No Guarantee

Posted on April 7, 2010 by Ron Byrnes

The start of a lecture I’m giving to faculty and students at Buena Vista University in Storm Lake, Iowa in a few weeks. Get your tickets before it sells out.

The Makings of a 21st Century Education

Consider the first and last sentences from a January Wall Street Journal article titled “Even-In-A-Recovery-Some-Jobs-Won’t-Return”. “Even when the U.S. labor market finally starts adding more workers than it loses, many of the unemployed will find that the types of jobs they once had simply don’t exist anymore. Harvard’s Mr. Katz warns that past experience suggests. . . conjecture is likely fruitless. ‘One thing we’ve learned is that when we attempt to forecast jobs 10 or 15 years out, we don’t even get the categories right,’ he says.”

Let that sink in. The Harvard expert admits, “we don’t even get the categories right”. So what are college students to do? And what are faculty to do? How should faculty design curriculum, teach courses, and advise students in a “we don’t even get the future job categories right” world?

Not Sure

Posted on March 31, 2010 by Ron Byrnes

What’s the optimal timeframe for “To Do” lists, a day, a week, a month, a year, a lifetime? I’m not sure. A day seems far too short, a year and lifetime unhelpfully long, unless the list is filled with BHAGs. For some people it’s all about the week ahead and the Sunday p.m. planning is key.

Maybe the optimal timeframe boils down to the nature of the “to dos” on the list. The vast majority of mine are of the daily/weekly variety and that’s probably why I get stuck in “tyranny of the urgent” mode. Of course it feels good to check off “clear my inbox,” “read papers 2.1-2.4,” and “call X back,” but only on the surface because it’s frustrating not to make progress on weightier, more meaningful medium and/or long-term projects.

If I subdivide my “To Do” list into daily, weekly, and monthly subsections, I predict I’ll still get stuck in the daily thicket. I’ve read some productivity lit and I think I need to breakdown my medium and or long-term project-related “to dos” into numerous small, specific “to dos”. I should also take more time to “plan backwards” by figuring out when I want to complete the medium and long-termers and then determine what intermediary steps and related deadlines make the most sense.

Truth be told, determining the perfect timeframe and wording my “to dos” with greater specificity probably won’t result in a radical increase in productivity. For that I think I need to combine improved “to doing” with greater self discipline to read and immediately act on email once in the a.m. and once in the p.m. Right now, there’s too much email water torture going on.

The Private School Myth

Posted on March 26, 2010 by Ron Byrnes

Consider this excerpt from a Jonathan Mahler NYT article about Tiger’s return to golf:

On six separate occasions, he (Jay Williamson, 43) has finished the season without a strong-enough record to keep his eligibility for the PGA Tour and been forced to earn it back at the tour’s grueling 108-hole qualifying tournament, known as Q-School. Williamson has never won a PGA Tour event. Nevertheless, thanks to golf’s soaring purses during the Woods era, he has managed to earn more than $5.5 million during his 15-year career. “I certainly don’t live like a king,” he said, “but I do have three kids in private school, and that’s probably a direct result of Tiger.”

Williamson’s quote is symbolic of the American public’s belief that private schools are inherently superior to public ones. As an undergrad, I worked part-time for two years in a public elementary, taught for four years in public high schools in Los Angeles, one year at a private high school in Ethiopia, and attended both public and private universities. As a teacher educator, I visit schools all the time, mostly public ones. If I’m an expert about anything, it’s secondary education. My daughters have spent 30% of their schooling in privates and 70% in publics.

It’s easy to understand why people subscribe to the private school myth, we’re conditioned to believe “you get what you pay for”. But truth be told, that’s not always true and private schools are not inherently superior to public ones. There are good, bad, and mediocre public and private schools. Good publics are better than mediocre privates. Based on my experience, you’ll find a larger proportion of truly outstanding teachers in publics. There are lots of solid private school teachers too, but they have the wind at their back in the form of smaller classes and often required, built-in parent/family involvement.

