As a side, I think there's room in the market for a company that builds a place for companies to version control their manuals. I've seen several companies that would like to keep a GitHub-like version control history of their mission, values, operating guidelines and track major changes in company.
GitHub seems too complicated and non-reader friendly. Any tools out there for this?
For anyone who enjoyed this, a lot of these ideas were really well discussed a few years back in Neil Postman's "Teaching as a Subversive Activity" (1969) and John Dewey's "Democracy & Education" (1916). As you can see these books are over 50 years old. These ideas aren't new, which goes to say how long we've known this and what little have we done.
The real question Graham poses here is: what is the point of schooling? At the moment, it teaches and conditions people to "hack tests" as Graham puts it. So people continue to do that throughout their lives.
It also conditions people to think there is a "correct" answer to problems. Which in the open-ended nature of the real questions we have to grapple with in life is a complete lie. A teacher will rarely say: "It depends."
What passes for "education" today is really just "training" and very far removed from real learning. People only learn about things that interest them. And you learn by asking questions, which most of the time will lead to further questions to which you will only ever find tentative, temporary answers. Not that different from how scientists treat their "solutions" to big questions as tentative.
What can we do to change that? Change schools. It's the one place where we have kids kept for 15 years by mandate! It's the biggest lever we have to change perceptions and attitudes. Remove tests and grading. Learning will free up when that happens. It's remarkable what happens when at the beginning of the year the teacher gives everyone an A. Let go of the idea that permeates American society that everything needs to be measured. Some things do, but things like intelligence can't and shouldn't.
I know the immediate response is that this is unpractical. And to that I ask why? Because we need a way to control? Control what? What district is "performing" better? When was a score on a math test a true measure of human potentiality?
We need to go back to core questions as to what is the point of schools and what is worth teaching and learning in today's world. The world has changed immensely, but our "curriculums" are the same. The only difference is we use tablets and Microsoft Word to hand in assignments.
I agree with Graham's conclusion. When we liberate ourselves from these useless idealogical metaphors we will free people and society up to stop hacking tests and start living.
I agree, especially in regards to knowing where to improve.
But a bigger question is what do we consider effectiveness? Do higher scores on math tests mean a school is more effective than another? Because if we do we are saying that the "best" schools are the ones that provide the best test scores. Is that the measure we want for our schools, for our education and for learning in general?
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I agree that standardized or even blind testing is probably a much fairer way to evaluate. There is a reason scientific research uses double-blind tests. It eliminates a lot of biases and racism. (Of course only to a degree, since there is always the bias of the question asking and test structure.) But in principle I agree.
But here is where I think I differ.
If you are grading a performance, or evaluating the effectiveness of a drug, or which peanut butter brand you like more, then sure, go ahead and do a "standard" test.
But is that the point of school? Is the point of "learning" and "schooling" to test (in a standard way) how much students can do "math," or write "proper" english, or memorize "facts" about America?
I would say "no."
Does a score of 500 versus 400 mean that someone "learned more?" As soon as you have "tests" with "grades" you immediately optimize for providing the "correct answers" and to get "better grades". I think people jump to fast to correct answers = learning.
An example, in a similar way that if your code got graded, every coder would immediately optimize what they do to get that A. I am not questioning the method of how that A is evaluated, but I am questioning what are we optimizing for. And optimizing for giving correct answers is not a good idea, in my opinion, since it bears little resemblance to any of the important open-ended questions we are faced with on our day-to-day lives.
Schools should help people learn how to learn, cultivate their own interests, and develop skills and aptitudes for a changing world. Not "find" "correct answers" to problems that someone already knows the answer.
In regards to your points:
> I'd be much happier if my code received a grade
That's interesting and I'm sorry about the boss... I'm interested: what would be the criteria to determine the grade of the code your boss would give you? I'm assuming a few of them would be: does it run, does it follows proper syntax, is it simple and the best way to do this, correct? But what if you think there is a better way that goes against the criteria?
> School is more irrelevant...
Agree 100%. Again, what is the point of putting people in school then. Isn't it to make them smarter? Is it to get them a job? Or is it to teach them how to conform? What do you think?
Thank your for the link, by the way! Let me know if you find that study. Sounds super interesting.
I couldn't agree with this thread more. "Teaching as a Subversive Activity" by Neil Postman is a wonderful read that addresses how our obsession with grades, courses and syllabi is completely contrary to helping people learn.
First you could use more evaluative criteria. This is how most knowledge workers are evaluated in most modern startups. Unless you work on sales, you are probably measured by the quality of your thinking, your attitudes, projects, and initiatives. You don't deliver a piece of code and get a grade.
Things like PISA were invented so that the people managing could, well, manage. So they could compare and get "concrete" numbers to get elected.
And in terms of your question, what is wrong with subjectivity? We are dealing with human beings here, not computers. There will always be subjectivity. Our desire to boil everything down to data is a clear reflection of the computer age where everything needs to be a 0 or a 1. The medium is indeed the message.
I think a broader question is what is the purpose of school? Is it an institution where we help people learn, or where we teach people how to memorize things? We are what we measure. If we are measuring how well students can memorize things and give "right" answers, this is the kind of society we will create.
This is the reason schooling continues to be more and more irrelevant today.
As a side, I think there's room in the market for a company that builds a place for companies to version control their manuals. I've seen several companies that would like to keep a GitHub-like version control history of their mission, values, operating guidelines and track major changes in company.
GitHub seems too complicated and non-reader friendly. Any tools out there for this?