I am on a two-week vacation, driving cross-country with my wife to spend time with family in Seattle. In my absence, I have dug into the archives and pulled up some reruns for you. Though what I most suggest is that you check out the blogroll on the right side of the page. There are some outstanding bloggers, and if there are some folks you've never sampled, there's no day like today.
Don't think for a minute that I'm not happy to have the career I have. It is the best job in the world.
Dancing into the Apocalypse
Or, Why the World of Public Education Has Never Been Worse, and Why I'm Excited To Be a Teacher Anyway.
A Not Quitting Letter
The "why I'm quitting" letter is its on genre. Here's my imagined alternative.
I Love My Job
Well, I do. And I don't apologize for it.
Friday, July 22, 2016
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Sass (7/21)
I am on a two-week vacation, driving cross-country with my wife to spend time with family in Seattle. In my absence, I have dug into the archives and pulled up some reruns for you. Though what I most suggest is that you check out the blogroll on the right side of the page. There are some outstanding bloggers, and if there are some folks you've never sampled, there's no day like today.
Sometimes what's called for is mockery and sass.
Common Core Hospital
My name is Nurse Duncan. Welcome to Common Core Hospital.
The Charter Life
Charter fans say that everyone wants choices. Let's talk to a man who really leaned in to that idea.
A Peek at CCSS 2.0
Sometimes what's called for is mockery and sass.
Common Core Hospital
My name is Nurse Duncan. Welcome to Common Core Hospital.
The Charter Life
Charter fans say that everyone wants choices. Let's talk to a man who really leaned in to that idea.
A Peek at CCSS 2.0
What Common Core might have become if it hadn't just plain died.
Directory of Anti-Teacher Trolls
It's important to be able to identify these folks in the wild. Just sayin'
Directory of Anti-Teacher Trolls
It's important to be able to identify these folks in the wild. Just sayin'
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Reformster Calls for Attack on Unions
You may not have heard of Peter Cook, but reformsters like him are a dime a dozen these days. Well, not a dime. They're considerably more expensive than that.
Cook likes to bill himself as a former teacher. Can you guess what his teaching experience is? Yes, in 2002, right after he graduated from Washington and Lee University with a BA in European History, he put in two years with Teach for America. A few years later he put in a year teaching math at a KIPP charter. The rest of his career has ben as a consultanty expert with groups like The New Teacher Project. Most recently he has worked as the "Engagement Manager" with Mass Insight Education, and he's been particularly active in New Orleans where he serves on the DFER Lousianna board. So yes-- he's an other one of the instant experts in education working hard to get those public tax dollars into private pockets.
Cook, like most of the DFER (Democrats Faux Education Reform) crowd, is concerned about Hillary Clinton's possible apostasy. First, some of Bernie Sander's delegates to the platform committee managed to add some language that dramatically broadened the definition of a bad charter school-- broad enough that the definition is now "most of them." Then, while addressing the gathering of the AFT, Clinton spoke as if maybe she had actually read the final platform and was going along with it.
DFER and like-minded folks went into panic mode. And Cook is now here to say that they are right to do so. Like many, he has been saying all along that Clinton could be trusted to make some placatory noises, but under it all she would remain loyal to the True Charter Faith. Now he believes he was wrong about her.
First she said that charters don't take hard-to-teach children. Next she said that poor students are hurt the most by testing. She even promised teachers a seat at the table.
Cook's hand-wringing is a study in how different things look from different vantage points. The hard-to-teach kids thing? Not really news. (See also, Success Academy's Got To Go list.) The link between poverty and test results is so well-documented that I didn't think anyone denied it any more. And Clinton's offer of a seat at the table has prompted widespread teacher observations on the order of, "It's our damn table, thanks."
But Cook is also one of those reformsters who believes all opposition to charter schools and other reforms can be traced to just one source:
I’m not as worried about Clinton’s education policy statements as I am about the weakened position of reformers vis-à-vis the teachers unions, both within the Democratic Party and Clinton’s inner circle.
I've heard many times the tale of how poor benighted billionaires like Eli Broad need to create their networks of political operatives and high-priced websites because they are so outgunned by anti-reform forces, by which they usually mean the unions. Cook goes far in his explanation of how this union conspiracy is laid (and is busy stealing the Democratic Party from refomsters). It is a fascinating view of the world in the sense that it's just so different from the reality readily visible to the rest of us.
He ties NEA and AFT to Harold Ickes and David Brock. Then he goes on to show connections between the unions and the Center for American Progress-- which is something that any pro-public ed advocates hold up as a criticism of the unions, because I don't think Cook has ever had a reform thought in his short life that CAP wouldn't agree with.
But Cook is not really arguing about the value of policy or the educational merits of reformster vs. union ideas. He's arguing the tactics of money and power.
Cook has chart upon chart showing where NEA and AFT spread money around. And he ultimately argues that while Clinton is still a good choice, reformsters need to get back on the offensive:
But we shouldn’t hang our hat on the idea that Clinton will eventually come around to our side once in the White House. Reformers need to move aggressively to fight for the gains we’ve made in states across the country, which the teachers unions are already furiously trying to undo. We need to build a solid bloc of reform supporters within the apparatus of the Democratic Party. And, we need to reclaim the conversation about public education from the teachers unions. In short, we need to get out of the defensive posture we’ve assumed in recent years and once again go on the offensive.
Here are several things that Peter Cook does not seem to know.
DFER is fake.
