Category Archives: Uncategorized

Ambivalence Instead of Ambition Defines Us Today

Posted on by
Reply

“No bucks – no Buck Rogers!” This is one of my favorite quotes from Tom Wolfe’s The Right Stuff. These five words answer the question of what propelled NASA in the 1960s. Beating the Soviets in the race into space was not the result of science or test pilot bravery; government investment of money launched our first astronauts and landed men on the moon. Bucks launched Alan Shepherd, Neil Armstrong, and all other astronauts. This is causation at its fundamental root. Bucks invested in imagination, science, and industry, caused Buck Rogers.

Bucks do a lot. The United States’ hegemony in the 20th century is the result of its vast wealth and productive economics. Our post-WW2 economy just kept growing with the expectation that every year would bring yet more innovation, productivity, and “good times” for almost everyone, though some were left out out. The last half of the 20th century was populated with immense innovation on all fronts of our culture. We built interstates, houses, shopping malls, and factories. We invented and made an unbelievable variety of new “things.” We manufactured our prosperity.

How did this happen? Industrialists reinvested in their industries. Board of Directors and stockholders profited proportionately to the capacity of their business to provide products for the economy. And, the federal government invested in national projects, in the infrastructures of roads, bridges, dams, and national parks. The greater the price tag, the greater the governmental involvement. And, states invested in their universities’ research and development departments, hospitals, and public schools. Growth in population was matched by growth in national, state, and local capacities to serve the new population. America boomed! Investment begat our prosperity.

Our population grew both by domestic births and immigration. Baby Boomer births were matched by millions of people coming to our country. Increased population fed the repetitive cycles of increased consumer buying and increased goods production. Increased population and increased housing construction increased taxes paid and taxes increased public services. We were on the uphill slope of positive trends caused by multiple investing sources that believed investment in the commonwealth of people would grow the prosperity of all people. Increased population begat our prosperity.

Just as investment bucks caused the space race, investment bucks propelled the nation’s innovation and productivity growth of the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Bucks fueled the imaginations and ambitions of our nation’s most talented creators and investments funded their productivity in science and industry, agriculture and construction, education and medicine, and large and small business. Talent included both the geniuses of innovation and the educated consumer population that appreciated and was advantaged by the products of genius. Investment begot talent and talent grew more talent. Talent begat our prosperity.

If asked what made America great in the last half of the last century, a straightforward answer was a commitment and investment in the development of national assets and talents.

And then, the good times slowed to a stop. Causation? What happened?

What do we know?

America changed. Our national goals and ambitions have changed. And our commitment to the development of American talent changed.

First, the American Dream changed from being inclusive to being exclusive. Our older generations who achieved the 20th century version of the Dream became more concerned with protecting their holdings than extending opportunities for others to gain any traction in achieving the Dream. National policies began to favor WASPs and became increasingly averse to diverse people. We became protectionists instead of opportunists.

Our government now has annual goals of deporting one million immigrated people from the United States and of holding of 100,000 people in ICE custody pending their deportation. Housing construction, food processing, elder care, and service industries are being decimated by this policy. Immigrants always have come to America seeking a better life and willing to do work that Americans will not do. Thinking we are protecting America by forcibly removing labor and potential talent that we cannot replace is the opposite of what made us prosperous.

Further, government is curtailing visas for foreign students who want to enroll in our schools. We are fed with false fear that America is educating foreign talents that will return to their homeland and compete against us. This falsehood ignores the truth that most foreign students stay in the US and contribute to our talent pool. We are refusing to develop international students who annually beget more talent for our country.

Second, American productivity changed. In the 1960s, manufacturing was 30% of our annual gross domestic product. America was industrial. In 2025 manufacturing was less than 10% of the annual GDP. In 2026 the US economy is based on the wealth of tech companies that produce media and their accoutrements. The US economy today is not based upon tangible wealth but on the vapors of digital and social information and entertainment. We annually become less and less of an industrial nation. The less we produce, the more our economy becomes quicksand and the foundations of our prosperity founder.

The backside and downhill slope of any trend is disturbing. It begs for an explanation. Where the US once led the world in industrial manufacturing, we now trail other nations. Europe and Asia benefited from historically later industrial revolutions than America. This leaves our manufacturers languishing in the American rust belt of pre-WW2 mills and plants. Our once dominant auto industry now only makes SUVs and pick-up trucks. Germany prospers with high productivity in producing machinery, autos, and engineering-intensive equipment. Scandinavia, Netherlands, and Austria prosper with advanced, specialized, high-value manufacturing. Japan and South Korea lead the world in auto production, robotics, ship building, and electronics. The United States cannot compete with China in the making of e-cars, so we ban their import.

And American businesses moved their production sites offshore to Asia, India, South America, and Europe. Business investment traded national interest for their self-interest of profits based upon the lower cost of labor around the world. American steel mills, textile, and microchip producers cannot match international competitors and have shuttered their domestic facilities. We self-inflicted our industrial decline.

Third, America had a strong legacy of investing in education and domestic talent development. Public education provided a literate workforce, and colleges and universities honed American children into world leaders in every field of endeavor. American higher education and American ingenuity were the “think tank” and “skunk works” that drove American innovation and production. No longer.

