Traps set by the machine

[Verbal Mike]

Cram, I'm well aware that all doctors had good grades in highschool. The point is I don't give a damn what their highschool grades were, I only want to know my doctors are good doctors. The amount of general knowledge they have, their ability to take tests, their ability to write a good essay - all completely irrelevant to being a good doctor. The fact the systems in place require many hoops to be jumped before you can even start learning to practice medicine is beside the point.
It is not absolutely necessary for universities and med schools to screen people by their highschool grades. It is, naturally, convenient for them that they can do this, but they could just as well personally test applicants and/or decide in other ways who gets in.
And really, the thing that bothers me isn't the fact that this whole system of testing exists, but rather just that people and schools often seem to attribute far too much importance to the system currently in place.

In contrast to the way most schools work, I'd like to mention Sudbury Valley School (Framingham, MA, USA). At SVS students are neither forced nor even really encouraged to take any tests. The school gives highschool diplomas based on a thesis system, the details of which I am not familiar with. In general to get a diploma there you have to prove to the school community, in whatever way you choose, that you are ready to move on and go out into the world. The school has done a couple of studies of the lives of alumni, and if I'm not mistaken, most SVS alumni who went on to university/college got into the college of their first choice, and the rest got their second choice. Apparently, in the United States, it's possible to nag a college for an interview and convince a college to admit you, if you really want to - regardless of what kind of grades or diplomas you have from highschool.
This is, regrettably, not the case in most of the rest of the world. In Germany you really do need Abitur (really tough SAT/A-Level equivalent) to go to University. But I have yet to hear of a country where one cannot take whatever tests are required for college/university if you want to, regardless of whether you take them at school or elsewhere. Even Germany, notorious for restrictive legislation when it comes to education, has an "external Abitur" system for people not in school for whatever reason (adults, too, I think.)

[LMNO]

Cram, I'm well aware that all doctors had good grades in highschool. The point is I don't give a damn what their highschool grades were, I only want to know my doctors are good doctors. The amount of general knowledge they have, their ability to take tests, their ability to write a good essay - all completely irrelevant to being a good doctor. The fact the systems in place require many hoops to be jumped before you can even start learning to practice medicine is beside the point.

To use a metaphor, you seem to be saying that you don't care if the castle is built on a swamp.

Knowledge of a discipline is not an isolated thing... usually the best people in a chosen field are not the people who are soley focused on that field, they are the Polymaths.  A broad knowledge of many different subjects is beneficial when creative solutions are needed for difficult problems.

You can't play "what if" problem-solving games if you have no knowlegde of external systems.

[AFK]

I disagree with your view of the diversified work force. I certainly care where my brain surgeon learned to cut, but I frankly couldn't possibly care less how many foreign languages he speaks and what his GPA was in highschool. I believe the school system has taken the means to its original end - primarily testing and grading - and turned these in many ways into a means of their own. I recall anecdotes about good teachers who would teach interesting, fun, useful things all year and then come testing time they'd put that all aside and just crunch test material because their job was at stake.

Well, like it or not, testing IS necessary in the education system.  Why?  Because if any organization is going to be worth its salt it needs to have mechanisms for evaluation.  (btw, I am a professional Evaluator, this is how I put bread on my table)  The best quantifiable measure, currently, as to whether or not the education systems are doing their job is through testing.  When you see slippage in Math scores, you know you have to re-examine the mathematics curricula. 

Now, that said, of course you don't want your teachers solely teaching to the test.  And you don't want to solely rely on the standardized tests to evaluate individual school systems.  That is where the school board, PTA's, teacher workshops, etc. come in.  You also have to realize that schools are also at the mercy of the economy, local and beyond.  A school may not have the luxury to be innovative because of a funding crunch where they have to cut back on personnel.  But yes, you are always going to have your teachers who teach to the test, but I also feel there are a great many, those who actually teach because they enjoy teaching, who find the ways to make it fun and interesting and RETAINABLE. 

But beside all that, I think the best thing for a diversified workforce is a diversified educational environment. People today switch careers almost as if they were undergarments. I makes little sense in the shifting environment of todays "real world" to put children in environments that teach them repetition, boredom, and the submission of their will and intuition to the demands of a bureaucracy. Sitting on chairs and copying stuff of a blackboard doesn't prepare you for life - only life does.

High school is not supposed to prepare kids for specific jobs.  The goal of high school is to give you a base level of knowledge from which you can build upon.  Whether it is going on to college, getting into apprenticeships or other skilled labor situations, going into the military, etc.  To go back to the Brain Surgeon example, a kid just can't enroll in a University to be trained as a Brain Surgeon without first learning fundamental reading, math, and science skills.  This is why a University will reject students who can't sufficiently prove they have those skills, so they aren't filling their Brain Surgeon classes with students who can't multiply or problem solve. 

And btw, repetition is kind of necessary to learn.  Not every kid nails long division on the first homework assignment.  Not every student driver nails parallel parking on the first try.  And do we really want a bunch of novice, untested kids behind the steering wheel of a Hummer?  I think not. 

[LMNO]

Re: Testing.