Go back and read Whitney Tilson's explanation of how they decided to put the D in DFER is an attempt to burrow into the Democratic Party and make them more tractable-- like the GOP. There's no Democratic principles at play here, and indeed, Cook never pretends that there are. DFER is simply an attempt to grab power within the party.
The unions have been terrible reform opponents.
For those of us on the public school side of the education debates, the notion that all opposition to reform comes from the unions is kind of hilarious. The unions embraced Common Core and still can't be induced to officially criticize it. The unions had to be dragged kicking and screaming by members into even the mildest criticism of Reformster Hero Arne Duncan. The unions have been weak in opposition to charters.
I will give reformsters some advice for free. Guys, if you think your main opponents are the unions, that could help explain why you have been losing ground. It's like either side in WWII saying, "What we really need to do is attack Switzerland."
About that defensive posture...
Cook likes to bill himself as a former teacher. Can you guess what his teaching experience is? Yes, in 2002, right after he graduated from Washington and Lee University with a BA in European History, he put in two years with Teach for America. A few years later he put in a year teaching math at a KIPP charter. The rest of his career has ben as a consultanty expert with groups like The New Teacher Project. Most recently he has worked as the "Engagement Manager" with Mass Insight Education, and he's been particularly active in New Orleans where he serves on the DFER Lousianna board. So yes-- he's an other one of the instant experts in education working hard to get those public tax dollars into private pockets.
Cook, like most of the DFER (Democrats Faux Education Reform) crowd, is concerned about Hillary Clinton's possible apostasy. First, some of Bernie Sander's delegates to the platform committee managed to add some language that dramatically broadened the definition of a bad charter school-- broad enough that the definition is now "most of them." Then, while addressing the gathering of the AFT, Clinton spoke as if maybe she had actually read the final platform and was going along with it.
DFER and like-minded folks went into panic mode. And Cook is now here to say that they are right to do so. Like many, he has been saying all along that Clinton could be trusted to make some placatory noises, but under it all she would remain loyal to the True Charter Faith. Now he believes he was wrong about her.
First she said that charters don't take hard-to-teach children. Next she said that poor students are hurt the most by testing. She even promised teachers a seat at the table.
Cook's hand-wringing is a study in how different things look from different vantage points. The hard-to-teach kids thing? Not really news. (See also, Success Academy's Got To Go list.) The link between poverty and test results is so well-documented that I didn't think anyone denied it any more. And Clinton's offer of a seat at the table has prompted widespread teacher observations on the order of, "It's our damn table, thanks."
But Cook is also one of those reformsters who believes all opposition to charter schools and other reforms can be traced to just one source:
I’m not as worried about Clinton’s education policy statements as I am about the weakened position of reformers vis-à-vis the teachers unions, both within the Democratic Party and Clinton’s inner circle.
I've heard many times the tale of how poor benighted billionaires like Eli Broad need to create their networks of political operatives and high-priced websites because they are so outgunned by anti-reform forces, by which they usually mean the unions. Cook goes far in his explanation of how this union conspiracy is laid (and is busy stealing the Democratic Party from refomsters). It is a fascinating view of the world in the sense that it's just so different from the reality readily visible to the rest of us.
He ties NEA and AFT to Harold Ickes and David Brock. Then he goes on to show connections between the unions and the Center for American Progress-- which is something that any pro-public ed advocates hold up as a criticism of the unions, because I don't think Cook has ever had a reform thought in his short life that CAP wouldn't agree with.
But Cook is not really arguing about the value of policy or the educational merits of reformster vs. union ideas. He's arguing the tactics of money and power.
Cook has chart upon chart showing where NEA and AFT spread money around. And he ultimately argues that while Clinton is still a good choice, reformsters need to get back on the offensive:
But we shouldn’t hang our hat on the idea that Clinton will eventually come around to our side once in the White House. Reformers need to move aggressively to fight for the gains we’ve made in states across the country, which the teachers unions are already furiously trying to undo. We need to build a solid bloc of reform supporters within the apparatus of the Democratic Party. And, we need to reclaim the conversation about public education from the teachers unions. In short, we need to get out of the defensive posture we’ve assumed in recent years and once again go on the offensive.
Here are several things that Peter Cook does not seem to know.
DFER is fake.
Go back and read Whitney Tilson's explanation of how they decided to put the D in DFER is an attempt to burrow into the Democratic Party and make them more tractable-- like the GOP. There's no Democratic principles at play here, and indeed, Cook never pretends that there are. DFER is simply an attempt to grab power within the party.
The unions have been terrible reform opponents.
For those of us on the public school side of the education debates, the notion that all opposition to reform comes from the unions is kind of hilarious. The unions embraced Common Core and still can't be induced to officially criticize it. The unions had to be dragged kicking and screaming by members into even the mildest criticism of Reformster Hero Arne Duncan. The unions have been weak in opposition to charters.
I will give reformsters some advice for free. Guys, if you think your main opponents are the unions, that could help explain why you have been losing ground. It's like either side in WWII saying, "What we really need to do is attack Switzerland."
About that defensive posture...
Reformsters are in a defensive posture because their policies suck.
The opt out movement did not develop because the unions created it. It jumped up and spread because parents could see that the Big Standardized Tests were time-consuming soul-killing crap. Charter support has gotten soft because so many charters have embarrassed the movement by failing to accomplish any of their over-promised high-toned goals. Common Core only grew more obviously loathsome with familiarity. TFA's noble intentions have been worn down by sloppy arrogance. And even some reformsters have come to understand that a wholesale rejection of public schools and the teachers in them (as reformsters routinely did in the early offensive days) is neither useful nor reasonable nor likely to generate grass roots support.
