The June 1, 2009 special report from eSchoolNews on 21st-Century Teacher Education , that was supposed to highlight progress being made in teacher pre-service programs, unfortunately exposes the truth about the lack of progress.
Before even reading the article the tag line raises some concerns, "Responding to a key need, schools of education are ramping up efforts to prepare future teachers to integrate technology into their instruction." On the surface this may look like progress, but I read "ramping up efforts" as code for "just getting started".
Even more concerning is this notion that what is needed in the 21st century is for teachers to "integrate technology into their instruction". I read this as "force technology into existing instructional practices" rather than leverage technology to facilitate fundamental improvements in how student learning is done and how it is supported by educators. The article confirmed my concerns, leading with the example of a teacher using a SMARTboard. The SMARTboard is the kind of technology that easily integrates into 19th century pedagogy.
Rather than learn how to inject technology into the 19th century model educators should be preparing to contribute to a model of education where The Student is the Class, a model that takes advantage of technologies for virtual learning, online simulation, individualized learning plans, adaptive assessment of learning, and educator-learner collaboration. More important than a focus on technology is the need for teacher preparation programs to facilitate changes in methodology that move from the 19th century classroom model to that of a learning community that does Whatever It Takes to support individual learners.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Emergency Room Visit – A Model of Individualized Care -- Lessons for Education
An unplanned trip to the hospital on May 7th, 2009 gave me some insight as to how an organization can be optimized to meet the needs of individuals. This is in contrast to the organizational model of educational organizations, and the cultural inertia that resists full support of individualized learning.
What I noticed first from my emergency room experience was the number of people involved in my care. I was served directly by nine different care providers in just the first half-hour or so. The actions of each care provider were informed by the work the others had done, coordinated, and focused on my individual needs just long enough to provide the needed care.
I was amazed at the efficiency with which multiple ‘specialists’ each provided just the right care at just the right time with just the right information to support their decisions and actions. My time was limited with each specialist, but each encounter added personalized value to my care. And each did so in a way that made my experience as comfortable as possible.
The multiple care providers did not need to spend a lot of time talking about my case, or debating decisions, the criteria for key decisions had been pre-established within standard processes and informed by best practices. For example, the triage nurse didn’t have to think twice about calling for an electrocardiogram. The decision had already been made that the EKG would be done based on the circumstances. The decision was built into a well-thought-out, well-established process, that has been trained upon, and has become part of the organizational culture. I am convinced that if I entered that hospital on a different day, with different staff on duty, the decisions made, and the care I received would not have been different.
The cost in time and money for doing the EKG had been minimized by assigning a specialist with a mobile cart able to move quickly to the patient, do the test, and move on. While the technician did the test, the triage nurse was able to finish entering comments in my record then shift focus to another case.
In this case, person-time is more valuable than the equipment and consumables. The efficient system makes it easy to reduce risks, the risk of not doing the test, missing or delaying a diagnosis, or wasting the time of a (higher paid) physician if the test wasn’t available when needed later.
My quality of my care was dramatically improved because someone, somewhere, figured out that employing a separate EKG technician, and assigning that person to device on a mobile cart, is more efficient than that triage nurse or someone else doing that job at a different location. And not only did someone come up with the idea. The practice of having a roving EKG technician has been tested, measured, and proven to be an effective practice. That EKG technician may have been cross-trained to perform other duties but was available at the moment the triage nurse called.
I was served directly by the following health care professionals during my brief four-hour emergency room stay:
1. Triage registration desk clerk (with desktop computer)
2. Triage nurse (with desktop computer)
3. EKG technician (with mobile cart)
4. Aide, for transport to room
5. ER intern for initial diagnosis/ test (with wall-mount computer in hospital room)
6. ER nurse assist with test sample
7. Registration clerk (with mobile cart)
8. X-Ray technician (with mobile cart)
9. Medical technician (training to be an EMT) for blood sample and to set up I.V.
10. Aide, for comfort ...blanket, ice chips
11. Room attendant for trash and biohazard removal
12. RN to administer medication via I.V.
13. Doctor to confirm diagnosis and treatment plan (used in room computer)
14. Nurse for discharge (computer at nurse’s station to print discharge instructions and patient sign-out)
15. Emergency waiting room information desk clerk -- provides service to waiting family members (desktop computer to look up patient admittance info) …and parking validation.
I realize that there are countless others that I didn’t see that made it possible for me to receive the care that I did. Even though these many professionals may not see each other, they were all able to focus on my care informed by a common information system and common set of procedures and professional practices.
It is worth noting that I felt like I was being better cared for by many professionals in short intervals than I would have if I had one jack-of-all-traits person with me for extended periods of time. More importantly, the actual quality of my care was better because specialists were employed and because the processes established made it easy for those specialists to use effective practices for each step in my care.
There is a critical need to transform institutions of learning into organizations optimized to meet individual learner needs. The medical model is a good place to start in defining the “Learning Care System” to replace our outdated education system.
