~synthesis~

the calling

If you were on a train about to cross a bridge, would you expect the engineers that designed the trestle to know how trains work? If you were about to go into surgery, would you expect that the doctors and nurses knew how the human body worked?

When you go into a school, do you trust that the teachers know how students learn?

Greg Noack a well-regarded educator tweeted: Why is it that, the more I learn and meditate on HOW kids learn, not what they learn. The less I have in common with other teachers. This prompted David Warlick to write a post that I read, and now here I go :-):

Greg's words scare me because they suggest a classic industrial age "I just work here" mentality that I didn't think was in teachers. I have to believe that no primary/secondary teacher went into this profession for the money or the work-life balance. They went because they were called. If teaching is/was a calling for me, I think I'd want/need to be as insightful as possible on the question Greg asked. I'd expect every teacher to be that way.

David and his commenters' takes are slightly different: when most teachers were students, there was a dearth of information, today there is overload; the world (comparatively) is moving much more quickly; teachers are preparing their students for a vastly different reality from the one they know and understand.

David (and team)'s words scare me - if they really believe this then they are not the great teachers I believe them to be.

Can you think of a generation that was less complicated than the one that preceded it? Think of each successive decade from say the 1950s (I presume most practicing teachers were born in or after 1950) - can you name three things that made each decade complicated, difficult and more fraught? How about (in no particular order) the Cold, Vietnam and Gulf Wars, the Swinging 60s, the Kennedy assassinations, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, telephones, television to name but ten? Each of these was pretty socially cataclysmic, each foretold a future dramatically different from that present. Yet we survived, and thrived.

Every dissenter is going to use the "ya-but" defense, in most cases saying that this time it's different, but let's face it - life is change, life requires change, and life relishes change. If it were not so, we'd still be living in caves. 

David used these words: "We are recognizing that our students will be moving from their formal education into a world that we can hardly imagine." The future today is just as uncertain as it was yesterday; the only difference is that we know how yesterday turned out.

Sure we're all susceptible to bouts of doubt, but really, there has never been a time when teaching was not about learning, nor has there been a time when teachers knew exactly what the future held for their students.

This is the reason that we send our children to schools - to prepare them in the best way possible for whatever tomorrow comes their way. Our teachers have always done this and will need to always keep doing this. In every time there will be uncertainty - we have to prepare every child for their destinies in the best way we know how.

I think it's important to worry about whether we're up to the task for anything; but we don't make excuses, we don't just aspire to do it better, we actually work on doing it better. That's why it's a calling.

the war on peace

One of our (Americans in particular) most powerful motivators is winning. From its inception, America has had to fight for what she believed, and keep fighting to achieve progress. More often than not, America won - the economy grew, its role on the world stage grew, its contribution to the sciences and entertainment grew, its ego grew, etc. It is therefore clear why this competitive instinct is so deeply-rooted in the American "system," and how it is fundamental to her approach to life, the universe and everything.

From birth to school to work to love to death, Americans view life as a zero-sum game. At birth we're competing for cutest baby, baby closest to the XXth percentile of development, etc.; next it's getting in the right schools; then the best jobs; the best girl/guy; etc. In every instance, keeping score is about besting someone else - the pie is only so big, and for us to win, others need to lose.

The competitive instinct can sometimes lead one astray - there have been many American declarations against rather unlikely foes. Some of these "Wars" include: Poverty (Johnson, 1964 - winner: poverty); Drugs (Nixon, 1969 - winner: drugs); Terror (Bush, 2001 - winner: terror); Greed (US Congress 2008/9 - winner: greed); ...

Even corporations have gotten into it - one recently declared War on Cost. If they actually win, price = free; success = bankruptcy. Not sure the shareholders will approve.

It is pretty hard to spot(!), but did you notice a trend among all these wars? Each has cost a ton of money, wasted a ton of lives, burned a ton of energy, and in every case, resulted in more of the "bad" thing than before the "war" was declared.

Hmmm...

"My fellow Americans there is a cancer among us, it is evil, it is insidious, and it is fomented by those will not stop until they have found the best in every one of us. I call upon every red-blooded American to stand with me, and in the spirit of our founding fathers who prevailed against a superior foe armed only with the power of their ideals, rise as one to combat what is surely the most diabolical axis of evil that has beset our glorious nation.

My fellow Americans - I stand before you today with pride and purpose to declare War on Peace. Peace is the most powerful foe America has ever faced, but I am confident that our relentless pursuit of failure will once again restore our faith and ensure our prosperity.

This is just the beginning - lead by Peace, this axis of evil contains two other collaborators that must also be quelled. Immediately upon losing to Peace, and in the spirit of all that is great, we will first declare War on Wellness, and then War on Education.

Thank you, God bless each and every one of you, and God bless America."

Yes we can!

redemption

In September 2002, President Bush established a Doctrine, which among other things, stated that America will not only wage war on countries that directly and immediately threaten her, but also wage war on countries or organizations in countries that might at some point threaten her.

In December 2009, President Obama endorsed this doctrine when he announced that he would send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Despite the fact that Afghanistan or the Taliban pose a direct or immediate threat to America. Some argue that Al Qaeda is a threat, but the consensus is that they are based in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

So much for a different strategy with the new administration.

But this isn't really the problem. The problem is the absurdity of a "superpower" declaring war on a few hundred disaffected criminals (it's the equivalent of Apollo or Zeus or Poseidon declaring war on the four guys that maliciously starched their chitons). America didn't stop there - they called "them" evil. Intentionally or not, both Presidents Bush and Obama created a much larger "them," one spanning both a whole race (Arabs) and a whole religion (Islam). It gets worse - unlike the superpower who lords her wealth and excess over the planet, these millions of "thems" happen to be among the more impoverished on the planet - so it's kicking sand in the faces of people who are already buried up to their necks.

If you're a sports fan and someone from a rival team thoroughly insults "your guys," are you angry? Do you want to get even, pray that your team beats the crap out of theirs? Yes, but you're not going to take a gun and actually attack their players, you've got too much to lose.

Imagine if you were one of "these people" (poor, without education, without hope) and you were dissed as roundly and viscerally as America just did - the insult wasn't just to your sports team, it was to your religion, your very way of life, your family, and your heritage. How would you react? How would you react with literally nothing to lose?

Now imagine you're a well-funded ~200-person organization looking for recruits to help reassert "our pride and honor against those arrogant infidels that have called our race and religion a cancer, and maliciously killed our women and children." Don't you think that if you offer them a chance for "respect" (not unlike what gang bangers offer young children in many American cities), and give them money to feed and educate their families, that they'd happily join up even if it was (literally) a suicide mission?

For the last eight years, America has wasted more than $210 billion vainly attempting to "eradicate evil" - an evil (Taliban) she helped create and arm when the Soviets invaded not so long ago. Now they will double down with new troops, and activate a strategy of, are you ready for this - training and arming local militias!!!

Jeez! Can we be any dumber than this??

Has anyone ever successfully created peace, democracy and good will by training and arming small communities of testosterone-filled destitute, tribal warriors??

What if instead of giving them a reason and capacity to kill, we gave them a reason and capacity to live? What if the United States worked with other developed nations to create a multi (say 10)-year trade agreement with Afghanistan where their crops (all but opium) were bought by "western" countries at premium prices - one that made it worthwhile for Afghans to put down their guns and ammo, and pick up their hoes and fertilizer? What if we provided them with tools and resources to create more arable land (irrigation, soil improvement, seeds, etc.)? What if we helped each community that was interested build a local cooperative from whom we would buy products?

The next two years are expected to cost Americans ~$100+ billion/year. Let's instead spend that money (along with $$ from other wealthy countries) to overpay for agricultural products. Let's help Afghanis develop the means (over time) to sell their products competitively. Let's give the people of Afghanistan a reason to live and a means to care for their families, and a sense of self-worth that makes it impossible for any terrorist organization to lure new recruits.

Surely this is a truer path towards peace and a self-determined society?

republican prime - reinvention

Necessity is the mother of invention. How true. It can also be the mother of reinvention.

When you become stale you get a makeover; when your home becomes stale, you remodel; when a corporation becomes stale, the board hires a new CEO; when a political party becomes stale - hmmm. They get a new leader in every primary - that hasn't changed things; they've tried makeovers, but people have seen through them. How does change happen for a party?

Once in a blue moon, a unique opportunity presents itself; something happens that is (or could be) so cataclysmic as to separate the very atoms that form the molecule of the party. Depending on how it is interpreted and shaped, the party can stay the course; or maybe, just maybe, if the powers can help it along, take the road not taken and emerge as a whole new entity. Let's call this "R-Prime."

