I have been bothered lately by the nattering nabobs of negativism. You know the ones. They are education experts who have never sullied themselves by actually working with students in a classroom. If they did spend a few years teaching, they might actually learn something.
I serve on the State Investment Board, and regularly attend education conferences on institutional investing. I am never shy about what I do, and while at a session this summer, education reform came up as an informal topic of discussion at dinner. I held my own as I pointed out the flaws in the logic my tablemates were using as they attempted to “fix” something they were unfamiliar with. After about 20 minutes into the discussion, a fellow from New York joined the discussion. He related how he wanted to do something to make a difference, so he was granted a sabbatical from his employer and spent two years teaching English in a high school. He said his biggest shock was how dedicated and hard-working the teachers were, how much they really cared, and the lengths they would go to in order to provide the best education possible for the students. He had expected to find dedicated teachers, but assumed they were a minority. Instead, dedication, teamwork and quality were the norm, and the less than stellar teachers — he called them coasters — were a tiny minority. He said maybe two out of 90 teachers at his school fit this category. He agreed with me that the real education world was not what was described in the media and if we really wanted to improve public education, we would provide the resources and leave the task to the teachers.
The sticking point is that people are looking for excuses to avoid paying for what they say they want — a quality education for all students.
That is the real hurdle — the resources, also known as funds, or the money. There is lots of big talk about rewards and bonuses, but never a whisper about how to fund them. The only talk about funding is how much to cut, while at the same time increasing requirements and, as a distraction, criticizing those who give their all for their students. And through it all, dedicated educators, both certificated and classified, continue to do more with less.
Wednesday
Thursday
Statistics, probability and measurement
I just finished reading The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives by Leonard Mlodinow. It gives a history of statistics, probability and measurement, and how they are used currently to inform and how easily they can misinform when used improperly. Also in the book he highlights Washington’s Bill Gates for special mention about the misuse of information when he sought to “fix” public education by deciding that small schools were the solution, the silver bullet, to make all perfect with public education. After disastrous results, he regrouped and is now pushing charter schools and teacher pay tied to test scores as the panacea, even though there is no research which shows this will do any better than what is happening right now. But no fear, facts will not stop this effort; he has the money to burn to push his notion of public education. After all, if you had any good ideas, you would be as rich as he is.
This tied right in with a radio interview I heard recently on NPR with Rep. Lamar Alexander. He was outraged that the U.S. government now had a significant investment in General Motors and “535 members of Congress will be trying to tell auto manufacturers how to make automobiles.” I appreciate his concern; after all, Congress, state Legislatures, and influential, I mean rich, members of the public all want to exclude educators while they tinker with public education, and all the while blaming educators for being less than perfect. As an engineer who became a teacher, I can state with total conviction that it is far easier to design and build a quality automobile than it is to educate a child. And in auto manufacturing, if you repeat your process, you repeat your results. As any parent of multiple children can attest, repeating the process on raising a child can have dramatically different results. As Nobel laureate Max Born once said, “Chance is a more fundamental concept than is causality.”
Mlodinow also dove into the misuse of testing in education. Testing serves a useful purpose in education, but as soon as something is measured, it is subject to misuse by people who not only do not understand what measurement really is, but also that all measurements have a variability, or error. A good example he uses is the SAT scores which have an error of ± 50 points. So if one person scores 20 points higher than another on the SAT, they are really tied because you cannot tell who actually had the higher score. He also described a similar occurrence with the first election of our current governor. The candidates tied because the difference between the two candidates’ vote totals was less than the error of measurement. They could have flipped a coin to determine a winner, but our state has a more complicated system to break the tie. People who don’t understand measurement would be outraged by deciding our governor by flipping a coin, so we have a much more expensive but equally random method for breaking the tie.
Thus we have these real life math problems that don’t go away just because you are a billionaire who doesn’t comprehend the research in a field you know nothing about. Very real problems for someone who, because of a societal lack of understanding regarding randomness, reliability, and measurement, is condemned to a life of lost opportunities and lower earnings due to the denial of a high school diploma because of the misuse of a high-stakes test.
