The Broken Model

    

Argument:

    In "The Broken Model," Salman Khan argues that the current systems we have in place for schooling, largely based on the Prussian model of schooling, is outdated and ineffective at promoting true mastery of subjects. Instead of fostering deep understanding, school often encourage students to memorize information simply to perform well on tests. Khan explains that the Prussian model was originally created to produce obedient members of society and factory workers, rather than independent, critical thinkers. While this approach may have been appropriate for its historical context, Khan argues that today's world requires creativity, adaptability, and critical thinking -- skills that the current system often fails to cultivate.

  The Prussian model, Khan explains, was not meant to produce independent thinkers, but rather to create disciplined, compliant citizens who would submit to authority figures such as parents, teachers, religious leaders, and political rulers. When this model was adopted in the U.S., it wasn't meant as form of oppression; in fact, it was revolutionary for its time and helped expand access to education, lifting millions into the middle class and making the U.S. one of the most literate countries. However, Khan argues that despite these benefits, the structure of the system naturally discourages deeper inquiry, curiosity, and independent thought.  

  

    He also critiques the heavy reliance on testing, arguing that tests are poor indicators of a student's understanding, potential, or long-term learning. Tests capture only what a student knows at a single moment and cannot distinguish between genuine comprehension and short-term memorization. Because tests are often predictable, teachers prepare students for what is going to be on the exams rather than focusing on meaningful learning, or as Khan puts it, they teach to the exam.  

    Khan also explains that creativity in general is egregiously under appreciated and often intentionally suppressed in schools. Many educators fail to see math, science, and engineering as creative fields. While math and science have a lot of formulas that require some kind of memorization, they are also the process of creating something from scratch. 

    This reading connects closely to discussions of growth versus fixed mindsets that we just talked about in my CEP 552 class (article linked here). Labeling kids and squeezing them into categories based on test performance limits their future opportunities and reinforces a fixed mindset, leading student to believe their intelligence is static. Khan notes this when he notes that tests often determine who gains access to prestigious careers and who is relegated to lower-status work. Khan argues that just because someone tested poorly once, doesn't mean they can't be taught and perform better in the future, which shows a growth mindset. 

    In class, I would like to focus on what everyone thinks of testing. I know that I have always said that tests are all about temporary memorization. I would study for tests, just to allow myself to forget the information after. Of course, some things still stuck with me, like the classic Pythagorean Theorem and the definition of "pseudonym" but I forgot almost all dates from history tests. Is that common for everyone else?