As the costs of K-12 and college education increase, federal and state investments lag in annual funding commitments. In the early 2000s most, state legislatures cut their education spending to fund other state priorities, such as roads and prisons. The legacy of state funding for heavy cost programs like school buildings, student transportation, and special education gave way to local referenda. By statute, K-12 education is a state responsibility, yet financing local schools is evolving into a local taxpayer responsibility. We annually bemoan low test scores in reading and math and point to teaching and curriculum. However, the blame is ours to own. Classroom teaching no longer attracts talented college students because teachers are the lowest paid profession requiring a baccalaureate degree. Provisionally licensed teachers today teach in more than one million classrooms. We are getting the less educational outcomes we are paying for.

Parallel to decreased support for education, our government attacks colleges and universities and withholds approved congressional funding as leverage to force changes in enrollment and curriculum. The government’s argument is partisan as higher education communities typically are more liberal and favor the Democrat party. Partisanship is shuttering and hamstringing our nation’s research and development centers. The losses of R & D will geometrically increase in the years ahead.

These three causations, a non-productive economy, policy-based attacks on immigrated people, and our diminished education systems are propelling the United States down the backside slope of its international economic hegemony. Our national ambivalence toward the assets that made America – our productive economy, our ambition to be leaders, and our development of American talent- is begetting the decline of the American era.

Ambition turned to ambivalence.

American ambition has turned south with ambivalence. Ask yourself – Excluding energy extraction, digital technology, and biotechnology, what major American industrial breakthrough of the last thirty years has significantly raised broad national productivity? Hard to pinpoint, eh? There are not any.

At the same time, our nation’s production of billionaires is skyrocketing. The wealth of our top .01% is not causing national domestic economic growth. On the contrary their conspicuous consumption and political machinations to secure their personal prosperity have undermined the national ambition. They are the new oligarchs of America, and they make it harder than ever for the non-wealthy to bootstrap their way to middle class security.

What to do.

Start in the middle – at the state level. When national leadership is obstructive and local leadership is without adequate resources, start at the state level where there continues to be is a level of relevant autonomy.

The following are explicit steps a state can take to energize and realize talent development, economic, and civic growth.

  • Provide free K-14 education. We have a tradition of providing education to children in kindergarten through grade 12. Recently, school boards have extended free public education to pre-Kindergarten children. We need to extend a free education for all children to grade 14 – two years of technical college or two years toward a baccalaureate degree.

Grade 14 makes sense because too many college and sophomore students spend two years taking post-high school and introductory college courses as they decide on their degree. It is not until their grade 14 that they really are into a college education. And students who attend technical colleges

The delivery of a free, appropriate, and public education needs this addendum – a free, appropriate, and public education that delivers equitable and high-quality outcomes. Wisconsin’s Choice Program approximates a free K-12 education whether in public, charter, or voucher-supported private schools. However, there are real and significant differences in the outcomes children achieve that are dependent upon their socio-politico-economic community. An education that grows talent cannot abide the arbitrariness of location. Talent development must be achievable in every community.

Redefine grade level promotion, middle school, and high school graduation to a standards-based that will ensure every student, no matter their school choice, meets equitable and high-quality outcome requirements. It is not difficult for school boards to install these requirements, if they are committed to the Wisconsin Promise.

Further, to fulfill the promise of college and career ready promise extend K-12 to K-14. Include the completion of either a technical education or the first two years of a baccalaureate degree in the state/local community financial commitment. There is a current gap between grade 12 and career ready – technical education is missing. A high school graduate is not career ready unless the career is entry-level, non-career employment. Career ready means trained to do career work, and this requires training. By the same token, high school graduates may be academically prepared for college, but they are not prepared for the academic and the financial requirements of college. Too many talented collegians drop out because of the financial burden not the academic work required. If we want to develop talent, we cannot strangle that development with student debt.

  • Develop grade 9-14 apprenticeships. For decades education and industry have recognized the benefits of school/work apprenticeships. However, active apprentice programs are still fringe programs in schools. Instead, apprenticeships should be flagship opportunities in associate and baccalaureate degree programs. High school freshmen and sophomores should be recruited to local apprenticeships using the same in-school representative opportunities as college and university recruiters. In addition, local foundations that give graduates scholarships to attend colleges and universities also need to fund students extending their high school apprenticeships into associate and baccalaureate programs. Grade 9-14 apprentices will be the backbone and pipeline for future productivity.
  • Talent identification and mentorship. Children complete interest inventories as part of their school’s counseling program. Yet few children ever see a connection between the interest inventory and their educational program. The inventory is forgotten data. Instead, schools need to use this data to help children understand their interests and talents AND to create educational pathways that actuate their interests and talents. An easy first extension is connecting every student with a mentor/practitioner/career worker in their interest area. All children have talents, but we allow most to lie fallow without any cultivation. Children just meander on through school. We waste the potentiality that children pose by not actively engaging in their interests and talents.
  • Take advantage of civic projects that require talented workers. Educators extensively use problem-based and project-based teaching and learning strategies to cause children to develop creative academic outcomes. There is tremendous problem-solving commonality in what teachers and students do in the classroom and what civic and community leaders do in town halls. Each uses study, analysis, and creativity to produce problem solutions and project designs. In the future, schools should apply their instructional strategies to their community’s problems and projects, and civic leaders should promote and support students in their production of potential solutions. This will grow local talents prepared for solving local problems and projects. And it will be a substantial cost saving to communities.
  • Restore college and university R & D centers. History already proves the economic benefits of these centers for inquiry, exploration, invention, adaptation, and development. As I sit and write, my workspace and my work tools are the products of R & D efforts. Our leaders need to stop thinking of support for higher education as politically beneficial or as political revenge. R & D is agnostic and non-partisan – everyone benefits. Stop making investment in college and university R & D partisan.
  • Provide childcare subsidies to working parents. The high costs of childcare penalize families by forcing one parent to stop working and become a care provider. Or, by creating a prohibitive debt load for working parents. Making pre-school education part of compulsory education is one way – the subsidy becomes a voucher. Extending compulsory education to year-round schooling for children from birth to grade 5 is a second way. Our schools and our educational work force already are available and can fill these needs.
  • Pay for employee sabbaticals to extend their creative years of work. A longer working life is needed to pay for our living to an older age. Retirement no longer is at age 65 but well into the 70s. A half century of working for a living is a recipe for massive employee burn out. Instead, insert required and employer-paid sabbaticals into all employment agreements. Require all employees to leave their daily work for four months every ten years. International studies of enforced sabbaticals prove that employees return from sabbatical with a refurbished work attitude and productivity. To force old work rules on employees who will be working decades beyond the norm when those rules were written is senseless – we know better.

