if the child comes home and is not learning, and the parent complains, the general response is to ignore them or lie to them.
Until standardized tests provide a basis of level comparison that can't be evaded, which forces a pressure to change.
Alchemist's point that we should avoid teaching ONLY to the test remains valid, so long as this is not done at the expense of standard testing.
One way to do that, of course, is to remove many of the "lifestyle" / political courses from the curriculum, and use the time to teach more of the base academic subjects.
I do want to reeiterate that I am not against testing, I think it is essential. But that scores have to be included in a larger evaluation.