What I noticed first from my emergency room experience was the number of people involved in my care. I was served directly by nine different care providers in just the first half-hour or so. The actions of each care provider were informed by the work the others had done, coordinated, and focused on my individual needs just long enough to provide the needed care.
I was amazed at the efficiency with which multiple ‘specialists’ each provided just the right care at just the right time with just the right information to support their decisions and actions. My time was limited with each specialist, but each encounter added personalized value to my care. And each did so in a way that made my experience as comfortable as possible.
The multiple care providers did not need to spend a lot of time talking about my case, or debating decisions, the criteria for key decisions had been pre-established within standard processes and informed by best practices. For example, the triage nurse didn’t have to think twice about calling for an electrocardiogram. The decision had already been made that the EKG would be done based on the circumstances. The decision was built into a well-thought-out, well-established process, that has been trained upon, and has become part of the organizational culture. I am convinced that if I entered that hospital on a different day, with different staff on duty, the decisions made, and the care I received would not have been different.
The cost in time and money for doing the EKG had been minimized by assigning a specialist with a mobile cart able to move quickly to the patient, do the test, and move on. While the technician did the test, the triage nurse was able to finish entering comments in my record then shift focus to another case.
In this case, person-time is more valuable than the equipment and consumables. The efficient system makes it easy to reduce risks, the risk of not doing the test, missing or delaying a diagnosis, or wasting the time of a (higher paid) physician if the test wasn’t available when needed later.
My quality of my care was dramatically improved because someone, somewhere, figured out that employing a separate EKG technician, and assigning that person to device on a mobile cart, is more efficient than that triage nurse or someone else doing that job at a different location. And not only did someone come up with the idea. The practice of having a roving EKG technician has been tested, measured, and proven to be an effective practice. That EKG technician may have been cross-trained to perform other duties but was available at the moment the triage nurse called.
I was served directly by the following health care professionals during my brief four-hour emergency room stay:
1. Triage registration desk clerk (with desktop computer)
2. Triage nurse (with desktop computer)
3. EKG technician (with mobile cart)
4. Aide, for transport to room
5. ER intern for initial diagnosis/ test (with wall-mount computer in hospital room)
6. ER nurse assist with test sample
7. Registration clerk (with mobile cart)
8. X-Ray technician (with mobile cart)
9. Medical technician (training to be an EMT) for blood sample and to set up I.V.
10. Aide, for comfort ...blanket, ice chips
11. Room attendant for trash and biohazard removal
12. RN to administer medication via I.V.
13. Doctor to confirm diagnosis and treatment plan (used in room computer)
14. Nurse for discharge (computer at nurse’s station to print discharge instructions and patient sign-out)
15. Emergency waiting room information desk clerk -- provides service to waiting family members (desktop computer to look up patient admittance info) …and parking validation.
I realize that there are countless others that I didn’t see that made it possible for me to receive the care that I did. Even though these many professionals may not see each other, they were all able to focus on my care informed by a common information system and common set of procedures and professional practices.
It is worth noting that I felt like I was being better cared for by many professionals in short intervals than I would have if I had one jack-of-all-traits person with me for extended periods of time. More importantly, the actual quality of my care was better because specialists were employed and because the processes established made it easy for those specialists to use effective practices for each step in my care.
There is a critical need to transform institutions of learning into organizations optimized to meet individual learner needs. The medical model is a good place to start in defining the “Learning Care System” to replace our outdated education system.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Stewardship of Stimulus…What Will Education Agencies Learn from Private Enterprise?
It has been a while since I posted to this blog. That is in part because I’ve been waiting to see how the change in the U.S. presidency would change the education environment, and in part because I’ve been busy with some very interesting work. In October I posted thoughts on short-sightedness of bailing out financial institutions while failing to address the long-term needs of our education systems and workforce capacity. The world has changed a great deal since October 2008. An abundance of economic stimulus money is flowing to the public education system and federal priorities for improvement are tied to those funds.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is about to dump about $100 Billion dollars into the public education system. The federal government plans to release about 95% of the funds in the next six months. The money will be spent quickly, but the funding is meant to be more than a short-term stimulus. The hope is that this money and the federal priorities tied to it will make the U.S. education system better able to equip citizens for the globally competitive workforce with 21st century skills.
But with so much money coming so fast, and so many people trying to get their hands on it, there is a strong possibility that much of the money will not go to the lasting improvements that are needed. I don’t have a crystal ball, but I feel pretty confident in my prediction that in the coming months we will be hearing stories of fraud and improper use of taxpayer money. Recently public outrage has been over corporate executives receiving multimillion dollar bonuses from bailout money. Soon we can expect the outrage to shift to leadership of one or more public institutions that will have been found to have misused the stabilization funds. The private sector does not have a monopoly on greed.