The Big Duh!

Immediately a reader may believe this is socialist ideology and an overreach of authority. Hogwash! These are 21st century applications of what we have learned to are true and effective over time. We only need the ambition to do them. A harder truth is that American productivity and culture cannot stand another decade of our national ambivalence. Our ambivalence is greasing our slide down the backside of what America once was.

New Leadership Is About Solid Outputs Not New Inputs

Posted on by
Reply

What if a school leadership candidate told the interviewing committee, “We will not introduce anything new! We will improve the effectiveness of how we work to improve the quality of our student achievement results!” Would you support that leader?

In our culture of consumption, every version of something new must be bold and innovative. The world’s most recognized brand name is our best example. Each year’s new Apple product rollouts exemplify this requirement. New displays, new functions, and new features make the new product better than the old. With high anticipation, we look forward to the annual Apple rollout of “new and improved.” Even if you have last year’s version, you no longer are in on the best of what is new. In fact, in every industry, including education, the words “new and improved…” precede every big announcement.

How does this work in selecting school leaders?

Currently, our local school board is hiring a new high school principal. Each candidate in the interview process fervently explains that she or he will bring the most benefit to the leadership position. “Pick me,” is the constancy between all candidates. “This is what I will do for you” is the variable that board members listen for and weigh in their hiring decision. Board members want to know what new and innovative thing a candidate gives the district that other candidates do not.

I once was a candidate for principal and superintendent positions selling my “new” ideas and I also was a school board president listening to candidates sell their “new” ideas. From both sides of the interview, the storyline was the same. Leaders are hired based upon how well the candidate identifies district needs and wants and translates those into statements of “new” leadership.

Interview for outputs not inputs.

In hindsight, we ask candidates the wrong questions. We seek leaders who can provide new inputs into our educational systems. Instead, we should be asking new leaders how they can improve the outputs, the results of instruction, in our schools. Just one two-part question matters. How will you improve the teaching/coaching/directing/mentoring to improve the educational achievements of all our children?

Instead of seeking leaders with new inputs, seek leaders who can assure the effectiveness of the professionals in your school to improve the quality of the school’s outputs – its student achievements.

What do we know?

Improving school outputs is not first, second, or third on a principal’s to do list. Principals typically self-report their daily time partitioned in these tasks:

  • Administrative tasks – 15-21%
  • Student affairs – 20-25%
  • Curriculum and teaching – 25-29%
  • Parent/Community interaction – 10-15%

The partitioning of these tasks supports the status quo of a school. The principal pays attention to the business of the school environment when spending time on administrative tasks, student affairs (discipline), and parent/community interactions. Given, each of these task categories is important, but status quo maintenance does not move the student outcomes needle. Too many principals spend too little time on the most important purpose of the school – student educational outcomes.

We get what we settle for from leadership, so raise the bar of what we settle for.

A principal’s primary focus should be on the effectiveness of the instruction, coaching, directing, and mentoring of students. To affect student achievement outcomes, new leaders must focus on what teachers, coaches, directors, and mentors do. To impact achievements, they need to improve professional performances that directly affect student outcomes.

So, what can a new principal do to have a positive impact on student achievements? We know from educational research that everything our teachers, coaches, directors, and mentors do can be calibrated for its impact on student learning in academics, activities, arts, and athletics. A school leader who causes teachers, coaches, directors, and mentors to increase the use of higher impact instruction and to decrease the use lower impact instruction can move the student achievement needle.

What to do?

Start with acknowledging that teachers, coaches, directors, and mentors share the same major task – how to teach children to be competent and improving performers in curricular classrooms and studios, playing fields and gymnasiums, activity venues, and student life. They are instructors, first and foremost. This starting point is significant because very few school leaders consider coaches, directors, and mentors as teaching children. As a generalization, the quality of coaching, for example, is never considered for its pedagogy. Sadly, coaching effectiveness relies singularly on each athlete’s native talent and seldom on talent development.

Second, use educational research. John Hattie provides our starting point. His study of typical school/classroom practices and calibration of their impact on student achievement gives us a ranking of the typical ways teachers, coaches, directors, and mentors “teach” children. See the link below.

