~synthesis~

open accreditation services

Is learning is undergoing a transformation? From this article in the NY Times on the profusion of lectures available online, its implications on learning, and how that's changing the way students learn; to 21st Century Learning proponents, who claim that learning in this century is like no other, that students are actually different, and that institutions need to evolve their curriculum to match, you might think so.

I don't think the turn of a calendar's page changes the way the brain works, but what (if anything) is really different about education in this century?

It's not enough to say we have new technology today vs. yesterday, because yesterday they had new technology vs. the day before. It's not enough to say that we expect more from our students today than ever before (ibid).

What about this - could this be the century in which the business model of education changes? Is this the point where accreditation as we know it goes away? This isn't new in the history of learning, but it's something that hasn't happened in perhaps the last 150 years.

The mainstream public education system on this planet is authoritarian, discriminatory, built to make life easier for adults and regulators, and seemingly not even designed to make children great. The rules in most schools are all about what you CAN'T do. Oppression doesn't seem to be a good way to engage students and improve learning outcomes - does it?

How does the system become so authoritarian? Simple - they own the ticket to employment. I wrote recently about the tertiary education is becoming commoditized; I think things are getting even worse now. The most tangible benefit of staying in school and graduating is the piece of paper you get that says you attended, graduated, and are now employment-worthy.

If you have something hammer-like (the ticket), then it is easy to be lazy and use that hammer to assert power vs. truly engaging students - think of most country's border guards; they should be tourism advocates, but instead let their power get in the way. This is not universal, but it is pervasive.

Change in this case won't come from within. These days, more and more employers look beyond the accreditation to the person to assess whether they'd be a good hire. Ask any recruiter, hiring manager, employment consultant or counselor and they will confirm that where you went to school only helps if it's one of the top ten (or where the hiring manager went); otherwise it's more about the rest of you - who you are, what you've done, and how you did it that counts - take a look at your own resume - is education at the top or near the bottom?

Admittedly, most employers (today) won't let you in the door without the proper accreditation - that's still the first filter. But I believe this is changing. The number of "accreditation-free" people that get hired is growing rapidly, and the approach these hiring managers take and the quality of these hires will be the biggest determinant of the "value" of a formal education.

As these "alternate" candidates prove their worth in the market (likely at lower starting salaries as well), I think there will be a groundswell at both ends - hiring managers/recruiters becoming more open-minded, and students becoming more savvy.

Students are already skeptical about school; when the approach that these hiring managers use to select candidates becomes better known, it could begin to shape students' process for building a resume, the way they demonstrate knowledge, ability and experience, and the criticality of a diploma.

Imagine if you could describe your job-worthiness not in terms of a certificate, but as say a balanced scorecard, or as Seth put it, as your own quilt. It would not only be a huge help to hiring managers, but also allow much more of the candidate's broader value to be demonstrated.

Just as Open Education Resources (OER) is altering the nature of curriculum and teaching materials, I think we're about 10 years away from an Open Accreditation Service that enables students to score or quilt all of their achievements across the board.

The next revolution in learning then, is the outmoding of the existing business model. And as with the music, video, and print/TV advertising industries, education will try and hold on to the past, but at some point face reality, and focus on earning the opportunity to teach your child. I can't wait.

plight and prejudice

How many public school teachers can you name who are only in it for the money? I struggle to name one. Are there bad eggs in the system? Of course, and here's an example of a more insidious variant (plus it quotes one of the more choice movie lines of the 1980s!). But most of the three million+ teachers in America teach because their stomachs and hearts demand it of them. It is a calling and their intentions are good.

I have been told of places in this country where being a teacher is a "way out," and people go into it because it's one of the very few choices available to them. I'm willing to bet that most of these teachers view it as a path to earning a living, being respected in their community, and helping future generations transcend.

Last night I was talking to a good friend about teachers in America; we talked about these two amazing teachers I had dinner with last October, and about Tyler Hester - a rather academically accomplished TFA teacher who was laid off recently from his school in Pasadena, CA; he was a victim of their policy of layoffs based solely on tenure.