This tied right in with a radio interview I heard recently on NPR with Rep. Lamar Alexander. He was outraged that the U.S. government now had a significant investment in General Motors and “535 members of Congress will be trying to tell auto manufacturers how to make automobiles.” I appreciate his concern; after all, Congress, state Legislatures, and influential, I mean rich, members of the public all want to exclude educators while they tinker with public education, and all the while blaming educators for being less than perfect. As an engineer who became a teacher, I can state with total conviction that it is far easier to design and build a quality automobile than it is to educate a child. And in auto manufacturing, if you repeat your process, you repeat your results. As any parent of multiple children can attest, repeating the process on raising a child can have dramatically different results. As Nobel laureate Max Born once said, “Chance is a more fundamental concept than is causality.”
Mlodinow also dove into the misuse of testing in education. Testing serves a useful purpose in education, but as soon as something is measured, it is subject to misuse by people who not only do not understand what measurement really is, but also that all measurements have a variability, or error. A good example he uses is the SAT scores which have an error of ± 50 points. So if one person scores 20 points higher than another on the SAT, they are really tied because you cannot tell who actually had the higher score. He also described a similar occurrence with the first election of our current governor. The candidates tied because the difference between the two candidates’ vote totals was less than the error of measurement. They could have flipped a coin to determine a winner, but our state has a more complicated system to break the tie. People who don’t understand measurement would be outraged by deciding our governor by flipping a coin, so we have a much more expensive but equally random method for breaking the tie.
Thus we have these real life math problems that don’t go away just because you are a billionaire who doesn’t comprehend the research in a field you know nothing about. Very real problems for someone who, because of a societal lack of understanding regarding randomness, reliability, and measurement, is condemned to a life of lost opportunities and lower earnings due to the denial of a high school diploma because of the misuse of a high-stakes test.
Tuesday
A seven percent solution
I recently heard someone describe how the Legislature dealt with the revenue shortfall by saying that their solution was to cut education by seven percent.
A seven percent solution. It’s how the legislature dealt with their paramount duty in this economy. It’s also the title of a Sherlock Holmes story, Conan Doyle’s great fictional detective. It turns out that Holmes was addicted to a seven percent solution of cocaine. His drug-addled brain saw only one way to deal with the difficulties in life: a seven percent solution.
A simple solution to a complex problem. Simple solutions are often called silver bullets. They are supposed to kill werewolves and such. You know, complicated problems that defy resolution. In reality they don’t work. Silver bullets exist, they just don’t have any special abilities that a regular old lead bullet doesn’t have. But silver sounds so much better than lead, and costs more too. And the silver bullet seller has such high praise for how it is supposed to work — all the time.
Education, like most endeavors involving a broad cross-section of the community, is very complicated. Most people don’t like our complicated, nuanced answers to problems in education. We recognize that students are individuals with individual needs. Non-education “experts,” using a business model want to use the efficiency expert model to come up with the best curriculum and plug the students into a universal fit assembly line for a great education. Unfortunately for this model, students are not widgets. As H.L. Menken put it, “There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”
In other words, there is no silver bullet. No simple solution, no seven percent solution, nor even a 10 percent solution that really works. When Holmes was forced to overcome his addiction, he saw that rather than helping, the simple solution interfered with real progress toward a solution. If a fictional character can see it, maybe we can too.
A seven percent solution. It’s how the legislature dealt with their paramount duty in this economy. It’s also the title of a Sherlock Holmes story, Conan Doyle’s great fictional detective. It turns out that Holmes was addicted to a seven percent solution of cocaine. His drug-addled brain saw only one way to deal with the difficulties in life: a seven percent solution.
