Thoughts, Comments, and Observations: "So how do we get it done?"

Thoughts, Comments, and Observations: "So how do we get it done?": What is it about education that either frustrates or disappoints you?   Possibly there’s another verb that better captures your feelings or...

"So how do we get it done?"

What is it about education that either frustrates or disappoints you?  Possibly there’s another verb that better captures your feelings or emotions?  For me, “anger” is probably the word that best describes what I am feeling especially when it comes to universal literacy.  Simply put, it angers me that we have not achieved universal literacy!

We already know more than we need to achieve universal literacy.  The question as Dr. Ron Edmonds put it, has more to do with “how we feel about the fact that we haven’t”

As I stated, it makes me angry.

If we really wanted to make universal literacy a reality – we would!

Let’s “think for a change” rather than react.  Let’s put aside all the excuses, justifications, or rationale used to defend failure.  Let’s suspend the political rhetoric, international comparisons, and the like that suggest that teachers don’t care or are not interested in each student being successful.

Rather, let’s think about how we get this done.  We have to by the way.  Failure is too expensive.  The cost of remediation is exponentially more expensive than getting “it” right the first time.

So how do we get it done?

The first step is rather simple, not easy.  Every one and I do mean everyone must say “yes”.  “Yes” is the first step to “how” as Peter Block reminds us.  “Yes” is proactive.  It is empowering.  By saying “yes” we are not waiting for someone else to address it.  This is our time and on our watch.

Second step – again simple not easy.  We need to give permission to our educators to “do whatever it takes” with respect to time albeit the instructional day, week, or year.  We need to give permission (as if it is needed) to teach literacy in all things and in all ways – day in and day out.  We’re going to have think and act differently about grade configurations, age, and etc.  We will have to finally put to rest the erroneous assumption and practice that if a student isn’t ready for the next grade we promote anyway and hope they not only learn what they didn’t learn the previous year but also will learn what they can’t learn in the present year – and the research says, “it hasn’t worked yet!”

Third step – there must be an unprecedented monitoring of instruction with continuous mentoring, coaching, and instructional support – support isn’t providing interventionists or specialists.  Rather support must be providing feedback, input to lesson design, instructional methodologies, and evidence of student learning.  Simultaneously, there must be accountability that is SMART (specific, measurable, actionable, relevant, and timely) not punitive – accountability that informs rather than makes judgments.

Lastly and probably the most important step is that we must individually and collectively shift from the “winning now” mindset to “it’s not how we start but how we finish” mindset.  The latter is about growth irrespective of where a learner begins the literacy journey.

We have all been indoctrinated with the theory of normal distribution (Bell curve) with respect to the distribution of learning, intelligence, income and etc.   Many have used and continue to use this theory to rationalize, justify and defend why “all” students are not successful.  However, in direct conflict with the longed believed, as “true” theory of normal distribution is a new construct– the “J-curve”.

Though the J-curve is associated with the distribution of achievement, I think it appropriate to apply it to literacy and the acquisition of content or subject mastery. I equate the mastery of content and subject matter as resembling a “J” - flat, dipping, and then ascending commensurate with literacy capacity, competence, and confidence.

What we must understand and practice is that without literacy no subject matter or content mastery will be fully realized.  In fact, a close look at leading indicators of success in almost every subject area is – literacy followed closely by writing.

The J-curve effect applied to literacy demonstrates the utility and import of literacy skills with the relationship of mastery of subject content. There it is – until literacy is mastered, we will not see mastery of other subjects or content.  As simple as this is, we don’t embrace this.  In fact, the oft-misused and misapplied theory of normal distribution (Bell Curve) too often drives our practice –

  I have intentionally stayed away from “how” we teach literacy.  In a like manner, I have stayed away from any specific program.  My point, universal literacy must be more than a pithy or trite sound byte.  We can and we must make it our nation’s foremost commitment. 

As Edmond stated,

“We can whenever, and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than we need, in order to do this. Whether we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so far.”

Thoughts, Comments, and Observations: News Flash! America Eradicates Illiteracy!

Thoughts, Comments, and Observations: News Flash! America Eradicates Illiteracy!: “The vision of universal literacy has been realized” “The bold, oft-controversial commitment of ensuring literacy for every child has bee...

News Flash! America Eradicates Illiteracy!

“The vision of universal literacy has been realized”

“The bold, oft-controversial commitment of ensuring literacy for every child has been achieved.  American schools have for the past 36 months embarked on a relentless, unapologetic crusade to defeat illiteracy.  The “whatever it takes” strategy included the early and aggressive identification of learner skill, knowledge, and experience with language leading to individualized learning plans, repurposing of time, resources, and effective use of technology based supplemental programming.  The key however has been the commitment, conviction, and courage of educators to do what they have always known needed to be done.  No silver bullet and no short cut.  Teachers provided laser like, focused instruction to meet the needs of each learner.”

Fantasy? Fictional? Absurd?

Let me ask you, how serious are we about eradicating illiteracy?

Isn’t about time that we move from the politically correct “yes” we agree all learners should be literate to “yes” take no prisoners - whatever it takes to get it done action? 

What do you think?

Dr. Ron Edmonds stated so poignantly in “Some Schools Work and more Can” (1978),

“We can whenever, and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than we need, in order to do this. Whether we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so far.”

These words should set off bells and alarms.  They should cause each of us to pause, reflect, and ponder where we are in the year 2014 with educating each child.

