When Will Teachers be Replaced by Machines?

Before reading this post, check out this Ted talk by Ken Jennings, the one-time undisputed king of Jeopardy, as he discusses how it felt to be surpassed by a computer:

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_jennings_watson_jeopardy_and_me_the_obsolete_know_it_all.html

Technology. It's a blessing and a curse. It makes our lives easier, mostly by automating routine tasks. It also has the potential to kill our jobs. 

The Ken Jennings talk was fascinating. Ken is a master at Jeopardy, a game that requires not only a huge repository of factual knowledge, but also subtle interpretation skills to understand the nuanced word play of Jeopardy questions. He assumed the technology couldn't be developed to beat him at the game.

Then it was. 

In the talk, he mentioned a graph representing his Jeopardy prowess in relation to the increasingly complex Watson computer that would eventually beat him. The graph really could represent any human task in relation to any sort of developing technology... including teaching. Here's my version:

The downward-sloping blue line represents the measurable output from a human teacher. Why a downward slope? 

No Child Left Behind.

The move toward standardized curriculum and testing has created an easily-measurable output. Disregard the validity of this output... just focus on the fact that teaching outcomes can be easily measured. Teachers aren't getting worse; their output as measured by the tests isn't as robust as it once was. due to the crippling of their autonomy.

Note the red line. This represents a combination of outsourcing and computerization. Think automated online learning. The technology is rapidly developing. At some point (if we're not already there), the red line will surpass the blue line. Just like Ken learned, the machines will be able to do a better job than humans.

It's just a matter of time.

Schools are incredibly expensive. Teachers are incredibly expensive. Computers... not so much. The potential for cost-savings is huge. The move toward standardization is removing the "human" element from teaching. The improving technology is making the computers more "human." School budgets are being squeezed. These trends are speeding the inevitable.

Back when I was teaching high school, a colleague and I would sometimes discuss the future of the profession. This person was very technology-literate and understood what computers were capable of doing. This colleague was also aware of the current state of the school system in the US. We were privy to some of the strategy sessions of our state teacher's union, and their state of denial was staggering. They were working under the assumption that the current erosion of teacher pay, benefits, tenure, and retirement was a temporary trend and would soon reverse if only they could find the right combination of motivating the rank and file or rolling out the right publicity campaign. This colleague saw the impending intersection of the two lines from the graph above... and was preparing for that day.

When we were traveling around the country, I met two programmers at an event. Somehow we got on the topic of teaching and computers. They explained how easy it was to write adaptive programs- a kid would do a task, the program would assess the response the adjust the material. In essence, the program could always maintain a perfect level of difficulty. It would always stay within Vgotsky's "zone of proximal development."

Of course humans can do this, too... if we're paired up individually. The problem is scaling. One teacher can easily teach one kid. Two or three? We can still probably out-perform the computers. Things start to fall apart when we reach about five kids. We're no longer able to accurately assess each and every kid and adjust accordingly. A class of twenty? Or thirty? It's a no-brainer. The computer will always win. 

Is there a solution for current teachers?

Honestly, I don't know. The current system is sinking fast, but most teachers are frantically clinging to the Faustian bargain of the teaching "career." I'm not really the kind of person that likes to drown, which is the reason I bailed a few years ago. If I go back into teaching, I'm doing it with the understanding that it's going to be a decidedly temporary position with no promises of long-term security.

In the interim, I'm doing to do my best to plot my own course. I have an idea of where education is going. I know that intersection of the two lines is a lot closer than most teachers would like to believe. I know which direction I'd like to see the profession take. I'm not going to wait around by following an obsolete map. I'm going to make my own map.

###

The Logic Behind Volunteer Teachers

Over the last few weeks, I've been discussing my hypothetical school I'm considering opening. I'm still in the very early planning stages and have been soliciting feedback from as many respected sources as possible. 

Some ideas have been very well-received. Others have been met with a degree of skepticism. One such idea is the exclusive use of volunteers. The logic behind the idea gets muddled in my school because I also erase the distinction between students and teachers. This makes the issue somewhat difficult to discuss... so I'll lay out the logic by assuming there ARE designated teachers in my school.

Where the Idea Originated

The seed for this idea was planted by John Gotto. He used the descriptions of the Sophists, which were paid educators in ancient Greece, as written by Socrates and Aristotle. I took his basic ideas and applied various psychological concepts to arrive at the volunteer teacher idea for the school as it stands today.

The Logic

The use of volunteer teachers solves a surprising number of problems related to the education field in general and the teaching profession in particular, including:

• It requires intrinsic motivation as the fuel for teaching. I cannot place enough emphasis on this point- getting paid to do anything eventually decreases our motivation if the pay becomes a focus. This effect is amplified when pay is increased. Alfie Kohn discusses this idea at length in "Punished by Rewards", and Daniel Pink adds even more fuel to the fire with "Drive." The lesson is simple- there's a high cost associated with extrinsic motivators. Seeing a once-passionate teacher succumb to burnout is one of the great tragedies of modern education. Furthermore, our collective society simply does not understand the pitfalls of using extrinsic motivators. 
• It keeps teachers from becoming "trapped." Once a teacher has been teaching for a few years and income increases, they do what every other middle class white collar worker does- they buy crap. The buy a house, a car or two, and a crap-ton of IKEA furniture. They rack up debt. The become addicted to the daily Starbucks mocha latte. And they use their teaching paycheck to maintain this lifestyle. It's fine... as long as they're happy in their current situation. If things at the school start to go south, they're trapped. They usually can't move to a new school without taking a significant pay cut, which they can no longer afford to do. They can't leave the profession because it would usually involve  starting an entry-level job elsewhere. Again, they can't afford it. To make matters worse, few teachers develop alternate income streams while teaching because the early years are spent in survival mode. Also, continuing education requirements take significant time. The net result is an inability to leave a bad situation. Volunteering eliminates that problem.
• Volunteers keep the school budget at a minimum. This sort of goes without saying, but it's FAR easier to fund a school that's organized around volunteers. Personnel usually takes 70-90% any organization's budget. If that expense is eliminated, the organization becomes a lot more flexible... which is exactly what schools need- the ability to adapt to a rapidly-changing society.
• There is no intra-school friction caused by conflicting groups. School boards, superintendents, administrators, teachers, and teacher unions, by design, are based on an adversarial model. All are fighting for their share of scare resources (usually money.) This conflict has absolutely nothing to do with the goal of education and everything to do with maintaining or increasing power, status, income, or benefits. This forces all parties to focus on the extrinsic elements of the education system (see #1.)
• The volunteer requirement self-selects the types of personalities I want to attract. Most people respond to the idea of volunteering with statements along the lines of "There's no way I could do that!" A few people have an entirely different answer. They respond with "Hmmm... that would present an interesting situation." Those are the dreamers- the people that can see a problem, assess the variables, then go about overcoming the problem. They don't see the idea as a problem that would threaten their lifestyle; they see it as an opportunity to develop and build something cool. It's okay if people fall in the former group. This idea isn't designed to appeal to everyone.

