~synthesis~

Who are we really protecting?

Roy Romer wrote today about Andres Alonso, CEO of the Baltimore City Public School District, and the challenges he's facing in not wanting to obfuscate the fact that today his schools are not turning out graduates who are ready for the next step in life (higher-education or the workforce).

This chart shows the gap in test scores for the Baltimore schools vs. the rest of Maryland (thanks to Trulia.com).  So let's set aside the question of whether standardized tests are the best approach to this, I wrote about this here. 

According to the Washington Post, Blair Ewing of the school board wishes to delay successfully passing the tests as a criterion for graduation by a year to give students a chance.  This despite the fact that the school system, parents and students have known about this requirement for many years now.

This is just wrong. Why?

First - knowingly graduating students who do not have the skills to move to the next stage in their lives is a HUGE disservice to the students. They will not be able to get meaningful employment or move to tertiary education simply because they are not ready, and will be rejected.  How does that help?  Moreover, because they are establishing the reputation of the Baltimore City School District, they're actually making it much harder for students that follow to get a fair shake, even if those students are at or above the required proficiency!

Second - isn't the whole point of a school to educate its students? If so, then how do you turn them out into the world without having done your job? 

Third - what of the teachers, curriculum and assessments that have contributed to this? Will any of that change in the year to come? It doesn't appear that Blair advocates doing anything about that.

Fourth - where is the accountability of the board to the parents and students?

Blair doesn't believe the students were exposed to the teaching required to have passed the tests, so let's just graduate them anyway!  Unbelievable!  Reading this we all know that the only thing Blair wants to do is protect himself, and his reputation.  He cares not at all about the students. For shame!

If I were a resident of the city of Baltimore, I'd demand his termination and removal from the board, and maybe even tar and feather him <-- actually that pleasure should go to the students that he is attempting to betray.

Kudos to Andres Alonso for his integrity, as evidenced by this quote: "The notion that it is worse to hold them back rather than pushing them through unprepared is criminal."

We can only hope that under his leadership the District begins to face its problems head-on, take accountability, and attempt to fix things vs. impale their heads in the sand.

You are what you measure

Does America really care about education? On the face of it, we seem to. We spend more money on it than anyone, it's in every candidate's platform, and parents for the most part seem to care as well.

But the results don't bear this out.  American students are nowhere near the top of the global rankings. So what's not working? 

There's this universal truth - you are what you measure.

And how does America measure education?  Standardized tests.

And here is where that's gotten us: 20% high school drop out rates, 1.3 million (yes, million) high school graduates in remedial classes to bring them up to the bare minimum readiness for university, 93% of American teachers with little or no science training, the list goes on. 

According to the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress), Massachusetts ranks #1 in academic performance in the United States, and yet only 75% of her students graduate from high school.

If you're interested in how NAEP tests our children - give it a go - the tests are embarrassingly easy, seeming almost to be "rigged" to increase the passing rates, and yet we still suck.

So what have I/we learned?

1. Despite the appearance of being "designed" to maximize pass rates, we still fail 
2. These tests do nothing to improve two core measures - dropout rates and readiness for the next evolution (university or the workforce)
3. By measuring teachers on their students' ability to pass a test, we are making the teachers teach to the test and only to the test, and we can't even seem to do that well

What can we do?

1. Define more pragmatic and relevant measures of success (suggestions below)
2. Pay for performance
3. Recognize that resistance to #2 is likely to come from the institutions as well as the unions that represent interested parties
4. Get the next President to care and make one of his top 3 priorities
5. Participate - all of us must be pushy and demanding
   

Suggested measures of success:

