Why Kids Should Be Building Rockets Instead of Taking Tests

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Kids Should Be Building Rockets Instead of Taking Tests

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday June 5, 2012 @07:38AM from the because-the-failure-case-is-much-more-exciting dept.

An anonymous reader writes "MAKE Magazine founder Dale Dougherty has an article in Slate about how educators are missing the punchline when it comes to getting kids interested in learning. He describes a recent visit he made to a middle school: 'The science lab was empty, as were the library and the playground. It was not a school holiday: It was a state-mandated STAR testing day. The school was in an academic lockdown. This is what the American public school looks like in 2012, driven by obsessive adherence to standardized testing. The fate of children, their schools, and their teachers are based on these school test scores.' Dougherty's preference would be to more tightly integrate basic engineering projects into the science curriculum. 'I see the power of engaging kids in science and technology through the practices of making and hands-on experiences, through tinkering and taking things apart. Schools seem to have forgotten that students learn best when they are engaged; in fact, the biggest problem in schools is boredom. Students sit passively, expected to absorb all the content that is thrown at them without much context. The context that's missing is the real world."

31 of 381 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Educators aren't missing the punchline... by fotbr · 2012-06-05 07:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

They're doing exactly what they've been told to do by the system that politics has created. To fix our schools, you need to keep congress's nose out of the process, return responsibility to the individual states and local boards of education.
1. Re:Educators aren't missing the punchline... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 07:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because if anyone knows how to create a quality education its the idiots that elect your local school board.
2. Re:Educators aren't missing the punchline... by DesScorp · 2012-06-05 07:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They're doing exactly what they've been told to do by the system that politics has created. To fix our schools, you need to keep congress's nose out of the process, return responsibility to the individual states and local boards of education.
  While I agree with your sentiments, educators are not only missing the punchline, they're one of the primary drivers behind the current system. Have a look at the curriculum of various education degree programs at colleges and universities... especially on the graduate side. You'll find a devotion to rigid institutional orthodoxy, and an almost cultish drive to keep non-education majors out of the the teaching ranks. Teaching has become something of a guild.
  
