~synthesis~

admissions

A recent eSchool News headline: Are unions blocking school reform? A provocative title - but I think the wrong question.

We always look for silver bullets and scapegoats - movies like the one referenced in the article (Waiting for Superman) can be the worst offenders - it's very easy to present one side of an argument. Superman names unions and teachers as the scapegoats, and evaluating (and paying) teachers based on student test scores as the silver bullet.

We are also cause-fiends, as with Michael Moore films, people jump on the bandwagon, believing that in a mere 102 minutes a film-maker can objectively and thoroughly explain education in America, clearly show who's good and who's bad, and in this case, lay the blame on unions and teachers. Seems naïve and inflammatory to me.

Unions do have problems - they've been around for decades, but working conditions, salaries, etc. for teachers haven't substantively improved. In fact, one might argue that teachers are worse off today than they were three or four (maybe less?) decades ago. Worse, the quality of graduating students (the work product of schools) has also declined. Change is needed, but is it all the teachers' and unions' fault? I don't think so.

If I were Randi Weingarten (president of the American Federation of Teachers), I'd consider an altogether different strategy. I would admit that unions are part of the problem, but they're not the whole problem. I'd start every speech with "AFT's mission is to work ourselves out of existence within ten years. Unions exist because management didn't care enough for the workers - we want to work with governments and administrators in this country to create schools where teachers no longer need the protection of their union, where there is joy and learning in schools, and all students graduate prepared for their next step in life. We aspire to work ourselves out of existence."

She can change the basis of her union from one that opposes management to one that enables it. To get management to put their sacred cows (moronic standards, standardized testing, 13,000+ districts, poor pay, etc.) on the table, she must put everything (tenure, open to change, quality teachers, etc.) on the table as well. She could quell the issue of ulterior motives (prevent innovation, expand membership dues, increase political power) by taking the high road - her goal should genuinely be to admit that we (including unions and teachers) have problems, that our previous approach hasn't worked, and if we work together on specific change that leads to sustainably improving student outcomes at scale, good things will come (for students, schools, teachers and yes, even the union).

I am convinced that there is no such thing as a public school teacher in America that chose this profession for the money. They all came because they were called - it is/was in their hearts and their stomachs. It may have waned over time, but the intention was good. I believe we vilify teachers because they're an easy and convenient target, and because as with anything, it's easy to find bad teachers among the more than three million teachers in America.

Going back to the opening paragraph, the right question is - do we really want better? If yes, (and I'm not sure I believe we really do), then let's stop spending tons of money NOT changing things. Let's start spending less money more effectively to create something worthy of our children and their future.

Unlike the vaunted but ultimately limp recent healthcare summit, Secretary Duncan's would-be education summit should include unions, administrators, superintendents, teachers, students, politicians, etc., and it should only have one objective (one they can't leave the room without accomplishing - a cage match as it were) - unanimous agreement on the goal [note singular] for education in America. Subsequent summits will decide how we get there, but the first step is knowing what success looks like, and that all stakeholders have unequivocally signed up.

We can then challenge the administrators and unions to take a clean slate approach to design great school system(s) that meet that goal. There are many exemplars - High Tech High and Seattle Girls' School come to mind right away, but there are others. There is no disputing the quality of their graduates, but what strikes me is how exacting both are about hiring, ensuring flexibility, trust and open-mindedness (of the students and teachers alike). Note that despite public school salaries, they have hundreds of applicants for each open position. Hmmm...

It begins with a great leader who has the fortitude to remain true to his and her (respectively) convictions. I wrote about how "he" creates a public a week ago. But how do we do this at scale? We know it is rare (if not impossible) to have a great organization remain great with a poor leader.

Sadly, the public school principals that I've met are little more than operations bitches for the district. Unlike Larry and Marja, they have zero latitude to be real leaders. This means that as much as they might have innovative ideas, creative approaches to management, a desire to give their teachers the room to be great, etc., they're shackled. Going back to Weingarten, I imagine her teachers would be much happier and more effective if their bosses (principals) were leaders like Larry and Marja, and all of them shared a common goal and were empowered to achieve it. Why is it not possible to trust well-vetted and qualified leaders to do what's right?

