In essence, Stephen said that if John Clare wanted proof, he should go out and find it, and that there is more to education than tests (a somewhat strange response given that I didn't mention tests, but still).

There are a number of issues here, such as the following. First, what is the purpose of education? Second, what should be taught, and how? Third, what if the traditionalists are correct?

John Clare's view is that the purpose of education is to transmit the culture of the community from one generation to the next. Whilst many of us would agree that that is a worthy aim, the logical progression of thought seems to be that, in order to achieve that, traditional content and traditional methods are best.

This is certainly true of John Clare's arguments: he frequently bemoans the existence of a content-free curriculum, in which mastery over internet searching is given a higher priority than, say, knowledge of historical facts (by which he seems to mean dates). He has also stated that the lecture method of teaching is by far the most efficient, clearly disregarding the research which shows that, certainly in the UK, and I should imagine in the USA as well, auditory learners are very much in the minority, the majority of people being visual learners, and therefore for whom the electronic whiteboard has been a godsend.

We can also question whether transmitting the culture is the most important or urgent aim. As Niel McLean, of Becta, said in a talk recently: if you live in a hunter-gatherer tribe in the 12th century, then listening to a story about the exploits of your great great great great great grandfather is perfect preparation for next Thursday. However, in times of rapid technological and social change that is no longer the case. Education has to fulfill a very different purpose, that of giving young people the tools they need to thrive in an uncertain and unknowable future.

However, it is very disappointing that the best the educational community can do in response to someone expressing views such as those expressed by John Clare is a kind of knee-jerk emotional response that does nothing to move the argument on. Why be so defensive? What is there to be afraid of?

I think a much better approach comprises the following elements:

1. Although I didn't mention tests in my original post, we have to acknowledge that we do live in the real world. People at large judge students, teachers and schools by their test results. It's all very well for us seasoned educators with nice jobs to be all touchy-feely about this, but in the meantime young people have to jump through all the hoops. Do we not owe it to them to ensure that our activities in the classroom deliver the goods as measured in the traditional way -- and, if they don't, to work to devise tests which do?

2. Again on the subject of testing: although it is true that not everything that counts can be measured, and that not everything that can be measured counts, I have always believed that if you teach students to think for themselves, they should be able to pass the examinations we throw at them anyway. That is certainly true in the UK, where most examinations test thought processes rather than possession of facts. If blogs etc are truly educationally valid, surely their influence ought to be seen in test scores? In which case, what's the problem?

In fact, given the increasing emphasis placed on "soft skills" in the workplace, it is likely that the new tools and approaches might be found to be even more effective at delivering good test scores than the traditional methods. In other words, accepting the challenge given by John Clare and others like him is likely to work in our favour!

There are already some emerging research findings, which give cause for optimism, and I am indebted to Miles Berry for drawing my attention to a post by Will Richardson, which gives references to four empirical studies of blogging on educational outcomes:

http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-03222005-205901/unrestricted/etd.pdf

http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2005/2268/01/22680007b.pdf

http://www.aace.org/dl/files/SITE2004/paper_3014_8314.pdf

http://nieman.harvard.edu/reports/03-3NRfall/97-98V57N3.pdf

And see also an earlier post by Will at http://www.weblogg-ed.com/2005/09/06#a3949.

3. In the longer term, the educational community should take back from the politicians their power and authority to evaluate educational outcomes. It may be that "measurable gains" (the term I actually used, rather than anything to do with test results) can be couched in terms which address the affective domain (emotions etc) rather than the standard intellectual "academic" domain. It is acknowledged in both the USA's and the UK's educational technology standards that collaboration and co-operation are higher order skills. Those are precisely the skills that blogging etc encourages, and so it should not be rocket science to devise tests that measure such skill development, or to find other means of measuring it. Why NOT play politicians, the press and the public at their own game? If they want test results, let's make them happy!

4. We need to draw a distinction between assessment of learning and assessment for learning. Students' comments in blogs can tell us an awful lot about their grasp of particular concepts. How many teachers actually use blogs in that way, ie not merely to enable students to have a means of self-expression and working with otherss, but as a foundation for discussing with students their perception of certain aspects of the course? Assessment for learning, when implemented well, has been shown to have a very marked positive effect on students' achievement. That being the case, blogging etc should be added to the assessment for learning toolkit, and our attitude should be: "Bring on the tests!"

5. The distinction mentioned in #4 is closely related to the distinction between high stakes and low stakes assessment (which are on a continuum). Public-facing examination results are high stakes, both from the students' and the school's points of view. If the research happens to show that blogging etc does not improve students' performance in high-stakes assessment, I think we owe it to the younger generation to be rather more pragmatic than, in effect, telling the naysayers to take a hike! At the end of the day, these kids have to get jobs and live productive lives, and we don't have the moral right to carry out a vast educational experiment just on the off-chance that we are doing some good. If we cannot prove that, or are unwilling to even engage in the discussion, something is not quite right. LIke I said at the beginning: what are we afraid of?

6. If you actually read or listen to what John Clare says, not only about the things I've mentioned but also some of the educational software available now, the hare-brained things that some "visionaries" come out with and the practical impossibility of expecting every teacher to produce a beautifully choreographed "whizzy" experience through the electronic whiteboard in every single lesson (which is an expectation in some schools), you will find yourself, possibly reluctantly, agreeing with much of what he has to say.

7. Even if you personally don't agree with his views, consider this: John Clare writes for the Daily Telegraph, a newspaper which is largely perceived as being somewhere to the political right of Ghengis Khan. The DT has the largest circulation of any other broadsheet newspaper in the UK, therefore there is a reasonable chance that John Clare is the most extensively read education correspondent in the UK. The DT is read by people who work in the Treasury, ie the people who make decisions about how much money will be made available to schools for such things as computers.

Now, it is almost certainly true that newspapers do not influence people's views, and that, rather, people choose the newspaper which is most closely aligned to the views they already hold. But even so, is it not worth taking the opportunity to respond to John Clare's challenges, and those of others like him, on the basis that you never know what we might achieve by doing so?

In conclusion, in my opinion we educationalists should not act like children in the face of viewpoints with which we disagree, but be prepared to argue the case with any weapons of our antagonists' choosing.