Visible Learning – Hattie’s Research on Effect Size

My first take in reading Hattie’s work was clouded by my past understanding of teacher effectiveness studies. I was and still am a practitioner of teaching strategies aligned with learning objectives – direct, inquiry-based, problem/project-based, and implicit methodologies. I had not considered all the aspects of school-centric practices in Hattie’s study. Now, I believe they are the new starting point for improving student outcomes. Increase our capacity and use of higher impact activities and decrease the use of lower impact strategies.

Third, change our concept of the principal as an instructional leader. Instead of being the school’s teacher of teachers, the principal is the school’s empresario of school improvement. The principal causes improvement in student outcomes to happen. Causing positive things to happen is a powerful administrative skill set.

For one, principals neither have the time nor the preparation to teach teachers how to improve pedagogy, coaching, directing, or mentoring. But they can work with their school board to bring experts to the school or send school staff to the experts to learn and improve their high impact strategies.

Fourth, begin a new annual reporting of student achievement that includes all academics, student activities, the arts, and athletics. These are the scope of what students engage in in school, so report on their reality. And stop hyperventilating on annual student performances on state-mandated assessments of reading, ELA, and mathematics. Granted, annual school report cards report reading, ELA, and math for disaggregated groups, and include attendance, discipline, and graduation data. But the governmental view of school achievement exists only for schools and states to receive federal money.

What does this look like?

Use the 25+% of a principal’s current daily commitment to curriculum and instruction to

  • Helping teachers, coaches, directors, and mentors to understand and use data-based research on effective teaching practices. All staff need to see the principal’s big picture – We all are teachers and we all can improve student achievements by using higher impact teaching strategies.
  • Collaborating with the school board, school district leaders, and the school leadership team to teach teachers, coaches, directors, and mentors how to optimize their use of high impact strategies. Do not assume that all “teachers of children” know the top ten strategies on Hattie’s list. Do not assume that their recognition of the strategy is the same as knowing how to effectively use the strategy. Teach or improve the capacity of all “teachers of children” in how to use high impact strategies.
  • Change the principal’s use of daily “walk throughs” around all the school from innocuous comments to reinforcing effective practices and diminishing ineffective practices. Most teachers report that traditional “walk throughs” and notes left in mailboxes are in the “ineffective” practice category.

Effective leadership is not bright and shiny – it is hard earned and endurable.

Most teachers, coaches, directors, and mentors rely on the “teaching” methods they learned in their educators licensing program. Although teachers are required to engage in continuing education, PD is conducted as a check-off requirement. Very little PD is directly connected to the practices that improve the effectiveness of teaching related to student achievements in academics, activities, arts, or athletics.

Consequently, a principal’s initiative to increase and improve the use of highly effective practices and diminish the use of ineffective practices will be “new.”

New is a hard task. New inputs face the age-old trial of change theory. Schools, as institutions, have built-in buffers against change initiatives. School traditions, past practice, standardized training of educators, time, and money are all barriers to novel changes in the system of things. Change theory tells us it takes five to seven years to implement and embed significant changes.

The Big Duh!

Yet, new is required for real change to happen. When school boards hire new school leaders, they must take care that they are bringing a “new” to the school that really will have an impact on the most important things – student achievements.

In an over-informationed world we are under-literate.

Posted on by
Reply

Literacy is like a tomato. Do you say “tomaeto” or “tomahto”? Just as either says tomato, the concept of literacy has different definitions for the same word. Some of these definitions technically apply yet are not adequate measures of what it means to be literate in today’s parlance. So, what is the big deal about literacy? Is being literate critical to adult life? Given how much information adults are exposed to every day, can we expect adults with varying levels of literacy skills to effectively consider and understand the constant barrage of information? The answer is “no,” yet our world ultimately spins on the voices and decisions of under-literate adults.

Literacy is a status.

Literacy historically is a status based upon measures of reading and writing. As a statistic, “High literacy rates have been found to correlate to everything from access to economic opportunity, to better nutrition, to environmental sustainability.” We generalize that citizens of economically advantaged nations have high literacy rates and citizens of underdeveloped nations have low literacy rates. A nation boasted its high literacy rate as a cause-and-effect proposition. “Our people enjoy a better standard of living because they are literate.”

https://ncte.org/blog/2020/03/literacy-just-reading-writing

What should we know about this status?

Using the percentage of the population 15 years and older who can read and write as a measure of literacy, Andorra, Finland, Greenland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and North Korea tie for #1 with 100% of their citizens being literate. North Korea? If a dictator says everyone can read, everyone is literate. The United States is in a large group of nations ranking #2 with 99% of the population rated as literate. Sounds good, but is it?

https://www.uscareerinstitute.edu/blog/which-countries-have-the-highest-and-lowest-literacy-rates

These data raise questions as to how we decide an adult is literate at the international level. This is how the data are gathered.

“The breakdown of strategies for deciding literacy covers four categories:

  • self-reported literacy declared directly by individuals,
  • self-reported literacy declared by the head of the household,
  • tested literacy from proficiency examinations, and
  • indirect estimation or extrapolation.

In most cases, the categories covering ‘self-reports’ correspond to estimates of literacy that rely on answers provided to a simple yes/no question asking people if they can read and write. The category ‘indirect estimation’ corresponds mainly to estimates that rely on indirect evidence from educational attainment, usually based on the highest degree of completed education.”

https://ourworldindata.org/how-is-literacy-measured

Based on self-reported data collection, many adults in the world consider themselves to be literate. But are they? Literacy is more than a statistical number.

Literacy is a functional tool.