Education is a system - it has many components, including districts, administrators, teachers, students, parents, unions, publishers, sates, the feds, etc. Today there is way too much overlap among the players, too much oversight over mundane issues, and enough internal mistrust to create an impossible situation. The approach I suggested for the AFT could easily apply to all the other stakeholders. But until there is a common definition of success, and until every part of the system is held accountable for achieving it, we won't get anywhere. 

In the end, we should not vilify any one part of the system - we should instead agree to a clear goal for education, and admit that the system as its currently defined doesn't work for broad public school education. Admissions are the first step..

CA-NA-DA!!!

It was the best of times and the best of times. Today being Canadian is a whole new thing!

balanceation proclamation

"Who's responsible for this mess!?!"

This question makes most people except politicians and psychotics (hmmm...) nervous - they are impervious to the concept of responsibility; they're good at laying blame, but have this remarkable ability to shake accountability.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a landmark moment in American history - it recognized the rights of a people theretofore viewed as property. Just as America has a human rights framework (based in part on the Emancipation Proclamation and the Declaration of Independence), surely there should be a more rigorous governance framework for the country?

I can think of three (vain) efforts at Federal political governance - the voters (elections and term limits for the President); the players (separation of powers); and the outers (GAO and the media). But each has failed - the voters are simply not smart enough to know what's going on, too partisan to vote based on actual performance, and too removed from the failures to "get it"; the players are overly self-centered and inbred; and the outers are in the former, employed by the politicians, and in the latter, too obsessed with sensationalism to make a difference.

What is the legislative equivalent of the Emancipation Proclamation? I was having a conversation about changing the mission in Afghanistan with some friends and the proposed 1% increase in income taxes to cover war costs. I think this is good, but not enough - let's take it further:

As of 2009 the gross (cumulative) American national debt is just under $13 trillion - or just over 90% of the country's entire GDP!! By the end of 2010, it will roughly equal the US GDP - this is horrible! Worse, Congress feels ZERO accountability; and since virtually NONE of their equally guilty predecessors have ever been spanked, and many actually rewarded by being reelected, they are convinced they will never have their feet held to the fire.

What if we changed that - what if we created another proclamation - the Balanceation Proclamation, which mandates a balanced budget? Simply, if the budget exceeds income, Congress must raise income taxes to cover the overage. Every taxpayer/voter must immediately feel the pinch their representatives cost them (the IRS should document your hit in your tax return). This would help the voters more directly tune into and respond to bad behavior, require Congress to proactively defend their actions within their constituencies, and generally make Congress pucker just a little bit.

But what about economic depressions, when only the Feds are in a position to stimulate the economy, and taxes will impede growth? The easy answer might be "tough," but society is responsible for those that can't help themselves, and we can't ignore that. My compromise is that the Proclamation have a clause requiring a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate to secure debt-financing solely to stimulate the economy and avert or mitigate a depression - it cannot be used for any other purpose. Subsequent budgets must set aside funds to pay back the debt as quickly as possible. In the ideal case, this would be funded by the federal surplus emergency fund, but given our current debt, that won't be a reality for many years.

To help the outers, legislators (and political parties) may NOT receive contributions from anyone (individual or organization) that benefits from the spending that caused the deficit. For example, if the budget included new subsidies or credits for oil exploration, or if there was a new war, Exxon or Chevron, and Halliburton, Blackwater, Lockheed or Boeing, etc. would respectively be banned from any political donations for the duration of the benefit plus six years (Senators serve six year terms).

Quid pro quo. If we're punishing Congress for excessive spending, we should also reward them for good behavior. Every year that there is a budget surplus, all Federal employees will receive a bonus of X% (1 or 2%?) of the total surplus, divided equally (same percentage of salary). When they've also retired the gross deficit, the percentage should double. There should be no cap on this - the better they do, the better they do.

