DaveShearon

Scarcity, Production, Self-Determination Theory, and College-for-All!

Thomas Sherman has a three posts (1, 2, 3) up on the topic of how participation by the masses in online systems is mostly destroying old mechanisms such as newspapers without replacing them with new mechanisms. (See here for an analysis of this phenomenon for youtube, twitter, facebook, etc.)  He also argues that mass participation is bendinging online systems (facebook, youtube) to mass tastes.  There's a lot to think about here, including the impact of the long tail.  But the most interesting paragraph to me is:

"Historically, technology has come with utopian promises of change that it has failed to deliver in the hoped for or predicted way. Industrialization and automation were supposed to create abundance and leisure but today some of our greatest social challenges involve scarcity. Our personal lives are marked by over-work, "time famine" and sleep deprivation. In America, many people working full-time or multiple jobs are unable to provide for their family's basic needs."

This is an extraordinarily important point.  How, in a culture that distributes wealth based on contribution (free market) do you handle the fact that technology continues to enable fewer and fewer people to produce more goods than everyone can consume?  The corrollary of this proposition can appear to be that a growing percentage of folks may not have the capacity to contribute sufficiently to "earn" adequate resources for a good life, but there's a fallacy in that apparent corrollary which I will get to below.  What to do?

Some will argue that the government should take care of this through single-payer  health  care, "livable wage" laws, government-owned or mandated public housing, "free" public education, restrictions on layoffs or plant closings, mandated pension systems, etc.  However, there are economic counter-arguments to each of these suggestions, and the real-life experience with them has often been disappointing.  Without trying to re-hash the economic and performance arguments in this area, I would suggest a basis from positive psychology for thinking about this issue:  Self-Determination Theory (SDT).

SDT suggests that humans have three basic psychological needs:  

Autonomy -- the feeling that we are living our lives based on our choices,

Competence -- a sense of being able to do the things that are important to us,

Relatedness -- a feeling of connectedness to those around us, family, friends, community.

Approaches that better allow for individuals to meet these psychological needs will work better for society.  This requires more sophisticated policy thinking than "let government do it."  It also requires a recognition of the strengths of individuals and their ability to create excellence and meaning in jobs that some college-educated law makers, governors, school board members, presidents, etc. have trouble seeing as valuable.  See the work of the Gallup organization on how the strengths of individuals can make them exceptional as bartenders, hotel maids, and Walgreens' stock clerks.  Or see Amy Wiersneski's work on work as a calling for hospital orderlies or administrative assistants in a university. 

The idea that anyone without a college education cannot live a good, happy, fulfilling, meaningful life is just wrong.  Of course, we don't say that.  What we say is that everyone should go to college.  But that's what we mean.  Even when it is said by a popular president, it's just wrong!  College for all?  Not a reasonable goal today.  Good life for all?  Absolutely!  Other people matter!

ABCing Parental Involvement

My monthly post is up over at Positive Psycholgy News Daily.  It's a story of how a change in parental involvement and differeing beliefs about its meaning.

Imagine Positive Education

Marty Seligman writes in the Sydney Morning Herald:

In two words or less, what do you most want for your children?

If you are like the hundreds of Australian parents I've asked, you said: happiness, confidence, contentment, balance, good stuff, kindness, health, satisfaction, and the like. In short, well being.

In two words or less, what do schools teach? If you are like other Australians, you said: achievement, thinking skills, success, conformity, literacy, maths, discipline and the like. In short, accomplishment. Notice that there is no overlap between the two lists.

The schooling of children has, for more than a century, been about accomplishment, the avenue into the world of adult work. I am all for accomplishment, success, literacy and discipline, but imagine if schools could, without compromising either, teach both the skills of well being and the skills of achievement. Imagine positive education.

See the rest here.

Metro Nashville Public Schools Need Leadership, Not Implementation

Nashville is searching for a new schools superintendent.  By some measures, our last search was a success.  The candidate selected, Pedro Garcia, lasted almost seven years.  Of course, he also created a "climate of fear" and presided over six straight years when Nashville lost ground to the state average in helping students learn.  So, what have the leaders who will choose our next superintendent taken from this experience?

