~synthesis~

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.

actually, "gov"-up

Creating a converged government is controversial, some of the comments I received (like J.R.'s) made me ask myself, "what if we could do a full tear-down and start over, what would the new house look like?" But before I get into that, as d.eris pointed out, the result would no longer be a federation, so instead of a federal government, there would be a national government, or just a government:-).

So... here goes - this is mostly about the process of getting elected, some of the political accountability and it touches on a couple of other aspects like taxation and some core national services. This is by no means exhaustive. Hopefully it provokes a debate about how things could be in iAmerica (i=imaginary;-).

Elections

There are only two kinds of elected officials - the President/VP and the 435 members of Congress; there is no Senate, nor of course are there any local officials. The President can run for one six-year term. Congresspeople can run for up to two four-year terms, and they overlap - so half the House is reelected every two years.

Campaign Financing

Actual or prospective government employees may not accept any kind of gift - public or private, cash or otherwise. To become a candidate, you must be nominated by 1% of your district's citizens, or 10,000 voters, whichever is less. Once nominated, you are entitled to $0.50 per voter in your district, or approximately $250,000 in government funds for your campaign. The presidential candidate follows roughly the same process, and is likewise constrained to $0.50/voter of national funding.

Voting

Voting is mandatory and fully electronic. The penalty for not voting is harsh - your tax bracket is raised to the next level until your vote is recorded (i.e. skip two elections and you're in a higher tax bracket for four years).

During the election (one month every two years), candidates must speak not only about their national interests, but also their local/district commitments. Each candidate must declare their ten most critical local priorities, which forms the basis of their "local" platform and part of the framework for their accountability to their voters.

Voting is a three-step process:

1. Indicate your top ten local issues/priorities based on the published list of each candidate's top ten (so if there are three candidates, you pick your hot issues based on the aggregated (30 or less, since some issues will overlap) candidates' list).
2. Vote for your Congressperson (you will also see how each candidate matches up to your top ten; if there is an incumbent, you see how they performed in support of your top ten issues).
3. Select your presidential candidate (potentially with a similar prioritization model).

By first being asked to prioritize the local issues you care about, we create a sensitivity to local needs for the eventual winner, plus the voter is now able to clearly see which candidate(s)' priorities are most closely aligned. It doesn't force you to vote for the best match, but at least you are making a more informed choice. Moreover, it is in the candidates' best interests to understand their voters' issues up-front and focus on the things at top of mind in their platform to create the most matches on voting day.

Reach

A mandatory electronic voting process includes the provision that the government provide every citizen with the means to do this. As you probably know, every wireless device in the world (phone or PC or whatever) has a unique (MAC or IMEI) address. The government must provide each citizen with a basic device (that is registered to their social security number; if the citizen chooses, they can purchase their own device, but each citizen must have a "registered" device).

This device will be provisioned with basic, free wireless access to deliver government services (voting, emergency services, information, potentially health care records (in a health vault of some kind), financial information (e-wallet), etc.). Each citizen will therefore be able to "connect" and vote wherever they are on Election Day. Since the incentive is quite powerful (see above), it is expected that turnout will be virtually 100%, ensuring that every individual's voice is heard.

Further, the system will capture local priorities (this could also be extended to national priorities), aggregated by district to ensure local needs are met, and when mapped to voting records, actual outcomes, etc., will create a powerful accountability model. I would imagine getting a quarterly report card on how my Congressperson is doing vis-à-vis the aggregated priorities of the district, and the ones I outlined.

This might create the perception of a more big-brother-ish society, but I think with the right regulatory safeguards, it actually creates the opportunity for a leaner, more accessible government, and a better-served citizenry.

Once Elected

The three branches of government remain intact, though Congress does have additional responsibilities.

Congresspeople are required to spend two-thirds (67%) of their time in their district, overseeing national agency focus and prioritization based on the local top ten issues, etc.; and one-third (33%) in Washington on national issues (education, health care, security, infrastructure, defense, etc.).

The local responsibility is much greater than in today's Congress. In this regard, Congresspeople act more like governors of their district. This will require a larger local staff, a deeper understanding of local needs and issues, as well as the ability and accountability for all of the constituents' governing needs.

Since the penalty for accepting private or commercial funds is termination, lobbyists will have a harder time creating influence. Congresspeople will also be judged based on their track record versus the priorities their district set out during the election; this will create a more powerful accountability dynamic, and given that they are required to "govern" their district as well, build a deeper appreciation and focus on the needs and challenges facing their constituents.

When in Washington D.C., Congresspeople will focus on national issues alongside the President. This process operates similarly to the current House, but with the dynamic of a multi-party system (vs. the two that currently dominate). As we've discussed here and here, I think a 3+-party system offers a better representation of the people's wishes, creates more moderated governance, and provides a stronger checks/balances model than we have now.

Checks and Balances

While in principle the federal/state/local model is a check/balance model, I don't believe it works in reality. Look at how much power the Feds wield during crises (9-11, Katrina, etc.), but more importantly, when you follow the money it's very clear that in the end, federal dollars are worth way more than local dollars. You only have to look as far as No Child Left Behind - the Feds account for only 9% of the total national education budget, and yet through NCLB, they basically defined an education model that dramatically altered every state's approach to education.

But if you want more evidence of this, ask any state or local official that you know how much time they have spent (as a percentage) trying to figure out how to maximize their access to federal funds (TARP, stimulus, or otherwise). It's now common for a city to have a stimulus package lobbyist in DC!

When a municipality or state is beholden to the Federal government for handouts, the checks and balances have evaporated. 

I therefore feel that the Congressional accountability model, change in their job descriptions, constraints to financing rules, and the multi-party approach, combined with the current Separation of Powers are enough to ensure an improved government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Taxation

There is only one form of taxation allowed in the country - a simple and progressive income tax. We would start from scratch and create a simpler tax policy for the country that achieved three things - enough income to operate the country (no deficit financing); the ability to set aside some funding as a national reserve; ideally operated so that the poorest third (or higher) of the population paid no taxes. Note that if you didn't vote in an election but were in the lower third of income earners, you would now be subject to taxation per the penalties of not voting.

National Standards

There will be national standards for things like education, health care, infrastructure (roads, air/marine traffic, etc.) and domestic and national security. These standards will ensure equal access to all resources for all people and across the country. Every school for example will operate under the same guidelines and expectations, much like this. In the same way, all roads, railways, airports, ports, etc. should be managed equitably.

Health care... that's a whole separate kettle of fish - I may write a separate post on this, but in the mean time, suffice it to say that today Americans are not the healthiest people in the world, and much work is needed to get them closer to good health. Defense - I believe this is a matter of foreign policy vs. global policy, where in almost every case, economic acts trump military acts.

As I began to write this, it became clear how expansive and complex this is. It raised to a higher notch my respect and admiration for the gentlemen that wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It made me realize how much they were able to accomplish with so few words. They were quite something.

In a related vein, I think these next-generation Congresspersons have an incredibly difficult job. In this new world, I think it might actually be the place where true impact is created, and where leadership and the qualities of being a great leader are tested and honed.

necessity and invention

I've been reading a lot about increased funding and expanded budgets for "innovation" in education lately. America spends a lot of money (among the highest) per student on public education; most people are unsatisfied with the results, and yet the prevailing strategy to improve things is to throw more money at the same system.

The Numbers:

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the 2005-2006 (the most complete data I could find) school year for public K-12 schools:

1. Total number of students: 49,113,000
2. Total number of teachers: 3,143,000
3. Spending per pupil: $9,154
4. Total operating budget: $449.6billion
   • Instruction $274.2billion - 60.98%
   • Support Services $157.1billion - 34.95%
   • Food $17.3billion - 3.84%
   • Enterprise Operations $1.0billion - 0.23%
5. Total budget: $528.7billion (#4 + $7.4b other current expenses, $57.4b capital outlays, $14.4b interest on loans)

ASIDE: According to the US Census Bureau's Public Education Finances report, of the $274.2b for Instruction, 89.8% or $246.2b goes towards teacher salaries and benefits ($78,334 per teacher). That's a pretty good wage these days, but as I've said before, I believe that teachers should be better-paid, and respected as peers to doctors, lawyers and engineers. Regarding this last point, I wonder then if it's time for teachers to secede from their unions? Most lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. are not union members; I wonder if being union members creates the impression of not being on an equal footing with those professions, and actually diminishes teachers?

I'm not judging whether the level of funding above is too much or too little for America. Let's say it's just right. Now combine this with the graph to the left, and it's pretty clear that the budget is big, and has and continues to grow very rapidly.

I don't know enough about the public sector, but in business when growth like this occurs, it is likely that bad habits form. People get lazy, money is not spent wisely, and consultants get hired to do what employees should be doing, or to provide management with a CYA safety net. Management gets in the rut of preserving the status quo/gravy train. Most organizations that survive past the rapid growth phase have to go back to the drawing board and rethink their whole business. They must develop a strategy re-defining success, specifying new resource allocation models, and advocating entirely new business processes and approaches in order to achieve their goals.

