Better Leader, Richer Life - Week 1

Please view at least two of the Reflections videos on the TLTV Network page of our Total Leadership Web site. Then write a comment about each of these two video clips (in a short paragraph for each) describing what you learned from listening to these alumni speaking about their experience.

Andrew speaks of being busy - family, work, volunteer, etc - which resonates with me since I'm constantly making myself busy and taking on new projects.  Balancing my time and giving my all in all areas of my life is highly important in order to move forward with everything I want to do.  "You get out of it what you put into it" - a true statement for all parts of life.

Kirk speaks of moving from a contributor role to a leader role.  I'm also in a similar position, although moving from a contributor/midlevel leader role to hopefully a higher level leader role where I can have more impact on education and children.  Glad that this course will give me more tools to influence a larger number of people.  Kirk also talks about vision and how good leaders articulate their vision.  I feel like I have some sense of my vision, but I could certainly clarify it and be better about communicating it.  Kirk then talks about experimenting - which is so important in all domains.  If we keep doing what we've always done, then we'll keep getting what we've always gotten.  In experimenting, it's ok if we fail, if we try things that don't work - we can always do another experiment the next day.

Both Andrew and Kirk talk about how important the stakeholder conversations are.  I have to admit that I'm a bit scared of having these conversations.  But it was good to hear Kirk mentioning that stakeholders often don't expect as much from you as you might think - that's probably true.  I probably do expect a lot more from myself than they do.  Although I think getting some clarification about what things they do expect would be good - from asking my previous employees, they sometimes brought up areas that I didn't even think about.  Everyone has different views of the world and expectations about how it should be - it's not the golden rule of 'treat others as you would want to be treated', it's the platinum rule of 'treat others as they want to be treated'.


1.B  Goals

As you are about to embark on your journey through our course, please describe, in a paragraph or two, (a) what led you to sign up for it and (b) what you hope to gain from it. Take a few moments to let your responses come to mind, then record your thoughts. 

I signed up for this course because I'm hoping to build my leadership skills in order to take my career to the next level and help even more children in education.  I feel like I've mastered multiple individual contributor roles and that I'm good (although perhaps not great) at leading a small team for incremental growth.  But in order to have a broader impact and give more children the opportunities that they need, I need to build my skills to work in a larger organization.

I also want to be able to balance everything in my life.  While work and making a difference are very important to me, I also value family, friends, community, etc.  My mom and grandma have been having health issues, so I want to be able to spend some time with them.  I have amazing friends who I want to make sure to stay connected with even as I'm traveling and doing so many different things.  I love helping with lots of different events and community groups.  I want to start a family soon.  And of course, I want to stay healthy and dance and learn and have variety in my life!  :-)

1.C  Skills

This exercise helps you focus on the skills you most want to develop in our course.  First, please complete the online TL Skills Assessment.  Then, please choose the two or three skills from the 18 that you would most like to focus on as you go through our course. In one sentence for each, please explain why these two or three skills are important to you.
I have strengths most like Michelle Obama.  Even though it really doesn't mean anything, there's something nice psychological about hearing that you're similar to someone who is influential and making a difference.  :-)

I think the three most important skills that I want to focus on for this course are...
1) Having a vision (and communicating that vision)
I'm at a bit of a crossroads - sold a business earlier this year, currently doing a masters.  But not sure what I'll be doing after that.  Gaining clarity on my vision will enable me to make easier and better choices about what opportunities to take and what opportunities to pass on.

2) Being able to convince people to support me in my goals
I can't move forward in having a broader impact and helping more people without increasing my influence.  While I'm fairly good at rallying people for a goal, I could still work on getting better at it for larger goals and larger groups of people.

3) Challenging assumptions and experimenting
I do a fair number of experiments already, but often within my comfort zone.  I want to work on experimenting outside of my comfort zone and seeing which assumptions are not actually true.


All of my answers...