The meme from the Mayor's office and the business community seems to be,  "Let's get an implementor."  Here is one story that evidences this, but there are others.  A Nashville Today (not online) interview with former Mayor Bill Purcell quoted him to the effect that we needed someone who knows how to turn around an urban school system.  No one has successfully accomplished that task, but maybe there is someone who knows how.  How would the School Board know, however, that one candidtate knew? 

The meme out of the School Board seems to be, "a good communicator who listens, builds morale and maintains strong community relations."  All the things that Dr. Garcia wasn't.  That's fairly typical in these situations.  Our last search was to replace a superintendent who had been a career-long MNPS educator and who was not seen as strong on instructional issues -- his role had been facilities and helping settle the 4-decade desegregation suit.  So, of course, the meme was for an outsider with strong instructional credentials who would come in and whip the system into place.  I was on the Board when that search started and I pushed for us not to go looking for "an answer person."  No Board member or Chamber representative would publicly speak against that, but it was not the underlying tenor of leadership thinking.  We wanted a "change agent."

Memes make a difference.  They are the real drivers of decisions in situations like this, not formal statements of "what we are looking for."  Here we have interesting cross-currents between the "implementor" and the "people person" meme.  I hope that the "people person" meme wins out.  There's virtually no evidence nationally that any program, be it "small learning communities" or whatever the next fad will be, can reliably improve teaching and learning in urban systems if it is just "implemented" properly.  On the other hand, there's lots of evidence that good relationships between teachers and principals, teachers and teachers, teachers and students, and teachers and parents create engagement for students and gains in learning.  Chris Peterson of the University of Michigan and one of my professors in the MAPP program sums up the findings of positive psychology by saying, "Other people matter."

I was at an event this weekend where I got to visit with the parents of young adults who were in my older son's class in school.  Several of these, like Tyler, are now teaching.  One parent summed up the experience of his and a number of others he'd talked to over recent years as, "I love my kids, like my parents, can't stand the administration."  He talked about the number of young, idealistic, energetic students he had seen go into teaching in recent years, then leave in disillusionment due to the leadership, or lack thereof, in their schools.  Or, as another parent quoted his daughter's principal, "If you are looking for me to encourage you, you came to the wrong school."  Wow!

So, what should the School Board do?

• Hold to the "people person" idea, but don't hold your breath waiting to find her or him.  Much of the dynamic in the leadership track that produces candidates for urban systems tends to create "program people" with jaded views of teachers and even the possibility of change.  (One of the findings of a big survey done of our system by a group that conducts such studies around the country was that teachers and top administrators were equally pessimistic about the chances for improvement.)
• Change the system to support the people in it, specifically:
  • Support teacher-led instructional improvement.  The format does not have to be lesson study as I pushed it when I was on the Board, but it had better include letting teachers, working together in small groups, select areas for improvement efforts, research, design, implement, and evaluate those efforts, report the results, then turn around and do it again.  Call it "small learning communities" or "critical friends circles" or "action research", but make sure it has those characteristics.
  • Give back the teacher in-service days the last administration took away.  The idea that what we really needed was more time for teachers in front of students doing what they have always done was insane.  It was a reflection of the command and control, fear-based approach of the last administration.  The Board should not have agreed to it and you should take the lead now in creating time in the school year for teachers to work on deep, fundamental instructional improvement.  Don't wait for MNEA to demand it in negotiations.  Do it now, on your own, as a sign of your faith in teachers and a commitment to a new way of going forward together.
  • Create a system of regular surveys of culture and climate in MNPS generally and in individual schools.  This was a task the Board assigned the last administration.  They picked a vendor that delivered a useless product and then reneged on the balance of the agreement claiming lack of funds.  The Board let it happen.  Now, we find that instead of an $800,000 contract, we got a useful survey for $30,000.  Get a permanent, annual system in place to sample to feelings and beliefs of teachers, students, and parents.  I still recommend looking into this option, but don't take no for an answer this time.  Get a system that will produce data that will help you manage the leadership of this system.  There is no excuse for not fixing this glaring lack that allowed a culture of fear and low expectations to prevail under the last administration.