1. Reduction in dropout rates: every (100%) student in this country must graduate high school by 2025
2. Replace SAT and other standardized tests with performance-based assessments: every tertiary (post high school) school (university, college, community college, etc.) should be required (starting with the Sept 2008 incoming class) to report on student performance in their school based on the high school where they graduated:
   • Ranking #1 - each high school is ranked based on the percentage of students that require remediation (ex. if 20 out of 100 students needed remediation, that school's ranking is 80%); the goal is to be at 100%
   • Ranking #2 - each high school is measured on their students' performance vs. the all-up average student performance in that year (if there are 500 students in the freshman class, 10 from your high school, and your first year grades (as a group of 10) were 5% better than average, then your high school's ranking is 105%; the goal is to get as big a number as possible
   • Ranking #3 - the last four years' rankings are published to demonstrate the school's sustained performance ~over the trailing Gr 9-12 period<-- this is for high school, we can do the same for elementary and middle school
     
3. We will invest to bring, and incent to keep every school up to a "university-ready" standard, and give bonuses to schools that improve beyond that based on the performance of their graduating students at the end of their freshman year
4. Rather than create a teacher-based performance/incentive model, I prefer an institution-based one, to foster a sense of team + reflect the fact that the student learns from the whole school
5. There can be teacher-based incentives at the local level, just not at the national level
   

This is just 30 minutes' work to jot this down.  I imagine there are many people much smarter and more knowledgeable that could come up with a SIMPLE and CLEAR way to measure school performance, and then a simple and effective way to incent the desired behavior.

The audacity of hope - circa 2004

I saw this for the first time today. It is remarkable. 

Wouldn't it be an amazing thing if all politics was about fighting for vs. fighting against someone?

Whoever wins, let us hope this is the voice of American government in January.

Economic crisis and perception

Mark Cuban's generally spot-on with his thoughts on leadership, market economics, and many other topics. But this time, I think he's off-base:

In this post, he suggests that we should also bail out people's credit card debt.  I don't agree.

I do believe that the Feds should step in to help with the foreclosure problem, though don't agree with their approach - here's what I think should have happened.

But, helping reduce basic, simple consumer debt doesn't make sense. I still get 2-3 offers/week for credit cards from various lenders. They're not hesitating to lend these dollars. Consumers are still amazingly ...dumb about their persistence in getting into credit-card debt. You've written about this.

What does make for a great consumer stimulus? Positioning and marketing.

In their haste to get Congress to act, the Fed, Treasury and White House went on a massive campaign to tell the world how bad things are, how dire the situation is if not addressed immediately, and how quickly we're going to go into a massive depression if Congress doesn't immediately do what they want.

Congress acted. But the Fed/Treasury/White House kept up the fear message, saying it's much worse than they thought and will take much longer to fix than they anticipated.

Why would anyone want to go out and spend given this? 

Reducing credit card liability might give people a chance to breath a sigh of relief, but it's not going to get them to spend more. 

To do that, the three Amigos above + the candidates + Wall Street + others need to start talking about the fundamentals of the American and global economy, and that they remain strong; they will need to assure consumers that debt will be available soon, and that the market is starting to bottom out, and there are some amazing bargains (both on Wall Street and in the neighborhood mall) to be had, and that the iron is hot - strike now!

It's a perception game.

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.

To boldly go where we MUST...

According to this article, fully 25% (yes, one in four!) high school students in America drop out.  I had no idea the situation was this grave.

President Bush’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) blueprint was intended to reform education.  But I can't imagine they'd call this success. In addition to a 25% dropout rate, from a quick very informal survey (of teachers and administrators), the implementation of NCLB doesn’t seem to be working on the ground. In fact, according to these teachers, it’s making the education worse.

What’s more, according to this, colleges are spending more than $2 billion a year to prepare incoming freshmen (one was actually an “A” student in English!) with remedial classes to bring them up to a basic college standard!!!

Can we do better than this?

Well, there's this other president who made an amazingly bold statement that became the mission of this nation. In 1962, John F. Kennedy said these words at Rice University:

We choose to go to the moon in this decade, and do the other things -- not because they are easy; but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills; because that challenge is one that we're willing to accept; one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win -- and the others, too.

Wow. This passage from earlier in the speech is rather wonderful as well: 

We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a State noted for strength. And we stand in need of all three.

For we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear; in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases the greater our ignorance unfolds.

