Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Psychology Podcast with doctor Scott
Speaker 1: Barry Kaufman, where we give you insights into the mind, brain, behavior,
Speaker 1: and creativity. Each episode will feature a new guest who
Speaker 1: will stimulate your mind and give you a greater understanding
Speaker 1: of yourself, others, and the world we live in. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening and enjoy the podcast. Today, I'm really excited
Speaker 1: to have Anya Kaminettes on the show. Anya is a
Speaker 1: calumnist for Tribune Media Services and lead education blogger MPR.
Speaker 1: Her most recent book, which we'll be chatting quite a
Speaker 1: bit about today, is called The Test Why our schools
Speaker 1: are obsessed with standardized testing But you don't have to be.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much Anya for being on the show.
Speaker 1: I'm so glad to connect with you. Scott Yay. So,
Speaker 1: I was wondering, well, you know, I'm very curious why
Speaker 1: you wrote this book. But in researching, you're talking about
Speaker 1: this book and stuff I've know there's an interesting backstory
Speaker 1: in the sense that the book that you originally sought
Speaker 1: out to write was not the book that you wrote.
Speaker 1: Is that correct? Yeah? Basically, yeah, So you know, I
Speaker 1: had written a previous book, Diyu, which was all about
Speaker 1: innovations in higher ED. And you know, it's a disruptive
Speaker 1: story because there's a lot of change happening in the
Speaker 1: higher ED world. And I really wanted to kind of
Speaker 1: make a continuation of that story and talk about kind
Speaker 1: of disruptive change and evolution in K twelve education. But
Speaker 1: what I found was there were so many more roadblocks
Speaker 1: to kind of system wide change in the K twelve universe,
Speaker 1: particularly in the public schools that nine out of ten
Speaker 1: students attend. And the major roadblock there was the existence
Speaker 1: of these standardized tests and the fact that every school
Speaker 1: essentially is being held accountable for the results of these
Speaker 1: very like weak, limited, and somewhat outdated measurements of just
Speaker 1: a couple of different skills. And when you say everyone
Speaker 1: is being held accountable, who are they being held accountable by?
Speaker 1: We talk about the federal government. Well, the federal government
Speaker 1: issues that the major mandate and they're the ones responsible
Speaker 1: for this test driven transformation through the No Child Left
Speaker 1: Behind law in two thousand and two. But you know,
Speaker 1: on top of the federal mandate, which is that state
Speaker 1: you know, schools test every child once per year grade
Speaker 1: three through eight in math and reading, plus once in
Speaker 1: high school states and districts appiled a lot of requirements
Speaker 1: on top of it, so really the mandates are coming
Speaker 1: at every level. Wow, and you're arguing that this is
Speaker 1: not necessarily a good thing? Is that an over understatement
Speaker 1: of the century? In fact us ten us ten to
Speaker 1: start ten things, ten reasons why it's not necessarily a
Speaker 1: good thing. I don't want to, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: want to give it all away because I want people
Speaker 1: to definitely read your book. But let's discuss a couple
Speaker 1: pick let's let's you know, can you pick one right now?
Speaker 1: We can talk about Yeah. I think probably the most
Speaker 1: relevant to your audience is number one, which is we're
Speaker 1: testing the wrong things, you know, right, So, uh, and
Speaker 1: that's kind of a basic I talked to one of
Speaker 1: the researchers I talk to who really thinks deeply about assessment, Huburkhard,
Speaker 1: and he's actually responsible for writing some of the math
Speaker 1: standards of the common Core. He said, there's two kinds
Speaker 1: of errors in measurement. There is, uh, there's systematic error,
Speaker 1: and there is sort of the kind of error where
Speaker 1: you're not really statistical statistical type of error. So you know,
Speaker 1: you can either have you know, not quite precise enough measurements,
Speaker 1: and you have a little bit of error there, or
Speaker 1: you can be totally looking at the wrong thing, like
Speaker 1: looking in the wrong direction. And so you know, the
Speaker 1: kind of errors that we're making in assessing students really
Speaker 1: are kind of systematic because we're not looking at we're
Speaker 1: looking at very limited samples of performance on just a
Speaker 1: few kinds of tasks, and we're extrapolating from that huge
Speaker 1: amounts of you know, decisions about student performance, about student knowledge,
Speaker 1: about the quality of schools, about the quality of teaching,
Speaker 1: and all of this might be wrong at a really
Speaker 1: basic level. I mean, just to take one factor that
Speaker 1: everybody's kind of familiar with, which is test anxiety. You know,
Speaker 1: twenty five to forty percent of people have in bad
Speaker 1: enough anxiety when they then to take a test that
Speaker 1: their scores are going to be depressed. And so the
Speaker 1: type of people who might be sensitive to their environment,
Speaker 1: who might be very conscientious, who might be you know,
Speaker 1: noticing a lot of details, people who are really talented
Speaker 1: are not getting their performance measured accurately by these tests.
Speaker 1: And that's just one kind a problem with what we're testing. Okay,
Speaker 1: so this is you say, a million things. They're they're interesting.
Speaker 1: So there's so one literal thing. There's a whole literature
Speaker 1: on the impact of like, for instance, math anxiety and
Speaker 1: what it does to the brain is literally it literally
Speaker 1: shuts down because that's a common one math anxiety. When
Speaker 1: you know, when I just say the word math right now,
Speaker 1: a lot of my listeners, do you see their prefaunt
Speaker 1: the cortex is shutting down, and we don't want that
Speaker 1: to happen. We want them to listen to the rest
Speaker 1: of this interview. So puppies, puppies. I'm going to save
Speaker 1: it by saying something to reactivate puppies, and then then
Speaker 1: the people the opposite end of the math, the math
Speaker 1: part of the brain activates. But yeah, so so it's
Speaker 1: it is a serious issue. How you know, when you
Speaker 1: say the word talent, I mean that's a loaded word
Speaker 1: as well. Right so, but what we're really saying there,
Speaker 1: I think is you're not we're not really measuring with
Speaker 1: someone's full potential because there are all there's factors. Anxiety
Speaker 1: doesn't really if you're really anxious in your prefought the
Speaker 1: cortex to shut down or the brain the center part
Speaker 1: of your brain associated with with working memory as not
Speaker 1: optimally functioning. Then the point there is that we're not
Speaker 1: really getting a good assessment of your of your intellectual capability,
Speaker 1: right well, and I mean I think I would argue
Speaker 1: that we're not measuring potential at all, you know, And
Speaker 1: that's a really really serious issue, right because these tests,
Speaker 1: the roots of psychometrics are based on a concept of
Speaker 1: intelligence that is fixed, hereditary and unitary intelligence quotient. And
Speaker 1: that was the belief from the earliest days of the
Speaker 1: attempts to measure kind of mental functioning. And that's no
Speaker 1: longer what we think. We no longer believe in intelligence
Speaker 1: is being fixed, hereditary, unitary. So you talk to Okay,
Speaker 1: not everybody believes in it, but but you know, some people,
Speaker 1: I personally think that is true. I read a whole
Speaker 1: book called on Gifted saying that I go, yeah, exactly exactly, so, right,
Speaker 1: so we have a lot more complex sense of and intelligence.
