Every summer US Army Cadets who have just completed their junior year of university attend Cadet Summer Training (CST). Successful completion of CST is required in order for the cadets of the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) to commission as Army Officers upon graduating college.
I attended CST in the summer of 2017. One assessment in Summer Training is the land navigation test. Cadets must find several "points"—which usually take the form of metal stakes placed throughout the woods—within a given time, usually three or four hours. I successfully located all of my points in the allotted time, but not everyone was able to do so. A small percentage of cadets were unable to locate the required amount of points within the time standard. These cadets were pulled to the side, retrained on land navigation, and then allowed to retest. Besides having to walk through the woods for a few more hours, there was no other punishment administered for having failed the initial test.
This peeved me, to say the least. Why should these individuals be allowed a retest? How was that fair to me, who had done it correctly the first time?
Upon reflection on this anger that I had felt, I realized that it was a product of an education system that emphasized competition over learning.
I was upset that other cadets were allowed a land navigation retest because I would have been upset if a peer in high school had been allowed a mathematics retest.
But why would I have been upset about the mathematics retest? Because our college admissions system is based on competition: I need better grades than my peers to get into my college of choice, and if my peers are allowed retests, then they will have an "unfair" advantage. In reality, if the goal of education was for students to learn, rather than to compete against one another, then students would be allowed to retake tests as many times as they want.
Now, take a deep breath before you get up in arms. I know that statement is controversial, and I intend to address the criticisms that probably popped into your head the moment you read that; but first, let's take a look at the Army's theory of learning.
As a cadre member at Infantry One Station Unit Training (OSUT) (the Infantry's version of basic training), recruits were allowed to retest certain events, such as an assessment of being able to meet the minimum standard for distance when throwing a hand grenade. And as a student in Infantry Basic Officer Leader's Course (IBOLC), I was allowed to retest my Operation Order (OPORD) pitch when I failed it the first time.
The reason that the Army allows retests is because the ultimate goal is not to test the soldier, but to train the soldier. The test is merely to verify the training. The Army doesn't care if an Infantryman can throw a grenade the proper distance the first time they are trained on it; it cares that they can throw a grenade the proper distance now, when called upon to do so in battle. Similarly, it matters very little to the Army if I could pitch my first graded OPORD correctly, only that I can pitch it correctly now in preparation for leading my men on a mission.
Are an infinite number of retests allowed? No. It would be a waste of time and resources. The Army utilizes another ingenious training methodology: the "recycle". The recycle is when a soldier has shown they have not properly retained or understood the training, so they are removed from the current training class and put in a later training class. Basically, they "start over". The cadets who failed the retest of land navigations had to start Cadet Summer Training all over again. The recruits in OSUT who failed hand grenades or the Physical Training test after the maximum allowed number of attempts had to start basic training all over again. If I had failed my OPORD retest, I would have had to start 22 weeks of IBOLC all over again.
Here, it becomes a mental game. If the soldier really wants to learn, he will take the recycle humbly, see the time lost as a sunk cost, and push on until he passes.
So what does this have to do with education reform? How can this "retest and recycle model" be applied in the education of American children?
This same "retest and recycle model" if effectively
applied in the education of American children would increase academic rigor, focus on real
learning while better matching brain development and learning readiness with
topical depth, resolve the controversy of grade retention, and reduce student
workload.
I will first address the execution of the recycle model, and then detail how a model of this nature would solve many problems with the current education system in the United States. I will also address criticisms of the recycle model proposal.
Execution of the Recycle Model
Each
subject and class would be broken down by "units". If a student fails
a test he will be allowed a limited number of retests. The retest will not have
the same questions, but it will be on the same topic. If he fails the
retests, he will fail the unit. Once a
unit is failed, he is recycled and has a chance to relearn the material. Each
unit would be an unspecified length of weeks. Because mathematically even numbers have more common factors
than odd numbers, when
greater than four weeks each unit will always maintain an even number of weeks
to avoid scheduling conflicts. This graphic gives an example of how a
recycle model might look, assuming only four enrolled classes at a given period.
1. Lack of Academic Rigor
There are four aspects of academic rigor. These are speed: how quickly the material is covered; depth:
the level of complexity and detail; application: the amount of thought
and effort required to apply the new knowledge or information (in a history
class this is the difference between a multiple-choice test assessing rote
knowledge of historic events versus an essay requiring historic analysis, in a physics
course it means the difference between a test of physical calculations against
a hands-on model applying physical principals); and standard: the
minimum accepted score or performance.
In the current educational model, these four aspects are at odds with
one another. The speed of instruction must be decelerated so that the
lowest common denominator can achieve the standard, and depth must be
sacrificed to cover the most material at this snail pace of instruction.