There is a lot of talk about teachers being the most influential factor in a child's education, and that because student achievement is declining, they must be the point of failure. This type of scapegoat hunting is easy - it's not about solving a problem, it's about finding someone to blame - that's politics. As Aaron Sorkin put it in The American President (with my emphasis):

We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values and character, and you wave an old photo of the President's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism. You tell them she's to blame for their lot in life. And you go on television and you call her a whore.

The "problem" is a failing education system, the "President's girlfriend" is the public school teacher, and rather than "whore" it's incompetent. Good politics is about establishing ONE enemy that is easily understood, easily vilified, and where a simple fix (student testing - something they have also admitted doesn't work!) can be applied.

Like Bob Rumson in the movie, none of these "complainants" has a viable solution for the problem. None recognizes that students are only in school for seven hours a day, and that learning also happens in the other seventeen. None speaks of the role of parents and parenting in education, none recognizes that the most formative learning happens before a child is even of school age!!

This is the plight of teachers in America and the prejudice fomented against them. Look no farther than the rhetoric of Presidents Bush and Obama, their respective Secretaries of Education, many "lesser" politicians (Governors, Superintendents, Congress people, etc.), and even major foundations (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to name but one) to find the same story played over and over again. These are people who in one breath speak of dramatically increasing investment in our futures, and in the next of budget cuts that require teacher layoffs, cutbacks in classes offered, and even the closing of schools.

Phooey!

As Elizabeth Bennett (Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice) had to overcome her tendency towards hasty judgments and headstrong approach, so must American teachers overcome their first reaction - the raising of hackles.

As Seth said today that you must choose what of the myriad ...stuff that comes your way to accept; teachers need to focus not on a tide of disaffection, but what they would want to see in the system in order to improve it; some of this will require change on their part, and they can't shirk that. They must view being in the cross hairs as an opportunity and not a threat.

Like Elizabeth they must realize that beneath the prejudice their Mr. Darcy has a genuine desire to improve education, he just doesn't know how. In the book, circumstances contrived to help Mr. Darcy demonstrate his innate goodness and win Elizabeth. In reality, teachers must take the bull by the horns and create their own destiny.

aVOIDance

Lao Tzu was a brilliant, brilliant man - in Tao Te Ching, he wrote this:

We put thirty spokes together and call it a wheel;

But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the wheel depends.

We turn clay to make a vessel;

But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the vessel depends.

We pierce doors and windows to make a house;

And it is on these spaces where there is nothing that the usefulness of the house depends.

Therefore just as we take advantage of what is, we should recognize the usefulness of what is not.

This should be tattooed on the foreheads of every leader and politician so that they can read it every time they look in the mirror (I presume mirror-looking is a frequent act). Governing (or leading in that rare case) is as much about what you do as what you don't do; it is as much (more) about the things you help happen as it is about the things you prevent from happening. It is indeed as much about the usefulness of what is not as it is about the structure we create. But most critically, governing is about creating a space in which the people it serves are allowed to be great, and to be happy.

I do believe the gentlemen that wrote the Declaration of Independence were aware of Lao Tzu and others, and were themselves brilliant and well-thinking men. Here's a bit of their work:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Read this a couple of times to see how in a mere 202 words so many powerful ideas were collected; how so much power and possibility were granted to both the citizenry and its government. Knowing that this was written to set up the throwing off of one "such Government" is powerful. This document is one of the most eloquent demonstrations of creating a container; knowing full well that the value lies not in the shape or structure of the container, but the power of what it holds, and the potential that creates.

When you read of today's political machinations, you can't help but wonder why our politicians (I can't call them leaders) are bent on creating ever more walls. It's like saying that everything that could possibly happen needs a law to "manage" it.

But we fail to realize that humans are innately skilled at finding the 11th door out of a 10-door room. Every new wall we create invites (nay, demands) loophole seekers, makes it harder to find "miscreants" because the very walls obscure things, and forces us to waste energy policing existing walls.