Speaker 1: And actually, I mean, these tests are no longer meant
Speaker 1: to be, you know, measuring aptitude per se. They're meant
Speaker 1: to be achievement tests. But even then, you're inculcating a
Speaker 1: really fixed mindset because you're testing knowledge at a point
Speaker 1: in time and then you're imputing something about performance. And
Speaker 1: it's very problematic because these tests are so highly correlated
Speaker 1: with family income and minoriti group status, you know, much
Speaker 1: more so than anything innate. But it's very problematic because
Speaker 1: the results of these tests are so highly correlated with
Speaker 1: income and minority group status, and yet we're imputing all
Speaker 1: of these qualities of aptitude and intelligence to them. Okay,
Speaker 1: so that is an excellent point. And we do know
Speaker 1: that SES and a lot of environmental factors are correlated
Speaker 1: with test performance. There it's what is really tricky. And
Speaker 1: I read about this a little bit in my book.
Speaker 1: It's very true. It's hard to like separate out all
Speaker 1: of these factors because they all form a nexus, right,
Speaker 1: They're all correlated with one another. So IQ is highly
Speaker 1: correlated with test performance, it's a fact. But IQ itself
Speaker 1: is also highly correlated with se S and all that.
Speaker 1: So you're not making the argument that that i Q
Speaker 1: is is just a measure of background socidal you know,
Speaker 1: and I don't think you know that anyone would really
Speaker 1: can really make it strong. It is measuring some set
Speaker 1: of skills. Those set of skills that it's measuring itself
Speaker 1: aren't innate in the sense that that there are some
Speaker 1: people who are just born with with these intellectual functions,
Speaker 1: whereas there's some people who aren't born with them. I
Speaker 1: think that we know enough in science know that's certainly
Speaker 1: not the case, and I don't I think even the
Speaker 1: most diehard are hardcore IQ researchers would admit that is
Speaker 1: that that just because something has a heritability coefficient doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that it's purely innate. We know a lot about
Speaker 1: how genes work and how genes are fundamentally interacting with
Speaker 1: the environment. So you're not I want to just make
Speaker 1: clear what you're not arguing. Right, as far as I
Speaker 1: can tell, you're not making a strong extreme argument along
Speaker 1: the lines of these tests are merely tracking background and
Speaker 1: they have no utility or no, they're not measuring any skills.
Speaker 1: You're but you're highlighting and correct me if I'm wrong,
Speaker 1: and please elaborate on it. You're highlighting the extent to
Speaker 1: which environmental opportunities really do have an impact on test scores.
Speaker 1: Am I right? Well, okay, so here's let's get back
Speaker 1: to the point of why we're testing kids in the
Speaker 1: first place. Okay, we're testing kids in school in public
Speaker 1: schools to find out how they're doing, how much they know,
Speaker 1: and find out how the schools are doing how well
Speaker 1: they're teaching them. The kid's income and background is not
Speaker 1: relevant to how to either case in some sense, Like
Speaker 1: in other words, you know that a poor school full
Speaker 1: of high poverty kids has a harder job to do
Speaker 1: in terms of teaching, and you know that the kid
Speaker 1: has much more to overcome, and there's a lot of
Speaker 1: noise in that signal when you're testing them with giving
Speaker 1: them these tests, and what you're really possibly quite more in,
Speaker 1: what you're possibly much more interested in is how well
Speaker 1: is this school functioning as an ecosystem to provide a
Speaker 1: learning environment. How hard are the teachers working? And you're
Speaker 1: also potentially much more interested in how hard are the
Speaker 1: kids working, What is their attitude, like, what is their
Speaker 1: motivation to learn? What is their growth from year to year?
Speaker 1: If you can measure that somehow much more than what
Speaker 1: they know at a point in time. And so it's
Speaker 1: the wrong kind of instrument to get that kind of information.
Speaker 1: That's a very good point. That's a very good point.
Speaker 1: And it's not instrument that measures deep reflective thinking, right
Speaker 1: as well? Yeah, Well, and another big thing that it
Speaker 1: misses I think you know is a Laiguinear, the civil
Speaker 1: rights expert, has a book out called The Tyranny of
Speaker 1: the Meritocracy, and she's drawing on Scott Page's work at
Speaker 1: the University Michigan about the power of diversity, and she's
Speaker 1: and they're saying, you know, intelligence is and merit more
Speaker 1: broadly is an emergent factor of people who are able
Speaker 1: to collaborate in diverse groups. And you know, the way
Speaker 1: that we have high achieving the way that we get
Speaker 1: things done in America and in great high achieving societies
Speaker 1: down the world and organizations is we integrate the talents
Speaker 1: of many different people and we manage to create projects
Speaker 1: that showcase the best of all of them. And individualized
Speaker 1: tests where everybody is only responsible for their own answers.
Speaker 1: Are so far away from measuring these kinds of high
Speaker 1: level collaborative skills and communication skills that we really need
Speaker 1: in that are really twenty first century skills and that
Speaker 1: perhaps potentially are possessed at a higher frequency in by
Speaker 1: groups that are coming. You know that I do represent
Speaker 1: diversity in many different ways. Yeah, so this argument also
Speaker 1: what you're doing here as well as you're broadening the
Speaker 1: conceptualization of intelligence as well. So there are lots of
Speaker 1: things that you're doing here and that that that that
Speaker 1: move the agenda towards what you would are what you're arguing,
Speaker 1: we should be that moving towards if we really care
Speaker 1: about certain outcomes that we say we care about. Now.
Speaker 1: Of course, if you if you if you just equate
Speaker 1: IQ kind of skills with intelligence, then that's a different
Speaker 1: argument than you're making. But it seems to me, am
Speaker 1: I right, you're kind of like broadening opening and opening
Speaker 1: intelligence up to interactions with other humans as well. Well.
Speaker 1: I mean, again, I want to bring back to the
Speaker 1: question of what is a school supposed to do? Well,
Speaker 1: I love that question. Yeah, right, because a school the point.