Today Congress exhibits the worst kind of partisan behavior, with almost zero focus on the electorate, and excessive focus on self-aggrandized power brokering. This is so because the incentive system is broken - success is getting funded and reelected, not actual public service.

The Balanceation Proclamation would reward good behavior and punish bad. If the country does well, they get paid; Congress will be incented to serve the citizens and fight for programs that help their constituents; but they know that excess spending will directly harm their electorate.

This just might be the way to help them "focus."

create a public

When leaders are asked about how they got to where they are, many share a story; a story that makes visceral the journey they traveled, the experiences that influenced them, and hints at some of the challenges they faced.

The leaders I admire most embrace the principles of Aikido - when confronted, they seek to at least neutralize their opponent (without causing either party harm), and ideally transform that negative energy into something positive for both sides. This approach doesn't just lead to progress, it leads to sustained progress where in time, nay-sayers might even become advocates.

I've also noticed that leaders are perennial students - it is that openness that creates new possibilities and partnerships. And this almost goes without saying - you won't find a leader whose mission can't be articulated in a single, clear and succinct statement.

I was talking with my dear friend Larry last week about his creation - in his words: "our mission is to create a public." Larry is a great leader, this is his starting point, and his simple and powerful intention.

Parsing this statement, we first discussed it's Jeffersonian connection - schools must reflect all of society, and in the right proportions. It must represent all the peoples of the state (irrespective of gender, race, economic status, etc.) - that's what public means. Sadly, our current system doesn't - while desegregation is law, most schools are in fact segregated, and worse, our policies and philanthropy are intent on perpetuating this segregation! (You get more funding if your school has more underserved students - so schools tend to become all underserved to maximize $$.)

It hasn't worked with prisons (let's put all of societies transgressors together in one place in the hopes that they will rehabilitate while being surrounded by fellow criminals), what makes us think it will work in schools? Every school needs to be a place where all of society mingles, collaborates, and evolves. It is the first representation of that more perfect union, where you bring students from all walks together and give them a place to learn about each other, to work together, and learn from each other. You must create a possibility for tomorrow that is vastly superior to lumping all the poor urban kids in one school, and all the rich in another.

Larry also talks about head and hand - you must learn and do, learning theories and concepts and reading about things is not enough - you must not only build things, you must be those people - to learn biology you must do as biologists do; to learn engineering, you must be an engineer - only then can you really know, and only then can you really choose your own destiny. This is why his graduates are more focused, more adaptable and more open to a changing future.

When you explore his village of six (one elementary, two middle and three high) schools, some things occur to you - first that you would have loved to go to a school like this, second that you'd want this for your children, and finally, you'll ask: "why isn't every school like this?" So much of it is so obvious (and so right) when you see it, that you are shocked to learn that the mainstream school system resisted it because it is different; not "normal," and not how they've always done it (some continue to resist).

But with time and with leadership and with perseverance and with results, minds are changing - there is hope. Maybe one day all schools will be like this.

I'm left with this question - how do we accelerate the transformation? It's not that every school must look like Larry's. It is rather that real leaders must be in charge of all schools. These leaders should be as exacting as Larry is about hiring people, as committed to creating a place that is open to possibilities, and as intent as Larry's teachers are on helping every child find that spark that elevates them from bored to compelled, from observer to participant, from consumer to creator.

We've made education complex - it isn't. We've created a system whose rules require a book that's several inches thick, whose administrators are intent on saying no, and whose staff is only interested in test scores. We've forgotten what it's like to be a student. We've forgotten that it is about graduating children whose future is profoundly more brilliant than anything we might conceive. We've forgotten that it's about creating a public.

We need more leaders that won't ever forget.

guantana-no

America has had a presence in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since 1903. It is the oldest American overseas base, and the only one hosted in a country with which the US has no diplomatic relationship. Cuba has disputed the US' right to this property, but to no avail.