Today the Republican Party (call this "R-Base") is floundering. Its identity is shaped by polarizing factions (religious right, war-obsessed xenophobes, etc.) who have taken the party away from its founding tenets of equality, integrity, small government, fiscal responsibility and adherence to the Declaration of Independence. Many of the R-Base winners in the national election are fervent adherents of these hard-line causes - their rhetoric does more harm than good if the goal is to be a truly national party.

R-Base has gotten to the point where they are actually evicting moderate Republican candidates who have a chance to win to promote people who think the "right" way.

If the R-Base leadership wishes (truly wishes) to once more be the party of Lincoln, it must recognize the potential "opportunity" that has presented itself in the last few weeks, and take action. Sarah Palin's base (dare I say "flock") are the very factions that are pushing R-Base past Attila the Hun on the spectrum. Can they take advantage? Here's what I would do:

1. Actively and vocally support Palin's "voice", build a strong attachment between Palin and her flock (Palin + flock = "Plock") through media appearances.
2. Post the book tour, publicly prevail on her to campaign for Plocky candidates - strengthen her relationship with that demographic, those politicians, and their fund-raising machines. Most critically, bolster her (and her Plock's) belief that she is a force in American politics, that she is a "leader" and has the potential to be the leader of her party.
3. Irrespective of how the midterms go, use 2010 to begin the R-Base shift - first remove abortion and gay rights from the platform - no litmus tests or other restrictions, marriage as a legal construct has no connection to marriage as defined by any religion - "the Republican Party believes all women and men are equal and not subject to any religious precept." Second, remove the idea that a good offense is the best defense - America's foreign policy is now economic policy; we will no longer have a unilateral armed presence in any country other than the USA. Third, start writing a new contract for America - one based on the founding principles of the Republican Party - equality, small government, balanced budgets, eliminate the deficit, etc.
4. Will these changes pass? No. Not unless something else is done in parallel. Once the midterms are over and Palin forms her "exploratory" committee, the Republican leadership must privately review the new platform with her (as the de facto nominee), assure her in no uncertain terms that this is the future, and that as a leader with a powerful connection to the base, she must bring them along. She needs to know that this is the only way the R-Base believes it can be a force in the future. When she expresses her doubts, she must be told that as the prospective nominee, she has no choice but to support this new platform. As preparation for this conversation, they must have primed the pump with the media, talking about how Palin is a force unto herself, that she has the gravitas to truly achieve. After the meeting, someone must leak the fact that things didn't go so well, and they're worried that Palin will "defect" and create her own party, taking the massively influential "base" and its money with her.
5. Allow nature to take its course, reluctantly encouraging those members of Congress that prefer the Plock to consult their faith and make the best decision for their, and their electorate's future.

If all goes as planned, within six months of the midterms, the following will happen: Palin will do a Perot, declare that she's "goin' rogue" and rally her followers to join her newly-formed Plock Party. She will encourage many of the House and Senate members that she campaigned for to do a Lieberman and get on her Plock-wagon.

Thus is born R-Prime. Its leaders will be able to pass the platform (per #3) because the naysayers will have Plocked off. R-Prime will also pick up many of the centrists that voted for Obama in 2008 who are now "available" because the right to choose, gay marriage, etc. won't be issues. More than this, they will gain funding from corporate (and maybe small business) interests who will realize that even Obama couldn't fix the bumbling acts of a Pelosi/Reid Congress.

The 2012 elections will herald the first truly three-party Congress - in the Senate for example, the Dems will have ~45 seats, the Plocks ~35, and the R-Primes ~20. The House will have a similar mix. Obama will barely win his second term, and Palin and the R-Prime candidate will lose. Facing the prospect of waiting yet another four years, Palin will succumb to Rupert Murdoch's offer of $5m/year to host her own show on Fox, and remove herself from active Plock leadership.

R-Prime will have a huge role in shaping the American legislative agenda (asserting their balance of power in Congress), and if they are able to stay true to their Contract with America and make a difference, they will be poised for a strong showing in 2012 and 2016. The Plock base will erode; they may remain a viable party in the years to come, but hopefully never enjoy a balance-of-power position in Congress. The Dems will have to choose between moving farther to the left ("D-Plock") or moving closer to the center, but tone their voice towards the individual proletariat and attempt to paint R-Prime as the business/bourgeois party.

Is this far-fetched? Notwithstanding the sage voices of Fox News, I think ultra-right is untenable in American politics, and if the Republicans have the stomach for it, they can reinvent. Will it happen? I hope so. Would I vote for R-Prime? Yes.

corporate therapists

Are you a fanatic about a sports team? If so, chances are you are among hundreds if not thousands who share that same passion and zeal. When you are with your "kind" (at the arena or stadium or in a bar), it's like a feeding frenzy. The crowd is a self-fulfilling prophecy; it reveres those who have been fans forever; who were actually there when XXXX did YYYY to ZZZZ; those who know all the stats and the history; and who have been there through thick and thin. Newcomers are viewed skeptically until they "prove" their loyalty, and "woe betide anyone who walks into our house wearing that [hated team X] shirt!"

If you're an "outsider" who happens into a bar at game-time, having a drink or a meal can be a rather odd experience. The intensity level during critical moments, the superstition, the insider lingo, the "us" and "them" stuff, etc. are certainly freakish, and may put you off that team forever.

Will you be able to find the truth about that team's ability/potential/etc. from those in that room? In Seth Godin's post about true believers and the truth, he said: "the truth of the market is that the products and services that win ... are rarely the products and services that are beloved without reservation by the true believers." Well said!

When I'm looking to buy a new product, the research I do online is equally about its capabilities (features, specifications, etc.) and about finding people who didn't like it, to understand what I'm really getting into. It's always easy to find those that really liked it, and who with their cognitive dissonance, want others to vindicate their decision, by joining the "team" and buying. I want the critic as well.

Cults are formed by those who blindly pursue a value proposition that may or may not be real. Their belief in the proposition overrides their ability to see clearly.

There's this interesting dynamic in "viral" marketing - everyone searches for mavens to advocate their product, but the real successes are when the mavens are a surprise. When the people who like it are the ones that "shouldn't" or ones that once decried it. They're most "legitimate" and most convincing.

The most powerful champion for your product is always the convert and not the lifer. The lifer is only able to talk to other lifers - and let's face it they don't have to be sold to anymore.

If you want to expand the size of your pie, you have to reach those that don't share your passion. The ones you already have need a different level and type of service.

This type of myopia also affects corporations. If you've drunk the Kool-Aid to the point where your world-view is utterly tainted, you simply can NOT make good decisions. Your vestedness impedes you from seeing the truth about your product, your competitors, or your customers. It absolutely prevents you from acknowledging (or even recognizing) any disruptive forces.

Many organizations view employees who use competitors' products as traitors (drinking Coke as a Pepsi employee); I'm all for passionate employees that care deeply about what they do and where they work, but surely there's an inherent flaw in only surrounding yourself with lemmings and sycophants? Surely you don't want to dis your customers by decrying what they also use/buy? How will you ever adapt, evolve and be successful over time?

Give me the objective skeptic over the fanatic every day - she's the one that I want to listen to. I want to know how the outsider critically assesses what I have, how I market and sell it, and what I'm building next. More critically, I want that objective outsider to help de-tint my glasses so I can see my customers, my marketplace, and my future with clarity and truth.

In life, many people go to a therapist for this type of objective perspective; at work, this is more difficult. I've only met one true management consultant in my life - Peter Drucker - a person who did not color his views for anyone, and certainly did not shape his PowerPoint presentation to please the customer, and ensure future business by telling them exactly what they wanted to hear, with just that mild hint of edginess (like using a black background) to be "credible."

This might not matter so much with sports, which is mere entertainment. But it sure does matter with work, with life, with business...

Do you have Kool-Aid drinking requirements at your company? Are people "rewarded" for strict adherence to the religion? Do people get punished for "straying"? Do you really know what's going on outside your walls?

Who's your corporate therapist?

tribal self-preservation

Our DNA prioritizes self-preservation (fight/flight, procreation, etc.) - this is human-nature. "Self" goes pretty far - we see this behavior extend to the family unit, or even the community, and in the case of larger threats, to entire nations (witness 9-11). We also see this in less urgent situations like team sports and at work.

Does self-preservation ever lead to self-destruction?

At work, management sometimes bands together and starts listening more to themselves and ignoring the truth from the trenches even when the source is their own employees. This can lead to strategic myopia or the grasping of scarily flimsy straws. The team ends up feeding off of its cognitive dissonance vs. facing reality. This might be sustainable in the short term (possibly because they're riding their own inertia + euphoria), but it will fall down at some point.