Speaker 1: I don't think that the point of public school is
Speaker 1: to raise everybody's IQ level, because that seems like a
Speaker 1: feudal project. I agree, absolutely agree, or even to increase intelligence.
Speaker 1: I'm even sure that should be the role of school.
Speaker 1: I mean, there is such a thing as a flint effect,
Speaker 1: and we do talk about people getting smarter, you know,
Speaker 1: sort of colloquially, but yeah, in general, what we're trying
Speaker 1: to do is develop people's potential as you talked about,
Speaker 1: and also create learning communities. I think to a certain extent,
Speaker 1: I think that's a very novel idea create learning communities.
Speaker 1: It really does broaden the assessment outside of just an
Speaker 1: individual head right right. So under our current system, who
Speaker 1: do you think is most falling between the cracks? It
Speaker 1: seems like correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems
Speaker 1: like most of the attention is focusing on students who
Speaker 1: are just on the border of passing, whereas we might
Speaker 1: be letting really high ability students who need lots more
Speaker 1: challenges as well as because of the learning disabilities. They
Speaker 1: seem to be really significantly fallen between the cracks and
Speaker 1: our system. Do you agree with that? Sure? I mean,
Speaker 1: the researchers that I talk to call what you're talking
Speaker 1: about educational triage or educational rationing. And it's a rational
Speaker 1: response to an incentive because the teacher gets rewarded for
Speaker 1: moving kids over the mark of proficiency, and so there's
Speaker 1: no reason for them to work with the kids who
Speaker 1: are hopeless cases to be terrible about it, or the
Speaker 1: kids who are already hitting the ceiling at the top
Speaker 1: of the test, because that that kind of growth isn't
Speaker 1: going to be registered. So you know, there's some hope
Speaker 1: that adaptive testing will be able to show the kind
Speaker 1: of growth that kids are making across the spectrum where
Speaker 1: every kid is kind of given a test and the
Speaker 1: questions change based on their answers as they go along.
Speaker 1: But in general, yeah, I mean, standardization is the opposite
Speaker 1: of individualization. So to the extent that we're trying to
Speaker 1: design our schools around basic proficiency in math and reading,
Speaker 1: and the more we turn up the stakes on those
Speaker 1: two outcomes, we're going to get a narrowing of effort
Speaker 1: and take focus away from other goals and from other
Speaker 1: types of students. Yeah, and you talked about other goals,
Speaker 1: these other goals, these other what is the point of school?
Speaker 1: And you know, philosophers of education have been arguing this
Speaker 1: for hundreds of years, you know, so there is no
Speaker 1: you know, think either me or you have the the
Speaker 1: the answer, you know exactly that that would have applied everyone.
Speaker 1: But I would I'd love to hear some of your
Speaker 1: ideas about about ways we could be using measurement in
Speaker 1: a more productive fashion too, to get it and assess
Speaker 1: how we're doing in terms of getting what we want
Speaker 1: out of students. Do you mind if I go through
Speaker 1: the four quite ingenious examples that you have in your
Speaker 1: book and kind of talk through them with you, would
Speaker 1: that be okay? Please? So, so one you talk about
Speaker 1: something called statistical sampling. I mean you say, you know,
Speaker 1: we can use the same tests, but but use fewer
Speaker 1: of them. Could you talk a little about what that
Speaker 1: would look like? Sure? I mean, sampling is used by
Speaker 1: school systems around the world. It's also used in the
Speaker 1: Nation's report Card, which is one of the longest standing
Speaker 1: measurements of American student learning, as well as PISA, the
Speaker 1: Program for International Student Assessment uses sampling as well. And
Speaker 1: you know, sampling gives you a big picture without having
Speaker 1: such a heavy burden of testing. You can make sure
Speaker 1: that you're getting representative of performance. And also you can
Speaker 1: over sample minority groups if you want more nuanced information
Speaker 1: of those historically disadvantaged groups. But you know, it's just
Speaker 1: a way to get a good amount of information for
Speaker 1: less overall burden of testing. Okay. And then another one
Speaker 1: is stealth assessments, and I think con Academy might be
Speaker 1: an example of that. Yeah, I mean con Academy, dream
Speaker 1: Box Scholastic has a couple of products. Students around the
Speaker 1: country in public schools are already using these kinds of
Speaker 1: software and blended learning settings. And basically what that means
Speaker 1: is that every check mark, every answer they give on
Speaker 1: their homework, every answer they give in class, can be
Speaker 1: recorded and analyzed in a very rich dashboard type display.
Speaker 1: And this is sort of inherently more fluid than a
Speaker 1: stop and test or three hours on three hours in April,
Speaker 1: because you're giving a picture of student acquisition and knowledge
Speaker 1: over time. And Valerie Shoot, who coined the term stealth
Speaker 1: assessment when she was at ETS, points out that businesses
Speaker 1: used to close down at the end of year to
Speaker 1: take stock literally, and today we have just in time inventory,
Speaker 1: we have you know, price guns, and all they have
Speaker 1: to do is look at you know, their records at
Speaker 1: the end of the day and they have they know
Speaker 1: exactly what to do and it orders the next thing
Speaker 1: from the warehouse automatically. And so why can't we do
Speaker 1: that in schools as well and avoid this process of
Speaker 1: sort of burden some record keeping. Yeah, I really like
Speaker 1: this phrase. I think you've talked about invisible integrated assessment.
Speaker 1: It's being a way of describing stealth assessment, right, right,
Speaker 1: and you know the idea here especially, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: people talk about obviously a lot about growth mindset and
Speaker 1: summative testing, which is the big test day, you know,
Speaker 1: really gives you kind of an all or nothing feeling. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: and that's where a lot of the anxiety comes from.
Speaker 1: But if it's like, you know, you got to you
Speaker 1: got six out of ten today, but you'll get eight
Speaker 1: out of ten tomorrow, that's a much different picture of
Speaker 1: student achievement, both for teachers and for students themselves and
Speaker 1: for parents. Yeah, something that's revisable. Would you say that
Speaker 1: like a project based learning falls within that category? Well,
Speaker 1: project based learning I deal with as a separate category
Speaker 1: in the in the book, I call it team butterfly. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and performance based assessment portfolio based assessment, and that include
Speaker 1: that under multiple measures. Well, it's it is a multiple measure, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: You know, it can be one of a multiple measures.
