The tyranny of tests

England is not what it was, in many ways. Yet, only recently have I become aware of one way in which it has changed since my childhood.

I now live in Singapore and, having observed Singapore for a few years, I had come to the conclusion that Singaporeans are test mad. There is a test for everything and nothing is trusted unless it has been tested. I had come to view it as somewhat pathological - in the sense that it is far too prevalent to be healthy. Yet, that was before I came to know of the recent situation in the UK. If anything it is worse, there.

A UK student is now expected to take over 70 official tests from the age of 7 to the time they leave school. These are not, as far as I am aware, optional, in-house school testing, but obligatory mandatory, national testing.

I only became aware of this situation, not having lived in the UK since my children were born (apart from one stint), because of a proposal to end all such testing, that some brave political soul has tabled. It would probably be a good thing for British children were it to be enacted - but it is extremely unlikely, for the leaders of the educational establishment were quoted as being fully behind the test-taking tradition.

Let us look at what these tests do to children. With so many of them, there is forever another test coming up. There is ever the need to prepare for the next test. The focus of the students is on passing the test. There is never time or space to look around and see subjects in greater breadth or depth - there is only that which is in the test, in their minds. The consequence of an education that is nothing but a long series of tests is that the child is never truly educated. They are trained to do tests - and that is all. I have seen this phenomenon at work in Singapore which produces very good test takers...but not truly well-educated people: their minds have been too constricted by constant testing. The same unhealthy pressures have been constricting the minds of whole generations of British children while I wasn't looking. I don't imagine that it will lead to the national prosperity (and all the other things that politicians seek) that they imagine. Rather, it will lead to a nation unable to hold its place where once it reigned supreme.

Nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of the education of children - and most certainly not an official burden of over 70 tests per school career. How ridiculous.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and six months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three, and Tiarnan, sixteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted children and gifed adults in general. Thanks.)

Genius and academic success

Does genius connote academic success? Are geniuses always found at the top of classes?

Sometimes. Sometimes not. It depends upon the genius, and the subject. Contrary to common opinion genius does not necessarily mean academic success. Some geniuses just won't perform in a conventional academic setting.

There are reasons for this. Sometimes people of genius have a very narrow gift - such as Pablo Picasso's - or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's - that would probably preclude much success outside their domain of mastery. Such geniuses cannot be expected to show universal academic success.

Other geniuses, however, are more universal - such as, of course, Leonardo da Vinci - who could, no doubt, have shone at any subject, at any time, given the chance.

I write on this subject, because of an internet searcher from Singapore who searched with the term: "Genius who fails exams". I am assuming that this is either a parent of a gifted child searching for related information to explain their experience with their child's failure - or a gifted child themselves (or one with a high opinion of themselves, anyway).

While academic success shows high intellectual performance, it does not indicate originality. So, performance in exams alone does not indicate genius (though it may indicate prodigiousness if taken at a young age). Correspondingly, failure in exams may indicate nothing more than a lack of interest on the part of the student. A very gifted child, especially a genius child, may find the school requirements too boring to engage with and may, therefore, underperform, to the point of failure. It is quite possible therefore for a genius child to actually be a failure in school. This, however, creates a very real problem of securing for the child the necessary growth opportunities to realize their gifts. It is best, therefore, if a genius child does not actually fail, because it tends to close doors that need to remain open. The child's path will be ever more difficult as a consequence of academic failure unless their gift is such that they can operate totally outside the mainstream of life and produce their wonderful results alone. In such a case, academia may, in fact, be a total irrelevance.

So, if your child is gifted, but not doing well in school, don't be disheartened. It doesn't show that your child is not, in fact, gifted. It shows that your child is not, in fact, engaged, by the school system. That is a different matter and probably needs a personal solution. Work with your child to find a way to engage them. It is more difficult for them later if you don't.

As I noted in another post, there is a penalty against the genius child built into exams. Generally speaking, original answers will be marked WRONG, rather than marked up. A child of great originality will do less well, therefore, than a dull child who gives the expected answers. Exams are full of flaws in their construction and methods...and this is just one more of them.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and six months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three, and Tiarnan, sixteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted children and gifted adults in general. Thanks.)

Speed of processing and exams

Exams try to measure the ability of students but, they fail, in many respects. Today I will look at one way in which they fail.