In a society where we expect to be compensated for anything and everything (including many supposed "volunteer" activities), the idea of an entire organization built on intrinsic motivation seems completely foreign. It's a dramatic departure from the behaviorist-based society we've built. We can solve many problems that plague the teaching profession if only we're willing to sacrifice the associated income. 

###

Mastery: Schools, Please Stop Using This Word.

Mastery.

In the school setting, it usually refers to reaching a particular goal like a fourth grade reading level or a 90% or better on the state-mandated standardized test. It's a word educators adopted to use to describe benchmarks their students must strive to reach. Unfortunately, it's a lot like using the word peace-keepers to describe armies... sounds good, makes you feel good, but is completely off base.

"Mastery" refers to the act of perfecting a particular skill, subject, or other such ability. No matter how good we are, we'll never reach perfection on a regular basis. The pursuit of mastery is a journey, not a destination. This is the principle reason use of the term in our schools is off base. As much as our schools like to claim to help students along this journey to mastery, every single action suggests otherwise.

The journey toward mastery is just that- a journey. It is fueled by the intrinsic motivation to continue toward mastery with the realization that the final goal can never be reached. The journey itself is the reason we work.

In schools, we replace that intrinsic motivation with rewards. Worse, we also use punishments. We set externally-derive goals (think adequate yearly progress.) We systematically kill intrinsic motivation to embark on the journey. We're no longer working toward mastery... we're working toward a series of short-term goals that must be met or else. 

Sadly, most elements of the education system, from the policy-makers to the members of the PTO, are complicit in this system. They're not intending to do harm... they just don't really understand human nature. We have a wealth of motivation research that's pretty clear: the methods we use in schools (or the very design of our schools) is the exact opposite of an ideal learning environment. The misuse of the word "mastery" is an unfortunate side effect of this fundamental problem.

The solution?

Redesign schools from the ground up. Question every assumption we have. Have the courage to make radical changes.

We have the answers. We know what would work. We just need the courage to take the plunge.

###

Are We Teaching a Slew of John Henrys?

The story of John Henry is a cautionary tale about the effects of modernization. The gist of the story- John Henry was a former slave working as a steel driver (hammered holes in rocks for the placement of explosives) during the railroad boom of the 1800's. A man of exceptional physical prowess, Henry was known far and wide as the greatest steel hammerer of all time. The railroad owner purchased a steam-powered hammer that could out-hammer an entire crew. Responding to the threat to himself and his crew, Henry challenged the owner to a contest to prove he could beat the machine. After a close back-and-forth contest, Henry narrowly wins in the end. He then dropped dead from exhaustion.

The moral of the story- humans can't compete with machines. This is a lesson we've confronted again and again. Here are some examples:

• Cars replaced horse and buggies.
• Robots replaced humans on assembly lines.
• Self-checkout lanes replaced cashiers.
• The shake machine at McDonald's replaced the milkshake maker.
• TurboTax replaced CPAs.

You get the idea. 

So what does this have to do with teaching? 

We spend most of our time and money training John Henrys. We have a tendency to ignore the effects of technological development when we consider what and how we should teach, and this is a monumental mistake. For example, we still have teachers that insist on making students memorize the capitals of the 50 states even though this information is easily researched with devices most of us carry in our pockets. There's absolutely no justification for this. That particular nugget of information does not help the student in any discernible way. We do other stuff, too, such as:

• Teaching kids to defer to authority.
• Teaching kids to follow directions.
• Teaching kids to do the same tasks again and again.
• Teaching kids linear thinking will reap rewards.
• Teaching kids to suppress creativity in favor of standardization.

All of these skills we relevant in the past... but no longer. Our world has changed dramatically. Some teachers are hip to it; most are not. Many like to give the idea lip service by confidently stating they're preparing kids for the 21st century workforce, but they're not. Most are still stuck in the past because they cannot see the world for what it is. They have no idea what the 21st century workforce really requires. They're preparing an army of John Henrys even after it's clear John Henry cannot compete with the steam hammer.

###

How Can Teachers Survive No Child Left Behind?

Let's face it- No Child Left Behind sucks. It strips teachers of their most valuable asset- sovereignty. Teachers can no longer rely on their experiences and instincts to make sure each and every child has an amazing educational experience. We have strict standards. Standardized tests. Accountability.

Schools were already ill-prepared to handle the rapid change represented by the Internet age. Schools were designed to churn out factory workers then later white collar workers. Automation and outsourcing have effectively killed most careers our schools were designed to train. NCLB makes the problem infinitely worse. Teachers and administrators may have been able to navigate the rapid changes of the Internet age, but not under the oppressive weight of NCLB.

The task is Herculean- prepare kids from a diverse background to take tests that are marginally valid with ever-growing "adequate yearly progress" to avoid stiff funding penalties. It forces schools to teach to the test. Gone are creativity, autonomy, and even dignity. Kids are reduced to numbers. If most kids were unmotivated by school in the past, they're REALLY unmotivated now.

