Category Archives: Standardized tests

Finntastic Education!

Posted on by
Reply

Government policymakers everywhere want to make their schools better. To do that, many of them look to the country of Finland for guidance. That’s right, Finland. Finland’s education system places first in the world in several different rankings, including this one, conducted by Education firm Pearson.  For comparison, Japan is fourth, Germany 15th, and the US 17th. After learning about the country’s stellar ranking, I wanted to know more. I did a bit of research (aka Googled Finland, Education), and learned some interesting facts.

Finland, education system

Finland’s education system ranks first in the world.

First, and my favorite, Finnish elementary students have more fun. Elementary students in Finland spend around 75 minutes a day for recess, compared to 27 minutes for students in the US. Teachers get more free time, too, spending only four hours per day in the classroom, on average. That leaves more time for evaluation, reflection, collaboration, and further training,

Second, people really want to be teachers. In 2010, 6600 people applied for 660 teaching positions in Finland, according to sources cited by the Smithsonian Magazine. The reason is probably not the salary. Primary school teachers in Finland have an average starting salary of less than $31,000 and maximum salary of about $40,000, compared to $38,000 and $53,000 respectively in the US. The profession is highly respected, though, and the government pays for the masters’ degrees for those accepted into the education training program. All teachers must have master’s degrees.

Those master’s degrees come in handy because the central government also gives a lot of autonomy to the country’s teachers and principals. The national government only offers broad guidelines, leaving it up to local officials and educators to determine the best methods for achieving those goals.

Finally, students usually have only one standardized test, which takes place when students are already approaching the end of high school. Students generally are kept in the same class as well, rather than separated into groups based on performance. As a result, the difference between the highest and lowest performing students is the lowest in the world.

There are many reasons why Finland’s educational model doesn’t translate easily to other places. The country is small, only 5.4 million people, and homogenous, with more than 90% of the population of Finnish descent. But even when compared to similar Scandinavian countries, or states like Kentucky or Minnesota, with similar demographics, its educational system outperforms.

So, which of these points – more recess for children, stricter requirements and more financial support and planning time for teachers, greater autonomy at the local level, or fewer standardized tests – do you think could be most beneficial for the educational system of your city, state, country?

Educational Data and its Discontents

Posted on by
Reply

Part 1: Personalize it.

Imagine this. Students fill a classroom, each one sitting at his or her desk with a tablet or small laptop, working away at the particular topic of the hour, whether it be mathematics or history. The computer gauges each of the student’s responses, recording their performance and re-calibrating the lesson to focus on the student’s weak points. The teacher walks around, monitoring progress, identifying difficult topics, answering questions.

A few students smile, enjoying the game-like qualities of the educational programs, more fun than the lectures and quizzes of past classes. Everyone wins. The students have more fun while working at their own pace, and teachers still serve in essential roles. With all that winning, why does that image make me uncomfortable then?

Date in education helps personalize education

Technology allows teachers to better understand the individualized needs of their students.

Much of the excitement surrounding technology and education centers on accessibility. Students in rural India can now take classes from Harvard professors by simply saving enough money for a few hours a week in an internet café. That is exciting stuff, and at Rukuku, we hope to further facilitate the opening of new educational channels around the globe. At the other end of the spectrum, though, technology is creating new opportunities to understand the specific strengths, weaknesses, and educational needs of individual students. In other words, technology is not only making education more global, but more personal as well.

The value of this should be clear for any student that’s gotten hung up on one aspect of the lesson and fallen behind on the rest of the material as a result. That value should also be clear to any student that’s daydreamed away a class period while the teacher reviewed and rehashed old material for the sake of a few students that are still struggling to understand.

Picturing it, though, is a little discomforting. I see a room full of kids absorbed in their computer screens in the same way many kids are absorbed in computer or TV screens once they get home. Automated programs sit on the other side of those screens, rather than real people. Teachers serve as facilitators and tutors, not as the foci of attention. Few educators are fully comfortable with that picture either, and most pilot programs utilizing such technology limit daily use and offer that information to help teachers in their traditional classrooms as well.