Scott McLeod pointed to an article on the end of teacher sameness and loyalty, which predicts that teachers unions' hold will erode as teachers' roles get more varied (flaunting the unions' goal of a totally consistent and standard teaching remit); in time, they'll just fade away as fewer teachers "fit" their criteria of standardness.

IMO he is overlooking the fact that a lot of the power of unions actually comes from the employer, yep - the unions' power comes from the employer.

While It is true that great teachers create great students, it is more true that great teachers with crappy administrators create crappy schools. I've been to many schools in the last 18 months, and every school I've seen that is wonderful has an administrator/leader who relentlessly and passionately pursues the best for their students. Whenever the leader is bad/stodgy/status quo, the school is too.

David Warlick's post on common core standards scorns the work that the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers have published. He calls out this sentence:

These standards will be research and evidence-based, internationally benchmarked, aligned with college and work expectations and include rigorous content and skills.

Wow - that sounds really good, doesn't it? When David dug deeper, he found that the detail was an amalgam of existing, 20th century ideas. No new news at all.

The "employers" that wrote this appeared to prioritize self-preservation (getting reelected or reappointed) over the best for students. To get re-upped, they need the unions' (most powerful voting bloc) support. By writing a sound byte like the one above, and then putting the same old stuff in the fine print, they preserve themselves and their fellow tribe members, the unions.

The "tribe" seeks the appearance of driving change, but the reality of preserving the status quo.

Teach for America is small - 7,300 TFA teachers out of 6.8 million total - but their effect is huge. We all know the acronym, and teachers and unions are paying attention and changing behavior.

What's the TFA equivalent for Principles and Superintendents? Is it Charter schools? They are almost always the brainchild of a visionary, but the "tribe" scorns if not reviles them. Is it money? America spends more per student than most countries - it hasn't made a difference. It's not shame or guilt (that just strengthens their resolve).

What if Superintendents were paid exactly the same wage (in Massachusetts for example, they make $144k/year) as their lowest paid teacher but budgets had to stay the same or go down? Would that weed out those who were less committed? Would it create a massive gap in leadership? Would anyone notice?

advocacy

I had a brilliant conversation last night with two public school teachers. We talked about so many things, but invariably it came down to our education system and what can be done about it.

As I write this, I'm watching the Bob Dylan 30th Anniversary tribute DVD, and Stevie Wonder is singing "Blowin' in the Wind" - interesting coincidence?

In Dylan's words:

There ain’t too much I can say about this song except that the answer is blowing in the wind. It ain’t in no book or movie or TV show or discussion group. Man, it’s in the wind—and it’s blowing in the wind. Too many of these hip people are telling me where the answer is but oh I won’t believe that. I still say it’s in the wind and just like a restless piece of paper it’s got to come down some ...But the only trouble is that no one picks up the answer when it comes down so not too many people get to see and know ...and then it flies away I still say that some of the biggest criminals are those that turn their heads away when they see wrong and know it’s wrong. I’m only 21 years old and I know that there’s been too many ...You people over 21, you’re older and smarter. --Bob Dylan, Sing Out! 1962

The song talks about oppression, being trodden upon, and injustice; most people connect that (as Stevie Wonder did) to civil rights, Vietnam, apartheid, Watergate, global starvation, etc., but as my two teachers affirmed, we forget the injustices that are befalling our students and teachers in schools across America. Who's singing about them?

One (recently moved to Washington State) said that she was forced to join the union - "they just stood over me and refused to leave until I signed the form." They wouldn't even let her take it home to read it. That kind of coercion can't be right? How is it that an organization founded in the spirit of advocacy for the downtrodden can be so oppressive?

Both (widely acknowledged by students and parents as great teachers) talked at length and with passion about how difficult it is to really do what's right in the classroom. They talked about how difficult it will be for them if they're accountable for individual student performance when they can't control the quality of the students they get, whether those students might just be resigned to life in a gang or joining the Army and dying in Iraq. In that scheme of things, how much does school really matter? How are they to be held accountable for that student's results? How are they to teach 10th grade English when the student's incoming reading proficiency is grade 3? Here's the worst one - if they do get singled out in any way (by the community, other outside agencies for some exceptional work), they're totally ostracized by their peer teachers!

No spirit of advocacy or camaraderie here at all. A clear sign of siege mentality. It's no wonder so many prefer the charter school model, and it's no wonder (though it is a crime) that unions violently oppose charters.

What would they change? First - we don't need the unions anymore - they're slowing us down; they're lowering our standing. Lawyers, doctors, other professionals don't have unions, the fact that we do makes us less - we are as important [I argue more important], and we should govern and represent ourselves appropriately. We also need to get rid of unions because tenure is killing our profession - it's the biggest impediment to change. [How often do you hear a teacher say that???]

Second - we need to rethink how principles are hired - it's really two jobs - the visionary (critical) and the operations manager (equally critical, but fundamentally different). It should be two people who work in partnership vs. one person who inevitably defaults to the operations side, causing us to lose out on any kind of evolved thinking, policy or practice. We lose out on an environment that is enriched and collaborative and passionate and challenging.

Third - we need to rationalize the structure - there is no clarity in the Constitution about where responsibility for Education lies; by default it goes to the States, but let's face it the Feds are pretty involved, and so are districts, etc. This is a mess. It's not about salaries (teachers don't teach for the money), it's about a coherent, equitable (every student in the country should have the same opportunity for an education), and consistent system that focuses first on honoring and doing the best we can for our children, and second but equally important, on helping prepare them for their futures. We need one system; we need a new Amendment.

Where are our true advocates? Who is really standing up for teachers like these two (and their peers around the world)?

To the presidents of the NEA, AFT, Secretary Arne Duncan and President Obama: mark these words by Dylan (now sung brilliantly by Tracy Chapman on the DVD):

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Dont stand in the doorway
Dont block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
Theres a battle outside
And it is ragin.
Itll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin.

hammers and nails

There's this saying that if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. It makes sense, doesn't it? If you ask a neurosurgeon what's wrong with you, chances are he'll point to a problem with your brain, but a heart specialist would call out something to do with your circulatory system, etc.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about a group of people who met to try and figure out what could be done to increase STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) graduates in America. But the only people in the room were nerds! If you're trying to attract other people to your party, shouldn't you invite some of them to the room to at least explain why they're avoiding you in the first place? But no - that room felt it was an engineering problem - let's keep it just us nerds - hah!

We all approach the world based on our context, but that's not always the best way to actually solve problems.

Today NPR reported on a "war" status update by General McChrystal (senior US/NATO military officer in Afghanistan). We've already been there 8 years; during that time, the enemy has grown in strength despite not having any armored vehicles, aircraft, or advanced communications and weaponry. According to McChrystal, their opponents are using prisons (prisons!) to recruit and train future soldiers! The terrorists are actually using jails paid for by their enemies to house and train future militants.

McChrystal is quoted as saying: "Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it." My interpretation: "we have no strategy, so let's stay the course, throw more resources at the problem, and see if that helps." But it's not his fault - he's military - his context is clear, and his approach predictable.

So let's talk strategy. First, you declare war on sovereign nations, not people, and certainly not terrorists. Terrorists are mere criminals; by elevating them to the stature of a sovereign nation (declaring "war"), you give them strength, credibility and righteousness. The police, not soldiers deal with criminals - they're designed to keep the peace and bring criminals to justice. They should lead this effort.

History has shown that occupying a country in the interests of peace and freedom are not only oxymoronic but also futile. Sustained peace and freedom can only come from within.

Mr. President - isn't it time to find another tool?

RIP guiding light

Nope - this is not about the TV show. Seth Godin wrote a post about making lists in business that prioritizes your goals in order to help you hone in on what's really important.

Building that list is not easy, and prioritizing it is even harder. In sales, if you had XXX additional resources (time, money, people, whatever), do you spend it on improving customer service to create lifelong customers; up-selling existing customers to grow revenue per customer; or as Seth put it, try to win game-changing deals? What's the right choice? This is why leaders get paid the big bucks.

Before Dell entered the computer business, what did the other manufacturers think about and prioritize? In all likelihood, the Compaqs, HPs, and IBMs of the world focused things like Six Sigma for process improvement. I'm willing to bet none said - "our customers deserve to get made-to-order vs. our generic models, let's rethink this." I bet there was even argument about offering a different colors or specs due to their impact on metrics, quality, cycle times, and throughput.

Why does it happen? Size matters - my theory: the farther away you get from the real intention of the organization, the less likely you are to contribute to it. It's true at the top, middle and bottom.

