I just read this today (click me to read)and thought it was interesting. We can see tensions between the learner and society when the author writes, "It is entirely possible for students to fail tests on such topics and still have, for example, the mathematical abilities or historical knowledge we want." Who is "we"?
The author doesn't seem to believe that we need to eliminate standardized testing necessarily. However he does seem to believe that we need to change and evaluate our reaction to poor scores. Interesting and shallow argument because it doesn't take anything else into consideration such as who is failing these tests, the politics surrounding standardized testing, or even the learner's own decision on what is important to learn. He writes, "We may also eventually need to think the unthinkable: that some students may simply be incapable of learning at the level we would like."
What do you think?
Students at Sherman Institute, 1919. Courtesy Sherman Indian High School, Riverside CA.
2 comments:
Great find, Martin. And great question: who is the "we"?
I think when we look at educational institutions as something so crucial in our early development, we can't deny the correlation it has with the nature of society. With that being said, the institutions of education really do need to make drastic changes in their priorities. I think a first stage in this is to examine the origin of educational institutions. I think it's crucial to see whether or not education has changed in response to, or in an effort to change society and has it changed since then? Information and the opportunities to learn outside of school are so numerous in today's world that the idea of school may become outdated.
Post a Comment