The problem seems to arise because it's easier to grade "right/wrong" than "process" in a standardized, large-scale way.  In physics, we were graded on the steps we used to get an answer, and not on the answer itself.

For example, "10 points.  Stan throws an apple out of a tree at Kenny.  The tree is 10m high. Kenny is 15m away.  If Stan throws at 1m/s, will he hit Stan, and how fast will the apple be travelling?"

Each step of figuring this out would be graded.  So, if you got the force of gravity wrong, but got the F=ma and v=dt equations right, you'd still get at least 8 out of 10 points.  On a standardized test, you'd get the whole thing wrong, but the kid knew how to solve the problem.

And knowing the process of solving the problem, to me, is more important than the "right" answer.

[AFK]

Maine is actually looking at introducing something into the public education system that would, kind of, address integrating process into standardized education evaluations.  The Education Commissioner has proposed, for lack of a better term, "Standardized Projects", that would be worked into the various curricula. 

For example, there would be a requirement for all students to conduct a scientific research project.  It wouldn't be original research of course, but to research certain scientific principles.  And so the state, in conjunction with educators, would develop a set of standards to evaluate the process of the research project.  The goal is to be able to evaluate how high school students are applying what they learn. 

So they would still do the standardized testing, which you are right really focuses on "right/wrong", but they'd also have this other mechanism to evaluate the application of knowledge. 

[Cramulus]

tanget--

My favorite high school teacher - one who had a great effect on who I am today - quit because of the No Child Left Behind act. I went and talked to him about this and he said,

there's just no time to teach Jungian Archetypes, analyze Led Zeppelin lyrics, and also prepare kids to take two giant meaningless tests per year. I've actually got to cut two out of three of those activities, and the school board didn't like my decision to keep Zeppelin. So I quit.



I'm in the buisness of publishing textbooks, so this is also an issue close to my heart. In California public schools, if you don't perform on an English test at at least two grades below your grade level, (so if an 11th grader only has a 8th grade vocabulary) you get marked for "INTERVENTION" and have to take special classes. We publish the books for those classes. A lot of these kids are just learning English and are angry that they're getting treated like they're mentally handicapped or something. They WANT to learn, they just haven't had time to learn enough English to do well on the standardized test. A lot of these kids end up dropping out. Not because they're stupid, but because they're sick of being treated like idiots.

okay I could go on about this for a while but it's best to post before this becomes too tl;dr

[LMNO]

So-- The Machine™ trap in the school system is not the internal education process, it's the external standardization process.

Can we agree on that?

[AFK]

Yeah, makes sense. 

In concert with the Machine-driven mechanisms of the economy.  Because the standardized tests are driven by the almighty dollar.  It's the anti-carrot approach. 

If your school doesn't perform we won't whack you with a stick, but we'll cut off your carrot supply. 

[Verbal Mike]

The thing that bothers me most, personally now, is not standardization - because like I said, if you want to get a good grade you can, anywhere. What bothers me most is the presumption that all children must be forced to go to school, forced to learn a set curriculum, and most importantly forced to do it on the system's terms.
The internal logic of standardization and education and all that, as you guys have presented it here, is relatively sound (and please take this as a complement, most people I've heard/read arguing in favor of these things elsewhere have made huge asses of themselves). But I've personally experienced an alternative (wiki) and I know that people can educate themselves if you let them - and if they want to, or at least want to try.

[AFK]

First, children aren't forced to go to school.  Home schooling is always an option.
But this is something that isn't done often, why?  Because it's probably best for a child to get an education from an educator who has an education in educating.

As for the Sudbury Schools, can you provide some sort of study or statistics that speak to how well these students do after graduating?  I see the 80% graduation rate from colleges, but to use your line or reasoning, if someone wants to graduate from college, they can, anywhere.  In other words, I'm interested in information that verifiably states that a Sudbury alumnus' education has put them in some better position in life as compared to a public school graduate.   

[Verbal Mike]

Home schooling is always an option in the United States of America. In Germany, people are actually leaving the country now solely because it's illegal here. (But Germany is a kind of worst-case example.) And the law is a far less important factor in this kind of decision than "what the neighbors will think", in my experience. My family still gets nasty looks from my own aunts and uncles because of the school we started, so I really don't blame people who prefer to stick to the mainstream methods.
Anyhoo, I'm not a proponent of homeschooling, but not for the reason you mentioned - I don't think children need educators. I think children need friends. And parents need to let go of their kids. Home schooling prohibits both.

The only studies done so far on Sudbury schools are the two books published by Sudbury Vallley School - one in the last decade, another about ten years earlier. The later, more current one, is called "Pursuit of Happiness". It does not compare alumni to a control group, but many of the statistics speak for themselves. The one I remember most strongly is the incredibly high proportion of alumni who said things along the lines of "I'm happy" and "I like my job" - two statements that I think very few people in society at large can say. I don't have a copy here so I can't quote directly, but the book should be available on www.sudval.org if you're interested.
I think the point is much more that SVS has not /hindered/ alumni's chances to do well in life. All too often it seems people support schooling and testing because they're afraid of what might happen (or not happen) if children are not schooled and tested. Apparently, people who go to Sudbury Valley School do just fine, so this fear is misguided.
(Homeschoolers and Unschoolers have proven rather successful as well, by the way.)