At the bottom, you're too close to the action and have to focus on your context and what you can control. At the top you're too far away; whatever insight you get is colored and filtered by your minions' interpretations; and worse, it's also shaped by your entrenchments - your past successes constrain your future opportunities. I'm convinced the latter is one of the greatest causes of decline in successful corporations. The middle is caught - they're too far away from the trenches to viscerally know what's going on, and too far away from top to really understand where the company's headed.

Let's face it in the business world, you don't succeed by raising your hand and asking the director "what is my motivation in this scene?" So what do you do? You control what you can, in the hopes that executing well in your microcosm will have positive effects on the world outside you. This might work in some instances, but it's not predictable, and you have to overcome the organization's natural (almost entropic) tendency to girth, which requires the ability and willingness to fight human nature.

When your small world becomes the whole world, you don't see context properly - motivation becomes about self-preservation and self-elevation vs. overall organizational success. You can be and feel righteous about your vision in your small world, you don't know if that micro-view really helps. As with the people on the factory floor at Compaq or HP or IBM, until someone (Dell) hits you on the head with it, you're mired.

Many parents in America know that they can't afford to send their children to university. Beth Breselli wrote an article yesterday at Rethinking Higher Education about Financial Aid Reform. In it she questions whether recent legislation aimed at making all student aid public will succeed or not. One of the benefits Beth cites is a simpler application form. But if we were really interested in this problem, why fix the process at all? The only reason to focus on this is because we're mired in the micro at the expense of the macro.

The problem is not who lends, who qualifies, or how the forms get filled out. The goal is to ensure every student who can attend university does so irrespective of financial situation. The easiest way to do this is to make university free (in Finland it is not just free, you actually get a stipend for being there). Assuming that's not possible (or at least the topic of another blog:-)), then start at the beginning of the process. when do parents (and students) eliminate university from consideration due to economics? I have no data to back this up, but I bet they explicitly do this during the freshman year of high school, and tacitly do it long before.

If I ran the government, I'd make it simple - once you declare your child as a dependent on your tax return, the IRS does an evaluation of your financial situation and tells you that your child(ren) are pre-qualified for financial assistance for university. There are no forms to fill out, here are the amounts and limits, don't worry - you're good - once the university accepts your child, we will automatically pay the amount based on their social security number. Every year, they update your status based on your current financial situation, if all other things are equal, you're still good. I bet many more parents would encourage their children, pay more attention to school, etc., and in the end, with minimal effort on either side, we achieve the goal and eliminate complexity, bureaucracy and cost.

Peter Drucker is in my opinion the single definitive voice in modern business thinking. I had a chance many years ago to spend some 1:1 time with him - it was the single greatest moment of my professional life. Our conversation was wonderful, wide-ranging, provocative and inspiring. This quote to the right should be the first and last words read at every meeting, planning session, review, etc. in the business world. We talked about this at length over lunch that day - business leaders need to understand the difference between management and leadership. Leadership is about subverting the natural tendency towards organizational entropy by making sure the list is correct and properly prioritized. Management is implementation.

Our guiding lights are waning. Why are most of our leaders now merely managers?

commodity U

In the words of Wayne Gretzky the best hockey player ever, "a good player skates to where the puck is, a great player skates to where the puck will be."

Reading Seth Godin's recent post about abundance and scarcity, there is no doubt that winning is about altering the model, redefining the game so that it favors your "home-field advantage" vs. anyone else's. History is littered with examples of things that were once special, expensive and sought after, but are now commodity. From air travel to televisions to mobile phones to personal computers, value diminishes as innovation takes over or as Seth put it, we move from scarcity to abundance.

The mark of a great organization is its ability to anticipate the next disruption (where the puck will be) and either be the authors of it, or redesign to obviate a competitive threat altogether. Organizations that sustain preeminence do so because they understand that being entrenched in their past successes is the surest path to future failure. It's not easy; they face phrases like "old school" or "back in the old days" or "we've done it that way forever" and have to overcome that tendency to stay in the past where it's comfortable.

The communication revolution has felled many seemingly iconic "incumbent" organizations and even entire industries. Perhaps they failed to grasp the implications of the democratization of publish, access, and more critically, connect. Sadly, some also fail to realize that the "hold" they might have on a market is wavering as the demand for their unique "thing" dissipates.

There is one industry that for the longest time has managed to subvert the forces of change, and stay true to the old ways - higher education. They've historically prioritized faculty over the students or rarely paid attention to teaching quality (how many professors did you have that had any training or any skill as teachers?). As long as they were the accreditation gatekeeper, and were able to attract funding from public and private sources, the students were secondary, if not tertiary (sorry). The recent economic times have changed things - most universities are now realizing that student "satisfaction" is critical, but only because their cash flow is now so significantly dependent on undergrad tuition - most of the other sources are diminishing.

But this isn't all, conventional universities are facing competition from three other sources:

1. Just like universities complain that high school students aren't prepared when they graduate, employers must also train graduates before they're ready to contribute - they don't all hit the ground running. Sure they want a trained candidate, but one who has proven skills delivering business value (not academic value). Candidates' other experiences (work, creative, community, teaming, etc.) are sometimes better indicators of work effectiveness. This puts less pressure on student to have to go to a branded school, and more focus on demonstrating their ability to be a valued employee.
2. Online players like  University of Phoenix or Kaplan University are really traditional educators in a new medium, but they're growing by leaps and bounds. They have a more streamlined economic model than traditional schools (less buildings, more bandwidth). Their professors also have to be better teachers given the online medium. Their diplomas are also respected by employers.
3. Have you ever heard of StraighterLine or P2PU? The former is a $99/month all-you-can-eat lectures to earn college credits, and the latter a community/peer learning facility by subject/class. These two organizations may not succeed right away, but IMO there's a "there" there. Sure it'll take another decade to gain a foothold, but I think StraighterLine or Peer2PeerU or similar entities will be the University of Phoenix of the 2010s.

Adding this up, universities are facing funding shortfalls, skeptical students (customers), disruptive business models, and a product that's been devalued in the marketplace. That sounds very much like they're being commoditized. Nobody believed the University of Phoenix would survive, but it has thrived - so much so that others (Kaplan) are copying its model. You even have institutions like Florida Virtual School, which is a very successful Kindergarten-Gr12 school. Once again we see scarcity shifting to abundance; those that try and hold on to the old ways may well be doomed, and those that adapt will survive.

I think this is a good thing; competitive spirits will surface, academia will raise it's head to try and figure out where the puck is going, and everyone (especially the students) will benefit.

Resourceful, Fearless, Passionate

Education in America is one of the most maligned institutions around. Everyone believes they have the silver bullet that will fix education once and for all. Off the top of my head and in no particular order, here are ten panaceas (by the way - how can "panacea" have a plural form??):

1. Class size
2. 21st century skills
3. STEM
4. Constructivism
5. Desegregation
6. Standards
7. Instructivism
8. Integrated curriculum
9. 1:1 laptops
10. Increased budgets

The thing Edu-America has done most consistently in the last century is wholeheartedly embrace fads - but like diet cures, with a dismal success rate. I couldn't come up with one example of when any of these has worked over time (sustained success) and at scale. Can you? As with diets, there is no miracle pill that takes no effort, has no side effects and maintains ideal and guilt-free health and fitness.

Ideas like "21st Century learning" freak me out. The nature of life is that things change - today's internet is yesterday's library or bookstore; today's cell phone is yesterday's letter (the kind you mail); today's podcast is yesterday's correspondence course... The only truth is that tomorrow will not be like yesterday. What "21st century" skill would not have been useful in the 18th century when this country was formed?

Mainstream schools today seem like the worst kind of sweatshops. If anyone in the education system needed a union, it's the students. When you find a school whose leadership is the strongest advocate for the students, you find a pretty good place to learn. They don't come at it with isms - that's not the path to greatness.

So what should a student be? How can school contribute to the graduate being more than the freshman?

If I had a child there are three things I'd want them to be - resourceful (find things, learn things, get things done), fearless (never let someone else's lack of imagination or inhibition stop you), and passionate (care about things, and share your ideas). Above these three, I'd want them to be filled with joy.

Shouldn't a school be able to contribute to this, be the place where creativity and exploration happen? Don't you want to be these three things as well?

Deciding what change a school system needs doesn't IMHO begin with standards or curricula or tests (and certainly not isms) - it begins by first describing what we want ourselves to be - making that our mission statement and building something that manifests that destiny. If you start with, say "we need more nerds," you're destined to fail as we've proven time and time again.

forests and trees

If you're in a position of power, chances are you want to hang on to it. If you're in a position of power and you don't have to do a lot stay there, you like it even more; and if you've had it this way for years, complacency has set in as well. What's your natural reaction if someone or something challenges that power? Do you welcome change or do you hunker down, decry it, and marshal your resources to defend because you believe the status quo is righteous and "they" are just plain wrong? 