Over the last decade, the Base has become an icon for critics of American foreign policy - it is emblematic of how the government skirted its own laws and Constitution by denying due process, and imprisoning and mistreating (including torture) those who were suspected of terrorist actions against the United States. This behavior has robbed the USA of moral high ground globally, it is used as a recruitment tool by terrorists, and worst of all, it is a powerful statement about absolutes and integrity.

The government is now seeking to close the prison (not the whole base) and have the prisoners stand trial on US soil; Congress has thwarted this pending the creation of a well-thought out plan.

Setting aside the fact that a country should be unequivocal in adhering to her own laws even when inconvenient, for that is what keeps us from being lawless, what can be done to solve this problem?

I think it's a four-step process:

1. Declare Guantanamo (as the courts have) American soil and subject to the same rules of law that govern a resident of say, New York City.
2. Transport a legal team comprising Federal judges, clerks and attorneys to Guantanamo to securely try the remaining prisoners at the base vs. transporting them to the mainland.
3. Upon completion of the trial, close the entire Naval base at Guantanamo and return the land to Cuba.
4. Tear down the Cactus Curtain, formalize diplomatic ties with Cuba, and hope to spark American travel and commerce.

The impact could be significant:

• Save money - this is much cheaper and safer than holding trials in the continental United States.
• Save more money - reduce Defense expenditures by closing the base (Guantanamo has minimal strategic advantage given bases in nearby Florida).
• Stimulate US economy - move the 9,500+ soldiers to existing US bases, thereby contributing to those local economies.
• Eliminate terrorist recruiting tool - by legally (and openly) trying the prisoners and closing the base altogether, terrorists can no longer point to Guantanamo to spur recruitment.
• Improve global perception - countries and people around the world will view this as a positive step that may spark improved political and economic ties with America.

I've always believed that American influence abroad should be based on economic policy vs. military action. By closing the base, the US can close the chapter on this part of its history, and move forward with less baggage.

vulnerability

Oxford defines vulnerable as "susceptible to physical or emotional attack or harm"; empower is to "give (someone) the authority or power to do something."

Someone very close to me died recently, and I've been thinking a lot about the choices we make in life. I was struck by these two words on the flight home from the funeral.

Being vulnerable is viewed as a bad thing - giving up power or control or self-determination or... In relationships I've often heard it said that when you express your true feelings, or if you "give in" too quickly, etc., you're vulnerable - you've put yourself "out there," are weakened and at the mercy (and ridicule) of others.

In business, training classes say assertiveness, authority and decisiveness are the keys to leadership and creating a reputation for getting things done. If you "open up" or become too accessible, you risk losing respect, not being able to lead effectively, etc. It makes you less of a leader. Similarly your company can't appear to be anything but always correct and impervious to failings, or it will lose value in the eyes of the market and its customers.

Western society is obsessed with immediate gratification, with silver bullets, and with the idea that success is measured based on relative achievement vs. actual achievement.

When you buy into that article or book or class that promises you "Ten Sure-Fire Techniques to Find and Keep Your Wo/Man" or "Ten Management Techniques Guaranteed to Make You Succeed and Get Promoted" you are making the same bet for success as the person that buys the "Amazing Pill that Will Melt Away Your Unwanted Pounds in Minutes Without Dieting or Exercise." You are betting that someone else's approach, vision and values matter more than your own, or you.

When we treat people or "manage" people based on a formula or techniques like this, we have taken a shameful step towards treating our fellow humans as objects and not people. This is one of the reasons I'm not a fan of most MBA programs - they tend to distill everything into simple lists and lessons which are then taught as gospel.

Why should I have "Ten Techniques" to solve every problem in my life? That seems insulting, dismissive and inhuman. when we honor our friends, lovers, family, co-workers, customers, constituents, etc. as people, we become better ourselves. When we avoid formulaic approaches, we are more genuine, and create simpler, more real, and more lasting results.