BE REAL: Act with Authenticity by Clarifying What's Important
1. I know how important each of the different aspects of my life is to me.
    Agree

2. I am able to be myself wherever I am, wherever I go. I act in ways that are consistent with my core values.
    Agree

3. I make choices about how to spend my time and energy in ways that match what I really care about.
    Agree

4. I tell stories about the key people and events that have shaped my values in a way that binds me to others.
    Neither Agree nor Disagree

5. I have a vision for where I am headed and the legacy I want to leave. 
    Neither Agree nor Disagree

6. I hold myself accountable for doing what is most important to me in my life.
    Neither Agree nor Disagree

BE WHOLE: Act with Integrity by Respecting the Whole Person

7. I communicate with people important to me about expectations we have of each other, and I make sure these expectations are clear.
    Neither Agree nor Disagree

8. I look for opportunities to help many different people.
    Strongly Agree

9. I am able to convince people to support me in my goals.
    Agree

10. I use skills and contacts from different parts of my life to help meet any need or goal.
    Agree

11. I am able to delineate and maintain boundaries between the different parts of my life.
    Agree

12. I am able to weave together the pieces of my life so that it has coherence.
    Agree


BE INNOVATIVE: Act with Creativity by Experimenting with How Things Get Done

13. I focus on the results of my efforts to accomplish goals and am flexible about the means for achieving them.
    Agree

14. I seek creative solutions to conflicts rather than sacrifice one part of life for another.
    Neither Agree nor Disagree

15. I challenge traditional assumptions about how things are done, experimenting to make things better whenever possible.
    Neither Agree nor Disagree

16. I am willing to question old habits and innovate in managing life's demands.
    Agree

17. I look forward to change—seeing it as an opportunity—rather than fear it.
    Agree

18. I look for opportunities to encourage others to learn new ways of doing things.
    Strongly Agree

What future for Education - Week 2

Reflect on:

    What you already know about intelligence. How do you know if someone is intelligent or not?
    Do you consider yourself to be intelligent? Why? What is your evidence for this?


Intelligence can be thought of in many different ways.  Intelligence can be having strong working memory and speed of thought.  Intelligence can be having a strong long-term memory and knowing lots of facts.  Intelligence can be mathematical, linguistic, physical, musical, natural, social, emotional, etc.  I typically think of someone as intelligent based on their ability to quickly connect old and new knowledge and apply it to a problem at hand.

I do think of myself as intelligent, at least in some areas.  I have done well in typical academic settings - high grades, good schools, etc - but I also seem to be able to figure things out faster than most other people.  I have surrounded myself lately, at least in my friend circles, with other highly intelligent people, so I sometimes feel not as intelligent when I compare myself to them.  I don't have as good of a long-term memory as some of my friends - I can't quote facts and studies off the top of my head - but I do know how to find the information quickly.  I'm also willing to try things out.  That was one of the biggest issues with some of my employees - not sure if it's related more to intelligence or to entrepreneurialism, but my employees would often ask me to come do things for them because I "knew" how to do the task.  But I didn't "know" how to do the task anymore than they did - I was just willing to try out a few options, google it for help, and figure it out.


Journal Entry:

    During your own education, how has your "intelligence" been assessed?
    How has this affected the educational opportunities you have been given?
    What judgments have people made about you that have been affected by an assessment of your "intelligence"?
    Do you consider yourself to be a "learner"? why?

While in school, I was of course graded - I consistently achieved high grades, even in high level classes, often without a lot of work - at least until I got to Caltech.  At Caltech, I actually had to work in order to do well - and in classes that I wasn't interested in, I often didn't want to do the work.  Earlier in grade school, my intelligence was assessed by an IQ test of some sort in order to test into the gifted program.  I don't think I was ever told my IQ or a 'grade' on the test, but I do remember on the literacy portion, reading a passage at high school level and then the proctor just decided that we could stop and we didn't need to continue - I was in second grade.  In order to get into the honors classes for high school, we had to take the SAT in eighth grade and also complete an essay.  I got in the mid-high 600s on both the math and verbal sections.  And for the essay, I remember that it was about a weird land where beings went around to different blocks, with clear bellys and their insides moving about as they traveled.  The beings were cars and the insides were people - but I remember talking with several other people after taking the essay test who didn't get the analogy.  On the way to college, I again took the SAT and ACT.  I got 800 on the SAT math, 35 on the ACT, and 740 on the SAT verbal.  I was disappointed in my verbal performance - I had been trying for a 750+.  Thankfully one of my friends reminded me that when he applied to college, he was going to talk about all the extra classes he'd taken, all the leadership roles he had had, etc - but he wouldn't even mention his SAT score.  A good reminder that intelligence and capacity to make a difference in the world is not measured by one test.  Although because of my ability to test well, I've had an abundance of educational opportunities - attending high quality institutions, etc.  The opportunities have also been in large part because of my family's financial resources and their commitment to spending on education.