Some intentionally improper use is inevitable when so much money is being handed out so quickly, and some of those stories will make headlines. What may not make headlines are many ways in which the funds will used. Some uses will be highly effective and deliver a good return on investment for tax-payer dollars. Other uses will be inefficient, wasteful, or not achieve intended results.
I hope that education industries don’t follow the example of some private sector bailout recipients, but when it comes to making sure that the money is used to its greatest potential there are a few things that education agencies can learn, and are learning, from private enterprise. Good stewardship requires more than good intentions. It also requires knowledge about how best to manage entrusted resources and a will to put that knowledge into action.
Management systems first developed in the private sector are being adopted by public sector education agencies to ensure that the effort of the organization is focused on the right things and that resources are used efficiently.
Harvard University and the University of Virginia have formed partnerships between their graduate schools of business and the graduate schools of education. These partnerships are working with state and local education leaders across the county put proven business methodologies into practice. Tools such as the balanced scorecard, process management, and project management oversight process are proving highly effective in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of education organizations.
Return on investment is different for education. The bottom line is not measured in dollars, but in student learning. The products of highly effective education organizations are well equipped students, ready to enter the global workforce and participate as contributing citizens in their communities, the nation, and the world.
The investment being made by the U.S. taxpayer through the stimulus funds should bring about long-term improvements, moving our 19th century education system into the 21st century. We look to the leaders of our public education agencies. Some will follow the bad examples from the private sector. Others put to work what can be learned from private enterprise, practice good stewardship, and maximize the return on this once-in-a-lifetime investment.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is about to dump about $100 Billion dollars into the public education system. The federal government plans to release about 95% of the funds in the next six months. The money will be spent quickly, but the funding is meant to be more than a short-term stimulus. The hope is that this money and the federal priorities tied to it will make the U.S. education system better able to equip citizens for the globally competitive workforce with 21st century skills.
But with so much money coming so fast, and so many people trying to get their hands on it, there is a strong possibility that much of the money will not go to the lasting improvements that are needed. I don’t have a crystal ball, but I feel pretty confident in my prediction that in the coming months we will be hearing stories of fraud and improper use of taxpayer money. Recently public outrage has been over corporate executives receiving multimillion dollar bonuses from bailout money. Soon we can expect the outrage to shift to leadership of one or more public institutions that will have been found to have misused the stabilization funds. The private sector does not have a monopoly on greed.
Some intentionally improper use is inevitable when so much money is being handed out so quickly, and some of those stories will make headlines. What may not make headlines are many ways in which the funds will used. Some uses will be highly effective and deliver a good return on investment for tax-payer dollars. Other uses will be inefficient, wasteful, or not achieve intended results.
I hope that education industries don’t follow the example of some private sector bailout recipients, but when it comes to making sure that the money is used to its greatest potential there are a few things that education agencies can learn, and are learning, from private enterprise. Good stewardship requires more than good intentions. It also requires knowledge about how best to manage entrusted resources and a will to put that knowledge into action.
Management systems first developed in the private sector are being adopted by public sector education agencies to ensure that the effort of the organization is focused on the right things and that resources are used efficiently.
Harvard University and the University of Virginia have formed partnerships between their graduate schools of business and the graduate schools of education. These partnerships are working with state and local education leaders across the county put proven business methodologies into practice. Tools such as the balanced scorecard, process management, and project management oversight process are proving highly effective in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of education organizations.
Return on investment is different for education. The bottom line is not measured in dollars, but in student learning. The products of highly effective education organizations are well equipped students, ready to enter the global workforce and participate as contributing citizens in their communities, the nation, and the world.
The investment being made by the U.S. taxpayer through the stimulus funds should bring about long-term improvements, moving our 19th century education system into the 21st century. We look to the leaders of our public education agencies. Some will follow the bad examples from the private sector. Others put to work what can be learned from private enterprise, practice good stewardship, and maximize the return on this once-in-a-lifetime investment.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Instant Decision Making and Optimized Learning
Last weekend I had the privilege of conducting a session at the Missouri School Boards Association annual conference. The session topic was the application of proven business practices and technology tools that can help education organizations achieve success.
A key-note speaker at the conference was, Mark David Milliron. I found it interesting that both of us pointed to the "Good to Great" findings of Jim Collins and his research team in our presentations, and both of us addressed the gap between innovation in schools and innovation in other areas of our would. However, Milliron really made clear how wide is that gap with two illustrations...
One illustration was the speed at which an Amazon.com reacts, with every click, to continually and instantly personalize the experience for every customer. e.g. When you buy or even view a book it instantly knows what "you may also be interested in..." and responds accordingly. ...Now imagine if we could support learning in that way, continually and instantly adapting to an individual learning styles, interests, and background knowledge informed by new data at every step in the learning process. That would be a big gap between an annual snapshot of data from a high stakes test that has too-little-too-late influence on delivery of instruction, and even then for groups of students, not individuals.