Imagine you have two candidates both of whom have scored equally well in an exam. Are both candidates therefore equal in ability? A traditional view of exams would say so, but there is something which the exam conditions are not able to determine. That is: how fast do the candidates think?

Now, it is obvious that the speed with which someone thinks is very closely related to any true measure of their intelligence. An intelligent person thinks faster than a less intelligent person. In the real world, this will mean that they will solve problems faster than others, which in many roles in life, may have critical implications - as I have addressed before, in another post. So the speed of processing is of real world importance. Yet, it is not really captured by exams.

Exams make an attempt to capture the speed of processing of a candidate by setting a time limit. There is, traditionally, a fixed time allowed to complete the examination. Now, you might think this addresses the issue of speed of processing - but it does not. You see, all it does is set a lower limit of speed that must be met to complete the exam. In other words, it cuts off the lowest portion of ability level, but it does nothing to measure the upper strata of ability. You see a very bright student might finish the exam long before the time limit is up - yet the exam system will neither measure nor reward this speed of processing. The exam conditions will not be able to discriminate between the fast student and the average student.

Is this important? I think it is for, in the real world, the faster thinker, will often be more effective in many roles. Their speed of thinking may prove critical to many of life's endeavours - yet an examination, with a fixed time limit, will never allow you to decide who is the faster of two candidates. Faster implies more intelligent - so exams are not really the best measure of distinguishing between levels of intelligence of candidates.

Obviously, exams distinguish on the basis of the final mark - and that is used as a proxy for intelligence, implicitly, by the academic systems of the world - but it overlooks the vital fact that two candidates who get the same mark, may be very different, in truth. One may think fast, the other may think at an average speed. One may, in fact, be much more intelligent than the other - but the mark will never determine that.

I will give you an example from the real world. Ainan, my son, recently took two exam papers. One of them was one and a quarter hours long. Yet, Ainan completed this in forty-three minutes. After that time, he did not write anything more on the paper, having addressed all the questions. The other paper was one hour long. After thirty-five minutes, Ainan had completed this paper, too.

Now, imagine that another candidate gets the exact same resultant mark as Ainan - but that candidate took exactly one and a quarter hours for the one and a quarter hour paper and one hour for the one hour paper. In the eyes of the academic system, both candidates performed identically - but in actual fact, Ainan was about twice as fast as the other candidate. Implicitly, therefore, Ainan is more intelligent than the other candidate of the same mark, since he is able to solve twice as many problems in the same time, as the other candidate. Yet, no account is made of this in the examining system - and it will be overlooked.

So, don't imagine that all people of the same grade in an exam are the same in ability. They are not - for each would have taken a different time to reach that grade - and would, therefore, have differing levels of inherent processing speed and consequent intelligence.

Exams, with a fixed time limit, establish a lower threshold of performance - and indicate that performance could not have been lower than that threshold - but they do NOT indicate the true heights of which a candidate is capable.

There is one caveat to all of this. In many roles in life, the speed of processing does make a real world difference and is of great importance. I would like to see a policeman who thinks quickly, not slowly - and similarly for an air traffic controller, for instance. Sluggishness, in such roles, could lead to real world danger. There are many such examples that I could provide. However, there are also roles in life in which the speed of processing does not matter. These are roles in which time is not of particular importance and all that matters is that the right answer is eventually reached. The writing of a book might come into this category (though the writing of journalism rewards speed of processing) - or the performance of scientific research (though if you are slow you won't be first and may not succeed in building a reputation and career).

Thus, exams measure performance over a fixed time. They do not measure absolute performance, however, for people will differ in the time taken to achieve a particular level of performance - and therefore differ in true ability. This means that exams, as presently formulated, do not distinguish well between different levels of intelligence: they miss the upper ranges.

This observation is, of course, my thinking alone.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and six months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three, and Tiarnan, sixteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted children, and gifted adults in general. Thanks.)

The tyranny of examination grades

Singapore is one of many Asian nations that lives under a tyranny - a tyranny of grades: everyone is obsessed with them. An examination is not considered passed until you have the highest grade in the Universe - and then some.

What effect does this have on Singaporeans? Does it make them more intelligent? Does it make them more successful? Does it make them better people? Does it make them more creative?