Literacy is a tool. “… literacy is the way that we interact with the world around us, how we shape it and are shaped by it. It is how we communicate with others via reading and writing, but also by speaking, listening, and creating. It is how we articulate our experience in the world and declare, ‘We Are Here!’”

https://ncte.org/blog/2020/03/literacy-just-reading-writing

This consideration of literacy, that is how we communicate and receive communication from others and how we create communicative information, opens new concepts of what it means to be literate. “According to a study by the University of California – San Diego, the average American consumes about 34 gigabytes of data and information every day. This volume is equivalent of around 100,000 words heard or read daily.”

In our age of digital and virtual information, adults are bombarded by and likewise spew volumes of information daily. A literate adult must be skillful and competent on both sides of receiving and sending literacy.

Interestingly the Cambridge Dictionary points to both definitions – status and tool. Cambridge defines literacy as “the ability to read and write.” And literacy is the “knowledge of a particular subject, or a particular type of knowledge. Computer literacy is becoming as essential as the ability to drive a car.”

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/literacy

UNESCO reinforces literacy as an essential tool. “Literacy is a means of identification, understanding, interpretation, creation, and communication in an increasingly digital, text-mediated, information-rich, and fast-changing world. On the historical international scene, literacy is a statistic of the population who can read and write. Literacy also is a broad array of functional skills that are applied in a successful adult life. For others, literacy is the ability to access and understand information in multiple contexts.”

https://ncte.org/blog/2020/03/literacy-just-reading-writing

This other “tomato” version of literacy opens the realm of higher order skills that are necessary for understanding, interpreting, analyzing, and evaluating information that is read and heard. And then doing something with or because of what one has read and heard. Literacy is making meaning of and considering what to do with information.

Able to read. At what level of reading?

Self-reporting is not an adequate measure of how we use literacy as a tool. “The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defines literacy across six levels. People with Level 1 or below literacy skills are considered to have very poor literacy skills, while Level 3 is considered the minimum literacy skills required for coping with everyday life.

  • Below Level 1: Adults can read brief texts on familiar topics and locate a single piece of specific information. Only basic vocabulary knowledge is required, and adults are not required to understand the structure of sentences of paragraphs.
  • Level 1: Adults can read relatively short digital or print texts to locate a single piece of information that is identical to or synonymous with the information given in the question. Knowledge and skill in recognizing basic vocabulary, determining the meaning of sentence, and reading short paragraphs of text is expected.
  • Level 2: Adults can make matches between the text, either digital or printed, and information. Adults can paraphrase or make low-level inferences.
  • Level 3: Adults are required to read and navigate dense, lengthy or complex texts.
  • Level 4: Adults can integrate, interpret or synthesize information from complex or lengthy texts. Adults can identify and understand one or more specific, non-central idea(s) in the text in order to interpret or evaluate subtle evidence-claim or persuasive discourse relationships.
  • Level 5: Adults can search for and integrate information across multiple, dense texts; construct syntheses of similar and contrasting ideas or points of view; or evaluate evidence-based arguments. Adults understand subtle, rhetorical cues and can make high-level inferences or use specialized background knowledge.”

As a literacy tool, how well do we read?

We get a different portrait of literacy in the United States when we use the OECD’s evidence-based data. Remember that the U.S. claims a 99% literacy status using self-reporting and other non-scientific methods.

“The most recent national survey on adult literacy is from 2012-2017, conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics as part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). The U.S. ranks 16th among the 33 OECD nations included in this study.

Nationally, over 1 in 5 adults (in the United States) have a literacy proficiency at or below Level 1. Adults in this range have difficulty using or understanding print materials. Those on the higher end of this category can perform simple tasks based on the information they read, but adults below Level 1 may only understand very basic vocabulary or be functionally illiterate.

On the upside, “46% of adults in the U.S. have a literacy proficiency at or above level 3. Adults at Levels 3, 4, and 5 have varying degrees of proficiency in understanding, interpreting and synthesizing information from multiple, complex texts to infer meaning and draw conclusions.”

https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy

Huh!

Approximately half of the adults in the U.S. have functional literacy tools that are “considered the minimum literacy skills required for coping with everyday life.” The other half of that statistic have less that minimal literacy skills.

The application of literacy as a functional tool is not just eye-opening for the United States. Using the OECD study, 14.9% (or 1 in 7) adults in England have literacy levels below Level 3, which is the equivalent to the literacy skills expected of a nine to 11-year-old.”

https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-literacy/what-do-adult-literacy-levels-mean/#:~:text=People%20with%20Level%201%20or,for%20coping%20with%20everyday%20life.

These conclusions are supported by other studies. A Gallup analysis of literacy information gathered by the US Department of Education reports that “About 130 million adults in the U.S., roughly half of Americans between 16 and 74 – have low literacy skills. In this study, literacy is broadly defined as the ability to read and write, but more accurately encompasses the comprehension, evaluation and utilization of information, which is why people describe different types of literacy – such as health, financial, and legal. Low literacy skills can profoundly affect the day-to-day success of adults in the real world, and these impacts extent to their families, too.”

https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy

Literacy and public education.

Reading achievement has become the annual dip stick for measuring educational effectiveness in the U.S. since No Child Left Behind became national policy in 2002. State, school district, and school report cards annually publicize the percentage of students who meet the state’s performance expectations in reading. In a nation that self-reports its adults to be literate, children in school struggle with reading.