The other example was how quickly your credit card company can respond if your card gets into the wrong hands. Artificial intelligence programs continuously monitor patterns of use and will generate an alert leading to a from a call center half way around the world to check with you if your card has been stolen. Why can't we use this kind of innovation to trigger interventions for at-risk students? For example, if a certain number of absentees indicated that a student is at risk to drop out, why shouldn't continuously monitor absences and trigger an immediate intervention rather than looking at the data after the student has dropped out of school?
A key-note speaker at the conference was, Mark David Milliron. I found it interesting that both of us pointed to the "Good to Great" findings of Jim Collins and his research team in our presentations, and both of us addressed the gap between innovation in schools and innovation in other areas of our would. However, Milliron really made clear how wide is that gap with two illustrations...
One illustration was the speed at which an Amazon.com reacts, with every click, to continually and instantly personalize the experience for every customer. e.g. When you buy or even view a book it instantly knows what "you may also be interested in..." and responds accordingly. ...Now imagine if we could support learning in that way, continually and instantly adapting to an individual learning styles, interests, and background knowledge informed by new data at every step in the learning process. That would be a big gap between an annual snapshot of data from a high stakes test that has too-little-too-late influence on delivery of instruction, and even then for groups of students, not individuals.
The other example was how quickly your credit card company can respond if your card gets into the wrong hands. Artificial intelligence programs continuously monitor patterns of use and will generate an alert leading to a from a call center half way around the world to check with you if your card has been stolen. Why can't we use this kind of innovation to trigger interventions for at-risk students? For example, if a certain number of absentees indicated that a student is at risk to drop out, why shouldn't continuously monitor absences and trigger an immediate intervention rather than looking at the data after the student has dropped out of school?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Disrupting Class
The book Disrupting Class (Christensen, Claton; Horn, Micheal; Johnson, Curtis –McGraw-Hill, 2008) reflects aspects of the comprehensive “student-centric” solution that we address in Approaching 100% by 2014. It presents a compelling case about how and when disruptive innovation might cause our education system to reach a student-centric tipping point.
The projections by Christensen and his colleagues may be plausible. However, there are factors not included in the Disrupting Class analysis that may accelerate or decelerate such a transition. What we can say with some degree of certainty is that the shift to a student-centric model is inevitable, and will be required to approach the goal of 100% of learners achieving a minimum level of competency on core standards.
“At some point, administrators, school committees, and teachers unions will recognize that even without explicit administrative decisions ever having been made, student-centric learning will have become mainstream. The substitution curve analysis in Chapter 4 suggests that this will happen in approximately 2014 when online courses have a 25 percent market share in high schools”
(Christensen, p143)
The projections by Christensen and his colleagues may be plausible. However, there are factors not included in the Disrupting Class analysis that may accelerate or decelerate such a transition. What we can say with some degree of certainty is that the shift to a student-centric model is inevitable, and will be required to approach the goal of 100% of learners achieving a minimum level of competency on core standards.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The "Stupid" Economy in 2008
I hope to release a new book soon. The working title is The "Stupid" Economy. The first chapter (see below) draws from the current events related to the "credit crisis" and proposed economic bailout and suggests a choice "Counterfeit Affluence in the Short-Term or Sustainable Competitiveness"
No, the economy is not “stupid”. And neither are the systems of education in the United States. On the contrary, the United States is envied for both its world-leading economy and its public and private education systems and institutions. The title, The ‘Stupid’ Economy, is meant to invoke a range of perceptions and emotions about our economy and our systems of education leading into a discussion about critical interdependencies.
The recent crisis in the financial markets, skyrocketing prices, and plummeting investment values highlight a troubled economy in which ‘foolish’ mistakes made by a few have caused many to suffer. (Foolish, greedy, selfish, or even misinformed are more appropriate words than ‘stupid’ in this context, as many of the mistake-makers have been very intelligent.) While our free market model is the best that there is, better than the alternatives, it is not immune to the human natures of fear and greed. Our economy needs corrections.
At the same time, it is widely recognized that our systems of education are failing to meet the needs of many students. Recent reports such as “Tough Choices or Tough Times” have raised alarm that the U.S. workforce is not adequately educated to compete in the emerging global economy.
The ‘Stupid’ Economy, a play on words from the pop culture phrase “It’s the economy, stupid”, looks at the interrelationships between our nation’s economy and education systems. It makes some high level observations about factors in the economies of the free enterprise system and public education system, and makes the case for a new model for U.S. public education and the way educational services are delivered.
Counterfeit Affluence™ in the Short-Term or Sustainable Competitiveness
The current economic condition has been categorized as a “credit crisis”. That is a short-term view. It is more accurate to describe it as a DEBT crisis. Far too many people and institutions have borrowed more money than they can repay. Debt spending is a national addiction.