The answer to the last four questions is a great big NO. It makes them much, much duller. Why do I say this? Well, to secure the highest grades on a consistent basis one must give up much of life. The children don't play. They don't have outside interests. They focus exclusively on schoolwork - and have no other life. They don't know how to interact with each other. They have poor social skills. They don't understand the world. They have no perspective on what they are doing or on the meaning of life. In short, they know nothing but the contents of the examination.

Perhaps knowing the contents of the examination so well is a good thing? Well...not really. Why do I say this? An examination is all about testing you on SOMEONE ELSE'S THOUGHTS. Many children become expert on other people's thoughts - but have none of their own. In some way, focussing too much on what other people have thought and written in books seems to inhibit the development of the ability to have your own. This is not supposition - but observation. I have taught in classrooms in Singapore - and I note an absence, even in the "best" students - of the ability to think for themselves. Many of them have ceded their own ability to think and subjugated it to the yoke of a textbook written by another. Nothing worthwhile ever comes of this mindset.

If given the freedom to write as they please, teenagers brought up to see the textbook as King and the examination as all, tend to say: "But you haven't told us what to write...". I have heard that thought many times. It saddens me everytime to hear it - for it means one thing and one thing alone: their obsession with grades and their acquisition has not taught them how to think - it has taught them how not to think. It has taught them that their thoughts are worth nothing and that the textbook is everything. These youngsters never write from their own minds - but from regurgitated memories of the minds of others.

It is common in Asia to use a child's examination grades and, largely speaking, their grades alone for selection purposes for further education - and then for employment. Are these societies being served well by this practice?

I don't think so. You see, many of the children who get the highest grades, consistently, show little ability to think for themselves. They have become rigid thinkers. Their thoughts are very defined and contained by the prior work of others. These people do not originate, do not create or innovate - they only repeat the ideas of others. Such a way of life can only take a society so far. The people that should really be identified, promoted and nurtured are not the kids obsessed with grades and competitiveness - but the kids who love to learn, understand, grow and think for themselves - and for knowledge itself. By this I mean that they have a true passion for their subject. It is these children who are likely to be creative: their knowledge springs from a love of learning - and not a need for a perfect grade. In my experience, such children are more open to considering many ideas, are more able to produce their own and are more flexible in their approach to things. They may, however, be overlooked in a society that places too much emphasis on academic competition - and the consequent grading.

If grades were the answer, places like Singapore and Korea would be the greatest centres of thinking in the world - for they have the highest grades in maths and science, worldwide - yet, they are not. Other places with lesser grades have a greater reputation for innovation. This shows that there is a disconnection between grade and real world performance. What is that disconnection? It is the ability to think for oneself. Grades measure your ability to think someone else's thoughts. They say nothing about your ability to think your own - and there lies the problem. True thinkers are not necessarily being selected for and given opportunity - those who think like others, are, however.

Is there a remedy? Yes. Education systems - and societies - need to be broader in their assessment of children and the adults they become. They need to look at the whole person - and ask: is this someone with a mind of their own? Is this someone who can think independently? Is this someone with a creative spark? If the answer to any of these questions is a yes - then, as long as they have shown a basic awareness of the material of their discipline, by passing the relevant exams, the actual grades should not be regarded as particularly important. The capacity to create and innovate - and think their OWN thoughts is of vastly greater significance. A society which shows more flexibility and open-ness in how it selects its "movers and shakers" - and members of the "thinking classes", is a society more likely to give opportunity to people who actually have the capacity to do something new; the capacity to change things for the better by actually being able to be creative.

Why do I post on this? Well, it is something I have long observed and long thought on - but the immediate catalyst was my meeting with Associate Professor Tim White and a remark he made. He revealed to me his own experience of this matter. He had encountered students with perfect grades who were "rigid thinkers" - who were not very good as researchers - while he also knew of other researchers whose grades, "included the odd B or C", who were actually "among our most gifted researchers". This is a very telling observation indeed. It shows that the common thinking around educational grading is mistaken. His better researchers - that is, those who showed more CREATIVITY in the lab - actually had poorer grades than some others, who had better grades, but less creativity. This is a phenomenon that must be more widely appreciated. Otherwise societies and institutions will continue to deny opportunity and access to the very people who have the most to offer: the creative few.