With the kind of funding growth education has enjoyed, I wonder if the administrators have simply been adding more $$ to existing line items - taking the easy way out?

Have they taken the time to form a strategy that establishes where the puck will be, enumerates and prioritizes their current resources, and defines a plan for how to get there? If the current budget won't get to the puck, they should first look inward, make trade-offs, and then demonstrate exactly how additional funding results in specific outcomes that other stakeholders want and would fund.

I've written before about how organizations can get waylaid by their own success, and the effect of size on performance. While both blogs were about commercial companies, I wonder if some of the same principles might apply to education?

At one time, the American education system was among the best in the world, and it appears that the formula from that era remains in force today despite many changes to the world around us. Why is that? Despite all the lip service paid to edu-evolution, except for very small pockets, the system appears to be just the same as it was two or three generations ago. It feels like Education is trying as hard as it can to live up to this Peter Drucker quote.

Can education achieve innovation when increased funding is not a part of the picture? If necessity is the mother of invention, is it possible that the constant increases in funding have resulted in precisely the wrong (zero-innovation) outcome?

Humans tend to think most creatively when their backs are against the wall, and they have to adapt or die. If put in that situation, would the American education system find a completely new and innovative way to achieve its goals? I think it's possible.

It takes leadership to achieve this, but I don't see the present administration (President Obama or Secretary Duncan) taking this on. We remain in desperate need of an education sensei to lead us.

tinkering

My good friend Larry pointed me to a fantastic presentation by John Seely Brown on tinkering. The ten minutes you invest in listening to John is well worth it.

Where to begin. First - I think back to times I'd spend with my father, fixing his car, or an appliance, or building something (he is a tinkerer:-)), and how I osmotically learned about machinery or design, and most importantly, how I learned to decompose a problem and then solve it bit by bit until it was complete.

This approach also taught me to be bold. I can't overstate this - when you are working on a problem beside someone whom you trust and who knows more, you are more likely to try things because you know s/he is there to help/rescue/fix you if something goes wrong. When you're learning alone or in a typical classroom setting this type of "support" might not be available for two reasons - creativity and exploration is generally discouraged (a crime IMO), and often the teacher or tutor is dealing with too many students to actually be there at the precise time the one child is at the point of trying something.

As I've gotten older, I'm emboldened (because I learned how to "fix on the fly") to the point where I can now explore, experiment and create, and actually enjoy it! This is how we will build the leaders of tomorrow, by giving them the ability and confidence to do things, to try things, and to seek the joy of learning, and sharing.

"Playing with Knowledge"

I love this phrase. The idea of create, reflect and share is very familiar. About a month ago, this same "Larry" and I had breakfast together and talked about many things, including the failure of standards in learning. During that conversation, he described his view of learning - observation, reflection, documentation, exhibition. I know that Larry and John are two peas in a pod on this:)! The share/exhibition aspect can't be overlooked, whether it is in a gallery, a school hallway, or teaching another student (as John suggests), learning is cemented during this process - yet, the education system today rarely offers students this opportunity, favoring regurgitation instead (another crime IMO).

This process of continuous learning and teaching is crucial. When Einstein (thanks Larry:)) spoke these words, he was talking about discovery, which I see as implicit and tied into the learning process above, and brought to life through exhibition.

Exhibition has another aspect - it requires creation - often physical and tangible creation. The creation process enables us to evolve to not just a way of learning and teaching, but also a way of improving. When work in progress is shared (as my father did with me), we were both able to improve it, I as the observer might have had an idea that my father as constructor didn't and after some discussion and experimentation, who knows, maybe together, we created something better, just because we shared.

But we did more than share, we critiqued each others efforts as well, not maliciously or judgmentally, but productively. Building the skill to do that and having the strength to accept it is so fundamental in school, because let's face it, it's certainly there (positive and negative) in real life.

I wish our public school system were bold enough to embrace this approach. The possibilities for its graduates would be limitless.

This blog is one way in which I tinker - it results from my observations of the world; how I reflect (and synthesize) what I see; an articulation; and then my favorite part - the exhibition, where when shared, I have the pleasure of learning from others (you) through their (your) willingness to share.

Thank you.

233

Eleven score and thirteen years ago, a document was signed - it demanded greatness from a people and a place. The principles were simple - we must honor and respect everyone, and celebrate each person's right and opportunity to achieve their best. It set the stage for incredible achievements on so many fronts.

A tradition of success can be fraught - generations grow up expecting results, expecting preeminence, and expecting the ride to be easy. The mindset of being owed outcomes creates complacency. The reality of sure and steady economic growth creates a sense of entitlement. When this happens, I think beginnings and ends are most overlooked - beginnings = education, ends = retirement - because people are most focused on the middle. A good social safety net also gets ignored because prosperity seems so attainable for anyone.

But when times do get tough as they are now, these three are most tested. Today we recognize that each has much room for improvement. In the spirit of America's history, we need revolutions in education, retirement and social safety nets to reach or restore greatness.

Revolutions are of course not a foreign concept in America, nor is heroism, creativity or leadership. Two months ago, I wrote something about a path towards peace that I felt was worth repeating:

Last week I wrote about a new diplomatic approach to the Middle East that began with an apology; achieving this won't be easy - people have emailed me saying that this is too high a price to pay, and too difficult a task for America to achieve. But today I was watching part 2 of the 20 Hours in America episode of the West Wing, and President Bartlet's speech that closes with a reference to a terrorist incident at a school.

...restoring abundance amid an economic shortfall, securing peace in a time of global conflict, sustaining hope in this winter of anxiety and fear. More than any time in recent history, America's destiny is not of our own choosing. We did not seek nor did we provoke an assault on our freedom and our way of life. We did not expect nor did we invite a confrontation with evil. Yet the true measure of a people's strength is how they rise to master that moment when it does arrive. 44 people were killed a couple of hours ago at Kennison State University. Three swimmers from the men's team were killed and two others are in critical condition. When, after having heard the explosion from their practice facility, they ran into the fire to help get people out. Ran into the fire. The streets of heaven are too crowded with angels tonight. They're our students and our teachers and our parents and our friends. The streets of heaven are too crowded with angels, but every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we're reminded that that capacity may well be limitless. this is a time for American heroes. We will do what is hard We will achieve what is great. This is a time for American heroes and we reach for the stars. God bless their memory, God bless you and God bless the United State of America. Thank you. Source.

The emphasis above is mine. I am not American but I live in the United States. Living with, working with, and knowing the people who live where I now do, I am convinced that even if the people in that practice facility were known to be Middle Eastern Muslims, the swimmers from the men's team would have run into the fire without a second thought.

This speech always touches me, it fills me with pride and purpose, and it brings a tear to my eye. It convinces me that I'm right to be optimistic, despite sorry being the hardest word.

Education, Retirement and a Social Safety Net are difficult, difficult problems, but if America opens its mind to new ideas and creates a sense of urgency, I know it can spark the revolution that will create greatness.

Happy 233rd.

gauntlet of girth

I was watching Pixar's brilliant film Wall-E again today, and got to thinking about how the spaceship was built in the movie. The well-intentioned designers decomposed every anticipated act into a process and then automated it. This certainly created a more efficient, streamlined, and predictable system, one that did exactly what it should when it needed to. It did this to the point where every micro action had a pre-defined reaction, and success was measured by that micro actor's ability to do what it was supposed to. Of course the best example of this in the film is "Mop."

In the end, the result of all the problem decomposition, process management and operational efficiency was a profoundly well-managed and controlled environment that worked, provided everything happened according to plan. Over time, in the controlled environment, the system worked well enough that humans (the original constructors and source of inspiration) became superfluous - there was no need or expectation for them to do anything, be anything, or act in any way. With the system meeting every need, people became lazy and dull - aspiration-free. How horrible. How frightening.

Ironically, it took a machine with a soul to rekindle man's soul and give it purpose. The predictable, programmed, precise (but soulful) machine became the random act that re-ignited aspiration and re-awakened humanity.

As organizations in our reality mature, growth rates are harder to maintain because the revenue base keeps getting larger. A natural reaction for many is to prioritize operational efficiency, process management and business predictability vs. new growth opportunities. Why? Because at least you can control what's inside and maintain (and potentially grow) profitability by being a "better-run company."

There is no doubt that size does matter - the markets have proven that. There's equally no doubt that size is not an assurance of success, the markets have certainly proven that. There is also this truth that when organizations get bigger, they seek something (perhaps vindication?) that requires or results in ...girth.

The organizational equivalent of human girth - aka cellulite - is groups like HR, Legal and of course MBAs. As with cellulite, these elements seem to have an innate ability to multiply and expand at the expense of the value-creating parts of the company. At their best, HR, Legal, MBAs, etc. manage to create micro-successes, and cause companies to bias and measure micro-outcomes on the assumption that they are additive or multiplicative, and will result in macro success. Business processes form around the micro, funding and resources become contingent on the micro, performance is rewarded based on micro behavior, and most sadly, those who wish to innovate and transform cannot do so without first running the gauntlet of girth.