Speaker 1: It certainly could be thought of as an integrated assessment
Speaker 1: as well, because you are integrating your integrating assessment into
Speaker 1: the process of learning. I could just say it falling
Speaker 1: within you know, both yeah, absolutely, and the other part
Speaker 1: of it. I think that's really key with project based
Speaker 1: learning is that you are also eliciting self reflection and
Speaker 1: self assessment as a key part of that process. So
Speaker 1: you know, so like you need you need students to
Speaker 1: be doing reflection and also giving feedback to their peers,
Speaker 1: which is really fun thing to watch in a performance
Speaker 1: assessment setting. Yeah, and you really don't see that as
Speaker 1: often in such a competitive environment that the standardized test
Speaker 1: environment sets up. So yeah, I really like that. I
Speaker 1: am a big fan of project based learning and discovery
Speaker 1: based learning. So this idea, you know, combining the self
Speaker 1: and the multiple measures and this whole idea of big data,
Speaker 1: I really I think that is probably a big wave
Speaker 1: of the future is as invisible as possible. You know,
Speaker 1: have people learn in a way that they're enjoying and
Speaker 1: having fun and they don't know that they're being assessed.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm having fun in this I'm having fun
Speaker 1: right now chatting with you. Right Like if someone said
Speaker 1: ahead of time, they're like, you're going to be graded
Speaker 1: on this podcast performance, I don't think I would be
Speaker 1: having as much fun. And I don't think like I
Speaker 1: don't know if I'm doing a good job, but I
Speaker 1: definitely wouldn't be doing as good a job whatever job
Speaker 1: I'm doing, you know, so well, I think that's you know,
Speaker 1: it's very interesting to think about that, because, you know,
Speaker 1: I think that seeking feedback and conducting kind of self
Speaker 1: audits is a high performing kind of activity. Yeah, standardized testing,
Speaker 1: you're really taking away people's responsibility for understanding the outcomes
Speaker 1: of their learning because it's all externalized. It's all kind
Speaker 1: of inside a black box, and neither teachers nor students
Speaker 1: really are active in that process. So, you know, it's
Speaker 1: interesting that you say that because I was actually, as
Speaker 1: as I talk about in the book, I was able
Speaker 1: to serve as a sort of performance assessor for a
Speaker 1: student in performance based school here in New York City.
Speaker 1: And basically what that meant was you a dog barking
Speaker 1: in the background. I'm sorry, Yeah, that's my neighbors done.
Speaker 1: Oh cool, Okay. Basically what that meant was I met
Speaker 1: this girl for coffee and she talked to me about
Speaker 1: Prime Prejudice for an hour. And she had done a ton.
Speaker 1: I mean, she'd read the book so many times, she'd
Speaker 1: watched all of the adaptations, she'd read the criticism, she'd
Speaker 1: talked to her mentor about it. But all, what it
Speaker 1: all came down to was basically this informed conversation where
Speaker 1: she had to impress me, and she totally impressed me.
Speaker 1: And she sounded like, you know, beyond an undergraduate level
Speaker 1: of understanding about this novel. And you know, that's very
Speaker 1: authentic because talking about what you know and showing people
Speaker 1: what you know is a major way in which we're
Speaker 1: assessed and audited in the real world, in the adult world.
Speaker 1: And so you know, it's kind of as rigorous as
Speaker 1: it gets, although it also seems quite informal at the
Speaker 1: same time. Absolutely, and you relate to that, I mean,
Speaker 1: you include game based assessments. I mean you cover like
Speaker 1: a wide range of potential ways of getting at knowledge.
Speaker 1: And I like this idea of having people explain or
Speaker 1: talk and not explain, but talk about like what interests them,
Speaker 1: you know, and that you're assessing it. Yeah, but it's
Speaker 1: not framed as I'm going to evaluate your soul right now,
Speaker 1: right Well, I mean the psychometricians have held the keys
Speaker 1: to the kingdom for so long. Well, I like that phrasing.
Speaker 1: I like that. I mean they really successfully created so
Speaker 1: a lot of the foundations of modern statistics and social
Speaker 1: science in the process of inventing this field, and they
Speaker 1: mystified it. Really, I think the dog wants to be
Speaker 1: once a voice. I think the dog wants to be
Speaker 1: involved in this conversation. They really successfully created and mystified
Speaker 1: this field behind all of these statistics. I mean, the
Speaker 1: psychometricians are the guys that brought you the Bell curve.
Speaker 1: They brought you regression analysis, they brought you correlation co efficients, literally,
Speaker 1: and they blinded us with science and they made us
Speaker 1: all believe that these numbers and these presentiles represent who
Speaker 1: we are. But you know, I really believe that we
Speaker 1: need to take that back and say, assessment is something
Speaker 1: that we all do. It's a natural part of our lives.
Speaker 1: We all make judgments, and we all gather evidence for
Speaker 1: those judgments, and you know, and it's a natural part
Speaker 1: of teaching and learning as well. Sure, and I can
Speaker 1: hear their voice in my head though, saying, well, you know,
Speaker 1: there's an issue here of like objectivity. So a lot
Speaker 1: of approaches that people are proposing alternative approaches, we don't
Speaker 1: actually know that it works scientifically. We don't know that
Speaker 1: it's actually leading to better outcomes or it's objectively capturing.