Individuals, corporations, and governments – from the 19 year college student, to the 65 year old corporate executive, to the federal government are all suffer from the borrow and spend addiction. In August 2008 U.S. News reported that “The average American with a credit file is responsible for $16,635 in debt, excluding mortgages, according to Experian, and the personal savings rate has hovered close to zero for the past several years.”[1] At the end of the same month the national debt clocked in at $9,645,725,555,640.02. One month later the debt had grown by another two hundred billion dollars.
Lawmakers and economists have raised the alarm that the lack of easy access to credit will cripple the economy, but fail to acknowledge that easy credit is a root cause of the problem. A government ‘bailout’ is a flawed attempt at a quick fix, a short-sighted and short-term solution. It does not solve the root cause, it only transfers the problem. Individual and corporate debt is transferred to the national debt. Rather than suffer discomfort today we are willing to steal from future generations.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines sealing as “to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice”. This seems like an accurate description of what is happening with the national debt. To satisfying our greed for a higher standard of living today, and to avoid short-term discomfort, we are building up a dept that future generations will have to pay.
There have been times in our nation’s history when the attitude was different, when Americans where willing to sacrifice in the short term in order to preserve freedom and opportunity for future generations. World War II was one such time. Between 1942 and 1945 those who were not risking their lives oversees were sacrificing comforts at home, women worked in factories and shipyards as “Rosie the riveter”, families collected and donated materials used for the war effort, and everyone accepted a lowered standard of living through rationing of energy and food. This generation that was willing to sacrifice present comfort for future opportunity was the same generation that had suffered through the great depression. This generation had a dream, the American Dream, that they might have a higher standard of living than the previous. Now, what was once an “American Dream” has become the “American Sense of Entitlement”. Many interpret the Declaration of Independence’s reference to an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness as a right to happiness.
Easy access to credit in the U.S. economy has, in fact, allowed a majority to live in a society of comfort, convenience, and instant gratification. We can have what we want when we want it whether or not we can afford it. This is “counterfeit affluence”. If a family wants the latest large screen plasma TV, they don’t need to save money until they have enough to buy it. They can buy it now, on credit, and pay later...maybe.
The same goes for businesses. Easy access to unearned money (credit or equity-based funding) gives business owners and executives the opportunity to grow their business, hiring new staff, buying equipment, buying raw materials, buying supplies, to opening new locations and introducing new products. This is a very good thing in moderation. When businesses grow it reduces unemployment, allows local, state, and federal governments to collect more in taxes to fund programs that help people. This all is good. Unfettered business growth benefits the economy as a whole, at least in the short term. However, there is a down-side to credit funded business growth.
While easy credit opens up opportunities for success, it also opens up opportunities for failure. Business executives take greater risks to keep up with competitive markets and may use easily borrowed money to fund extremely foolish ventures. Financial institutions that offer “sub prime” lending therefore are both a cause and a symptom of the easy money problem. Human nature drives business leaders to make foolish decisions. Greed and self-interest drive many to take irrational risks with other people’s money.
In the 1980’s investors foolishly lent money to risky businesses via “junk bonds”. In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s 747 savings and loan associations collapsed, primarily because of imprudent and excessive lending.[2] Here we go again. The current economic circumstances should not be a surprise. Since the 1970s Americans have become less willing to endure delayed gratification, “Christmas club” accounts have been replaced with multiple credit cards and home equity lines. Economists have predicted the “credit crisis” since the early 1990’s. But we tend to have short-term view of the economic situation. In an age of 24 hour news networks and text message alerts, a “current tick” mentality that can cause overreactions. In an age of easy access to credit we expect an ever increasing standard of living, even as our economy goes through inevitable ‘hard times’.
It is uncomfortable to adjust to a lower standard of living. We want the government to provide a quick fix bailout so we can go back to spending more than we have, back to living the good life, on credit. Unfortunately, any bailout is a short-term fix that feeds a long-term problem. When the government goes deeper into debt, or risks debt funded capital to solve a short term problem, it only exacerbates the deeper long-term problem by growing the national debt.
Whether or not the U.S. Government bails out financial institutions in the short term, the American people have a responsibility to give back some of what is being taken from future generations. Politicians should be looking not only at how to reduce the pain today, but also at how to reduce what could be even greater pain tomorrow.
There are a number of looming factors that suggest that the U.S. economy, and our standard of living, is bound for an inevitable period of decline. These factors include demographics, including the realities of an aging baby-boom generation; growing national and personal debt; and risks related to U.S. competitiveness in the global economy of the future.
The National Center on Education and the Economy 2007 report, Tough Choices or Tough Times made clear the threat of a declining American standard of living due weaknesses in our education systems.
“In this environment, it makes sense to ask how American workers can possibly maintain, to say nothing of improve, their current standard of living. Today, Indian engineers make $7,500 a year against $45,000 for an American engineer with the same qualifications. If we succeed in matching the very high levels of mastery of mathematics and science of these Indian engineers — an enormous challenge for this country — why would the world’s employers pay us more than they have to pay the Indians to do their work?”[3]
U.S. global competitiveness today and in the future is to a great extent dependent on the effectiveness of our education systems, and the skills of the American workforce to adapt to a changing global economy. Our current educational systems are structured to a meet century-old economy, to educate groups of students with industrial age skills, not to prepare individuals for the economic realities of the 21st century.