So what's my solution for corporate liposuction? I think there is at least one way for organizations to form and be lead so that they maintain the adaptive, sense and response essence that characterized their initial trajectory of success.

It is possible to be great and be lean. It is possible (though shocking to many I'm sure) to successfully run a company where PowerPoint and McKinsey analysis are not the lingua franca. It is possible to do this, but not easy. It requires one to flaunt the laws of girth-gravity. Who among us is able?

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?

the "Ed"

Andrew Rotherham recently pointed to a McKinsey analysis of national education data. A few things jumped out at me after a quick scan of the supporting materials to the article:

• We can learn from our neighbors (Canada is among the highest performing countries)
• We can spend less money (the US spends more per achievement outcome than anyone else)
• We can create more potential (effective graduates)
• That potential is worth a lot (the more graduates you have, the greater your GDP)

Then there's something missing - there has to be, otherwise how could the American education not be be better than it is?

If you were told: "You can spend less to create a better product that will make you more money, and one of the best examples of this is your next-door neighbor." Wouldn't you do it?

What are we missing??

This reminds me of The Karate Kid, a coming of age film where a boy learns how to defend himself from a group of thugs with the help of his Japanese superintendent. The Super starts him off with some work around his house, painting the fence, washing the floor, waxing the car - all done in a very specific way. After doing all these seemingly meaningless chores, the boy gets angry and frustrated, and that's when the old man, with a slew of attacks, shows him that he's unknowingly built the muscles and reflexes that are the essence of self-defense!

The sensei was wise, proven and savvy enough to know what elemental skills the boy needed, how best to teach them to him, and once these seemingly unrelated skills were mastered, he helped the boy realize that he had learned something altogether different.

The American education system needs a sensei. Someone with the wisdom and guile to craft a profound outcome out of a series of seemingly unrelated acts that suddenly explode on the American people,  forming the basis of a great education system.

The traditional approach is based on the Everett Rogers Innovation Diffusion Curve to the left. School teachers fit this curve very nicely. The most visible, Web 2.0, twittering blogger-types are all in the Innovators category, with Early Adopters, the Majorities, and maybe a slightly bigger than smaller category of Laggards.

But the Innovators are too far ahead of everyone else, so much so that the mainstream simply can't connect with them. Traditionally, the Early Adopters would bridge the gap to the Majorities and help pull them along into the future, and while this is how grassroots/organic change will happen in education, I think this process is too slow and too fragmented to yield meaningful results by itself. Moreover, the Majorities have enormous inertia and inadequate incentives to be receptive to quantum change.

We need a catalyst (sensei) with unimpeachable authority and strength, based on wisdom and experience to create the circumstances where "epiphanically" a national transformation occurs. It might take a decade to happen, but we all know it will, because our sensei is just that good.

I wonder - who is the Peter Drucker of Education?

Where is this person who has the chops and cred to be able to make profound change happen? And how would it happen?

It's time for America to create a non-political, national sister organization to the Federal Reserve/Ben Bernanke for Education.

We could call it "the Ed."

We just need to find our sensei.

bookmaking

I've been traveling the last couple of weeks and haven't had much time to write. But this article caught my eye, and some words popped into my brain.

The New York Times reported that the US Department of Justice is opening a probe into Google's Book Search service. The class action suit filed by authors and publishers was settled recently, granting Google the license (from authors and publishers) to commercialize just about every in-copyright book ever published in the United States. The resulting potential monopoly situation has piqued the DOJ's interest.

According to the Inquisitr, Google has digitized some seven million books, many out of print, and whose authors aren't around to claim royalties. They will charge for access to the books and share the revenue with authors and publishers. You have to register your book in the Book Rights Registry to receive your share of the 63% royalties that the registry will receive. If a book is "orphaned," Google may show 20% of the content for free (ad-funded) and then sell consumers access to the rest of the book, keeping all the proceeds.

Channels Matter

Google controlling the largest digital book library in the world and the ability to set prices and conditions of use for any services provided by Book Search is problematic. There is no doubt that tomorrow's reader will prefer e- to paper, which makes Google's repository the de facto library for America, and potentially the rest of the world, depending on how this goes with the EU and other markets.

Publishers are OK with this because they have secured monetization rights to new releases, thinking that this is their greatest source of revenue. This tip-of-the-iceberg mentality is fraught with risk. Long-tail principles teach us that more than half of what interests people is not recent, today or kitsch - it's the stuff that's in the inventory that publishers just ceded. Moreover, there is a principle of efficiency or one-stop-shopping that pushes people to go towards more definitive and complete sources. Given that, it's a slam-dunk that every new author is going to want to have their newly-released book in the medium that gives them the most potential readers - Google; this will force publishers to want to push all their content through Book Search.

Of course you will all recognize this as the same dynamic and head-in-the-sand mentality that the RIAA and music industry exhibited in the face of iTunes. Looks like publishers even more naive, 'cause they don't believe this will happen to them.

Channels Rule

This is something publishers know intrinsically, but they're so entrenched in their world that they can't grasp this new paradigm, or the fact that it will subsume their current business. The individual author probably likes this because they're thinking this will results in increased royalties for their books. The Darwinian Free Market Forces (DFMF) person in me says - "Good - let them be victims of their myopia!" But the Serve Society's Best Interests (SSBI) side says - "No - we can't allow this to happen!"

Society (and the people) should control access to its members' works (especially works of art). Broad, universal control of literature, music, art, etc. can not be in the hands of a commercial enterprise, no matter how benevolent they may be, or appear to be. It belongs to the people.

Changing the Channel

What if we form a joint venture (this applies to the USA only) with US Library of Congress (LOC), National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the US Public Libraries and ask Google to turn this Book Search facility over to it. We will form www.booksearch.gov (or bs.gov for short - I'm guessing it'll be easy for people to remember this) as a revenue-generating facility whose profits for the first three years will go to Google (to cover their investment), and following that will go to funding the LOC, NEA and Public Libraries.

This appeases the both the DFMF and SSBI in me and allows us to keep the fruits of society's labors in the hands of the people and not the one.

<<UPDATE - to correct some typos - Thanks John>>

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.

impossible is nothing

According to the Conference Board, about 40% of households will e-file their tax returns this year. Why isn't it higher? It saves the IRS $millions to have people e-file vs. paper-file. Why is it not 99%? Imagine how many trees we'd save just by not having to print all those forms and booklets and stuff? Imagine how much more efficient the IRS would be if it didn't have to transcribe the millions of manually-filled-out forms? Imagine how much less expensive it would be for the Feds to run the IRS!

Let's look at voting systems for elections. Why is this not fully-electronic today? How is it that India, a country that has a much less advanced infrastructure compared to the United States is able to conduct fully-electronic voting? Imagine how many trees we'd save, imagine how much complexity would be eliminated, imagine how many fewer lawyers we'd need! All of this plus we'd learn the results immediately! When the last polls closed, the results (the final results) would be published, and undisputed.

There are many other examples:

• Why does it take so much paperwork for a Veteran to receive their benefits?
• Why is it so hard for a family to apply for tuition assistance?
• Why is it so hard for someone who can't afford to feed their family to get meal-assistance?
• The list is endless.

Don't you wonder why this country insists on remaining in the dark ages so much? After all, this the nation that became something, the thing in a matter of 15-20 generations! It flaunted rules and traditions, challenged the establishment, was noisy, aggressive and passionate, and got it done!!

But then all of a sudden, laurels were found, and people insisted on resting on them. WTF? Why abandon that passion, energy, the feeling of never being satisfied with good enough?

Simple. We became comfortable. We became complacent. We did this because things were going so well (due to the work our predecessors had done), and we figured it would just remain this way no matter what - it was our birthright. Hah!

We forgot the hard work, sacrifice and passion it took to get here in the first place. And most critically, that if this country could do it, any other that wished to put in the hard work would do this and more.

Now all of a sudden, there's a sense of discomfort, that others have not only caught up, but surpassed.

The sense of entitlement, and resulting bureaucracy has led us astray. The effect of mind-numbing paperwork (while useful in keeping certain people employed and feeling like they had the biggest penises in the room) has resulted in hopeless inefficiency; process that take months or years to accomplish what should happen in minutes; and the reality of bureaucratic inertia arresting productive work, and impeding great outcomes.

Let us start somewhere. Why doesn't the IRS take the lead and say that they will only accept paper returns on an exception basis. That they will require that everyone who has an ATM card or a mobile phone or a TV must file electronically. (They will provide mechanisms that allow for that to happen at post offices, public libraries, other state-run facilities and even hospitals.) In the end, even doing this will save more money than it costs to process all the paper returns.

Why doesn't the FEC state that we will require a voting system like the one I described here??

Why doesn't the Veteran's administration say that we will automatically give every Veteran the benefits they're owed - no paperwork required? And so on?