Despite all resistance, there are things beyond your control - some examples that come to mind include Open Source to Microsoft; bad carbs and saturated fats to fast food restaurants; cell phones in children's hands to teachers, etc. In the first case, the company still rails against their competition but now demonstrates interoperability and even distributes open source software of its own. In the second case, most fast food companies have seen the future and shifted to healthier options.

In the third case, most schools, teachers and unions continue to passionately resist change; they are adamant about the "right" way to learn, closing the door to Google, Wikipedia, the Internet, cell phones, etc.

Dean Shareski wrote a great blog calling out schools that on the one hand ask for technology in the classroom, but then prevent students from bringing their own tech to school because it would erode "the traditional education model." David Warlick wrote teacher shock about students who aren't being taught about the world around them.  Chris Lehmann also wrote a great post about a presentation to the FCC on the role of teachers in the new world of teaching.

A couple of months ago, I wrote that teachers and schools are the gatekeepers to information and accreditation, but it is changing rapidly - their hold on information is all but gone, and the value of their accreditation is diminishing as quality and relevance wane. Despite this, the incumbents remain vigilant in their fight to "control" the classroom in the name of true learning and status quo.

Dean, David and Chris are heroically pushing their fellow educators to shirk the past and embrace technology as an opportunity to transform education from the inside vs. resist and be done unto by external forces. In the business world, an apt metaphor is: "if someone's going to eat your lunch, it may as well be you, even if you have to cannibalize an existing revenue stream to do it."

The "Resistance" has powerful weapons - tenure, the political power of unions, a massive and highly distributed bureaucracy, and low self-esteem resulting from being at siege for so long. Aikido masters teach their students to blend with their opponents' motion and redirect the force to a more advantageous outcome. I think the Education community can do the same.

Blend

I'd argue for consistency and consolidation of administration across the country. Imagine how much money and energy it would save if there was one education standard mapped to one set of curriculum? The lesson plans should be at the discretion of schools and teachers, but should incorporate the use of advanced concepts like computers, calculators and cell phones - this is their biggest compromise, but look what they get in return (one standard, one curriculum).

Redirect

Take all the savings from the rationalization and invest it in increased pay and benefits for teachers.

Gain Advantageous Outcome

Improve and equalize the education service provided to every student in the country, grow teacher pay, hopefully improve student outcomes, do it without increasing the budget for education in the country, look like heroes, and get paid.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? I doubt it - this is a classic case where the Resistance is stuck in the trees and can't see the forest.

you had me at hello

This line (title) from Jerry Maguire is the holy grail of marketing. Seth Godin's blog about attention surplus made me ask myself: marketing tries to create awareness and consideration; but if people are exposed to increasing more messages, how do you break through - how do you get them at hello?

As Seth points out, there are a ton of free content channels out there, and bad marketers flood these outlets with generic "spray-marketing" content that likely yields much lower returns than traditional direct mail or advertising. People do it because it's perceived to be free, so what the hell. But, it's not free - it costs money to produce, it costs money to support and it costs money to respond to potentially spurious customers in the hopes of finding the real spenders. But there's an even higher cost - if you do it badly, there is a risk that your poor execution will be visible to millions, just like all those videos of dumb things people or companies do.

Treating your public "face" casually is never a good thing, and speaks volumes about your organization, its attitudes, and its commitment to its customers.

Seth talked about the attention drought. In the old days, there were very few channels to reach the individual consumer; if you had a successful one (really popular TV show, magazine, etc.), you were able to command a premium for advertising because people couldn't avoid the ads (Tivo + no remote controls), and you were much more likely (with a good ad) to create broad awareness. The market was hungry for it and would pay attention. Creativity trumped insight.

Today three things work against you - profusion of content, proliferation of channels, and easy tools to avoid consuming advertising. Add search engines to refine surfing and (if you're like me) the ability to ignore web ads, and most "traditional" marketing campaigns will struggle.

If in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, then in the land of the sighted, the one-eyed marketer is lost.

To get me at hello is to give me what I want when I want it and how I want it. Google and other search engines have tried this, and initially I think it worked really well because it was new, there weren't that many advertisers, people devoted a little (not a lot) space to it on their pages, and it was a novelty (just like TV ads in the 50s). But now there's too many ads, it's obvious where they are on the page, and they're easy to ignore.

Great marketing is about really (really) understanding your audience, what they need and care about, and then providing them what they want with ideas, words, and images that mean something to them. A very smart communications consultant told me that more often than not, people communicate in ways that are meaningful to them but not their audiences. He said that great communicators care not at all about how it looks to the speaker, but rather whether the listener/reader/watcher got what they wanted out of it.

The Internet and search engines have made the Long Tail real; they've led to people being able to very precisely state their need and find what they want. I fear that marketers are still mistakenly led by traditional approaches and metrics that applied in the old days when BIG reach was key. They ignore the real hard work of precisely identifying, segmenting and understanding your target audience, being able to craft a message and offer in a way that implicitly resonates with that audience, and then finding the ideal medium with which to reach them.

Find them, know them, care about them, and they will care about you. That's how you get them at hello.

talent pools

If more money doesn't ensure a better education, what does?

A few days ago, J.R. sent me a link to an excellent presentation by Sir Ken Robinson about how today's schools kill creativity. J.R. also shared a recent post by Peter Bregman which advocates that you aren't pushing hard enough if your path to success isn't marked with failures. Then Kay (20 year public education veteran) sent me an email that illuminated a dynamic in education and health care that I had not considered before:

Quality

Prior to the 1960s, the American workforce excluded more people than it included, cutting off access to a huge, talent-laden pool of workers. During this time, most women were limited to three professions - nursing, teaching and administrative work. Thus limited, fully half our population's best and brightest devoted their energy and passion to these three fields. Is it any wonder that wellness improved, schools (and students) in this country were among the best in the world, and companies were well-run?

Imagine that - society actually benefited from discrimination. How ironic!

Since there were more candidates than jobs, employers could hire the cream of the crop at "competitive" rates. Again - how lucky for education, health care, etc.!

Things changed in the 1960s - attitudes began to shift and opportunities began to grow. When presented with alternatives, once again the most talented of this community left their present and moved on to their future; this time to the detriment of education, health care, and business administration.

Creativity

Like most people, I believe that teachers are the most critical factor in student success.

Standardized curriculum/testing, prioritizing literacy and numeracy, and a lot of the challenges that Sir Ken identified have been around a long time, but until recently the teachers were so good, they overcame these issues and the students learned regardless. What's more, because of their confidence and ability, teachers were also comfortable pushing limits, allowing their students to push limits, and together achieve great learning, knowing that mistakes and failures pave the way to insight.

In essence, the system wasn't great prior to the 1960s, but our successes happened in spite of this, and only because the teachers were good enough to overcome their environment. The proof of this is that there are brilliant classrooms and (in very few cases) schools today, but these teachers are very much in the minority among their peers.

If you build it...

If you ask a bureaucrat, he'll say we need to recruit back all these great teachers at an incremental cost of $billions. But it is rare in a large system (education, health care, mega-corporations, etc.) that adding more money creates better results. We need a different approach:

We must begin by ensuring that the outcomes of learning (the "what") are clear and explicit. But we leave it up to the teachers to determine how to accomplish these goals. We do this by federalizing (thus erasing a massively redundant bureaucracy), and eliminating the need for unions (who are generally resistant to change). By giving teachers and schools ownership over the "how", we can eliminate even more bureaucrats, and make the gig that much more attractive. The result (despite increasing teacher salaries) should be a significant reduction in the education budget, and a more appealing place to work.

We attract great people by recognizing that teaching is not a job, but a profession. We acknowledge that professionals seek the creative and intellectual freedom to do great things and make powerful differences.

We can make teaching a real destination, one that draws in the best of our society by giving them the room to grow.

house rules

You might have noticed that I am a big fan of Aaron Sorkin and in particular the West Wing. There's this other TV show I quite like - House M.D. I was thinking today about organizational theory, how one goes about building an outstanding team, and whether they thought about that at all when they created the premise for this program.

If you're not familiar with the show, House is a brilliant but acerbic diagnostician who can solve cases others can't. He has a team of three very talented doctors who work for him, act as his foil, and create the experience of one doctor for the patient because House doen't like patients. House does have responsibilities outside of pure diagnostics (clinic duty, people-management, etc.), but if he does what he's good at, his performance (or lack thereof) in the other areas is overlooked. This even (shockingly) applies to the fact that he's addicted to Vicodin because of a problem with his leg.

The administrator of the hospital recognizes that House is a phenom, tenacious, and narcissistic problem solver; and that he is abysmal at the other parts of being a doctor, and frankly a jerk. But she also knows that without him, her hospital is less.