Depending on who I'm talking with, I sometimes downplay my 'intelligence' in order to fit in.  I'll say that I went to school in Los Angeles, but not necessarily mention Caltech.  Or even when I was living in San Diego, a lot of people would exclaim that I must be really smart because I was going to UCSD.  And now with doing my masters, I often won't say that it's through Harvard Extension unless I know that it will be taken well by who I'm talking with.  Fitting in with the current situation is much more important to me than showing off or having people think that I'm significantly more intelligent than them.

I do consider myself to be a learner - I have way too many books and am enrolled in way too many MOOCs.  I'm constantly interested in and learning about new things.  I wouldn't say that I'll spend the time to learn anything, but there is a very wide range of topics that I am interested in and will take the time to learn about.  Watching TV isn't something that I engage in (except when I visit my parents) - I'd much rather be on the internet or reading.  :-)

Forum Post - 
I think that Elon Musk is a great example of a person who may be considered highly intelligent or gifted, but is also an expert learner.  He has consistently talked about putting in a lot of work in order to achieve more (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fl9LRgG3_A).  Elon has definitely put in over 10000 hours in several different arenas. 

He also talks about defining a goal and learning in order to move toward that goal - like the video talked about finding a specific interest, and kids will often learn faster if they're studying around their own interest.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/07/16/how-did-elon-musk-learn-enough-about-rockets-to-run-spa...

 Forum Response -
I agree with the statement that we can't have the same expectations for all learners, but we should ensure they reach 'maximum potential' for them in our classrooms. To claim that everyone has the same brain biology and can all do everything goes against cognitive science research, but that's not to say that we can't have high expectations for every student or that we shouldn't foster a growth mindset - because both of those things are also proven in research to raise achievement.

I think the point made in the videos about finding individual student's interest areas can help a lot to figure out what their max potential is.  Also making sure that we know where they are to start and that we take them from the point - because we assume that they know something that they don't, they'll just be confused.  And on the other hand, if we assume they don't know something that they do, then they'll just be bored.  By personalizing their learning both by their level and by their interests, we can help all students to achieve a lot more.

One of the article readings makes the same points - although contradicts itself as it does.  "I hope this disabuses you of any notion that your aspirations should be limited by any idea that you need a special level of IQ to achieve anything.  ‘Even within science, IQ is only weakly related to achievement among people who are smart enough to become scientists. Research has shown, for example, that a scientist who has an IQ of 130 is just as likely to win a Nobel Prize as a scientist whose IQ is 180.’" from http://sandraleatongray.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/a-guide-to-intelligence-and-heritability-for-beginners/  The first sentence says that you don't need a special level of IQ to achieve anything, and yet the quote that she uses then states 'among people who are smart enough to become scientists'.  While there may be little correlation above 120 or some cutoff, I'm guessing that there aren't any science Nobel Prize winners with IQs below 90. 

We should provide educational opportunities from a young age (aka conception), and create healthy environments (food, exercise, low stress, low pollution, etc) to optimize everyone's potential - but we still all do have different brains and we'll be better at different things.

Ed Policy - Essays

Desegregation of Schools:

Desegregation has had a long history, perhaps even longer in schools than in other institutions. In 1896 with the Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson, segregation was legal, as long as the facilities were 'separate but equal'. This case was about railway cars, not schools, but its ruling was used to back up state laws, mostly in the South, requiring segregation, including in education. This separate but equal was maintained until the mid 1950's, and the segregation in schools wasn't limited only to blacks. The 1927 Lum v. Rice decision said that a Chinese-American girl could not attend an all-white public school in Mississippi. These decisions were not seen at the time as being in conflict with the 1868 Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment, which says that states must not deny any individual equal protection under law.