Is it really that hard? I don't think so. Is it equitable for every citizen? No. So why not create exceptional solutions that specifically cater to those "edge-cases" vs. burden the whole system with it? That's a truly equitable solution.

From what I know of the IRS (I had the opportunity to work with it's then CIO about five years ago), this (even accounting for all the special accommodations I described above) would actually be a net cost savings to them; in conversations with people at the Department of Social Security, I heard similar words when talking about their processes.

Maybe it's time for President Obama to enact Patriot Act Part 2 - the American Redemption from the Tyranny of Paperwork.

Oh, and Mr. President: please just email the Act to Congress, and have them e-vote to pass it.

Mega-Negawatts

A negawatt is a watt of power that wasn't consumed. It's a powerful (sorry) concept, and could be a great way to motivate consumers to reduce household energy usage.

The bane of a utility's existence is unanticipated demand - either negative or positive. The former means that they purchased power that was unconsumed. The latter is worse. If the demand for energy exceeds supply, then to meet demand and avoid brownouts or blackouts, the utility desperately needs to buy energy on the spot market, often at a premium, and of course the cost is passed on to the consumer.

Therefore the perfect world for a utility is steady, highly predictable energy usage curve. That gives them ample time to know what they need, when they need it, and then make sure that their buyers or suppliers are able to procure at the best-possible price.

But freak weather conditions, systemic failures (downed power lines, damaged equipment like transformers, etc.), human failures (mistakes, bad decision-making, etc.) can cause unanticipated outages, and require dramatic and expensive steps.

There are wholesale markets where a utility can sell excess energy or buy emergency energy. Assuming you bought your energy at reasonable wholesale prices, it seems likely that you stand to earn a pretty solid return on investment by selling it to a "needy" buyer.

How does this relate to negawatts? This is the cool part. Imagine if you were able to instrument your home so that all power consumption (small and large appliances, heating/cooling, lights, computers, etc.) was managed via a simple browser-based application that you could access from anywhere (think of a schematic of your home and you can turn things on/off, schedule activities, laundry, dishwasher, lights to vacation mode, etc.).

Now imagine if your electricity provider comes to your neighborhood or apartment building and makes you this offer: if all of you wire up your homes (per the paragraph above) at a cost of say $2-300 per house (not horrible), we'll periodically contact you and ask you to lower your energy consumption for a number of hours. And if you as a community are able to do this, and hit the "number" we need, we'll sell the energy you save (negawatts) on the spot market, and share the profits with you.

Ideally, it would be possible to recover the $2-300 initial cost in a matter of months. And now all the future savings are upside. And because you can more closely monitor your usage, connect to your home via the Internet (even with your phone) to make adjustments, or even just to adjust your thermostat to optimize energy usage, you can really make a difference. The utility could also set the "rebate" model so that the bigger the community that participates, the more you get back from them. This creates a dynamic where all the neighbors are interested in each others consumption and maybe even "helping" to make sure everyone toes the line.  Community guilt as it were:-).

The utility company will love this because they can use this motivation to flatten the curve of their overall energy usage; better instrumentation allows them to more accurately predict consumption; and finally, getting the community behind them and participating actively, results in everyone working together to lower our overall energy footprint.

Negawatts - we should all convince our utility companies to do this - it could be a really great way to effective, grassroots energy conservation.

Sense, respond, adapt

The good old days. It's not that they were that good, it's just that in hindsight and since we survived it, we feel a fondness for it. The past is also safer because it's known and understood; the future is obviously neither.

I was reading Seth Godin's latest this morning. We are also in the midst of the Communication Revolution. The implications of this combined with what Seth wrote are huge.

Survival is about agility. The mantra has to be: sense, respond, adapt. Most large (and sedentary) companies will be able to live for a while based on sheer inertia. But that only lasts so long. The automobile industry has run out of momentum. Because things are moving so much more quickly due to the Communication Revolution, there's more friction to arrests the inertia. Move fast or stop moving altogether...

The airline industry learned it too; during the fuel crisis, Southwest Airlines was least scathed, because they had sensed future oil issues, responded with a hedge strategy, and adapted to the new world more successfully as a result.

Apple has done this twice. When they recognized that they were no longer Apple Computers (long before they announced this) but Apple Inc., they ramped up their Apple Store strategy and became a retail force, connecting directly with their customers. Fantastic move to sense that the consumer was becoming more empowered and conscious of their own image; they responded, and adapted. The second time is happening now. It's their recognition of the value of iTunes and that it and the App Store are their new channel to the consumer. I think the ripple effects and impact iTunes and App Store will have are going to be massive, and surprise a lot of people.

Organizations that are naive enough to believe the market will wait patiently while they attempt to extract every possible drop of milk from their cash cows, are in for a much quicker reckoning with reality.

But those that look at change and like the Aikido master, are able to take its inertia and redirect it to their advantage are the ones that will thrive.

Sense ~ Respond ~ Adapt

Energy Innovation

I was listening to an interview on NPR yesterday with an executive from Shell who said that energy independence is impossible, we just need to talk about reducing consumption. Questions arose. What is energy independence? What happens when you have it? What ought to be the right price to pay for this?

I think it is in Americans' nature to think: "if I see something I want and I can get it, unless someone stops me, I'm going to take it." That applies to buying bad mortgages, it applies to eating fast food, and it absolutely applies to energy consumption. We have big cars, big houses, big appliances and big appetites. This isn't true everywhere in the world, though I've seen it more and more in the Middle East and some Latin American countries like Venezuela.

When gas prices rose above $4/gallon, consumption fell. Instead of driving, more people tele-commuted, conducted e-meetings (vs. face-to-face), and braved public transit. People were even more thoughtful about home heating and whether they really needed to run the dishwasher right now. But when prices came back down, the old habits returned and consumption resumed.

There were hard times. People dependent on driving long distances suffered deeply. The American urban sprawl, was built that way because gas prices have historically been so low. When you travel through or live in Europe, you notice that gas prices are two to almost three times higher than here. Moreover, public transit is much more efficient and available, and everything is a lot closer to each other - you hardly need to drive.

The very nature of American urbanization puts us at a tremendous disadvantage compared to the European Union when it comes to the COGS of our products and services. Today, American workers are a bit more productive than their European counterparts, but one never knows how long that will last, and if that advantage erodes, the increased cost of fuel will make our products that much more expensive to sell and buy.

With few exceptions, public transit is abysmal in the US - first because we don't spend any money on it, and second because people mostly hate to use it. Let's change that! There is a large public transit allocation in the stimulus package, why not take this opportunity to change the game? First, all new public transit vehicles must be natural gas or electric powered, second, let's double gas prices again (for non-public transit consumption) with a tax whose proceeds are earmarked for pubic transit investments, and to expand transit coverage beyond city-centers. The results:

1. Lower CO2 emissions
2. Lower fuel imports
3. Cheaper overall transportation costs
4. A re-thinking of American city planning

I know this hurts the already-ailing auto industry because we'd be reducing their demand pretty dramatically, but maybe it's time to smell the coffee and realize that auto manufacturing has way too much capacity as it is, and is simply not sustainable.

Also - I haven't mentioned one very significant result from all of this. American ingenuity. I think when pressed, and when our backs are against the wall, creativity and innovation will occur - this country will produce the successor to the internal combustion engine. It will produce batteries that are (maybe even organic) smaller, have greater capacity and are more safely disposed of. It will design new forms of transportation that fundamentally change the very concept.

This is really what's needed. But to get there, our backs need to truly be against the wall - that's when the magic will happen.

Strategic Entrenchment

About ten years ago, after a mind-numbing series of meetings at work, and in a fit of frustration, I became convinced that "the best predictor of future failure is past success." The conversations were about how to get ready for tomorrow, assuming today is going well, but growth from today's businesses won't be sufficient to meet tomorrow's growth objectives.

Invariably, when one is in a meeting like this, the most closed-minded people are those with the deepest attachment to the "today" businesses. It's a damned shame, since before they got to be "today," they were creative, innovative, anti-establishment people who wished to shake things up and make a difference. But now, their cognitive dissonance makes them completely closed to new ideas that might cannibalize the fruits of their labor. The worst part of this is that they're in charge now.

There is no openness to the idea that future success might come from an altogether different direction, and while it might cannibalize existing, better us than our competitors.

This type of entrenched (some might call it constipated) thinking seems to permeate the large organizations that I've encountered in my life. As I wrote here, the bigger you get, the more distant you become from the things that mattered when you first started, building great products that customers want, and focusing on customer service.

In the case of my employer, this intractability led directly poorer versions of products for our customers (where in some cases they actually preferred the older generation to the new one).

This doesn't just apply to engineering and product development, I've seen the same behavior in marketing and planning organizations who insist on using a certain planning method or marketing framework because it worked once for them back in 2007, and got them promoted. It's akin to a student writing essays only in the format they used in grade 7 because they got an "A" on it, and can't understand why they got a "D" in grade 9.