We also ignore the very purpose of government - to secure their citizens' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others. Today the purpose seems to be to enumerate and prevent misdeeds.

How sad that we're defined by what we mustn't do.

We are voidphobes. Whether it is a lull in conversation, or a lull in behavior, or a lull in regulation - we are much more comfortable when cocooned (straitjacketed?) in structure and "no."

Consider our schools and what we impose on children from the first moment of "institutionalization" - rules, constraints, expectations, examinations. I wonder if this is one reason we have so many more "atypical" children in schools today than ever before? Our definition of "normal" is compliance, living within walls, and accommodating adult expectations. We resist, as Seth put it, exposing ourselves. This might be the worst thing adults can do in service of human evolution, and caring for our young.

A free society, a free people, a free nation are powerful, powerful ideas. They live only when what is celebrated is not the walls around us, but the vast, possibility-filled spaces we inhabit.

Our future may well hinge on our ability to resist avoiding voids.

spastic knees

Humans are competitive. We can't help it, it's a genetic and certainly Darwinian response to our environment. We compete for damn-near everything, and imbue this spirit in many things we create, including the businesses we build. Even non-profits compete with each other.

There are many schools of thought on "how to win" - most favor forceful and immediate action. "Shock and awe" is a phrase I hear all too often in the corporate setting. The belief is that a perceived threat should be squashed immediately, before it grows stronger and becomes harder to overcome. This is true in medicine, sports, business, politics, warfare, etc.

Is shoot first and ask questions later always the best way to go? If time heals all wounds, does it also heal conflicts? Does patience mitigate threats? Does looking at the whole chess board help you decide the best move, or is it better to just focus on the pawn that's being attacked?

Seth Godin's Rights and Responsibilities post makes a great case for stopping and thinking about your ultimate goal and sustained success vs. the short-term preservation of status quo, or worse, a knee-jerk and ultra-myopic negative reaction to what is really an opportunity.

Seth's story about how corporations react is classic, and typical of micro thinking - something that, yep you guessed it, I attribute to the profusion of MBAs, PR people and lawyers. Enough said.

But there is another example of jerky (or spastic) knees that has been prominent this week, and for many months now - the Republican Party. I was happy when Barak Obama was elected President, but was worried about what would happen, because the Democrats also won majorities in the House and Senate. I was worried because the Democrats are horribly inept and factional - they have a proven inability to get things done; from the outset, rather than focusing on governing effectively and with dignity, they strutted and preened like unattractive peacocks.

What should the Republicans have done in response to an overwhelming loss and a bunch of preening Dems? If you combine the thinking of Machiavelli (my interpretation: power through cunning and guile) and Aikido (my interpretation: convert negative energy into something that is a conflict-free, positive outcome for both), what do you get that might be worthwhile?

Rather than form a strategy (be smart, focus on serving the citizens of the country (your employers), and think about crafting a situation that would demonstrate your mettle and leadership, and allow the others to inevitably screw up), the Republican Party chose to pout. Rather than govern, they chose to obstruct, and follow Vince Lombardi's "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing." I can imagine a conversation like this among the leadership: "we only measure success in one way, in this game, at this hour, with this play. We will start now, and we can only win by thoroughly destroying those godless Democrats - damn the collateral damage. Let's go!!"

Lao Tzu once said: "Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear? Can you remain unmoving till the right action arises by itself?”

Western companies and certainly the political parties have never read this, or hear of Lao Tzu - more's the shame.

As the mud settled they should have realized that to win, they needed to transcend their very conservative base and win back Reagan Democrats (or perhaps in that moment, Obama Republicans). They needed to look at history and their knowledge of those on the other side of the aisle to know that the Dems are simply incapable of being one team and working effectively. Instead, they chose and continue to choose to focus solely on vilifying those rightfully elected to govern, obstructing any kind of governing, further polarizing the country, and moving relentlessly to the right.

It eludes me - they made themselves look just as bad.

