While most data is
collected on children deals with their learning , the damage is even greater
when data is collected refers to
behavior and used to give kids diagnoses
and labels if he does certain things x
times during the last 6 months or used to assess static skill level.
Back in the 50s, a prominent psychiatrist named Thomas Szasz
characterized psychopathology as “problems in living.”
A child's behavior has to be seen in a dynamic environment where the
compatibility or incompatibility between parent , teacher and child can be
explored and whether the child is developmentally on target with his life
skills.
Rachelle Sheely a RDI –
Relationship development intervention expert for challenging kids, especially
those on the autistic spectrum says in her blog that we should understand the difference
between static –intelligence data and dynamic intelligence Rachelle Sheelely RDI letter - Data
'Let me begin by saying that there seems
to be a strong correlation between high test scores and doing well in school
when the basic curriculum is designed for the tests. This makes sense; if you
teach that Austin is the capital of Texas and you then ask on as test,
"what is the capital of Texas", the group scores in the classroom
will indicate that it has been taught and that the children can answer the
question.
Like tests of
content mastery, standardized IQ scores also find a place in predicative
correlations for large groups of people. But what does each of these measure?
They measure static skills - what you know; not how you approach a problem or
use the information to approach new problems, how you figure out how to answer
a question or what you will do with the information once you know it. Like many
of you, I have my own history of cramming and forgetting.
This brief blog today, then, is a
warning to be suspicious of the implied meaning of scores. RDI™ is interested
in education with a different twist; experience-based learning as it relates to
Dynamic Intelligence. We are interested in how persons on the spectrum approach
and solve problems and whether or not they can think. While a quantifiable
analysis may be difficult to construct, not so difficult is a snapshot of
experiential interactions.
Especially
important to this discourse is that with very few exceptions, standardized
tests don't predict an adult quality of life for a person on the spectrum.
Dynamic Intelligence, related to experience based learning and dynamic decision
making, much more so. In the end, we concern ourselves with our children's
future selves-their executive functioning, self-management, organization, focus
and volition.'
Quotes on data from http://joebower.org blog
Albert Einstein once said, "Not everything
that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be
counted." He hung this sign above his desk at Princeton University.
Data is very limiting mostly because it tends to
conceal more than it reveals.
If we want to reclaim data, and we do need to, we
need to stress that real learning is found in children not data. The best
teachers never need tests to gather information about children's learning nor
do they need grades to share that information with others. They know that there
is no substitute for what a teacher can see with their own eyes when observing
and interacting with students while they are learning, and any attempt to
reduce something as magnificently messy as real learning will only ever conceal
more than it will reveal. I might go so far as to say that the best educators
in the 21st Century understand that "measurable outcomes may be the least
significant results of learning" except that this has been true in every
century.
This kind of data will only
lead teachers to better predict a kid's chances of passing or failing a test
than actually knowing the kid as a human being - as a learner.
There's a reason why Gerald
Bracey once said:
There
is a growing technology of testing that permits us now to do in nanoseconds
things that we shouldn't be doing at all.
The greatest failure of
trusting test scores more than teachers is that teachers might know more about
how to improve a student's test score than they know the student.
Data is dehumanizing.