  --
  Life is hard, and the world is cruel
3. Re:Educators aren't missing the punchline... by cpu6502 · 2012-06-05 07:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The "better" system this guy proposes wouldn't work any better. How would you know which student learned, and which did not, if you do not have testing? What would happen is that a few students do all the work, while the other students slackoff and do nada. (Been there; experienced it)
  How do you eliminate bad teachers like the joker I had who wasted 40 minutes of every class talking about his karate lessons and/or last weekend at the bar? You need testing to see if the teacher is really teaching, or not.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
4. Re:Educators aren't missing the punchline... by NeutronCowboy · 2012-06-05 08:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You mean, "local" schoolboards like the Texas one? See here for an example? I'll never understand why people think that local politicians are somehow better than Washington politicians. If anything, they can be worse, because there are far more possibilities for them to go completely off the deep end and be unchallenged.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
5. Re:Educators aren't missing the punchline... by magarity · 2012-06-05 08:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because if anyone knows how to create a quality education its the idiots that elect your local school board.
  Are you trying to imply the federal department of education has higher quality idiots than the local school board?
6. Re:Educators aren't missing the punchline... by realmolo · 2012-06-05 08:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You've got it exactly backwards.
  The states and local boards of education are THE PROBLEM.
  Public education in this country is a magnet for failed middle-managers and failed politicians. They use local school districts to build their little fiefdoms, and to line the pockets of their friends with government contracts for construction, and books, and computers, and all that crap. Education is the LAST thing on their minds, and the glorification of standardized testing works right into their hands. Standardized testing means that school districts don't need to worry about actually TEACHING. They just need to teach the test. And they don't want to "teach the test" TOO well, because they want the federal government to keep throwing money at them, which the feds don't like to do for schools that are performing well already.
  It's a giant mess. And almost ALL of the mess starts at the local school board level. They're crooks, the lot of them.
7. Re:Educators aren't missing the punchline... by Sir_Sri · 2012-06-05 08:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So that individual states can ban the teaching of evolution and institutionally ignoring climate change? If they can't find, or don't want to pay for someone who happens to understand alternating current versus direct current that's no problem, they'll just make whomever is the least liked teacher amongst the department do it.
  Education should be a federal responsibility, US students go to schools all around the country, and compete on an international stage. Allowing one state to permanently disadvantage its children by institutionalizing stupidity is precisely the sort of thing that federal governments should work to prevent. Nor is it fair that a child in a poor state will have less education resources just because that's where he or she was born, when someone who had the foresight to be born in a rich neighbourhood in a rich state will get a much better experience.
  That doesn't make any given standardized test a good idea, and it certainly doesn't make a lot of standardized testing a good idea. But you can't serious want a system where you have no idea how the kids are doing or where you need improvement. Big states (think New York, Florida, Texas, California) will still have to have some sort of standardized testing because they are big enough to warrant it, but when each state does it you can't even compare state to state easily.
  The world is in an era where you can be born in India, raised in Dubai for public school, go to highschool in Georgia (the State), got to University in California, work in New York. At no step in that process do you really want states determining your education. Does Georgia (the state) really want to have some criteria on how to assess a student coming in from every country in the world? Does some university in California really want to have thousands of different metrics for every state in every country in the world to try and figure out who to admit, and does some company based in New York really want a situation where it can't trust education from some states, but not others, and to try and figure out how to track all of that? That system is enormously wasteful, and mind numbingly stupid. Part of why the US system has so many holes in it is because individual states and school boards have decided their should be holes. (Think Kansas and Texas on evolution).
  Giving individual states responsibility for something makes sense if you can then extract the good ideas and apply them federally. It's not like states would ever be completely excluded from the process no more than the local school board or individual teacher are ever excluded from the process. But if you're all going to be americans, or south koreans or whatever, you should hope that the federal government will make sure you all get a fair opportunity if the states won't. Which they can't anymore.
  If you want a truly harsh example look at what is going to happen to kids in Greece and Spain compared to germany and france. The former two are going to have to savagely cut education (along with everything else) because they're fucked in a currency union without a fiscal union. Those kids are going to have a much harder time helping their countries fix problems in 10 years because they aren't going to be as well prepared. Should some kid born in california get a shitty education because some dipshits voted for more spending and less taxes for the last 30 years, and left no money for schools today? They're having their futures held hostage by a stupid political process which they aren't responsible for nor even a part of.
8. Re:Educators aren't missing the punchline... by Shotgun · 2012-06-05 08:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Because, we do not have a citizen legislature (if we ever did), and it would still be impossible to get everyone on the same page if we did.
  1) When the Washington pols go off the deep end, they drag everybody down with them.
  2) One size fits all rarely fits anyone.
  3) Local schoolboards know better what is needed for their locality than a politician living in Washington.
  The "but then something I dislike could happen in one place" is a vapid argument.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
9. Re:Educators aren't missing the punchline... by samkass · 2012-06-05 08:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How do you eliminate bad teachers like the joker I had who wasted 40 minutes of every class talking about his karate lessons and/or last weekend at the bar? You need testing to see if the teacher is really teaching, or not.
  You do what people do in every other employment field. 360-degree evaluations, manager involvement and leadership, peer reviews, and (appropriately weighted) student feedback questionnaires. Sure, throw a test in there as well if you'd like. But the idea that student ("customer") betterment should be the one and only thing on which everything rests is a little misguided. Not only is it not a very good judge of an employees quality as they have limited control over some of the most important parts of learning (ie. parental involvement, student interest in the subject, local funding resources), but it's also not great for the students' education itself.
  
  --
  E pluribus unum
10. Re:Educators aren't missing the punchline... by arth1 · 2012-06-05 08:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The "better" system this guy proposes wouldn't work any better. How would you know which student learned, and which did not, if you do not have testing?
  You test something you haven't taught them.
  That shows how good the students are at applying what they have been taught.
  The reliance on pre-digested knowledge is the bane of education. You don't teach the kids to learn, you teach them to become notebooks. I have no use for hiring notebooks. But I would like to hire someone who knows how to learn.
11. Re:Educators aren't missing the punchline... by tsa · 2012-06-05 08:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  This problem is not unique to the US. Here in the Netherlands kids take their first tests when they are 4 years old! Absolutely ridiculous if you ask me. Let them play and be kids!
  Another problem here are boys in the classroom, or rather the fact that the teachers, who are almost always female, don't understand them and don't know how to handle them. Boys have to run, jump and do all kinds of things, while girls are more often happy sitting at a table doing things like drawing, writing and needlework. So boys are often regarded a nuisance. This 'problem' is often 'solved' by giving the boys medication. We should have teachers who actually understand kids, but these days many teachers here can't even spell properly. So we have a whole generation of kids with a shaky foundation on which they have to build all their knowledge. Thank you, governments, for saving so much money on education! We are in for interesting times.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
12. Re:Educators aren't missing the punchline... by HornWumpus · 2012-06-05 08:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The problem is there are two standard textbooks in the USA. Texas and California. They are about equally fucked, in opposite directions.
  I think you start the students thinking critically early and give them both.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
13. Re:Educators aren't missing the punchline... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 10:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes, because "anti-religious bigots" are imagining things like this:
  http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-usa-education-tennessee-idUSBRE83C0JR20120413
  The fact of the matter is that a relatively small number of fringe religious lunatics are wielding a HUGELY disproportionate amount of influence in American politics in general (and with respect to "evolution vs creationsim" in schools in particular, to make it relevant to this thread).
  Do you honestly think we're better off with public policy decisions being grounded in religious dogma?
14. Re:Educators aren't missing the punchline... by lgw · 2012-06-05 14:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes, in this one specific case, the government is less crazy, but history is replete with examples to the contrary. Totalitarian states love nothing more than central control of education - it's the ultimate weapon in information warfare. It's happening right now in a great many contries: the most outrageous propaganda taught in schools by order of the central authority (really, creationism is minor in comparison).
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
15. Re:Educators aren't missing the punchline... by AthanasiusKircher · 2012-06-05 14:15 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  How would you know which student learned, and which did not, if you do not have testing?
  Umm, believe it or not, as someone who has over a decade of experience teaching, you can actually assess students on the basis of things other than performance on paper tests.
  