It seems to me, that both of these quotes apply almost exactly to our conversation. Change “go to the moon” to “educate and prepare our children for the 21st century”, and you have a mandate for the decade to come.

Why is this not possible?  I don’t believe anyone (of any party, social, racial, economic or intellectual status) would argue that the single greatest contributor to the future success of any community/country is the ability of its people to have the passion and capacity to be great.

How would we measure this?  How about this:

1. We must double the number of qualified tertiary (university and community college) students in this country by 2025.

2. We must therefore double the number of tertiary slots available to students, in both under and post-graduate.
3. We must eliminate tertiary freshmen remediation. 
4. High schools should be funded based on the grades of their graduates at the end of their freshman and sophomore years in university or college.

There’s a lot more to say here, but this is at least one hour’s thinking on this – here’s hoping this becomes a flagship mandate for whichever candidate wins the presidency.

The Plight of CEOs

Michael Porter talked recently about seven things that surprise new CEOs.  In a nutshell - it's tough to be a real leader vs. an operations manager, be clear on whom you're supposed to please, stay within yourself and know that the role is as much an icon as it is a real person.

I was around a number of CEOs recently, new ones, veterans, successes, and soon to be unemployed ones as well. Many shared stories of the surprises that Porter referenced.

Few had read Jim Collins' Good to Great, a book that in my opinion eliminates the prospect of any of these seven (and many other) gotchas. Even fewer had read The Art of War by Sun Tzu; sadly many had never even heard of this book!

It saddens me that so many CEOs are so ill-equipped to be in that role. The basics of leadership seem to be lost, and most of these people's pedigree tended to be one (often public) success that propelled them to be poached and then placed in this supreme role with high expectations and little preparation.

Most of the new CEOs also disdained anything that was done before they got there, and without real analysis or discussion, started from scratch a-la the "new sheriff in town". This resulted in disempowerment, lack of focus, a lot of self-doubt, and fear of sharing any "un-massaged" news at the risk of being another casualty of new-CEO-itis.  This isn't to say that one should always stay the course, but being smart and judicious, and listening to the organization and its people might guide how best to affect change.

Is this forced upon them? Did they just do a bad job of negotiating (getting caught up instead in the definition of their golden parachute)?  Why does this happen so often?

What about the board of directors? Where is their culpability in setting themselves up for failure like this? Bringing in this new gunslinger (as many are wont to do in tough times) places an enormous burden on the person and the organization. Change happened because of poor performance, or bad planning (no succession strategy). And the new CEO's expected to boldly lead the company out of the mess and onto a path of unmitigated success.

How often does that happen? (Very rarely.) And how often has it been tried? (Almost every day.) Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. How insane are the boards of today?

They demand change (sounds like our election:)). But change for the sake of change is just dumb. Is change really needed? If so, what kind? People? Strategy? Products? How much time should it take to really understand the business as the new person? How long does it take to figure out your management team, identify the people you trust and believe in, and those that may need to move? How do you take the time you need without taking so long that all of a sudden you're just part of the establishment and unable to make change happen? What is the definition of success for the company, it's employees, it's external stakeholders? What latitude do you have?

If I didn't know the answers to these and a bunch of other questions (about how the business operates, rewards people, shares information, creates revenue, etc.), there is no way I'd even consider signing up as the CEO. How long does it take to figure all this out? 

Well, if it was me, I'd absolutely NOT want to waste time figuring all this out after I was hired!! I would want to know all of this during the interview process - this is my due-diligence opportunity, not unlike the home inspection prior to purchase.

Many of the surprises that Porter referenced above look to be the result of an unprepared board hiring an un-strategic CEO.

Balance of Power vs. Polarization

A good friend Stephen Walli and I were talking about how the democratic system can be really effective when there is an effective balance of power between governing entities (i.e. Democratic Congress + Republican Presidency, or Republican Senate + Democratic House, etc.).