What are we to learn from this? Well, a student with perfect grades may indeed be the best thinker and the best creator - but the grades themselves do not establish that: other factors not measured by the grading system, do. Creativity is not measured by examinations (especially in the sciences). So, examinations don't tell us who is creative and capable of original contribution. Therefore, we cannot say that the student with perfect grades is the best candidate for a role that involves creative production - nor can we say that they are not. We can actually say nothing about whether they are suited to such a role or not, from the result of the examination alone. However, the same applies to the student who does NOT have perfect grades. They might actually be the best researcher and the most creative individual available - but their less than perfect grades might cause them to be overlooked. It is also true that they might not be the best researcher. We can say nothing about their creative capacity from the grades alone. Yet, we MUST not close our minds to the possibility that, of two candidates, the one with the lesser grades might actually be the better creative thinker.

How are we to decide the matter then, between candidates? Look at them more broadly and see what evidence there is in their lives and work to show creativity and use that information to decide between them. Don't just look at grading - because it is often a poor guide to the best thinkers. The greatest thinkers don't really like thinking other people's thoughts the whole time - yet examinations require just that from them. So, you won't find the best thinkers by harvesting those of perfect grade.

There is an ultimate logical conclusion to this which must be stated. In the final analysis, if a person shows that they can be creative, they should be given the opportunity to create, in a supportive context, even if they have NO examination passes at all.

Now that would really be an educational revolution.

The problem of creativity: examinations

You would think that the creative child would be the most prized asset of any nation. You wouldn't think it from the way the education system is structured, in all countries of the world that I am aware of.

How does a state evaluate the merit of a child? They examine them in formal examinations. They sit the child down and ask standardized questions, intended to elicit a standardized response with which the child may be marked against a "standard" of predetermined, mark-yielding goals, to be achieved.

You might think that is fair and reasonable. All children are to be gauged against preset examination objectives, designed to elicit specific knowledge taught, universally, by their schools over a course. But is it? Is this a reasonable way to assess our children? For what does an examination actually determine? It determines whether your thoughts CONFORM to expectation. The real result of an exam is the degree to which your child gave the answers required. This is taken to be a measure of "intelligence" - since giving the "right" answer denotes you as having understood the question, understood the course material, and been able to calculate, elucidate, deduce, infer, remember or otherwise think the answer.

Yet, there is a problem. You see examinations always have preset expectations of what an answer should be. Some countries take this to a ludicrous extent. I have taught in Singapore (English Literature, and the General Paper, for a time). There I was expected to do something I thought truly bizarre. Whenever I set an essay paper - note I said essay - and not mathematics problem - I was expected, by the school, to write, beforehand, a model answer, to the question I set, against which I was to compare all the student answers, and mark them according to the degree to which they fit my model answer. I had a truly sick feeling on being asked to do this. For it told me something very clearly: conformity of thought was the intention of the whole process. There were to be NO marks for originality, for originality would mean that your answer would differ from expectation.

What did I do? I didn't write any model answers. I marked the essays on an individual basis against another standard: my internal one of quality of thought. This was fairer to the students and allowed them to do their own thing. Some of them blossomed under this regime: others were a little lost - for tellingly, they "didn't know what to write" because they "hadn't been told" what to write. I tried to introduce originality into the classroom - and it was clearly a strange experience for them. I may write more of that one day.

Examinations measure not intelligence, so much, as conformity to expectation allied with grasp of a standardized knowledge base. An intelligent person may do very well - but also an intelligent person may not do so well, in a misleading fashion. Here is why: if you can think for yourself, you may think in a way that is not expected by the examiner. This means that you will write original answers. You might think this would be greeted with great welcome and result in a stellar result. Not so. If your answer differs from the preset guidelines that the examiner expects, in most instances you would be marked down - for your answer may not be familiar to him or her.