In fifth grade (middle schools in Olympia, WA are 6th-8th grade), daughter one made her first independent decision of consequence when she decided she wanted to attend a local private independent school for the “academically talented”. Me, “But all your friends are going to Wash.” Her, “I’ll make new ones.”

There were a few minor and one major benefit of her private experience. Among the minor benefits, she was given more writing assignments than her public peers and received more detailed feedback on her compositions. The school also did a nice job using small group projects that engaged the students. The major benefit was her five or six closest female friends all cared equally as much about doing well in school. As a result, there was serious positive academic momentum. They spent a lot of time in the evening completing projects over the phone at the exact time a lot of middle school girls are dumbing themselves down in the hope of appearing more attractive.

The downside of her experience, and many private school students’ experiences, was the homogenous nature of the student body. Everyone was high achieving, most students were upper middle class and white or Asian-American. As adults we know that our success and happiness depend as much or more from our people smarts than our book smarts. When will my daughter and her friends learn to interact thoughtfully with young people different than themselves? Isn’t interpersonal intelligence part and parcel of being well educated?

This brings to mind a related myth, that public schools are inherently more diverse than private. While probably true in the aggregate, with tracking, or homogenous ability grouping, we end up with schools-within-schools. In other words, there are multiple Olympia High Schools, one that my daughter and her friends attend that consists largely of Advanced Placement courses and another for everyone else. Some public high schools have three or more schools-within-schools.

The public-private school water is far muddier than most people realize.

Dearest Daughters

Posted on March 24, 2010 by Ron Byrnes

Dearest Daughters,

Wondering what all the healthcare hoopla has been about lately? Long story short, Congress just passed a law that will result in significant changes to the ways Americans pay for health insurance, pay for healthcare, and receive healthcare. Many of the changes go into effect in between 2014 and 2018.

Congress has been trying to improve our health care system—which represents one-sixth of our economy—for fifty years. The vast majority of Congressional Democrats voted for the bill and every single Republican voted against it. Democrats are celebrating and Republicans are vowing to repeal the law and win more seats in November’s election and regain majorities in the House and Senate.

Almost every Democrat supported the bill and every Republican did oppose it because they define “fairness” very differently. Their different ways of thinking relates to the “what’s fair” discussion we had a week ago about high school sports. Is it fair for schools to cut kids whose families can’t afford to pay for their children to play club volleyball, soccer, or baseball year-round? Similarly is it fair that people who make little money pay between 0-15% of their income in taxes and people who make large bank pay 28-35% or more?

Most Democrats would say no it’s not fair to cut mostly “non-clubbers” and yes it is fair to have a progressive tax system where the more you make the larger the percentage you pay in taxes. Otherwise, the gap between the “haves” and “have nots,” whether high school athletes or ordinary citizens, will widen so much that the American ideal of equal opportunity will be imperiled, and eventually, our quality of life will be compromised.

Most Republicans would contend that the only fair approach is to cut completely independent of “club status” and institute a “flat tax” so that everyone, regardless of their income, pays 18% for instance. More specifically, Republicans would say it’s patently unfair to penalize kids whose parents have worked hard, saved their money, and want to spend it to help their kids excel at sports? And with respect to taxes, it’s unfair to penalize people who have worked hard in school, excelled in the job market, and earn large bank.

In response many Ds would say people who excel in high school or life do so because of subtle and not so subtle advantages that build from birth, through school, and into adulthood. Put differently, privilege reproduces itself. More simply, well-educated, high earning families tend to raise kids who do well in school and are economically successful afterwards.

In response many Rs would argue that inequities are inevitable, equal opportunity is an unrealistic ideal, and the income gap should motivate poorer people to work harder.

Picture a see-saw with the word “EQUITY” painted in big block letters on the left-side and “EXCELLENCE” on the right. People who most value equity believe people who have not been given equal opportunities in life deserve a little extra help to make the high school team, to balance their family budgets, or to pay for health care. People who most value excellence believe “extra help” makes disadvantaged people dependent upon government assistance, fosters laziness, and results in mediocre high school teams and healthcare systems.