The worst part- kids aren't stupid. They realize their schools are doing a poor job of preparing them for the world they'll soon enter. The age-old question 'Why do I have to learn this?" has never been more relevant. 

So what are we to do? 

Teachers and administrators need to take three steps:

1. Eek out as much freedom as possible, then use that freedom to let kids explore using organic learning. We get so involved in trying to solve the riddle of teaching kids in schools, we sometimes forget every human can learn perfectly well on their own outside school. It's all about intrinsic motivation.

2. Become marketers. There ARE good things being taught in schools. Unfortunately, those good things are being obscured by a lot of unnecessary crap. We need to do a better job of selling ourselves, our schools, and the genuinely good things we have to offer.

3. Put ourselves in a position to hit "eject." Far too many teachers and administrators build a lifestyle that makes it impossible to leave. If we're part of a district that's not aggressively seeking authentic change, we need to get out.

What do you think? Do you have any other useful tips? Share them in the comments section!

###

The Internet Killed Our Schools: Part One

The Internet is a stone-cold serial killer, and the bodies of dead industries is piling up. The Internet has been on a murdering spree for years. It has either killed, dismembered, and disposed of or is in the process of slaughtering some of the most stable industries in our society. The victim list is impressive:

• The record industry
• Travel agents
• The publishing industry
• The television industry
• The manufacturing industry
• The retail industry
• Middle management
• The video rental industry
• The photo processing industry
• The United States Postal Service
• Encyclopedia manufacturers
• Magazines
• The stock trading industry
• The tax preparation industry

... and so on.

The Internet has dramatically changed the landscape of our society. Seth Godin, best known as the author of books such as Tribes and Purple Cow perfectly summed up how the Internet has changed our society in Linchpin. Godin describes a shift in the means of production.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, those that owned the factories owned the means of production. This created two classes- the factory owners and the factory workers. The factory workers exchanged their creative freedom for the security of the factory job- decent pay, health benefits, and a pension. The factory owners provided this security in exchange for a big chunk of the profits derived from the workers' productivity.

Let's use a fictional character to illustrate how this works- his name is Billy. If Billy were born before the Industrial Revolution, he likely would have been a specialized artisan. He would have learned a particular skill and produced a particular product to sell to those in his local community. Billy would have used his ingenuity and creativity to make his product better. In essence, he injected a human element in each and every product he produced. This system existed for thousands of years.

Then factories came along. A few people realized they could make a product faster and cheaper by dividing the labor. Instead of Billy being a highly-skilled artisan making one product at a time, he joined a group of relatively unskilled people that could make a hundreds of times more products in the same amount of time. The factory owner would then reap the profits from the products produced by Billy's group. Billy was now doing mindless work that required no real creativity or decision-making. He gave up his autonomy in exchange for security. The human element was removed. That was the deal he was willing to make with the factory owner.

Eventually we developed schools to train the factory workers. Since the mindless, repetitive work Billy was doing was such a dramatic deviation from the existence humans experienced for thousands of years, a system had to be developed to condition Billy to be a good factory worker. What specific behaviors had to be taught?

• Conformity
• Obedience, don't question authority
• Repeat a simple task repeatedly
• Follow a strict schedule that segmented the day into clearly defined periods
• Develop mediocre proficiency in a wide variety of subjects

The design of our schools became exceedingly effective at training people like Billy for a life in the factory. If Billy was an average student, he would eventually work on an assembly line of some sort. If he excelled in school, he might be promoted to management. Either way, Billy was being groomed for the rigors of the factory.

Eventually the factory jobs began to disappear. At that point, the focus of schools began to shift. Factory jobs disappeared. Outsourcing and the electronic revolution moved those jobs overseas. Schools responded by shifting from producing blue collar workers to producing white collar workers. Schools began to focus on college preparation more than vocational training. Billy wasn't being groomed to assemble products; he was being groomed to push papers. 

Along came the Internet. 

It seemed like a rather innocent development... merely an extension of the existing white collar world. Few recognized exactly how the Internet would change our world. The factory owners saw it as another tool to help them continue producing their goods using their ample supply of labor.It was an illusion. The existing industries failed to see that the Internet wasn't a tool to be exploited. 

The Internet was the medium that allowed the factory workers to become competitors to the factory owners. 

Godin does an excellent job of explaining this phenomenon. Suddenly, anyone with a laptop and an Internet connection could produce a product and reach a HUGE audience. Before the Internet, Billy would have needed a huge capital reserve to build a factory. In the absence of said capital, he was relegated to two options: management or the assembly line. Now Billy has a third option- become a factory owner.

Let's say Billy is a writer. Prior to the Internet, if Billy wanted to write a book, he would have to utilize a publishing house. The publishing house was a factory and Billy was working on a different kind of assembly line. The factory owners used Billy's labor to make a healthy profit while kicking enough back to Billy to keep him relatively happy. 

With the Internet, Billy can now write, publish, and promote his book for close to nothing. No capital required. He can connect with and market to an audience numbering in the hundreds of millions or more. 

Not only does this change make the big publishing house obsolete, it puts the behemoth at a major disadvantage. Since Billy is small, he is adaptable. He can produce a product for a smaller niche market. He doesn't have to produce a product that appeals to everyone, which tends to appeal to no one. Billy's products reintroduce the human element. He can also change his strategy at a moment's notice.  

Billy himself isn't enough to threaten the big publishing houses. A hundred or even a thousand such people wouldn't cause them much concern. But the scope of the Internet isn't measured in thousands. It's measured in millions. Or billions. 

The big publishing houses don't have a chance. Even if they embrace the Internet and utilize it as a tool, they won't have the flexibility as the crowd where each individual part is an agent of change.

So what about schools?