After a decade of this stuff, what would have most helped reformsters stay out of defensive posture would be an exemplary win. Because...
It's not all politics
After a decade of this stuff, what would have most helped reformsters stay out of defensive posture would be an exemplary win. Because...
It's not all politics
I will not deny the efficacy of politics in getting policies created, promoted, and inflicted on the general population. But folks who spend too much time on politics become like folks who spend too much time on marketing-- they start to think that only process matters and the actual product that you're pushing is unimportant.
But at some point, you have to produce. Reformsters have not produced any notable educational successes at all, and that's a major obstacle to the success of their movement. Their major opposition is not another set of politicians using money and power to jockey for position-- their major opposition is all the people who have noticed that reformster policy ideas are lousy ideas.
Some solace
Cook can take some comfort in knowing that despite this apparent setback, the modern Democratic Party remains a group far more interested in the rich and powerful than in the concerns of ordinary working class Americans. The biggest irony in Cook's piece is that there is one thing that unites folks on both sides of the education debates. Mr. Cook, you may not trust Clinton very much at this point, but guess what? Neither do I.
But at some point, you have to produce. Reformsters have not produced any notable educational successes at all, and that's a major obstacle to the success of their movement. Their major opposition is not another set of politicians using money and power to jockey for position-- their major opposition is all the people who have noticed that reformster policy ideas are lousy ideas.
Some solace
Cook can take some comfort in knowing that despite this apparent setback, the modern Democratic Party remains a group far more interested in the rich and powerful than in the concerns of ordinary working class Americans. The biggest irony in Cook's piece is that there is one thing that unites folks on both sides of the education debates. Mr. Cook, you may not trust Clinton very much at this point, but guess what? Neither do I.
Competency Based Education (7/20)
I am on a two-week vacation, driving cross-country with my wife to spend time with family in Seattle. In my absence, I have dug into the archives and pulled up some reruns for you. Though what I most suggest is that you check out the blogroll on the right side of the page. There are some outstanding bloggers, and if there are some folks you've never sampled, there's no day like today.
It's poised to be the next big thing in education reform (even though it's a recycled old thing from twenty years ago.
What's So Bad About Competency Based Education?
Competency Based Education (or Proficiency Based Learning or Outcome Based Education) is the new rage, or perhaps the long-simmering pot that is currently coming to boil. Reformsters have shifted emphasis to it, and opponents have become increasingly vocal about it. Casual observers can be forgiven for getting the impression that reform opponents are just reflexively objecting to whatever reformsters like. If Bill Gates ate a cheese sandwich, would some of us be leading a "Keep cheese out of our schools" movement?
After all, is CBE really all that radical or different?
CBE: An Exemplar School
It's poised to be the next big thing in education reform (even though it's a recycled old thing from twenty years ago.
What's So Bad About Competency Based Education?
Competency Based Education (or Proficiency Based Learning or Outcome Based Education) is the new rage, or perhaps the long-simmering pot that is currently coming to boil. Reformsters have shifted emphasis to it, and opponents have become increasingly vocal about it. Casual observers can be forgiven for getting the impression that reform opponents are just reflexively objecting to whatever reformsters like. If Bill Gates ate a cheese sandwich, would some of us be leading a "Keep cheese out of our schools" movement?
After all, is CBE really all that radical or different?
CBE: An Exemplar School
When fans want to show how awesome CBE can be, they head to Alaska.
What is it supposed to be, exactly?
Here's an example of the sort of sales pitch we're going to be getting, and why it's bunk.
Twenty years ago we were all getting ready to do something that is suspiciously CBE-like. Here's why it dies the first time around.
I'm actually hopeful that CBE could be doomed. Here's where its fatal weaknesses are hiding.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
GOP Platform: Kiss Public Ed Goodbye
I took a look at the Democratic Party's platform, so it seems only fair that we look at what the GOP has to offer now that the document is available. Spoiler alert-- education is just a scruffy nerf-herder at the Mos Eisley café.
Prosperity is the product of self-discipline, enterprise, saving and investment by individuals, but it is not an end in itself. Prosperity provides the means by which citizens and their families can maintain their independence from government, raise their children by their own values, practice their faith, and build communities of cooperation and mutual respect.
So, two things to remember. First, if you're poor, it's because you lack a set of fundamental virtues. Second, if you're rich, that entitles you to live according to your own rules.
Those premises tell us a lot about what to expect on the subject of public education. But let's see what's actually there (not that Trump will feel bound by any of it, but just for curiosity's sake...)
Education: One Scent in a Stinky Potpourri
Education is rolled in with families, health care, and criminal justice. And the GOP immediately displays the pretzel-like knots they have tied themselves in by embracing both 1) a government that doesn't intrude anywhere and 2) a government that finds ways to make people live the way They Are Supposed To. So, the government should leave families alone and also, every child should have a mommy and a daddy.
The GOP thinks that poverty exists because progressive government puts "structural impediments" in the path of poor people, even though they said earlier that prosperity is the product of virtue. So confusion there.
On the other hand, in terms of education, the GOP opens with language that would be impressive if I thought they really meant it:
Education is much more than schooling. It is the whole range of activities by which families and communities transmit to a younger generation, not just knowledge and skills, but ethical and behavioral norms and traditions. It is the handing over of a cultural identity.