I was re-reading Management of the Absurd (a gift from my friend Larry) and noted an informal survey the author did asking people to recall great moments of parenting from when they were a child, or great moments in management as employees. In both cases, the vignettes that were shared (and remembered) were those that had nothing to do with top ten lists, or being in a teachable moment, or even having any real outcome or victory - they were points at which humanity was expressed and connections were made - it was when the partner/leader became a real person.

We all know that feelings are reciprocated. To think of your partner or employees as "things" to be "managed," you MUST lose respect for them as people. They are now corporate assets, and your loyalty is to the outcome and not the people. Their loyalty is unclear or perhaps irrelevant?

We can all tell when we're being treated as objects, we can all tell when a boy or girl is "working" us, we can all tell when organizations are spinning us. When we "smell" this, do we react with an outpouring of love?

If Toyota had immediately acknowledged the issues with their cars, responded with honestly and action vs. obfuscation and inaction, many cars would already be fixed and they would be secure in the knowledge that they had acted with integrity and lived up to their ethos of caring for their customers and the work they did. Their customers, having sensed that while vulnerable, Toyota acted with integrity and honor, would believe more deeply in the brand and re-purchase knowing that when problems came up, the company would face them. Toyota's vulnerability would become its strength. In fact, I bet that this approach would not only increase loyalty, it would attract new customers - this is the kind of product people want to trust.

When managers genuinely care about their people and their work, they engender a sense of loyalty that not only stands the test of time, but also results in the team doing everything possible (and even impossible) to make sure they don't let the boss down. They will say, "we all pulled together and got it done; when one of us is in trouble, we stand together and act, we take care of our own." They will say this with pride.

When I express myself and how I feel, when I don't hold back, I feel like a load has been lifted from me. That rather than making myself less, I am strengthened. I feel more embraced and less alone.

Being vulnerable is about caring, it is about being expressive and honest. Your vulnerability doesn't imprison you - it sets you free. It gives you the power to have faced and not hidden; it gives you the ability to live and not cope; it secures you in the knowledge that it is OK to care, to cry, to feel because we are human. We respond to genuine feelings articulated badly and tearfully much more than contrived, homogenized PR/legal speak.

Vulnerability empowers.

e pluribus unum

"Out of many, one" was the translated motto on the Seal of the United States of America. It is a brilliant phrase, and speaks to the one nation formed of first 13 and eventually 50 states, to the principle of democracy shared by all Americans, to the idea that so much more unites Americans than divides them, to the idea that in being one, we are greater.

This was so from 1776 to 1956, when Congress officially replaced it with the motto "In God We Trust." Just a little bit ironic, especially today that a conceptually pluralist society chose to embrace a monotheist declaration isn't it?

We are human (I suppose Congress-people are as well, but I could be wrong). We each have strengths and weaknesses (not sure they have many strengths). How we deal with them is what makes us more or makes us less; our response, our actions are the true measure of who we are.

In changing the motto, Congress chose to shift accountability, to pass the buck. When management faces their shortcomings, what do they do? I think most embrace Congress' proven skill at passing the buck.

My last post was about the mistake America is making in seeking to measure teachers based on student performance. The meta point was that merit pay doesn't work in most team settings; it pits members against each other, and measures them based on their relative achievement - your "success" requires others in your team to "fail."

Merit is the easiest way to pay people - it is not equitable, but is perceived to be. It does not create a true team, but most MBA and HR-types will argue that it does. There is no e pluribus unum-ness with merit, unless your interpretation is "I emerged from the hoard and am the one." It requires you to not care if the team wins or loses, just as long as you win. Here's the other thing - in normalizing performance, you also normalize roles.

By normalizing roles, contrary to Jim Collin's Good to Great, you don't try to get the right people on the bus, you try and get the same people on the bus. That might be OK for certain jobs, but it's not realistic for most work done today. Having a team filled with like-minded and similarly-abled employees isn't ideal in today's competitive and complex world. Is it any wonder that there is so little innovation and creativity in the workplace?

