Sticks and Carrots

During the eight years of the recent Bush administration education was subjected to a school reform model that relied largely on "sticks"as a motivational device. The "No Child Left Behind" version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, while having some redeeming qualities (eg the focus on disaggregation of data), largely depended on coercive strategies to get things done. Schools and school people were put on notice that if schools did not meet the arbitrary standards set by states, they would be put into a track whre more and more decisions were made by those outside the school.

The Obama administrtion has taken a slightly different approach. They are using more "carrots" as incentives to created change. The "Race to the Top" competition is putting four billion dollars into education and they are suggesting that the new reauthorization of ESEA will use competition between schools and districts as its lever for change.

Now there is not argument that carrots are tastier than sticks, but it IS good to remember that a carrot is just a stick you can eat. In other words, while the tone may be "kinder and gentler" (to quote another Bush)the approach relies on the same basic assumptions of how you get people to move. You either threaten them with a stick or entice them with a carrot.

The problem with both these approaches is that they rely on extrinsic threats and rewards to move people. They assume that education is external and mechanistic and if you can just leverage things different behavior will result. However, education is not external and mechanistic--it is internal and organic. It comes from the inside out and it depends on the humanity of the teacher and student to succeed. It is perhaps more dependent on intrinsic rewards than any other business out there.

Daniel Pink, the author of "A Whole New Mind" (which should be a must read for any educator) has written a new book called "Drive: The Truth About What Motivates Us." In this book, Pink mounts extensive research to make the point that extrinsic motivation works when the work is repetitive and simple. When it requires creativity and innovation, intrinsic rewards are best. He suggests that work that involves autonomy, mastery and purpose go further in promoting creative expression.

Teaching and learning, by their very nature, require creative expression and would best be promoted through a reliance on intrinsic rewards. Merit pay and other forms of pay for performance, which currently are the rage in Washington and which are being promoted by the Obama administration, seems to be exactly the wrong thing to do in the context of expecting better classroom performance. Perhapds policy makers should abandon the idea of sticks or carrotss and focus more on how we might promote autonomy, mastery, and purpose in our classrooms.

(This entry first appeared on the Developmental Studies Blog.)

A Trifecta of Stupidity

I moved to Arizona a couple of years ago for the sunlight. Unfortunately, that does not create more enlightenment, as we have witnessed the last few weeks. While the rest of the country is experiencing political gridlock, the Arizona legislature has proven they can pass anything by doing so.

First came the concealed weapons law. A number of years ago I was surprised to learn that anyone can carry a weapon here as long as it is visible. It gives the state a feel of the old west to see folks packing their six-shooters. The Arizona legislature, in its quest to go where few have gone before, decided that wasn't enough so they passed a law allowing anyone to carry a CONCEALED weapon legally. That moves us from the Old West, to a reprise of the Godfather.

The next day or so they passed a "birther" bill requiring presidential candidates to "prove" they are a natural born citizen of the U.S. Even though laws pertaining to presidential candidates are governed by federal statute, Arizona is now protecting America from leaders who might have been born in Panama (as was John McCain) or even Hawaii/Kenya as other might have been.I thought they had reached their nadir with this one but they were just getting warmed up.

Later in the week they passed the law that allows (no demands) police to check people who might look "suspicious" to determine if they are legally in this country. Immigrants would be forced to carry their papers proving they are here legally. But in fact ANYONE could be stopped and asked for papers. I stopped carrying my birth certificate some time ago so I suppose I am vulnerable.

But I have been assured that won't happen because I do not "look" illegal. I suppose it is the light hair and blue eyes that gives me away. And yet the proponents of the law have insisted it will not lead to racial profiling. One question. How in God's name does a policeman determine that someone looks suspicious except by the color of their skin and their accent?

All this harkens back to the good old days of Nazism and Aparteid where those who were different had to label themselves by wearing a gold star of David or by carrying their papers. Even though this law has created a national firestorm, polls indicated that about 70% of my fellow Arizonans think it is a good law.