  What would happen is that a few students do all the work, while the other students slackoff and do nada.
  Yeah, there's this thing called: paying attention to what your students are doing in your classroom. As a physics teacher who included a huge amount of lab activities in "conceptual physics" classes, I would continuously wander around the room, talking with groups, asking individual students what's going on, etc. You pretty quickly get a sense of whether someone is actively contributing or whether they're sitting there watching everyone else. And, heck, if you ask them to write a lab report or answer questions as individuals based on what they did after the fact, you can easily tell which students actually understand what's going on.
  
  How do you eliminate bad teachers like the joker I had who wasted 40 minutes of every class talking about his karate lessons and/or last weekend at the bar? You need testing to see if the teacher is really teaching, or not.
  Umm, no. Standardized testing can give some sort of general baseline about whether any learning at all is going on, but it's not going to tell the whole story.
  Having taught at both public secondary schools and a top-tier elite private secondary school, I can tell you that the solution is easy: real, true professional evaluations by good teachers. Many if not most public school administrators who are tasked with doing teacher evaluations are principals for a good reason -- they often were terrible teachers, and took the administration certification test to get into something they'd be better at. These are the people we have evaluating our teachers... most are hardly experts in classroom teaching.
  The elite private school I taught at had one member of the faculty who was the head of teaching evaluations and teaching coordinator. (I forget his actual title, but that's what he was.) He was an actual teacher. Just about everyone at the school acknowledged that he was one of the top teachers at the school. He would come to sit in on maybe a half dozen or more of your classes each year, not just the 45-minute mandatory evaluation done by some anonymous administrator at a public school.
  And the other administrators were teachers too. The head of the high school still taught a course. He would come and sit in on at least a few classes with every teacher too. Students were used to these people being around, so they didn't behave weirdly (unlike public school evaluations, where students were usually freaked out when the principal came to class once per year). The head of the high school would actually commonly just drop in with very little notice and see what was going on in a classroom, hang out for 15 minutes or so (he was an English teacher, but loved hanging out with students doing science experiments, because he found it all fascinating)... and frankly, because all of this happened so often, it really wasn't stressful for teachers, because everyone at the school was so comfortable with it.
  After you had taught at the school for a few years (and before you had whatever their equivalent of "tenure" was), you were teamed up with one of a handful of very experienced teachers at the school who acted as a mentor for an entire semester or year. (These mentor teachers were usually required to teach one fewer class for their service.) You would do in-depth classroom observations, planning, discussions of teaching improvements and strategies, etc. with this person. And all teachers at the school were required to repeat some lesser version of this program with their peers every 7-10 years or something after the initial intensive one.
  You ca
16. Re:Educators aren't missing the punchline... by bogjobber · 2012-06-06 00:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Maybe because the "diverse, alternative world-views" are demonstrably false, unscientific, and have absolutely no function other than as a tool fundamentalists use to further their own political goals?
  