Speaker 1: So you know, the nice thing that psychometricians really like
Speaker 1: about really well controlled things is that everyone has the
Speaker 1: same script, right, everyone has the same items, and there
Speaker 1: are multiple multiple choices. Even more exciting to psychometricians because
Speaker 1: there's you know, they can really control, have control. The
Speaker 1: interesting thing that all this research in my own field
Speaker 1: of positive psychology and and uh and everything we know
Speaker 1: about optimal human flourishing is that the more that you
Speaker 1: relinquish control, the better outcomes you actually get. So it
Speaker 1: creates it, I mean, it creates quite a dilemma for
Speaker 1: psychometricians who want to make sure that we can still
Speaker 1: objectively measure this this stuff. Well, I mean, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure that I have the full answer to that, but
Speaker 1: I think that there may way to square the circle
Speaker 1: in the sense that if you get really curious and
Speaker 1: really humble about the types of data that you're gathering, right,
Speaker 1: and you don't just rely on one outcome, you get
Speaker 1: it gets you know, it's never going to be totally objective,
Speaker 1: but you get more, it gets more objective. Like you know,
Speaker 1: James Heckman, right, Nobel Prize any Economists is a guy
Speaker 1: that told us that non cognitive skills make up more
Speaker 1: than half of what you need to be successful, right,
Speaker 1: And he found that out by looking at longitudinal data,
Speaker 1: the hardest, you know, really hardcore data. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: we still don't have very good from a psychometrical perspective,
Speaker 1: assessments of a lot of these non cognitive traits. So
Speaker 1: a lot of schools, like you know, Kip et cetera,
Speaker 1: use a character report card to uh and it's it's
Speaker 1: it's it's it's completely subjective. It's it's teacher ratings, you know,
Speaker 1: and you know, different teachers might have different preferences for
Speaker 1: different students. So there's still is a great need to
Speaker 1: figure out a way of more objectively looking at some
Speaker 1: of this stuff, just just from a fairness and equity perspective. Sure, sure, yeah,
Speaker 1: I talk about that along in the book, and I think,
Speaker 1: you know, again, I feel like, you know, multiple measures
Speaker 1: isn't right. And it's in I talked to, you know,
Speaker 1: Josh Starr. He's recently left as super intended of Montgomery
Speaker 1: County Public Schools, but he was successful in integrating both
Speaker 1: student and teacher engagement data into school report cards. So
Speaker 1: he gives the Gallop Student Survey, which asks about hope,
Speaker 1: engagement and well being and that's based on you know,
Speaker 1: many many millions of instances of giving the survey to
Speaker 1: employees where Gallup's been able to correlate the answers to
Speaker 1: you know, stock market performance for these companies. So you
Speaker 1: know it has not not psychometric validity, but it has
Speaker 1: some you know, some real world predictive validity. And the
Speaker 1: way that Josh used them in Montgomery County, you know,
Speaker 1: they would do things like emotional well being walkthroughs, so
Speaker 1: they would send people to schools and kind of walk
Speaker 1: around and say, what's happening in these classrooms that's promoting
Speaker 1: engagement or not promoting engagement, And how can we correlate
Speaker 1: our eyewitness observations with what people are saying on these
Speaker 1: on these surveys, and also with things like disciplinary outcomes,
Speaker 1: visits to the school, nurse absenteeism. You know, all of
Speaker 1: these things are inputs into the social emotional health of
Speaker 1: a school as an ecosystem. If that's how like Scotland
Speaker 1: does their inspects. Yes, yes, yeah, really good stuff. And
Speaker 1: so there's a way of combining all of these different
Speaker 1: approaches that you're talking about, like use them all, you know,
Speaker 1: just just just get a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: different data points to to not so it really, it
Speaker 1: really is. The overall thing here is to get away
Speaker 1: from standardizing it. Right, Well, that's exactly right. And you
Speaker 1: know there's obviously a tension here because when you talk
Speaker 1: about imposing accountability measures, you want to be lightweight about
Speaker 1: those in positions, But when you talk about a school's
Speaker 1: process of self improvement or the process of gathering evidence
Speaker 1: so that student, you want to be really comprehensive and
Speaker 1: continuous with it. So the question there is sort of
Speaker 1: how much responsibility can we trust our schools and our
Speaker 1: districts with for promoting optimal performance? And how much are
Speaker 1: we going to try to impose from the outside in
Speaker 1: a really punitive frame, Because the ultimate justification that I
Speaker 1: see being made again and again for high stakes and
Speaker 1: standardized testing is that we think the kids are going
Speaker 1: to get short changed if we don't give these tests, right,
Speaker 1: and then we can't trust every school to do a
Speaker 1: good job. We can't trust every teacher to do a
Speaker 1: good job. That's right. That is definitely a core belief
Speaker 1: lying behind the idea of accountability, right, Yeah, we're holding
Speaker 1: teachers accountable. Yeah, No, I think that's right. I keep
Speaker 1: in my head. I keep going back because I don't
Speaker 1: feel like we actually answered the question of what the
Speaker 1: purpose of school is. We talked about so many things
Speaker 1: that we don't think it is. Yeah, what do you think?
Speaker 1: Can we both do? We both agree that, like the
Speaker 1: purpose school is definitely more than just learning about knowledge?
Speaker 1: I think so, okay, okay, so we can start there
Speaker 1: at least and say, so, so we can go build
Speaker 1: that and then do incorporate social emotional development into that?
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, I think definitely. So, I mean, let's
Speaker 1: look at us. Let's let's take a sociological put our
Speaker 1: sociologists cap on for a second. Boy, it's been a
Speaker 1: while that well, I mean because I mean when I
Speaker 1: say sociologists, it's like, I guess it's a little bit
Speaker 1: Marxist too. It's like, who pays for this school? Who
Speaker 1: built the school? Right? Taxpayers paid for the school. Taxpayers
Speaker 1: build the school, And what do the taxpayers want? What
Speaker 1: do they want? They? Well, Weaver surveyed them and ask
Speaker 1: them what they think the optimal outcomes are that they're
Speaker 1: paying for. Well, so, so, one thing is that workers
Speaker 1: want kids to be safe in a building during the day.
Speaker 1: One thing is that the state wants everybody to have
Speaker 1: a certain you know, to speak English, to have a
Speaker 1: certain set of social mores, let's say, to know how
Speaker 1: to behave in groups and within institutions. That the state
Speaker 1: is a model, that the school is a model institution.
Speaker 1: So it prepares little workers, little you know, for the workplace.
Speaker 1: It prepares us on an ideal level, it prepares us
Speaker 1: to be citizens, not only within institutions, but within kind
Speaker 1: of the country as a whole engagements. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: exactly right, citizens the basic requirements of citizenship, and the
Speaker 1: reason we have a public a public school system is because, right,
Speaker 1: we don't we don't necessarily believe that parents or families
Speaker 1: should be responsible for that entirely on their own. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean those are what about well being? Well being
Speaker 1: that is that important and all social welfare. I think
Speaker 1: is important that that parenting or raising children is not
Speaker 1: solely the responsibility of the nuclear family. So if you
Speaker 1: can think of there's certainly a huge amount of emotional
Speaker 1: investment that goes into that, as anybody who has a
Speaker 1: kid can tell you. Well, I said, well, like like
Speaker 1: subjective well being, like happiness. Well, I don't know that
Speaker 1: everyone would agree with that. I don't know if I yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm just wondering. I'm just bringing this up. Is this
Speaker 1: something you know? Is it like like, for instance, the
Speaker 1: idea of well being in positive psychology goes well beyond
Speaker 1: just happiness, So things like meaning, you know, this is
Speaker 1: this is this is an interesting thing? Like like something
Speaker 1: that standardized tests and teaching the standarized tests clearly neglects
Speaker 1: is meaning meaning makes it just neglect It empties the test. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know that's exactly right, it right, Yeah, yeah, it
Speaker 1: empties all meaning and context, yes, all personal meeting, as
Speaker 1: well as connecting it to your day and future self. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So completely agree with that. And so maybe this these
Speaker 1: should be I mean I think that they, you know,
Speaker 1: should at least meaning should be affused more into the curriculum. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that that's I think that's yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: I could. Yeah, I'm totally on board with that. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm curious about it, as you know, on the
Speaker 1: broadest possible level of consensus that we could reach. But
Speaker 1: you know, I certainly think, you know, just from a
Speaker 1: retailitarian standpoint, right, we want to promote happiness and we
Speaker 1: want to promote curiosity. We need innovation and curiosity. Oh,
Speaker 1: I love that you're actually recognizing creativity is important. I
Speaker 1: love that. I mean, you know, I come I was
Speaker 1: a fast company writer and I am a come from
Speaker 1: a tech background. I think you know that that part
Speaker 1: of things. We don't move forward, you know, on an
Speaker 1: economic basis without that. So it's pretty it's important for
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of reasons. Absolutely, And you know it's
Speaker 1: funny you said, I don't know we could reach a
Speaker 1: consensus about I really I like that way of thinking.