Most Ds in Congress sit squarely on the equity side, most Rs squarely on the excellence side. Many citizens would split the difference either sitting towards “equity” or towards “excellence”. Others who value both equally, would sit right in the middle.

Back to the new law. I have to confess, despite my education, I’ve been perplexed by many of the healthcare debate’s details. The media, like cruddy teachers everywhere, wrongly assumed most everyone was “in the know”. Add in Democrats and Republicans shouting past one another for the cameras and I’m sure I wasn’t alone in my confusion.

I’ve been reading about it since its passage and will try to explain why Ds are rejoicing and Rs are threatening to repeal it. Think about America as a pyramid with 5% of very high earners at the top ($200,000-250,000/year+), 70% in the middle, and 25% of poor people at the bottom (families of four earning $33,000 and less/year). In all likelihood, the law will have the least impact on the middle 70%. In the simplest terms possible, the top 5% will pay more in taxes so that the bulk of the bottom 25% can receive insurance often for the first time and thereby have a tad more economic security.

So back to the see-saw. To R’s the bill focuses far too exclusively on equity at the expense of excellence and fairness for the well-to-do. To D’s the bill focuses on equity in the interest of fairness.

What do you think, help the poorest among us by requiring well-to-do people pay more in taxes? What’s fair? What’s in our best interest?

Peace Out,

Dad

Experience Required

Posted on March 15, 2010 by Ron Byrnes

A pro-business friend whose compensation is mostly commission and bonus-based believes every member of Congress should have to have been a business owner. In his mind I guess, we’re a business not a democracy. At the same time he’s quick to criticize and write-off the successes of Scandinavian countries even though he’s never set foot in one. Similarly, he’s quick to criticize public school teachers who prefer email to telephone communication even though he’s never taught.

Despite those inconsistencies, I’ll concede that when shaping policy, giving advice, or just plain stating opinions about something, direct personal experience makes one more credible.

But how far should we extend that notion? Should we prevent priests from doing marital counseling, preclude men from teaching women’s studies courses, not allow civilians to teach about war? In my thinking, there are meaningful, substantive forms of indirect experience that create a tipping point and conceivably qualify priests, men, and civilians to offer marriage counseling, teach women’s studies courses, and teach about war.

For example, the arts and the humanities—excellent theatre, film, and literature in particular—broaden viewers’ and readers’ perspectives about things with which they have no firsthand experience. I’ve never been to Rwanda, but watching Hotel Rwanda, even if we allow for inevitable artistic license, powerfully introduced me to the genocide citizens of that country experienced.

If perception and insight are a house, maybe the front door represents direct firsthand experience. Film, literature, and history possibly the side or back doors or the windows.

I have above-average knowledge of sub-Saharan Africa because I’ve lived and worked in one African country and traveled throughout three others. But my insights into the continent, and whatever credibility I might have as a writer or speaker on Africa, have been supplemented by non-fiction books, lots of African novels, and a fair number of African films.

The educator in me causes me to think broadly about the ways indirect experience supplements lived experience. I guess it’s the entrepreneur in my friend that causes him to think direct firsthand experience trumps everything else when determining policy, giving advice, or even at times, stating opinions.

The Measure Teaching Effectiveness Consensus

Posted on March 1, 2010 by Ron Byrnes

An underreported and potentially important sea change is underway in K-12 public schooling. It’s the somewhat natural culmination of a two decade-long emphasis on increased teacher accountability for student learning.

Rather than improving compensation and making entry into the profession more challenging, rather than empowering proven teacher leaders to improve schools, rather than increasing parent and family accountability for student learning, the highest ranking and most influential policy makers are in agreement that our ability to compete in the global economy depends upon better schooling, better schooling depends upon increased teacher accountability for student learning, increased teacher accountability requires measuring teaching effectiveness. There are parallel pushes to measure school leadership and teacher education program effectiveness.