The stare decisis of 'separate but equal' was finally broken in 1954 with Brown v. the Board of Education. Effectively overturning Plessy v Ferguson, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public schooling was unconstitutional. This decision was unanimous, partly because of Earl Warren, a new judge appointed by President Eisenhower, convincing the rest of the judges to rule in favor of desegregation. The argument was not so much around the inferiority of colored schools, but rather around the psychological damage to blacks, as evidenced by the doll study. In 1955, the Brown II decision called for desegregation 'with all deliberate speed'.

While Brown v. the Board of Education made de jure segregation illegal, unfortunately it was not immediately implemented, especially in the South. In 1963, the Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, stood blocking school doors until President Kennedy actually sent in the National Guard to allow African Americans to enter the school. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made separate but equal illegal in all public accommodations, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed voting discrimination. Throughout these years, there were still a lot of civil rights issues, including violence such as the Watts Riots and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

The Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education changed the 'with all deliberate speed' to desegregation now, and school districts started looking at ways to integrate the schools, including bussing black students to white schools and white students to black schools. Bussing was not a popular idea – and in 1974, Milliken v. Bradley ruled that desegregation didn't apply inter-district, and that 'de facto' segregation because of where families choose to live doesn't need to be 'fixed'. Thus many schools, even today, remain rather segregated, not because of any legal limitations on who can attend, but rather because families of the same race and social class tend to live closer together and thus their children attend school together.

Teacher Tenure: 

Teachers are typically given tenure after 1-5 years of teaching, meaning that they cannot be fired without due process. Teacher seniority requires that teachers who have been in the profession longer are given (or can keep) positions before less senior teachers. Teacher unions and tenure advocates argue that teachers need protection from unreasonable termination, such as discrimination or disagreeing with the administration. They also don't want older and 'more expensive' teachers to be fired just to save money. They are trying to protect teachers' jobs, which is an admirable goal, and we certainly don't want teachers being dismissed because of insignificant reasons.

However, teachers are not widgets – they are not all the same. Research shows that effective teachers have a huge positive effect on their students as compared to ineffective teachers – not just on test scores, but also on college attendance and social outcomes. However, teacher credentialing, having a masters degree, and length of teaching (at least after the first few years) do not correlate with more effective teaching. Hence teacher seniority requirements are not necessarily in the best interests of the students. Certain younger teachers might be more effective than many older teachers, and we are doing a disservice to the children by keeping ineffective teachers in positions when there are more effective teachers who could be helping the students to achieve at higher levels.

Due process as a concept is good, but unfortunately the implementation of it often makes it such a convoluted and time-consuming process that administrators would rather put up with a bad teacher than go through the litigation to get rid of them. Again, this does a huge disservice to the students by allowing ineffective teachers to stay in the profession. Even in districts where ineffective teachers are removed from their main classroom teaching responsibilities, such as with NYC's rubber room, the teachers are still getting paid and taking money away from other more effective educational measures because the due process takes so long.

To reform teacher tenure, I would decrease the time and complexity of due process, possibly having someone besides the principal being the one involved, so that the principal can stay focused on everything else happening in their school. I would also get rid of the seniority rights so that principals can hire and keep the best and most effective teachers for the jobs that they have. I would also make getting tenure and staying tenured tied more to effectiveness rather than just time in the field. Teacher effectiveness should not be determined only by test scores, but rather as a 360 degree process including some test-based value-added measures, peer review, the principal and instructional leaders' views, and even the students' thoughts (not by asking whether they like the teacher, but by asking questions about the atmosphere the teacher creates in the classroom). The goal of teacher tenure should be to best help the students, and in order to do that, we need to ensure that the most effective teachers stay and the least effective teachers leave.

Technical vs Adaptive Change

To blog about...

Is most of education about technical change or adaptive change?  Informational learning vs  transformational learning?