Which would sound pretty nice if the GOP had not made it clear that some cultural identities are more valuable than others.
The platform does go on to say that one size does not fit all, we should not get education standards from the UN, and school choice should be everywhere. And it recycles a paraphrase of the soft bigotry of low expectation.
On the other hand, the GOP says tests and teaching to the test are Bad Things. Except that "strong assessments" so that teachers can figure out how to teach-- those are Good Things. So roughly the same empty rhetoric as the original Dem platform.
Teachers shouldn't be sued frivolously, and they should be able to maintain discipline in their classroom. But they should be held accountable for student performance (even though people and presumably students too prosper--or don't-- based on personal virtues)
The GOP also wants the Bible back in school, and they believe that school districts should make use of teaching talent from the business community, STEM jobs and the military. So, anyone can be a teacher. And of course tenure ("rigid tenure") should be "replaced with a merit-based approach in order to attract the best talent to the classroom." This despite the fact that there is zero reason to believe such systems work.
The GOP is all about excellence, and not that stupid federal "throw money at education" excellence. They make the somewhat astonishing claim that "after years of trial and error, we know the policies and methods that have actually made a difference," so before the federal government gets out of the way of local control, it will announce which one size of policy and instruction will fit all schools. Their list of "must-do" policy? Choice, back to basics, STEM subjects, phonics, career and tech ed, no social promotion, merit pay, strong leadership from administrators and locally-elected school boards. We must assume that the GOP has special inside scoop, since out here in the real world, most of those items have not proven to be successful at all.
The GOP wants all this excellence cheaply because we spend too much on education (other people's) children. Choice choice choice is the answer. Also, block grants so that states can distribute tax dollar largesse as they wish.
Also, because the GOP is the party of unintrusive small government, and they understand that education is about passing on a community's culture, they would like all schools to teach English First. Also, the only sex ed program that should be used is abstinence only. Because intrusive government is bad.
So telling students only about abstinence is Good, but campus policies about "political correctness" are bad. Students and schools should be free to talk about any of the things that the GOP-run government says it's okay for them to talk about.
Meanwhile, college is too expensive and that would be fixed if private sec tor lenders had a chance to make money from college loans.
And as if the platform weren't signal enough, the nomination of Governor Pence for VP is a super-strong signal, as Pence has spent the last few years signaling that he would like to do away with public education entirely.
Meanwhile, the Democrats did manage to make their platform marginally less rotten. But public education is not getting any new friends at the federal level Pay attention to your local elections.
Before we even get to direct statements about education, let's look at a not-unrelated premise statement that comes right up front.
Prosperity is the product of self-discipline, enterprise, saving and investment by individuals, but it is not an end in itself. Prosperity provides the means by which citizens and their families can maintain their independence from government, raise their children by their own values, practice their faith, and build communities of cooperation and mutual respect.
So, two things to remember. First, if you're poor, it's because you lack a set of fundamental virtues. Second, if you're rich, that entitles you to live according to your own rules.
Those premises tell us a lot about what to expect on the subject of public education. But let's see what's actually there (not that Trump will feel bound by any of it, but just for curiosity's sake...)
Education: One Scent in a Stinky Potpourri
Education is rolled in with families, health care, and criminal justice. And the GOP immediately displays the pretzel-like knots they have tied themselves in by embracing both 1) a government that doesn't intrude anywhere and 2) a government that finds ways to make people live the way They Are Supposed To. So, the government should leave families alone and also, every child should have a mommy and a daddy.
The GOP thinks that poverty exists because progressive government puts "structural impediments" in the path of poor people, even though they said earlier that prosperity is the product of virtue. So confusion there.
On the other hand, in terms of education, the GOP opens with language that would be impressive if I thought they really meant it:
Education is much more than schooling. It is the whole range of activities by which families and communities transmit to a younger generation, not just knowledge and skills, but ethical and behavioral norms and traditions. It is the handing over of a cultural identity.
Which would sound pretty nice if the GOP had not made it clear that some cultural identities are more valuable than others.
The platform does go on to say that one size does not fit all, we should not get education standards from the UN, and school choice should be everywhere. And it recycles a paraphrase of the soft bigotry of low expectation.
On the other hand, the GOP says tests and teaching to the test are Bad Things. Except that "strong assessments" so that teachers can figure out how to teach-- those are Good Things. So roughly the same empty rhetoric as the original Dem platform.
Teachers shouldn't be sued frivolously, and they should be able to maintain discipline in their classroom. But they should be held accountable for student performance (even though people and presumably students too prosper--or don't-- based on personal virtues)
The GOP also wants the Bible back in school, and they believe that school districts should make use of teaching talent from the business community, STEM jobs and the military. So, anyone can be a teacher. And of course tenure ("rigid tenure") should be "replaced with a merit-based approach in order to attract the best talent to the classroom." This despite the fact that there is zero reason to believe such systems work.
The GOP is all about excellence, and not that stupid federal "throw money at education" excellence. They make the somewhat astonishing claim that "after years of trial and error, we know the policies and methods that have actually made a difference," so before the federal government gets out of the way of local control, it will announce which one size of policy and instruction will fit all schools. Their list of "must-do" policy? Choice, back to basics, STEM subjects, phonics, career and tech ed, no social promotion, merit pay, strong leadership from administrators and locally-elected school boards. We must assume that the GOP has special inside scoop, since out here in the real world, most of those items have not proven to be successful at all.
