Reviewing the leadership research for business and education

If you are familiar with the major developments in leadership/management practice over the last hundred years you will see that the best techniques have evolved greatly over that time. A hundred years ago you had the top down, directive, “scientific” style espoused by the likes of Taylor, Gantt and others. Since then those interested in performing well but also offering much higher levels of satisfaction for those in the organization have morphed into a participative leadership style where all inputs are valued and people have the chance to fully contribute to organizational excellence in its mission accomplishment. This participatory approach is vital to being able to effectively pursue a continuous improvement approach. The research suggests that in most organizations there is distrust for management and there is a call for a different kind of leadership--one that spreads the power (however one defines it) and responsibilities among the workforce.

Following are some excerpts from various writings about the research and conclusions of the journey from the old beliefs to the more modern and liberating ones of today.

Peters and Waterman [In Search of Excellence] (1982) stated the complaints against American management seem to fall into 5 main categories:
1. The business schools [and education schools] are perpetuating a top-down mentality;

2. Managers lack the right perspective;

3. Managers do not personally identify with what their companies do;

4. Managers do not take enough interest in their people; and

5. Top managers have become isolated from line workers.

They concluded, “Far too many managers have lost sight of the basics, in our opinion: quick action, service to customers, practical innovation, and the fact that you can’t get any of these without virtually everyone’s commitment”.

William Abernathy, in a Forbes interview, shared: “The Japanese seem to have a tremendous cost advantage. . . . They have developed a ‘people’ approach . . . . They have a work force that’s turned on, willing to work, and is excited about making cars”. Economists and sociologists warned American businessmen, as far back as the late 1940’s, that its adherence to specialized division of labor and aloof leadership would ultimately reduce productivity and result in the loss of a competitive edge. It wasn’t until Japan emerged as a formidable competitor that businesses started to re-examine the nature of and structure for leadership (Lewis, 1993).
Lewin and associates concluded that companies that have a more democratic attitude where workers actively participate in decisions are more productive and are more satisfied with their work as compared to groups under a more authoritarian structure.

Selznick, Barnard, and Follett, in addition to having a tremendous effect in moving management theory from the classical to a more social, “humanistic” approach, were probably collectively responsible for the introduction of the bottom-up or “participatory” style of management. This would influence the theory, which followed in what is called the “Participatory Management Model”

According to Argyris, “Following bureaucratic or pyramidal values leads to poor, shallow, and mistrustful relationships. Because these relationships do not permit the natural and free expression of feelings, they are phony or nonauthentic and result in decreased interpersonal competence” Argyris believed that in a humanistic-democratic value system, trusting, authentic relationships will develop among people and will result in increased interpersonal competence, intergroup cooperation, and flexibility, which will result in increased organizational effectiveness.

Sergiovanni takes the concept a step further and suggests, “When moral authority transcends bureaucratic leadership . . . the outcomes in terms of commitment and performance far exceed expectations”. Sergiovanni believes neither bureaucratic nor personal authority create innate reasons for people to follow leaders. Rather, he states: We ought to follow our leaders because they’re people of substance, because they have compelling ideas, because they’re able to share with us insights. Those who make a commitment to ideas and ideals together then have a moral obligation to meet . . . commitments to those ideas.

Gaining insight from the studies of Mayo, Barnard, McGregor, Argyris, Likert, Ouchi, Deming, and others, theorists of the nineties are defending the turn from bureaucratic, top-down managerial attitudes to a philosophy that provides individuals a greater voice in the work that affects their lives. In recent years, there have been many authors expressing dissatisfaction with top-down, autocratic methods of managing organizations and its workforce.

Peters and Waterman researched successful American companies and concluded that there are eight attributes that characterize innovative companies. They:
1. Have a bias for action--when a problem presents itself, this company acts quickly to move forward;
2. Are close to the customer--products are the result of customer satisfaction;
3. Foster autonomy and entrepreneurship among all workers--individuals are encouraged to make a contribution that will benefit the customer and the company;
4. Consider productivity results through the efforts of people--workers are empowered to do their job and to build-in quality up front;
5. Are “hands-on” and value-driven companies that care about their people and not only doing the right thing, but doing it the right way;
6. Stay close to what they know and build upon their strengths;
7. Have simple organization and lean bureaucratic structures--matrix organizational structures are too complex; and
8. Are both centralized and decentralized--autonomy is centered on the workforce.