Nonprofit Management - Paper #1 - Accountabilty n Early Educaton Nonprofits

We often think of education as beginning when we start school, but children are learning long before kindergarten. And unfortunately some children, especially those from low income or minority families, are learning much less in those early years than other children with greater resources. Looking at readiness skills upon entering school, Zill & West (2001) found that only 44% of at-risk children could identify letters of the alphabet, as compared to 75% of the children without risk factors. And only 38% of at-risk kids could count beyond ten, as compared to 68% of no-risk kids. Educators may hope that their teaching will reduce this achievement gap, but unfortunately evidence shows that the gap stays the same or even widens during the school years (Duncan & Magnuson, 2011). Thankfully now more focus is being put on early education with President Obama calling for Universal Preschool (The White House, 2013). But there has often been a gap between what the market would support (many low-income families don't have the money or don't see the value in early education) and what the government was funding (previously public funds were targeted more toward K-12 education). The non-profit sector has a long history of filling this gap and promoting early initiatives, but are they operating effectively and what results have actually been achieved?

The early education non-profit arena contains many types of organizations. Some social welfare organizations are more focused on advocacy and information, such as Zero to Three, which has an annual budget of over $19 million, was launched in 1977, and focuses only on early care for ages zero to three years old (Fact Sheet, 2014). Some of these research and dissemination organizations are more membership-based, such as the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), which was founded in the 1920's and has several membership tiers for early childhood professionals but also puts out significant print and online resources available to the public (History of NAEYC, 2004). Private foundations also contribute heavily to early education and universal preschool, including the Pew Charitable Trust, the Packard Foundation, and the Joyce Foundation (Klein, 2004). And perhaps most importantly are all of the non-profits that work directly with the young children and their families. These include many smaller organizations that just serve their local communities – church-based preschools, day cares that are run for low income families, etc – as well as many larger organizations that work regionally or nationally. For example, Jumpstart for Young Children, a non-profit started in 1994 now with locations on the East Coast, West Coast, and the Midwest, trains college students to deliver an early literacy curriculum in low-income preschools (Grossman, 2010). With all of these different non-profits working on early education, what sort of accountability measures are in place to make sure that they're actually making a difference for young children?

One basic aspect of non-profit accountability is in making sure that the organizations are not misusing the resources that they have been entrusted with. Finances and governance are regulated through requirements of the law, such as the IRS, and through transparency, such as charity rating websites (Worth, 2014, p. 129). Zero to Three has just a short, one-page graphic annual report for 2013 on their website, providing some transparency to their activities and financials (Annual Report Zero to Three, 2013), while NAEYC provides a much longer and more in-depth annual report with significant transparency about both the good and the bad happening in the organization. The 2013 report cites taking steps to 'right-size' the organization and reduce its annual deficit, such as eliminating departments, creating in-kind partnerships, and cutting other costs (Annual Report NAEYC, 2013). Even with these steps, NAEYC still had about $2 million more in expenses than revenue, which they clearly show in their annual report. Jumpstart, on the other hand, glosses over negative financial information in their 2013 annual report. They only show increases in revenues from all sources - government funding, foundations, private donors, and corporations – while redirecting people to see their financial statements for more info (Annual Report Jumpstart, 2013). However, the financial statements show that their expenses have also increased greatly, such that the bottom line for 2013 is even more negative than it was in 2012 and that their net assets are significantly reduced (Form 990 Jumpstart, 2013). These annual report documents are not used so much to report numbers for compliance, but rather as a bit of transparency and a lot of marketing to current and prospective funders, full of pictures of cute children engaged in educational activities and inspirational quotes from volunteers and clients.

While the annual reports look at the nonprofits perhaps through rose-colored glasses, the outside watchdogs give a somewhat more unbiased view. Interestingly, while Zero to Three is the least forthcoming on their own website with only the brief graphic report and no financial statements or Form 990's, the organization is actually highly rated with four stars on Charity Navigator and a silver rating on Guidestar (Charity Navigator & Guidestar Zero to Three, 2014). While NAEYC is very open and transparent with finances in the one most recent annual report available on their website, they do not participate in the Guidestar Exchange and they are not rated on Charity Navigator – perhaps because they are more a membership-driven organization that derives its income mostly from selling services and products, rather than from grants or donations (Guidestar NAEYC, 2014). Jumpstart has a bronze rating on Guidestar and shows a three star rating on Charity Navigator, although the star rating may need to be updated as Charity Navigator lists Jumpstart as not having audited financials or Form 990's on their website when they actually do, at least currently (Charity Navigator & Guidestar Jumpstart, 2014). Jumpstart may have been 'pushed' to be more transparent with their financial information on their website because of the lower star rating on Charity Navigator last year. Between the information from the rating websites and the information provided by the non-profits, all of these early education organizations are fairly transparent about their finances and governance, at least to anyone who goes looking for the information – although the one to two million dollar annual deficits they're all currently running is perhaps more cause for concern than the organizations are sharing.