The GOP wants all this excellence cheaply because we spend too much on education (other people's) children. Choice choice choice is the answer. Also, block grants so that states can distribute tax dollar largesse as they wish.
Also, because the GOP is the party of unintrusive small government, and they understand that education is about passing on a community's culture, they would like all schools to teach English First. Also, the only sex ed program that should be used is abstinence only. Because intrusive government is bad.
So telling students only about abstinence is Good, but campus policies about "political correctness" are bad. Students and schools should be free to talk about any of the things that the GOP-run government says it's okay for them to talk about.
Meanwhile, college is too expensive and that would be fixed if private sec tor lenders had a chance to make money from college loans.
And as if the platform weren't signal enough, the nomination of Governor Pence for VP is a super-strong signal, as Pence has spent the last few years signaling that he would like to do away with public education entirely.
Meanwhile, the Democrats did manage to make their platform marginally less rotten. But public education is not getting any new friends at the federal level Pay attention to your local elections.
Data (7/19)
I am on a two-week vacation, driving cross-country with my wife to spend time with family in Seattle. In my absence, I have dug into the archives and pulled up some reruns for you. Though what I most suggest is that you check out the blogroll on the right side of the page. There are some outstanding bloggers, and if there are some folks you've never sampled, there's no day like today.
The unending search for a better way to mine data.
Why the Standards Can't Be Uncoupled
What if the standards aren't really standards at all, but are really data tags.
Meet Knewton
The data-crunching wing of Pearson wants to tell you what to eat for breakfast.
Pearson's Vision for the World
Nobody loves data like Pearson loves data
Backpacks for Clueless Parents
The unending search for a better way to mine data.
Why the Standards Can't Be Uncoupled
What if the standards aren't really standards at all, but are really data tags.
Meet Knewton
The data-crunching wing of Pearson wants to tell you what to eat for breakfast.
Pearson's Vision for the World
Nobody loves data like Pearson loves data
Backpacks for Clueless Parents
More data, because parents are just so flippin' clueless
There are so many reasons to be opposed to the business of mining and crunching data. We like to rail about how the data miners are oppressive and Big Brothery and overreaching. But there's another point worth making about our Data Overlords:
Data miners are not very good at their job.
Data miners are not very good at their job.
Monday, July 18, 2016
Meat Widgets and the End of College
Learning Machine's website has the phrase "Build Intelligence" right there on their page, which gives you an idea of were they're coming from. But it's this post from Natalie Smolenski, "Cultural Anthropologist & Dedicated Account Manager at Learning Machine," that really captures just how deeply and fundamentally wrong this particular brand of education reform is.
In "A DSM for Achievement," Smolenski lays out how educated human beings can be produced just like toasters or wood screws. And do note-- the whole article is not just Smolenski whipping something up on her own, but spinning off of a speech by Arthur Levine, President of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, delivered as the keynote at the 2016 Parchment Conference on Innovating Academic Credentials. This is not just some insane notion from the fringes, but an insane notion that a lot of Really Important People are attached to.
Smolenski is holding up the DSM-- the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-- as an example of how it can be done, so first she has to deal with how lousy the DSM is at its job.
The DSM and Its Issues
So that she can establish it as a model, Smolenski raises and dismisses the following DSM issues.
1) It's highly subjective, subject to ongoing change and therefor imprecise and unstable.
The DSM has included at various times the "disorders" involved that lead to runaway slaves, uppity women, and homosexuality. In other words, it has been at least as reflective of subjective societal bias as it has been of any scientific truth. More specifically, it has been reflective of the biases of the people in charge of the DSM.
Smolenski's reply-- just because we can't do it perfectly doesn't mean that "it is impossible to gauge disturbances in psychological and emotional health in a systematic way." Really? Because I think that's exactly what it means. Smolenski suggests that it's a work in progress, with new societal biases pushing out the old ones, so that's cool. This is not a very supportive support. At the very least we could stop pretending that we've got some scientific solid catalog here that allows us to act with assured scientific certainty. I am sure the generations of black Americans, women, gays and lesbians who suffered for their disorders might agree.
2) The DSM is a lousy diagnostic tool because actual medical professionals still vary a great deal on interpretations of disorders and symptoms. That damn individual activity again.
Smolenski's reply-- Continued research and field tests are working to beat that bug out of the system.
3) The DSM is just a marketing tool for big pharma, big insurance, and the medical establishment that is set up to monetize the wide varieties of human experience and behavior.
Smolenski's reply-- Yeah, that's probably true, but, you know, things keep changing.
Smolenski tries to defend the DSM as a living document, and therefor a super model for a competency-based cataloging system for humans.
Who Will Determine Your Value
Because skills are only meaningful in social context, any given classification of skill is a provisional judgment of pragmatic value within an economy in which such values can be productively leveraged and exchanged. Moreover, because the kind of skill that credentials record is at root a unit of value that has been conferred to a particular individual or entity by another, it can be recorded in any ledger that records transactions of values.
In "A DSM for Achievement," Smolenski lays out how educated human beings can be produced just like toasters or wood screws. And do note-- the whole article is not just Smolenski whipping something up on her own, but spinning off of a speech by Arthur Levine, President of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, delivered as the keynote at the 2016 Parchment Conference on Innovating Academic Credentials. This is not just some insane notion from the fringes, but an insane notion that a lot of Really Important People are attached to.
Smolenski is holding up the DSM-- the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-- as an example of how it can be done, so first she has to deal with how lousy the DSM is at its job.
The DSM and Its Issues
So that she can establish it as a model, Smolenski raises and dismisses the following DSM issues.