To some these words serve as an indictment of the content of our character, challenge our convictions and commitment to each learner, and question both individual and corporate courage.  To others these words are pithy or trite and have little or no effect.  For the majority I fear, these words are met with quick opposition or dismissal based more by deeply held opinions and attitudes that teachers irrespective of how hard they work, how much they care will never successfully teach all children to be literate.   Oft-cited poverty, home, gender, ethnicity, or some other demographic characteristic are generally inferred or implied.  The reality of barriers or obstacles has been proven over and over again to be challenging but not insurmountable with respect to literacy.      

So, why haven’t we eradicated illiteracy in this country! 

John F. Kennedy challenged this great nation to “send a man to the moon and return him safely to the earth”.  What did we do? 

We assembled the “brightest and best”, the “dreamer and doers”, and … “mission accomplished” within a decade.  We thought differently to achieve different.  We were challenged to lead the world and we rose to that occasion.  Often forgotten was Sputnik and how embarrassed we were as a nation.  Are we not embarrassed now?

So, I ask again, why haven’t we eradicated illiteracy?

As Edmond penned, “we know more that we need, in order to do this”.  We really do! 

The advent of new technologies and the authentic integration of learning theory and learning science are but two factors that make literacy, universal literacy realistic.

If we know what works, what is in the way?  Money?  Time?  Attitude?

I suggest our challenge is that we have not made this priority one!  We give achieving literacy lip service but unlike Kennedy’s vision, we are not compelled to achieve it.

Two reasons stand out as to why we haven’t achieved “literacy for all”.  First, the instructional day and instructional calendar were designed to serve a different purpose.  We have organized, operated, and rewarded schools from a paradigm of control, order, and predict.  We made attendance compulsory rather than learning.  This, in part, explains why over the past 20 years there has been so much push back on student performance accountability.  It’s the system not the people.

The public school system was never designed to ensure each student learns to high standards let alone achieve universal literacy.  If we did, the school day and school year for that matter would be fundamentally different.  Let me be clear, I am not saying that “make the day longer” or “make the school year longer” will eradicate literacy.  Rather, I am saying we must configure and use time differently.  To do so will require a seismic shift in what we know and what we do in several areas – most of which are made much more complicated and complex than they actually are. 

Next week I will elaborate more on reconfigured time as well as spend time on the second obstacle to “eradicating illiteracy” – one much more controversial.

Leadership - Management: Is there a difference?

Last week I was challenged to revisit my thinking about “leadership” versus “management”.  I'm not so sure that the two constructs, concepts or theories are necessary opposed to one another.  I do believe, however, they are different.  

As I pondered my experiences in leadership including all the books I’ve read, theories I’ve studied, individuals I’ve observed and worked for and with, and the myriad discussions, conversations, as well as opinions debated, I realized something, I’m not sure if we haven’t confused the two.

I recalled the oft-cited Peter Drucker’s proclamation, “Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things”.  I remembered how great that sounded at the time!  But, I have learned that there’s much more to both management and leadership.

Management or managing people requires “doing the right thing” as well as “doing things right”.  Limitations and constraints abound if you’re in a position of leadership but when you really examine the tasks, responsibilities, and role you play, how many of them are actually managing rather than leading?

To answer the aforementioned question requires a clear understanding of what is managing and what is leading.

There are generally six accepted principles of management.  They are planning, organizing, staffing, directing, controlling, and evaluating.  These principles or functions and accompanying practices are more or less focused on getting others to do something that they would not normally choose to do or now how to do.  Possibly over simplifying, managing is getting things done through others.

Leading others is different than managing them.  For me the defining difference between managing and leading is vision – not just having one but living it, breathing, it.  I’ve learned that vision is far greater than just articulating a better place - a preferred future.  It is pointing, showing, motivating, encouraging, capturing, and compelling others to see and begin a journey to “different”. 

Concisely, I believe leadership is taking people to a place they never imagined going, staying longer that they planned to stay, and investing more of themself than they thought possible. 

I have experienced the power of vision as a means to accomplish transformation.   Transformation does not take place from the outside in.  Rather, it is an inside out proposition.  Presenting a compelling vision alone will not in and of itself cause transformation.  There must be qualities, traits, or behaviors that create followership.

What qualities come to mind?

Integrity? Action? Selflessness? Candor? Preparation? Learning and Teaching? Fairness? Vision? Caring?

This list comes from the leadership qualities defined by General George C. Marshall.  For an expanded description of these take a look at Jack Uldrich’s book, Soldier Statesman Peacemaker: Leadership Lessons from George C. Marshall (2005).

General Marshall’s influence on military leadership remains in place today.  If you look at the any of the braches of the United States Armed Forces you’ll find Marshall’s fingerprints on leadership principles and expected behaviors.  They remain essential to the development of our military leaders.

Another quality that underpins Marshall’s leadership principles is loyalty.  Loyalty to the mission, loyalty to the vision, and loyalty to the guiding principles that underpin leadership.  These were paramount to Marshall's brand of leadership and followership.

Knowing leadership traits, qualities and virtues is far different than being them.  Argumentatively, you can't rush leadership.  Experience requires time, wisdom from both successes and setbacks, and the constant presences of humility. 

As I wrapped up my week of review and reflection of leadership and management, I really don't have any new revelations or insights.  I do have one conclusion, however.  That is, both leadership and management require a commitment to continuous learning.  A learning that is genuine, sincere, and without any motivation other than to increase ones' competence, confidence, and capacity to influence, develop and serve others.