Jim Collins in his seminal work Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t suggests great leaders are “level 5” leaders. These individuals build “enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will.” Collins further stated: We were surprised, shocked really, to discover the type of leadership required for turning a good company into a great one. Compared to high-profile leaders with big personalities who make headlines and become celebrities, the good-to-great leaders seem to have come from Mars. Self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy—these leaders are a paradoxical blend of humility and professional will. They are more like Lincoln and Socrates than Patton or Caesar.

Further, Level 5 leaders “channel their ego needs away from themselves and into a larger goal of building a great company. Collins explains that Level 5 leaders have ego and ambition, “but their ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not themselves.” In his opinion, “Humility + will = Level 5” leaders. “Good-to-Great” leaders and companies share the following characteristics. They:

1. Hire the right people and assemble a competent team. “The old adage People are the most important asset” turns out to be wrong. People are not your most important asset. The right people are.”
2. Maintain an unwavering faith that you can and will prevail. In support of this Norman Vincent Peal, in his popular book titled The Power of Positive Thinking (1952) once stated: “Believe in yourself! Have faith in your abilities! Without a humble but reasonable confidence in your own powers you cannot be successful or happy. But with sound self-confidence you can succeed.”
3. Confront the “brutal facts” about your current reality. Level 5 leaders take an objective view of the company’s strengths and weaknesses and base decisions on data.
4. Transcend the curse of incompetence. Great companies are never satisfied to be good in their status with success. They continually seek to build quality in their product and by seeking input from the workers and the customers their products continue to meet the current and emerging needs.
5. Having a culture of discipline is imperative. “When you have disciplined people, you don’t need hierarchy. When you have disciplined thought, you don’t need bureaucracy. When you have disciplined action, you don’t need excessive controls. When you combine a culture of discipline with an ethic of entrepreneurship, you get the magical alchemy of great performance.”
6. Apply technology carefully and never use it as the primary means of eliciting transformation. “We learned that technology by itself is never a primary, root cause of either greatness or decline.”
7. Success is not based on a quick fix, but rather organized sustained effort, that gradually reaches such a momentum as to create a great cultural change

Educational leadership theory seems to be lagging behind business in its grasp and implementation of leadership theories that are proven effective. Similar to the frustration Deming must have felt when he tried to convince American business leaders following World War II, enlightened business leaders, having heeded the suggestions of Deming and Peters and Waterman, are now growing increasingly impatient with the indifference of public schools. There is some evidence in literature that educational leaders have been unaware or uninterested in the benefits of a change in leadership style. Robert Greenleaf, in particular, stated, “I have spent a great deal of time and energy trying to persuade educators to accept the obligation, and I am certain that, generally, they recognize neither the obligation nor the opportunity. Thus far in my experience, they appear unpersuadable”. The confidence level in public education and its leadership is decreasing according to such notables as Philip Schlechty who suggests private partnerships may result if public educational leadership will not listen and respond to the current needs of the customers.

Lessons from exemplary companies as outlined by Peters and Waterman and the reform measures suggested by Deming serve as a “call to action” for public education. The call is out for a more human-centered leadership style that has a clear understanding of its purpose and its customer, basing its foundation in providing quality service, not in being served.

Conyers and Ewy in their book Charting Your Course: Lessons Learned During the Journey Toward Performance Excellence suggest two important characteristics of educational leaders are will and courage. Peter Block stated of these two characteristics:

We need to stop asking how? We now have all the knowledge, the skills, the methods, the tools, the capacity, and the freedom to do whatever is required to serve all students well. All that is needed is the will and courage to choose and move on.
Educational leaders need to accept the model of their peers in business by observing forecasts (trends) for the future and meet the emerging demands. Educational leaders will need skills beyond their training. Reviewing trends and research and remaining current with what is effective is necessary for any leader wishing to be great.