Our current model of schools is still based on the factory model. Worse, the policy makers believe small tweaks can adapt the current model to reflect the current and future landscape. They believe changing the daily schedule, introducing technology, or changing requirements will be enough. They're trying to prepare students to work in a different kind of factory, and are oblivious to the obvious:

The students can't be treated as factory workers. Students have to be treated as factories themselves. 

Coming soon- Part two: Student factories- the skills they really need.

What Happens When Non-Teachers Make Decisions? Stupid Ideas That Ultimately Hurt Your Kids

I received word my soon-to-be former high school is adopting a new printing policy.  Instead of having individual printers in teacher's rooms, the school is making several "printer rooms" where lots of teachers will share printers.  The goal is to save money.  Apparently the idea was proposed by a non-teacher.  As does typically happen, ideas that affect the classroom that are proposed by non-teachers are... well... dumb.

While the goal of saving money is completely valid, this is a horrible idea because of logistics.  Having printers in the individual classroom serves one functional purpose- it allows teachers to print without leaving the classroom.

If printing is done in another area, this forces teachers to either:

a) leave the students unattended while they retrieve something being printed, or 

b) send a student to retrieve the printed material.  

• What happens when two students get into a fight while the teacher is in the printer room printing out yesterday's assignment for the student that was absent?  
• What happens when the student you send to retrieve the printed paper vandalizes the room? 
• Are you going to keep a log of all the people that enter the printing room? 
• Are you going to monitor it with video?  
• Won't that just cost more money?  
• Is the school going to hire someone to be a printer gopher?  
• Also, it takes up valuable space that is now being used as a student study area.  If a kid needs to take a test or needs a quiet place to study, where will they go?  

I seriously doubt any of these issues were even considered, which is exactly what happens when you leave decisions to people with no teaching experience.

Either situation will interrupt the flow of the classroom environment.  Anybody with even rudimentary knowledge of the inner-workings of a classroom would know this is a terrible idea.  Every teacher I've talked to hates the idea and immediately point out the flaws.  Since they were not consulted, they are pissed (as they should be.)  Some are writing letters to the superintendent and school board.  Some are plotting revenge.  Some are planning to fight this tooth and nail.  Some are contacting parents and letting them know their students will be left unattended due to this new policy.  Some are simply going out and buying their own printers. 

I would hate to be the person that has to try to smooth this decision over with the teaching staff and community. 

Sadly, it doesn't matter what is done by teachers that see the stupidity of this idea.  When we allow non-teachers to make important decisions, we can expect decisions that do not account for the issues teachers face.  As long as we place trust in non-teachers that do not understand the classroom, bad decisions will be made.  This works at the building level, district level, even the state and federal level.  The worst part- our students suffer the most.

The only people that should be making decisions that affect the classroom are teachers and administrators that were once teachers.  This specific issue really reinforces my decision to leave teaching.  I feel bad that the rest of my colleagues will have to endure this stupidity. Good luck, guys.

###

Update- I have been informed this decision has been modified.  Apparently individual printers will be slowly phased out over time and gradually moved to centralized printing. 

<sarcasm> Sounds like a great solution! </sarcasm>

The  "frog in hot water" technique is often used as a way to gradually implement bad ideas.

The Decision to Leave Teaching

Well, it's official.  Shelly and I are leaving the teaching profession.  The decision has been in the works for a number of years.  We've been informally planning for this day since we decided to follow Dave Ramsey's plan and pay off our debt.  Paying off that debt is what ultimately gave us the freedom to leave.

We also fostered other sources of income, most based on our running adventures.  The popularity of Barefoot Running University has allowed us to leverage several contracted jobs, the most prominent being Merrell (the outdoor adventure company.)  I helped them develop some educational materials and they are sponsoring our family to travel around the US to educate others on good running form.  It will make for a memorable adventure, and we'll document it here. 

We were faced with the decision many teachers face on a regular basis.  The future does not look bright at the national, state, or local level.  Funds are being cut.  Pay is decreasing.  Benefits are decreasing.  Long-held staples like tenure and pensions are slowly disappearing.  Online education is gaining a foothold, which will likely cause a dramatic decrease in available teaching jobs.  Class sizes are going up.  Standardized testing in the name of "accountability" is destroying teacher autonomy.  Every teacher faces the decision to stay or go. 

Two factors weighed heavily on our decision.  First, we could no longer justify putting all our eggs in one basket.  The newly-volatile future of public education is NOT something we wanted to rely on.  Second, we realized teachers have some VERY marketable talents that are valuable to a wide range of industries.  Stepping out of the profession would give us several tangibles including:

• More autonomy- we can fully utilize our strengths as teachers to teach using proven methods.  In short, we can produce maximum effect with minimal work.  We aren't bogged down my top-down curriculum and politics.
• Better pay- We're no longer at the mercy of a fickle state legislature.  The market will determine our pay, and our ability as teachers gives us a sizable advantage over possible competitors.
• Long-term security- This used to be a benefit of public education.  It was a reason to become a teacher.  Today, the future of our entire pension plan is in question.  Handling our retirement plan ourselves provides or long-term certainty.

There are other benefits, too, but these are the primary reasons we made this decision.  

Will we eventually go back?  Maybe. Honestly, it depends on where we settle down and the state of the local economy.  There's a lot of uncertainty in public education on a national level.  Teaching as we know it may be disappearing.  We may get involved in education on a different level as I believe there will be a lot of opportunities in the near future.  We'll see.

Until that time, Shelly and I are going to enjoy our new lives as nomadic running bums.  ;-)

Make Teaching Better By Eliminating Intellectual Incest

Teachers love to copy ideas.  We're plagiarizing whores.  We copy lessons from each other all the time.  We haven't created an original lesson plan since 1983.  True story.

Generally, this is a good thing.  We take what has worked for others, tweak it a bit to meet our specific needs, then roll it out in our own classrooms.  It gets the job done.

