Chapter 4 of That Used to be Us begins the second part of the book which focuses on “The Education Problem.”
The title of the chapter is “Up in the Air,” which is named after the 2009 film starring George Clooney, who makes a living flying all over the country firing people. In other words he’s an efficiency expert brought in by the company to give employees the bad news that no one else wants. However, Clooney soon finds himself getting the can because a younger ‘efficiency expert’ found an even more efficient way to fire people, using the internet. So Clooney is canned.
Friedman uses this as an analogy for the 21st century workplace. If a job can be digitized, outsourced, or robotized, it will. No questions asked.
The world changes so quickly today that one has to be on top of their game at all times. Friedman offers this example: when he was looking at the first edition of his seminal work, The World is Flat, he was amazed to see that Facebook was not in it. It was just in its infant stages. In just a few short years, new technologies and social media sites have sprung up that have raked in billions of dollars, yet they didn’t exist just a few short years ago. As Friedman writes: “in 2005 Facebook didn’t exist for most people, ‘Twitter’ was still a sound, the ‘cloud’ was something in the sky, ‘Linked In’ was a prison, ‘3G’ was a parking space, ‘applications’ were what you sent to college, and ‘Skype’ was a typo.”
Not so anymore.
How does one survive in such a work place?
You have to be either a creator or a sever. Friedman quotes Andy Kessler in a Wall street Journal article:
Forget blue-collar and white-collar. There are two types of workers in our economy: creators and servers. Creators are the ones driving productivity -- writing code, designing chips, creating drugs, running search engines. Servers, on the other hand, service these creators (and other servers) by building homes, providing food, offering legal advice, and working a the Department of Motor Vehicles. Many servers will be replaced by machines, by computers and by changes in how business operates.
Friedman takes this one step further by looking at four types of jobs occupied by creators and servers. Here they are
1. creative creators - “people who do their non-routine work in a distinctively non-routine way -- the best lawyers, the best accountants, the best doctors, the best entertainers, the best writers, the best professors, and the best scientists.”
2. routine creators - people who do their non-routine work in a routine way.
3. creative servers - non-routine low-skilled workers who do their jobs in inspired ways.
4. routine servers - people who do routine serving work in a routine way, offering nothing extra.
This idea of ‘extra’ is important to us all. Friedman declares, “We all have to bring our extra.”
Here’s what he means by that applied to the four types of workers.
1. creative creators - think Steve Jobs here. He thinks about personal computers in a different way and starts a revolution. He gets canned later from Apple, but he keeps going and eventually established what goes on to become Pixar. He comes back to Apple years later and changes our lives (whose lives aren’t impacted by one of these inventions: iPhone or iPod or iPad or the slew of applications ushered in by it)?
2. routine creators - think of the type of teacher who has your read a story and then do the questions at the end of the story or the history teacher who has you read the chapter and then complete a word find. Boring. Boring. Boring.
3. creative servers - Friedman talks about how he and a friend had breakfast at a Perkins in Minneapolis. He ordered pancakes and eggs. His friend ordered pancakes and fruit. When the waitress came with their orders, she told his friend, “I gave you extra fruit.” She didn’t control much, but she controlled the fruit distribution, and she gave him extra. Guess who got a very nice tip?
4. routine servers - the check out person at Wad-Mart or McDonald’s. Their days are numbered. Even now there are branches, like QVC, where they have one person look after several automated tills that people check out their purchases through. Since this person takes the role of several (and must have higher skills in case something goes wrong), they make more.
In chapter 5, entitled “Help Wanted,” the authors ask numerous employers one basic question: “What are you looking for in an employee today?”
Great question.
So, dear reader, what do you think is the answer?
It didn’t matter who they asked this to - whether white-collar employers in India, green-collar employers (namely, the Army), or blue-collar employers (Dupont). The answer was the same: “They are looking for workers who can think critically, who can tackle non-routine complex tasks, and who can work collaboratives with teams located in their office or globally . . . And that’s just to get a job interview.”
How are we getting our kids or students ready for such a world?
When I read that answer, I was reminded of what Congressman George Miller told the National Press Club several years ago when the report A Democracy At Risk came out -
“here is what employers are looking for. They are “trolling the world for, a worker who can work across their company, across the country, across the continents with the most divers workforce in the history of the world to assemble and solve emerging problems with the most diverse client base in the history of the world.”
Miller asks the audience, does that sound like what our schools are preparing our students for 12 years from now?
Of course not.
One of the most interesting aspects of this chapter is how all those involved at every level of work (blue, white, and green collar jobs) all are seeking those who can think critically just to get an interview.
Yet, sometimes that is the goal of our education system at the high school level. So in many ways we are just educating students up to the level of just being able to get an interview. And that’s it.
Sad.
I was most interested in what the authors found out about when they interviewed General Martin Dempsey about how the military is trying engage its new recruits.
They are thinking about issuing every new recruit in the army an iPhone.
And then during their classes - and using specific military apps - the instructor will turn to a recruit and say, “Okay. It’s your turn to teach the class today. Go.”