I'm absolutely not saying that the old way is always the wrong way. I'm just saying that being open to new ideas and opportunities can lead to even better outcomes.

In many cases, the entrenched thinking leads to what Clayton Christensen referred to as "disruptive innovation." The incumbent is so committed to their existing path and product vision that they are simply blind to the possibility of someone fundamentally altering the game. Examples of this from Christensen's book include the mainframe to the mid-range to the PC, or tape drives to disc drives to flash memory, etc. This also happened to Microsoft with Netscape (Internet Explorer) and Linux (Windows), movie theaters with the advent of video cassettes and VCRs, to catsup when Heinz came out with Ketchup [this, IMO is one of the most brilliant marketing strategies ever employed, I will write about this tomorrow], and there are many other examples.

In all cases, the prior success of the "today" leaders simply shuts them off to innovations out of left field that in the end dramatically disrupt their engines.

What then can the leaders of today do to prevent this type of situation? It's very hard to be told your baby is no longer beautiful, nor is it reasonable to expect the "parent" to listen to these nay-sayers. Though one of the best examples of bucking this trend would be Apple and their willingness to cannibalize their amazingly successful iPod line with the iPhone and Touch, or to abandon PowerPC technology for Intel. These were bold moves, that flew in the face of "conventional" thinking, and you have to applaud Apple's management for that.

One approach to helping companies stay open to new ideas, while making sure they extract maximum return from existing events, might tie back to that blog entry Size Does Matter.

What if there was also a policy that once a successful business line in the main company hit a certain profitability and had achieved a specified return (say 200% of the original investment), it was required to spin off 20% of its employees and fund that "start-up" with 5% of the profits for 2-3 years? The start-up is  charged with beating the incumbent and taking down the mother-ship. If after those 2-3 years there are no promising results, the start-up is on its own. But if it succeeded, the parent company would have a choice of bringing them back in-house, or sticking to the program as defined in Size Does Matter, and creating a whole new revenue stream, while milking the last drop out of their cash cow.

How many of us would not jump at the chance to form a whole new group for a well-funded "do it the right way this time"??  I know I would.

Size does matter

When does a company get too big? For most companies, success is defined as rapid, profitable growth. But at some point, the company becomes unwieldy, hires more HR, lawyers and "operations" people than ever imagined, and starts to erode the essential sensibility that made them what they are.

The bigger and more mature an organization gets, the more inwardly focused it gets. (Yes, there are exceptions, but in the main, I think I'm right.) When you start out, and are an unknown underdog, you can't afford to care about anything else but your customers, and building and shipping your product. You are incredibly responsive to the market and your customers, because you'll die if you aren't.

But at some point, you become more focused on yourself, your perception, your opinions, than you do your customers or your products. It's not to say that lip service isn't paid to the customer and the market, but let's face it, even that is a more self-aggrandizing gesture. You take yourself so seriously that now the PR department has a deciding voice in policy.

And if you're looking for the sure sign that you're there: it's when people in the organization get measured on internal awareness campaigns, and actually spend real money advertising to the employees about some little program that only that team cares about.

Another impediment growth was articulated extremely well in this article by Scott Anthony. He talks about how companies raise the bar for successful innovation. In a survey of Fortune 100 companies, some stated that $1 billion was the minimum market opportunity they would target. In other words, innovations that could not demonstrate a $1b revenue opportunity did not qualify for consideration! How do you know? Who knew that you'd be this big when you were starting out, so how are you able to discard opportunities so arbitrarily? Finally, are you really going to believe a forecast a bunch of MBAs wrote based on historical trends and analysis? How often are they right?

It seems that to grow, one must have the willingness to think small, and adopt the rules that encourage an open-minded view of innovation, change and opportunity.

Seth Godin, another very smart guy wrote this really interesting piece recently, in which two paragraphs  connected with me:

Ideas that spread, win. Sometimes ideas get changed in transmission, and sometimes those changed ideas spread even farther and with more impact than the ideas that came before them.

In business, if you lock down ideas, make them difficult to change and spread and have impact, you fail. If you accept the fact that change is real, that there is competition for your ideas and that amplifying the good stuff works, you can grow and thrive.

He's absolutely right. This is a critical element of sustainability, and is ignored often at the organization's peril.

But now I'm wondering - why do I need to grow at all? Why does a company have to keep getting bigger to succeed? Is it possible to stay small and be successful? What if a company (even a public one) decided that it was no longer seeking revenue growth, but feels instead that it's making enough money and that improving its products, processes and services but remaining relatively the same in size is success enough?

What if the employees of this company were happy with that as well? They didn't all want to be CEO, they didn't all need to earn that much more money, they were content with the status quo...

OK - that's just absurd - human nature will not allow this.

Since we can't live in this Zen-infused complacency, how does an organization sustain success? How about combining the views of Anthony and Godin while maintaining a sense of smallness?

What if we were able to build a company whose employees were shareholders, and where innovation and change were embraced. But when an innovation began to flourish, they did three things:

1. The company sold off 60% of the new business, retaining a large but non-majority stake
2. Recouped the cost of its R&D, etc. and hopefully made some profit from the 60% sale
3. Allowed employees related to that business the option of staying or leaving

The effect on their organization would be a new revenue stream added to the investment portfolio, but no commensurate headcount or physical asset growth. If the spin-off did well, they benefited; if it didn't, they didn't lose, since the sale of 60% was implicitly profitable, plus they'd get to write off the 40% that was still on their books.

In the end, the company's performance would be based on their ability to maintain the business they started, and with their culture of open-minded change, the ability to spin off as many profitable innovations as possible, creating new revenue streams, employee growth opportunities, and happy employees and shareholders.

Size does matter, but happiness and success don't require you to be biggest one on the block...

UPDATE:
Pierre de Vries wrote this brilliant entry a couple of days ago (I wish I'd read it before I wrote this). In it he describes the four stages of evolutionary transformation and rebirth (my words) as: "exploitation or growth, a mature conservation phase, a catastrophic release, and finally reorganization leading to new growth." This is conceptually very aligned to what Anthony and Godin talked about as well a most viable alternative path to the one I suggested above. A cycle of continual reinvention might be a very natural and effective way for organizations to avoid bloat and stay vibrant and engaged.

Can we talk?

Wordnet defines "Revolution" as "a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving."

I like the world revolution - and use it often in my vernacular. Today I was thinking about some of the revolutions we've all experienced.

The Industrial Revolution (IR) began in the 18th century, and marked the point when the growth of mechanical work began outpacing the growth of manual work. The technologies that shaped IR were the steam engine, iron founding and textile manufacturing. The business model was centralized, patent-based monetization, where few were granted IP rights, and they built huge economic machines. Resulting innovations in transportation (rail, ship, automobile) caused the effects of the industrial revolution to go global, albeit over a generation or three.

The Information Revolution (IR2) began in the mid-20th century. It was marked by the connection of easily-stored content to widely-available distribution. The technologies that shaped this time were reduction in storage prices, improved data transmission through telephony, TCP/IP for networking, the massively widespread use of PCs, and the invention of the World Wide Web and Internet (thanks to Al Gore of course). The business model shifted from big to small, from centralized to decentralized, and most critically away from just Western centers of power. The value of IP waned compared to the value of awareness and "eyeballs", which when combined with much lower costs of entry into the "network" resulted in more content being available to more people with almost no effort on the publisher's part. Moreover, banking had evolved to the point where people almost anywhere in the world were able to buy things from anywhere else, thereby monetizing their content. The proliferation of PCs combined with the availability of phone lines that could handle data (via modems to start) made this revolution go global in a matter of decades.

The next revolution (which we are now at the beginning of) is the Communication Revolution (CR). It is marked by the proliferation of mobile telephony; search engines (which is really the transition between IR2 and CR); and non-verbal communication modes (SMS, data, email, etc.) and Internet access via cell phones.

In each Revolution, the infrastructure required to participate is progressively smaller. In fact, having a lot of infrastructure actually impedes and steepens (is that a word?) the on-ramp to the next Revolution.

Moreover, the generations that were born in these latter revolutions have very different preconceptions and approaches to doing things. They live in a world that is steeped in "polyphonicness" - and they're comfortable there. They don't feel the need for communication to replicate face-to-face experiences <-- this is a big one IMO. There is no need to simulate a live meeting for effective communication; each has value and impact, but one doesn't supersede the other. They're also less about persistent fidelity (i.e. highest definition audio/video, immersive feel, etc.) and more about efficacy and fitness for purpose. The concept that I needed to talk to you now, found you, in eight words communicated my message, you acknowledged, and we're done, is very efficient and without the burden of "building a relationship first". This can be done via simple text messaging; no need for a Video Conferencing Room that costs $50,000 and requires three admins, five technicians, an owners' manual, four remotes, and all that crap.

With the proliferation of mobile phone systems, this Revolution has begun even more quickly (a decade?). But CR isn't about blurring boundaries (that happened with IR2). This is rather about blurring time.