These same MBA and HR-types will argue that merit is also the way to manage the herd and weed out poor performers. Hmmm... recalling the Congressional buck-passers, isn't merit management's way of compensating for their own recruiting, hiring and management failures? If managers were effective, the right employees would have been hired, perform optimally, work together, and achieve greatness as a team. This is exaggerating to make a point, but it might still resonate for some of us.

Passing the buck isn't just about normalizing the workforce. It's also about trying to get by without making tough decisions or more appropriately, deferring tough decisions to others. Steve Lohr wrote an article in the NY Times last week about the economics of elitism where he reflects on Steve Jobs' rule over product development at Apple. Lohr says: "They are edited products that cut through complexity, by consciously leaving things out — not cramming every feature that came into an engineer’s head, an affliction known as “featuritis” that burdens so many technology products."

As engineers, rather than ex pauci plures (out of few many), they chose e pluribus unum - out of many minds and ideas and approaches, they would make rather than defer the difficult decisions; they would design based on the ideal, and not the compromise.

Matter, people, our very world tends towards entropy - it is easy to accede to chaos. The tougher path is to resolve to be one, to be a team, to make a choice.

merits of merit

I work for a large corporation where compensation is based on merit. This theoretically ensures that everyone aspires and those who achieve are rewarded. In practice you need a way to normalize performance so that you can judge relative achievement, to pay the best performers appropriately.

In the hands of some managers, normalization (aka standardization) can be effective because they assess and value the tangible, intangible, and extraordinary; they override "the model" because certain people contribute the magic ingredient that creates greatness or inspires team performance but isn't easily documented. They also recognize that a team requires different types of contributors to achieve consistent success over time, some are visible, many are not; but without these "invisible" contributors, success doesn't happen. In the end, effective teams don't really have a normalized model.

The bigger the organization, the less latitude and appreciation there is for "abnormalized" performance. The natural result is competition between team members to the detriment of their customers, and tension between the team and its management, to the detriment of their mission.

David Warlick used this fabulous quote in a recent post: "We don’t stop playing games because we’re getting older – We get old because we stop playing games" (anon). Seth Godin wrote a brilliantly-titled post called the false solace of vilification, where he suggests that when stuff happens, we tend to lash out, often at the person in the best position to help us. Then there's Amanda Ripley's piece in The Atlantic which attempts to dissect the anatomy of a great teacher. The premise being that there are great teachers who can accomplish amazing things - so how do we make all teachers individually accountable for creating great students?

President Obama, Secretary Duncan, Chancellor Rhee, Amanda Ripley and a gazillion others are putting all their money on merit-based pay for teachers as the next panacea. They are doing what Seth cautioned us not to - vilifying the people that can help us.

Merit pay ONLY succeeds in individual, competitive games; i.e. when you have to beat someone else to win. It's really easy to motivate salespeople based on merit 'cause they control their destiny; they can only win when their employer wins; and when they win, their competition loses.

Unless you're the only educator in the school, merit pay will fail. The community must work together to help every child achieve their true potential. If the community members are competing against each other, the one person that matters most is ignored or abused. I have written about this here and here. But don't take my word for it - check out this fabulous article thanks to Larry.

Obama et al are grasping at the teacher merit pay straw because they're not teachers, they need to do something, and No Child Left Behind tried and failed to improve things by making schools accountable. So let's make teachers accountable. This will result in David's quote becoming more true - teachers will lose any desire to play, and their classes will grow old and decrepit before our eyes.

When teacher merit fails, should we then legislate that American students must be smart or we "fire" them? When that fails, maybe we'll legislate parenting - hmmm... that could be a good thing - let's let the US Government decide who should be a parent! The one "interesting" outcome with this is when it fails, there won't be a need for an education system at all!

I think NCLB was mostly right - we have to make schools accountable for student achievement. Everyone within the school should act as one team; all benefited equally when their graduates leave with the best preparation possible for the next step in their journey. NCLB's failure is in how they chose to manage and measure performance.

It gave schools and districts control over the definition of success - this is just plain dumb. I'll take your money every time if I get to decide whether or not I did a good job. The proof of this is profound increases in American per-student spending with no improvement (often a decline) in student achievement.