So she built an organizational framework (House + 3 doctors, a legal defense fund ('cause let's face it, he needs it:-), etc.), in which he can operate effectively, and where his performance is measured differently vs. the other (typical) doctors in the hospital.

Why? Because in the end, House creates profound value for the hospital, and saves lives no-one else could. The impact and benefits outweigh the "cost" of the special treatment.

Now look at any large corporation. Like most school systems around the world, large companies are infected with HR and MBA "parameters" that herald standardized performance and benchmarking, and reward micro-successes that serve only to further the careers of HR/MBA drones and "typical" performers. Anyone who is atypical is managed out because they don't have the skills to navigate the gauntlet of girth; held back because "they just don't fit our model;" or skate by hardly ever revealing the wonderful potential they have to create profound value.

When a company is small enough, the leader has the strength, confidence, vision to recognize these unique performers, grasp their value to the organization, and construct a workplace that will let them achieve. All because s/he knows where they're going, recognizes that "mundane" is the fate of a business filled with "normal," and has the cojones to flaunt the HR/MBA guidelines because of her/his burning desire to achieve greatness.

Is it any wonder that most large organizations today are devoid of soul, and almost never make a real difference?

risk shmisk

Accenture recently conducted a risk management survey of 260 CFOs from large companies in 21 nations that has (didn't think this was possible) increased my disappointment in corporations around the world. 85% of those surveyed said they are ineffective at considering risk, return and capital issues when making decisions. The same number said there is a lack of alignment between their company's strategy and appetite for risk, and 93% said it was really hard (whine, whimper) to align strategy to effective risk management.

C-Sense

How can you be a C-level officer, leading your corporation and yet be unable to effectively factor risk into decision-making? In good times, risk failures were compensated for by strong earnings, but now that either or both revenue and margins are shrinking, it's more difficult to hide or write off errors in judgment.

Theoretically, an executive achieves C-level status by being smarter than the average bear, having more foresight, vision and leadership skills than his or her peers, and the ability to skate to where the puck will be, and not where it is. If true, they should have recognized the following:

1. Good times creates bad habits
2. We're in the midst of a communication revolution
3. Tough times require focused investment

#1 - In good times, mistakes are forgiven/ignored because things are going so well that bad judgment is overlooked. But most critically, organizations forsake discipline in favor of expediency. Then when things change, the bad habits of the organization, which were compensated for with excess spending and often excess hiring, now surface unhidden, result in severe changes or layoffs, and are harder to fix because they're well, habits.

#2 - The stress caused by #1 creates internal and external disaffection/disloyalty, which makes people much more inclined to blog/Twitter/whatever their views and experiences. Malfeasance becomes very rapidly visible to the public, giving the company little or no time to sense, develop a strategy, and respond. In can we talk?, I wrote about transparency and immediacy being the offshoots of the communication revolution. This is either a huge risk or opportunity for most companies - the C-level "risk" executive leadership must account for this. Most don't.

#3 - If you have the means, the best time to invest is when times are tough. Whether that's acquisitions, new investments, or increased staffing, you are sure to get good (if not great) value for money, and be much more primed for growth when the market does turn. Choosing the best place to invest requires clarity of purpose - if the company's strategy is not clear, it's ability to evaluate and mitigate risk not solid, and it's leadership not focused, the resulting investments will likely accelerate poor performance and lead the company down.

C-Accountability

Chief X Officers (whether X = Executive, Financial, Marketing, Operations, etc.) get paid really well, this is because the expectations are commensurately high, and performance is expected and required. In addition to being a great sales tool for their services, the Accenture survey above is a confession by these C-levels that they don't know how to cope with change, or how to lead in these changing times.

At this level, they must own their actions, take responsibility for both their failures and those of everyone who works for them (the whole company). Shouldn't the 85% who said they didn't know what they were doing resign, so those who do can lead?

C-Response

From my can we talk? post: The industrial revolution created mechanical speed, the information revolution changed space (specifically, the distance between points in space), and the communication revolution changed time (sense and response time).

Thriving in this world requires discipline. If all C-executives in a company can't clearly (so that a 12-year-old can understand it) and consistently state:

1. Why they are in business
2. What makes their company special or unique
3. How they succeed
4. Where the company is heading

Then how likely is it that their employees are being guided properly? How likely is it that any management discipline exists, that the company's behavior and performance are predictable?

Ensuring this is step one for the CEO. Step two is to establish a discipline of two-way information flow so that all levels of the company know; and step three is to ensure that decisions get made, and are executed predictably and with accountability. Seems like management 101?

Think of Apple during Steve Jobs' current tenure. They don't always build the best product, not all of their products succeed, not all their customers are loyal and happy. But in the main, their business runs brilliantly; most customers are rabidly loyal; every employee has (from the outside anyway) a clear, consistent view of the all that is Apple; and you'd be hard-pressed to find an organization that had a better grasp of where the puck will be than Apple - both economically and product-wise.

If you took the 221 (of 260) companies representing the 85% of executives who admitted their inability to manage risk and created a fund that shorted their stocks, I wonder how it might do in the next 12-24 months vs. say Apple?

co-creating futures

Like David Warlick, I had not read this wonderful Chinese quote before:

If you are thinking a year ahead - plant seeds;
If you are thinking 10 years ahead - plant a tree;
If you are thinking 100 years ahead - educate the people

In the next breath I read Dean Sharesky's latest posting about how the book destroyed the community. Then I remembered Scott McLeod's recent post on what students want in an e-textbook - see the graphic on the right.

Together, these three are a most powerful argument. The first sets the context - it speaks of the power of education and its impact on the destiny of a people. The second refers to a predisposition (perhaps a desire to live in the past) that the way they learned something or did something is superior to what's available now or what happens now. The third speaks to what the current student generation wants in order to successfully shape its destiny and create the best tomorrow (and today) possible.

Dean has built a persuasive "business case" to rethink the nature and role of traditional paper books, and their real implications. I must admit I had never thought of books as an anti-community catalyst, though it's hard to argue the point given Dean's post. Moreover it also opens up the question of whether a traditional book is even the best way to read.

I love books and read as much as I can, but surely there are better ways to enrich the conversation? There is an argument that a book sparks the imagination and helps create a more vivid experience and impression of the author's story. I would normally agree, but then I look at how my good friend Clyde Ford has incorporated an enriched geo-spatial dimension in the e-experience of his latest book Precious Cargo; and now believe that this is actually a much better, more vivid, and imagination-sparking approach to reading.

There is a tendency to view technology as an anti-social medium. But in talking with Clyde, I know his vision is for adults and children alike to interact with his book. To learn virtually first-hand about the places his characters traveled, visualize, annotate, share their impressions and experiences, and ideally be inspired to show off their own world (both real and imagined) using similar (or what the heck, altogether different!) tools and techniques. He believes that this is a way to spark a broader embracing of literariness, literature and self-expression. I agree.

I also think it's a way to evolve the mainstream definition of literature and expression, and maybe even learning. If mashups were one starting point for this journey, why not expand the idea and open books up to the same capability? Might that inspire more people to read and express? Might it inspire deeper learning and understanding? If greater learning occurs through the process of teaching, then I think so.

Talking of self-expression, Scott has pointed us to a fantastic analysis that shows what students want in order to become better learners.

Participation creates vestedness - if students participate in the design and potentially creation of their texts, then don't we get better results? If people in general are able to participate in the consumption (and creation) of content, don't we get improved appreciation of that content?

Isn't that the ideal outcome?

social darwinism

I'm not a fan of protectionism. I think that every business or industry must either thrive in the global marketplace or die. This is how we ensure sustainable businesses and a vibrant economy. You only have to look at the auto industry to see how protectionism and creating a false-economy (one, two, three) solely to support an expensive, unionized labor force were not sustainable, caused or perpetuated uncompetitiveness, and eventually resulted in failure.

Yesterday was a beautiful, warm, cloudless day here in Seattle. Hanging out at a nearby park/marina, I noticed two sets of parents with their infants - one was using an anti-bacterial wipe to sterilize a restaurant highchair, the other was feeding their child (overhearing this part) ultra-organic, home-prepared, "pure" baby food. Both parents had expensive strollers; bragged about their infant's already hectic schedules; and talked about how they were already looking at schools (or even home-schooling); and (this blew me away) bemoaning how careful one had to be to pick the right kids for play-dates. Next to them was a family that had just plopped their infant down (no autoclave in sight), and were feeding him restaurant-prepared junk food. The latter child seemed happy, energetic, inquisitive, looked around, laughed, etc.; the former two were both placid.