Needed—skilled cross country race drivers

Whether you are talking about the famous Baja races or the ones run in other parts of the world (Sahara desert, etc.) these races put a premium on driving skill. The drivers need to be prepared to deal with any condition that arises from torrential rain, to wind driven sandstorms, to mud, to ruts, to rocky terrain, to crossing streams, to rutty suspension breaking roads, etc. Every race offers a different set of circumstances that the drivers must face and cope with. The winner is most often the most skilled but luck and educated risk-taking play a role in determining the winner in each race.

The above is a good analogy to being a leader in any organization that must perform against its competition. In today’s increasingly competitive global environment leadership skill can make the difference between surviving or not. While every good leader spends significant time planning their road to success, they know that they must be prepared to alter their plan to fit the unanticipated situations that arise in any endeavor.

When you look at our education system we have a “programmed to fail” situation. Processes are specified rigorously. Follow the recipe or you will be penalized by loss of funds or other sanctions. The whole enterprise is one of legislators and the bureaucracy they create with their legislation creating a lockstep army of educators who are not allowed to deviate from their process even if they are about to march over a cliff. The concept that anyone can specify the detailed operational regimen of such a large and complex operation is ludicrous. Of course, it isn’t funny at all, because it designates a process that is ineffective in providing the results that are imperative to serving our kids and our society well. The approach used in education has created a system where change is not allowed unless it is specified from on high. It is like the race driver in the above example getting to a river with a bridge washed out. In the education process example he would have to wait until the bridge was repaired because deviations from the process plan were not allowed. In an organization where the race driver (leader) has the end goal as the driving force there is freedom to detour to the nearest bridge to solve the problem that wasn’t anticipated when the plan was made.

If we were as serious as we say we are about improving education performance, we would do two things. Greatly improve the skill level of education leaders (retool them as Levine says is needed in his Educating School Leaders), AND take away much of the bureaucratic Gordian Knot approach of specifying process to nine decimal places, replacing it with a system that specifies desired results with incentives and penalties based on achieving those results.

Perfect Storm of Bad Educational Ideas

I wrote this in July 2006 after reading "The Knowledge Deficit" by Hirsch. It is still very timely. It contains direct quotes from his work.

The Infamous Four
They Sound Good But They Don’t Work
Why Johnny Can’t Read

E. D. Hirsch Jr. in his new book, The Knowledge Deficit, points out why American education is not succeeding in educating our kids well and why the achievement gap between minority and low income students is not responding to the current methods.

Hirsch calls the current situation a “perfect storm” of Bad Educational Ideas. The Four on his list include:

• Naturalism—“The reason for this state of affairs – tragic for millions of students as well as for the nation – is that an army of American educators and reading experts are fundamentally wrong in their ideas about education and especially about reading comprehension. Their well-intentioned yet mistaken views are the significant reason (more than other constantly blamed factors, even poverty) that many of our children are not attaining reading proficiency, thus crippling their later schooling. …[A] complacent faith in the benefits of nature. …reading is or should be natural.” Other names that are synonymous are romanticism, transcendentalism, progressive as in John Dewey. Caused Hirsch to write Cultural Literacy which pointed out that reading comprehension – literacy itself – depends on specific background knowledge. “The dominant ideas in American education are virtually unchallenged within the educational community. American education expertise (which is not the same as educational expertise in nations that perform better than we do) has a monolithic character in which dissent is stifled. This is because of the history of American education schools…the history of these schools, which are institutions that train almost all of the teachers and administrators who must carry out the provisions of NCLB, is the history of intellectual cloning. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the parent organism, Teachers College at Columbia University, exported professors and the romantic principles…resulting in an intellectual sameness across the nation’s education schools. Even today criticism of those fundamental ideas is hard to find in these institutions.”

• Formalism—“A lot of dead information is to be replaced by all-purpose, how-to knowledge (formalism). Naturalism and Formalism are the two principles that constitute a kind of theology that is drilled into prospective teachers like a catechism. In practice the two principles are not always compatible. …the how-to notion of reading comprehension that stresses clarifying, summarizing, questioning - will inevitably lead to drill-like activities which will be anathematized by the naturalistic principle that learning should be an engaging activity. The dominant principles of naturalism and formalism, being opposed to the systematic teaching of a great deal of information, are deadly enemies of the reading goals of NCLB. Advances in reading will depend on students gaining a great deal of information. This conflict of ideas is, then, the root cause of the impasse between the NCLB law and the schools, for the only way to improve scores in reading comprehension and to narrow the reading gap between groups is systematically to provide children with the wide-ranging, specific background knowledge they need to comprehend what they read.”