Finances and governance are only part of the accountability picture – the other big issue is performance and mission impact. Even if the money is being handled properly, are the organizations actually changing lives with that money? Many nonprofits find it easier to report outputs, rather than outcomes, especially for early education where the benefits might not be seen for 10-20 years. Zero to Three talks of training 15,000 early childhood professionals and welcoming 1.8 million unique visitors to their website (Annual Report Zero to Three, 2013). NAEYC speaks of the nearly 2000 participants at their National Institute and nearly 7000 accredited programs (Annual Report NAEYC, 2013). Like the advocacy & information nonprofits, Jumpstart mentions outputs – 4300 volunteers trained that year, 600 classrooms, etc – but they also talk about the research studies done on their programs and how they're changing their practices because of these impact evaluations (Annual Report Jumpstart, 2013). Aaron Lieberman, the original founder of Jumpstart, said that “a culture of performance measurement was put in place early at Jumpstart and it's been evolving since” (Grossman, 2010). This Harvard Business School case study on Jumpstart included multiple observation and feedback forms, site management and monitoring tools, and their balanced scorecard showing not just increasing revenues and enrollments but also statistically significant gains on subscales measuring school readiness, placing social impact above financial as recommended in Kaplan's 2001 article. Jumpstart has continued their commitment to evaluation, and was named an Exemplar Program by The Center for High Impact Philanthropy, citing studies showing that “the average gain for Jumpstart students was more than two and a half times as large as the comparison group” (Center for High Impact Philanthropy, 2014). A non-profit organization working directly with the population they're trying to help, as opposed to advocating or disseminating information, will be better able to see the immediate effect they're having, which is part of why Zero to Three and NAEYC are only able to report on outputs, not specific outcomes.

The research shows that early education is extremely important for children's future achievement, and many non-profits are advocating for, informing about, and working with the young kids, including Zero to Three, NAEYC, and Jumpstart. These three organizations are all fairly transparent in their finances and governance, although their budget deficits are concerning. They all also provide measures of their performance, mostly in terms of outputs and immediate outcomes. How well they are impacting the long term futures of the children is perhaps a question too big to be answered.

References

Annual Report, Jumpstart. (2013). Retrieved from

http://web.archive.org/web/20140922005242/ http://www.jstart.org/sites/default/files/Jumpstart%20FY13%20Annual%20Report.pdf

Annual Report, NAEYC. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/annualreport2013.pdf

Annual Report, Zero to Three. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.zerotothree.org/about- us/2013-annual-report.html

Center for High Impact Philanthropy. (2014). Report on Jumpstart. Retrieved from http://www.jstart.org/sites/default/files/Scribbles/high-impact-philanthropy-article- February-2014.pdf

Charity Navigator, Jumpstart. (2014). Retrieved from www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm? bay=search.summary&orgid=4885#.VDbwUBZzCSpc

Charity Navigator, Zero to Three. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.charitynavigator.org/ index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6562#.VDbuIhZzCSq

Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. (2011). The Nature and Impact of Early Achievement Skills, Attention Skills, and Behavior Problems, in Duncan & Murnane (eds.), Whither Opportunity: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children's Life Chances, pp. 47-69. Retrieved from http://sites.uci.edu/gduncan/files/2013/06/Duncan-Magnuson-including- web-appendix-0321121.pdf

Fact Sheet, Zero to Three (2014). Retrieved October 8, 2014, from http://www.zerotothree.org/about-us/zero-to-thees-fact-sheet.html

Form 990, Jumpstart. (2013). Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20140922142447/ http://www.jstart.org/sites/default/files/Jumpstart%20August%202012%20IRS%20Form %20990.pdf

Grossman, A.S. (2010). Jumpstart, A Culture of Performance Measurement and Management. Case Study. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Guidestar, Jumpstart. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/04- 3262046/jumpstart-young-children.aspx

Guidestar, NAEYC. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/36- 6009499/national-association-education-young-children.aspx

Guidestar, Zero to Three. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/

521105189/zero-three-national-center-infants-toddlers-families.aspx

History of NAEYC. (2004). Retrieved October 8, 2014, from https://oldweb.naeyc.org/about/history.asp

Kaplan, R.S. (2001). Strategic Performance Measurement and Management in Nonprofit Organizations. NonProfit Management and Leadership, 11(3). Jossey-Bass.