Assuming these "super-parents" succeed, their kids will never touch "imperfect" food, never inhabit "unclean" environments, have ultra-busy schedules (playing with the "right" kids in "appropriately-designed" play spaces), enjoy ultra-managed electronic access, and ideally never have an uncontrolled exposure to anything.

This is not new; a large class of baby-boomers have been raising children like this for more than a generation.

How are these kids acclimatizing to the real, post-pubescent, high school world? Being around people with different opinions, potentially more confrontational, competitive, angry, etc. will have an effect. Will their systems have the antibodies, immunity and resilience to eat in the real world? Will their bodies accept a non-hypoallergenic environment? Will they be able to adapt to dealing with "raw" situations containing stress, angst, happiness, lust, greed + alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, etc.?

Exposing children to the world suddenly, and now without the parental protection safety-net has resulted less healthy, uncontrolled, immature, binge-driven behavior in high-school and university (and beyond). Academic performance has declined generation over generation, as has the motivation to excel. Children today aspire to be so much less than their grandparents and parents - you only have to look at relative academic performance to confirm this.

Can it be because their parents coddled them to the point where they have no motivation to achieve, nor do they fear failure?? After all, their parents have always been there - haven't they?? They expect to be happy, successful and healthy, because they've never known any other reality.

I think well-intentioned "super-parents" (like their NHTSA & EPA counterparts) may be doing their children more harm than good. I hope modern American children are not already down the path of suffering the same fate as General Motors, that like GM they're so close to action, and have so much social inertia that they are unable to see the forest through the trees.

We must expose our children to the real world; build up the physical, intellectual and emotional antibodies and resistance that will enable them to participate; and create the stress, team-orientation and competitiveness that will best-prepare them to not just survive, but aspire and thrive.

criminal insanity

To succeed in American politics, all politicians, Democrat and Republican alike must have a reputation of being tough on crime. In fact, on a percentage basis, you're more likely to succeed vs. any opponent if you've got a background in criminal justice (prosecutor, attorney general, etc.), and specifically on the "jes' throw all them f#($ers in jail" side.

According to this, in 2007 more than 7.3 million adults were under some form of correctional supervision. That's 2.4% of the country, or 1 in 41 people! But only 75% of America's population is adults, so it's really 3.2%, or 1 in 31 adults!! OMG!!

This includes those in prison, jail, on parole or probation; so for context, the number of people in prison or jail was just under 2.3 million, or about one-third.

The impact to our economy is noteworthy. Check out the chart on the right - I'm not a mathematician, nor am I a statistician but even my tiny little brain is able to spot the trend here. America spent about $210 billion on criminal justice in 2007, up from just under $36 billion in 1982. This amounts to a pretty modest 583% growth over 25 years. If the trend continues, that would put us at $1.2 trillion in 2032.

Want more? Projecting the 7.3 million people puts us at 29 million adults who would be guests or "friends" of the American judicial system in 2032.

Now take a look at the chart on the left (click to enlarge; source: Wikipedia). Assuming all judicial systems around the world are basically right and that everyone in jail is supposed to be there, the United States of America (home of the brave and land of the free) is by far the most criminally-infested country in the world, followed only by Russia. The rest of the planet is basically filled with decent, law-abiding citizens.

This can't be right can it? This country whose capacity for greatness is limitless cannot possibly also be the one that contains the most evil and socially-divergent people, can it?

It is time to recognize the insanity and abolish the "tough on crime" litmus test. We must instead find leaders who believe in the inherent goodness of people, the idea that crime is not the individual's failing, but rather society's failing. It is the obligation of a great and caring society to seek out and nurture the best attributes of its people and not assume the worst. If we draw the line in the right place, we can create a safer, healthier and more vibrant society where prisons are viewed as an absolute last resort, and we look first at the better angels of every person's nature.

sorry seems to be the hardest word...

I watched Traitor on TV last night - I turned it on because I like its star, Don Cheadle. It's a good (not great) movie about Islamic terrorists, American anti-terrorists, and how one foils the other. There was a scene in the film where one of the terrorist leaders is explaining why they do what they do to prospective recruits, why this war against America must happen, and why everyone needs to participate.

True or not, one big motivator is that "they [Americans] have invaded our countries and killed our women and children, and destroyed our way of life; to remove them and prevent this, we need a persuasive deterrent. Since we don't have an army that can defeat America, terrorist acts are our only option. We must do what we can to stop them." My paraphrasing of the sentiment from that scene.

A quick search led me to this essay on how the Koran has been interpreted to favor the terrorists' goals, and this essay explaining how the only sure path to Paradise for a Muslim is to die fighting in defense of Allah. Finally, I found this excellent paper entitled Motivational Parameters in Islamic Terrorism by Michael Taarnby of the University of Aarhus in Denmark that talks also about the social and Western influences on Muslim reality and how they have resulted in disaffection and desperation. This paragraph from page 16 is telling:

Furthermore, the perceived, and often very real, oppression carried out by the respective governments contributes to the loss of existential meaning for the individual. The Muslim notion of the concept of honor and shame makes this situation hard to bear. Perceiving oneself as a failure is very much like a stain on personal honor, one that does not rub off easily. The correlation between the consequences of modernity and the real or imagined oppression creates a void, a social space in which the desire to change unfortunate circumstances leads to action, sometimes violent. Fundamentalism represents an important tie between the individual and a larger social group, and although this group is a construction it becomes very real for those personally involved. Seemingly incomprehensible acts of terrorism, and in particular the issue of martyrdom, become the ultimate manifestation of meaning and identity.

But what about the West and America in particular - why are they so vilified? Here are four issues that seem to come up a lot:

1. America's seemingly blind support of Israel
2. America's open disdain for any political and social system that is not like theirs, and specifically their antipathy towards Muslims and their forms of government
3. America's willingness and ability to unilaterally perpetrate warfare on countries they don't like
4. America lack of accountability for creating, enabling and supporting some of the worst Middle Eastern situations in recently history, including the Taliban and Saddam Hussein

All this (and much more - read Taarnby's paper) says to me that it's no surprise that Muslims are so easily able to align against America, but not against Christianity for example - it's not a fight among religions.

This is an incredibly complex problem with no simple answers. But if America, the West and Muslims are truly seeking peace and prosperity for all, I wonder if there aren't a few simple steps that could signal the start of a new beginning?

First, I believe America needs to realize that this is their game to control, win, or lose. There is no other player that plays as pivotal a role - America is the quarterback.

Second, as with business habitats, it behooves America to viscerally understand, without judgment, the truth and social reality that is the heart and mind of a Muslim.

Third, America needs to recognize that the approaches taken thus far have failed; and like the typical tourist in a foreign country, saying the same thing progressively more loudly in English does not miraculously endow the French person with comprehension; it just pisses them off.

Here's my proposal for the first steps in this thousand mile journey - but you aren't going to like it:

1. America must apologize - it must publicly demonstrate contrition for all its unilateral actions and how it has disdained Islamic (and other) ways of life just because they are not the American way.
2. America must stop exclusively favoring Israel, and be equal in its support of all peace-loving people in the Middle East, never excluding, or giving any special treatment to any one people. This will cost the American administration a bunch of grief and certainly fund-raising power in the next election, but it's easily worth the price.
3. America, starting immediately, must never have a unilateral military presence in the Middle East, ever. To do this, Secretary Clinton must negotiate a safe transition with the UN and Middle Eastern leaders.
4. America must convert it's Defense investments into foreign investments designed specifically to develop the infrastructure for and economic well-being of Muslims in the Middle East. One approach is this proposal for foreign policy transformation, though I would amend the scope to make it globally-funded with strong personal and financial participation from Middle Eastern leaders.

Beginnings come at a high price, but if nurtured, result in valuable and sustained dividends.

Let's face it there is no way to trump a guaranteed entry into Paradise by dying in defense of Allah. Implication: taking away the perception and reality of a threat to Allah removes this incredibly powerful incentive from the equation!

Let us begin by believing and acting in ways that demonstrate our genuine respect and admiration of Islam and all Muslim people. This is saying that we prioritize Muslims, their religion and their homelands equally to everyone else, their faiths and homes in the world. Steps 1-4 are the beginning of this journey, and in doing this, we must recognize what Taarnby talked about at length in his paper, that this is a matter of face and honor. We must be a part of helping restore face and honor for our brothers and sisters of the Muslim faith.

If our intention and acts are genuine, we will remove the perception and reality of a threat against Allah, and build a pathway towards peace, prosperity and harmony. It won't be easy, but boy will it be worth it.

the brittle truth

I heard this great quote on a TV show called Naruto: "anything that has form must one day decay."