• Determinism—the belief that demographics determine ability to learn. “Determinism is nonetheless a flawed and dismal theory, which, while conveniently exculpating the schools, undermines the founding principles of democratic education.”

• Localism--"Along with the terrible trinity of naturalism, formalism, and determinism, localism deserves a dishonored place in American education. Among the wider public it may be the most powerful educational idea of all. On the surface it just implies that our state or our town will decide what should be taught in our schools. It says nothing about what those things should be, so localism is another content-free idea, and as a practical matter it powerfully reinforces an approach that is short on content. It brings liberals and conservatives together to collaborate in support of anti-content, process oriented ideas about education."

"This suspicion fed collaboration between liberals and conservatives helps explain why the process point of view has persisted despite its inability to raise achievement or attain fairness. Educationist, process ideas thrive on the liberal-conservative standoff, and our schools and school boards operate under a gentleman's agreement that unites these groups behind the process-oriented creed."

“The failure of romantic [naturalism, progressivism, constructivism, etc] ideas to improve educational achievement is an inevitable result of their scientific inadequacy and inaccuracy. Reading is not, as romantics hold, either a natural acquisition or a formal skill. But mere scientific inadequacy can be a practical irrelevance in American education. Professors, including those who teach our teachers, do not easily give up their long-asserted ideas, even under the pressure of unfavorable scientific evidence.” Thus, the professors blame society because they won’t face the lie they are telling themselves by ignoring the scientific evidence.

“Old people grow blunt; they haven’t time for slow niceties. Let me be blunt about the implication of the intellectual history I have traced…If its recommendations are followed, reading scores will rise for all groups of children, and so will scores in math and science, because, as common sense would predict, reading is strongly correlated with ability to learn in all subjects. Equally important, social justice will be served, because the reading gap between social groups will be greatly narrowed by following the …pro-knowledge recommendations.”

Adding the Missing Ingredient in the Achievement Gap Reduction Cake

The Final Report of the Colorado Closing the Gap Commission issued in November of 2005 is a 42 page report that identifies the achievement gap problem in general terms and recommends a list of changes that they believe will solve the shameful gap problem. First some quotes from the report defining the problem:

There is a lion in the streets. It threatens every citizen. It endangers the future of our society in a world that grows ever smaller as technology and trade bind us closer together in a competitive global economy.

This threat is the deplorable level of educational attainment that currently is the fate of the great majority of our poorest and most vulnerable children, a population disproportionately black and Hispanic.

More than one third of a century after he decried this situation as a “stain on our national honor” the educational conditions Robert Kennedy described are demonstrably worse.

Pouring billions of dollars into a search for solutions has eased the conscience of the fortunate but has not succeeded in saving those children who continue to be victimized by our abject failures.

To some ears, the words of the Commission may seem unduly harsh. However it is our collective feeling that nothing less than language such as this will suffice to summon that true sense of urgency so long overdue.

Following the assertions in the Forward are a list of elements that the commission believes will fix the problem; Data and Assessment, High Expectations, Higher Education, Administrator/Teacher Qualifications and Professional-Development, Parent and Community Involvement, and Best Practices. We could criticize the details in their list because much of it is tangential to the problem. If it were otherwise we would have seen some dramatic improvement. Thus, I conclude that the commission was another expensive waste of time and another exercise to convince the public that we are serious about the problem. Results are the test and they say loudly that we only talk about reducing the gap and avoid the pain and changes required to really fix the problem. The approach is like a magician waving his hand to take attention away from what he is doing with his other hand.

Why haven’t the billions spent as mentioned in the forward resulted in improvement? Because it follows the time honored and tragically wrong approach America takes to educating our kids. We have created a bureaucratic monster that is a top-down, one size fits all, directive approach. It has far more in common with the Soviet-style central planning approach to managing their economy than it does to a culture where desired results are specified and people are expected to meet them but given freedom to adjust methods to their own local challenges. The current approach is making it very difficult to turn in improvements in performance. When you couple that with the almost total lack of change leader competence in the education arena you have a mired in place disaster.