There's one problem- it lacks true creativity.  We keep rehashing the same ideas.  It's like when I make Mexican food (or at least my version of Mexican food.)  I use some sort of tortilla, chicken or beef, cumin, lettuce, cheese, some hot sauce, maybe some beans, and an occasional avocado.  The ingredients can be mixed in a variety of ways to create different dishes, but they all taste pretty much the same.

In teaching, this is manifested by  the use of the same basic lesson ideas.  If we want to infuse more creativity into our lessons, we need to add more ingredients.   Learn a new way of cooking.  

How do we do this?  

Look outside the teaching profession.  

Over the last year or so, I've read a lot about unorthodox business practices that have resulted in success stories.  On the surface, this doesn't appear to have much application to the classroom.  Until you dig a little deeper.

For example, I like reading about methods to increase blog readership.  There are some brilliant minds out there with fantastic ideas.  Many of the suggestions are methods to create interest in blog content.

How can this be applied to the classroom?

Think of your lessons as your blog content.  Your students are your potential audience.  How can you get them to "read your blog?"  Simply apply the blogging experts' advice in the classroom setting.

Viola!  More effective teaching.

As it turns out, this idea of synthesizing the classroom and ideas completely unrelated to education is a gold mine.  ANY topic can be used to enrich your lessons.  Here's a good way to find inspiration:

1. Go to http://www.stumbleupon.com

2. Sign up, get the toolbar button

3. Choose a few topics that sound interesting

4. Stumble to random sites

5. As you read through different sites, think of how you can apply this to the classroom

Other teachers should be the last place you go for original ideas.  Date outside the family and look for ideas in unconventional places.  It'll make you a better teacher.

###

Using Cell Phones in School... Hey, What a Novel Idea!

This post was inspired by this article in the Grand Rapids Press:


http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/03/experts_kids_have_smart_phones.html

Several years ago, I proposed allowing students to use cell phones in school.  The technology has the potential to revolutionize how we teach AND save schools a good chunk of change.  Cell phones can be used as student response systems, video cameras, still cameras, podcasting tools, and a host of other tools.  Unfortunately the idea was shot down.  Instead, we've spent the last few years in a futile war to punish kids for using phones in school.

This issue perfectly exemplifies why we need to fully embrace innovation, especially that which utilizes technology.  To that end, we need to identify and eliminate the "always say no" gatekeepers that inhibit technological innovation.

Today's teens use technology to communicate in ways that seem foreign to many adults.  It's not a matter of teaching kids to use technology, it's a matter of teaching them using their preferred medium.  Failing to understand HOW kids communicate is a recipe for failure.  If we can't speak their language, we can't teach.  The Luddites didn't survive.  Neither will we.

Hopefully someone out there could use these ideas, especially since some schools seem to be embracing this technology.  The following is the text of the form I would have given to students:

Cell Phone Integration Project
Student-Response Experiment

Project description- This is an experiment to test the feasibility of using student-owned cell phones in conjunction with the Internet to create a student-response system.  A student response system works like this: The teacher presents a question to the class and gives several options.  Students respond to the correct answer by sending a text message to a predetermined number that corresponds to the answer they choose.  The web service we will be using is located at http://www.polleverywhere.com.  This project will test the likelihood that this system could be used on a larger scale for assignments and projects such as test reviews, etc.
What is needed- A cell phone with the capability to send text messages.  A phone is NOT required for all students!  The class will complete this project in small groups.  Students will be divided in a way to equally disburse available technology.  For the duration of this project, students will send approximately 5-25 text messages per week.  Because of this, please do not approve your student if they have a limited number of text messages on their cell phone plan.  Mr. Robillard and/ or the school cannot be held responsible for expenses incurred from the additional text messages that will be sent with your approval!  If you are not comfortable with approving this project, please do not sign the paper!  The availability of a cell phone will have no bearing on your child's grade!

Rules and regulations- Because our school officially bans the use of cell phones during the school day, we will have special rules set up to govern cell phone use IN MY CLASSROOM during your child's class.  These policies are in effect from the time your student enters my room until my class ends and they leave my room.  When they are outside of my room, the school policies regarding cell phone use will be in effect.  Essentially, if they are caught using their phones, they will be confiscated and turned in to the administration.  The following are the rules that will govern cell phone use in my classroom for the duration of this project:

Cell Phone Expectations:

1. Phone ringers must be set to "vibrate" or "silent" at all times.  This is to prevent disruptions to the class. 
2. Phones are placed on top of desks in plain view f the teacher at al times when they are not in use as a class.
3. All media produced/messages sent must be course related.
4. You may not use another person's phone at any time.
5. All media published about/of others must be approved by them.  For example- you may not take pictures, video, or audio recordings without the subject's permission.  Also, no media may be published online without written approval.
6. All messages can be accessed at any time by the teacher.  Remember, there is no such thing as privacy in electronic communication- you cell phone company has access to all messages/ media sent over your phone!

Failure to comply with the expectations may result in disciplinary action by Mr. Robillard, including confiscating the phone until the end of the day and that class losing all "stars" for the remainder of the chapter they are covering. 

If you have any questions, please email me at *******************@gmail.com.

Thank you!

-Jason Robillard


Parent Signature________________________________________Date__________________


Student Name____________________________________ Hour__________________

This is the details of the plan I wanted to implement.  It would have been rolled out in three phases, each one teaching kids additional methods to use these tools:

Cell Phone Technology Integration Plan

Purpose: Take advantage of tools many students already possess to help reduce strain on school technology budget; help meet technology integration standards; teach responsible use of cell phones in society.

Phase 1- Student Response System	Phase 2- Citizen Journalism	Phase 3- Capturing and Editing Video
Use cell phones as “clickers” to operate student response system. Teacher presents a question, students will respond using cell phones. Will be used in conjunction with polleverywhere.com. Can replace systems that cost between $2000 and $5000.	Use cell phones as “citizen journalism” tool. Since most students carry phones at all times, they can immediately report when they see something happening that pertains to class (citizen journalism). Students can either text “stories” or post audio clips (mobile podcasting). Will be used in conjuction with secure, private blogging sites such as blogger.com or wiki sites such as wikispaces.com.	Use cell phones to capture video for video projects. Video editing will be accomplished with secure private video editing website such as jumpcut.com or eyespot.com. Will replace digital cameras and editing software, can save several thousand dollars.