Standardization --> Discoverability --> Transparency & Immediacy

IR was about standardization through mechanization (you can have any color you want as long as it's black). IR2 was about publishing and sharing. CR is about not being able to hide (or more poetically, being no longer being cloaked in a veil of time, place, and knowledge).

Everybody talked about "Internet time" back in the day, well we're now in cellular time, Dorothy. I don't even need to wait to boot up my machine and open a browser. If I want to know what's going on somewhere, I can call and find out, if I want to talk about something, I can call and share. But I can also Twitter, text, blog, send pictures, etc. - all in real time.

This is the revolution, and its implications are profound.

Most organizations today have a clearly-defined a protocol and hierarchy. This structure creates latency. They simply don't have the ability to respond in real time to real problems or opportunities. In the CR world, MBAs are a hindrance - they take too long and obsess overly about historical patterns and writing reports.

The concept of a sense-and-respond organization does not yet exist. The Communication Revolution is pointing this out every day as we learn about the bungling acts of corporations and governments. In the past, they would have had the time to manage the conversation, control the message, and have a measured response or be able to hide it. Now they look like buffoons with their heads cut off.

We need to build a business model that embraces sense/response; it needs to have measures, discipline, and an infrastructure that's able to accommodate what CR requires. This capacity is a priority for survival in this Revolution and for whatever is coming next. The leaders of this new model are very much not the leaders to today's corporations or government.

I was reading this MSNBC article today and was freaked out at the thought that Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer or Robert Gates don't use email for work! So if you want to communicate quickly to them, you need to write a memo, print it, and deliver it to one of their minions who will (if the mood strikes) find a way to get it in their hands at some point.  Holy SH*T! This is how we run a country?

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).

Are you ready?

Philanthropy, foreign policy and sustainable outcomes

There's a lot of talk lately about what role the Obama government should play in helping emerging countries ascend. Most attempt to marry philanthropy and relatively short-term, Western ideas about what we think "they" really need. I wonder if we're simplifying too much and over-committing to the idea of philanthropy?

When philanthropy does create an outcome, how long does it last once the funds and the Westerners leave? If the intervention is not in the natural flow of the local community, and something that they would make a trade-off for within their hierarchy of needs, how often does it succeed?

I'm reminded of a story I read a while back about a Microsoft executive who visited a school in Guatemala - essentially someone donated a satellite dish + internet access to a school; at some point they stopped paying the satellite bill, and there ended that project.

Sustainability is the panacea for all intervention. But things only stick if all the players wish it to, and would make the trade-off for it vs. other priorities. In many emerging communities, the other priorities include food, shelter, income, and healthcare. Even education doesn't always make the cut.

The most successful recent technological intervention in emerging communities is the mobile phone. The innovation was in the sale of cheap handsets and pay-as-you-go plans. The Western investment was typically to build the network (cell towers), and provision very simple, cheap handsets and SIM cards via local retailers.

It succeeded because it was about business not philanthropy. A market investment was made to create a symbiotic relationship - provide a service that the local community wants and willing to pay for. It took time for this to happen, but now there are ancillary businesses that have grown organically from this and it is self-sustaining.

Historical successes include the TV and VCR, though they are used sporadically since they need continuous electricity, which a mobile phone does not. I think this is one reason why PCs don't (and won't) do so well.

I would make the bet in the mobile communication arena (vs. PC computing, or pure internet access, or whatever), and I would consider the following for-profit ventures:

1. Provide ubiquitous and very-low-cost mobile data plans, and provision low-cost data-enabled mobile phones
2. Build a simple, pervasive text and mobile data (3G, GPRS, etc.) e-banking and e-transaction service 
3. Create and distribute mobile educational curriculum, much like Kumaras Pillay does in South Africa
4. Develop mobile content on how to use #1 & 2 to create your own e-business in local languages

The Obama administration should promote investments that create a symbiotic relationship between the Western companies, local companies, and local consumers, but that's just fluff.

The Administration's real role should be to catalyze the ITU and the World Bank to negotiate multinational, multi-party deals that enable #1 & 2, and spawn companies in partnership with UNESCO to build pan-African (say) mobile curriculum for #3. If the large Western companies have a brain (and they do), they will help build #4 in each market to drive increased adoption and usage.

The "owner" should be Hillary Clinton, the new Secretary of State. It should take six months to negotiate the deals with the various parties, and 24-36 months before we see results from pockets of  critical mass. It should cost relatively little to do this (low-interest loans to upgrade cell towers for data access (~$25mm),  implementation of a simple e-banking model (~$1-2mm), and curriculum development ~$2-3mm)), and say 3-5 people in the Administration to oversee progress.

The citizens would benefit if the services were of enough interest to warrant spending their very scarce funds. The local companies would form organically and benefit their communities. The larger (and sometimes Western) companies would benefit because their markets had expanded.

America would benefit because it believes (as Obama said many times) in peace through improved global education, prosperity and communication.

A rising tide lifts all boats. As value is provided to the lowest layer, its worth rises, and goodness flows throughout the whole system. It might take more time (3-5 years) than we'd like, but the result is pervasive, locally-owned and sustained improvement, and a good step towards peace and prosperity for all.

1:1 laptop programs?

Pierre de Vries found some interesting data that made me wonder about this. So I compared the data that Pierre referenced from the Economist to the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) data on student performance around the world (both are 2006 studies). 

There's no correlation between the two; some of the high performing countries have more computers per capita and some don't.

Many of the countries in the high-performing list aren't in the high-computer list. This is not based on a defensible statistical analysis, but if there isn't a correlation, then why are we all obsessed with adding more technology to the classroom?

The atoms that make up the molecule we call a great education don't seem to require a high percentage of tech. I wonder what the critical atoms are?

We know that a great teacher is the beginning, so that's number one. What's number two? Is it curriculum, assessments, parents, the environment (building, furniture, etc.), urban vs. rural, economic factors, genetics?

What?

Is there something else?

If this second critical factor is X, then is it something that we could use ICT to improve?

Is it something we could use public policy to improve?

Is it something we can use money to improve?

Or does this molecule depend on all these other ingredients in some measure, but at the end of the day, it's all about the teacher?

If that's true, then it pretty clearly points us to doing as much as we all are able to proliferate wonderful and brilliant teachers.

Is it as simple as that? Is this the one and only place we need to focus? If we as a society put all our attention and energy into creating better teachers, do we win? More importantly, do our children win?

If this is the panacea, then what is preventing us from doing what we need to? Is it the teachers' unions? Is it the intractability of teachers who teach the one year they know every year? Is it how standardized testing has polluted/forced the teacher to teach a certain way? Is it money? Is it how the school system in this country is organized (thousands of districts vs. a central mechanism)?  What?

Is this the one thing we need to solve to transform education everywhere?

Find the Joy

A good friend of mine used this phrase (find the joy) as his IM tag. He is a brilliant marketer. I think I now understand what he meant, but it took one other person and two other experiences to help me get there.

I recently attended a lecture by Tony Wagner who talked about, among other things, his seven survival skills for teens today (as expressed in his book The Global Achievement Gap). 

1. Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
2. Collaboration across Networks and Leading by Influence
3. Agility and Adaptability
4. Initiative and Entrepreneurialism
   
5. Effective Oral and Written Communication
6. Accessing and Analyzing Information
7. Curiosity and Imagination

During the lecture, he asserted that these are the necessary ingredients to assure the success of a school in the 21st century. I was sitting next to a good friend Marja Brandon, who raised her hand to say that there was a missing ingredient - joy. She is the head of Seattle Girls School, and her school absolutely embraces these seven, but the ingredient that makes her school successful is #8 - Joy. The hallways, classrooms, the very fabric of the school must be steeped in joy, for this must the stuff of any place where our children spend time.

The second experience came today as I read Martin Lindstrom's article in Advertising Age entitled How Apple, Others Have Cultivated Religious Followings. In it, he talks about the nine ingredients required to create brand following: A Clear Vision, A Sense of Belonging, An Enemy, Sensory Appeal, Storytelling, Grandeur, Evangelism, Symbols, and Rituals.

Like Wagner, I think Lindstrom forgets that final ingredient of Joy. I own a lot of Apple gear, and I know that feeling of making my purchase at the Apple Store, or receiving a package at home, and further that feeling you get when you share the newest, coolest app that you just downloaded for your iPhone with a fellow-iPhoner. (It is enhanced when you sense the rest of the group's envy at not having that particular toy!)

Joy makes me return to the store, it is also what makes Marja's students run to school everyday.

My good friend was right with his IM tag - "find the joy" is fundamental, and Marja was right about her school. If you can find, capture, and sustain this feeling, you get to be successful. And what's more, to the outside world, it looks incredibly easy and natural; and your peers/competitors all look with envy because it is that ineffable thing that they simply don't know how to name or capture.

There is no doubt in my mind that finding and holding on to the joy is one of the most difficult things any person or organization will do.