And if you watched any of the recent Southern Republican Leadership Conference, did you hear anything about what a Republican leader would do if they were in charge? All I heard (and have heard for months) is how evil the "other side" is (again - these are not terrorists or drug lords or even Communists, but fellow Americans), and how they intend to do everything to stop them on behalf of all that's righteous in America. There is no plan other than "stop them." Not what we will do, but what they mustn't do.

For America (and Americans) to be successful in this century, her leaders must forsake their primal desire to win. Her leaders must be able to think clearly and deliberately, and take on the mantle of responsibility to the citizens of this country (ALL the citizens, not just the ones that voted for them).

Stop and think about how many times you've swung at a pitch in the dirt (knee-jerk reaction to someone doing something perceptually bad to do you or yours), and regretted it.

Think about stopping for a moment, taking a deep breath, and then doing the right thing.

blast off

There is something in our make-up that makes us dislike the incumbent or “the man” or anyone else who is in a dominant, authoritative position; we are much more likely to root for the underdog than the favorite (whom we generally view as arrogant, overbearing and well, not nice). As an employee of a corporation that was the subject of a government investigation of behavior due to noteworthy market success, I know this all too well.

While the United States government actively pursues those commercial entities that might or do have a monopolistic position, it has exactly the opposite view when it comes to its role as a nation among others on this planet. In the latter, it relishes being the superpower. Oddly, Americans are surprised when citizens of the “lesser” nations vilify them and perceive America (and Americans) to be an arrogant bully.

I was listening to Warren Olney of NPR’s To the Point talk about nuclear disarmament, America’s stand, possible strategies, etc., and got to thinking: why does the USA care about any other nation’s nuclear arsenal? The Nuclear Nations are America, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel; does anyone really believe that any of these nations intends to nuke the US? If so, to what end? If there was an "end," how would a treaty of any kind prevent them from doing it? Even if they had signed a treaty, what real assurance does anyone have that they are doing what they said they would (especially if we believe they’re bent enough to want to nuke someone)??

For those nations that aren’t officially in the “gang” but might have weapons (many think Iran falls into this camp), not only is a treaty meaningless, but no intervention has worked so far. If one of them were to nuke anyone else, the risk of profound socioeconomic retribution from the rest of the world would be enough for "thinking" leaders to re-think. For non-thinking leaders, well - they are really terrorists and not sovereign leaders, and that's a whole other kettle of fish. With the end of the Cold War and Détente, I don't believe a government screwed up enough to use the bomb would view the threat of nuclear retaliation as a real deterrent; and most of these nations, as NATO and the Warsaw Pact found, would view the cost of creating and maintaining a nuclear arsenal prohibitive.

Some argue that we should ban nuclear weapons altogether, that no nation should have these weapons. I think that’s naïve – there’s no way to enforce it (just look at how difficult it is to assess (forget control) Iran’s nuclear posture), nor is there a realistic expectation that mere words and signed documents will result in disarmament – if that were possible, then the armistice following The War to End All Wars would have, and the last century would have seen ZERO demonstrations of military force.

A new "we can now kill each other less" treaty between the US and Russia was just signed; besides a strong statement of improved relations (a good thing) between the two countries, there's no real change that I can see. Does it, as President Obama said take us closer to global nuclear disarmament? I suppose, but not in a way that will ever actually get us there.

Historically, the most successful approach to eliminating a class of weapon has been to invent a better, more effective replacement. The Neutron Bomb was one attempt (lots more radiation but less physical damage), but it didn't do so well. The Strategic Defense Initiative was another attempt, but let's face it - every time someone claims they've "secured" a thing, people will take up the challenge to prove them wrong, and even the threat of SDI sparked innovation in warhead delivery vehicles.

It seems to me that most "productive" replacement for nukes is biological weapons - they create no physical damage, but could result in pandemic-proportioned human havoc. These weapons of mass destruction flaunt any current definition of preventative security (consider a suicide "bomber" who is infected with a dormant but highly contagious virus, and invisible even after they've put their shoes back on, shown security their laptop battery and verified that they only have little bottles of liquid in the one plastic bag). But once on the plane or upon arrival, the contagion wakes up and bad stuff happens. How would you detect or prevent this?