[AFK]

Home schooling is always an option in the United States of America. In Germany, people are actually leaving the country now solely because it's illegal here. (But Germany is a kind of worst-case example.) And the law is a far less important factor in this kind of decision than "what the neighbors will think", in my experience. My family still gets nasty looks from my own aunts and uncles because of the school we started, so I really don't blame people who prefer to stick to the mainstream methods.
Anyhoo, I'm not a proponent of homeschooling, but not for the reason you mentioned - I don't think children need educators. I think children need friends. And parents need to let go of their kids. Home schooling prohibits both.

The only studies done so far on Sudbury schools are the two books published by Sudbury Vallley School - one in the last decade, another about ten years earlier. The later, more current one, is called "Pursuit of Happiness". It does not compare alumni to a control group, but many of the statistics speak for themselves. The one I remember most strongly is the incredibly high proportion of alumni who said things along the lines of "I'm happy" and "I like my job" - two statements that I think very few people in society at large can say. I don't have a copy here so I can't quote directly, but the book should be available on www.sudval.org if you're interested.
I think the point is much more that SVS has not /hindered/ alumni's chances to do well in life. All too often it seems people support schooling and testing because they're afraid of what might happen (or not happen) if children are not schooled and tested. Apparently, people who go to Sudbury Valley School do just fine, so this fear is misguided.
(Homeschoolers and Unschoolers have proven rather successful as well, by the way.)

And there are many people who go into the public school system who would say "I'm happy", "I like my job" and who "do just fine." 
So while the SVS education process certainly is different, I see nothing, from an unbiased source, that suggests its outcomes are any better than the public school system.  Also, just a note, anectdotes =/= statistics. 

Again, I think you are vastly overgeneralizing when you say things like "two statements that I think very few people in society at large can say."  Certainly there are people in society who are unhappy and who don't like their job.  But you can't completely lay that at the feet of the education system.  It MAY play a factor, but there are certainly many other factors as well, like, say, the economy that is in recession which limits the amount of available jobs. 

[LMNO]

Also, in the links for the sudbury schools, there is no "criticisms" page.

I also have doubts (sans citations) about the effectiveness of this system is heavly populated, economically disadvantaged, urban areas.

Brooklyn, for example.

[Verbal Mike]

@RWHN:
I never meant to lay down hard cold facts or statistics. Like I said, my point is mainly that just letting kids do whatever the hell they want doesn't generally tend to ruin their lives, or even significantly worsen their chances at a good future. And it's a process I feel much, much more comfortable with.
The point I was trying to make earlier, about the self-preserving aspects of the school system, is that the school system manages to sell itself as the only way to provide children and society with a bright future. On this point, I beg to differ.
But I feel like this argument is somehow getting derailed, and I think I might be the one doing it. *glances accusingly at self*

@LMNO: You mean on school websites? Why would a school post criticism of its own POV on a promotional website? As for Wikipedia, I sure as hell haven't seen anyone censor away criticism (it's a page I try to watch). If there's none to be found there, apparently nobody has taken the time to put it there.

There's a Sudbury school in Oregon called Blue Mountain School, which is a charter school. Most of their students are from very low-income demographics. I think most students there are on a hot meals program. Works just fine, from what I've heard (and I've met some staff and students from there.) Problem is, their charter just got revoked mid-contract and they probably can't afford to continue running the school. I gotta run, but search for Blue Mountain School on YouTube, they put out a pledge for donations about a month ago and also explained the situation (not in entirely objective terms, of course.)

The school I co-founded, went to for four years, and graduated, Sudbury Jerusalem (in Jerusalem, Israel), also has a very high proportion of low-income demographics (but not as high as BMS does). Also works just fine. I understand the concern about this issue (many, many people have doubted the same thing) but I honestly do not see a fundamental problem in that area. The main problem seems to be that low-income families want to stick to the mainstream style of education to prove their worth (which is even more true of minorities.)

[AFK]

@RWHN:
I never meant to lay down hard cold facts or statistics. Like I said, my point is mainly that just letting kids do whatever the hell they want doesn't generally tend to ruin their lives, or even significantly worsen their chances at a good future. And it's a process I feel much, much more comfortable with.
The point I was trying to make earlier, about the self-preserving aspects of the school system, is that the school system manages to sell itself as the only way to provide children and society with a bright future. On this point, I beg to differ.
But I feel like this argument is somehow getting derailed, and I think I might be the one doing it. *glances accusingly at self*

But isn't it kind of hard to argue against it?  I mean, think of all the successful business people, entrepeneurs, athletes, musicians, artists, politicians, non-profit employees, doctors, dentists, airline pilots, etc.,   My hunch would be that many of these successful people have a HS diploma.  And I would wager a substantial percentage of them are happy with life and happy with their job.  So, sure it isn't the only way, sure it has its problems which need to be addressed, but it seems like calling it a trap is illogical when so many seem to NOT get stuck.  SVS may have success but that doesn't negate the successes of the public school system.  And again, those who do get stuck, you can't blame it all on the education system, there are too many other factors at play.