Maybe it's how we test, not that fact that we do

Education Week just published a story about the Univision town hall (original story here on AP news) President Obama spoke at this week. In the brief article, it was reported that Obama, while noting the value of standardized assessments for "baseline" purposes, has lost some of his enthusiasm for annual state tests and says testing has made education boring for kids. 

Even if we assume that testing does correlate with student boredom (a premise I feel is a little weak, given I went to quite a few schools that were very boring, even before assessments came into vogue), I take a little bit of issue with the direction Obama's comments (or at least the interpretation of them in the popular media).

Sure, tests can be a drag. But assessment plays an essential role, both for learning as well as accountability purposes, so we shouldn't be so quick to throw them out the window just because they're not universally loved. I'm not going to argue we've reached a perfect solution. 

Why test? Ongoing assessment is an important tool teachers use to understand student progress against goals, and the data it provides gives practitioners ways to change their approach to tailor instruction to student needs. And while annual state tests aren't terribly fun, they help us better understand our educational challenges and the progress schools make in getting kids to base levels of literacy and numeracy. Assessments can also be good learning tools, as they've been shown to actually be an important part of the encoding process (for example, see the NYT Article "To Really Learn, Quit Studying and Take a Test").

So here's an idea. What if the problem isn't that we need to use tests to measure student mastery, but rather the fact that we use crappy tests that aren't really rigorous and don't fully engage us with the materials they are designed to assess? What if we came up with better, cooler assessments to gauge learning? Rather than throwing our hands up, why don't we work harder to make assessments interactive, meaningful, and relevant. Rather than pandering to people's fears about testing, we should (as Greg Gunn, co founder of Wireless Generation, reminded a group of us this morning) look with optimism to the possibilities that new forms of testing could bring.

As Anthony Miller said today at Harvard's Advance Leadership Initiative's Ed Tech Think Tank, simple, fill-in the bubble tests won't really do the job. We've got to do better.

Possible? Totally. Next generation assessments are coming, and they're going to be really engaging. New online tools deliver curricular materials in game format, utilizing adaptive technologies to assess during play, collecting data and analyzing student responses to help target remediation. (For example, check out DreamBox Learning). Who's to say our more formal, standardized assessments can't take on this form?

Another of the most promising innovation areas is virtual simulation, in which students are assessed through simulations. For example, there's some great work being done here at HGSE through the EcoMUVE project with virtual environment assessments, in which students engage in inquiry through active problem solving in a virtual environment. Click on the link here to see demo of one of their assessments. 

Cool, no?

 Source: ecomuve.org

So let's not give up just yet, okay?

Entrepreneurs as a special type...

Slogging through a particularly dense piece for class, I found a terrific nugget about the adaptive nature of entrepreneurship. Too cool...

While in the accustomed channels his own ability and experience suffice for the normal individual, when confronted with innovations he needs guidance. While he swims with the stream in the circular flow which is familiar to him, he swims against the stream if he wishes to change its channel. What was formerly a help becomes a hindrance. What was the familiar datum becomes an unknown. Where the boundaries of routine stop, many people can go no further, and the rest can only do so in a highly variable manner. The assumption that conduct is prompt and rational is in all cases a fiction. [...] The carrying out of new combinations [of means of production] is a special function, and the privilege of a type of people who are much less numerous than all those who have the 'objective' possibility of doing it. Therefore, finally, entrepreneurs are a special type.

-Schumpeter, 1961, Theory of Economic Development

College for all: a costly, unrealistic goal?

Had a very interesting brown bag lunch with Bob Schwartz and Ron Ferguson, primary authors of Pathways to Prosperity: Meeting the Challenge of Preparing Young Americans for the 21st Century of HGSE this past week. The report, which you can find here, raises a crucial, but somewhat wince-inducing, question: "in 21st century America, education beyond high school is the passport to the American Dream. But how much and what kind of post-secondary is really needed to prosper in the new American economy?" 

The essential problem highlighted is that there really is only one "acceptable" path to becoming highly-educated that the is recognized by the US job market. High school to college (selective, preferably) to career. And this path is rife with inefficiency and inequality. 

There's a ton of data in the report that brings the inefficiencies and inequities to light. Roughly half of American kids not entering college, and then only about a third of those who enter higher ed get a degree within six years. And it's not even clear that bachelor degrees even prepare kids all that well for jobs in adult life. Many of the skills employers value are not at the core focus of traditional programs and, while BA candidates carry much of the student debt (student debt now accounting for more debt then held by credit card holders in aggregate), in some areas, kids with associate and professional degrees actually out earn their peers with bachelor degrees.

So why such the hard sell? Why does our society puts such an emphasis on the four-year degree? One thing Bob said, which resonated strongly with me, was that the "college for every kid" mantra that drives much of education reform today might just be our industry's version of "don't ask, don't tell." A cynic might wonder if our system is better designed to just insulate adolescents and young adults from the job market in order to avoid competition for jobs and work on industry's part to create meaningful opportunities that would allow kids to gain real skills and become stronger, smarter employees in the long term. Is there just a hidden agenda here?
 

As someone who believes in the power of public education to increase mobility as well as the fact that every kids has the potential to go just about anywhere with the right preparation, I'm not quite so cynical. I don't want to think that we shouldn't focus on college as the goal. Every kid should have the opportunity to choose traditional higher ed and many express the desire to do so. Part of this comes from my own feelings about what I got out of college and the fact that I want everyone to have that experience if they want it. Another part comes from my own fears that if college isn't the goal for all kids, we'll backslide to a state that makes college the goal for only some kids, reinforcing the social inequalities I fight to reduce every day.

But that's the crux of this issue, I guess. We ed reformers have to accept that fact that every kid having the choice to go and skills to succeed in college is different than forcing every kid to do so. In addition to building a educational system that actually gives kids the skills and competencies needed for college and the real world, there's also a broader job here of rethinking pathways to success. This rethinking needs to involve a lot of constituencies, including K-12 and higher ed, industry, parents, and, yes, kids. 

Lighting the match... adding the first tinder...

As a student in the field of education (the Harvard Doctor of Education Leadership-- a brand spanking new program designed to take 25 of us ed reformers and make us into cross-sectorally trained leaders for tomorrow), I'm constantly coming across new ideas that I wish I could share with the larger world. There are so many ideas out there, in the academy but also in pockets of activity nationally, that doesn't make it into the light, doesn't get replicated, doesn't translate to transformation.

This blog is an attempt on my part to push a little more of my learning out into a bigger space for consumption. By setting alight a few ideas, perhaps it will grow into a bigger flame to gather around or navigate by. A balefire.

And perhaps someone will read this and then share that idea with another person who might put that idea into action or even develop something new of their own. Suddenly we have more fires out there to capture our attentions, acting as beacons in the darkness to light our way.