How many of us really appreciate that education is not counting? In my experience, there certainly aren't enough parents aware that education is not counting. There aren't even enough willing to question why all the counting and I argue strongly that, all the counting counts for nothing. But, enough of this, let me make my point.
With few exceptions, wherever you choose to look across the globe, governments are wanting to reform the education systems they fund and oversee and they are doing so based mainly on one objective, improving the stats. The belief is, if parents (consumers according to many) are given performance data, they will have all they require to choose the best school for their child. (Whatever that means!)
Wherever you look in our education system, it is evident that counting has assumed great significance. In fact, taken on the strength of this argument, the statistics should tell the lay person all they need to know about which teachers, schools and most recently Local Authorities are doing best. The truth is, this is not the case. The tragedy is the ease with which judgements are made and their unquestioned acceptance.
In their informative, though provoking book, "Numbers", by David Boyle and Anita Rodick, Goodhart's Law is quoted. It casts a more sober light on the subject of statistics and how data collection is not all it purports to be.
"Goodhart's law states that once a social or economic measure is turned into a target for policy, it will lose any information content that had qualified it to play such a role in the first place."
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ws/the_importance_of_goodharts_law/
Another interesting site that explores the issue of targets in education can be found at:
http://philebersole.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/goodharts-law-on-not-going-by-the-numbers/
Dr W Edwards Deming the renowned management consultant with a particular focus on quality and statistical methods, put forward his 14 Points in "Out of the Crisis".
"The (14) points cultivate a fertile soil in which a more efficient workplace, higher profits, and increased productivity may grow.
I found it a useful exercise to consider how these points might be applied at schools' level, as clarified in some instances by the bracketed additions. Instantly, I identified the potential benefits of adopting this approach to raising standards over the current "improvement" model.
SATs, National League Tables and Ofsted Reports are all methods of collecting and comparing data to track targets from the individual through to the Local Authority. All this takes place at the expense of educational achievement, not to improve it, as the reasons identified above indicate. I cannot overstate the importance of assessment in raising standards. Neither can I overstate the confusion that arises out of conflating assessment with testing. Testing is about prioritising targets because that is how the culture of target setting is perceived by teachers, or doctors or production-line workers. For teachers, this has the potential to distort the core function of education because of the inevitable consequence of greatly inflating the value of testing.
Let me explain why I believe all this counting is suppressing rather than raising standards. Firstly, though there is value in testing secondary school pupils (at some point), it can never be a substitute for good formative assessment with younger learners who need consistent and reliable feedback. Secondly, summative assessment (testing) used too early introduces the notion of failure for some learners who may well require longer to master certain key skills or knowledge. Finally, children can be put at risk of exposure to a narrow subject-driven curriculum where testing counts for so much, thus denying them opportunities to explore their innate abilities.
In their informative, though provoking book, "Numbers", by David Boyle and Anita Rodick, Goodhart's Law is quoted. It casts a more sober light on the subject of statistics and how data collection is not all it purports to be.
"Goodhart's law states that once a social or economic measure is turned into a target for policy, it will lose any information content that had qualified it to play such a role in the first place."
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ws/the_importance_of_goodharts_law/
Another interesting site that explores the issue of targets in education can be found at:
http://philebersole.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/goodharts-law-on-not-going-by-the-numbers/
Dr W Edwards Deming the renowned management consultant with a particular focus on quality and statistical methods, put forward his 14 Points in "Out of the Crisis".
"The (14) points cultivate a fertile soil in which a more efficient workplace, higher profits, and increased productivity may grow.
- Create and communicate to all employees a statement of the aims and purposes of the company (school/education).
- Adapt to the new philosophy of the day; industries and economics are always changing. (As is our understanding of how we learn.)
- Build quality into a product (child) throughout production (learning).
- End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag alone; instead, try a long-term relationship based on established loyalty and trust.(Local Authorities??)
- Work to constantly improve quality and productivity (more effective learning).
- Institute on-the-job training.
- Teach and institute leadership to improve all job functions.
- Drive out fear; create trust.
- Strive to reduce intradepartmental conflicts. (Team building/collaboration)
- Eliminate exhortations for the work force; instead, focus on the system and morale.
- (a) Eliminate work standard quotas for production. Substitute
leadership methods for improvement.
(b) Eliminate MBO. Avoid numerical goals. Alternatively, learn the capabilities of processes, and how to improve them. (Focus on learning and understanding not tests) - Remove barriers that rob people of pride of workmanship.
- Educate with self-improvement programs.
- Include everyone in the company to accomplish the transformation."
http://www.skymark.com/resources/leaders/deming.asp
I found it a useful exercise to consider how these points might be applied at schools' level, as clarified in some instances by the bracketed additions. Instantly, I identified the potential benefits of adopting this approach to raising standards over the current "improvement" model.
SATs, National League Tables and Ofsted Reports are all methods of collecting and comparing data to track targets from the individual through to the Local Authority. All this takes place at the expense of educational achievement, not to improve it, as the reasons identified above indicate. I cannot overstate the importance of assessment in raising standards. Neither can I overstate the confusion that arises out of conflating assessment with testing. Testing is about prioritising targets because that is how the culture of target setting is perceived by teachers, or doctors or production-line workers. For teachers, this has the potential to distort the core function of education because of the inevitable consequence of greatly inflating the value of testing.
Let me explain why I believe all this counting is suppressing rather than raising standards. Firstly, though there is value in testing secondary school pupils (at some point), it can never be a substitute for good formative assessment with younger learners who need consistent and reliable feedback. Secondly, summative assessment (testing) used too early introduces the notion of failure for some learners who may well require longer to master certain key skills or knowledge. Finally, children can be put at risk of exposure to a narrow subject-driven curriculum where testing counts for so much, thus denying them opportunities to explore their innate abilities.
I have a grandson, just turned seven, who has experience of being educated in England and California over the last four years. I have witnessed, in both systems, the misrepresentation by the relevant authorities of what secures lasting achievement. It is not about memory, even though that plays a crucial role in all learning, including passing tests at appropriate times. Neither is about knowing 'the' answers, because that suggests the 'right' questions have been asked and that there aren't other questions that may be equally as important to the learner and that 'right' answers tell us something useful.
However, I believe it has everything to do with beginnings, opportunities, provision and understanding.
However, I believe it has everything to do with beginnings, opportunities, provision and understanding.
All the evidence points to the negative impact of socioeconomic factors on early learning. Some children come from backgrounds where their opportunities to experience stability and find stimulation are severely constrained because of poor parenting skills. Depending on where a child is brought up there may be provision of good local support services to begin tackling some of these inequalities and they may have access to effective schooling. Also, it will be to any child's advantage if the school s/he attends understands the importance of the early years foundation stage and resists all pressures to introduce learning opportunities that are inappropriate to the child's age and stage. It is suggested by some observers that an increasing proportion of young adults see learning as a means of passing a test to reach the next level, rather than as a opportunity for personal growth. If this is so, we should all be concerned and question whether a culture of over-testing contributes to this trend.
So, What Does Count?
In the final analysis, I would like to emphasise, parents count and they always have. The children and young people also count. Society, by way of its civilising influence, counts. Educational professionals count and, finally, the future counts. We have a responsibility to stop counting what arguably doesn't count for very much and to make what counts really count!
No comments:
Post a Comment