Measuring education well is a hard problem. I don't know a good solution for that, but usually schools simply use test scores, which is a pretty bad solution.
"But above all there has to be something that we use to evaluate them, otherwise how do we know it's working... or not... or when or how to try new ideas?"
You can do qualitative analysis instead of quantative. It also works when you use a test that the schools don't / cant directly optimize for, which is probably true for the PISA test.
"There's no reason a private company can impart those skills in 9 weeks and public schools couldn't do it in a year."
While I agree that schools shoud teach programming more, the Dev Bootcamp's 80% metric is not really relevant. It filters only the most exceptional applicants to the program, not the average school kid. Many of those applicants probably already know the basics of programming.
"Generally, I think high school was an extreme waste of time in regards to what was actually learned."
"But above all there has to be something that we use to evaluate them, otherwise how do we know it's working... or not... or when or how to try new ideas?"
You can do qualitative analysis instead of quantative. It also works when you use a test that the schools don't / cant directly optimize for, which is probably true for the PISA test.
"There's no reason a private company can impart those skills in 9 weeks and public schools couldn't do it in a year."
While I agree that schools shoud teach programming more, the Dev Bootcamp's 80% metric is not really relevant. It filters only the most exceptional applicants to the program, not the average school kid. Many of those applicants probably already know the basics of programming.
"Generally, I think high school was an extreme waste of time in regards to what was actually learned."
Most people say the same thing here in Finland.