What would I do? Well, I wrote insanity defined over a year ago, when I was just learning about education, and my perspective hasn't changed. Since then I have visited many successful schools, and all employ something of the approach I advocated; all teach as a team and not as individuals; and all have leaders whose very essence is committed to student greatness first, and all measure their achievement based on their students' success after graduation.

strength v integrity

For most people in a position of strength, whatever they're facing, their approach is more aggressive. Whether you have a gun and they are unarmed; or you have the chip lead at the poker table; when you're a parent and your child is still dependent on you; if you're in a gang, and your "victim" is alone; or even when you have a majority in politics - you assert power because you can.

But the tables can turn quickly, be it when you run out of bullets, lose chips by betting recklessly, see your child turn into a teenager, face your "victim" when you are alone, or of course when a senator dies and the people vote in a candidate from the other party.

Oddly, strength is more ephemeral than integrity. Look at Haiti, where so many have died and even more have suffered because there is no integrity in their system. Today, in a show of global strength, many are working together to help; but as David Brooks of the NY Times wrote, at some point, the immediate crisis will pass, the passion will fade, and the world will have moved on. The work of helping Haiti build an infrastructure with the integrity to withstand future crises will be left undone. This is not because Haiti is an easily-ignored foreign land; just look at the levees in New Orleans which years after Katrina are still a huge source of risk to the city. We act with bluster and ego and forsake integrity.

When Lord Acton wrote these words in 1887, he knew whereof he spoke: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

How do great men become bad men? Maybe power is one part amnesia + one part imperviousness? Amnesia because you immediately forget how difficult the journey was, who you were and how you felt before you rose to power, and your conviction that when you got there, it/you'd be different. Is a side effect of the amnesia also a loss of compassion - the ability to empathize with both your people and those you vanquished? I think so.

The amnesia makes you suddenly wake up in power, believing that this is what you were born to do and be, and not only can no-one take it away from you, but that every decision you make is right, every judgment you have is correct, and every idea you conceive is brilliant. There is also a lingering, selective amnesia that immediately vindicates or absolves you of any "small" mistake you might make while in power.

Now look back over the last 12 months at how the majority party in Congress has behaved. Heavy-handed, acting behind closed doors, and with an aura of self-righteousness. Maybe the President has been less corrupted by power than either the House or Senate Democrats, but that hasn't really mattered because he has relatively little say in the actual law-making process.

If the Dems had behaved with integrity, maybe they would have discovered a better and more communal path towards effective healthcare. Now they are contemplating a massively watered-down version of the bill or even unbundling it and trying to pass sections piecemeal. Pathetic.

The House had a Democratic majority in the last midterms during WBII (President George W. Bush's 2nd term), and accomplished NOTHING. Their excuse was the Republican presidency. They learned NOTHING from the Republican majorities during the Clinton presidency, and NOTHING from their failures prior to Obama's presidency. Pathetic.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi - both insipid, integrity-free "leaders" - are now in a pucker moment. My guess is they will find something or someone to blame for losing the Massachusetts seat, and continue to blunder through Congress as the grape-brained blithering fools that they are. The midterms will hopefully see them unseated, and the Republicans will enter the next session of Congress with parity or a very small majority.

Sadly, there is no redemption in the Republican power circle either - they relish the failure of the Dems but have demonstrated NO desire to act with integrity in their service of the American people.

What would I do? If I were President Obama, I'd invite a moderate Republican (with a bi-partisan team of two from each party, and one each from the House and Senate) to form a commission to write a healthcare bill by the end of April 2010. The President should personally spend at least one day/week with this group, but claim NO credit for the result - this was their work, not his. In exchange, the President should agree to campaign for that moderate Republican whenever s/he wants. The commission should be fully open to the public, and the conditions for success (cost, coverage span, etc.) should be laid out up-front.

