Why can't Uncle Sam learn?

[nmap]

Nice article.

The problem is...we have failed to define the problem. If the problem is the performance of certain students on certain portions of a specified test, then the solution is simplicity itself - teach to the test. Do nothing else. Teach to the test morning, noon, and night. I question whether the results of such an approach would meet anyone's definition of being educated. Unless their career consisted of taking the particular test, they would not be prepared for a career.

We might be better off deciding first what we want the students to learn. Is math and science the alpha and omega of education? Then let's do away with everything else. By the definition, those are a waste of time. On the other hand, if other areas have worth, if we regard these things as worth learning, then our definition should include them.

Next, we might wish to consider assessment - how we do it, and whether it gives us useful results. Standardized multiple choice tests have their value - and they do provide scores that are easy to compare and analyze - but is performance on a standardized test an appropriate sole measure of learning? I question that. I think we need to investigate carefully the details of what we're testing, why we're testing it, and what the results really mean, because if funding follows performance on the test, we can expect the test to receive substantial emphasis.

It might also be worthwhile to reflect on the notion of using the same test to evaluate all students. Of course math and science are important. Personally, I'm fond of the subjects. We might ask ourselves whether the student with a talent for repairing cars - but who cannot master calculus or quantum physics - is really so badly off. I recall one member of this forum choosing SERE over a computer class - which represents a choice of one type of learning in preference to math and science.

The various initiatives, whether NCLB (No Child Left Behind) or the current effort, seem designed more to create an illusion of progress than any reality. Unfortunately, I don't see anything that looks as if matters will change.

A recent paper includes a paragraph which, perhaps, illustrates the problem:

"However, there may be a third possibility as well: a poor fit between the home lives of disadvantaged children and the culture of school classrooms (Okagaki, 2001). In other words, it is not that disadvantaged children lack access to the kinds of content and instructional styles that affluent children are exposed to (the traditional opportunity thesis); it is that they have access but this environment is so distinct from their home lives that they do not benefit. Additional studies should clarify which of the possibilities seems to be the case." (Page 14)

Byrnes, J. P., & Wasik, B. A. Factors predictive of mathematics achievement in kindergarten, first and third ... Contemporary Educational Psychology (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.01.002

Now if that possibility is true, one faces the challenge of overcoming the difference in fit. That strikes me as quite a knotty problem.