Speaker 1: So I can tell you something from giving talks to
Speaker 1: educators and stuff that there seems to be consensus about.
Speaker 1: There seems to be consensus that standardized tests don't are stupid.
Speaker 1: So it's almost like everyone has a consensus about that,
Speaker 1: yet that's still the predominant thing. Obviously, that's why that's
Speaker 1: obviously your book is all about that. But I'm saying that.
Speaker 1: But there needs to be more voices like yours. I mean, like,
Speaker 1: how can your book and these things you propose, how
Speaker 1: can you really make a change to publicity policy makers?
Speaker 1: Because I think that the majority of parents reading your
Speaker 1: book will have a consensus that your book is on
Speaker 1: the right track. Well, I'm glad that you say that.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I believe it, I really believe it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean I do see as being at
Speaker 1: a moment, a moment of possibilities. I don't think that
Speaker 1: the legislative Proposals House is going to float probably on
Speaker 1: Friday on you know, this week that we're talking on
Speaker 1: some reauthorization, and I think that there's it's going to
Speaker 1: fall well short of you know, the changes that we're
Speaker 1: talking talk about the Republican Senate bill that they've been
Speaker 1: drafting to eliminate federal mandate on standrized testing. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so that's a big deal. If that goes through, it
Speaker 1: is a really big deal. And it's it's opposed by
Speaker 1: a lot of people. I mean, I'm both there's there's
Speaker 1: a real debate about it because you know, is this
Speaker 1: really being done in the spirit and intention of innovative
Speaker 1: solutions or is it just a matter of sort of
Speaker 1: abdicating a federal mandate? Yeah, And I and I really
Speaker 1: hate like when it gets it's obviously political, but I
Speaker 1: feel like something like this shouldn't be political, you know,
Speaker 1: like both Democrats, Do you agree with me? You know
Speaker 1: what I mean? Yes, it's too important to be. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's too important, like like we don't need like it's
Speaker 1: not a Republican Democrat thing. It's like the future of children, right,
Speaker 1: I know, I know, I know, I wish she could
Speaker 1: be removed from this sphere of politics. And in some ways,
Speaker 1: you know, it is. I mean, this is one of
Speaker 1: the crazy things about the American school system is how
Speaker 1: local it is and really a lot of times and
Speaker 1: there's such a split between how people feel about education
Speaker 1: policy and how they feel about their kids school and
Speaker 1: their kids teacher. Yeah. No, absolutely, and so at all
Speaker 1: different levels in terms of making a change into public
Speaker 1: policy level, teacher training level, I think is also important,
Speaker 1: you know, administrative level, and from going back to the
Speaker 1: federal level. Again, like Artie Duncan has studies concerned about testing,
Speaker 1: but he also believes they're important educational tools. But couldn't
Speaker 1: we make a case to him that, like, there are
Speaker 1: lots of things that could be educational tools, and then
Speaker 1: the whole universe of things that could be educational tools,
Speaker 1: this is not one of the best well, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's a really tough conversation and I actually, I
Speaker 1: mean I found myself in a room I don't think
Speaker 1: this was off the current with the group at the
Speaker 1: department about a small side group, and I was really
Speaker 1: surprised at how vociferously they were defending the status quo
Speaker 1: and testing even though they sort of liked hearing about
Speaker 1: the potential alternatives. But they felt like they were very
Speaker 1: long way off. And you know, that's a political issue
Speaker 1: of not wanting to see the ground that you've already
Speaker 1: staked out until something new comes along. But it certainly
Speaker 1: is I mean odd the odd things that give me hope, Scott,
Speaker 1: like one of them is I think this social emotional
Speaker 1: research is not going away. Everybody sees like the importance
Speaker 1: of it is so strong, that data is so strong,
Speaker 1: or character traits more generally, Well, that's right exactly. I
Speaker 1: mean noncognitive whatever you want to call it, mindset skills
Speaker 1: have it's the parts of your brain and the parts
Speaker 1: of being human that are not you know, academic absolutely,
Speaker 1: by the way, I you know, the term non cognitive
Speaker 1: is such a non correct representation of what those kids are.
Speaker 1: They are cognitive, I mean very cognitive, you know, like
Speaker 1: like big persevering amidst setbacks, as it very much involves
Speaker 1: a mindset of resilience that yeah, totally. And planning, as
Speaker 1: I mentioned, executive functioning right, planning allegate resources yes, for
Speaker 1: the executive functioning frame, the empathy frame, yes, as well
Speaker 1: as you know, dare I say imagination, you know, which
Speaker 1: doesn't come from the executive network, comes from a new
Speaker 1: brain network that's been discovered called the default mode network,
Speaker 1: or the imagination brain network as I like to call it. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's pretty pretty unimportant. So here, so here. But here's
Speaker 1: what's exciting. What excites mean yeah, is the push toward
Speaker 1: universal preschool. Because we talk about the benefits of universal preschool.
