Discussions
on public school education are far more likely to focus on statistics now than
such a dialogue would have twenty years ago. At some point amid the
conversations of facts and figures one may hear a faint, cautionary reference
to DRIP – Data Rich, Information Poor. One of my favorite authors, Malcolm
Gladwell, wrote the following in his best seller, Blink:
“The key to decision making is not knowledge.
It is understanding. We are swimming in the former. We are desperately lacking
in the latter.”
I am not
averse to developing metrics to gauge progress toward stated goals. But, the
tremendous amount of data collected by countless people and organizations in
their quest to measure the status of public school education does not
necessarily translate into practical information that can leverage success. The
mere existence of a mountain of data does not move us ahead in our efforts, and
perhaps confuses and constricts our direction. It is information and
understanding that we desire, not inert data fueling swirling rhetoric wielded
by those not charged with applying strategies designed to improve performance
levels.
I wonder if
we have charged forward without a clear understanding of what our objective is.
We can probably all agree that we want better schools and there is no lack of
critics of public schools, but the disagreement begins at the definition of
what “better” means. Is it high school graduations rates? College acceptance
rates? Overall grade point averages? Scores of state assessments? Is it better
when everyone succeeds at pre-determined standards of performance (albeit
within a society that subscribes to the bell shape curve to
define/discriminate?)
What is “better”?
More importantly, who decides the meaning of “better”?
The results
of the Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) scores in math
and science are typically employed to demonstrate that the US lags behind their
industrialized nations in educational output. That is but one measure, but
certainly one shared by those decrying the current state of public school
education in our country. If that is the measure of “better” then we must
re-direct our focus and subsequent strategies. And, to a large extent we have,
with No Child Left Behind and Race To The Top and the myriad assessments and
accountability measures (as much as one can glean from a fill-in-the-bubble
test format) that have emerged in their wake.
But, what if
we reframed the way we measure “better”? What if we opted for an impartially
determined form of measurement rather than one that may evolve from a political
or philosophical or financial basis? One that wasn’t designed to affirm someone’s
prefixed values or interests.
What if instead
of using the TIMMS we used another world-wide measure of excellence? One that
speaks to our viability as a nation to sustain progress and contend with future
social, economic, technological, and political challenges?
What if we
examined and valued contributions made each year in the best interests of
mankind and used that guideline as a yardstick of our expansive educational
system involving all stages and ages– from public, private, parochial, and home-schooled
enterprises; from pre-K through PhD? For example, what if we identified the
following areas:
"the most
important discovery or invention within the field of physics;
the most
important chemical discovery or
improvement;
the most
important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine;
the person
who shall have produced in the field of literature
the most outstanding work in an ideal direction;
the most important
breakthrough in economics
and, finally,
the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between
nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding
and promotion of peace;"
What would
you say about that form of measurement to assess overall educational outputs?
Well, you
might say we already have those parameters in place. In fact, except for
economics which was added as a prize in 1968, the world has already attached a
fair amount of significance to these very same standards and criteria in the
form of the Nobel Prize awards.
Here’s the
text of the will of Alfred Nobel that served in 1901 as the foundation of these
prestigious honors that are sources of national pride and financial windfalls
of the recipients.
"The whole of my remaining realizable estate
shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe
securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which
shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the
preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said
interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as
follows: one part to the person who shall have made; one part to the person who
shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part
to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the
domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have
produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal
direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best
work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing
armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
Now, let’s
look at how the US ranks in these vital areas of critical importance to our future.
Nobel Prizes by Country (we’ll examine
several large European/Asian nations)
France 65
Germany 101
United Kingdom 119
Russia 27
China
8
India 7
South Korea 1
Japan 20
Total 348
Wow!!! That’s a lot of Nobel Prize awards!!
In fact, that collective amount from several of the
largest nations in the world is only ten more than what the US has earned alone
by its distinguished citizens and graduates.
USA 338
I wonder how the recipients of these outstanding
awards think of the rigid and frequent fill-in-the-bubble assessments that our
politicians promote and our children must endure to prove their competence. I wonder what the 1921 Nobel
Prize winner in Physics would think –
“Imagination is more important than knowledge.” Alfred Einstein, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1921
No comments:
Post a Comment