The President can go before the people today and admit that the current approach has failed; admit that while there are good things in the bill, things he supports passionately, the process was wrong. He should point to the data the National Geographic published recently on healthcare cost vs. life expectancy, and how the US spends so much more, and yet her citizens see the doctor less and don't live as long. In the end, our outcome of healthier Americans is at risk, and that's not acceptable.

If I were with the insurance company leaders, I'd recommend an industry-wide preemptive strike to proactively eliminate many of the issues that the current bill has raised about their behavior (exclusions for preexisting conditions, caps on payments, etc.).

Thus far, they and the opponents of proposed healthcare reform have won with scare tactics. If instead they choose to act with integrity, especially when the tide is turning in their favor, they will control the agenda, chose exactly how to adapt to their new model, and maybe prevent regulatory intervention altogether. If they do this right, it might actually be a more profitable venture for them in the long run, irrespective of which party holds the majority. And they will have acted with a measure of integrity.

Integrity is laced with ethos, humanity, and a sense of what's right. It is shaped by accountability, transparency and the belief that your power is less important than the right outcome.

barriers

Barriers keep things away from other things - they might be levees that keep dangerous waters away from communities; they sometimes separate nations at border crossings; they might even be erected around buildings (as happened often after 9-11) to prevent wrongdoers from entering.

There are other kinds of barriers too - ones that aren't so physically tangible, but every bit as real. Consider barriers to entry for a company trying to get into a market or reach a demographic; consider also barriers to entry for a person trying to gain employment.

In this last case, there are a few ways that would-be employees can break through these barriers - I think it boils down to:

• Accreditation - a diploma or certification attesting to something you've learned that is of value to the employer
• Connection - someone you know either in the company or that the company wants to know
• Reputation - being proven or having a following that you bring to the table that improves the employers' ability to do something (attract new customers, build credibility, etc.)
• Experience - jobs you might have had, or work you may have done that is meaningful to the employer

Of these, the first two are most cited as likely to get you in the door, and the last two are the ones most likely to have them seek you out.

For most people starting out, having a piece of paper from the right institution accrediting their education is the only thing they have. In the past, you may have been hired solely for having a diploma, but today with the scarcities we face and the glut of prospective candidates, employers can be much more selective. It's not enough to have a piece of paper; what that paper represents is actually more important.

I wrote a while back about universities being at risk because of their steadfast commitment to keeping things as they were a century ago, but now we know that institutions do this at their assured peril.

I have written a ton about K-12 education and how it's being impaled into the ground, but a couple of thoughts stand out. I'm the first to agree that we are what we measure - but we should also know that if you lower the barrier to entry, people won't try as hard!! If you protect management from failure, they won't feel as accountable!! 

Seth Godin wrote this great post today about how career fairs are (my words) the aspiration to be average. He didn't need to prove it, but here's more proof of this - the NY Times reported that several states are lowering their high school graduation test standards!!

How often have you seen a person say - well if I only need to produce 10 widgets a day, and no matter what I do, I only get paid to produce 10 widgets, I'll produce 20 (or even 11) anyway, just because I can and I care?

What gets measured gets done - if you lower the standard, guess what, you've guaranteed that the students will learn less! These legislative charlatans are trying to put a better spin on things - Dr. Gerald Zahorchak, Pennsylvania's Secretary of Education in one breadth said that 20,000 2007/8 graduates required remediation at a cost of $26 million before they were ready for their next step - a pretty damning condemnation of current graduation standards. BUT in the next breadth, of their plan to lower the standards for testing, he said: I want more than anything to be able to say with confidence that every Pennsylvania student who receives a diploma is ready for the real world.

I am speechless.

I think Dr. Zahorchak and all of his peers must be required to face the tens of thousands of unemployed high school graduates in their state every day, and hear from each of them about how their 13-year investment in public school has failed them.

The school system in this country is in peril - there should be a sense of urgency that eclipses the post 9-11 fervor on national security for approaches that improve the potential of every child in the school, not lower the standards so some imbecile with a big office can look good.

The barrier we are missing is the one that requires politicians to have an IQ above that of a grape.