I will give you an example from observation of Ainan Celeste Cawley, my scientific child prodigy son, who has just turned seven, a few days ago. Ainan is very knowledgeable in chemistry - but he displays more than knowledge. He shows, daily, the ability to apply his knowledge in new ways and invent new reactions for doing things or achieving the goals in hand. I was recently discussing some chemical analytical tests with him. These are standardized reactions used to prove the presence of a particular substance. They are answers that an examiner would expect to be stated precisely and without deviation. What did Ainan do when presented with a standard situation, which had a known, conventionalized approach to determine the answer? He made up his own solutions. He pointed out other ways in which you could test for these substances. He invented different reactions which could also prove the presence of the said substance, and told me what to expect in result if the substances were tested in this way. My reaction was mixed. I was impressed by his deftness of mind that allowed him to see a new way to achieve the end required. But I was also worried - for one day, if he is to achieve his ambition of being a scientific researcher - he will have to pass examinations. Would he sit down and give perfectly valid answers which were unfamiliar to the examiner - since they were new ones - and so be marked down, when, in fact, he was doing something few candidates could do: come up with a new answer that also worked?

I think so. I think Ainan would give original answers in a scientific examination. This presents multiple dangers, the first of which is that the examiner may not know enough science to be able to evaluate the alternative answer and determine that it is also correct. Or, the examiner might admire the answer enough, if it has practical or commercial utility, to acquire it for themselves, in an act of plagiarism.

Certainly, in science, they are no rewards for originality in examinations - and plenty potential penalties. It is only at the level of PhD that originality is supposedly rewarded by the system - and that is a long time to wait, to be properly appreciated.

If your child is gifted in creative ways and displays originality of thought, therefore, they may not be very happy in the school system, and their quality of mind might not be truly reflected in their examination results. For they may have thought thoughts no other candidate had ever thought, and write words no other candidate has ever written. Unless your child is fortunate enough to have a very intelligent and informed examiner, this may not produce the appropriate rewards. In some countries, it is almost guaranteed that your child's qualities of mind will not be appreciated, but overlooked by the system.

(If you would like to read about my scientific child prodigy son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, just turned seven, and his gifted brothers, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of child prodigy, child genius, savant, the creatively gifted, and gifted children in general.)

Two gifted cultures: America and Singapore

I have learnt that, in America, there is a lot of interest in IQ. In Singapore, however, one never hears of it. It is a subject that appears to hold little interest for people. In Singapore, what people are interested in is examination results. One doesn't hear, in Singapore, of parents talking of their highly gifted, exceptionally gifted or profoundly gifted children. They don't boast of their children's IQ or percentiles. Generally, they don't get them tested, either - though this could be because of the prohibitive cost of up to 1600 dollars per child, I have heard.

Why is that Americans are so interested in IQ results? From what I gather it is because the educational system requires them, to "prove" that one's child is gifted and so allow provision to be made for them. Perhaps that is the root of the matter.

In Singapore, whether a child is gifted or not is judged purely on achievement. IQ is not considered for gifted programs here, generally. Anyway, the gifted education programme is being phased out, so it is becoming a moot question. Children here are pressured to perform as well as possible on every exam. Examinations begin in Primary One and are taken at least twice a year, every year of education. It is an exam mad nation. Everything hinges on them: your higher education, your job prospects, your salary even. Higher qualifications attract bonus salaries here: just for passing a certificate you receive a monetary advantage forever. By this I mean that newspapers will even print different salaries FOR THE SAME JOB, depending on your qualifications. It is bizarre. You don't get paid for the work you do. You get paid for the qualifications you have passed.

All this leads to an incredibly pressured educational system. No accommodation is made for the very gifted: all are educated in age-lockstep from first year to graduation. There are even rules to prevent acceleration, though perhaps that is not their direct intention. It is not a system which understands much about individuality - and not a system which pays much heed to IQ, just hard work. Hard work is the main currency of education here - and of life, too.

I am not sure which is better: the excessive interest, in IQ, I read on American bulletin boards or the absolute lack of interest one feels here in Singapore. Perhaps we should strike a balance between the two extremes and take IQ as but one facet of a child, indicating but one type of function of their minds. The emphasis here on achievement, alone, as an indicator, leads to the danger that the gifted underachiever will be overlooked, in the system. Perhaps an interest in IQ would address that.

However, until testing costs are greatly reduced it is highly unlikely that IQ testing will become the norm in Singapore. Is testing expensive in America, too? Is attention paid to actual achievement in deciding who to accelerate/give access to gifted programmes? Just wondering. Your thoughts please.

(If you would like to read about my scientific child prodigy son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, six, and his gifted brothers, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html. Thanks. I also write of child genius, adult genius, prodigy, savant and gifted children in general.)