It takes hard, hard work, a truly authentic commitment, and the integrity and savvy to recognize and respect it.

Edu-Luddites

I am a big fan of Aaron Sorkin.  I've written about him a couple of times already. Thanksgiving is a time for TV, I've been watching the first season of the West Wing again, and was struck by these two scenes (with my yellow highlight):

TOBY: ...The Torah doesn't prohibit capital punishment.
RABBI GLASSMAN: No
TOBY: It says, "An eye for an eye."
RABBI GLASSMAN: You know what it also says? It says a rebellious child can be brought to the city  gates and stoned to death. It says homosexuality is an abomination and punishable by death. It says men can be polygamous and slavery is acceptable. For all I know, that thinking reflected the best wisdom of its time, but it's just plain wrong by any modern standard. Society has a right to protect itself, it doesn't have a right to be vengeful. It has a right to punish, but it doesn't have to kill.

And this:

SAM: Mallory, education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes. We need gigantic monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. School should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense. That's my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet.

The first is from the episode entitled: Take this the Sabbath Day, and the second is from Six Meetings Before Lunch. The conversation is about capital punishment in the former, and public schools in the latter.

Relevance? Last night, I wrote about Bob Watt and Redefining Learning; this is a bit of a sequel to that, specifically, the social why.

As I learn more about education, I am surprised that there is such deep entrenchment among those that care, so much desire to maintain the status quo, such an obsession with making sure that "my kids learn just the way I did."  It's horrible.

The dream is that all edu-luddites reflect on this and realize that in the words of Wayne Gretzky, "a good player skates to where the puck is, a great player skates to where the puck will be."  We must be ever-vigilant to never want to skate to where the puck was.

Analogy: when their children turn 16, parents will often bow to the pressure of buying them a car. More often than not, it's a old beater car that, well let's face it, won't really be missed if the kid gets in that inevitable car accident.  Oh?  But what about your child??  Won't they be missed?? Is it OK if they are damaged in this accident because the car didn't have the best accident avoidance and safety technology? How do you reconcile caring more about the car than your child??

Hence the second quote by Sam Seaborn. It's how we should feel about schools, teachers, and education. It has to be the best it can be and must set tomorrow's standard. 

You can argue that "if it aint broke, don't fix it" - and in some cases I might agree. But what about our current education system aint broken? I've written about this many times, the last three postings are here, here, and here. We have to fix it. But as with a virulent cancer that will spread if not checked, we need aggressive and revolutionary intervention or the patient will die.

"For all [we] know, that thinking reflected the best wisdom of it's time, but it's just plain wrong by any modern standard."  "We don't need little changes. We need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should make six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense." 

Let us summon the guts to make it so.  Let us also hope that President Elect Obama is a fan of The West Wing.

Redefining Learning

I had coffee with a very interesting person on Wednesday, Bob Watt. He's been a player in the business of Education for many moons here in the Seattle area, across the State of Washington, and beyond.

It was obviously a great learning experience for me (considering I've only been in the education space since February), and I really appreciated Bob's time and willingness to share his insights and help educate me. Our conversation spanned many aspects of education, focused specifically on early childhood.  It was fascinating.

Bob introduced me to the work of I-LABS (Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences) at the University of Washington.  He has graciously arranged for me to tour their facilities - I can't wait!

One insight he shared, based on work at I-LABS: when you observe the brains of two sets of eight-month-old children (one in Taiwan and one in Seattle) as they are being spoken to in Mandarin, both sets of brains react the same way! Implying that both sets have the same capacity to learn a new or current language. Very interesting.

Part two. Same kids in Taipei, and the Seattle group divided in three, one control group, where each month for 12 months the kids and their parents came to I-LABS to play for 25 minutes; the second group had a Taiwanese person sit with them for the same 25 minutes and read stories and engage the children in Mandarin; the third group received the same treatment as the 2nd except that the person appeared before them via a plasma display vs. in person.

12 months later (when these children were 20 months old), they repeated the same brain scans while being spoken to in Mandarin.  The Taiwanese children in Taipei obviously reacted to Mandarin; the control group had zero reaction; the "live" group reacted just like the children in Taipei (wow!); and the "plasma TV" group reacted just like the control group (double wow!!).

Interpretation: in person, 25 minutes a month for 12 months was enough  to help  a young child gain an affinity for a new language! And remotely, it carried no value whatsoever.

Wow!  The conclusion that Bob drew for me is equally interesting and more than a bit provocative: for the first ten or so years, there is tremendous value in increasing the ratio of educators to children. After that, additional data shows that students are able to learn quite well with less touch and even with remote (or computer-based) touch.

So - here's Bob's idea: let us invest in very high student:teacher ratios (10:1 or lower) and 7am to 5pm schooling that provides the most high-touch and greatest educational foundation to our students. Then from age 10-18, let's shift to even as high as a 60:1 ratio with increased computer aided learning.

If the result of this approach is that our education system now creates great students, all of whom graduate from high school with an intellect worthy of the DNA our parents gave us, how can we not do this?

But what is the opportunity cost of doing this? At a national level, could it be less money spent on unemployment insurance, reduction in crime (because more graduates are more employable and able to legally earn a family wage), reduced unwanted pregnancies, a higher GDP, improved quality of life for everyone, happier citizens?

When do we start?

Education CTOs Beware!

eSchool News posted an interesting article about the relationship between a CTO (Chief Technology Office) and her/his Superintendent. In a nutshell, they say you should be a good servant - communication and trust are the key ingredients.

I don't agree.

The role of a good CTO in any organization is to:

1. Know your business (i.e. the business of your employer); know it really well, and have total clarity on how success is defined, measured and achieved.
2. Know the ICT landscape as it relates to your business (not just the mainstream, but the periphery too); most critically, know where it's heading three to five years out; and know where others in your industry are heading.
3. Be a leader and visionary within your organization, championing the best of #2 where it materially contributes to #1, or where it will in the future materially contribute to #1.
4. Work with other ICT leaders in the business to make sure you have an ICT infrastructure that offers the most flexibility and latitude to be whatever it needs to be today and tomorrow with minimal change/remediation.
5. Be the force, help others use it, and use it wisely.

Anything else is too small, too narrow, and actually the job of an IT implementer vs. a CTO.

If a school system has a CTO, the implication is that they invested in this resource because they view ICT as a strategic advantage to achieve even more excellent learning outcomes for their students.

For a legitimate CTO that takes this role on without that kind of affirmation, I regret that unless you got lucky, you're in for an unhappy reality.

Communication and trust are important for every employee. The CTO needs to be more and have more. Much more.

Bailout madness

Update: David Brooks also wrote about this topic - another incisive mind and great editorial.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Thomas Friedman has a great mind. His Nov 11 editorial spoke to me.

In any right-minded world, it should be the goal of the stakeholders of that organization to ensure that the best possible management and governance are in place, and further that that management is committed to the sustained best interest of the organization. As the citizen stakeholders, we must act.

It's surprising to me that the management of all of the organizations, be they financial services, manufacturers, or lemonade stands who are asking for bailouts have never gone public with analysis of what happened, why it happened, the nature of their missteps, and most critically, specifics on what they intend to do to return their company to a position of strength.

Further, what do they intend to do with the cash infusion?  Just pay the bills and change nothing??  Does anybody with a brain believe that that's a good place to throw money?

What to do instead?  Well - I wrote a while back about the lending crisis, and I think a similar strategy should be employed with the automobile industry. Let's not give those that failed miserably more money to fail even more miserably.  Please.

So - how to motivate new car buyers?  How about this:

1. The American government creates a used car purchase and export program to donate used cars to developing countries. Used cars are purchased at the 2005 Blue Book value (to give the seller a premium).
2. The cars are then refurbished (economic stimulus to the car parts, servicing and detailing companies), and shipped (stimulus to the shipping/transport industries) to other countries, as negotiated by the Department of State.
3. Consumers are given an economic incentive (government funded loans through the banks (giving them the cash flow) @ 1% per year for 4 years) to purchase new cars. The incentive would also include a 4-year insurance discount of 25% (again funded by the government). 
   
4. Consumers are ONLY required to buy domestically-manufactured cars, but not just from the Big 3.  Any American-built car is eligible. The market forces should prevail, allowing consumers to spend their money where they choose. If the Big 3 don't have the best product, they don't deserve to win, but American automotive workers do benefit.
5. If one or more of the Big 3 end up failing because of this, the foreign manufacturers should have an opportunity to buy them out, but they should not be obligated to hire union labor, nor should they be held accountable for the legacy retired worker pension problem. The UAW should be obligated to liquidate its funds to cover what they can, and the rest is in the hands of the former employees. 
   

While this may sound harsh, it is reality. Others don't keep getting their pensions funded when they lose their jobs. All retirees receive state-funded medical care, and the rest is now in their hands, the hands of their families and the UAW, who after all was formed to take care of them.

I believe this type of plan could work quite well, while preserving the principles of a market economy.  No doubt some people will suffer, but the alternative of wholesale corporate welfare is even worse.