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction reported, “For 2023-24, assessment results show public school student proficiency rates in ELA were at 48%. Students participating in the state’s Private School Choice Programs had a proficiency rate of 30.9 percent. Assessment results show proficiency gaps among different student subgroups continue to exist.”

https://dpi.wi.gov/news/releases/2024/student-assessment-results-forward

It is worthwhile to note that “meeting expectations” on a statewide reading or ELA assessment is not a high standard. State “expectations” are minimal levels of reading ability, very much like Level 2 on the OECD literacy assessment. The number of children meeting “expectations” is nothing to really cheer about. They met a low bar.

In truth, every graduation class fits into the OECD and Gallup estimation of adult literacy in the U.S. – about half of the graduates and young adults in our country meet minimal literacy standards.

When we apply literacy as a status to high school graduates, our society annually receives semi-literate young adults into our communities and general employment. As a result of education, more than half of our adult citizenry can only minimally read and write.

When we apply the second definition, we realize that the hierarchy of our layered economic society does not require every adult to be highly literate. Many high school graduates lack the ability to fully read and listen to complex and technical information and then translate it into their daily lives and jobs fulfill society’s economic needs. They are employed and pay taxes. Their earnings circulate in our consumer-based economy. They are law abiding and live socially in our cities, towns, and countryside. The majority do not need more than a high school diploma plus technical or on-the-job training to live in the United States.

“In 2021, the highest level of education of the population age 25 and older in the United States was distributed as follows: 

  • 8.9% had less than a high school diploma or equivalent.
  • 27.9% had high school graduate as their highest level of school completed. 
  • 14.9% had completed some college but not a degree.
  • 10.5% had an associate degree as their highest level of school completed.
  • 23.5% had a bachelor’s degree as their highest degree.
  • 14.4% had completed an advanced degree such as a master’s degree, professional degree or doctoral degree. 

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/educational-attainment.html

Incomplete literacy can lead to incomplete understanding.

The ability to read, understand, and evaluate information has become more essential as the volume of daily information has increased. When a person hears or reads almost 100,000 words daily, a person must either try to process all that information or begin to categorize and ignore selected types and sources of information. My best bet is the latter. People become increasingly selective in the media they listen to and the text they read, ignoring sources that do not agree with their personal points of view. As they scan text and skim media, they disregard sources they do not agree with and pay attention only to sources agreeable to their perspectives. The loss of a 360-degree listening and reading narrows their understanding to the range of information they choose to hear and read.

Let’s do the arithmetic. In Wisconsin, less than half of our students meet minimal expectations on statewide reading assessments. With their high school and associate degrees, they elect to hear and read only words that express their points of view about our state and world. If this is true, then we need to add a third tomato – incomplete literacy. Given that literacy is a tool, when the tool or reading and listening is applied only to what we want to read and hear, then we have achieved incomplete literacy.

We always do get what we settle for.

Our national and state Founding Fathers valued education. Because they believed a literate populace would be better able to take part in our democratic form of government, they supported public education. The ability to read was essential for voters to make informed choices of leadership and the policies their leaders would execute. As a nation of immigrants, literacy in the English language has always been a pathway to citizenship.

With all that purpose and history, today we have achieved a nation that is minimally and incompletely literate and this is considered good enough for our economic and political welfare.

In a world that is over-informationed, we are under-literate. As educators, we have work to do!

Rigor and Productive Struggle – “Kind of Hard” Causes Leaning

Posted on by
Reply

Teaching for learning often resembles the Goldilocks story. If things are not just right, Goldilocks is not happy. Her sampling of chairs, porridge, and beds showed some chairs and beds to be too soft or too hard and some bowls of porridge to be too cold or too hot. By experimenting, she found her “just right” spot.

When children find lessons that are too easy to too hard, and I add, not interesting or of no perceived value to them, they also are not happy. They express their unhappiness by wandering off into boredom, distractive behaviors, and absenteeism. The “just right” lesson can catch each child’s attention and positively challenge their emerging skills sets. Such is a teacher’s constant dilemma – designing lessons with enough rigor and interest, not too little nor too much, to cause learning.

The sweet spot.

In “Productive Struggle Is a Learner’s Sweet Spot” (ASCD, Vol 14, No. 11), Barbara Blackburn describes the tension in instructional design teachers face in creating lessons that are “just right” on the scales of interest and rigor. “Student success occurs when you create an instructional environment that sets high expectations for each student and provides scaffolding without offering excessive help. The key is to incorporate productive struggle.

Productive struggle is what I call the “sweet spot” in between scaffolding and support. Rather than immediately helping students at the first sign of trouble, we should allow them to work through struggles independently before we offer assistance. That may sound counterintuitive, since many of us assume that helping students learn means protecting them from negative feelings of frustration. But for students to become independent learners, they must learn to persist in the face of challenge.”

https://ascd.org/el/articles/productive-struggle-is-a-learners-sweet-spot

Blackburn speaks of two essential elements for teaching in the sweet spot. One is using the tension between the Goldilocks’ just right and too hard to provoke children to learn. Instruction that is too easy will not cause learning. It is the tension between what a student knows and can do now and what they need to know and do next that is the cutting edge for their learning. Teachers use the tension to motivate, instruct, and reinforce new learning.