Application cannot surpass the depth of instruction, and thus we see the rapid
degradation of the quality of instruction.
Standard
Up into the 19th century, schools that were the predecessors
to the modern “High School” throughout the United States read classic Greek,
Latin, and French literature and philosophy in the original language. Now, these languages are read only in university,
and only if required by one’s academic discipline.
In other words, the modern curriculum has but a fraction of
the speed, depth, and application of curriculum one to two
centuries ago.[1]
This is not even considering the incredibly low standard of C’s (and
occasionally even D’s) as passing grades!
A simplified curriculum coupled with a low standard is not a recipe for real learning.
A “C” is 70% and is considered a
passing grade at most schools. But
should it be? C’s don’t seem so bad when one views them in a glass-half-full
perspective. The student knew 70% of what they were required to learn. It is not very comforting when one considers
this from a glass-half-empty perspective: the student didn’t know 30% of the material.
Imagine this from a professional
standpoint: your psychologist or your primary care physician may not know 30%
of the material considered essential to their job. The architect designing your home may not
know 30% of what was on his architectural exams. It becomes quite unsettling as we think
deeper into this phenomenon.
The recycle model could rectify this
ridiculously low standard by requiring that all students receive an “A” in each
unit before being allowed to move on.
2. Focus on Real Learning
Recycling until a 95 is achieved will allow students to
ensure mastering of the basics. Mastering
the basics will allow for increased speed of instruction in higher-level
courses, as well as increased depth and application.
Another aspect of learning that needs to considered is that
of age-appropriateness. I am not
referring to the birds and the bees here, but to topics as benign as division
of fractions. Human brains develop at a
wide variance of rates and abilities.
However, we force children to learn division of fractions in the fifth
grade, incognizant of whether their brain has reached the developmental stage
to comprehend the concept; and teachers spend the majority of their time
handholding students who not developmentally ready through these topics while the speed and depth of
instruction is sacrificed at the expense of students who are developmentally
prepared for the concept.
“Just because you have a classroom full of students who are
about the same age doesn't mean they are equally ready to learn a particular
topic, concept, skill, or idea.”[3]
And yet we still have students being force-fed whatever concept the curriculum
calls for. In the recycle model, those
students who are not quite prepared for a topic can recycle, or they can
attempt different units within the same subject until they are prepared for
that particular topic. This further
allows focus on real learning, as students will not be forced to internalize
concepts of which their brain has not fully developed to comprehend.
But won’t some students get extremely far behind their peers
if they are constantly recycling? This concern highlights one issue that is
often brought up in the grade retention controversy.
3. Resolve Grade Retention Controversy
Grade retention is the process of a student repeating a
grade due to failing the previous year.
The practice has become unpopular in the United States in favor of
social promotion. Social promotion is
the obligatory advancement of all students regardless of achievements and
absences.
Grade retention has been a contentious issue throughout the
years. Supporters of grade retention
argue that social promotion does not promote real learning. Opponents of grade retention argue that
students who are retained will experience shame, and that “retention is
commonly associated with poor social adjustment, disruptive behavior, negative
attitudes towards school and low academic attendance.”[4]
A recycle model resolves this controversy. Real learning can be maintained by recycling
students who do not meet a high standard.
Social maladjustment can be avoided because students need not repeat an
entire year of instruction, only a matter of week’s instruction. In addition, "grade levels" as they currently exist could be partially or entirely abolished.
In regards to shame and social stigmatization of recycling,
I am reminded again of my military training.
In CST and IBOLC, where recycling was rare (less than 10 percent), recycled
individuals did feel a level of shame.
Their peers often viewed them as incompetent and inferior. But in Ranger School, where recycling was
common (greater than 70 percent), recycling was not seen as shameful, but as something to
be expected. Those who were recycled
were not seen as inferior. The majority
of Rangers in the Army are “recycles”!
Applying this back to education: by having a 95 percent standard for
unit achievement in school, recycling would become commonplace and therefore
not socially stigmatized.
In addition, I hypothesize that while students may be behind
their same-age peers in traditional-model schools at the beginning of their academic career, by
focusing on real learning and recycling them until understanding is achieved in
the basics will allow them to have a more accelerated rate of learning in more
advanced coursework, and that they will have surpassed their same-age peers in traditional-model schools by the time they reach grade twelve.
What if students recycle too much? What if they don’t catch up like you
hypothesize? In response to that, I must
emphatically state that the current practice of pushing children on despite
their understanding is abysmal. Bill may
have a High School Diploma, but if he got Cs and Ds in all his classes, does he
really understand and know anything? Is
his diploma doing anything except helping him to gain minimum-wage employment? Will he be able to properly manage his
finances and invest for his future? Will
he be able to vote as an informed citizen?