United States was once a world leader in educating its citizens. Today the U.S. is ranked low compared to other countries on tests such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). And the U.S. has a declining percentage of the world’s college graduates. But even if we were more competitive based on these measures, it would not guarantee a competitive workforce. The world-leading economies have undergone fundamental shifts from manufacturing to service industries to idea-driven industries.
“There may be a limit to the number of good factory jobs in the world, but there is no limit to the number of idea-generated jobs in the world.”
- Thomas Friedman
America faces a long term problem that cannot be fixed with a quick infusion of money. American primary and secondary public education in particular is facing pressures on multiple fronts. On one hand there are increasing expectations for accountability and the preparation of students for a global workforce, so that our nation can stay competitive in the global economy. These pressures call for new models for education that tailor teaching and learning to unique talents and needs of each student, so that no child is “left behind” and everyone has the opportunity to maximized learning that will lead to his or her unique contribution to the 21st century economy. On the other hand the demographics indicate teacher shortages on the horizon.
The speed and course of the transition to a student-centric education system should be of great concern to every American. The greatest opportunity for America to “give forward” to the generations that will be burdened with the national debt may be to fundamentally change in the way we as a nation deliver educational services to children and adults.
A long-term view is needed. It may require a willingness to sacrifice a short term “counterfeit affluence” for the longer-term economic strength needed to sustain a nation of the people, by the people, for the people.
[1] http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2008/08/08/the-end-of-credit-card-consumerism.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_crisis
[3] Tough Choices or Tough Times: The Report of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce; National Center on Education and the Economy
ISBN: 978-0-7879-9598-0
Note: "Counterfeit Affluence" is a trademark of Sound Image, Inc.
No, the economy is not “stupid”. And neither are the systems of education in the United States. On the contrary, the United States is envied for both its world-leading economy and its public and private education systems and institutions. The title, The ‘Stupid’ Economy, is meant to invoke a range of perceptions and emotions about our economy and our systems of education leading into a discussion about critical interdependencies.
The recent crisis in the financial markets, skyrocketing prices, and plummeting investment values highlight a troubled economy in which ‘foolish’ mistakes made by a few have caused many to suffer. (Foolish, greedy, selfish, or even misinformed are more appropriate words than ‘stupid’ in this context, as many of the mistake-makers have been very intelligent.) While our free market model is the best that there is, better than the alternatives, it is not immune to the human natures of fear and greed. Our economy needs corrections.
At the same time, it is widely recognized that our systems of education are failing to meet the needs of many students. Recent reports such as “Tough Choices or Tough Times” have raised alarm that the U.S. workforce is not adequately educated to compete in the emerging global economy.
The ‘Stupid’ Economy, a play on words from the pop culture phrase “It’s the economy, stupid”, looks at the interrelationships between our nation’s economy and education systems. It makes some high level observations about factors in the economies of the free enterprise system and public education system, and makes the case for a new model for U.S. public education and the way educational services are delivered.
"It's the economy, stupid" was a phrase in American politics widely used during Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against George H.W. Bush. For a time, Bush was considered unbeatable because of foreign policy developments such as the end of the Cold War and the Persian Gulf War. The phrase, coined by Clinton campaign strategist James Carville, refers to the notion that Clinton was a better choice because Bush had not adequately addressed the economy, which had recently undergone a recession. - Wikipedia
Counterfeit Affluence™ in the Short-Term or Sustainable Competitiveness
The current economic condition has been categorized as a “credit crisis”. That is a short-term view. It is more accurate to describe it as a DEBT crisis. Far too many people and institutions have borrowed more money than they can repay. Debt spending is a national addiction.
Individuals, corporations, and governments – from the 19 year college student, to the 65 year old corporate executive, to the federal government are all suffer from the borrow and spend addiction. In August 2008 U.S. News reported that “The average American with a credit file is responsible for $16,635 in debt, excluding mortgages, according to Experian, and the personal savings rate has hovered close to zero for the past several years.”[1] At the end of the same month the national debt clocked in at $9,645,725,555,640.02. One month later the debt had grown by another two hundred billion dollars.
Lawmakers and economists have raised the alarm that the lack of easy access to credit will cripple the economy, but fail to acknowledge that easy credit is a root cause of the problem. A government ‘bailout’ is a flawed attempt at a quick fix, a short-sighted and short-term solution. It does not solve the root cause, it only transfers the problem. Individual and corporate debt is transferred to the national debt. Rather than suffer discomfort today we are willing to steal from future generations.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines sealing as “to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice”. This seems like an accurate description of what is happening with the national debt. To satisfying our greed for a higher standard of living today, and to avoid short-term discomfort, we are building up a dept that future generations will have to pay.
