~synthesis~

euphemasia

I haven't been blogging very much lately; I just haven't been in a mood to write. I wonder at times if this is it? Have I said all I have to say, and no more is left? I hope not. I have begun with a title and written this much - let's see what comes.

As a child, I wondered why it was wrong to call a fat person "fat" or call a short person "short." I wondered why we said "passed away" instead of "died," why it was better to say "enhanced coercive interrogation technique" than "torture," or a bunch of other such examples.

At that age it felt like lying. Now it seems to me that all of these words represent an act of dehumanization instead of the intended act of compassion. I am who I am - whether that's brown, white, thin, fat, dumb, smart, ugly or whatever. I am who I am.

When someone euphemizes me, they take something away from my self. An obvious and defining characteristic or aspect of me is suddenly made generic.

Is a fat person also heavy? Yes. But "heavy" is intended not to offend, though the meaning is the same. But if the meaning is the same, then how is it less-offensive to be considered heavy instead of fat? Haven't we just insulted this person by assuming they're too dumb to notice that "heavy" is equally as pejorative? Shouldn't we rather be truthful?

When we euphemize, we generalize, we profile, we stereotype, and we assume that all of "them" are one. Every member of this "xxx" group is now the same. We've erased their individuality, voice and power.

Euphemisms convert people into demographic variables. The individual is killed.

But we don't confine our euphemistic ways to individuals - politics and business are equally "blessed."

President Truman called Korean War a "Police Action" - he did this for political reasons - to make it seem smaller and less than it was. The soldiers and civilians that died couldn't tell the difference, they were just as dead irrespective of the President's spin. In this case, the goal was to dupe a nation and even other countries into thinking a thing was more benign that it was. There are many others: "revenue enhancements" instead of raising taxes, "collateral damage" instead of military screw-ups, etc. The political world is rife with them, and in the end, they all serve to perpetuate lies.

This happens in business too, examples include "right-sizing" or "volume-based involuntary reductions" instead of layoffs and firings, "market corrections" instead of stock market collapses, "earnings restatements" instead of accounting failures, etc. Here's one a hospital network used recently: "negative patient care outcome" instead of deaths - imagine being told that your parent or sibling or child were unfortunately a negative outcome.

When you read these in a document or hear them in a presentation, you don't really realize what's being said; it's not clear even whether it's a bad thing (I suppose that's the goal), and what ends up happening? Middle management will euphemize poor results, failures, screw-ups when talking to upper management so that they don't look bad, but then the leaders have incomplete (bad) information and the company can't make good decisions.

In every case - personal, political, or business, we euphemize to take the edge off, and in doing so, we sacrifice clarity, we sacrifice truth, and worst of all, we avoid facing reality.

Try stopping yourself from using euphemisms - they are so entrenched in our vocabulary, our behavior, our very thought processes that it's almost impossible to be truly truthful - whether to yourself or those around you.

We say that children can be really cruel because they are unfiltered - I prefer cruelty and facing reality to killing with kindness.

admissions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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