Is this an acceptable state of affairs?
In reality, even if a student recycles and ends secondary school behind his peers in some subjects, it is highly unlikely that he will be behind in all topics. The recycle model allows students to play to their strengths. Jane will be higher in math and science, but lower in grammar and history courses. Jake will be higher in math and grammar, and poorer in other subjects. This is not a cause of concern for parents, because even in their poorer-performing subject areas, many students will still likely surpass their peers in non-recycle schools.
An anecdote can help illustrate this point. In fifth grade I learned American history,
and several units of this instruction consisted of studying the American
revolution and American government. As
part of this instruction, we watched the 1989 Disney short film Ben and Me. In this film a mouse named Amos sits in
Benjamin Franklin’s hat and participates in elements of his inventions and the
American founding. He even inspires Thomas
Jefferson as he writes the Declaration of Independence. The economy of information in this movie is
extremely low: the movie is 25 minutes long, but the historical information embedded
in this work of fiction could be presenting to a class in less than three
minutes. However, this may be
appropriate for elementary school instruction, as the fictional story embedded
in the historic narrative retains the interest of the children.
Fast forward to my senior year of high school. I had taken honors classes from 6-8 grade,
and AP courses from 9-11 grade. I had no
concept of what standard coursework looked like because I had been in advanced
coursework for all high school. Even so,
I was unable to take an AP course for my required government credit due to a
scheduling conflict with other AP courses.
In this government class, when we received our instruction on the
Declaration of Independence, we watched Ben and Me—the exact same movie
I had watched in the fifth grade! We did
not analyze the Declaration in any more depth than I had done in the fifth
grade.
When I expressed my frustration to my father, he reminded me
that some students in the class may have forgotten some of these things since
fifth grade. However, this did not
excuse the fact that I was not being mentally challenged, I was bored during
the class, and my time was being wasted by the lack of academic rigor in the
coursework. In a way, I was “held back” by the practice of teaching to the
lowest common denominator.
This is extremely dangerous.
We have so many exceptional children who yearn for knowledge, and we
waste this opportunity when we forcibly retard their learning. We have their undivided attention for twelve years,
but we waste their time and then try to have them drink from a firehose during
university instruction. Our greatest
resource is our children, and we are squandering it.
I was never once challenged in a social studies course in my
entire education, even with AP courses.
If a recycle model that allowed for my speedy progression had been
implemented at the time, I could have rapidly accelerated my learning from
elementary into high school and completed the twelfth grade with even more
knowledge than I gained from AP coursework, because I would have far surpassed
the academic level of those courses. A
recycle model would have allowed me to develop my strengths; and also my
weaknesses as I recycled in subjects where I possessed less skill.
4. Reduce Student Workload
It is no stretch of the mind that increased academic rigor could potentially also increase student workload and student stress. This is something that must be avoided. Take the situation in Japan, for
example. Good jobs are obtained by attending
good universities, which is achieved by attending good high schools, which is
achieved by attending good middle schools.
These middle schools have various tests as their acceptance
criteria. A young boy or girl of age 12
will fail their examination, catastrophize that their life is ruined, and end
up committing suicide. Even if
successful at these tests, the turmoil has just begun; academic rigor is so
intense that it is soul-crushing. The
country is so obsessed with academic success that they have “cram schools”—schools
where students go to after school in order to drill their knowledge and “cram”
for their actual school. These children
are not given the opportunity to be children!
I am often puzzled when individuals obsess about the United States
being “globally competitive” on an academic stage. If the lives and souls of our children is the
price of being globally competitive, then let Japan take the gold. We are not educating robots; we are educating
children. What is the benefit of being number one if it doesn’t benefit the
individual students?
Currently, in the United States, students take seven, eight,
or sometimes nine classes per day all year long; block scheduling sometimes
allows schools to shove in even more!
That’s more than at university! Most
college students take four to six classes at a time. In a successful recycle model, students would
take fewer units at a time (and even have “bye weeks” at times as depicted in the example schedule above), but the
increased speed of instruction will allow more classes in a year, and more than
make up for the lost time.
This of course raises the concern: won’t students forget
things if there is several weeks (or even months) between instruction of the
same subject? This concern is repeated
by teachers every summer vacation: “They go on holiday and come back and have
forgotten everything when they return.” Which begs the question, if the
students did forget everything, did they actually know anything to begin with? True comprehension of the topics would only
require a speedy review, not “reteaching” in entirety. Studies have shown that a rest period is
needed to internalize concepts. Having a
break from a subject may contribute to retention of the material, rather than
detract from it.