All three phases together meet or exceed at least 23 METS (Michigan Educational Technology Standards) created my the Michigan Department of Education.

###

How Much Should Teachers Get Paid?

This post was inspired by this article from the New York Times: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/opinion/13kristof.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=teacher%20pay&st=cse

Nicholas Kristof makes a case for paying teachers more, not less.  I've used his same argument many times.  By diminishing the profession by eroding pay and benefits, governments are unwittingly making the profession significantly less attractive.  The vilification of teachers and our unions by the media and general public make the profession even less appealing. Why would talented individuals choose teaching as a career?

It's not hard to become a teacher.  Any reasonably intelligent individual can successfully pass through teacher preparation programs and pass the state-required certification tests.  This means one thing- the bottom of the barrel is pretty bad.  

There are a lot of unemployed teachers floating around right now.  They are unemployed for a reason... the better teachers have already been hired.  As the profession becomes less appealing, the talented teachers are going to leave.  Their talents will assure gainful employment outside the profession.  In many cases, they will find a position to help people more effectively than they did from within the school system with superior pay, benefits, and status.

This mass exodus of the talented teachers opens the door for the less talented teachers.  The result- the quality of schools drops even more.  Add scarce resources and growing class sizes and we now have a recipe for disaster.  This entire scenario is laughable given the sudden focus on rooting out and eliminating "bad teachers."  If the fanatical right-wingers think there are bad teachers in the profession now, wait until their policies are fully enacted.

Of course, some suggest performance-based pay is the obvious solution.  These people obviously do not understand how schools work.  If merit pay is based on standardized test scores, the best teachers will simply flock to the upper-class schools where test scores are highest.  even within schools there would be competition for those students that would score best.  Also, there would be even more incentive to teach to the test.  There would also be more incentive for schools or individual teachers to somehow cheat the system so their students will score higher.

The solution is simple but seems to be unpalatable in today's economic climate- pay teachers more.  Attract the best of the best.  Give them the autonomy and resources to inspire our children.  If  we want to pay teachers based on performance, let's give a bonus for every student that goes on to change the world.  

Of course, that would require more taxes, and we don't want that.  After all, then we wouldn't be able to afford that new flat screen plasma TV for our bathroom.

###

Whining, Complaining, and Criticizing: Symptoms of a Serious Problem

I've been reading John Wooden's "Wooden: A Lifetime of Observations and Reflections on and off the Court."  As many of you know, John Wooden is considered the most successful NCAA men's basketball coach in history.  He won 10 national championships at UCLA in the 60's and 70's.  More importantly, the man had a a ton of great advice on how one should run their life.  Even though I dislike basketball, I HIGHLY recommend this book to anyone interested in teaching, coaching, leadership, or just getting the most out of life. 

John's philosophy is really quite simple.  He advocates being a hard working, enthusiastic leader.  His beliefs can more or less be summed up based on his definition of success:

"Success is peace of mind that is the direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing you did your best to become the best that you are capable of becoming."

I really like this idea along with many other ideas Wooden outlines in the book.  One area in particular hit close to home.  Wooden repeatedly talks about always doing your personal best given the resources you've been given.  However, late in the book he talks about enthusiasm.  Specifically, he talks about the point when enthusiasm wanes.  

When enthusiasm diminishes, there is a tendency to start a vicious cycle of negative thoughts.  These negative thoughts manifest themselves as negative behaviors.  These behaviors often take the form of whining, complaining, and criticizing.  This struck a chord with me. 

Over the last few months, I've become an acute observer of the behavior of those around me.  Almost without exception, I see frequent whining, complaining, and criticizing from everyone... students, colleagues, leaders, parents... pretty much everyone in my professional life.  It creates a toxic pool of poison where people go through the motions in a detached, indifferent trance while chanting hollow words of conviction and passion.

The worst part- I'm just as guilty.  I have allowed other peoples' outsides to affect my insides.  That has resulted in my own bout of whining, complaining, and criticizing. I have fallen into that trap.  Worse, I rarely recognize it as such.  I'm sure those around me don't recognize their own behaviors, either. 

Wooden also states "... valid self-analysis is crucial for improvement."  I do not have the power to change others, but I do have the power to change me.  Since this entire blog is about the need for change in education, "me" is the best place to start.  

Wooden notes it is impossible to work up to your fullest ability without enthusiasm.  Enthusiasm is the antithesis of negativity.  Enthusiasm is the natural cure for the cycle of negativity.  Enthusiasm can disinfect this pool of pessimism.

In my running life, I am routinely surrounded by positive people that truly love what they are doing.  Their passion is so intense, it is impossible for them to hide it.  This passion creates an energy that is absolutely infectious.  This is the enthusiasm I want to bring to my professional life.  

I realize I contribute to the creation and nourishment of this environment.  The only hope I have of changing the environment is first changing myself.  This involves a conscious monitoring of my own behaviors, which is difficult for us to do.  To help my self-awareness, I'm going to employ a trick used my my friend John DeVries.  I'm going to wear a rubber band around my wrist.  Every time I complain, whine, or criticize, I will move the rubber band to the other wrist. 

Widespread negativity is a symptom of a toxic environment. My influence over the environment starts with my own behaviors.  If I have any hope of correcting these problems, recognizing and correcting my own behaviors is the first step.

Thanks John Wooden.

###

Grading Parents: How a Florida Law Highlights Exactly What is Wrong With Education

I can hear the comments from teachers now:

"This is the greatest law ever!"

"YEAH!  It's about time we make parents responsible!"

A Florida representative recently proposed a bill that would require kindergarten through third grade teachers to grade their students' parents.  This is a teachers' dream.  