There have been times in our nation’s history when the attitude was different, when Americans where willing to sacrifice in the short term in order to preserve freedom and opportunity for future generations. World War II was one such time. Between 1942 and 1945 those who were not risking their lives oversees were sacrificing comforts at home, women worked in factories and shipyards as “Rosie the riveter”, families collected and donated materials used for the war effort, and everyone accepted a lowered standard of living through rationing of energy and food. This generation that was willing to sacrifice present comfort for future opportunity was the same generation that had suffered through the great depression. This generation had a dream, the American Dream, that they might have a higher standard of living than the previous. Now, what was once an “American Dream” has become the “American Sense of Entitlement”. Many interpret the Declaration of Independence’s reference to an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness as a right to happiness.
Easy access to credit in the U.S. economy has, in fact, allowed a majority to live in a society of comfort, convenience, and instant gratification. We can have what we want when we want it whether or not we can afford it. This is “counterfeit affluence”. If a family wants the latest large screen plasma TV, they don’t need to save money until they have enough to buy it. They can buy it now, on credit, and pay later...maybe.
The same goes for businesses. Easy access to unearned money (credit or equity-based funding) gives business owners and executives the opportunity to grow their business, hiring new staff, buying equipment, buying raw materials, buying supplies, to opening new locations and introducing new products. This is a very good thing in moderation. When businesses grow it reduces unemployment, allows local, state, and federal governments to collect more in taxes to fund programs that help people. This all is good. Unfettered business growth benefits the economy as a whole, at least in the short term. However, there is a down-side to credit funded business growth.
While easy credit opens up opportunities for success, it also opens up opportunities for failure. Business executives take greater risks to keep up with competitive markets and may use easily borrowed money to fund extremely foolish ventures. Financial institutions that offer “sub prime” lending therefore are both a cause and a symptom of the easy money problem. Human nature drives business leaders to make foolish decisions. Greed and self-interest drive many to take irrational risks with other people’s money.
In the 1980’s investors foolishly lent money to risky businesses via “junk bonds”. In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s 747 savings and loan associations collapsed, primarily because of imprudent and excessive lending.[2] Here we go again. The current economic circumstances should not be a surprise. Since the 1970s Americans have become less willing to endure delayed gratification, “Christmas club” accounts have been replaced with multiple credit cards and home equity lines. Economists have predicted the “credit crisis” since the early 1990’s. But we tend to have short-term view of the economic situation. In an age of 24 hour news networks and text message alerts, a “current tick” mentality that can cause overreactions. In an age of easy access to credit we expect an ever increasing standard of living, even as our economy goes through inevitable ‘hard times’.
It is uncomfortable to adjust to a lower standard of living. We want the government to provide a quick fix bailout so we can go back to spending more than we have, back to living the good life, on credit. Unfortunately, any bailout is a short-term fix that feeds a long-term problem. When the government goes deeper into debt, or risks debt funded capital to solve a short term problem, it only exacerbates the deeper long-term problem by growing the national debt.
Whether or not the U.S. Government bails out financial institutions in the short term, the American people have a responsibility to give back some of what is being taken from future generations. Politicians should be looking not only at how to reduce the pain today, but also at how to reduce what could be even greater pain tomorrow.
There are a number of looming factors that suggest that the U.S. economy, and our standard of living, is bound for an inevitable period of decline. These factors include demographics, including the realities of an aging baby-boom generation; growing national and personal debt; and risks related to U.S. competitiveness in the global economy of the future.
The National Center on Education and the Economy 2007 report, Tough Choices or Tough Times made clear the threat of a declining American standard of living due weaknesses in our education systems.
“In this environment, it makes sense to ask how American workers can possibly maintain, to say nothing of improve, their current standard of living. Today, Indian engineers make $7,500 a year against $45,000 for an American engineer with the same qualifications. If we succeed in matching the very high levels of mastery of mathematics and science of these Indian engineers — an enormous challenge for this country — why would the world’s employers pay us more than they have to pay the Indians to do their work?”[3]
U.S. global competitiveness today and in the future is to a great extent dependent on the effectiveness of our education systems, and the skills of the American workforce to adapt to a changing global economy. Our current educational systems are structured to a meet century-old economy, to educate groups of students with industrial age skills, not to prepare individuals for the economic realities of the 21st century.
United States was once a world leader in educating its citizens. Today the U.S. is ranked low compared to other countries on tests such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). And the U.S. has a declining percentage of the world’s college graduates. But even if we were more competitive based on these measures, it would not guarantee a competitive workforce. The world-leading economies have undergone fundamental shifts from manufacturing to service industries to idea-driven industries.
“There may be a limit to the number of good factory jobs in the world, but there is no limit to the number of idea-generated jobs in the world.”