I was constantly frustrated as a middle school and high school student when teachers would robotically repeat, as if it was a wise proverb, “This assignment should only take you an hour.” I had eight classes! If every class assigned “only an hour” of homework, it would be eight hours. I would not finish until 11 o’clock or midnight—excluding chores, extracurricular activities, or family time. I was able to reason through this at thirteen years old, and yet school administrators and district superintendents couldn’t figure this out. This massive homework load is often a reflection of teachers being limited in the depth of instruction they can provide in the classroom, a problem that would be resolved by implementing a recycle model.
A recycle model would allow for fewer classes simultaneously
and yet a greater number of classes cumulatively. This would both reduce
the amount of homework (in hours) while increasing the usefulness of homework
(in depth and application). Fewer
simultaneous classes would allow more time to be invested in the application
aspect of academic rigor. Students would
have a deeper foundation of learning in which to build upon, and more time in
which to do the homework to a satisfactory standard.
5. Common Concerns
Teacher
Utilization
How will teachers be utilized to support this model?
Admittedly, this is the most challenging variable of this
model and has not yet been entirely worked out.
It undoubtedly will require more teachers, as a teacher must be
available to teach each unit once a group of students recycle that unit. A computer algorithm could help construct the
most efficient model. Of course, the “recycle
rate” for various units would have to be factored into this algorithm, and this
could not be known without first having students do the coursework.
College Admission
Without traditional grades, how will students be assessed
for college admission?
Because students will not be socially promoted, students will
be assessed based on the academic level that they have reached. If Jane has reached a higher academic level
in all fields of study than Jake, then she is clearly more qualified for a top
tier university and will be more competitive than Jake in her college
applications.
As universities become familiar with this system through
outreach programs, recycle-model students will be seen as desirable due to the
guarantee of real learning. I hypothesize
that success in a recycle-model school will be more predictive of college academic
performance and lifetime success than any other metric currently used.
The goal of a recycle-model school will not be college
admission, which (while desirable) should not be sought as an end in itself. The goal will be real learning. When real learning is made the end, and
academic rigor through a recycle model becomes the means, college admission will result as a natural biproduct of that effort.
AP
Courses
Will students be able to take AP courses?
AP Courses are designed for a traditional school model and
thus are too rigid in their form to fit into the recycling model. Therefore, AP Courses as they are traditionally
taught will not be offered. However, AP tests
can be taken at any time without having first taken the AP Course. Since the goal of the recycle model is to achieve
real learning, I see no reason why students advanced in their studies would not
be successful when taking these tests.
In addition, recycle-model schools will have AP test review units in
preparation for students who desire to take the tests. Recycle-model schools will also work with the
College Board to create alternative ways in which to receive college credit for
work done in high school, with the ultimate goal of completing most (if not
all) of college general education credits prior to high school graduation.
Risk
Won’t parents be taking a risk on their children’s
education by sending them to a school that applies this untested method?
This method has currently yet to run a pilot program. Undoubtedly, unforeseen issues will come to
light during piloting. However, this is
not as much of a risk as one would assume.
Parents are already taking risks sending their children to public
schools, where exists the surprising contradiction of pitifully
low academic rigor, yet homework that is crushing in load.
Teachers in a recycle-model school will have the same qualifications and
certifications as those in traditional schools.
Standardized
Tests
What about standardized tests?
Standardized testing is a racket. Testing companies create them and sell them
to states and school districts for a profit, although many of the tests have
not been externally validated. This is
part of the educational-industrial complex.
Recycle-model schools would not use standardized testing, unless
required by the state. Even so, these
schools would encourage lawmakers to create exceptions for recycle schools or
to remove the testing requirement entirely for all schools.
Conclusion
The recycle model is an alternate model for schooling that
has great potential. It is extremely
different from the traditional school model, but therein is its appeal. The traditional model has innumerable
variations of the same paradigm, with no variation showing dramatically
different results. Perhaps the issue is in
the paradigm, not the execution. A recycle
model could enhance real learning by improving academic rigor while
simultaneously resolving the issues inherent in the traditional model, such as issues
with social promotion and an overbearing homework load.
[1]
For an analysis of what caused this phenomenon, see my upcoming blog post: “Are
Millennials the Best Educated Generation?”
[2]
More on this in upcoming blog posts.
[3]
[4]
Mims, K., R. Stock, & C. Phinizy (2001) "Beyond grade retention."
In “eJournal of education policy”. At
http://jep.csus.edu/journal2001/journals.aspx?id=101
No comments:
Post a Comment