Why?  Our experiences tell us our students' success is directly  correlated to their home life, which is correlated with parental involvement.  As involvement goes up, achievement goes up.  Increasing parental involvement makes a better student, generally speaking.

So why is this a bad idea?  

It's another example of the system's failures being blamed on something besides the system itself.  Teachers administrators, school boards, curriculum, textbooks, lack of technology, and a myriad of other cogs in the machine of education have been blamed for the failures of public education.  

We've taken dramatic steps to change these elements, usually by "making them more accountable".  Has it worked?  Not according to this article.  

It doesn't take a sociology PhD to understand what is happening.  Our government is "raising the bar" by increasing graduation requirements and adding punitive consequences to high-stakes standardized tests.  This sounds like a great idea... on paper.

In reality, no amount of money, programs, teacher expertise, or curriculum is going to significantly change student ability.  We measure student success by a shockingly narrow range of ability and very specific skills.  A good percentage of our society simply does not excel at those specific measures of "ability."  

Since schools are being judged on things like graduation rates, they begin to cut corners to artificially increase graduation rates.  What's the alternative?  The laws don't give schools an alternative.

What's worse than the kids graduating with a watered-down degree?  The kids that fall through the cracks.  The laws require schools to continually increase test scores and graduation rates.  Most of this can be done by lowering standards, thus inflating grades.  Still, some kids can't hack even that level.  What do we do with these kids?  We get rid of them by tagging them as "behavior problems" and shipping them to alternative schools or expelling them altogether.

This Florida bill simply shifts some of the blame to parents.  Is it their fault their kid is better at drawing than long division?  And will this bill somehow change that?

The problem is obvious.  School policies are being determined by politicians that have little or no understanding of actual human behavior in general, and the inner-workings of the process of educating children in particular.  

The solution is equally obvious.  We need to stop treating kids like numbered cattle.  We need to stop assuming we can treat children like machines where inputting "X" will result in "Y" results.  We need to treat each and every child like the individual they are.  We need to create an environment where their individual talents can blossom.  We need to foster creativity, critical thinking, and the intrinsic love of learning through exploration and discovery.  We need to abandon this dumb-ass idea of "accountability", stop blaming parents, students, teachers, administrators, and other groups indiscriminately, and refocus our priorities.  

What we are doing does not work.  Doing more of it is just plain stupid.  

###

Anti-Union BS: Let's Call a Spade a Spade

The current situation in Wisconsin (and elsewhere) is interesting.  An anti-union governor and legislature proposed legislation that would, among other things, severely weaken the collective bargaining rights of teachers.  

This battle between unions and the anti-union crowd is not new.  It has existed since workers first began uniting.  Any time you have two groups with competing interests, you have conflict.  In Wisconsin, it's not the battle that troubles me.  It's the rhetoric.

Both of the political parties involved have made the claim that they are taking their respective sides for the betterment of the kids.  This is bullshit.  

Both sides are simply pandering to the groups that are most likely going to help them get reelected.  Republicans want to weaken unions because organized labor typically supports their opposition.  Weaken the union, lessen your opponent's coffers.

Democrats pander to the union for the exact opposite reason.  Organized labor supports Democratic candidates.  Strengthen (or in this case protect) the power of unions and you increase your ability to get reelected.

Political parties are organizations.  As I mentioned a few months ago, the primary goal of any organization is to keep the organization alive.  The battle being played out in the Wisconsin Legislature's rotunda has nothing to do with the welfare of kids.  It's a political pissing match.  

Of course, this brings up the question of devaluing teacher pay and benefits, which is the stated goal of the Republicans.  This battle, like the organized labor battle, has been fought for years.  

The arguments are familiar- one side wants to see teacher pay and benefits cut because it is a major expense.  Schools cost taxpayer money.  An easy way to reduce this cost is to cut personnel costs.

On the other side, if teaching is devalued too much, the motivation to become or remain a teacher erodes.  Why bother with an already-difficult career that requires a high degree of entry level education and never-ending continuing education if the pay and benefits suck?  Who would be attracted to the profession? 

Walmart developed a pretty good anti-union system where employee benefits and pay are at or near the bottom of their profession.  Look how successful that organization has become.  Is this the model we want our public schools to replicate?

If we are really concerned about the students, we need to seriously consider a complete overhaul of our education system.  Any ideas?

###

Are Schools Institutions of Marginalization?

In reading "The Art of Nonconformity" by Chris Guillebeau, I came across a quote:

"Unreasonable," unrealistic," and "impractical" are all words used to marginalize a person or idea that fails to conform with conventionally expected standards."

Is it just me, or are our schools essentially tools perfectly designed to marginalize those that lie outside our seemingly arbitrary standards?  Are we doing our kids a disservice by rejecting those students that do not perfectly fit our "ideal student" stereotype?  

We like to claim to teach critical thinking skills, but how often do we support kids that think critically about our schools?  

Here's a hypothetical situation:

Timmy is a kid in your third hour class.  You are presenting a well-planned lesson that has resonated with students in the past.  Timmy does not see the value of the project and demands to know why he has to do it.  You give him your rationale, which is educationally valid based on our training as professional educators.  Timmy rejects our explanation and gives his own interpretation of the lesson.

Do we credit Timmy for thinking critically?  Probably not.  In all likelihood, we punish Timmy because he's being insubordinate.  We marginalize Timmy because he disagrees. 

When we ask kids to think critically, wouldn't it be more accurate to ask them to think critically as long as they do not question our roles?

What Five Monkeys Can Teach Us About Education

The following is a story adapted from Chris Guillebeau's "The Art of Non-Conformity".

A monkey-hating sadist put five monkeys in a cage.  The monkeys could not escape, but were given food and water at the bottom of the cage.  The food was bland an uninspiring but it was enough to sustain life.  The monkeys were destined to spend their lives looking out of the cage; watching an exciting life pass them by.  