The education fiefdom (delusional, defensive, insular and inbred) is very adept at ignoring input from outside the walls of the fiefdom, especially if it is true. Arthur Levine in his Educating School Leaders (2005) points out that the education school leadership programs are poor. His report is over a hundred pages long in 8.5 by 11 format. Some of the conclusions are that the ed school leadership programs “confer masters on those who display anything but mastery and doctorates in name only. They engage superintendents and principals in studies irrelevant to their jobs.” He said we have an urgent need to “retool” our education leaders. I have talked to many ed leaders over the last 5 years while researching a book. Levine is right. I didn’t find one superintendent in the six states I sampled (including state supes of the year) that I would consider competent.

Leadership competence is the gating item in the quest for gap reduction or any other substantial education performance improvement. It is the missing ingredient in the cake. How to fix it. For sure you don’t give the job to the education schools. They have not done a good job in the past and certainly don’t have the skills and experience to do better anytime soon. The answer, “Horrors,” is to bring in outside trainers with change leadership skill and have them train and coach leadership teams in districts on site. I say horrors because in the fiefdom, outsiders have no credibility or value in their Group Think view.

Of course, it is very likely that this prescription to help the gap kids will be ignored too because it says that elements of the current education setup are not doing their job and need rehabilitation or replacement. And apparently the protection of educators (in the global sense including ed schools, dept of education and district personnel) who don’t know how to do the job is much more important than really solving the horrendously unfair and unacceptable damage to our kids. However, the last quote from the report forward above tells the likely direction. “To some ears, the words of the Commission may seem unduly harsh. However it is our collective feeling that nothing less than language such as this will suffice to summon that true sense of urgency so long overdue.” Translated it means, “Roll up your sleeves and do more of the things that have failed so miserably in the past. But you can’t blame us, we tried.” And we apparently need to apologize for being harsh when talking about a problem that has such “harsh” consequences for the gap kids. Apologizing for saying the truth is a disease that is prevalent in education where the skill of suppressing the truth is well honed.

So what should we do if we really cared about fixing the gap problem as opposed to talking about it? The solution that makes the most sense is to set up a State Leadership Academy to do the needed retooling of education leaders. This must be led and staffed at first by outsiders who have real-world experience in “performance organizations.” They must have a real passion for the mission. As Peter Drucker the famous management consultant said, “Whenever anything important happens it is because of a monomaniac with a mission.” This would be a herculean task but one that is well worth the effort because the kids will finally benefit. It would show results quickly and it would be very inexpensive compared to the other attempts that have failed in the past.

Copyright © Paul Richardson 2008

Was anyone ever coddled to excellence?

Thomas Friedman in his famous book The World is Flat expresses over and over concern about our ability to ignore the very real and massive changes that are occurring in the global competitive arena. He points out that we are in a “quiet crisis” but a crisis nonetheless. The thesis of his book is that we face a confluence of three gaps that if not corrected will lead inevitably to a declining standard of living for Americans. The three are a manpower gap (shortage) of scientists and engineers to sustain the primary cause of our past economic success, an ambition gap because the competitors are willing to work harder and smarter than we are (we’ve grown self-satisfied and a bit lazy) and the third is the education gap. The biggest of the three and also having great impact on the other two is the education gap. One quote from the book that seems to best describe the crux of the problem follows.

“The sense of entitlement, the sense that because we once dominated global commerce and geopolitics . . . we always will . . . the sense that delayed gratification is a punishment worse than a spanking, the sense that our kids have to be swaddled in cotton wool so that nothing bad or disappointing or stressful ever happens to them at school is quite simply, a growing cancer on American society. And if we don’t start to reverse it, our kids are going to be in for a huge and socially disruptive shock from the flat world.”

