Doug Johnson has been posting some important ideas in the last couple of days about our challenges in retooling education for the needs of millennials. His posts have earned, for better or for worse, a large number of comments, becoming, I think, a valuable conversation.
Three ideas came to mind as I read through his entries and their comments, and I began my own two cents worth and wrote so much, that I thought I would just post it also as a 2¢ Worth. You’ll probably need to read Loose change or real change – follow-up and Lobbying for spare change — or real change? and their comments to get the whole context. Then read my 2¢ worth.
One of the ideas is that although performance/production based assessment is messy, messy is what teachers do. Certainly multiple-choice/true-false assessments have always been a convenient crutch to many teachers. But project-based/product-based teaching, learning, and assessment were much easier to implement before high-stakes testing. The critical change is that communities have lost confidence in their teachers (for no good reason), and education has begun to lose confidence in itself. I think that we need to empower teachers and then turn education back over to them, the experts.
Idea number two (and this is actually a barrier) is that education reform is not part of the public dialog right now. Citizens, going about their lives, do not think much or talk about schools and classrooms. We’re pretty comfortable with our own memories of our classroom experiences (happy or not), and do not see the connection between what and how children are being taught and the rapidly changing world that we are all trying to adapt to. We, educators, need to get the conversations going. I think that our school and classroom web sites are our best opportunity, but we need to work out what that would look like.
This last idea concerns me greatly, though I usually get really blank and confused stares when I suggest it. Of all aspects of the education community, the one group that is in the most powerful pivotal point are our students. One day, I’m afraid that they are just going to say, “No!”. “I’m not going to take your tests any more.” “I’m not going to read your ancient textbooks any more.” “I’m not going to listen to your boring lectures, fiddle with your ridiculous worksheets, or worry over your irrelevant grades any more.”
Many of the students in our classrooms today have absolutely no tie with the 20th century. They have lived their entire formative lives in the new century. They and most of their older brothers and sisters are true millennials. They have only one direct and obvious tie to the previous century — their classrooms — and I don’t know how long they are going to put up with it.
Think about IM speak, the abbreviated text that students use when they are messaging each other. We mostly disregard it and blame these habits on declining interest in proper language usage. But think about it. These kids have invented a new grammar, one that is perfect for this new avenue of communication that their generation identifies so much with. …and they did it in collaboration. We would have established a committee of standards to create new grammar rules, then spend years teaching the new rules in our classrooms in the same boring ways that we have for centuries. These kids did it on their own. This is so impressive and indicate so much power of networking, that it almost scares me. It’s like a horse. As long as the horse thinks you’re stronger than he is, then you’re OK. But as soon as the horse realizes that the balance goes the other way, then look out! I’m looking out!
2¢ Worth!
Hi David,
Thanks for the great response. I don’t disagree with you, but I would also say there is a place and need testing as well as assessment when it comes to I/T skills if they are to me taken seriously by educators. I am huge fan of Rick Stiggins and his Assessment for Learning work. Hell, I offer workshops on authentic assessment of I/T skills myself. Good, messy assessments using well-designed tools are critical to the teaching and learning process. They are good for kids, promoting growth, not simply categorization.
The problem is that we live in a society that believes in testing. And quite honestly, a degree of accountability shown through testing is not all bad. (See Exposing Shameful Little Secrets.) Our problem is that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of testing and the results are being used in the implementation of NCLB punatively. This is a problem with test expectations and result use, not testing in itself. And hey, you want something taken seriously by teachers just put it on the next high-stakes test. That is the reality as much as we may not like it. Let’s use the system we are working under while also trying to change it.
More at:
Dave –
I see many kids that already see school in the way you describe. They are much more cognizant of the lack of connection between what they experience in class and what the real world holds for them.
I also agree, Doug, that there is a place for assessment. I just grow greatly frustrated at the very reductionist approach that our emphasis on testing creates. For instance, people try to increase student reading by increasing or changing reading instruction. That’s an obvious straight logical line, but it misses too many other research-proven options. Strangely enough, balancing on bongo boards increases student reading scores, as do hands-on experiences in science and art.
The best example I’ve seen of this lately was a profile last week of the well-known High Tech High School project in San Diego. It was in the Philadelphia Enquirer at http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/living/education/13531419.htm. (Sorry, I think you have to register.) Their kids don’t focus on tests, almost everything is project-based, and yet their students (who enter by lottery and represent a very mixed demographic) score in the top 10% of the state tests, and they’ve sent 100% of the last three graduating classes to college.
This is one of the most successful schools in the country, and they do so by operating completely outside the norms and structures of our current system. Another article I have been recommending underscores this. It’s called “Change Or Die,” and it was in Fast Company last June. It’s online now at http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/94/open_change-or-die.html. One of the “myths about change” that research has disproved is that we can be successful through incremental change. Most people or organizations are far more successful with radical, cut-the-ties changes. Incremental change makes it too easy to slip backwards, and creates too little noticable improvement to motivate the continued effort to change.
I agree the problem is with how test results are used, rather than testing itself. We wouldn’t be professionals if we didn’t want to measure how our students are doing and modify our practices to improve. I just get tired of people using our assessments as an reason for abusing educators, rather than a measure for professional teachers to apply to help kids.
Thanks for those excellent links Conn. Doug’s comment points out a key strategic question: in attempting to reform education, should we adopt the methods which have helped bring us to our current condition (a dizzying array of content and performance standards combined with high stakes testing) or take a different approach. Doug encourages us to use the weapons of the enemy to make an incremental change, as Conn points out. I disagree, not with the ends Doug and others seek to support and bring about in educational reform, but rather with the ends. More standards and accountability pressure is part of the problem, not the answer.
Thanks for those excellent links Conn. Doug’s comment points out a key strategic question: in attempting to reform education, should we adopt the methods which have helped bring us to our current condition (a dizzying array of content and performance standards combined with high stakes testing) or take a different approach. Doug encourages us to use the weapons of the enemy to make an incremental change, as Conn points out. I disagree, not with the ends Doug and others seek to support and bring about in educational reform, but rather with the means. More standards and accountability pressure is part of the problem, not the answer.