Selecting the next superintendent of schools is clearly the biggest challenge and most significant responsibility this Board will face.  Looking around the country, we see NO large, urban school systems that are doing well, so there's very little reason to think we are going to find a lot of quality candidates that can lead a people-first program.  But there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to think we will find a candidate who has a programmatic answer for teaching and learning.  Run from those who think they do.  Find your people person who believes in the strengths and character of our teachers, our students, our parents and our community.  Someone who will draw out and build on the best qualities and strongest aspects of who we are.  That is our only path forward.  Good luck!

A well-rounded education

Last Wednesday's Wall Street Journal had an op-ed piece from Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Diane Ravitch focusing on concerns that NCLB and recent legislation increasing funding for science, technoloyg, engineering and math subjects will increase the tendency of public school districts to abandon history, literature, geography, economics, etc. in favor of tested subjects.  Anyone familiar with recent education reform will recognize that Mr. Finn cannot be accused of a "don't worry; our schools are fine" mentality.  He was in the vanguard of raising cconcerns that urban students (primarily minorities) were being cheated of a solid education.  He's still on the same message, but now concerned that the focus on some "basics" will actually continue to shortchange these students.  The authors raise some good points, and at least one that addresses MNPS' SSA.  The full article seems to be available at:

http://online. wsj.com/article/ SB11865375953249 1305.html? mod=googlenews_ wsj

On the possible cheating of public school students, I pull two paragraphs:

Students who garner high-tech skills may still get undercut by people halfway around the world who are willing to do the same work for one-fifth of the salary. The surest way to compete is to offer something the Chinese and Indians (and Vietnamese, Singaporeans, etc.) cannot -- technical skills are not enough.

***

Pragmatic folks naturally seek direct links from skill to result, such as engineers using their technical knowledge to keep planes aloft and bridges from buckling. But what about Abraham Lincoln educating himself via Shakespeare, the Bible and other great literary works? Alan Greenspan's degrees are in economics but he plays a mean jazz saxophone. Indeed, many of today's foremost (and wealthiest) entrepreneurs, people like Warren Buffett, studied economics -- not a STEM subject -- in college. Adam Smith studied moral philosophy.

Of course, the children of well-to-do parents won't be subject to such shortchanging.  That means the children of the members of Congress who are passing these laws won't be subject to them either.  In the last couple of years, I've had a great deal more opportunity to get to know the world of elite private education.  "Focusing on the basics" is NOT the priority for such schools!

Abandoning the liberal arts in the name of STEM alone also risks widening social divides and deepening domestic inequities. The well-to-do who understand the value of liberal learning may be the only ones able to purchase it for their children. Top private schools and a few suburban systems will stick with education broadly defined, as will elite colleges. Rich kids will study philosophy and art, music and history, while their poor peers fill in bubbles on test sheets. The lucky few will spawn the next generation of tycoons, political leaders, inventors, authors, artists and entrepreneurs. The less lucky masses will see narrower opportunities. Some will find no opportunities at all, which frustration will tempt them to prey upon the fortunate, who in turn will retreat into gated communities, exclusive clubs, and private this-and-that' s, thereby widening domestic rifts and worsening our prospects for social cohesion and civility

Value-added not perfect? I'm shocked! Shocked!

Over at eduwonk.com there's a reference to recent discussions on value-added.  I'm not going into all of that now except to say how much the discussion in this area has changed in the last 15 years.  It has gone from "It's all wrong  -- the tests, the statistics, everything!"  to "Well, sure it adds some value, but..."   and then either a suggestion that a competing approach can do it cheaper that Dr. Sanders' model, or a statement that it isn't the end to all questions.  Correct.  Most data answers some questions, then raises more and better questions.   That's the case with value-added. 

The hanging point now seems to focus around the use of value-added in evaluating individual teachers.  Here's eduwonk's point:

In my role as a policymaker in VA I would not be willing to go too far on this front because I think these models are still awfully noisy except at the extremes. In other words, they can tell you who really lousy and really great teachers are, but in the vast middle, where most teachers are, they're of less utility.

Ok, ...  Wait a minute!  It separates out the very effective teachers from the middle from the very ineffective and you can't find a policy use for that?  Let's remember here that the real achievement gap is between the results the very effective teachers achieve compared to the middle or the very ineffective.  (See here.)  Isn't that useful?  Doesn't it help you set a goal for moving the middle toward the top and the bottom toward the middle.  Standardized test results don't do a great job separating out kids "in the middle" but we're sure using them for accountability.  They can and do give useful information on the big picture (just some information, not all, and I am NOT saying we're using that information correctly!).  Value-added does the same. 