This happened often in Canada where the Parliament and the Senate were of different parties, or key provinces (Quebec, Ontario) had opposing views to the federal government. The resulting "offset" was helpful in ensuring that government was accountable to the broader community. In fact, it created alignment on key social issues (environment, diversity, woman's right to chose, gender rights, etc.) for all the parties.  These became givens for all parties, allowing governing to focus on issues like the economy, education, etc., and over the last decade the Canadian economy has grown vs. its peers.

Over the last eight years, the dynamic in the United States has been …well, bizarre. The Executive branch has manipulated Congress irrespective of party. Even during the six years that the Republicans controlled the Senate, House and Presidency, the President (and VP) was often at odds with Congress, but because he had fear on his side, he was able to make them do what he wanted. Democracy didn’t really exist, this was effectively a dictatorship. The power of fear (and threat of war) was so strong that the population hardly wavered despite profound failures like the most powerful nation in the world’s shameful performance in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (a failure that even today, three years later remains repaired).

Rather than restore this idea of balance where moderation is possible and broader communities and interests are served, this election is creating even more polarization. Colin Powell spoke very eloquently about this on Meet the Press today. I’ve also written about this here and here.

This is not what we need from either candidate – shame on them both for allowing this to happen.  Neither side is exemplifying leadership, or the idea of balance.

Is it possible for both sides to put all this silliness aside and attempt integrity?  Sadly, it looks like they’re pursuing the opposite course instead.

Are we not better than this?

The other guy

Why is the process of choosing the next leader of a country more about what they say against  the other candidate than what they themselves will do if elected??

In what situation would one judge (and choose) a leader based on their ability to and obsession with making someone else less?  Isn't a key measure of leadership the ability to raise the tide so that all boats are lifted?

This is exacerbated by the fact that in almost every case, the winner will have to find ways to work with the loser and their party when elected.  I can't imagine that this type of vitriol makes that easier and more productive?  Again - how can a leader be great and have integrity if they are so short-sighted?

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?

Lending Crisis

I'm sure I'm just naive here, but why is solving this sub-prime issue so difficult?

What happened:

• Given an ever-growing market, lenders figured they could take a hit up-front on a mortgage (the sub-prime & minimal downpayment part), bait/switch the homeowner (who never read the contract anyway) with a substantially higher interest rate (super-prime) in subsequent years.


• They were comfortable knowing that if there was a default in future years, there was now positive equity in the home, and they'd be able to recover their mortgage + fees.  But with a slowing/stopped/retreating economy, home values dropped; buyers dried up; bad things happened.


• When the debt was sold, and resold and mixed with other assets and then resold yet again.  The assumption was that these sub-prime mortgages would be mixed in with a bunch of well-secured debt, making the asset as a whole seem pretty reliable. 


• BUT - when enough of the sub-prime debt began to be written off (due to foreclosures), the asset as a whole became untenable and the financial institution with enough of these assets began to lose their ability to raise funds, and then momentum grew, and bad news followed.

Proposed solution:

The US Government forms a for-profit business called The 70-40as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the IRS (yes, the IRS).  Simply, this company would offer every homeowner in America that was dumb enough (because after all, society's role is to protect its weakest members) to buy a sub-prime mortgage the following:

1. If you are in foreclosure (ex. missed two payments in a row),


2. The 70-40 will buy your debt from your lender @ 70 cents on the dollar (this is a great deal for the lender, who often will sell this debt for 40 or 50 cents on the dollar, if not lower).


3. The 70-40 will then sell you their one and only product, a 40-year fixed rate (@ say prime+2), interest+principle mortgage on your home, which is now worth 70% of the original price.


4. The 70-40 will only buy new debt for a fixed period of time (say one year).

Impact on the financial institutions:

• Ability to convert all debt once potentially toxic into reasonable losses (absorbable within the margin).


• Take comfort in knowing that the US government will similarly convert any future bad debt.


• Know that they will survive, stay afloat, and while the earnings will be severely lowered, it won't be to the point of bankruptcy.


