From the Linked In Daily Rundown for Sunday 25 March 2018: Companies are stepping in for colleges: A growing number of employers are finding that their college-educated new hires lack necessary skills. So they’re launching education programs, offering classes in academic disciplines such as physics, algebra and writing, in addition to guidance on how to do well in specific roles, reports The Wall Street Journal. Tightening labor markets means that employers who might otherwise hold out for candidates with the right skills are opting to train those with potential instead.
My immediate response to reading this was the thought, "the cycle continues to its logical end." What cycle? The one that started with standardized testing required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and its results. For a K-12 public school to continue receiving its federal funding, approximately 70% of its students must pass the appropriate standardized tests in content areas. Did this improve educational outcomes for students and, therefore, America? No. Students became trained to memorize factoids so they could be spit back out on questions written at the lowest order (Remember) on Bloom's Taxonomy. Once the test was done, the factoids were forgotten. Skills were not learned (Apply). The ability to think and problem-solve were not learned (Analyze, Evaluate). The ability to link information from disparate sources to creatively gain new insight was not taught (Create). In a nutshell, the industrial model of education ("Factory school model") reached its apex: mindless memorization - perform - move on. (For more on the industrial model of education, see this excellent article from Huffington Post.)
What did improve were the individual school's and collective school district's ability to successfully play a statistical shell game to make their numbers better than they really were. What do I mean? They simply started re-classifying students (based on their test performance) into different reporting categories to improve results. Here's what this looks like in practice. Jamie is classified in X class and failed the test. Class X overall does not meet the 70% pass metric. So if we reclassify Jamie into class Y, which exceeded the 70% metric, Jamie's failure does not negatively impact the Class outcome. So, that is what we will do. With statistics, all reports are possible.... I observed this directly myself in K-12 faculty meetings where the results of the previous year's results were reported. Do I blame the districts? No, they were simply making the best of a broken system in which funding to teach students was based on student performance on standardized tests that had absolutely no value - academically, practically, socially. Schools need to stay open and without federal funds, that wouldn't happen. They are fighting for survival. Teachers desperately want to help young people even in and despite of a system that seems to not want to do so.
How to get students to pass these standardized tests? Simple: teach to the test - nothing but the test, drill on factoids, give practice tests, use Pavlovian conditioning to reinforce good results and punish the bad, and repeat. Ask any experienced classroom teacher (not administrator or newbie teacher) what she or he thinks of standardized testing and No Child Left Behind, and the virtually unanimous response will be a statement of utter abhorrence followed by numerous reasons supporting her/his opinion.
Students coming out of public K-12 education cannot think, cannot problem-solve, cannot compose cogent discussions, and do not believe that what they think or know is of any value. Why would they? None of this is part of the world of standardized testing.
At the same time, two related trends were occurring: who goes to college and who teaches K-12. Both are critical parts of and reactions to this same No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and its emphasis on standardized testing.
Who teaches K-12 has changed substantially over the decades. It used to be the very best and brightest taught our children. Teachers were highly paid for their work and they were at the apex of societal respect. Today, it is a standing joke that a degree in education is the easiest to get in all of the college programs. I was talking with a friend the other day, and she said, "my daughter is in her senior year at College W as an education major. She and I were talking, and you wouldn't believe what she told me she has been doing in one of her methods classes this semester! They have been making foldables, cutting out cardboard manipulatives, making posters, and crap like this! I am horrified!" Sadly, I had to share with her that I was not at all surprised.
Getting back to the whole emphasis on learning factoids, education majors are given all kinds of approaches to make learning these factoids fun and efficient. They don't learn content. While a major in earth science requires 120 hours of geology, meteorology, oceanography, astronomy, chemistry, physics, and math, an education major who wants to teach earth science in K-12 at one of my alma maters is only required to complete 21 hours selected from 100-level geology courses, 1 introductory geography course, 1introductory astronomy course, and 2 300- or 400-level geology courses. This does not give the education major enough content knowledge to be able to creatively teach the content, even at the memorization level. Imagine a world (or the U.S.) in which those who teach our students at all levels have a major in both their discipline and in education, or perhaps more functionally - a major in their discipline and a minor in education.