Like the vast majority of K-12 teachers, I’m not opposed to the concept of teacher and administrator accountability, but it seems as if more time, energy, and resources have been put into planning the negative consequences of teaching and administrative ineffectiveness than into incentives for teaching and administrative excellence. The primary negative consequence of teaching and administrative ineffectiveness will be closing schools and reassigning (if the unions still hold any sway) or dismissing altogether (if they don’t) the administrators and faculty at the worst performing schools.

This “measure teaching effectiveness consensus” raises many questions that Arne’s Army seemingly has little patience for. Among them. . .

• How does one best measure teaching effectiveness?

• More specifically, if the Information Revolution is making knowledge transmission and recall less salient, how does one quantify increasingly important student skills and sensibilities like writing, problem solving, cross cultural understanding, teamwork, empathy, and resilience?

• How does one control for independent variables like differing degrees of outside of school support?

• Will an emphasis on individual teacher’s relative effectiveness contribute to even greater professional isolation to the detriment of student learning?

• What might the effects of steadily increasing accountability be on talented young people considering teaching as a career independent of improved compensation?

• Why, when top-down experts with little to no teaching experience are in the process of reshaping their profession based upon business model precepts, aren’t more teachers asking these types of questions?

School Mission Statements

Posted on February 26, 2010 by Ron Byrnes

Most school mission statements are painfully vague to the point of being interchangeable. Others are too lengthy. The best are specific, distinctive, and succinct.

• The mission of the Buckley Community School, where kids come first, is to partner with families to develop enthusiastic learners. Positives, short, specific reference to partnering with families, “enthusiastic learners” is a challenging/admirable goal. Negatives, “kids come first” way too cliche. B-.

• The mission of Vancouver Public Schools is to assure that, within a nurturing and stimulating environment, each of our diverse students and graduates achieves literacy and appropriate core competencies, and becomes a responsible and compassionate citizen. This is the type of mission statement that gets worse the more times you read it because it’s filled with vague words and phrases. And once you get four or five students together, let alone thousands, isn’t it understood the students are diverse? What the heck are “appropriate core competencies”? And how will the VPS leadership know if graduates become responsible and compassionate? What does it look like? Awful. D-.

• At Woonsocket High School, our mission is to, “educate all students in a safe, supportive, challenging environment where they can learn to be citizens of a culturally diverse society.” “Safe, supportive, challenging environment, g-e-n-e-r-i-c. And what does citizenship in a culturally diverse society entail? That’s like saying “where children learn to be adults.” WHS can say, see we did it, all our students became citizens in a culturally diverse society. Say something about the TYPE of citizenship you envision. F.

• The mission of Lakeside School is to develop in intellectually capable young people the creative minds, healthy bodies, and ethical spirits needed to contribute wisdom, compassion and leadership to a global society. We provide a rigorous, academic program through which effective educators lead students to take responsibility for learning. We are committed to sustaining a school in which individuals representing diverse cultures and experiences instruct one another in the meaning and value of community and in the joy and importance of lifelong learning. Nice. Finally some specifics, “creative minds, healthy bodies, and ethical spirits”. Granted some will understandably wonder what does an ethical spirit look like, let alone wisdom, and compassion, but we have to allow for some abstraction in mission statements. “Global society” strikes me as overreaching and a bit wordy. Last sentence could be tightened up too, especially, “individuals representing diverse cultures”. A-.

At Catherine Nichols Gunn Elementary School our mission is to challenge and support students to be the best they can be. Reads as if the authors were in a hurry. I’m partial to succinct statements, but “best they can be” leaves me scratching my head. Uninspiring. Original grade, D. Plagiarism adjusted grade, F.

Elk Grove Unified School District will provide a learning community that challenges ALL students to realize their greatest potential. I guess the difference between Catherine Nichols and Elk Grove Unified is Elk Grove doesn’t provide support? The very definition of interchangeable missions. Original grade, D. Plagiarism adjusted grade, F.

Stanford Business School—To create ideas that deepen and advance the understanding of management, and with these ideas develop innovative, principled, and insightful leaders who change the world. Bravo. Well, “change the world” is cliche, but loved it up to that point. B+.