Some of this stems from violence along the border and the heavy influx of illegals into the state which has gotten folks on edge. Certainly the federal government needs to step up and deal with the border issues so that craziness like we are seeing out of Arizona will not happen.

On a related note, the genius astro-physicist Stephen Hawking has indicated he believes their are alien cultures in space and if they come to visit earth they will not be coming in peace. Never fear, if that should happen, just come out to Arizona. If they try to get in here, we will throw their ugly alien butts in jail!

Race to the Trough

I wish I could claim this title but I got it from a friend, David Berliner. I use it because it so perfectly describes what is happening with education policy. President Obama and his education team were met with great anticipation a year ago. Most educators felt their long nightmare of NCLB would be over--that we would have a more enlightened approach to education. And to give credit where credit is due, they have changed the tone and been better listeners to the pain that folks in the field feel, but the thrust of their reforms look suspiciously like the ones of the last administration--more accountability, an emphasis on assessment, more charter schools and they have raised the ante by pushing measuring and rewarding teacher quality through test results.

The main push for education improvement lies in the "Race to the Top" efforts. This will award over 4 billion dollars to states that meet the criteria for the money to create innovation. The implication of the requirements is that states must have laws and policies that reflect the expecations of the administration. They have traded the "stick" of the Bush administration (which threatened the removal of federal money if states did not comply) with the "carrot" of improved resources. Given the current status of education funding in most states with draconian cuts being passed by money strapped legislatures, it is little wonder that forty states went after the competitive money.

Now 4 billion seems like a lot, but when divided across a number of states it starts to diminish in impact. And when one considers that it represents less than one percent of current education funding, the administration has been able to wring a lot of change out of people for a little investment. It reminds me of the old joke where a guy approaches a young lady and offers her a $100 to sleep with him. She is very insulted and says, "what do you mean? How could you think I would sleep with you for a lousy $100. What do you think I am?" The man replies, "I know what you are, we are just negotiating the price." Well, it would appear that the price for buying the compliance of states on continuing the policy of pushing education towards controlling and mechanistic solutions to educations's woes is four billion dollars. They know what we are, they have just established the price.

Meanwhile, is this likely to work? There is little arguement that better assessment and data systems are needed in education. But there is also scant evidence that charter schools are more effective than regular public schools. Some are, some aren't. And when it comes to pay for teacher performance, there is really a lot of evidence that it is counterproductive. Daniel Pink has just released a wonderful new book called "Drive" which deals with what motivates people. It would seem financial rewards are really not useful if workers are not making a resonsable salary and most teachers are not. Further, he cites a great deal of research that shows that if work is repetitive and simple, financial rewards can be effective. However, if the work is complex and requires creativity, they can actually undermine improved performance.

Now I happen to believe that teaching is a complex, creative act, so I question the assumptions that underlie performance pay. But now that I think of it, if policy makers are successful in driving education towards a stimulus-response model of learning as the increased emphasis on test results are doing, then education may well become a repetitive and simplistic act and the race to the top will succeed. However, it will succeed as a race to the top of a very low hill.

Icons and I can't

So now the media is fixated on Tiger Woods and the fact he can't drive straight and keep himself on the fairway or the driveway. The frenzy has brought out hordes of scum artists who are looking for the juicy tidbit around the green. The lastest is Tiger has said he "transgressed" and that he is sorry.Having brought him off his lofty perch, we will see if they begin to let him lie or give him a mulligan.

Meanwhile in Washington, that "Tiger Woods Guy" (dubbed so by Will Farrell during his impersonation of George Dubya) who is president has been trying to fight off all sorts of insults and insinuations--he was born on a different continent, he is a Nazi, a socialist, and a teleprompter junkie. The claims have come faster than Joe Biden's gaffes. It seems he can do nothing that will satisfy the critics. Glenn Blecck's most recent salvo is that he is not following his generals even though the Constitution that Blecck so claims to revere makes it pretty clear that the President is the Commnader in Chief and it is the generals who should do the following.