  Why do you think caring about the separation of church and state guaranteed to us in the constitution makes someone "obsessive."
Oh God, yes, rockets not tests ... by wdef · 2012-06-05 07:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

I was fascinated by all things science as a little kid. Doing, enjoying, fantasizing. I craved books for kids about science, electronics kits and chemistry sets - these were what I enjoyed. And toy robots. Then I got to junior high school and started formal science classes. Awful. Hated chemistry. Math was painful. Only physics became vaguely interesting. I did a BS, but school nearly ruined that path.
Agreed by MyLongNickName · 2012-06-05 07:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

My third grader informed me one day that "science is boring". You could have hit my in the nuts with a hammer and it would have hurt me less. I inquired more and found out that he is reading a lot of stuff and he just doesn't find it exciting.
First, I got ahold of a few interesting science videos dealing with astronomy and robotics. He was intrigued. On a trip to Disney I took him on a behind the scenes tour at their greenhouses where he got to talk to a Botanist and learn more. And I"ve found a few other opportunities to get him involved in some hands on science.
I'll be damned if I let school choke out his love for learning. He's border-line gifted if not gifted (I'm Triple Nine) and it would be a shame if he limited his options because of school...

--
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
1. Re:Agreed by DesScorp · 2012-06-05 08:26 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  My third grader informed me one day that "science is boring". You could have hit my in the nuts with a hammer and it would have hurt me less. I inquired more and found out that he is reading a lot of stuff and he just doesn't find it exciting
  I collect old books, including some old textbooks, and one thing I see is a definite shift from the use of the practical to explain science in texts to an almost complete reliance on theory. The former is interesting and the later bores the hell out of most kids.
  One of my favorite books that I've collected is a junior high school general science text from 1932. If you're used to modern school science texts, the thing that immediately jumps out at you about this book is that for most subjects, practical, real world examples are used to introduce the concept to the students... usually using machines that do our various jobs... and then followed with some light theory behind. For instance, flight is taught not with a dry paragraph of theory, but with a picture of a WWI fighter in action, with notes on how the various parts work. That grabs their interest with the cool factor. Then a paragraph on the opposite page has a brief description of Bernoulli's principle to explain how it gets off the ground. There's a chapter on energy that starts out with a diagram of an old Dynamo, with an incredibly cool description of how everything works, what the various parts do, and thenyou get some info on electrical theory. It's fantastic, and I read it cover to cover. I never had a science text like that, and I was in my mid-30's when I bought it, had a bachelor's degree, and I still learned things from it. It was fun. When's the last time you saw a middle school science text that could be described as fun?
  Go to Google Books, and poke around in some of the old science texts from that period. You'll see what I'm talking about. I absolutely love the idea of teaching by means of examining how a machine works, especially when you do it by building one on a small scale yourself. So I completely get the "have 'em build rockets" notion. There's a lot to that.
  When's the last time you've seen a school science text
  
  --
  Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Re:Teach the test? by jedidiah · 2012-06-05 07:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

It may be a suboptimal result but it is at least a demonstrable result.
People like to whine about rote learning and facts, but before you start applying "more sophisticated thinking" you have to have a solid grasp of the facts.
You have to have something that can be measured.
Clearly this idea scares a lot of people.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Standardized Testing - by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-05 07:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Virtually useless, until someone invents a standardized student.

Education will suffer until the Powers-That-Be realize not every person learns the same way.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Because they'll explode in their faces by Kergan · 2012-06-05 07:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

You Sir, should watch 5 dangerous things kids should do:
http://www.ted.com/talks/gever_tulley_on_5_dangerous_things_for_kids.html
Does that include localizing the funding? by John+Jorsett · 2012-06-05 08:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

To fix our schools, you need to keep congress's nose out of the process, return responsibility to the individual states and local boards of education.
Would you also eliminate federal funding and let states and localities pay for their own schools? Unless you do, the feds are going to put conditions on what they're paying for, and justifiably so. Personally I'd like to see the feds out of many areas, including education, since their participation comes with a lot of strings.
Re:Because they'll explode in their faces by HornWumpus · 2012-06-05 08:27 · Score: 5, Informative

I've never had an Estes rocket blow up by accident.
They are safe as houses.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Because they'll explode in their faces by v1 · 2012-06-05 08:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

My mom hit at least three of those with me at an early age. I just love the saying "Don't childproof the world, worldproof the child"
We seem to be raising generations of ever-less-capable people by trying to childproof the world

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Ignorance is ugly by SuperKendall · 2012-06-05 08:45 · Score: 3, Informative

Home schooling is for parents who's religious views are so extreme that they cannot integrate with normal society.
What a shame such bigotry and ignorance has become so prevalent, and appears at all on Slashdot...
There is a whole wing of homschooling entirely unrelated to religion. Look up "John Holt".
When I was home schooled (up until college) I also went to many group events with a number of kids who were home schooled by parents who were very religious. That did not stop them from learning anything at all. They all grew up normal and well educated - better educated and more self-confident than the kids who went to public school.
Frankly from what I saw how religious your parents are has no relation at all to how religious the kids are. Some of the kids from non-relgious parents ended up being very religious, some of the kids from religious parents eventually dropped religion altogether.
Every person finds their own path.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Because they'll explode in their faces by element-o.p. · 2012-06-05 09:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Now...a rocket blowing up is not "little" by any stretch of the imagination. And usually it doesn't provide a second chance (the event)....kids should be allowed to do more things, but unfortunately rocket building is not one of them.
You, sir, are a fine example of what is wrong with America. You know not what you are speaking of, and consequently, you are filled with fear because of what you don't know.