Besides asking what the heck I was doing watching Naruto in the first place, I wondered why things get brittle as they age? Is it size? Ego? Sedentaryness? For inanimate objects, it feels like they just dry up - grapes to raisins, plums to prunes, etc. - not a happy thing. I imagine a person's "water content" also diminishes over time...

-- Oops - sorry about that - I felt oddly compelled to get a drink of water just then.

So why does it feel like the older (and larger) an organization gets, the more it "retains water"?? When organizations decay, they don't shrink and dry up, they ...congeal. Besides the "yuk" & "eeew -- gross" factor, this pendulous, ineffectual, slug-like behavior could have some dramatic effects on the world around them:

Apparently, 7,100 (or 47%) of the 15,000 air traffic controllers in the US will hit their mandatory retirement age in 2012. I don't know about you, but this doesn't make me sit back, relax and enjoy the flight!

I'm not an actuarial scientist, I didn't eat Wheaties for breakfast or sleep at a Holiday Inn Express, despite this even I can deduce that:

1. People do age (duh!)
2. It takes time to train an air traffic controller
3. The skies are crowded as it is, and we already have a lot of "close calls"
4. Planes aren't going to be replaced with Star Trek transporters anytime soon

The numbers:

1. There are 15,000 air traffic controllers today (we'll need 16,000 by 2012)
2. 3,500 of the 15,000 are in training (so there are really only 11,500 fully-qualified controllers)
3. The Department of Transportation (DOT) has found that 22% of facilities have already exceed the number of trainees they're allowed to have working at any time <-- read that one again!
4. 7,100 of the 11,500 (or 61%) qualified controllers are going to retire in three years (2012)
5. And now for the big one - it takes about three years to train an air traffic controller

Besides thinking it's time to go long on companies that sell video-conferencing technology, I'm wondering if this is just organizational decay? That as the DOT or FAA have grown older, they've just lost the ability to think clearly, forecast correctly, elevate issues appropriately, etc.? I'm sure there are many employees there who have been shouting about the impending resource gap, but maybe "management" just ignored it?

I think of the company I work for - it's now over 30 years old - and certainly some elements of it feel very sluggish. I think of the company that insures my apartment, that still today (after four years of assuring me that this was in the works) do not have a way for me to look at my policy or pay my bill online. I look at how long it took for America (a self-proclaimed super-power) to react to Katrina, or recognize that it's roads and highways are falling apart, there are so many examples.

What to do? How do organizations stay fresh? Here's one idea.

edu-urgency?

Understanding the target audience is critical to the success of any business. Understanding the business model of your company is rather important as well. If you don't know why and how you make money, any success is a fluke.

How do schools or school systems "make money"? If a school is like a restaurant - the chef is the principal, the sous-chefs are faculty, the maitre d' is the vice principal, and the waiters are the staff. The differences (in no particular order):

1. A chef knows immediately if his work is successful, the principal doesn't
2. A chef gets paid by his customers, the principal doesn't
3. Chefs get fired if their product isn't good, the faculty has tenure
4. The restaurant (except in Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares) succeeds by giving it's customers the best, a school succeeds by meeting its funder's targets
5. A restaurant is inspired to be special, unique and ever-evolving to attract the best clientele, a student has no choice, and will attend school no matter how un-special, average, and boring it is.

Conclusion - schools are not set up to care about their customers, just their funders. The business model for learning in this country bears almost no accountability for the satisfaction or success of its customers. The decentralized model of learning in America theoretically avoids this issue by operating "close to the customer" and being driven by the expectations of parents (theoretically closest to their children). Boy - that's really worked well hasn't it!

Instead of student-driven, adapted to local requirements, direct accountability, we have inefficiency, inconsistency, budget shortfalls, and poor leadership. More than one quarter of high school students fail to graduate. Last year more than 1.3 million graduates required remediation (inability to read, write or do basic math effectively) before entering college or university.

The situation is dire, but there's no urgency or imperative for change (I'm thinking of something at the level of "national security" on September 12, 2001). We are capable of rapid and dramatic change, we just need to feel the urgency - we felt it after 9-11, and IMO the Education crisis in this country is much, much more serious.

Moreover, we're not short on benchmarks for success in our very own backyard. Seattle Girls' School and High Tech High are proof that learning greatness is possible, and can be successful. Why are they unique? One reason is the brilliance & strength of their leaders, the other is the fact that they sit outside the system. No doubt there are many innovators within the system as well - some that I admire are in my blog roll. They should all be the rule and not the exception.

How do we create a structure that allows SGS & HTH to be the norm? To start, let's federalize learning. The distributed model has failed, let's centralize. Let's redefine success - schools must be more accountable and directly tied to the end result of their work - successful graduates. 

BUT - we must only Federalize the "what" not the "how." The Feds should finance Education, and they must define success in a way that is external to the K-12 schools. It's not about erasing creativity and local context, it's about creating a national mandate for learning outcomes - the "what." The "how" should still be in the hands of schools and teachers - they're the ones who understand their own students and community and how best to serve them.

The great thing about this approach is that no school gets left behind. Funding should be available to all schools whether rural, urban, inner city, or suburban. Every school should be held to a single standard of accomplishment, and budgets should not be victims of local or state circumstances. Many of us live in States where budgets are being cut, and education is being made to pay the price - that's not an acceptable scenario.

We must create an apocalyptic sense of urgency about Education in this country and then take drastic measures.

the target audience

Most rapid successes in the commercial world come from people who built something that they themselves would use, knowing (or hoping) that there were many others out there like them who would be similarly compelled. Their second advantage came from knowing themselves, and knowing where they'd go to shop for something like this, and how much they'd be willing to spend on it - thus was formed their marketing strategy.

But then the plague of success hits - they get bigger, hire more people, get an MBA intern. and fall into the trap of PowerPoint, market evaluation, quantitative and qualitative analyses, projections, focus groups, etc., and all of a sudden ideation and marketing become a process-laden mechanism that has its own definition of success and failure, which may or may not correlate to actual business success.

At this point, it's hard to identify that original company, its original passion and commitment to the audience, etc. At this point, things like Seth Godin's sugar-coated corporate speak emerge. Why? Because MBAs and lawyers and HR people get involved, and marketing becomes data-driven, lawsuit-proof, politically-correct "customer engagement tool" vs. the process of authentically and creatively driving demand to capacity.

This organization must get out of its strategic entrenchment and sense, respond and adapt. It must focus on what matters most, their knowledge and intimate understanding of their audience, its needs, its passions, and what the customer will pay for. They can do this by recapturing that which started them off on a path to success in the first place.

What if you didn't have that first-hand knowledge? Pete Reilly spoke of the need for new paradigms this week, specifically about why "shared pencil" and "many watching one" models for learning are not very effective, and proposes a new paradigm of "ubiquitous access" based on cloud computing and virtualization. Just two days before this, Scott McLeod wrote about the efficacy of netbooks in schools.

I admire both these gentlemen immensely - they are passionate, proven and respected educators (I am not); and while I wholeheartedly agree with their premise (that a paradigm shift is needed, as is better technology for learning), I worry that they might be missing a critical element.

The target audience.

Students are not adults. They have (as both Pete and Scott have spoken about many times) an absolute affinity with technology. The adult frame of reference is different, and the adult's filter is different, adults are not children.

The customer of a school system is the student. Like Google's advertising model, the students don't pay for the service, but if they aren't achieving the right outcomes, the funding/ads will dry up. Proof that the education system hasn't internalized this - "no child left behind," "education reform," abysmal graduation rates, etc.

What do students want? A friend was telling me recently that he bought his 14-year-old son an iPod Touch and an Acer Ferrari 1100 laptop. The former costs roughly a tenth of the latter. One day he walked in on his son doing homework with his Touch while the Ferrari sat, closed and untouched. Dad asked Son why he wasn't using the laptop (bigger screen, keyboard, faster, etc.), and Son said he was fine as-is. Dad then asked Son if he'd be good without the laptop altogether, and after a pause to think about it, Son said "yes." Dad took the laptop away Son hasn't yet asked for it.

I think Pete and Scott ought to reflect on the real needs of the customer. "Ubiquitous access" today is about mobile devices that the students already have or can get easily and cheaply. It's about schools and educators opening their minds to the idea that the customer and hence the target audience is not people like them. Students' use of technology is dramatically different from adults. Tomorrow it will change again.

The paradigm of teaching will need to adapt to the requirements and expectations of its customers, and engage them in their context. Most project-based learning schools already do this. What's more, in this new world, schools may have to re-think certain concepts - preventing text messaging (and the use of mobile phones) because it looks like "cheating" might be replaced with encouraging the use of text/mobile because it is teamwork. But as an adult, I'm sure this is already so last year...