Klein, L. (2004). Private Foundations and the Move Toward Universal Preschool. The Evaluation Exchange, 10(2). Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the- evaluation-exchange/issue-archive/early-childhood-programs-and-evaluation/private- foundations-and-the-move-toward-universal-preschool

Ritchie, S. J., & Bates, T. C. (2013). Enduring Links From Childhood Mathematics and Reading Achievement to Adult Socioeconomic Status. Psychological Science 24(5). Retrieved from http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/05/02/0956797612466268

The White House. (2013). Fact Sheet President Obama’s Plan for Early Education for all Americans. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/13/

fact-sheet-president-obama-s-plan-early-education-all-americans

Worth, M.J. (2014). Nonprofit Management, Principles and Practice. Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Zill, N. & West, J. (2001). Entering Kindergarten: A Portrait of American Children When They Begin School: Findings from The Condition of Education 2000. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2001–035. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001035.pdf

What future for education? Week 1

Reflect on: your previous learning experiences. Think about one particularly successful and one unsuccessful learning experience. Consider what were the conditions that made this experience successful or unsuccessful for you and what this tells you about your own preferred ways to learn.

A particularly successful learning experience was buying and running a business when I was 21.  Nothing makes me learn faster than having to figure things out while 'in the fire'.  Although of course, the consequences of wrong decisions or not learning fast enough are also a lot greater.  I like to figure things out - utilize resources but doing most of it on my own - not having someone telling me what to do.
A particularly unsuccessful learning experience has been learning new languages.  I'm always saying that I'm going to learn Spanish or Chinese, but I have not yet made much progress on this learning endeavor.  I sometimes get started with some flashcards or an online program, but I don't stick with it.  This brings up the aspect of all-encompassing learning - if I was living in a foreign country where I had to speak the language to get things done, I'm sure I would learn pretty quickly.

Other reflections...
* Need a strong motivation
* Need alone, quiet, and the ability to focus (get distracted by other people or sounds)
* Need deadlines


Based on your experience as a learner, what do you think you will be able to get out of this course? And what ideas do you already have about the future of education?

I already have a fair bit of experience learning in different contexts, as well as teaching in different contexts.  But as I just wrote about in the forum, learning is a never ending journey - we're always learning.  I think that I will get some more theories of education from this course - possibly seeing more of how things are internationally, as the course is from the University of London with a wide range of international students.  I'm also looking forward to getting some new frameworks around effective learning and what makes for a good teacher, school, educational system, etc.  And I'm interested to see how other people view education - I'm currently working on seeing the world through other people's lenses, figuring out what their expectations and needs are, rather than assuming it's the same as mine.  Going from the golden rule of treat others the way you want to be treated, to the platinum rule of treat others as they want to be treated.

When I think now about the future of education, I see that technology can be used to personalize education - both in terms of allowing students to learn more about what they want to learn about (personal motivation) and in terms of meeting students exactly where they are in their learning (scaffolding/flow).  But even with all of this technology, education is still about connection.  Education in the future will allow students to connect with other learners and facilitators who can go with them on their learning journey.  We don't need all the students to be studying exactly the same thing - students can learn at their own pace, in their own way.  I also see the future of education expanding out from schools into communities - students can learn at work places, at home, at community centers, etc.  As we remember that we're all learners, schools will become less of a focal point for education.

Ed Policy - Teacher Tenure

 “Tenure is not a guarantee of lifetime employment but a protection against being terminated without due process. It does not protect teachers from being laid off in a recession, nor does it protect them from being fired for incompetence or misconduct. Why does due process matter? Teachers have been fired for all sorts of dubious and non-meritorious reasons: for being of the wrong race or religion, for being gay or belonging to some other disfavored group, for not contributing to the right politician, for not paying a bribe to someone for their job, for speaking out on an issue outside the classroom, for disagreeing with the principal, or simply to make room for a school board member’s sister, nephew, or brother-in-law” (Ravitch 176).