- Thomas Friedman
America faces a long term problem that cannot be fixed with a quick infusion of money. American primary and secondary public education in particular is facing pressures on multiple fronts. On one hand there are increasing expectations for accountability and the preparation of students for a global workforce, so that our nation can stay competitive in the global economy. These pressures call for new models for education that tailor teaching and learning to unique talents and needs of each student, so that no child is “left behind” and everyone has the opportunity to maximized learning that will lead to his or her unique contribution to the 21st century economy. On the other hand the demographics indicate teacher shortages on the horizon.
Two groups will collide: the wave of retiring baby-boom teachers will crash into the wave of teachers who exit the profession after five years or less, leaving a lot of empty desks at the front of the class. This is a problem common to every state, explained [Tom] Carroll, president of NCTAF. But the shortage is also an opportunity to attract new teachers by revolutionizing the teaching profession.
"Good teaching is a team sport," Carroll said, arguing that teaching has to shift from the past to the future--from the Flash Gordon model of a lone hero to a "Star Trek" model where teams get the job done. Add better training, higher salaries, more professional development, and enhanced support, and the result could be an exciting career that attracts new teachers and retains those with experience.
-The Boston Globe Editorial, The Teacher Gap: Prepare Now, March 30, 2007
The speed and course of the transition to a student-centric education system should be of great concern to every American. The greatest opportunity for America to “give forward” to the generations that will be burdened with the national debt may be to fundamentally change in the way we as a nation deliver educational services to children and adults.
A long-term view is needed. It may require a willingness to sacrifice a short term “counterfeit affluence” for the longer-term economic strength needed to sustain a nation of the people, by the people, for the people.
[1] http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2008/08/08/the-end-of-credit-card-consumerism.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_crisis
[3] Tough Choices or Tough Times: The Report of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce; National Center on Education and the Economy
ISBN: 978-0-7879-9598-0
Note: "Counterfeit Affluence" is a trademark of Sound Image, Inc.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Public and Political Will for Student Success
Andrew Calkins, senior vice president at Mass Insight Education & Research Institute Inc. made the following statement today in an Education Week online chat:
Andrew Calkins, senior vice president at Mass Insight Education & Research Institute Inc. made the following statement today in an Education Week online chat:
“To me, a critical strategy of the whole standards movement is confronting all of us -- but especially policymakers -- with hard data that puts the hard questions right in front of us. We now know exactly how far behind students like these are slipping. We also know more today than we ever have before about what could help those students. Now the question is: will we have the public and political will to put these supports and strategies in place?”
(Education Week Online Chat 1-22-08
Archived here: The
Turnaround Challenge: How to Help Low-Performing Schools)
The conclusion of our analysis in Approaching 100% is that the goal of leaving no child behind – is technically achievable. We have the needed data-driven technology and scientifically proven practices. The remaining question is whether or not we can leverage these advances in the science and technology of learning in a way that focuses on the value of each learner. Can we as a nation radically change a culture, profession, and organizational system rooted in the ‘art of teaching’ to a new system centered on the science of learning?
From the book:
Systemic change takes place when a critical mass of people within an organization, collectively or individually choose to behave differently. A change can sometimes be forced through mandate and sometimes be enticed. Whether push or pull, the motivation to change is only as effective as the consequences that result in choosing to adopt or reject a change. For example, cell phones offered variety of benefits – including improved productivity, status, and safety -- that motivated individuals and businesses to adopt the technology on such a large scale. At some point the benefits of adoption were seen as greater than the incremental cost. The consequence of not getting a cell phone -- lost productivity, lower status, or greater personal risk – was strong enough to justify the change of behavior. We can find a mandated change in the banking industry. When banks started using computers to record transactions it was not an option for a bank teller to say, “I don’t feel comfortable with computers. Paper and pencil has always worked for me and I’m going to stick with it.” No, it became a job requirement for bank tellers to use computers. A mandate that has no consequences for the individual will not motivate an individual to change.
Organizations must have both the motivation and the capacity to change. (Elmore, 2004/2006) In the bank teller example, the capacity that was needed was that every teller has the skill to use the technology and understand the related changes in operational practices. The banking industry recognized that use of the technology was an essential factor in meeting its business objectives and therefore the essential job skills for a bank teller changed.
Unlike the banking industry, education has yet to introduce technology into the core, day-to-day, business. The ‘transactions’ of learning are the daily instruction, student work (e.g. class work and homework), and classroom assessments. There are still teachers that say “I don’t feel comfortable with computers.”
The culture of education agencies and classroom practices are so entrenched that it will take both external mandate and individual-internal motivators to bring about systemic change. It may take education professionals to see the value of the changes to the professional at nearly the same time leadership and policy makers agree that new technology-enabled learner-centric processes are essential. The consequence of not adopting the new system -- lost productivity, lower quality of life for individual learners, a ceiling for teacher salaries, lower status of teachers, national economic risks – must be strong enough for a critical mass of stakeholders to overcome their resistance to change.
We are suggesting a model that takes advantage of multiple change agents. Some are already in place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)