People Can't Be Standardized

"We want to cling to these incredibly outdated measures of ability." - Malcolm Gladwell

I just finished a very interesting video from The New Yorker (no not the Obama cover controversy). Malcolm Gladwell speaks on mismatches between hiring practices and job performance. He uses professional sports combines (NHL, NBA, and NFL quarterbacks), teaching (which I didn't know he would discuss until he got there), lawyers, airline pilots, and cops.

His premise - We are not using the right tools to determine the effectiveness of the people we hire to do these jobs.

His argument - We are trapped into thinking that there is an objective tool (or tools) that will grant us certainty that the people we hire will be successful in their jobs.

His conclusion - There are no right tools to determine the effectiveness of the people we hire to do these jobs. We have to evaluate them once they are on the job. There are no certainties.

My jump - Standardized tests for students are likewise no indicator of student abilities, promise, or value. In fact, these test may only serve as instruments to stifle children, impede their progress, and devalue them. I won't mention the affect on their self-esteem. Oops; I guess I just did.

Take a look at the video here.
Here's Gladwell's TEDTalk from 2006


IMAGE: http://flickr.com/photos/mrtea/2294114381/

---------------
Note:Publications of professor-marvel.com or associated works (unless specifically labeled with another copyright notice) are licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
The views expressed here are my own and reflect only my opinion.
---------------

Madness to Craziness

FROM MADNESS




TO CRAZINESS

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Why Standardizing Lowers Thinking Requirements

"I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think."
-- Socrates

"I am beginning to suspect all elaborate and special systems of education. They seem to me to be built up on the supposition that every child is a kind of idiot who must be taught to think."
-- Anne Sullivan

When I taught Social Studies, I started each class period with a motivational quote and "This Day In History" brief. I had a former student (from 9 years ago) tell me he still has his Daily Starter Notebook with each quote and history quip.

I like quotes. I like to exegete and interpret them. So I came across the two quotes above a few days ago, and began to work on understanding these out of context thoughts.

At first glance these sentiments appear to contradict each other. But upon closer inspection, they really say the say thing. Socrates is not claiming that he taught his students to think, but that by his method he encouraged the innate curiosity of the brain to work. Sullivan, the miracle worker, said the same thing; the brain seeks to understand, we don't have to artificially make that happen.

As we have made education a Henry Ford type of assembly line, it should not come as a surprise to us that the thinking requirements have decreased. However, it amazes me that so many people do not see this as a result of standardized education. To be standard means to be alike, the same. Some try to preach "high standards" but that is doublespeak. High standards compared to what? I still claim that the "normal" classes I took in school required more thinking than today's "advanced" classes.

Common sense tells us that not every child will reach the highest level of thinking at the same time (if ever). Mental disabilities will hinder the standardization of the brain among children. But Sullivan knew that Helen's brain was looking for stimulation and could already "think."

Can we admit that our country does not value the individual student? We can't. The system, under the current paradigm, will not allow it. We are forced to dumb-down the curriculum to meet standardized measurements. Once we determine an acceptable, standard level of the masses, one of two things will happen: a) we will find that our standards were too low, and raise them slightly (which will become someone's political platform) or b) we will find that the standards were too high, and restructure tests to provide an acceptable level (to save someone's political platform). Seriously, it will be easier for the government to change tests than to improve student accuracy.

My opinion is that option B will win out. I also think it will win out within the next four years, just before the 2012 elections. You heard it here first. :-) Statistics will tell any story one wants to tell.

Testing
What's easier?
Raise levels of thinking;
Make questions easy to answer?
Subtle

Yeah, Testing Will Change Things

Rick Scheibner sent a tweet today about a former student being killed. Stephen Rahn followed with his experience of a former student being killed. I had a former student (19 years old) who killed a former student who would be a senior this year. Gangs were mentioned though we appear to be trying to cover up the gang relatedness. Brian Crosby has mentioned the turmoil his school has faced with break-ins. And how many more of us could add to the sadness with other experiences? Too many to count.

Our other students live in this climate, even when we as adults are able to turn it off for a period of time and recall that "time heals all wounds." I recently read a study that implied our kids (kids of previous generations too) expend energy, and require "noise" in their lives as a coping mechanism. It is in the quiet times, when kids have time to reflect, that their minds tend to wander into their world of personal concerns.

If this is true, when it comes time for high-stakes tests, our kids are required to sit in silence, and their minds begin to wander, what do they really think about? The next question, or the fears they face in their world that most of us will never understand? How do we test that?

Testing
Sharpen pencil
Who will we leave behind?
Darkened circles; multiple guess
Assess

Image Credit: No More Tests

Blogged with Flock

Are You Smarter Than A 5-Year Old Chimp?

Apparently a 5-year old chimp is smarter than Japanese college students. Okay, don't believe me?