Speaker 1: It's one hundred percent about this stuff. Does that mean
Speaker 1: like free? Does that mean free? It means expanding the
Speaker 1: public mandate? Is that a possibility? It's something that a
Speaker 1: MoMA's been talking about like crazy, and it's something that's
Speaker 1: expanding over thirty states in the last few years. Holy cow,
Speaker 1: that's great. I know. It's also something early early, early
Speaker 1: word is that Hillary Clinton is making it a big
Speaker 1: cornerstone of her kind of run for president. The research
Speaker 1: is really strong, you know, I mean, you know, the
Speaker 1: research and it's all about I mean, of course, it's
Speaker 1: about academic achievement, but it's much more in their early
Speaker 1: years about sort of the nurturing side of school. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean at that stage it's all about play and curiosity.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah. But like I want every school to be
Speaker 1: more like preschool. I love preschool too. And when we
Speaker 1: start talking about what high quality preschool is, you know,
Speaker 1: states have to evaluate their public preschool programs and they
Speaker 1: can give the kids horrible standardized tests, and some of
Speaker 1: them are. But what other states are choosing to do
Speaker 1: or alongside it, if they're choosing to look at things
Speaker 1: like teacher training, teacher preparation, teacher pay, student you know,
Speaker 1: school resources and the kinds of you know, outcomes that
Speaker 1: we're talking about. So yeah, maybe that trickles up, that's
Speaker 1: my hope. Yeah. And you know, as you know, from
Speaker 1: an economic perspective, Heckman's found a preschool, a good teacher
Speaker 1: can can save so much money or such a such
Speaker 1: a valuable investment when you look to see how those
Speaker 1: kids grow up in contribute to society. Of course not
Speaker 1: I don't think that school should be all about, you know,
Speaker 1: what is the child going to contribute to society economically?
Speaker 1: Someday that shouldn't be the sole purpose of education. But
Speaker 1: if if you're talking to policy makers who care about
Speaker 1: that stuff, obviously that's one argument for a good, good preschool. Well,
Speaker 1: and that's exactly what this where this push is coming from.
Speaker 1: It's coming out of that research. And that's why I
Speaker 1: have such faith in it, because you're right. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is been shown. It's really good research, it's over time,
Speaker 1: and it makes the case in terms that and that
Speaker 1: everybody can understand. Absolutely. Uh. You think about a lot
Speaker 1: of parents that are fed up with the current system,
Speaker 1: and what I find fascinating is that, and you talk
Speaker 1: about this in your book about a lot of them
Speaker 1: are opting out. They're just saying, you know what, So
Speaker 1: they're like, I'm done with this, So done with this.
Speaker 1: Now that happens at different levels. They're they're they're they're
Speaker 1: there's homeschooling, right, there's there's unschooling movement, which is growing.
Speaker 1: What other kinds of things are you seeing that when
Speaker 1: you're researching your book, did you talk to some of
Speaker 1: these parents you've decided to opt out? Yeah? I mean,
Speaker 1: and you're totally right to point out it's happening in
Speaker 1: all kinds of different ways. I mean, the opt out
Speaker 1: movement is associated with simply, you know, keeping students home
Speaker 1: from standardized tests. But I find that, you know, across
Speaker 1: the board, the parents I talk to, you know, most
Speaker 1: of the time, they're motivated by a really clear issue.
Speaker 1: Their kids don't want to go to school anymore, or
Speaker 1: they hate school because of this test. And you just
Speaker 1: start asking questions about why does my kid have to
Speaker 1: take this test? And what's the point of this test?
Speaker 1: Is that technically illegal? It's like not like it's not
Speaker 1: the same level as truancy, right, Like can you actually say,
Speaker 1: you know what, my child's not going to take standardized tests?
Speaker 1: Is that like legal? It has been it is, it is.
Speaker 1: It has been explicitly permitted in several states by this
Speaker 1: either the state attorney general or the superintendent of education.
Speaker 1: So there's been sort of special dispensation given to parents.
Speaker 1: And then this state law requires the school to administer
Speaker 1: the test. The stay law doesn't explicitly require the parent
Speaker 1: to send the kid to school on the test day
Speaker 1: exactly it would be. I have not heard of a
Speaker 1: single case where any kind of legal means were used
Speaker 1: to stop parents from opting their kids out of school. Well,
Speaker 1: you'd have to involve truancy case to do that. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is this is just mind bolt. This is fascinating.
Speaker 1: So you're saying it's technically possible if the parent decides
Speaker 1: to just completely opt out of the standard of the
Speaker 1: federal mandates all this stuff and the child still does
Speaker 1: really well GPA wise, they could still get into a
Speaker 1: good college. Oh my god, of course, right, So state
Speaker 1: tests don't have individuals, right, right, so you can as
Speaker 1: a parent decide, you know what, I bet my child
Speaker 1: is going to have better chances of getting to a
Speaker 1: good college and doing well in terms of the academic
Speaker 1: curricum in our school GPA wise if we focus more
Speaker 1: of our attention on deep learning and figuring out the
Speaker 1: child's identity and what kind of major they would really
Speaker 1: want to do, etc. Et cetera. Para can just make
Speaker 1: that decision and they wouldn't be there wouldn't be like
Speaker 1: legal consequences. Oh you know, I had a parent call
Speaker 1: into a call in show yesterday in San Francisco and
Speaker 1: she said, before there was an opt out movement, I
Speaker 1: just opted my daughter out of all the tests because
Speaker 1: she didn't like tests. And she did find you went
Speaker 1: to great college and now they're whole movement about it.
Speaker 1: But I just decided that was the best thing for
Speaker 1: my kid. I mean, you know, it varies from place
Speaker 1: to place. So there are states where there are high
Speaker 1: school exit exams and have you potentially have trouble getting
Speaker 1: a high school diploma if you didn't pass those tests.
Speaker 1: But in most cases there are alternative means of assessment.
