When you look at the mind and its development, people often think of return on investment. What kind of "product" are they getting for their money? Well, if there was something like the percentage rate for savings, then this would be an easy answer. Oh, you say there is? Oh, stupid me. Of course, it's the course grade.
Well, what exactly shows that there's an increase of knowledge? Is it straight As? As and Bs? Moving from a C at the beginning of a course to an A? Increasing from F to a C? Oh, that's right, your school uses numbers. So, going from 92 to 95 is a good return? 88 to 92? 68 to 72? How about a whopping 15 points, say from 50 to 65, a greater gain than any of the other scores listed?
What about the person who makes 30s in September and 50s in May? Surely 20 points is a good return in anybody's book? Oh, that's not passing you say. Why, I thought an increase in score was a worthy measure of return on investment. No one would say going from 50 to 70 was not good. But, it's the same 20 points! Oh, 70 is passing you say. Even though the increase is the same? Really?
Why is 70 the chosen number for passing? Oh, you want someone to know a percentage of material. So, does the grade represent percentage of material? If I begin by knowing 20% of the material presented (which, of course, is horrendous as an average percentage for a course in education) and double my knowledge in a six week period of time, what investor wouldn't want to buy into that? But, no, that is not good enough in education because doubling the knowledge didn't measure 70% or higher. If I show that I can answer 100% of multiplying by 5, but only 10% of multiplying by 9, and anywhere from 60-80% of multiplying by all the other numbers from 1 to 9, then I have a grade that is "worthy" because it is passing, but do I have enough knowledge of the material? Or, if it takes me 9 months to increase my "average" passing knowledge from 70 to 77 in multiplication, but I am introduced to other concepts in math later in the year, especially the second half of the year, and I don't have quite as long to know the material, so my average drops to 75, does the drop show a drop on the return? Or is 70, 77, and back to 75 OK because it is steady? Is 70 to 77 and back to 60 not OK because it decreases the average to below 70? Those who invest know that retracement is part of the investment game and don't worry so much about it.
If my grade is 90, then 80, then 70, is the drop due to so-called complexity of material? Shouldn't "scaffolding" prevent the idea of dropping due to complexity? And, what about those concepts learned at the beginning of the year that yield a grade of 90, but the grade for the same concept at the end of the year is 80; it's just mixed in with other concepts that have been learned more recently so that the overall grade is 92? Is that called regression or increase?
I think I hear you saying that investments and grading are two different things. Grades don't measure increase in investment. EXACTLY! So, never should one confuse grades as a return on investment. Which begs the questions, "How does one know if he is getting what he should from education? How does one know if she is developing the knowledge base necessary for what she will need later in life?"
The answer to those questions make for great discussions, but the answer will not be found in the practice of what the schools measure or of what the schools send as a report every 6-9 weeks.
Surely there is something that gives me an idea of ROI for 13 years of my life? Right?
What about the person who makes 30s in September and 50s in May? Surely 20 points is a good return in anybody's book? Oh, that's not passing you say. Why, I thought an increase in score was a worthy measure of return on investment. No one would say going from 50 to 70 was not good. But, it's the same 20 points! Oh, 70 is passing you say. Even though the increase is the same? Really?
Why is 70 the chosen number for passing? Oh, you want someone to know a percentage of material. So, does the grade represent percentage of material? If I begin by knowing 20% of the material presented (which, of course, is horrendous as an average percentage for a course in education) and double my knowledge in a six week period of time, what investor wouldn't want to buy into that? But, no, that is not good enough in education because doubling the knowledge didn't measure 70% or higher. If I show that I can answer 100% of multiplying by 5, but only 10% of multiplying by 9, and anywhere from 60-80% of multiplying by all the other numbers from 1 to 9, then I have a grade that is "worthy" because it is passing, but do I have enough knowledge of the material? Or, if it takes me 9 months to increase my "average" passing knowledge from 70 to 77 in multiplication, but I am introduced to other concepts in math later in the year, especially the second half of the year, and I don't have quite as long to know the material, so my average drops to 75, does the drop show a drop on the return? Or is 70, 77, and back to 75 OK because it is steady? Is 70 to 77 and back to 60 not OK because it decreases the average to below 70? Those who invest know that retracement is part of the investment game and don't worry so much about it.
If my grade is 90, then 80, then 70, is the drop due to so-called complexity of material? Shouldn't "scaffolding" prevent the idea of dropping due to complexity? And, what about those concepts learned at the beginning of the year that yield a grade of 90, but the grade for the same concept at the end of the year is 80; it's just mixed in with other concepts that have been learned more recently so that the overall grade is 92? Is that called regression or increase?
I think I hear you saying that investments and grading are two different things. Grades don't measure increase in investment. EXACTLY! So, never should one confuse grades as a return on investment. Which begs the questions, "How does one know if he is getting what he should from education? How does one know if she is developing the knowledge base necessary for what she will need later in life?"
The answer to those questions make for great discussions, but the answer will not be found in the practice of what the schools measure or of what the schools send as a report every 6-9 weeks.
Surely there is something that gives me an idea of ROI for 13 years of my life? Right?
No comments:
Post a Comment