“A 2005 study by the New Teacher Project, the national nonprofit organization that works with school districts to recruit high-quality teachers, examined five urban districts and concluded that seniority-based transfer privileges written into contracts often force principals “to hire large numbers of teachers they do not want and who may not be a good fit for the job and their school.” All but five states have laws giving teachers lifetime tenure after three years or less. While procedures for removing tenured teachers for “just cause” appear in most contracts, the available procedures are so burdensome that they are rarely used. A recent study of Illinois public schools found that, since 1986, an average of just two tenured teachers a year have been removed–in a state with more than 95,000 tenured teachers. The New Teacher Project report cited above found just four tenured teachers out of 70,000 fired for poor performance in the five districts studied” (Hess and West 41).

These two quotes from assigned readings conflict in their opinions on teacher tenure and its relationship to teacher effectiveness. Do you believe tenure should exist for teachers? How many years should it take to get teacher tenure? Which author do you agree with more?


Tenure, like most aspects of the educational system, doesn't have an easy answer or a quick fix.  The point that Ravitch makes about teachers wanting protection from unfair termination is valid, but so is the point that Hess and West make about ineffective teachers continuing in the classroom because tenure creates barriers to hiring effective teachers and dismissing ineffective teachers.  I would tend to agree more with Hess and West, and would advocate for a new tenure system based not on length of employment, but rather on effectiveness.  Although as the collective bargaining readings mention, getting such a system to fly with the teacher unions would probably be extremely difficult because many senior teachers would fight to keep their current job security.

Due process and protection from being fired for trivial reasons is important in any profession.  Employees want to be able to work and feel secure in knowing that they'll have a job even if they have a disagreement with the administration.  Tenure in higher education has been in place to allow for academic freedom - for professors to be able to study and research possibly controversial topics.  However, in K-12 education, teachers are (usually) not doing research, and thus don't need the same type of academic freedom.  In K-12 education, tenure is more about creating stability for teachers - which gets back to a conversation from last week's forums about whether stability and risk-aversion are pros or cons in regards to who gets into the teaching profession.

Assuming that we need some sort of protection in place, then comes the question who do we want to keep as teachers, who do we want to give stability to?  While teaching quality does correlate with experience for the first few years, in general after the first three years, there is little experience-related improvement (as mentioned in the Photo Finish reading).  So if we were able to actually sort and select out the ineffective teachers at the end of three years, then instituting tenure after that might make sense.  Or perhaps some way of giving short-term tenure to teachers that show their effectiveness, renewable as they continue to be effective?  Having tenure/seniority based on effectiveness rather than work length would also help with the issue of principals feeling like they have to hire undesirable teachers.  (Of course, with this system, there's still the issue of measuring effectiveness effectively...)

The other issue to change with tenure would be the process of due process.  While we don't want teachers being fired willy nilly, we do want principals to be able to move ineffective teachers out of the profession.  As the Great Teaching reading shows, the difference between an effective teacher and an ineffective one can be huge and long-lasting for children.  Perhaps if an outside group evaluates ineffective teachers and decides whether they can be coached or need to be let go.  That might get rid of some of the potential 'the principal fired me because she doesn't like me' issues.  Although it does increase costs and bring in a third party, which could be more hassle than the principal wants and thus she just lets the teacher continue.



Also interesting links from Lana's post -
http://cecr.ed.gov/pdfs/CECR_MCPS.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/education/06oneducation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Also...

Just saw this post from a teacher about her experiences with tenure, and thought it was interesting... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/holly-kragthorpe/how-can-we-make-teaching-_b_5902418.html
"That's why we must reform tenure in public schools: so that all teachers, not just those with the most seniority, have a voice; so that tenure is a meaningful and earned milestone in a teacher's career--a career that has multiple pathways and options, with opportunities for teacher-designed leadership and hybrid roles.
 

More relevant links that I've been reading...
http://tntp.org/publications/view/rebalancing-teacher-tenure-a-post-vergara-guide-for-policymakers
http://tntp.org/blog/post/letters-to-the-editor-rebalancing-teacher-tenure