I describe what he is talking about as a “kill them with kindness” approach that is all too common in schools. That is, the expectations are far too low of students and educators. Is there any excuse for American kids to score at or near the bottom in math and science when compared to their international peers? I refuse to believe the kids can’t meet the competition if given the right educational opportunities. What does that foretell about our ability to graduate enough scientists and engineers to replace the ones who are quickly reaching retirement age? If our kids are coddled in school does that contribute to the ambition gap?

Friedman tells of a finalist in Intel’s annual science competition, Andre Munteanu, whose parents had moved from Romania to the United States five years earlier. Munteanu started American school in the seventh grade, which he found a breeze compared to his Romanian school. “The math and science classes [covered the same subject matter] I was taking in Romania…when I was in the fourth grade,” he said. This is not an unusual occurrence. About three years ago I saw an interview on the local evening news with an exchange student from Hong Kong. When asked what surprised her most about her experience at Palmer HS, she said it was the math which was the same material she had learned three years earlier in Hong Kong.

How can we assume that we can continue with our low education standards and prepare our kids for the global competition they face for decent paying jobs? You know the answer. We must reset expectations for our education performance much higher. Will that cause consternation, “poor me” victimology, increased educator defensiveness, etc.? Of course, but is that pain small or large compared to a steady decline in American living standards because not enough of our kids could compete? Educators must realize that if living standards decline because we are uncompetitive they will be impacted as well. We are all in the same boat and need to get busy rowing in the right direction.

Now, a word about Colorado’s position with respect to the rigor of our education standards. On page 26 of Assessing the Role of K-12 Academic Standards in States: Workshop Summary available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12207.html are two charts. The first shows the 3rd grade reading cut scores (the level defining proficiency) for 27 states, including Colorado, California, etc. The second chart shows cut scores for 8th grade math in 23 states including Colorado, South Carolina, etc. In the reading chart Colorado is at the bottom with a cut score under 10 while California is highest with a cut score over 60. Now educators will tell you that the research says that if kids don’t read well by third grade it endangers their future ability to perform in the rest of their schooling if they even finish it. In the math chart Colorado has a cut score of 20 (third lowest) while South Carolina has a cut score of 75. This snaps into context the challenge (successfully ignored by our education establishment to date) that we face in Colorado.

Having observed how educators operate, their first reaction if confronted would be to appoint a blue ribbon panel to study the situation for years and then come up with a plan to slightly increase standards. That would be a waste of time. A good start would be to simply “lift” the standards from the state with the highest in each subject. That would be much quicker to do and would be a good start. Some will say we would be overreacting because we might set the standards too high. They will be concerned that schools that were defined as doing great compared to the low standards would be defined as doing poorly compared to the higher standards. It would really be no change only recognition of the true performance which is being masked by Colorado’s ridiculously low standards. When you realize the gap that exists between the state and national standards and the further gap that exists between our national standards and those of our leading competitor nations you will see that the initial step-up in standards would only get us part way to where we need to be. Believe me, more money is not the answer. We have lavished huge sums on the education sector for decades with no positive effect on performance compared to our international competition. More money only gives the anti-change forces in education tacit reinforcement and a license to continue their failed methods in the future. The choice is clear: short term pain for long-term gain or no pain short- term followed by excruciating long-term pain. I think it is an easy choice to make.

Copyright © Paul Richardson 2008

It isn’t the money, it’s the kids’ futures

I am going to make an argument that agreeing to increase education funding is an action against our kids getting the education they need and deserve. You may think I must be wrong but let me explain. For at least the last 25 years education spending has increased at a pace about twice the rate of inflation. It must have resulted in greatly improved education performance, right. Not really. If you look at the statements from the A Nation at Risk report of 1983 and the 2007 Tough Choices or Tough Times report you will have to admit that things have only gotten slowly worse. Our kids score near the bottom in international math and science testing and close to the middle in literacy. Since, the competition globally from billions of people released from the bonds of closed society socialism and have embraced capitalism with a vengeance, our kids must have a better educational foundation, NOW. With the increasing prevalence of knowledge work in the future, they need a stronger foundation than our kids have ever had to have in the past if a decent paying job is the goal.