At 13, I blew up a model rocket engine in my face. Guess what? I'm still here (23 years later). No scars. No permanent damage. No missing appendages. I'm FINE, albeit I have a bit more respect for warning labels and for not doing stupid things that I frikken' KNOW are stupid, and yes, I knew what I was doing when I blew up the engine that it was a Really Dumb Idea (the engine wouldn't ignite, so I ground it up into a powder and tried to light it with a match -- kids don't try this at home!). I flew rockets from about age eight (with my dad doing most of the work) through college (solo) with not a single injury other than the above incident. In fact, I've carried on the tradition with my own kids now that I'm a dad myself; I'm currently building a twin-engine D-size rocket to boost an Arduino, which I'll be using to measure air temperature, air pressure and acceleration. I've had far more injuries due to riding a bicycle than I have had flying rockets -- do you therefore want to ban bicycles, too?

There's a reason they call that science: rocket science.
Ummm...because it's science, and involves rockets? What NASA or Space-X does *is* really hard, because they are dealing with very, very large, very, very powerful and very, very complex machines, which have to fly very precise trajectories. An A- through C-size model rocket is many, many orders of magnitude less complex and less dangerous, particularly if you don't try to DIY your engines. Building and flying such a rocket is well within the capabilities of a jr. high school student; designing and building such a rocket is well within the capabilities of a high school student with a little supervision from a high school science teacher.

--
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Nerd recommends Rockets, nothing to see here. by CronoCloud · 2012-06-05 09:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Every so often we get articles on Slashdot where some Engineer/IT guy/Progammer thinks he knows best and recommends adding more "nerd stuff" like LInux or model rockets or RPG's in education. Then all of Slashdot hops on the "Wow, I loved model rockets....this is a great idea" bandwagon.
Most kids, aren't nerds. And while we might love to see our pet hobbies in schools. a la "All kids should learn Python!", this is no different from a concert Pianist saying "all kids should study piano because it makes them smarter"
And lets not forget class differences...model rockets is one of those usual upper middle class son of an engineer" hobbies we see so many Slashdotters have. It's like all those articles where Slashdotters reminisce about their C64's and they don't even realize that most people "didn't" have a home computer in the 80's. Even the consoles of that time had less household penetration of today.
So no, turning every school into a Slashdotters affluent suburban school with rocketry and computer clubs, isn't the solution, even if they mean well.
Re:Homeschool by dbc · 2012-06-05 10:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Home schooling is for parents who's religious views are so extreme that they cannot integrate with normal society.
No, homeschooling is for parents who care about their child's education. We homeschool, and belong to several homeschooling groups. I'd say about 1/2 of the families we know do it for religious reasons. Christians being the largest group, and Muslim being the second largest. We know some Hindi homeschoolers, can't think of any Bhuddists off-hand. The other half of the families homeschool because they don't feel the other options are good for their child. The public schools are not very challenging. The private schools around here are kill-them-with-homework factories that leave no time to build rockets and robots and take music and gymnastics lessons.
So there is some actual real-world data for you, based on several hundred homeschool families and dozens of school choices. You're spouting off without either data or experience.
In our case, we homeschool in order to find the point of optimal challenge. My daughter doesn't need a mountain of homework to 'get it', and she needs to be challenged in order not to get bored out of her nut. At 13, she took the AP Chem this spring. That's her third AP exam. She is probably going to jump into the third quarter of freshmen engineering calculus this fall at a local university. There are simply no local schools that would have let her accelerate enough to keep her sanity.
You can't really launch them anywhere any more by tlambert · 2012-06-05 11:44 · Score: 3, Informative

Launches at Moffett Field are limited to G engines with a max altitude of 1000 feet with a limit of 350 people on the field at a time. That's not even one single high school grade level worth of students for most San Jose/Bay Area high schools. If they want to get away from those limits (M class, 15,000 foot ceiling), then they have to go all the way out to Snow Ranch, which is East of Stockton, about 130 miles out of town and only in the fall.
There's basically no other place you can launch in the Bay Area.
I do think, however, that the author of the article drank the Fleming VARK model kinesthetic learning koolaide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles#Fleming.27s_VAK.2FVARK_model, and maybe needs to back up a bit.
-- Terry