Charlotte Country Day School strives to be the benchmark of academic excellence in college preparatory education through superior teaching of a rigorous curriculum. Excellent. As a parent or student you know what you’re getting into. Don’t expect much attention to healthy bodies and ethical spirits. Specific, distinctive, succinct. A, the winner.

Adolescent Literacy

Posted on February 19, 2010 by Ron Byrnes

Felt nostalgic for Europe I guess and took the train to PDX for a workshop on adolescent literacy. I WANT to be a train person, but Amtrak is making it hard. It’s bad enough the train takes longer than driving. My Squeeze and I planned on eating an early dinner in the big city and then returning on the 6:15p. Workshop ended an hour early and so we decided to take the 4:20p and eat at home. Headed to the iMax at 3:40p. At the train station we learned the 4:20p was delayed about an hour.

Long story short, it never arrived, something about a tree on the track. Instead of a romantic dinner, we took a walk and then sat in front of the station reading in the setting sun eating pistachios. The 6:15p originates in PDX so it would have to leave on time. . . right? Longer story shorter, we walked off the train at 7:40p, exactly four hours after leaving the hotel for home. Something about a broken brake line they couldn’t fix. The man sitting in front of us asked if we wanted a lift home, he was bailing on the train, taking the iMax to his car in Clakamass. He had a morning business meeting in Seattle. What a life, or at least, nightsaver.

But I digress.

Stanford research prof was the main presenter. Excellent researcher I’m sure, but how can I put this nicely, his presentation skills were not as well developed. Here’s what Dr. Stanford Expert and his co-presenter, a much better teacher from The U of Utah, recommended.

1. Strengthen adolescent reading fluency, vocab, and comprehension through scientifically researched (read quasi-experimental and other quantitative studies) teaching strategies that have been proven to be effective including explicit vocabulary instruction and classroom discussion of texts.

2. Explicit instruction involves three steps: I do it (modeling). We do it (guided practice). You do it (independent practice). If teaching a complex literacy skill like summarizing, the three steps may take an entire week. Teachers inevitably rush the steps.

3. There are three elements to classroom discussion of texts: 1) efferent (the who, what, where, and why of what was read. . . what did the writer say); 2) analysis and interpretation; and 3) evaluation. . . how did you feel about it, how convincing was the argument or engaging/illuminating the narrative. Research suggests teachers slight part one which low achieving students benefit the most from. Dr. SE made it clear he had “absolutely no interest” in evaluation/students’ opinions.

It was alternatingly interesting and exasperating. Throughout the day there was no discussion of the purposes of literacy; there wasn’t a single reference to digital, electronic, or multimedia texts; nor was there a single reference to the societal curriculum. Nevermind that adolescents are in school 22-23% of the time and outside it 77-78%.

Here’s an alternative, admittedly less scientific, more sociological perspective.

Immerse children and young adults in rich literary environments for long periods of time. Surround them by interesting reading material. Unplug more and read in front of them. Talk about what you’re reading. Demonstrate a love of reading in your daily life. Repeat year after year.

Here’s a related math literacy, or “numeracy” example. One Sunday morning, when seventeen was two or three, she crawled into bed and snuggled in between mom and dad. Dad started counting. “One.” She squeaked, “two.” And thus began Sunday morning math. Overtime, we counted by twos, threes, fours, whatever we felt like. We never called it multiplication. My hunch that my daughter’s success in math is in part explained by those Sunday mornings would not impress Dr. SE one bit.

I was impressed with how candidate Obama talked eloquently about parents being their childrens’ first and most important teachers. I wonder why he’s abandoned the Bully Pulpit.

The teachers and school leaders in the workshop politely and passively accepted the “literacy and numeracy as a teacher-centered science” way of thinking as if there are no alternatives. Few probably realized with that paradigm comes a narrow emphasis on technical skills, test scores, and national economic competitiveness.

Research and what happens in school matters, but magic can happen when young people are immersed in rich literary environments where word and number play are daily activities.

Pressing Pause

Small steps toward thriving families, schools, and communities

Category Archives: Education