Now I'm really confused...

• Kids from Japan outscore USA kids in math and science year in and year out.
  
• A chimp outscores kids from Japan.
  
• Chimps must therefore outscore USA kids.

Perhaps we should train the chimp to take a standardized test to determine his/her percentile. That's what we do to our kids, right? In the best scenario, our kids would outscore the chimp, and we could validate our approach to education. On the other hand, if the chimp outscores our students, we would be able to learn a better way of teaching to the test from the chimp trainer. Either way, our kids are the winners...right?

[insert smile here]

Unintentional Learning

Yesterday I attended the Dalton State College ETTC Spring Consortium. In the afternoon session we conducted a 2-hour Whale Done! activity. This is among the newest resources from Ken Blanchard. The basic ideas are taken from the killer whale trainers at Sea World. It is about developing good relationships with co-workers in order to achieve high productivity and satisfaction. The three main concepts: 1) develop trust, 2) accentuate the positive, 3) redirect wrong behavior. It's really nothing earth-shattering or different from the One-Minute Manager from a generation ago, but the whales make it more fun to learn.

Well, yesterday I learned what I was supposed to learn (it was really just reinforced-but still good). I also had one of those AHA moments. It has led me to a paradigm shift of thinking, and I hope I can communicate it well here.

In education (generally speaking) we identify problems only when student test scores are not where we want them. This is the driving piece of decision-making. To make it easy, I think we rightly ask, "How can we increase student test scores, the primary indicator we choose to use, so we can verify student achievement? What can we do to help the student?"

I do not have any problems with these questions, once I accept that testing is the only proof that is acceptable in our current arrangement. We identify the problem (or area of improvement). It looks like this: Problem = Low Student Test Scores.

Here's where my epiphany arrived. In Whale Done!, and most management guru books, when the behavior is not what is wanted, those with the "bad behavior" are the ones who recieve the redirection. EX: When the whale went left after being told to go right, the trainer did not acknowledge the wrong behavior, but redirected the whale with more interaction to go in the correct direction -- then the correct behavior was reinforced with a back rub or bucket of fish. It was the whale's behavior that was wrong, so the whale is who was retrained.

In education, when the student scores are too low, we focus on the teacher by retraining them and offering "new" methods of teaching classes (they've had at least five in getting the degree). How many different ways are there to develop inconsequential lesson plans? The original plans may not be the problem. The redirection is the problem. Teachers teach, students fail, so teach them more of the same in the same way...what's up with that!?

Why don't we realize that the "unacceptable behavior" is the behavior of the STUDENT, not the teacher. Blaming the teacher is too easy, and we shouldn't take it anymore. [The scene in Network flashes in my mind.]

In the whale training situation it works like this:

• Unacceptable behavior - whale goes in wrong direction
• Initial reaction - trainer does not acknowledge whale's incorrect behavior
  
• Redirection - trainer immediately becomes more "hands-on" with whale to get the correct behavior
• Acceptable behavior - whale goes in right direction
• Reaction - trainer acknowledges whale with personal interaction (back rub, fish, etc.)
• Repeat acceptable behavior - habit is formed and behavior is frequently revisited to make sure it sticks
  

In education it works like this:

• Unacceptable behavior - student(s) score too low on high-stakes, standardized test
• Initial reaction - months go by until results are received so there is no initial reaction
• Redirection - student(s) are in next year of school, and have forgotten their original behavior. There is no redirection to the one with the "unacceptable behavior." In the interim, teachers are targeted for retraining by doing the same thing with a different name [new program].
  
• Acceptable behavior - students are never given the opportunity to be immediately redirected, so they are unsure of what to do to achieve acceptable behavior status. They become frustrated, and continue to underperform.
  
• Reaction - teachers don't know if they are encouraging the correct behavior or not in their students. We can only encourage effort not acceptable behavior.

Some will say, we need more tests then. No, we need results immediately, not during the summer, when student accountability is lost. We have the technology to do this. Good night, if we can vote for the President of the United States on a touch-screen computer, and have results within a day or two, we can definitely have tests on the same touch screens! If these money-grabbing testing companies want to stay in business, then by golly provide the touch screens for schools. The cost would be a wash in a few years when there was nothing to print. Editing and implementation would be instant. And, for those who believe scientist Al Gore, this would also reduce Carbon Dioxide levels because we save more trees, thus helping the global warming issue (if you believe in such a thing).

At this point, here is what we are doing:

• Students commit bad behavior, teacher is retrained.
• Students commit bad behavior, administrator jobs are at risk.
• Students commit bad behavior, student avoids any redirection efforts.