But I am not writing about Tiger Woods driving ability or his marital skills or the President's policies. I am writing about us. What makes us the creatures who elevate people to impossible heights so that we can celebrate their fall? We weren't content to know that Woods is the greatest golfer likely to ever putt. We also made him a paragon of all that is virtuous. It is not enough that the "Tiger Woods Guy" we put in the White House was a first and one highly bright and talented dude--we had to make him into the second coming. Guess what-- he isn't and neither is Tiger.What we have are two men who do what they do with skill and ease that makes them purveyors of excellence. What they aren't are demi-gods. They aren't perfect. Tiger not only prowled--he strayed. Barack has dived into his plate of horrors that he was handed with gusto and confidence, even though he will get a lot of it wrong. It isn't about what they can do or not do.It is about what we shouldn't do. We shouldn't enbue our icons with all manner of virtue. They are men (or women in other cases) who err and fall and may rise again. Our focus should not be on their perfection but on their struggle. That is the human condition and we are all driving down that path together.

Nobel Son (and Daughter)

Much has been made of the recent honor afforded President Obama by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Objections have come from a number of places with complaints of "too soon," "he hasn't done anything yet," or "he is leading two wars, how can he be honored for peace?" The far right have shown their dexterity, if not their consistency, by following their celebrations of the loss of the Olympics by Chicago, which they claimed showed Obama's weakness in the world, with thier dismay that the world has now honored the President with the greatest international prize given. I have to admit I have enjoyed watching the talk shows hosts' heads explode as they process this. We have seen conservatives cheer when America loses and scream when it whens. Strange times we ar living in.

And that is the point. The Nobel committee said they gave the prize for the good work that Obama had started and for his setting a new tone. Some have suggested, quite accurately, that a lot of this has to do with the fact he isn't George W. Bush. The realty is that the world became accustomed to a United States that had a "my way or the highway' attitude and if you weren't with us, you were against us. This dualistic view of history created division and distress around the globe. President Obama has acted as the "anti Bush" by offering a collaborative and inclusive vision for the rest of the world.

I was in Cusco Peru the night of the election and it was interesting to see the celebrations in the street, the smile on waiters faces and the children in classrooms the next day yelling "Obama, Obama." It was an election the world followed closely and celebrated mightily. No wonder then that the Nobel committee honored Obama--and for that all American's should be grateful--for it was a prize given to all of us. Conservative columists George Will, just a few days before the announcment, intoned, as only he can, that around the world Obama is adored and ignored. Well,not so fast with that ignoring assumption George.

In the provocative book "The Age of the Unthinkable" author Joshua Ramo posits that the rules of how the world works have changed dramatically in the recent past and that to cope with this requires greater flexibilty and openness to alternative ways of seeing the world. It seems to me that the selection of Obama as the peace prize winner is a perfect example of how the old ways of measuring success must be altered. If the most powerful nation on earth does not have a leader that is capable of being open and inclusive, then there may not be a world left where life time acheivement awards can be given.

But there was other Nobel news beyond the Obama selection and the fact that most of the winners in the other categories were American. The one that was most interesting to me was the selection of Elin Ostrom as the first female economics laureate. I was taken, not so much with her breaking the glass ceiling, but for what she was honored for.

Her work was recognized because she had shown that local communities were more effective at using their resources in a common collaboration than if the government had controlled the resources or if they had been privitized. This has great implications for public education. The history of public education has been a community based system of local control. Of late the model has shifted to a state and federally run control system with great pressure being applied to expand the issue of privitization into schools. While you don't have to be a Nobel Prize winner to understand that may not be a good idea, it is great to have one prove so. Thank you Laureate Ostrom and thank you Barack Obama for proving that little things mean a lot in the larger world.

Stupid Is

I have been watching with facination the recent controversy over the President's speech to school children scheduled for the day after labor day. Big chunks of the "Ropublican'ts" are up in arms that the President would dare speak to school children. Some of the "Democranks" are up in arms that the issue is even arrising. As a long-time school leader, I have found myself sypathizing with school leaders across the country who are damned if they show the speech and damned if they don't.