Blackburn’s second element is scaffolding new learning so that all children incrementally secure their learning and developmentally grow their knowledge and skills through productive struggle. Blackburn does not allow Goldilocks to settle back into comfort but keeps pushing Goldilocks to learn to know and do what initially is too hard for her. For Goldilocks-like students, what is just right today will become too soft in the future

Blackburn locates that sweet spot by finding the critical attributes of the new or next learning in her curriculum. Madeline Hunter taught us to assess critical attributes by sorting the ideas, concepts, and generalizations of knowledge and the rigor of skill sets to identify what children need to learn “right now.” This creates the sequence and the rate and degree of what will be taught to cause learning. The scaffold ensures that children are prepared and ready to climb from one step of the learning sequence to the next. Children learn the facts and skills in the order required to create concepts and generalizations needed for new progressions of their curricular learning.

When an appropriately considered scaffold is absent, children easily drift into boredom and disinterest. “Over time, students who are continually and insufficiently challenged tend to become disengaged and complacent, exerting lower effort and gaining only superficial learning. As a result, some fail to develop resilience and perseverance with difficult tasks.”

https://ascd.org/el/articles/thriving-in-the-zone-of-productive-struggle

Lev Vygotsky added to our understanding of how children learn with “the Zone of Proximal Learning. “According to Vygotsky’s theory, the ZPD describes the area between a child’s current and future ability. The ZPD is a hypothesized construct that describes the range of children’s abilities from what they are capable of doing to what they are unable to do on their own. When teaching, teachers should encourage child learning by using activities and supporting strategies that enable a child to accomplish a task with the assistance of another peer or teacher. It is important while scaffolding that teachers ask questions and give tasks that target a child’s current developmental level. As children begin to master skills on their own, teachers adjust their teaching strategies accordingly so that children continue to advance.”

Vygotsky

Just right is “kind of hard.”

There is an intersection where applications of productive struggle and proximal learning can be used to enhance student learning by finding the “just right” spot.

Does it make sense to make learning slightly harder?

Annie Murphy Paul wrote, “Yes, and the reason is twofold. The first reason to make learning harder is to make it interesting. Learning something new and complicated is hard in itself, as we saw above. Lightening the learner’s cognitive load will allow her to learn more effectively without becoming frustrated or confused.

But once the learner has attained some degree of mastery, ratcheting up the difficulty will help her stay in her “sweet spot” of engagement, where the task is not too hard as to be frustrating and not so easy as to be boring. This is also the place where learners can practice encountering adversity and challenge and overcoming them, a key experience in the development of grit.

The second reason to make learning harder is that it makes learning work better. UCLA psychologist Robert Bjork has developed the idea of “desirable difficulties” — difficulties that we actually want to introduce into students’ learning to make it more effective. Bjork notes that many of the learning activities that make students feel competent and successful — like reading over a textbook passage several times so that it feels familiar — actually they do very little to help them learn. What they should do instead is something like this: close that textbook and ask themselves to recall from memory what they’ve just read.

It won’t feel as good. They’ll struggle to remember the words that were just in front of their eyes. But this activity, known as retrieval practice (or simply self-testing) is an example of a desirable difficulty that will dramatically increase students’ learning.”

https://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/making-learning-easier-harder-for-kids

Paul suggests that cognitive load is a factor in what makes learning new content and skills easy or hard. “Cognitive load refers to the amount of information our working memory can process at any given time. For educational purposes, cognitive load theory helps us to avoid overloading learners with more than they can effectively process into schemas for long-term memory storage and future recall.”

https://www.mcw.edu/-/media/MCW/Education/Academic-Affairs/OEI/Faculty-Quick-Guides/Cognitive-Load-Theory.pdf

How much is “just right?”

As we design lessons for cognitive load, we consider the number of pieces or chunks of new information the brain can process at once. “In a famous paper humorously describing “the magical number seven plus or minus two, “Miller claimed to be persecuted by an integer. He demonstrated that one can repeat back a list of no more than about seven randomly ordered, meaningful items or chunks (which could be letters, digits, or words). Other research has yielded different results, though. Young adults can recall only 3 or 4 longer verbal chunks, such as idioms or short sentences (Gilchrist, Cowan, & Naveh-Benjamin, 2008). Some have shrugged their shoulders, concluding that the limit “just depends” on details of the memory task. Recent research, however, indicates when and how the limit is predictable.

The recall limit is important because it measures what is termed working memory (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Miller, Galanter, & Pribram, 1960), the few temporarily active thoughts. Working memory is used in mental tasks, such as language comprehension (for example, retaining ideas from early in a sentence to be combined with ideas later on), problem solving (in arithmetic, carrying a digit from the ones to the tens column while remembering the numbers), and planning (determining the best order in which to visit the bank, library, and grocery). Many studies indicate that working memory capacity varies among people, predicts individual differences in intellectual ability, and changes across the life span (Cowan, 2005).

It has been difficult to determine the capacity limit of working memory because multiple mechanisms retain information. Considerable research suggests, for example, that one can retain about 2 seconds’ worth of speech through silent rehearsal (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). Working memory cannot be limited this way alone, though; in running span procedures, only the last 3 to 5 digits can be recalled (less than 2 seconds’ worth). In these procedures, the participant does not know when a list will end and, when it does, must recall several items from the end of the list (Cowan, 2001).

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2864034

Once “just right” is taught, teach children how to remember/study.

One may think that Goldilocks was just goofing around in the three bears home. But she wasn’t. She tasted porridge to find something to eat and she tested chairs and beds for something to sit and sleep on. So, it is with lesson design. Learning must be focused on the right outcomes.