That’s amazing.
Why would the military do this?
Well, things happen so quickly on the ground now that despite significant technology advances, soldiers have to think and react more quickly than ever. They can’t wait for a general back at the base to act. This is one interesting way of getting soldiers to be critical thinkers and leaders.
This type of innovation and creativity is happening in the blue-collar jobs too. One CEO at Hewlett-Packard stated how “A lot of innovation now happens on the shop floor” because of their requirements for an educated work force. Gone are the days where someone just works a job where they show up and don’t have to think.
Increasingly, more employers are seeking employees - especially on the ground level or even the assembly line - can think and imagine new ways of doing a routine task more efficiently.
Are we preparing our kids for this?
The authors offer this at the end of this chapter:
". . . This isn’t your grandparents’ labor market anymore. It is not even your parents’. Each and every one of us has to be ‘present’ now, all the time, in whatever we do, so that we can be either creative creators or creative servers. That’s where the jobs will be. This is why our schools need to prepare all students for careers win which they no only do their assigned tasks but offer something extra.”
In a podcast to the University of Minnesota, Friedman said that when he started writing at the the New York Times, he inherited the office of a retired columnist. Friedman said that when that man showed up to work every day, odds are he imagined what his seven or eight main competitors were going to write about that week. But in this flat-world, things have changed. Now, Friedman states that when he shows up to write a column, he imagines what his 7 million competitors are going to write on blogs around the world. And if he doesn’t have something unique or ‘extra’ to add, he’s falling behind.
Talk about motivation.
So every day I show up to work now, I try to have that mindset. I think, “what would Dyrud be doing today?” And I try to live up to that. I try to bring my extra every single day. And I strive to have my ‘extra’ be something (whether it’s a writing assignment or using technology) that no one else is doing yet.
That’s a hell of a challenge. But it’s what gets me going every day on the way to work.
Ch. 6 is called “Homework x 2 = The American Dream” in which the authors tackle American education.
In this section the authors are clearly on the test scores and comparison bandwagon. I can see their point. But we’ll get to that later on.
One person they talked to was Michelle Rhee, the former head of Washington DC schools. She observed that 50 years ago, education was simply a choice. Not so anymore. “today, education is not an option” -- it is a necessity for a middle-class standard of living.
The sub section of this chapter is titled “We Have a ‘More’ Problem,” is where things get interesting.
As an opponent of high-stakes standardized tests and comparing our score to other nations, I am always quick to point out “You can’t compare our scores to China’s because we educate (or at least try to) everyone. They only educate the top ten percent.”
This, the authors, state is simply a lie.
Turns out, “A study produced for the National Governors Association entitled ‘Myths and Realities About International Comparisons,’ concluded that the notion that other countries test a more select, elite group of students is wrong. Comparison tests now include a sampling of the whole population in each country.”
It’ll be interesting to see how that goes over with my fellow anti-high stakes testing peers.
Personally, after reading that and tracking down the study that it’s based on, I think it’s time to get serious about our expectations for our students. And it’s time to get serious about our jobs.
This results in this shocking statement: “too many kids in America go to schools that don’t even begin to offer them the hope of getting to average.”
And, sadly, week now that average is over.
The authors point to some things we can do now to improve schools.
The first, hire great teachers.
The authors cite a study that I am now reading called How the World’s Best-Performing School Systems Come Out on Top. (I've included the link to the pdf version of the study)
Without getting into too much of that study, I’ll say this - other countries select their teachers from the top 1/3 of their high school and college classes.
Let’s just say that doesn’t happen in America.
Now, I’m not being an elitist here. I was not in the top 1/3 of my high school class. I was in college though. But what America tends to do (because education programs are notoriously easy to get into - they are the cash cows for most universities) is select their teachers from the bottom third of their graduating classes.
Hence the old adage, “Those who can do, and those who can’t teach.”
Ouch.
So how do we get better teachers? Well, that’s another blog post.
The key, I think, is how to make the teachers we are already stuck with (and thanks to tenure I mean that verb in its truest sense) better at their craft.
It’s funny that I’m our local EA presidents. Yet, when I attend union functions some of the staunchest union supporters are some of the lousiest teachers. It’s a bad stereotype. But one that appears to me to be all too true.
I can think of two quick examples. One of our Kramer-Brown leaders was the teacher of a colleague of mine. He said she was terrible. Couldn’t teach to save her soul. Yet, she is a head honcho in the union? How does that happen.
The same is true from a former retiree. I talking to co-workers (and that plural form of the word is correct) they all say, “She was one whom I would never want our kids to have.” What? Yet, they were a union supporter too.
Sad. And scary as hell.
The authors focus on a new law in Colorado that tackles teacher evaluation. And not only do I think teacher tenure is on its last legs, but so is the former teacher evaluation system.
Here’s what Colorado does:
1. 50% of ever teacher’s and principal’s performance evaluation is abed on student ‘growth’ and ‘growth’ being the key word. “It doesn’t matter what level the kids start at on September 1, we want to see that they know substantially more when they walk out the door on May 30.” How is that not fair? I mean if a kid sits in my class - and does very little - they should show some improvement - if just because they’ve listened to me, I’ve engaged them, I’ve challenged them, and I’ve motivated them. Or at least I’ve tried.