• Be severely fined at the executive level; these fines (say 50% of total compensation for two years (current + 1, and + 1 more if compensation grew dramatically in year 3) before tax for top 50 executives); these fines would be part of financing The 70-40.

Impact on the stupid homeowners:

• They get their home back, albeit a home that is now worth 70% of the original purchase price - but at least it's a roof over their heads.


• Their payments are now fixed, and lower because of the 70% reduction in the principle and the 40-year amortization (vs. the typical 30 years).

Impact on the taxpayers of America:

• A much lower price to pay (both up-front and in the long term) to alleviate the crisis.


• An opportunity (if taken) to learn more about fiscal responsibility and better decision-making.

The Edutanic

I just discovered the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and read their recent report on focused on Education and Competitiveness.

Wayne Gretzky - the greatest hockey player ever said something once that is most widely quoted in business strategy circles.  I'm paraphrasing, but he said something like: "a good player skates to where the puck is, a great player skates to where the puck will be."

Brilliant.

So what does that have to do with 21st Century Skills and Learning?  Simple.  This report seems obsessed with the current state of education in the United States, the current state of industry, and the current needs of businesses in the US.

There is no recognition of the truth that it takes decades for change to permeate a system as large and autocratic as this.  There is literally no way to turn the "Edutanic" on a dime or even a silver dollar.

So - why are we assuming that 21st century skills are only what we know now (only 8% of the way into this century)??

Why are we not positing the argument that says this is about learning not skills.  This about the capacity to adapt; the ability to persuade; the wisdom to evaluate; the insight to choose well.  These (and more) are all learnings that would take any of our children to wherever the puck will be.

Moreover, with whom should we be competing?  Surely not any other country in the world! Why not instead declare that our "competitor" if you could call it that is the future.  We want the best possible future for our children; their ability to thrive there is what we seek.  If we knew what that was going to be, we wouldn't be sitting around writing reports (or blogs for that matter).

The imperative then must be to build a system where every mind is opened, inspired, and made supremely able; the assessment must be such that these abilities are tested, not small things like rote memorization, or the ability to type on a keyboard, surf the Internet or program your (god help us) VCR.

We need educators, parents, schools, societies that are able to bring out these abilities in our children.  This is what the 21st Century Skills report should argue for.

A victim of destructive persuasion

When I was in high school, I wrote a paper for an English class on Shakespeare.  Its thesis was "Macbeth is a victim of destructive persuasion."  Essentially, Lady Macbeth polluted his ideals, corrupted his morals, and shaped his actions against his best judgement, causing his downfall.

When McCain was nominated as the Republican candidate, except for his obsession with war, I saw him as a vastly more moderate Republican than the rest/the incumbents/the party, and if there was one person I thought would/could have made a presidential difference, it was him.  The Democrats were in disarray, but I'm sure were worried that he was nominated, given his centrist views, history of being less than more politically motivated, and general reputation of trying to do the right thing.

I think the worst thing that happened to him was that he was nominated so early, that he/his team and the party had too much time on their hands...

So they began thinking and analyzing and evaluating and planning and conniving and fretting. 

How do we better Bush 2004?

And here's where it hit the fan.  They must have done a lot of jello shots, drunk a lot of tequila, and scrawled mysterious words on a lot of whiteboards,  because they came up with a gazillion different strategies and tactics that McCain needed to take to achieve this type of clear victory.

But the one thing they overlooked in President W. Bush's campaign is that it employed but one strategy: fear; and but a very small set of tactics, mostly centered around two messages "attack their power" and "stay the course." 

Instead, the Party and nominee's teams had too much stuff written on the whiteboard, and looking over the last few weeks, the will and profound stupidity to use them all at least once.

If McCain does lose this election, it is because he listened to his advisers more than he listened to his own intellect, conscience and experience.  Just like Macbeth, he seems to have forsaken his integrity and inner-truth to gain power.

A true maverick implicitly knows better.

The business case for learning

Very interesting post from Dangerously Irrelevant. One element that is missing is "why".  What's the business case for 21st century learning?

