3 ms·

> I've yet to see any evidence that more advanced curriculums ultimately result in a smarter, better workforce. Nobody is going to do a study where they change

by cbhl 9y ago

> I've yet to see any evidence that more advanced curriculums ultimately result in a smarter, better workforce. Nobody is going to do a study where they change something for a 5-year-old and see the impact twenty or thirty years later. Studies on education focus on specific, measurable outcomes at most three to five years out -- for example, seeing the impact on a cohort between Grade 3 and Grade 6, or measuring the percentage of students that "go on to college", or "graduate with a Bachelor's", or "had a job within 6 and 12 months of graduating". Basically, you measure things that you can measure, even if they're imperfect measures of "I want to make the world a better place".

wahern 9y ago
> Basically, you measure things that you can measure, even if they're imperfect measures of "I want to make the world a better place". Yes, of course. But the question is precisely about the significance of what we're measuring, and the conclusions we can draw. The current derisive narrative is that American schools teach to the test. The article points out that despite test scores staying the same or getting stronger, the opinion of American schools has stayed the same or dropped. Part of the narrative is that the tests are too narrowly focused (which, as you point out, isn't a coincidence or for lack of effort). This derision is echoed by the poster I replied to. At the same time, the poster points to PISA test scores. But as I pointed out, the PISA is just another multiple-choice test and, AFAICT, fairly subject to all the same criticisms as the American standardized test. Basically, the whole debate--national and international--suffers from confusion, ignorance, and in some cases outright irrationality. (I do not mean to imply anything about the poster to whom I replied.) On the one hand we have more data points than ever. On the other hand there's little data about what all this new data is actually telling us, if anything, about the quality of our citizenry and workforce. But given what we do know, such as how quickly a skills gap can be bridged, all other things equal, or how critical it is to develop both knowledge acquisition skills and opportunity, there's reason to believe that a lot of the data--particularly the standardized test data--is meaningless at the macro scale and in isolation. Much like nutritional science, I think we'd all do well to emphasize how little we actually know. As it currently stands we're merely weaponizing data in contexts where we have little reason to believe it has significant meaning. That doesn't mean gathering that data is pointless; just that it might not be as easily applied as we'd like.

by cbhl 9y ago

wahern 9y ago

> Basically, you measure things that you can measure, even if they're imperfect measures of "I want to make the world a better place". Yes, of course. But the question is precisely about the significance of what we're measuring, and the conclusions we can draw. The current derisive narrative is that American schools teach to the test. The article points out that despite test scores staying the same or getting stronger, the opinion of American schools has stayed the same or dropped. Part of the narrative is that the tests are too narrowly focused (which, as you point out, isn't a coincidence or for lack of effort). This derision is echoed by the poster I replied to. At the same time, the poster points to PISA test scores. But as I pointed out, the PISA is just another multiple-choice test and, AFAICT, fairly subject to all the same criticisms as the American standardized test. Basically, the whole debate--national and international--suffers from confusion, ignorance, and in some cases outright irrationality. (I do not mean to imply anything about the poster to whom I replied.) On the one hand we have more data points than ever. On the other hand there's little data about what all this new data is actually telling us, if anything, about the quality of our citizenry and workforce. But given what we do know, such as how quickly a skills gap can be bridged, all other things equal, or how critical it is to develop both knowledge acquisition skills and opportunity, there's reason to believe that a lot of the data--particularly the standardized test data--is meaningless at the macro scale and in isolation. Much like nutritional science, I think we'd all do well to emphasize how little we actually know. As it currently stands we're merely weaponizing data in contexts where we have little reason to believe it has significant meaning. That doesn't mean gathering that data is pointless; just that it might not be as easily applied as we'd like.