Speaker 1: And they have to be because you have students coming
Speaker 1: in from out of state, you have students who have
Speaker 1: been home schooled, you have students who have various illnesses
Speaker 1: and disabilities, and they don't have state test scores. So
Speaker 1: the districts have to have alternative means of assessment. They
Speaker 1: just might not advertise them. And so, for example, in
Speaker 1: New York State, you have the right to request a
Speaker 1: portfolio based evaluation for competitive high school and if you're
Speaker 1: willing to jump through those hoops, and if you are,
Speaker 1: you know, educated and well connected and have the resources
Speaker 1: and the confidence, you can certainly get your kid out
Speaker 1: of any test you want. Well that's data. I mean,
Speaker 1: why hasn't anyone done a study comparing the outcomes of
Speaker 1: those we've opted out versus those who are still in
Speaker 1: the I mean, what if you look at and find
Speaker 1: out find like even better outcomes. That's data that public
Speaker 1: SUPPOLICI because when they want to know that, I mean sure,
Speaker 1: honestly those the best way to do that would probably
Speaker 1: be to match families from public and private schools, because
Speaker 1: private schools don't give these tests. That's right, that's a
Speaker 1: good are independent schools? Yeah? And more finally yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I just daught on me. That's like, we
Speaker 1: have so much information there that we can actually use
Speaker 1: to show whether or not to empirically test the value
Speaker 1: of being in a standardized testing culture and opting into
Speaker 1: that exactly. So interesting. So what do you think of
Speaker 1: Finland's that everyone talks about Finland? Right? So you knew
Speaker 1: that was that question was coming because I did read
Speaker 1: a really interesting article about it the other day on
Speaker 1: on what they're there there there. It's so it's so
Speaker 1: interesting because on the one hand, the reason why I'm
Speaker 1: like stuttering here is because on the one hand, they
Speaker 1: actually are all about I don't know, I don't know
Speaker 1: if they really are about individualization, right, because they're actually
Speaker 1: all about like equality, right. So I've actually confused right
Speaker 1: now what exactly is? So tell me what's so good
Speaker 1: about Finland. You know, I'm not a Finland fetishist. Oh
Speaker 1: is that a thing? Totally in the world of education,
Speaker 1: totally and mostly because I'm not. I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: know if I would say I'm an American exceptionalist. But like,
Speaker 1: I see so many things that are unique about us,
Speaker 1: and I also don't see I'm sort of counter to
Speaker 1: the declinest narrative of American education, which has been so
Speaker 1: current for so long, which is like, decade after decade,
Speaker 1: we're failing, We're dying, We're at a security We're a
Speaker 1: security risk, and I just don't see that. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that as a nation, we have many flaws
Speaker 1: and many complexities in our society, but I don't see
Speaker 1: proof that our education system is our big Achilles heel
Speaker 1: amongst all the things that are wrong with America, you know,
Speaker 1: I point economic inequality and our lack of a healthcare
Speaker 1: system as the things I would fix, right, right, But
Speaker 1: the finished education system is remarkable, right for its attention
Speaker 1: to basically equalizing resources, and they have good outcomes. I mean,
Speaker 1: they have good outcomes in terms of like life outcomes, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: So I just wonder, like what what what what can
Speaker 1: we learn from them and what do we not want
Speaker 1: to repeat from them? Well? I think I think we
Speaker 1: can learn from their focus on equalizing inputs as well
Speaker 1: as outcomes. Okay, I like that, Yeah, just on a
Speaker 1: basic on a baseline level, that's what I would say. Yeah,
Speaker 1: like from an economic perspective and a you know, healthcare
Speaker 1: perspective well, and also describing I mean, how do we
Speaker 1: define accountability? Right? Like, I drew a lot from the
Speaker 1: Broader Boulder approach, which was presented in the nineties and
Speaker 1: again when Obama was running for office, and this idea
Speaker 1: that accountability isn't just about holding schools accountable for their
Speaker 1: test scores, but it's about holding states and districts accountable
Speaker 1: for their schools. And how do you justify not giving
Speaker 1: more of your resources to schools that serve the highest
Speaker 1: needs students? Absolutely? Yeah, So that's an interesting quest. It
Speaker 1: makes me think about gift and talented programs. Have you
Speaker 1: been putting great thought into gift and talented programs? You know,
Speaker 1: It's been coming at up a lot for me recently,
Speaker 1: and I've been thinking about opening up an investigation into
Speaker 1: them and learning more about them, because I think I
Speaker 1: can help you with that, it's a fascinating community and
Speaker 1: a lot of them their heart really is in a
Speaker 1: good place. Yeah. And I also I just think like
Speaker 1: across the spectrum, like I've been also spending more time
Speaker 1: thinking about special education teachers because I think that they're
Speaker 1: probably some of the most skilled teachers out there. And
Speaker 1: in both cases is what you're looking at is special
Speaker 1: needs well and individualized plans right and planking to students' strengths,
Speaker 1: helping them develop what they what they care about most. Absolutely, Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean there there those in the margins in any
Speaker 1: in any in any sense or fall or certainly falling
Speaker 1: between the cracks and the standardized environment. Yeah, absolutely absolutely.
Speaker 1: So I want to You've been so generous with your time.
Speaker 1: I just have one more question we can end on
Speaker 1: I thought would be appropriate place to and how can
Speaker 1: people play and win the testing game in our current environment?
Speaker 1: You know, obviously you have this great vision for the future,
Speaker 1: but under the current world that we live in right now,
Speaker 1: your your parent, you have to send your child to
Speaker 1: the school. You have to. They don't want to opt out.
Speaker 1: How how can they How can you win this game?
Speaker 1: So I have an acronym which is t E. S
Speaker 1: t to remember a side of the wind with strategies
Speaker 1: that's great for parents. Tease from manage the test, which
Speaker 1: means teach kids about what tests are for and how
Speaker 1: they work and kind of demystify what the psychometricians a
Speaker 1: mystified and use test taking strategies. I think give good,
Speaker 1: high quality test taking strategies are really just good critical
Speaker 1: thinking strategies, so they can help you outside the test.
Speaker 1: E is for manage your emotions and energy, so you know,
Speaker 1: using good mental habits, basic kind of hygiene, health and hygiene,
Speaker 1: good sleep, good eating, and dealing with emotions head on.
Speaker 1: Managing self motivation. I think that you know, you know,
Speaker 1: in order for students to do well on tests, they
Speaker 1: have to want to do well. In order for them
Speaker 1: to want to do well, they have to be pretty
Speaker 1: committed to the outcomes, not in an anxious way, but
Speaker 1: really understanding how school performance and how learning is going
Speaker 1: to work for them in the big picture. And helping
Speaker 1: them kind of apply learning and get to enjoy learning
Speaker 1: in many different settings I think can be really helpful
Speaker 1: for that. And then finally, manage your tone, so I
Speaker 1: talk about the most important person that you need to
Speaker 1: work on as yourself. You know, if your child is
Speaker 1: really anxious about test taking, the chances are that they
Speaker 1: pick that up from you because parents are really anxious.
Speaker 1: And what kind of messages are we sending explicitly or
Speaker 1: implicitly about the importance of these tests and where they
Speaker 1: fit into a child's life. Are we able to think
Speaker 1: critically about them or we able to laugh about them?
Speaker 1: And sort of what is the overall conversation that goes
Speaker 1: on in your home around learning, around achievement, around curiosity,
Speaker 1: or on motivation. Yes, and that tone operates at different
Speaker 1: levels too, like teachers set the tone, the community order
Speaker 1: community set the tone. So yeah, yes, I absolutely love that. Anya.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for your time today and really
Speaker 1: Ring quite a remarkable book that I hope a lot
Speaker 1: of policy makers and educators read. Oh it was so
Speaker 1: fun talking with you, Scott. I can't wait to listen
Speaker 1: to this. Thanks for listening to the Psychology Podcast with
Speaker 1: doctor Scott Barry Kaufman. I hope you found this episode
Speaker 1: just as performative. Foper it if you don't like to
Speaker 1: read the show notes for this episode or your past episodes,
Speaker 1: if you go to the Psychology Podcast dot com