1. Why should a system (local, regional, federal) invest in such a thing?


2. What are the socio-economic impacts that will be realized - not just cost?


3. When will we see these results, and why should we do this now (vs. investing $ in health care, the homeless, or any other social priority)?

I don't believe the answers can be assumed because they're so obvious to those of us that care about education.  The reasons are equally obvious for a drug addict that would like the state to provide more rehab beds, or a homeless person seeking more shelter spaces, or a community seeking better roads, etc.  <-- And would you pick (for the short-term politician's mind) one of these, or 21st century education?

In addition to Dangerously Irrelevant's work above, we must create a model that demonstrates the net economic value of learning to society, and show that the value to society of investing in education is much higher than that of any other investment in the long run.

1. Evidence that students who have 21st century skills are more valued (and hence receive higher wages) by prospective employers, thus contributing to local economies. 


2. Related to this would be evidence that these individuals are in demand over and above lower-cost alternatives (i.e. lower risk of outsourcing because they are not a commodity asset).


3. Proof that it costs less over time (say 3 years) and across the whole system (schools, content, community centers, parents, etc.) to incorporate ICT (information/communication technology) to educate students than otherwise.


4. Show that with significant percentages of educators in K-12 retiring in the next five years (estimated at 40% of all teachers in Oregon for example), there is an opportunity to bring about change in Teachers' Colleges that will reach students for many years to come (potentially a very economical way to create scaled outcomes).


5. The impact and role of ICT in creating more globally-aware (through both knowledge and e-connections) community by building bridges between institutions, educators, classrooms and students.

These are just some elements that we'd need to incorporate in the business case.  To create a sustainable and defensible rationale for politicians to invest in Education, the numbers must be bulletproof and so profoundly compelling that EVERYONE agrees that the investment is mandatory.

Education growing up...

I recently received my eSchoolNews newsletter and was reading this article about teachers informing publishers of their expectations for content.  In the same email, I also saw an article about how students are more tempted to cheat because of technology.

 

Here's one interpretation:  Better curriculum is not the problem (if it was, then every student would fail or lose interest).  I think there are two priorities.  Foremost is more involved, empowered and better trained teachers.  Second is the recognition that with pervasive access to information (mobile, Internet, computers, etc.), rote memory is IMO passé.  So - what to do?

 

The first priority has an easy answer, but is incredibly difficult to implement - let us recognize that the smarter we are, the safer we are, and shift half of Homeland Security's budget to the Ministry of Education - invest in more teachers, improve professional development and pay, and improve school infrastructure.

 

The second is harder to solve, but easier to implement.  We must better educate students in interpretation, analysis, critical thinking, and effective communication. Wouldn't this be a better way to harness the creativity they showed in the second article?  It appears that most cheating attempts to avoid memorization. Allowing students to have access to information means that testing is now focused on interpreting information, and persuasively articulating a point of view vs. just regurgitating facts.

 

Tomorrow's schools (and let's face it today's teachers as well) will not be able to keep up with the "information retrieval" tools that students will have.  Moreover, in the real world, the students' skill in "retrieval" will actually be valued over memorization.  Moreover moreover (!), assessment systems today are not geared to measure the types of skills and abilities that we discussed above.

 

So - if this makes sense, why aren't we moving this way?  

I'm blown away

From MSNBC - last 3 paragraphs of this article.  This pastor delivered the invocation prior to Senator McCain's speech:

...the Rev. Arnold Conrad, past pastor of the Grace Evangelical Free Church. His prayer before McCain arrived at the convention center blocks from the Mississippi River appeared to dismiss faiths other than Christianity and cast the election as a referendum on God himself.

"I would also pray, Lord, that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their god — whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons," Conrad said.

"And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and Election Day," he said.  

What a sad day for us all.

Abuse of power?

Does it really matter?  Can you point to a political leader that has not abused their power in some way? 

Why instead is there not a probe on how and why the political machines are so cavalier and vitriolic? It can't possibly be a good thing for one candidate to accuse the other of being a terrorist - can it? Especially when all four President/VP candidates are elected public officials in some capacity.

