The Future of Learning statement reminds me of these Profile of a Graduate that states are adopting with all of these vague, unmeasurable platitudes (e.g., New York's has "critical thinker, innovative problem solver, literate across content areas, culturally competent, social-emotionally competent, an effective communicator, and a global citizen").
Yea, I'd love to see a definition and a way to measure those things. For example, how would New York know if a student was an "innovative problem solver" or not?
KnowledegeWorks, which always shows up when these things are discussed, had a webinar on 'Legislative Update' last year. Their claims--and I pressed them for details--was that they were having great success measuring the vague platitudes ("Durable skills!!!", don't you know, already!). However, their 'future of learning' progress was struggling when it came to how to properly measure 'subject matter' (academic) stuff. :~|
The Possible Zone in Boston and and Mastery Transcript Consortium an ETS company are doing some work to address this valid concern. Worth a look and curious of what you think.
Chad, thanks for sharing this. I see 'future of learning' stuff daily, but had missed this one.
One small, but essential point: 'Universal literacy by 4th grade' should be, at the earliest, by fifth grade. (Sixth is more practical for reaching 99%.)
The best fifth grade classrooms I know are still giving systematic, explicit instruction in the types of vocabulary, morphology, and syntax needed to process school-level text.
(Those classrooms are considered far ahead of the pack. I certainly know of no one advocating for moving that instruction back into 4th grade.)
Thus, 'universal literacy by 4th' sends the signal that the critical, explicit instruction done in the 5th grade is not essential to literacy. A signal that should not be sent.
The Future of Learning statement reminds me of these Profile of a Graduate that states are adopting with all of these vague, unmeasurable platitudes (e.g., New York's has "critical thinker, innovative problem solver, literate across content areas, culturally competent, social-emotionally competent, an effective communicator, and a global citizen").
Yea, I'd love to see a definition and a way to measure those things. For example, how would New York know if a student was an "innovative problem solver" or not?
Navigating the subway requires “innovative problem solving skills”
KnowledegeWorks, which always shows up when these things are discussed, had a webinar on 'Legislative Update' last year. Their claims--and I pressed them for details--was that they were having great success measuring the vague platitudes ("Durable skills!!!", don't you know, already!). However, their 'future of learning' progress was struggling when it came to how to properly measure 'subject matter' (academic) stuff. :~|
They said this with perfectly straight faces.
The Possible Zone in Boston and and Mastery Transcript Consortium an ETS company are doing some work to address this valid concern. Worth a look and curious of what you think.
It's lonely work standing athwart the rising swell of PoG.
Thanks for stating what the ed foundations won't.
Chad, thanks for sharing this. I see 'future of learning' stuff daily, but had missed this one.
One small, but essential point: 'Universal literacy by 4th grade' should be, at the earliest, by fifth grade. (Sixth is more practical for reaching 99%.)
The best fifth grade classrooms I know are still giving systematic, explicit instruction in the types of vocabulary, morphology, and syntax needed to process school-level text.
(Those classrooms are considered far ahead of the pack. I certainly know of no one advocating for moving that instruction back into 4th grade.)
Thus, 'universal literacy by 4th' sends the signal that the critical, explicit instruction done in the 5th grade is not essential to literacy. A signal that should not be sent.