To me, using computers and limiting computer use are both great ideas, but it will be difficult to maintain the proper balance, especially if it turns out that letting the students work on the computer a little longer might be a little lighter on the teachers’ work load and a little better for the test scores. I know, I know. All the teachers reading this are gasping. I used to be a teacher, though, and I know the pleasure of making it a video day now and then. And yes, we still used videos when I was teaching. It was not that long ago.

The point is, these computer programmers are smart. And they will eventually figure out how to consistently make test scores higher through these programs, even if it takes five or ten years. Does that mean students should be interacting with automated computer programs all day? Some of time, yes. All of the time, no. Reaching the right balance will be the challenge.

I work for a tech company and obviously see computer screens as potentially positive in many, many aspects of education and of life. At Rukuku, we are trying to connect people all over the world to fully develop that potential. At the same time, the social aspect is an important element in education, especially for children. We do our best to maintain that aspect by using old-fashioned data collectors, also known as teachers, while still taking advantage of technology to expand the reach of those teachers.

Individualized student data can and should be an important tool for teachers, and we are always exploring ways in which we can offer more highly personalized options for our users. At the end of the day, though, nothing replaces the personal interactions that students have with their teachers and each other, even if those interactions take place across electronic networks stretching from Silicon Valley to Himalayan mountaintops.

Class Dismissed

Posted on by
Reply
Is it time to question the traditional, expensive education models? Does education need to equate to decades of debt? Could education be acquired outside universities?

Is it time to question the traditional, expensive education models? Does education need to equate to decades of debt? Could education be acquired outside universities?

Throughout history, or at least the part I know about, students have sat through class, impatiently waiting for a bell to ring, a clock to tick enough ticks, enough sand to run through the hourglass, a teacher to utter the words, class dismissed. Well, that waiting may be over for good, at least for some university students.

On Monday, the US Department of Education approved Capella University’s FlexPath programs for bachelors and masters degrees. FlexPath allows students to get credit for classes by performing well on competency examinations, with no requirements on class attendance. In other words, as long as students can prove they have the knowledge, they can get credit for the class.

This is the first accredited program in the country to make such an offer. The implications are profound and affect several types of students. First, older students, who may have more experience in their particular field, can avoid spending time in classes on topics about which they are already familiar.

Second, bright, motivated students will also benefit. The Doogie Howsers of the world no longer need to sit through classes covering material that they already understand or could understand very easily by studying on their own. In such a competency-based program, these students could easily pass through lower level classes at a much more rapid pace than your average student.

Finally, and most importantly, this program will drive down prices. Universities can hardly justify their astronomically high fees when students work through material at their own pace, at home, with professors offering support but not serving as the centerpiece of the course. The university’s responsibility is as much evaluation as direct teaching.

We talk a lot in this blog about disruptive technologies, and thus far, computers and the internet have only had minimal effects on education, at least when compared to industries such as travel, music, and consumer retail. To see an example, just pass by your local bookstore, or at least the spot where it used to be.

The awarding of credits has complicated the transformation of education through technology. Students need personalized evaluations from their professors, gauging their participation in class and performance on homework as well as exams. Professors can only work with so many students, and their time is not cheap.

Shifting to a competency-based system of evaluation for credit opens many opportunities for students that have learned their skills through less traditional means, including non-credit online courses. For the universities, it offers opportunities to reduce costs. It also puts pressure on them to improve the value of their students’ experiences, in and out of the classroom.

I went to a four-year college and had an excellent time. I made many friends and gained much, not only from my time inside class but my time outside of class as well. With tuition prices soaring, however, today’s students are questioning whether those experiences are worth decades of student debt payments.  It is an important question, and universities will increasingly have to provide a satisfactory response.

 

Filling the inspiration gap

Posted on by
Reply

How can online learning help to fill the inspiration gap left by our declining education system?

Motivating students to pursue topics that interest them. Shocking fact of the day: students learn much better when they’re interested and engaged. Online education allows individualized learning and experimentation in a way that traditional learning cannot. That means students have the ability to learn what they want to learn. Sure, sometimes you have to learn things that you don’t like – and that’s where the online model offers more advantages…

Providing access to passionate, inspiring teachers. Given that a good online learning system is theoretically able to cast a worldwide net in terms of attracting talent, students benefit from the ability to interact with the best professionals in their desired field. Passionate teachers inspire passion in students.