Shouldn't these prospective (and actual) leaders desmonstrate some modicum of integrity and respect for each other, the two party system, and the fact that essentially half the nation is supporting each of the pairs of candidates?

When you call one a terrorist, or evil, or whatever, you're basically insulting half of the country (that chose him/her), and you're telling the very people you need to sway so that you can win that they believe in an evil person.  Is that going to make them like you more?

This is the real abuse of power...

Politics of Compromise and Integrity

What does it say about this election that the candidates are so aggressively vilifying each other?  How does calling your opponent a traitor serve the nation?

If leaders are formed, principles are tested, and integrity is evaluated in moments of stress, what does this say about the candidates when they are behaving as they are now?  At this moment, they're playing for the smallest stakes one of them will play with for at least the next four years.  Once elected, the stakes are orders of magnitude greater...

I wish there was a way to ask both candidates about this in a public, unedited forum.  I would word the question as follows:

"What does your behavior, that of your running mate, and that of the public face (spin, ads, etc.) of your campaign say about your morals, ideals, and integrity?  What does it say about what and who you will be if you become president?  What does it say about the America that you will help shape?"

Why Palin?

Here's my theory - McCain's biggest worries going into the convention:

1. Obama's star power - how he attracts the crowds and passionate participation that he does <-- lesser import


2. How Obama's getting democrats to register in droves, and how he rocked the vote during the primary <-- greater import

 #2 is in my view what caused Clinton to lose.  I think she (and most everyone) underestimated how profoundly new registrations and then new voters changed the electoral math in Obama's favor. I think it has and will change the dynamic of the general election as well.

McCain, to his credit (or at least I'm giving him this credit) saw this, and realized that he had neither the charisma nor the gravitas to match Obama's feat.  I imagine he decided he would be too threatened by a running-mate with the necessary gravitas, but figured a charismatic person who brought some shock-value to the table was better.  He also saw that the mainstream candidates wouldn't give him this kind of uplift.

He also needed someone to "de-moderate" him and his policies, someone who would appeal to the base of the Republican party - something that he has historically not related well to. 

Palin is a great choice because she has sass, is cute, and frankly is just too dumb to know better.  She is able to get away with outlandish statements and absurd ideas because everyone has already written her intellect and experience off.  She's just not judged on that basis, as was clear during the post-debate assessment.

One thing I don't imagine McCain really thought about is his own mortality, and whether his VP choice would ever really ever sit in the Oval Office.

Since when is leadership about folksy?

I simply don't get this.

I am not the president of a country, a party, or a company.  But I do know that the person I want to be president, while espousing my beliefs, should be WAAAAAY more than I am.  She or he should be smarter, have a broader and deeper world-view, be more experienced, command more respect, have more robust morals, know how to bring the best people to the table, and be committed to greatness in a more profound way that I am.

That's why I want them at the head of the table when whatever it is hits the fan.  That's why I want them in that office.  I need to feel confident in their capacity and ability to lead, and know that with them at the helm, everyday can and will be better than the one just past.

WIth Palin, what I see is a person that admits they're average (and in fact revels in it!), that admits they don't hesitate before making decisions that have PROFOUND consequences, and that admits that they hunger for even more power. 

In what way is this leadership? 

In what way is this comforting?

In what way does this assure the citizens that our future is more important than hers?

What have the debates revealed anyway?

So - I watched most of the 1st and 2nd debates, and excerpts of the 3rd.  And here's what I've learned.

From the presidential debates: there is more acrimony between the two candidates than respect. From neither does this evoke a sense of statesmanship or leadership - that's disappointing, but in the recent American political scene, not unexpected, sadly.  There is also more energy devoted to fighting against the other candidate than fighting for the citizenry.  What a shame that success in campaigning for the presidency is not about who I am, how I lead, and what I will be able to achieve for the country, but how bad he is, how much he doesn't know, and how bad he will be for the country.