A simple solution to a complex problem. Simple solutions are often called silver bullets. They are supposed to kill werewolves and such. You know, complicated problems that defy resolution. In reality they don’t work. Silver bullets exist, they just don’t have any special abilities that a regular old lead bullet doesn’t have. But silver sounds so much better than lead, and costs more too. And the silver bullet seller has such high praise for how it is supposed to work — all the time.
Education, like most endeavors involving a broad cross-section of the community, is very complicated. Most people don’t like our complicated, nuanced answers to problems in education. We recognize that students are individuals with individual needs. Non-education “experts,” using a business model want to use the efficiency expert model to come up with the best curriculum and plug the students into a universal fit assembly line for a great education. Unfortunately for this model, students are not widgets. As H.L. Menken put it, “There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”
In other words, there is no silver bullet. No simple solution, no seven percent solution, nor even a 10 percent solution that really works. When Holmes was forced to overcome his addiction, he saw that rather than helping, the simple solution interfered with real progress toward a solution. If a fictional character can see it, maybe we can too.
Monday
Hope or hopelessness?
I have been thinking a lot about leadership recently. I read about a study that found when groups are assigned a task, the people who speak up early and often are thought of as the group leaders whether or not their ideas help the group, or are even factually correct.
It took me back to Guyana and Jim Jones. At the time, we were amazed that he could brainwash hundreds of people into drinking poison just because he, as their leader, told them to do it. I think those people got so used to following his leadership, never bothering to critically evaluate whether his decisions were in the best interests of the group, that they were so unsure of what to do that they did the easy thing and followed his direction to drink the poison.
I often hear people say they voted for someone because he or she was willing to speak up. Was there an evaluation to see if the things they spoke up about built something, or just knocked down and destroyed, and made a lot of noise? It is far more work to build something than the reverse. So you can take a wild guess which path most “leaders” take.
Leadership in difficult times is where you see true leaders emerge. Almost anyone can step out front when things are going well. It’s when there are difficult decisions that need to be made that you find real leaders who are able to move people to turn in a new direction.
During difficult times a good leader offers hope and a plan to a better future because a good leader has vision. A less than good leader will have excuses like “there’s nothing we can do,” or “they are doing (fill in your favorite) to us,” without a plan on what we are going to do.
Some find opportunity in people’s pain. Others work to bring us together in order to help each other as we work to build a path toward positive results. Who do you want to be with? It’s your choice. Just listen to who talks about what can be done, and who talks about what can’t be done. Hope or hopelessness.
It took me back to Guyana and Jim Jones. At the time, we were amazed that he could brainwash hundreds of people into drinking poison just because he, as their leader, told them to do it. I think those people got so used to following his leadership, never bothering to critically evaluate whether his decisions were in the best interests of the group, that they were so unsure of what to do that they did the easy thing and followed his direction to drink the poison.
I often hear people say they voted for someone because he or she was willing to speak up. Was there an evaluation to see if the things they spoke up about built something, or just knocked down and destroyed, and made a lot of noise? It is far more work to build something than the reverse. So you can take a wild guess which path most “leaders” take.
Leadership in difficult times is where you see true leaders emerge. Almost anyone can step out front when things are going well. It’s when there are difficult decisions that need to be made that you find real leaders who are able to move people to turn in a new direction.
During difficult times a good leader offers hope and a plan to a better future because a good leader has vision. A less than good leader will have excuses like “there’s nothing we can do,” or “they are doing (fill in your favorite) to us,” without a plan on what we are going to do.
Some find opportunity in people’s pain. Others work to bring us together in order to help each other as we work to build a path toward positive results. Who do you want to be with? It’s your choice. Just listen to who talks about what can be done, and who talks about what can’t be done. Hope or hopelessness.