Creating a structure where grades and examinations are secondary to real learning.  At Rukuku, we believe that grades and exams shouldn’t be a purpose in and of themselves. When one takes his own initiative rather than being nudged (read: forced) to take a class for a grade, actual learning becomes the priority.

Another bonus of online learning: none of those inspiration-killing standardized tests!

Hey! Teacher! Leave them kids alone…

Posted on by
Reply

According to the OECD, in 2010 the United States ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science, and 25th in mathematics (all out of 34), to earn the fantastically run-of-the-mill overall rating of “average.” For a country that, in the not-too-distant past, produced most of the world’s technical innovation and boasted an unparalleled productive and creative output, this is a jarring wake-up call.

On Wednesday, we talked about why standardized test based teacher evaluation is very bad at identifying and rewarding good teachers.  This is definitely a big part of the problem in US education.

Another part of the problem – one that is more controversial to discuss, to be sure – is the problem of bad teachers. We have a lot of them, and they don’t seem to be getting any better.

When I was in school, I once had an English teacher who told us with a straight face that the Soviet Union was not involved in World War II. Granted, this wasn’t his subject, but… really? Slightly dumbfounded by this bold statement, I tried to convince him otherwise. My disruption was to no avail, and only earned me looks of disdain from most of my bored classmates.

In the years since, I’ve often wondered about that incident. How could a person become a teacher without knowing undeniably basic things like that? As it turns out, there are several factors that make this possible.

Some of them are:

Flawed methods of teacher evaluation. This relates straight back to Wednesday’s post. The Department of Education, along with local school boards, seems hell-bent on turning our schools into standardized assessment factories, complete with teachers whose only purpose is to teach students how to take a test (does anyone else hear Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick In The Wall” playing in their heads?).

Low pay. In 2009, the average yearly salary for a US primary school teacher who has been employed for fifteen years was less than $44,000. For most other professions requiring a college degree, that’s a standard entry level salary. How can schools possibly attract passionate, knowledgeable, proficient, competent professionals when pretty much every other employment option pays better? The result of this is that schools are left with people who either have no other choice but to become teachers, or are very passionate about educating people (bless them, but they’re rare).

Teachers’ unions and entrenched bureaucracy. Teachers’ unions do provide some recourse against unreasonable teacher evaluation, but they also prevent students and parents from having any recourse against bad teachers. Bad teachers are consistently protected from scrutiny and replacement by their unions.

“But Alex,” you might say, “the last two arguments are always used by opposite sides of the political spectrum. I thought they were mutually exclusive!”

The reality is funny. In two-sided political discourse, each party generally tries to convince us that the other’s position is the problem. But as H.L. Mencken once noted, the ironic beauty of it is that they’re usually both right – about each other.

Teacher evaluation and moral hazard

Posted on by
Reply

Following New York’s recent release of teacher rankings, the chatter in the education community has once again focused upon an old question: is it wise to evaluate teachers based on student performance on standardized tests?

For us, the answer seems quite obvious. No!

Simplistic political demagoguery aside, teacher accountability is actually a complex issue. Children in different areas and of different backgrounds are subject to different circumstances, capabilities, and opportunities. Mandating one-size-fits-all standards to an endlessly diverse body of students and educators is great at making politicians seem tough, but very bad at improving the quality of education.

The entrenched standardized evaluation system also creates the phenomenon of “teaching to the test” – that is, educators focusing all their efforts on ensuring that students are able to answer formulaic test questions rather than learn in a meaningful and permanent way. The incentives created by standardized testing are all wrong: teaching students how to fill in circles with a number 2 pencil is rewarded (a la Monday’s comic), while showing them how to think critically, be creative, and learn with real depth is discouraged. This is, by the way, to say nothing of the rampant teacher cheating that the system invites.

Sadly, the stories of the machine’s latest victims – New York City’s teachers and students – seem unlikely to meaningfully diminish the bureaucrats’ heavy-handed influence on education.

The fact that local school boards and the DOE continue to defend rigid educator evaluation based on standardized testing shows that today’s educational bureaucracies are totally out of touch with reality (at best).

For years, it has been plainly obvious that standardized tests are a dreadfully inadequate way of measuring how much students have actually learned. It should follow, then, that using them to measure teacher performance is downright stupid.

Why on earth are we still doing this?