Is this at all reasonable? Absolutely! There is a critical shortage in STEM teachers in K-12, and earth science is at the top of that list. Loving to work with young people, after several decades as a practicing geologist (with a M.S. degree), I pursued getting certified to teach through one of the alternative paths to teaching. I along with 20 others in my cohort from a diverse collection of disciplines completed a year's worth of courses in the methodology of teaching and the administrative requirements imposed on teachers. We all were hired at the end of our year, and we all were highly successful teachers. Our schools and school districts prized the breadth and depth of our content expertise and the creative ways we employed to teach it. This opinion is not just mine. See this article written by a former superintendent in Arizona.
Who goes to college also has substantially changed. A college degree originally designed for higher learning moved from something required to pursue a few select careers to something required for EVERY career, and those careers who formerly did not require a college degree were incredibly devalued. "I want John/Jill to go to college - not be a car mechanic!" Honestly, does a car mechanic need a college degree? Not to work on my car. I want a mechanic who has extensive hands-on experience, who has seen innumerable vehicles with a large variety of problems all manifesting in different ways. I want a mechanic who can think through the symptoms, creatively find commonalities with what s/he has learned on those innumerable vehicles, and then make a correct diagnosis. I then want that same mechanic to have the technical skills to fix the problem fully the first time and be so confident of the repair that s/he proudly offers a warranty on it. So, I would much prefer someone who served an apprenticeship and has become a journeyman for many diagnosis and repair needs or master for more complex issues. The same is true for every trade: plumbing, heating and air, welding, beauticians, and such. We NEED these folks on a daily basis and we need them to be highly competent in their trade. They don't need a college degree for it. (For more on "higher education" and what it means, see this excellent article from the University of Oxford Institute for the Advancement of University Learning.)
So, the problem of poorly educated students got passed up the ladder to colleges, who have now created courses at the 000 level to deal with lack of math and language skills that many incoming freshmen need before they can start the 100-level courses. But, what happens then? The same memorize-don't think approach from K-12 public school is repeated in many varieties in way too many college courses. Colleges are churning out graduates who do not have a higher education and are not qualified for many of the jobs that now require a college degree. Which brings us to where I started this article.
Companies are now finding they need to train their college-degreed new hires in skills specific to the jobs for which they were hired. I can only hope that the next step in the cycle is to go back to the prior steps in it.
First, not all jobs will require college degrees. Universities will then return to institutions where not everyone has to attend to assure a secure future so that those attending universities are once again those who aspire to careers in which a truly higher education is required: teachers, scientists, engineers, medical practitioners, and such.
Administrators in college and K-12 public education can no longer get a degree and then step into such roles with minimal or no service. They will have to actually serve in the classroom as instructors, professors, and teachers for at least 10 years as exemplary practitioners and then rise up in the ranks based on the recognition and support of their fellow faculty. Once there, they must continue to teach in the classroom on a limited but regular basis so they remember what it is like and they can see for themselves the needs and challenges faced by the current crop of students.
The trades will once again become a highly respected and valued career and training will return to the apprenticeship system. No Child Left Behind will be revoked and the skills and knowledge required of all students at all levels will be taught in ways that best fit the student, the school, and the community. High schools will again have 2 academic tracks: college and trade and the curriculum will be tailored for success in either path. Students leaving high school with a diploma will be highly qualified to pursue an apprenticeship in a trade or to begin what will once again be genuine 100-level coursework at the university level. No matter which path they take, all young people will have the capability to think critically, have confidence in their abilities to do so, be able to creatively pull ideas from a variety of different areas and apply them to a single purpose, and then be able to cogently communicate their ideas and analysis in both written and spoken forms.
Let's not forget the economic impact of this. Many students will not have to attend college and so will not need school loans, which will substantially reduce that economic burden. That will free up more money for young career professionals to support the economy. Fewer college attendees will require less grant and scholarship funding, and so what would be available to these fewer students seeking college educations will increase - this leads to fewer student loan needs. Additionally, that will reduce class sizes in universities, increase the student-to-faculty ratio, thereby improving student educational results, decrease the top-heavy administration and expenses of the university, remove diploma- and grade-inflation problems so rife in education today.
No comments:
Post a Comment