Wednesday
This IS an emergency
I fly fairly often, both in state and cross country. On a recent return from Washington, D.C., I had an early morning flight which was delayed for several hours. I was tired and as soon as everyone was aboard the plane, I closed my eyes and tried to relax. The flight attendants began their routine with the seat belts, oxygen masks and flotation devices. I smiled, thinking of a comic I once heard who asked if there really was anyone who does not know how to buckle their seat belt. The routine was developed by government regulators and corporate elites who have never actually done the job they are regulating and with a condescending attitude toward those doing the job. After all, flight attendants just serve you drinks and tell you to buckle up, right? I was on a plane with a landing gear which did not lock and was expected to collapse as we touched down. I saw another side to flight attendants as those professionals coolly moved about the plane preparing people for a crash landing. Heroics were again on display as the flight crew safelyevacuated the passengers from the plane that recently went down in the Hudson River. So be nice to the person serving you on a plane. In an emergency, they will be the one who saves your life.
This penchant of regulators not listening to practitioners is rampant in public education. While I was in Washington, D.C. the Senate was debating the stimulus package passed by the House. Some of the money would go to education. Because of shortfalls in state revenue across the country, educators are being laid off. Many could lose their jobs at the end of this school year due to a lack of funds, not a lack of students. The federal stimulus package was supposed to help. The Senate deadlocked and it looked like they were cutting education funds, which means they would be laying people off while they say they are creating jobs. Ideology trumps peoples’ lives. I don’t recall any flight attendants or classroom teachers being elected to the Senate, or being asked to develop help for the economy, but if there were, peoples’ lives would trump ideology.
At the start of our legislative session, a group of educators and their district administrators gathered across from the capitol building in Olympia urging legislators to listen to them. Calling themselves the Twin Harbors Coalition, they tried to educate the legislators not to “cut the solution” in dealing with the current economic crisis. Speaker after speaker called on legislators to “first, do no harm.”
The response from Olympia? A group of legislators from a committee that was formed for the sole purpose of addressing our education funding problem decided to drop the ball. Ignoring the funding issue and deliberately excluding educators, they introduced a bill that neglects funding and touts education restructuring that amounts to little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and would cut funding and teacher pay. We already underfund our schools. Washington is 45th in per pupil spending and we pay our teachers significantly below the national average. There is no fat. Additional cuts are into flesh and down to the bone. If the goal is to increase class size, chase educators out of the profession, and diminish the quality of public education in Washington, they are right on target.
I understand this is an emergency. Who do you trust your children to in an emergency? A professional who dedicates his or her life to them, or …? I trust my children’s education to the professionals.
This penchant of regulators not listening to practitioners is rampant in public education. While I was in Washington, D.C. the Senate was debating the stimulus package passed by the House. Some of the money would go to education. Because of shortfalls in state revenue across the country, educators are being laid off. Many could lose their jobs at the end of this school year due to a lack of funds, not a lack of students. The federal stimulus package was supposed to help. The Senate deadlocked and it looked like they were cutting education funds, which means they would be laying people off while they say they are creating jobs. Ideology trumps peoples’ lives. I don’t recall any flight attendants or classroom teachers being elected to the Senate, or being asked to develop help for the economy, but if there were, peoples’ lives would trump ideology.
At the start of our legislative session, a group of educators and their district administrators gathered across from the capitol building in Olympia urging legislators to listen to them. Calling themselves the Twin Harbors Coalition, they tried to educate the legislators not to “cut the solution” in dealing with the current economic crisis. Speaker after speaker called on legislators to “first, do no harm.”
The response from Olympia? A group of legislators from a committee that was formed for the sole purpose of addressing our education funding problem decided to drop the ball. Ignoring the funding issue and deliberately excluding educators, they introduced a bill that neglects funding and touts education restructuring that amounts to little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and would cut funding and teacher pay. We already underfund our schools. Washington is 45th in per pupil spending and we pay our teachers significantly below the national average. There is no fat. Additional cuts are into flesh and down to the bone. If the goal is to increase class size, chase educators out of the profession, and diminish the quality of public education in Washington, they are right on target.
I understand this is an emergency. Who do you trust your children to in an emergency? A professional who dedicates his or her life to them, or …? I trust my children’s education to the professionals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