Why should whales get better attention than our kids? I still believe our kids want to do well, they have just been trained to repeat unacceptable behavior under our current methodology of test result reporting. Unfortunately, I don't think educated people (politicians or DOEs) will change their behavior to correct the problem. Almost makes one wonder if these people really want the "problem" corrected.

Where is there more money to be made and power to be brokered?

• If all children make it, none are left behind, and schools can teach the children of their community...
  
• OR if many children don't make it, appear to be left behind, and government-selected consultants come in to "save the day" with a rehashed bag of tricks?

I think I'll call that my "inconvenient truth."

How Do You Test An Elephant?

No, the answer is not carefully. The response is, "Why would you test an elephant?" There may be sound reasons to test elephants for disease, scientific research, or perhaps some other necessary purpose. But...why?

Over the past couple of years, Edutopia (a publication of the George Lucas Foundation) has become one of my favorite magazines to read. Ironically, it is because I find myself in disagreement with some of the thoughts spewed forth. But that's why I like it...it makes me think. Now I do not always disagree with the contents either. It presents material that is worthy of thought, and I guess that is why I enjoy the magazine. AND, it's free to educators. Thank you Star Wars.

In a February 28, 2007 article, Don't Weigh the Elephant - Feed the Elephant, Milton Chen refers to some new work conducted by Carol Dweck of Stanford, Lisa Blackwell of Columbia, and Kali Trzesniewski of Stanford. Their work is published in Child Development and was recently featured on NPR. These credentials mean something to most people, but surely someone has completed some research indicating that research can support anything.

Anyway, Chen reports a couple of interesting things:

• Dweck's study suggests that teaching kids (especially in the middle school years) that their brains are constantly making new neurological connections as they make their brains work, these students are more likely to become successful in their studies, no matter what the subject, but especially in math. Students focus on their brains growing instead of learning the material. Another metacognitive theory in the making?
  
• In a separate story, used as his introduction, Chen tells of a colleague who was in India and after a brief discussion on national testing in the U.S., the Indian educator replied, "Here, when we want the elephant to grow, we feed the elephant. We don't weigh the elephant."

So I have some reactions. First, the elephant analogy, while interesting falls short for me. Come on India - go further! I am seeing...

• elephant = American students
• weighing = testing
• feeding = curriculum

Our students being the elephants is fine with me.

Weighing our students is testing our students. The Indian educator suggests that weighing the elephant isn't necessary. I'm one of the cynics who thinks testing is more about money for test publishers, and power for politicians, and little else. But, I still think if the elephant is being fed but appears to not be gaining weight, the first step in diagnosis can be weighing it to get a baseline. If it is underweight, then dietary supplements can be used to see what helps the elephant grow. If one thing doesn't work, then you try something different. But how do you know if the elephant has gained weight from the supplement without weighing it in the future? So we are still stuck with testing. Weighing is not equal to testing in the U.S.: it is a tool (however faulty) to determine if weight has been gained.

Feeding, or food, is the curriculum, I suppose. This is the debate point! Perhaps Chen will conquer this in his next article. At this point the only thing I see that he points to is Dweck's metacognitive philosophy. The curriculum will not matter much, because if students focus on their new neuron sparks they make while trying to learn even the boring stuff, they will learn even the boring stuff, because they imagine their brains growing. The results in the article were too short term for me. Even I can influence (bribe) a kid to learn something for a single test.
-------------------------------
Dweck's study has me concerned for one reason. The fact that it is quickly revealed that math scores are the area impacted most raises a red flag to me. We are so math-centric in our country right now, that if a new study does not increase math scores it is nothing more than a fringe report. I find extreme brain activity in the process of writing; more than I ever would trying to learn math. I am constantly bringing together thoughts that seem disconnected to most people in order to make meaning of the things I observe. I think I still make a few new connections each year, but never from math.

Increase Math Scores is the key phrase to gain attention for "new" research. So I'm a bit skeptical at this early stage.

-------------------------------
Scattered Ramblings:

Elephants are herbivores--big herbivores, but I would like to think our kids could get more selection from curriculum than a pre-meal salad. Where's the meat & potatoes?

We are still stuck in the "smart kids know answers" mode, instead of the "smart kids know how to ask questions, and where to find answers." We are not producing life-long learners, nor is that truly our goal in the U.S. We are, however, creating kids who will be able to compete in any number of trivia games...maybe as early as 5th grade!
-------------------------------

So, why would you test an elephant? Not to help it grow, but determine if it has grown at a healthy rate. My concern is once we determine that the elephant isn't growing, what new food will we provide? If we continue to feed it what did not help it grow, why would we continue to feed it food that will not make it grow?

Will the new food be nothing more than metacognitive philosophy that most of the teachers will not understand? No disrespect intended, but metacognition is not a hot elective for education courses in undergrad, and it is a little deeper than any continuing education course will handle.

See, I told you Edutopia makes me think!