1) It's highly subjective, subject to ongoing change and therefor imprecise and unstable.
The DSM has included at various times the "disorders" involved that lead to runaway slaves, uppity women, and homosexuality. In other words, it has been at least as reflective of subjective societal bias as it has been of any scientific truth. More specifically, it has been reflective of the biases of the people in charge of the DSM.
Smolenski's reply-- just because we can't do it perfectly doesn't mean that "it is impossible to gauge disturbances in psychological and emotional health in a systematic way." Really? Because I think that's exactly what it means. Smolenski suggests that it's a work in progress, with new societal biases pushing out the old ones, so that's cool. This is not a very supportive support. At the very least we could stop pretending that we've got some scientific solid catalog here that allows us to act with assured scientific certainty. I am sure the generations of black Americans, women, gays and lesbians who suffered for their disorders might agree.
2) The DSM is a lousy diagnostic tool because actual medical professionals still vary a great deal on interpretations of disorders and symptoms. That damn individual activity again.
Smolenski's reply-- Continued research and field tests are working to beat that bug out of the system.
3) The DSM is just a marketing tool for big pharma, big insurance, and the medical establishment that is set up to monetize the wide varieties of human experience and behavior.
Smolenski's reply-- Yeah, that's probably true, but, you know, things keep changing.
Smolenski tries to defend the DSM as a living document, and therefor a super model for a competency-based cataloging system for humans.
Who Will Determine Your Value
Because skills are only meaningful in social context, any given classification of skill is a provisional judgment of pragmatic value within an economy in which such values can be productively leveraged and exchanged. Moreover, because the kind of skill that credentials record is at root a unit of value that has been conferred to a particular individual or entity by another, it can be recorded in any ledger that records transactions of values.
Got that? As a human being, your particular skill set is only as valuable as someone else says it is (and that someone would have to be someone who can exchange something of value for it). Like, say, an employer. Your value as a human being is what an employer says it is.
Smolenski tries to expand on this point by bringing up bitcoins (bitcoins are part of Learning Machine's business). You remember bitcoins, and how they completely changed the way the economy works and pretty much did away with money by use of a super-cool computerized system? You don't remember that happening? Any day now. Really.
How Will This Be Awesome? Let's Count the Ways!
Not only will the shift toward a standardized, competency-based credentialing system allow us to address the social question of what constitutes skill with some consistency and reliability, but it will also decouple credentials from any particular institutional arrangement, in particular the over-reliance on university degrees as arbiters of skill.
I remained unconvinced that Smolenski is referring to a real problem. Where in society do we struggle with the question of what constitutes a skill with consistency and reliability? Fantasy football drafts? Yes, there are certainly people in the world who hate the mess and fuss of dealing with the variations and inconsistencies between the various meat widgets on the planet. "Why," these people ask, "can't humans be more like a toaster or a computer program, where one term always means exactly the same thing and individual humans always behave exactly the same way and humans can be plugged into systems easily and consistently without the system having to shift and accommodate all these variations within the supply of meat widgets?"
To these people, I say, "Grow the hell up." The complaint that Smolenski is trying to address is that human beings are too varied, too different, too inconsistent, too human. It is not a complaint I'm sympathetic to. Also, Smnolenski would like to do away with the whole university system of education and replace it with nice, clear, clean vocational training.
So anyway, what are the benefits of a standardized, competency-based human catalog system?
1) The problem of uneven quality of instruction across institutions.
Prof. Brainmountain at Harvard is doing great stuff in her classroom, while Prof. Dimbulb at Wottsamatta U is doing things differently. Smolenski correctly notes that the current system reinforces a "prestige-based economy" and that certain degrees get more heft because of where they're from (leading to wacky ideas like the notion that a graduate from a high-status school just needs five weeks training to become a better teacher than a person who studied teaching for four years at their less-prestigious college). It is hard to imagine how competency-based certification will change this. In fact, it's hard to imagine how any serious advanced studies can be reduced to a competency-based checklist of standardized skills. What would the checklist for a Art History degree with a concentration in International Studies look like? Who would develop such a list? And once we've made everyone meet the same checklist, will we have a world of grads who look like they came from a top-notch school, or a crappy one?
2) The problem of academic programs that are too broad to be useful to evaluators looking for particular skills.
Well, I'll give Smolendski credit for not saying exactly what she means, which is not "evaluators" but "employers." How are we supposed to know whether or not to hire a guy if his degree just says "computer science"?
The particular labor needs of a technology company cannot simply be mapped to “Computer Science graduates,” in the same way that a particular hospital’s needs cannot be mapped to “Natural Science graduates.”
Yup. A personnel department might have to actually read resumes and do interviews and actually talk to people they were thinking of hiring.
3) The problem of credits being non-transferable from country to country.
Millions of professionals around the world are prohibited from practicing their trades outside of the countries in which their credentials were conferred because other countries have no way of evaluating what skills those credentials entail. This results in massive losses of productivity and hinders international cooperation on vital issues. A standardized set of global definitions would render an already de facto mobile workforce empowered to practice wherever in the world they are.
Oh, did you think we were just talking about national standards? No, we're going to have an international catalog of meat widget skills, because otherwise how will corporations be able to shift production to whatever country suits their fancy?
4) The problem of (exclusively) top-down education models.
This may seem a had-scratcher at first. Wouldn't a big checklist of competencies be created in a top down manner? How else could it be created-- particularly when the list is being designed to cater to the needs of employers?