From the VP debates: first, the format seemed to allow for a deeper discussion and more real cross-talk.  BUT because there was such a profound disparity between the two candidates' grasp of domestic and foreign policy, we didn't learn enough.  Second, I found that Gov Palin has a stunningly vast learning curve ahead of her to even be able to participate meaningfully in conversations; worse though is her impetuousness, and desire for more power than evil-incarnate Cheney.  This is scary.

As bizarre as this is, based on the three debates so far, the candidate that has struck me as most ...presidential is Senator Biden - the least visible of the four players.

What is leadership? And how should leaders lead?

Leadership:

1. Principled


2. Convicted (strong enough that pandering is anathema)


3. Ego-free


4. Without compromise

How leaders should lead:

1. Integrity


2. Transparency


3. Accountability

Questions I wish had been asked during the town hall debate

For McCain:

1. What does it say about your leadership skills/instincts to have selected a VP who is so clearly not a viable successor?  Do you really believe Ms Palin is the best custodian of your legacy?


2. As a "maverick", you have clearly separated yourself from the herd based on your views and ideas. BUT - have you been successful?  What outcomes has your "maverickness" yielded that would show that you're better than conventional politicians?


3. As someone who purports to be a senator who can cross the aisle to create outcomes, how much impact will your negative campaigning have on your ability to be effective in bi-partisan efforts after the election?


4. Why is war preferable to diplomacy?

Surge Redux

So - I just read on John McCain's site where it states that he's been pushing for an increase in troop levels in Iraq since his visit there in the summer of 2003 (yes, 2003).  The article points to a chronology of McCain's ongoing advocacy for the surge.

The site itemized 27 separate instances where McCain called for increased troop levels.  Twenty-seven attempts.

Maybe it's just me - but why admit that as a long-time senator, and prospective leader of the free world that you are so incompetent at getting things done??

The Surge

According to President Bush's Jan 10/07 speech, the "surge strategy" will task American troops "to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs."  He went on to define success: "victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world -- a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people."

As far as I can tell, "Surge" basically says - throw more soldiers at the problem and suddenly a democracy will emerge.  Now the fighting the surge is intended to quell is between two sects that have been at odds since before America even existed! 

Does history show us examples when this approach has worked?  None seem to come to mind.  How does adding more warriors to a fight help achieve a lasting peace? 

Shouldn't the motivation for peace come from within? I wonder what would happen if instead of spending $billions on the war, we went to the people of Iraq with the following proposal:

The United States of America will withdraw it's forces from Iraq in the next XX months (not sure what logistically is right, but say six months). Today we are spending $10 billion/month on the war.  We will instead set up a fund of $120 billion (one year's worth of war) fund that will be administered by a committee of nine people, including three journalists (from Al Jazeera, an American and a European publication), and six successful business people selected from the Forbes Magazine top 20 wealthiest people in the world.  This combination will ideally result in a board that is not prone to greed and bribery and very motivated by journalistic transparency.

Their mission will be to spend these funds wisely and with a view to revitalizing the core infrastructure (education, health care, food, transportation, energy, etc.) of Iraq.

Is it be possible that an investment in hope and future (and the opporutnity to participate) might sway people more than guns?

Deverence...

Update: my good friend Jennifer Rice suggested that I need to create a definition for "deverence" - here's her suggestion - I like it: developing reverence for divergent intelligence.  Let's see if I can live up to it!

As for many others, the American election has become a bit of an obsession.  I started paying attention when the Democratic primaries became a two-person race. I must admit, I didn't really watch the Republican primaries that closely, mostly because there didn't seem to be a whole lot of passion, and no shape-changing ideas (at least from what little I saw) surfaced.

And again like most, things inside me kept bubbling and bubbling, and finally, it came to this fine morning, and I began to write.

But first, I needed to name this blog, and given how late I am to the game, all the names I initially thought of were taken.  So I started thinking of choice words and accidentally typed "deverence" at ask.com.  The first four words they thought I was trying to type were: deference, reverence, difference and divergence. 

And I liked that combination, and decided that that's my word:)