 The used  car buy-back reduces the inventory of these cars in the country (which is good), puts (on a percentage basis) more fuel-efficient and safer cars on the road than any other time in history (both in the US and elsewhere) and increases consumers' spending power. This type of stimulus approach has the added benefit of not rewarding the imbeciles that got us in this mess in the first place, and hopefully forces all of those decision-makers into corporate purgatory.

Voting?

I can't. Mostly because I'm a Canadian citizen, and an American resident. Which means I get to pay American taxes, but have little say in nature of government that will manage them:).

This election has been an incredible experience (even for a non-voter like me). I began to get interested towards the end of the Clinton-Obama primary contest, and it's been hard to let go ever since, though more like trying to ignore an accident on the highway vs. wanting to watch the first moon-landing.

Two questions right up front:

• Why does it take so long to do this?
• Why does it require so many elections to select a leader?

Is this an outcome of history? Is it because the current election "system" was defined in the 1970s when communication was limited, TV, radio and newspapers were infrequently experienced, and it simply took time for the entire electorate to get a sense of the candidates and their platforms? Is it because we've become obsessed with the reality TV culture and need to spend months on end living in these bizarre people's lives? Or is it because we're more interested in the process and not the outcome?

From my very naive and external point of view, it seems to me that we can create some simple rules about an election given the nature of communication today, and the profusion of information and communications technology (ICT).

What if this were the new 2012 American election system - a-la Shafeen (assuming a Nov 6, 2012 election & 200 million eligible voters):

Duration (61 + 97 = 158 days):

• Party primaries begin June 1, 2012, and needed to be completed by July 31, 2012.  All the states vote together, and it happens on the last Tuesday in July.
• The National election begins August 1, 2012, and goes through election day.

Funding ($25m X # of candidates in primary + $150m = $450m total (assuming six primary candidates/party)).

• Total available funding for each candidate equals the total number of eligible voters X $0.50 = $100m max.
• Candidates can spend a maximum of 25% (1/4) of their budget for the primaries ($25m max).
• Therefore, only two candidates will spend 100% of the budget.
• Fund-raising for the primaries is private. There are no donation limits, but all donors must be identified. There are no anonymous donors, and donors must be American citizens or American organizations (i.e. based in and pay taxes in the USA).
• The 75% ($75m each) for the candidates in the national election is publicly financed.
• Candidate advertising may only take place during the time allocated for the election.
  
• Total accountability of all monies spent by all candidates is required, and their budgets must be posted on their website and is subject to audit.
• Candidates for lesser offices are bound by these same rules, their budgets are based on the size of their local electorate.
  

External agencies:

• Can not advertise on behalf of the candidate. Of course no-one can suppress freedom of speech, but advertising on behalf of (or against) a candidate can only be funded by the candidate's budget per above.
• The DNC/RNC are equally constrained. Their only latitude is the ability to use advertising to neutrally encourage voting.
• Oh - there's no such thing as registering voters anymore. Now every voter who is eligible is registered automatically.

Voting process:

• Voting comes with accountability - each person's vote is cast and recorded, and connected back to them. 
• Voting technology: in 2010 the next generation of mobile phones and ATMs emerged that identified people via thumb print or retina scan. These became very rapidly prolific due to risks of hacking for older-style devices.  90% of voters in 2012 now have one of these devices, and will vote at their leisure. There will be limited polling places for those that don't - these will be City Halls, Libraries, and Post Offices, where a voter can use similar technology (finger print/retina scanner to identify themselves and then choose their candidates) to cast their "ballot".
  
• Miraculously in 2009 the President listened to a 23-year-old Computer Science PhD student who described his PhD thesis, which is a very safe algorithm for secure voting based on the technology that underlies ATM networks.  So voting is now relatively secure, and results can be known within minutes of the polls closing. 

Overall:
In 2012 the election costs a relatively fixed (though still egregious) amount of money, it takes much less time, and results are audited and delivered to the public very shortly after the polls close.

Why isn't this possible??

The 21st Century Imperative

Scott McLeod has a very interesting conversation going about a 21st century learning system.  One person asked a great question - why all of a sudden is it different?  How are this century's children different from any other century's and why does learning have to change?  Since innovation has occurred in every century, why is this one different?

All great questions. So why is this century different and why does it require a special and new system? I recently saw a great presentation by Martin Beanof Microsoft, where he talked about some interesting perceptions over the ages:

• From a teacher's conference in 1703: "Students today can't prepare bark to calculate their problems. They depend on slates which are more expensive. What will they do when slate is dropped and breaks? They will be unable to write!"
• From a principal's publication in 1815: "Students today depend on paper too much. They don't know how to write on a slate without getting chalk dust all over themselves. They can't clean a slate properly. What will they do when they run out of paper?"
• From the National Association of Teachers Journal 1907: "Students today depend too much upon ink. They don't know how to use a pen knife to sharpen a pencil. Pen and ink will never replace the pencil."
• From the Rural American Teacher 1928: "Students today depend upon store-bought ink. They don't know how to make their own. When they run out of ink they will be unable to write words or ciphers until their next trip to the settlement. This is a sad commentary on modern education."
• From the PTA Gazette 1941: "Students today depend on these expensive fountain pens. They can no longer write with a straight pen and nib. We parents must not allow them to wallow in such luxury to the detriment of learning how to cope in the real business world which is not so extravagant."
• From Federal Teachers 1950: "Ball point pens will be the ruin of education in our country. Students use these devices and throw them away. The American values of thrift and frugality are being discarded. Businesses and banks will not allow such luxuries."

:)  Interesting that in every case, the institution was skeptical about a better enabler of communication. Today, the skepticism is about a better enabler of access to communication, and more specifically, how communication enables profound access to information.
 
This is where the game changed. Historically, teachers/academia/libraries held exclusive domain on knowledge. They chose to impart it on their terms, and the system (pedagogy, assessment, curriculum design, etc.) were all based on this bottleneck.
 
But now, anyone and everyone has access to information, lectures, assignments, tests, etc. And it's pretty much unfiltered (and indeed un-vetted).  This was exacerbated by the current No Child Left Behindpolicy, which bases academic accomplishment solely on arcane testing. How sad.
 
So - where is the teacher's power today? Where is the institution's power? Other than the mere ability to bestow diplomas, it's all in the hands of the teacher, whose ability to control information has been eliminated. Those teachers that can't cope, those teachers that can't engage students, those teachers that can't be the inspiration for their students, to help them:

1. Learn how to effectively find what's relevant from all sources.
2. Understand principles and basic concepts.
3. Learn how to combine all of this and turn it into analysis and then insight.
4. Effectively and persuasively communicate their insights.

I guess the real essence of 21st century learning is not in the hands of the students or the institution, but the educators. It will be their ability to capture, motivate, inspire, compel that will rule the day. In this sense, it's not that different from any other century.
 
The only difference is how obvious poor educators will be. Let's hope more than less have the sense to retool or retire.

Policy and Innovation

MSNBC/NYT wrote recently about how the two presidential candidates view innovation and the role of government therein. 

One candidate believes in market forces and trusts the capitalistic system to focus on and do the right thing. The other candidate wishes to hedge that bet with a more deterministic approach to have the government lay the groundwork and build the foundation.

On principle, I'm inclined to support the former (believing that governments generally don't do well thinking strategically), and allow vision and strategy to be set by those closer to the action and the opportunities, and more able to actually make change happen.

But there are two factors are making me question my view.

1. The mechanical/manufacturing nature of the education system.  It aspires to the lowest common denominator outcome, where success is based on the number of units (students) produced (graduated) with minimal view to the quality of the finished product or the quality of the production process. The talent pool coming into the work force is ever weaker...


2. The reality of instant information conveyance, which means that everyone (industry, commercial entities, schools, etc.) must focus on their image, perception and performance today vs. their efforts to create potential value that will only be seen in the future.

The result of these two forces is dastardly.  First - the machine is not producing effective raw materials for the commercial/industrial world.  Students need more remediation now when they leave any school system than ever before and obviously at much higher cost.  That cuts into the cost of doing business at every stage.

Second, with the obsession to make sure they look good now in front of the press and analysts that dictate their perception (and in large part their destiny), there is ever more pressure on the commercial world to produce now and to hell with the future.  Cynically I would imagine most of the leaders of the commercial world recognize that their half-life is so brief that the only success that matters is the quarter they're in and the one to come. 

In this type of world, it seems naive to put the future in the hands of organizations that simply don't have the luxury to conceive of a world beyond the next six months.  How will they ever trade off investments that we need to enable innovation for decades to come against tactics that create immediate impact??

But I'm still worried about whether the government has the ability and capacity to effectively accomplish this mission.  I wonder if this is the ideal opportunity to create a public-private-partnership (PPP) who is chartered with the goal of accomplishing this, and given the government's commitment that it (government) will adhere to the findings, recommendations, and investments that the PPP proposes?