Teacher Pay, Incentives, Teacher-Led Instructional Improvement

A Google-alert and a marketing e-mail led me to these two stories on teacher pay, performance incentives, and teacher-led instructional improvement:

Program That Expands Teachers’ Roles Linked to Higher Student ...
Education Week News - Bethesda,MD,USA
The program uses the value-added information to dole out salary awards to teachers and schools that have performed better than the state average over three ...

When you go behind the story, you find that the TAP program it discusses includes a strong teacher-led instructional improvement component:

Ongoing Applied Professional Growth

TAP restructures the school schedule to provide time during the regular school day for teachers to meet, learn, plan, mentor and share with other teachers, so they can constantly improve the quality of their instruction and hence, increase their students' academic achievement. This allows teachers to learn new instructional strategies and have greater opportunity to collaborate, both of which will lead them to become more effective teachers.

And here's the story on teacher pay.  Basically, it is hard to argue that teachers are grossly underpaid compared to similar professionals, but, as evidenced by the rarity of the teacher-led instructional improvement models, it is very easy to see that they do not receive the respect they deserve in the form of encouragement to engage their professional judgment and commitment. 

How Much Are Public School Teachers Paid?

Today, Manhattan Institute scholars Jay P. Greene and Marcus Winters released a new report entitled "How Much Are Teachers Paid?". Greene and Winters use data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to compile information on the hourly pay of public school teachers nationally and in 66 metropolitan areas. The authors compare the reported hourly income of the public school teachers to those of workers in similar professions; and analyze whether there is a relationship between higher relative pay for public school teachers and higher student achievement as measured by high school graduation rates.

KEY FINDINGS:
* The average public school teacher in the U.S. earned $34.06 per hour in 2005
* The average public school teacher was paid 36% more per hour than the average non-sales white-collar worker and 11% more than the average professional specialty and technical worker
* Public school teachers are paid 61% more per hour than private school teachers, on average nationwide
* Increasing public school teacher pay is not related to higher graduation rates

Can schools close the gap?

Missed the article from the WSJ that Econmist's View picked up back in January (maybe because of MAPP?).  The article is by a Nobel laureate economist arguing that increased investment in early childhood programs for disadvantaged children make economic sense.  The comments drift toward rants about vouchers, but I picked up on this part of the article:

Although much public policy discussion focuses on the failings of schools, a major finding from the research literature is that schools ... contribute little to the emergence of test-score gaps among children. By the second grade, gaps ... across socioeconomic groups are stable

This is a common failing in discussions of this type -- assuming from average data that schools can't remedy the gap.  Now, I am all in favor of developing proven, emphasis on proven, programs that can help get all children to school age ready to learn, but, right now, we do know that some schools and some teachers are managing to boost kids along the learning path at significantly higher than average rates and thereby reduce those gaps.  (See here.)  The point is, we need to be identifying ways to close the gaps between the most effective teachers and schools and those who are not nearly as effective.  This will help close the achievement gaps between students without holding any student back. 

Keeping connected when emotions get high

People get pretty passionate about schools and sometimes folks can take things personally that were never meant that way.  When emotions start to swamp dialog, it's usually a good idea to re-establish our connections with one another, our commitment to the goals we share, and a certain amount of room in our midst for differing goals.

Positive Psychology, Student Achievement, and Social Trust

Richard Goddard presented on his work on social trust and student achievement at the Positive Link session, University of Michigan Center for Positive Organization Studies, last February.  75 minutes, but well worth the time. 

If you know any school boards currently searching for a superintendent, recommend this to them.  It will help offset the tendency to believe that a "change agent" in the superintendent's office is the answer to the challenge of improving urban system performance.  They might also want to read Making the Impossible Possible -- see the Positive Psychology Bookshelf in the right hand side panel.

http://www.bus.umich.edu/Positive/POS-Research/pastpositivesessions.htm

February 20, 2006
Presenter: Roger Goddard
Topic Title: "A conceptual and empirical examination of the link between relational trust and student achievement in schools."