Now if money were the answer we would already have achieved a world class level of performance. But money isn’t the answer. In fact, there is too much money sloshing around in the education system. That excess has led to much waste and lack of attention to what is important. It has facilitated all sorts of expensive and time wasting initiatives that are tangential to what needs to be done. Thus, we have too much fat and too little muscle. We need to withhold further increases in funding to send a message that it is time for educators to face facts, prioritize efforts toward their mission and stop the “joyriding” they have been doing. The money is a small issue compared to our kids futures. Time to say, no more money until we see positive action on eliminating waste and addressing the needs of the kids. Lest you think the Colorado is doing better than most states you would be wrong as we are in the bottom half there.

Baggage

During the great westward migration of the nineteenth century thousands of Americans left the East and Midwest to settle the West. A very common problem was that they overloaded their wagons with all sorts of “baggage” that they “knew they couldn’t do without.” A story that is told over and over in accounts from the time is that the trail became littered with all of the items that had been considered necessary but were threatening their very survival if they continued carrying them. They had dragged all of that baggage in back-breaking labor until they realized they were faced with a life-or-death decision. Some refused to face the reality of their misguided decision and perished leaving all of that “valuable stuff” along the trail anyway. To them the inability to face reality made the status quo of their current possessions more important than their future. Because they wanted it all they lost it all. This inability to face short term pain for long term gain is even more common today.

Educators don’t realize it but they face the same “life-or-death” decision. The life that is at risk is their future lifestyle and the future of the American way of life. Their failure to educate all kids to their potential is resulting in America being less and less competitive in the world marketplace. Unless urgent action is taken now it will be too late. Continuing delay will put America into an unrecoverable hole of much lower standards of living. Educators need to realize they can’t separate themselves from the rest of America. Continuing to support the current mediocrity will take down the country and the educators along with it.

For educators the baggage that is threatening our nation’s very survival is an amalgam of false beliefs and false pride. Like the pioneers they are on the trail with a heavy load of fantasy beliefs that prevent them from making progress toward the goals they “say” they are trying to achieve. The goal that seems to get mentioned most frequently is the elimination of the achievement GAP between demographically challenged kids and the rest. The “baggage” preventing achievement of this goal includes:

• A belief that is virtually universal within the education fiefdom that “those kids” can’t really learn to a high standard. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that prevents them from learning to the high levels educators “say” they want. While I can guarantee that all educators will deny this for their own school(s), if you press them on achievement performance the first excuse you will hear is the demographic one. This excuse is reinforced by things like The Blueberry Story, Vollmer (2006) which is supported by the unions and tacitly supported by most administrators and school boards who like excuses as well as anyone.
• They use biased, mediocre, scientifically unsound curricula and teaching methods that enrich the education schools that “research” and teach them, the publishers, the consultants who help implement them, etc. The true dark side of these efforts is that they harm the students’ ability to learn at a time when it is vital that our students learn to a higher level if the nation is to compete effectively in the new global paradigm. Refer to Hirsch (2006) comments in The Reality Primer section to understand the problem more fully.
• A common belief, especially among K-5 educators, is that competition is a terrible thing and kids need to be protected from that at all cost. We can’t protect our country and citizens from competition. Competing well is what made us great. The inability of kids to compete because they have been taught they don’t need to is a huge problem!
• Educators also believe that when things get tough the thing to do is to ask your political allies to “protect” you from that nasty foreign (or domestic) competition. That is a waste of time, only making things worse. The global economy is far too integrated for that. Past attempts (ex. Smoot-Hawley tariffs exacerbated the Great Depression in the 1930s) have failed, doing far more harm than good.
• Educators believe they are well educated but they have been the willing victims of education school inadequacy. See Hirsch, Kramer and Levine quotes in the Reality Primer section. This is especially a problem in the area of subject knowledge, from reading to math to science to social studies. Most educators know this subconsciously and that is what leads to their excessive fear of change because significant effort will be required to address this shortfall.
• Educators have a belief that change is anathema and to be avoided at all cost. That is a totally delusional attitude. The only constant in the world is change. This “rut robot” mentality is extremely counterproductive.

Many more points could be made but you see the picture. It is time to face the truth and get rid of the pseudo-intellectual baggage being carried by the vast majority of educators.

Excerpt from Advice for Educators When Performance Improvement is Vital, Paul Richardson, © 2008