In 1991 President George H.W.Bush gave a similar speech to students. This was a year before his reelection campaign. I was a superintendent and didn't much care for that president--I found his push for vouchers and his unending criticism of schools offputting. Some questioned the political motivation and timing. My district, like most, showed the speech which turned out to be a rather benign call for students to apply themselves. Early reports are that President Obama plans a similar call to duty. So, what's all the fuss?

It appears there is a sizeable segment of our country who thinks anything this president does is tainted and that he is out to "brainwash" our youth. Since these are the same folks who like to compare him to Hitler or call him a "socialist" (that is a straddle that stretches credulity and the hamstrings!) they feel he is some dark influence. I suspect some see him as the Dark Lord Volemort from Harry Potter. I kind of thought that might have been Dick Cheney, but what do I know?

Let's get a grip folks. He is the President, recently elected and he won't be running again for over three years. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. If he is dumb enough to try to turn this event into a political one or one that pushes his agenda then he will deserve all the opprobrium that will come his way. Since when is this country a place that the duly elected President can't speak to our children and ask more of them? I keep seeing protests on television that people are screaming they want their country back. Well, so do I. I want an America where the President is, if not revered, at least respected and where the crazies don't dictate what everyone else can see and do. Forrest Gump's mother used to tell him that "stupid is as stupid does." Let's stop "doing" stupid, if only for a little while.

Oh, Canada

A few weeks ago I was priviledged to speak to a group of school leaders from Manitoba. I was there with a couple of my colleagues from the Center for Empowered Leadership to share some of our work with our Canadian counterparts. A couple of major lessons emerged from the experience.

First, I found the Manitoba leaders unusually interested in a wide variety of topics. They were well read and had wide enthusisam. They were very open to new ideas and were looking for solutions. As they told me about their work I realized how creative and "out of the box' they seemed to be. I was curious about this and asked them if they could tell me why that was so. The immediately pointed out that in Canada, Manitoba was the last provice to try to interfere with local school jurisdictions. They were not saddled by provincial tests and requrirements which allowed them to find their own solutions.

Ther great irony here is that one of the single biggest reasons for America's international dominence, in my opinion, has been our tradition of local control. We have historically encouraged states and local districts to address their unigque issues in unique ways. Of late, this has started to slip with increased pressure from Washington and the states taking back much of their power from local districts. Before we go too far, perhaps we need to visit Manitoba to be reminded of the energy created when people are allowed to exercise their own creativity to solve their problems.

The other lesson I got was about health care. Given the current controversy in the U.S. on this topic and given the scare tactics used by oppoents includinlg making the Canadian system a poster child for the perils of "socialized" medicine, I was anxious to get their take on it. First, they found our "town hall" meetings funny and scary. I was surprised by how much they knew about what was happending in the U.S. One of them said when you sleep by a 1000 pound bear, you keep your eyes open.

Everyone I talked with liked their system. They found it fair, comprehensive and affordable. They couldn't imagine going back to a non governmental model. I asked them about the horror stories of the long waits for service. Tehy said that was nonsense. They said if you have an elective, non emergency issue, you might have to weait. (I thouht of the three month wait I had to get to a specialist her." They said that whatever you needed you got, regardless of cost. (I thought of my friend who had just been told by her insurance company that she couldn't get an MRI because it was too expensive.) I asked about the stories of Canadians coming to the U.S. for treatment. They said, yes, I you need the Mayo Clinic, it is in the U.S., but our government pays for hte service. (I thought of the thousands of Americans who go acrosst he border to buy their medicine because it is much cheaper in Canada.)

The real take on socialized medicine was Clint who told me that if he and a homeless person needed the same treatment they would both get it, no questions asked. Perhaps that is what we are really afraid of--equal treatment. Perhaps we could learn from Clint who went on to say, "and that is the way it should be." I am not sure how much of the spiritual lessons we had served up to them had taken. I am not sure because they seemed to have already mastered them.