Now the worry is what if the students don’t try their best on these tests. That is scary. And I think this issue needs to be addressed. Especially if 50% of my effectiveness is based on it.
Now what makes up the other 50% of teacher evaluation? It’s a combination of student survey data (I’m a fan of this . . . mainly because I do it in my classes already), principal reviews (this is already in place), and master-teacher reviews or peer-educated reviews (I have no problem with this. I know some will. But the key point should be that we should want to get better and we should want to be held accountable. We should not want a guaranteed job for life, especially when it effects the lives of kids . . . one scary stat the authors offered was that if a student has a highly effective (hence, a great teacher) that can ultimately earn that student $20,000 more a year down the road by getting them the education for a high level job. Likewise, if they get a terrible teacher, it can reduce their income by that same number down the road. If that doesn’t motivate you to come to work every day and wow your students with your ability, then I think you should find another job).
2. Another thing Colorado does is offer teachers an attractive career path. Hence if you’re an excellent teacher, you will earn more by having your class video taped or have groups in to observe you. What you do - and what you do well - will be available to other teachers to learn from.
The point is to move away from taking joke master’s classes that bump you up the salary scale but never, ever impact your effectiveness as a teacher.
I totally agree with that.
3. And this is what I find most interesting: “tenure in Colorado will be based on performance rather than seniority. Rather than being granted permanent tenure on the first day of his or her fourth year, now a teacher will have to earn tenure by producing three consecutive years of being rated an ‘effective’ teacher. That teacher will then have to continue performing effectively to keep that status. If you are rated ‘ineffective’ for two years, you lose your tenure. That does not mean you lose your job; it just means that you are on a one-year contract.”
I would like to see what our school leaders would do with this approach. If they could not bring an ‘ineffective’ teacher back (if tenure didn’t force them to that is), would they?
I’d love to discuss that with them.
4. The old concept of last in, first out (because of tenure and seniority) is dead. This is on its last legs too. And as far as I’m concerned, it should be. Time spent in school should not be a factor. Effectiveness should be. Would we expect any less from our own students? Would we ever say, “Well, this kid can’t read, but he’s been here every day, let’s just pass him on to the next grade.” That’s ridiculous.
5. The principal, because of these stipulations, can hire whom she or he wants. They don’t have any teachers dumped on them because of ‘stranding.’
How did this law get by? Well, even the union recognizes the time to change and adapt. Hence, AFT president Randi Weingarten signed off on this.
Times, they certainly are changing.
Now the authors are quick to acknowledge that “No Teacher is an Island” and that’s the precise title of their next sub-chapter.
They make it clear that these other areas need to improve too in order for our schools to be where they need to be:
1. Communities
The authors cite numerous examples where the communities come together to offer greater support for their teachers and schools and students. This might be in the form of internships for students or red-carpet type events for the rock start teachers. The point is to put an emphasis and value on teaching and performing well in school.
2. Politicians
They need to get on the same page. They can’t allow for the disaster that was NCLB. The law itself was not the disaster, but the fact that the politicians allowed each state to set its own standards of what they deemed “proficient” to be was the disaster.
3. Neighbors
This focuses on neighbors supporting schools and, unfortunately in the crazy way schools are funded, that means hiking property taxes. This means neighbors have to see the true value of the education the kids are getting.
4. Parents
We need more Tiger Mothers. Just kidding. The authors state “we believe China is right about two things: the need to hold children to the highest standards that push them out of their comfort zones, and the need to be involved in their schooling. When children come to school knowing that their parents have high expectations, it makes everything a teacher is trying to do easier and more effective.” Yes, we all loathe the helicopter parents or those who monitor every little change on Power School. But isn’t that preferable to the parents who are never, ever in the picture?
Too often parents hold high expectations for their kids in athletics (just scan Facebook and see the posts from parents bragging about their kids’ athletic accomplishments this summer. Now contrast that with the lack of posts celebrating their academic achievements).
5. Students
Simply, we needs kids to see the point and value of an education. We need to show them the power of real work and effort. Sure, cell phones and lap tops and pop culture and nice and interesting, but if you don’t find what you love to do and develop a passion for it, you might be on the outside looking in.
6. Business
Businesses need to reinvest in American education. They can’t just cut and run to cheap labor or talent in India or China. That undercuts the American Dream.
The chapter ends with this great series of paragraphs:
One of the most wrongheaded movies we can imagine came out in late 2010. It was called Race to Nowhere, and its theme was that suburban American students are under far too much pressure. They have to juggle homework, soccer, Facebook, wrestling practice, the school play, the prom, SAT prep, and Advanced Placement exams. Some would call that stress. We would call it misplaced priorities.
Stress? Stress is what you feel when you can’t understand the thick Chinese accent of your first boss out of college -- in the only job you are offered.
That will be stress.
No comments:
Post a Comment