Paul also referred to Bjork’s “desirable outcomes” or expectancy theory. In his example of a study habit – re-reading – he shows that when a child re-reads material several times, the expected outcome is familiarity not memorization what was read. To memorize, a child must set the expectation of recall not familiarity. Hence, instead of re-reading, close the book and try to recall what was read. If not successful, read again, close the book, and try to recall. This is practicing the expectation that the child really wants – to remember what was read not just be familiar with it.

As we teach children new information and skills, we want them to internalize what they learn not just parrot it back to us. Early on in their school careers, children must be taught how to create memory and not just expect memorization to happen. The ability to memorize is just as important as content and skills. To do this, teach a small chunk of new information, then ask children to repeat it back to you. Have children read a paragraph, set the reading aside, and tell you what they read. Extend their listening and reading to larger chunks of information. And correct them when their repeating or telling is not correct. Practice this in class and tell them they need to do this when they study at home. We teachers assume children know this intuitively and they do not.

The Big Duh!

The design of good instructional lessons is not easy. Assess what children know now and what they need to know next. Assemble new information and skills that are at the hard edge of what would be relatively easy for them to learn. Set the motivational hooks of novelty, interest, and challenging material for children before they engage in new learning so they will choose to engage in learning. Don’t provide help too soon – productive struggle builds resiliency. Teach them to study and create short- then long-term memory of what they learned.

Then, do it again for their next lessons.

Would I want me to be my teacher?

Posted on by
Reply

Mirrors sometime present both the best and the worst of ourselves. Standing before the glass we see ourselves as we are. Mirrors do not lie. At the same time, we see ourselves as we want others to see us. It is that dual impression that we must address. Are we who we think we are and is that who we present to others?

Let children be your mirror.

Years ago, I knelt beside a second-grade child to check how she was doing with math fact flash cards. Her face scrunched up in thinking as she quietly talked herself through the cards. I counted eight successful automatic responses to eight flash cards. She was nailing her math facts and then she nailed me. When I gave her a thumbs up for her math, she smiled then frowned and said, “Your breath smells like bad coffee.” Immediately I went from happy educator to crestfallen odor-monger. Her impression and my impression of me did not jive and I knew that hers was the only one that counts. That day I quit drinking coffee at school. I also began making a closer inspection of how the children I taught perceived their teacher.

I began by questioning the values I thought I brought to the classroom every day. I listed 15 statements of what I believe about good instruction that causes learning. These are six I held up to my mirror asking, “would I want to be my teacher?”

  • The purpose of instruction is learning. Is my instruction explicitly connected to the learning outcomes children need? The mirror says sometimes I enjoy the teaching act too much thinking the spotlight is on me. I need to assure that the spotlight is on learning children. If children are not learning, I am not teaching. Children need to see themselves as the most important people in my classroom.
  • Instruction causes every child to learn. How do I know that every child successfully learns the targeted objectives of each lesson? Truth – The mirror says this is a problem. The calendar and clock are not my friends. There is so much curriculum and so little time. I need to assure that all children learn the lessons taught even if I do not teach every unit or lesson this school year. I need to see evidence of learning before I move to the next lesson. Children need to see themselves as successful learners so often they believe it even though some lessons require more work to be learned successfully. Their frustration is my cue to teach better.
  • The learning environment supports student learning. Am I appropriately adjusting the environment to support different instructional strategies and outcomes? The mirror says I need to change the environment when I move from direct to inquiry- or problem-based instruction. Sometimes children need to face me and sometimes they need to face each other. It takes effort to arrange a classroom purposefully or move the class elsewhere in the school or outdoors. Effort that causes learning is effort well spent. Children need to learn to learn in multiple environments and that is my responsibility.
  • Because children learn at different rates and degree, learning is on their clock not mine. Does the curricular calendar drive me or guide me? The mirror says I call on the first hands to go up and end a lesson when most children are done with the assignment. I need to optimize wait time after asking a question, ask a clarifying question if a response is not clear to me, and individualize tier two instruction when first tier did not cause a child to learn. Learning takes the time it takes, and I will commit the time necessary.
  • Engagement is not optional although all children may not be equally engaged at the same time or in the same ways. How do I flex instruction to connect with all children? How well do I accept non-engagement when non-engagement for that child at that time is okay? How thorough am I in checking for involvement as the lesson unfolds? The mirror I do insist that children be on task and devote time to individualizing time with children who are not. Intellectually I know some children seem to learn innately, and others need to grind through the lesson to learn. I probably quick-time the grinders. I need to confirm that each is engaged in ways that leads to their individualized learning, let the grinders grind, and give the quick completers enrichment and extended learning opportunities
  • If best practice is best, why accept or do anything else. Duh! I don’t need the mirror for this one.

Once I started checking my assumptions, I confirmed some practices but needed to adjust others so that I was constantly moving toward best practices. However, my teaching soul can take only so much introspection before it wants to say “Ouch” and loses its critical focus. On another day I questioned other practices. Doing a professional introspection several times each school year keeps me from becoming stale and just teaching the same lessons repeatedly. At the end of ten years, I want my students to have a teacher who strengthened his teaching over ten years not a first-year teacher who repeated being a first-year teacher ten times.

After several rounds of introspection, I changed the question from “would I want me to be my teacher” to “would I want me to be my daughter’s teacher.” That really ramped up the critical review.

Back to the beginning. I never again knelt next to a certain young lady without a fresh wintergreen lifesaver in my mouth.