I ask you - would you prefer this or nuclear weapons? Clearly the latter is better-understood and more defensible, but I'd sure as hell start thinking about measures to protect us from the former!

So what ought America do about all this? I think the first step is to stop being a self-declared superpower and stop being a unilateral, self-righteous voice in global policy. Take the bull's eye off your back (or front) as it were. It is true that any nation can be a victim of terrorist acts, but why willingly put yourself in their cross hairs?

America is like the New York Yankees or Dallas Cowboys of geopolitics. Both have rabid fans ("their" people), but everyone else (by far the majority) just plain hates their guts. I'd want to be more like the friendly and benign Minnesota Twins or Green Bay Packers; or in geopolitical terms more like Bermuda or Canada or Finland - strong countries to be sure; independent, successful, but not vilified and never does one see their people or leaders burned in effigy by screaming hordes on CNN...

American interests are not served when America is a bully - more often than not, these actions (immediately or eventually) result in more harm, more risk, and more wasted money and energy. About the only example I can think of where America's military created a positive outcome is Japan following World War II - ironically an act that ended with the Enola Gay dropping Little Boy on Hiroshima. Compared to pre-WWII, the US and Japan are friendly and mutually supportive states. I don't recall any American military intervention that has led to net improved relationships other than this one?

America Green Bay Packers-style would unilaterally reduce nuclear arms (just to save money and reduce military complexity) to a handful or even nothing; it would stop calling other countries out and instead work with developing countries to build friends and form sustainable economic relationships; it would reduce the number of off-shore bases; it would not worry so much about being a world presence (or enforcer) and instead focus on being a world citizen.

This could result in taking the air out of other, angry sails that today are powered by a shared dislike of America vs. any higher purpose. In effect, the most powerful defense for America is to be less offensive.

head games

There are about 3 million teachers and about 65 million students in America, or roughly 22 students per teacher. Since we know that only 75% of students graduate, there are probably more younger students than older students - so instead of an even distribution of 5 million students per grade (65/13, 13=#of grades from K-12), it's more likely that there are 3.5-4 million students in upper grades and 5.5-6m students in lower grades

So what?

Well, I attended a fascinating presentation as a follow-on to a conversation I had with Bob Watt almost a year and a half ago at I-LABS - the Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences at the University of Washington. If you're ever in the area, and interested at all in early childhood learning and brain development - you need to know Pat Kuhl and Andrew Meltzoff the co-directors. These guys are something else - the work they're doing is world-renowned, and kicks butt.

I was there with a small group, and they were gracious enough to give us two hours, and patiently respond to all our questions. What I learned from I-LABS is how much proven science flies in the face of education convention in America.

For example - there is pretty much universal agreement backed by data that conclusively states that the brain is most receptive to learning new languages in its first two or three years of life. As the brain ages this ability diminishes rapidly - by the time you hit puberty it's really difficult, and by the time you've left your teens, it's just about over.

And yet, our schools start teaching a second language around grade 8 (age 14)!! Why bother? Why not make it easier and teach a second language when the child's brain can do it without any effort?

As you will read from my conversation with Bob, one of the most critical I-LABS insights is the extent to which personal interaction matters in early childhood learning. In a discussion with Pat and Andrew, there was conceptual agreement with the idea that the ratio of teachers to students should be much, much higher for younger students, and can be much lower for older students.

Going back to the data in the first paragraph, the incumbents and nay-sayers will argue that this is impractical, we can't afford the teachers we have, much less lowering the student-to-teacher ratio further!

What if we implemented something like the table to the right? By dramatically shifting the bias towards younger grades, we can keep the number of teachers constant, and explore "inhuman" (computer-based learning, games - 1:1 and massively multi-player games, etc.) approaches to learning support for older students.

If brain science tells us that this is a sensible approach, just as brain science tells us that we should learn languages sooner than later, then we should listen and change our approach to education to reflect the reality of how children learn.

I suppose the more productive question Pat and Andrew need to answer is how the brains of the adults in charge of education work, and what we need to do to make them see straight.