The problem for Levine and Smolenski is not that education is top down-- it's that they don't like who's at the top. The heierarchy of traditional education needs to be replaced. The list of competencies will appear, somehow (descended from a cloud? rising from a lake?) and students will collect those items on the list however they see fit. Kind of like Pokémon Go.
5) The problem of the purpose of the university.
Well, here she has a point. Of course, she is also part of the problem. Do you go to college to get an education or to get a job? Do you go to chart your own path, or to follow one laid out by other people? And all while racking up huge debt. Why do you have to go for a certain number of hours, years, days? What the hell is up with caps and gowns and stripes and tassels? Smnolenski's unstated implication remains as it has throughout-- couldn't we just solve the problem by doing away with colleges and universities entirely?
Smolenski goes on to acknowledge that her argument (and Levin's) is economic, and that there are people who make the humanistic argument for college as a journey of growth.
It seems clear that four years (or more) spent in a pedagogical and collegial environment that privileges critical thinking, intellectual and interpersonal experimentation, and friendship-building can be profoundly valuable and transformative, not only personally and interpersonally, but also rendering the student a more innovative and effective professional.
But it's expensive, and employers have indicated that such personal growth "often occurs at the expense of or with disregard for building employable skills." So being a well-rounded human being or employable corporate tool-- you can't necessarily be both. And if Smolenski really believes that, then how does she not also raise the question of what could be so terribly, awfully wrong with our current society that you must choose between being a decent fully-grown actualized human being or an employable meat-widget.
Is this not one more way to distinguish between the rich and poor who exist on opposite sides of a terrible gulf-- that only the rich get to be human beings and make a living, but the poor must choose between living full human lives and being useful meat widgets judged worthy of pay by their corporate masters.
Here Come the Toasters
The MIT Media Lab and Learning Machine are rolling out an open source block-chain based meat widget credentialling program in which credentials are kind of like bitcoins, which is intended to lead us to a DSM-styled catalog of skills. (And they aren't the only ones-- the Lumina Foundation is working on the same thing.) Unconfined by university programs, the credentials will let perspective employers know exactly what they are getting and for the love of God, are you kidding me??!! On what planet does a personnel director say, "I don't need to interview anybody. This guy's credential badge list matches exactly the skills profile for the job, so hire him." On what planet does the credentialing list stay ahead of new developments within the industries-- how do you set up credentialing this year for job skills that won't exist till next year? And how do you reduce any job more complex than browning a slice of brad to a list of credentialed skills that can be easily measured and certified?
There are two problems with this system.
One is that it can't be done. You cannot reduce jobs of any complexity whatsoever to a checklist of skills that can themselves be measured and certified. The demand to create that easily measured checklist will force the credential creators to skip over the more complex skills, which means that personnel directors will be right back to dealing with messy variable human interaction. Not to mention the subjective human bias embedded in each credentials list.
Go back to the DSM problems list-- every one of those is a clear explanation of why Smolenski's system cannot be created in any useful way that corporate hiring departments will actually use. And those are the only people for whom this system is useful! Which brings us to the second problem--
This should not be done. Even if somehow every obstacle could be overcome, it shouldn't be. Because the "obstacles" are basically the humanity of the people involved.
This is a system designed for the convenience and service of corporate bosses. Nobody else is served by such a system. Fans will say that future employees are served, but they are "served" only in the sense that such a system would make it easier for them to see how to better please their corporate overlords.
This competency-based meat widget catalog system is the clearest, most obvious version yet of how to retool our entire education system so that it serves the needs of corporate bosses-- and nobody else. This is a system that looks at the difficult tension between the needs of a corporate system and the needs of actual live human beings and says that we must tilt everything toward the corporations. This is a system that says when we find we've created a world in which humanity and the whole structure of power and wealth are in constant conflict, the solution is less humanity.
I said above that these folks need to grow up, and I mean it-- this is also the system of an eight year old, a child who is angry that the other children will not follow the rules as that child understands them, and so that child kicks and screams and demands that somebody make those other children behave The Way They Are Supposed To.
This is about standardizing human beings on a global scale so that meat widgets are more easily identifiable and interchangeable and do what they're supposed to. This is about treating human beings as if they are a product for corporate consumption.
This, in short, is a lousy idea.
To these people, I say, "Grow the hell up." The complaint that Smolenski is trying to address is that human beings are too varied, too different, too inconsistent, too human. It is not a complaint I'm sympathetic to. Also, Smnolenski would like to do away with the whole university system of education and replace it with nice, clear, clean vocational training.
So anyway, what are the benefits of a standardized, competency-based human catalog system?
1) The problem of uneven quality of instruction across institutions.
Prof. Brainmountain at Harvard is doing great stuff in her classroom, while Prof. Dimbulb at Wottsamatta U is doing things differently. Smolenski correctly notes that the current system reinforces a "prestige-based economy" and that certain degrees get more heft because of where they're from (leading to wacky ideas like the notion that a graduate from a high-status school just needs five weeks training to become a better teacher than a person who studied teaching for four years at their less-prestigious college). It is hard to imagine how competency-based certification will change this. In fact, it's hard to imagine how any serious advanced studies can be reduced to a competency-based checklist of standardized skills. What would the checklist for a Art History degree with a concentration in International Studies look like? Who would develop such a list? And once we've made everyone meet the same checklist, will we have a world of grads who look like they came from a top-notch school, or a crappy one?
2) The problem of academic programs that are too broad to be useful to evaluators looking for particular skills.
