People like to judge others based on what they have. I think there is a better way to judge (fairly, of course) other people or ourselves. The better question is whether the other person realizes what they don 't have.
Let me illustrate. A number of years ago, the head coach of a team where I was an assistant asked me: "What are the fundamentals of basketball?" I quickly responded with a fairly short list of what were mainly skills as to what I considered to be the fundamentals. Unfortunately, I failed the test and I was let go. He had some ties to the L.A. Dodgers baseball before this, so perhaps he had a pretty good short list that covered both sports. He did not tell me in advance or after the dummy-proof answers. I learned though what I did not have. I had assumed that I knew the fundamentals. Before that point, I did not realize what I did not have.
After being let go, I made it my business to find out. Today I know all 5 of the basics for any sport (not just basketball) and the next layers of depth at 10, etc. I know them at an adult-level as well as at the dummy-proof level. It is this bottom level that is missing for most people. They can sound off pretty smart on something only for me to learn that they are not dummy-proof. They are still very capable of some very poor decisions. I've seen a rash of dumb decisions in my life of working for employers, since I learned a pretty dummy-proof list. Now I have a really really good dummy-proof list. I say all of this in the spirit of the dummy and idiot series books.
I find a lot of people, who assume they have something, when they do not. It is not just me 20 years ago. So to prevent this problem of working with people who are not dummy-proof, I am changing my tactic. I am now going to provide tests to people, but not the answers. When I was an A.D., I provided the answers and asked coaches that I hired for their consent. Now I am not providing the answers, but only questions until people realize what they don't have and the fact that they are still not dummy-proof.
My favorite examples of not being dummy-proof is the series of books that are the dummies books. My second favorite is the idiot series. Even these series of books are not dummy-proof. They fail the test. I want to work only with those who can pass it.
I don't think Christian education and public education in the United States realizes what it does not have. It cannot see the obvious, while at the same time it can see how to get to the moon (the goal behind the invention of the microprocessor). Our technological knowledge is very advanced, but look at how dumb our application of it can be at times. Why can't we make smart phones that are dummy-proof?
The United States is an undeniably wealthy nation, when it comes to the money it wields. But I think the nation is very poor educationally. It invests millions of dollars everyday or every week or every year on trying to make school more fun, more vocationally-related, more innovative, more standardized, more standardized at the core, more accountable for results, and more, more, more, etc. This is obvious, isn't it? None of these are bad things on the surface, but when it is realized that the one thing each program changed is not everything, then it just creates more frustration. It is not just millions that are spent now, but billions of dollars that are spent. More money had to be poured in for most of these programs, because it didn't work on a more basic level. So let's give up on more money to the already tried.
Instead, what if we tried just one more new thing? What if it cost only $50,000 to $75,000 for one year to determine if it worked ? Can we as Americans in any form of private or public education really complain that this amount is too much after let's say 50 million on programs tried over many years? Are we prepared to get stingy, when there is as little as $50,000.00 to go? That is a cost of 1% compared to the let's say $50,000,000.00 on other programs. That is also in 1 year versus 100 years to wait for education programs dating back to at least Dewey to work. That is 1% of the time to wait to see results.
I am designing what I am going to call a dummy-proof IQ test on the basics of language or intelligence. I am going to develop 3 levels of this test. The first will be a simple essay exam with one question. The second will be a test with a specific # of questions that will begin to hint at the basics a little bit, making it a little easier to answer the questions. The third will be a multiple choice set of the same # of questions with a certain # of options for each question. This will make things even easier. But I am not publicizing the answers, because many people need to see themselves fail the test before they will pay for the answers.
What will shock you is that I don't think anyone will pass the first test. I also don't think anyone will get 100% on even the multiple choice test, unless I post the answers on-line. So I am not going to post answers. I am going to post questions. I will grade these tests for free, but I will not give out answers and train people, unless they are willing to pay for them. There is too much free-loading going on.
Let me give you a great example of what questions mean versus answers. Most Christians can tell you the answer to the question of "What is the greatest commandment?" But they cannot tell you how that was figured out. See, if they didn't have the answer first, then they could not find the answer on their own. I know how Jesus and his other audience member knew this, but I'm not telling people until they admit they don't know how Jesus and the lawyer did it. How did they know? That knowledge is greater than just giving a rote answer without any understanding.
I'm not settling for answers without understanding. That is the opposite of dummy-proof. People will now have to pay me good money for my answers. But before they do, I will offer them tests to show them what they do not know, so that they realize what they don 't have (just like I had to). I'm not giving the answers to the test before the test.
These questions are like the tests I use, when I tutor a student one-on-one. I find that they need to see what they don't have before I can determine whether I can help them. My greatest fame as a tutor is that I work myself out of job rather fast. It is the badge that I love the most. My last student through WyzAnt was finished within 4-5 months and doing much better in school. I really gave her what these quizzes are going to be designed to test. I want people to see the value in what I am suggesting they need. Church people in general don't seem to see this like my tutoring students do.
These exams over the next series of days will demonstrate that after billions of dollars invested in a variety of well intended programs, what people still do not have. Let's get to where we are truly dummy-proof. People who don't have the fundamentals can move to having them, but they have to first admit they lack them to value dummy-proof learning. Humility precedes success like pride precedes a fall. I hope this happens soon, so I can have wonderful co-workers that I know are reliable, because they are truly dummy-proof. I can't wait!
Sincerely,
Jon
No comments:
Post a Comment