Well, I'll give Smolendski credit for not saying exactly what she means, which is not "evaluators" but "employers." How are we supposed to know whether or not to hire a guy if his degree just says "computer science"?
The particular labor needs of a technology company cannot simply be mapped to “Computer Science graduates,” in the same way that a particular hospital’s needs cannot be mapped to “Natural Science graduates.”
Yup. A personnel department might have to actually read resumes and do interviews and actually talk to people they were thinking of hiring.
3) The problem of credits being non-transferable from country to country.
Millions of professionals around the world are prohibited from practicing their trades outside of the countries in which their credentials were conferred because other countries have no way of evaluating what skills those credentials entail. This results in massive losses of productivity and hinders international cooperation on vital issues. A standardized set of global definitions would render an already de facto mobile workforce empowered to practice wherever in the world they are.
Oh, did you think we were just talking about national standards? No, we're going to have an international catalog of meat widget skills, because otherwise how will corporations be able to shift production to whatever country suits their fancy?
4) The problem of (exclusively) top-down education models.
This may seem a had-scratcher at first. Wouldn't a big checklist of competencies be created in a top down manner? How else could it be created-- particularly when the list is being designed to cater to the needs of employers?
The problem for Levine and Smolenski is not that education is top down-- it's that they don't like who's at the top. The heierarchy of traditional education needs to be replaced. The list of competencies will appear, somehow (descended from a cloud? rising from a lake?) and students will collect those items on the list however they see fit. Kind of like Pokémon Go.
5) The problem of the purpose of the university.
Well, here she has a point. Of course, she is also part of the problem. Do you go to college to get an education or to get a job? Do you go to chart your own path, or to follow one laid out by other people? And all while racking up huge debt. Why do you have to go for a certain number of hours, years, days? What the hell is up with caps and gowns and stripes and tassels? Smnolenski's unstated implication remains as it has throughout-- couldn't we just solve the problem by doing away with colleges and universities entirely?
Smolenski goes on to acknowledge that her argument (and Levin's) is economic, and that there are people who make the humanistic argument for college as a journey of growth.
It seems clear that four years (or more) spent in a pedagogical and collegial environment that privileges critical thinking, intellectual and interpersonal experimentation, and friendship-building can be profoundly valuable and transformative, not only personally and interpersonally, but also rendering the student a more innovative and effective professional.
But it's expensive, and employers have indicated that such personal growth "often occurs at the expense of or with disregard for building employable skills." So being a well-rounded human being or employable corporate tool-- you can't necessarily be both. And if Smolenski really believes that, then how does she not also raise the question of what could be so terribly, awfully wrong with our current society that you must choose between being a decent fully-grown actualized human being or an employable meat-widget.
Is this not one more way to distinguish between the rich and poor who exist on opposite sides of a terrible gulf-- that only the rich get to be human beings and make a living, but the poor must choose between living full human lives and being useful meat widgets judged worthy of pay by their corporate masters.
Here Come the Toasters
The MIT Media Lab and Learning Machine are rolling out an open source block-chain based meat widget credentialling program in which credentials are kind of like bitcoins, which is intended to lead us to a DSM-styled catalog of skills. (And they aren't the only ones-- the Lumina Foundation is working on the same thing.) Unconfined by university programs, the credentials will let perspective employers know exactly what they are getting and for the love of God, are you kidding me??!! On what planet does a personnel director say, "I don't need to interview anybody. This guy's credential badge list matches exactly the skills profile for the job, so hire him." On what planet does the credentialing list stay ahead of new developments within the industries-- how do you set up credentialing this year for job skills that won't exist till next year? And how do you reduce any job more complex than browning a slice of brad to a list of credentialed skills that can be easily measured and certified?
There are two problems with this system.
One is that it can't be done. You cannot reduce jobs of any complexity whatsoever to a checklist of skills that can themselves be measured and certified. The demand to create that easily measured checklist will force the credential creators to skip over the more complex skills, which means that personnel directors will be right back to dealing with messy variable human interaction. Not to mention the subjective human bias embedded in each credentials list.
Go back to the DSM problems list-- every one of those is a clear explanation of why Smolenski's system cannot be created in any useful way that corporate hiring departments will actually use. And those are the only people for whom this system is useful! Which brings us to the second problem--
This should not be done. Even if somehow every obstacle could be overcome, it shouldn't be. Because the "obstacles" are basically the humanity of the people involved.
This is a system designed for the convenience and service of corporate bosses. Nobody else is served by such a system. Fans will say that future employees are served, but they are "served" only in the sense that such a system would make it easier for them to see how to better please their corporate overlords.
This competency-based meat widget catalog system is the clearest, most obvious version yet of how to retool our entire education system so that it serves the needs of corporate bosses-- and nobody else. This is a system that looks at the difficult tension between the needs of a corporate system and the needs of actual live human beings and says that we must tilt everything toward the corporations. This is a system that says when we find we've created a world in which humanity and the whole structure of power and wealth are in constant conflict, the solution is less humanity.
I said above that these folks need to grow up, and I mean it-- this is also the system of an eight year old, a child who is angry that the other children will not follow the rules as that child understands them, and so that child kicks and screams and demands that somebody make those other children behave The Way They Are Supposed To.
This is about standardizing human beings on a global scale so that meat widgets are more easily identifiable and interchangeable and do what they're supposed to. This is about treating human beings as if they are a product for corporate consumption.
This, in short, is a lousy idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)