One day, the sadist placed a ladder in the middle of the cage.  At the top of the ladder sat a bright yellow bunch of bananas.  One monkey, eager to break free from the bland food they were forced to eat, scaled the ladder.  Just as the monkey reached for the bananas, a hose appeared out of nowhere and doused the monkey with icy cold water.  The other monkeys were also doused.  

Over the next few days, different monkeys would attempt to reach the bananas.  Each time they were met with the same icy fate.  Eventually the monkeys began violently attacking any other monkey that attempted to scale the ladder.  The monkeys stopped trying.

About a week later, the sadist removed one monkey and replaced it with another new monkey.  Almost immediately, the new monkey started scaling the ladder to reach the bananas.  The other monkeys, familiar with their impending dousing, pulled the monkey off the ladder and beat it without mercy.  The monkey did not try again. 

The next day, another monkey was replaced.  The same scenario ensued.  After five days, all the original monkeys were replaced with new monkeys.  These new monkeys had never experienced the dousing, yet they violently attacked the new monkey when they tried to scale the ladder.  

Apply this lesson to schools.  How often do we accept uninspired mediocrity because we're taught to fear reaching for the bananas?  

###

School Budget Hacks: A Few Ideas to Save Money

School budgets are shrinking.  It's an inevitable fact.  It's a trend that will continue for the foreseeable future.

I have always been interested in the idea of self-sufficiency.  How can any organization or individual survive without any outside assistance?  In a time of crisis, it is comforting to know survival doesn't necessarily have to depend on others.

For schools, this idea manifests itself in savings.  Self-sufficiency for public schools is impossible.  Trying to become as self-sufficient as possible could be a worthwhile aim, however.

Over the years, I have proposed many ideas that would result in cost savings.  To the best of my knowledge, all were dismissed for a variety of reasons.  Most of the ideas involve technology.  Why?  My Master's degree is educational technology.  A majority of our class time was spent exploring methods to implement technology while saving money.

Perhaps some school (or organization) could benefit from these ideas.

Problem: How does a school acquire computer hardware?

Traditional answer: Get bids from corporations, spend a huge chunk of money on new equipment.  Fund with some sort of technology millage (i.e.- hit up the taxpayers).

My answer:  Solicit donations.  Businesses are always replacing computer hardware.  Small businesses do this on a fairly regular basis.  Large businesses do it on a frequent basis.  These businesses usually have to pay to dispose of hardware.  Alternatively, they can donate the hardware to a non-profit (like public schools) for a tax write-off. 

Even better, universities also replace hardware and have to dispose of the old stuff.  The advantage of large businesses and universities- the equipment is usually standardized, which makes maintenance slightly easier.

I started a program in my classroom using this exact model.  Businesses donated equipment.  I enrolled in Microsoft's Fresh Start program and received copies of Windows to install on the computers.  I used Open Office as my office suite.  I taught a group of kids how to maintain the entire lab.

The entire system worked perfectly.  Every kid had access to a computer.  If something broke, we had an army of eager kids to fix it.  They were learning an excellent real-world skill.  If it wasn't fixable, we had plenty of replacements.  We used open source software for everything.  On some computers, we used Linux instead of Windows so kids could learn that, too.

All of our computers were approximately three years old, and we had the capability to upgrade every year.  Based on my limited research, I would have been able to secure hundreds of computers every year... FREE!  There was zero software cost.  Zero maintenance cost.  Zero hardware cost.  Students learned real-world skills.  I even had computer business owners volunteer to help teach the kids or do work themselves.   Common problems like vandalism disappeared because kids took personal ownership in the lab... it was theirs.

Ultimately the program came to an end because class size exploded.  i no longer had the physical space in my classroom.

This program could be set up pretty much anywhere by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of computer hardware and software.  Instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on new equipment that has to be maintained and eventually replaced, consider this no-cost idea.

Problem: Computers need an operating system.

Traditional Answer: Microsoft Windows.

My Answer: Linux.  Back in the day, the Linux operating system was pretty complex.  There was a sharp learning curve to be able to effectively use it.  Those days have long since passed.  There are many versions of Linux available today that are easy to use.  Some are even geared toward education.

I have quite a few techie friends, several of which manage networks.  They rave about Linux!  It's easy to use, easy to administer, and perfectly stable.  Best of all, Linux is free.  Instead of spending a boatload of money on Windows upgrades every few years, move to Linux.

Problem: Students need an office suite to do work.  Specifically, they need a word processor, presentation software, and the like.

Traditional answer:  Microsoft Office.

My Answer:  OpenOffice.  I already mentioned this above, but it is worth mentioning again.  The software is free, stable, and easy to use.  It has the ability to handle many document types, many of which MS Office cannot handle.  Like the other stuff from above... it's free.

An alternative solution is Google Docs.  This is interesting... when Google first released the online-based suite, I suggested our school use it as an altrenative to MS Office.  The idea, like the others, was shot down.  This year, they decided to start using it.  Too bad it took a few years for that one...

Problem: Students and cell phones.  Cell phones have become staples in our lives.  Almost everybody carries them, including our students.  Schools are spending increasingly greater resources to fight cell phone possession.

Traditional Answer: Set increasingly restrictive policies and consequences to punish possession of cell phones.

My Answer:  Understand basic human psychology.  First, cell phones aren't simply technological toys to today's students.  They are their primary means of communication.  As humans, we have a drive to communicate... we're social animals.  When we ban cell phones, we're not banning a toy, we're banning communication.

Second, the fact that they are banned increases the desire to use them.  Most teens, in an effort to exert their independence, engage in rebellious behavior.  Setting strict rules only heightens the desire to rebel. 

If we respond with indifference, we remove a major thrill of using the phone.  Cell phone use would drop.

To further erode the allure of cellphones, we could adopt them for classroom use.  I proposed a program a few years ago that would use student cell phones as student-response systems.  Using a free website, a teacher could pose a question to the class.  Students would text their answers to a specified number, which would tabulate their answers.  The results would then show up on an overhead screen.  It's cool.  The real benefit- by making cell-phone use a part of the classroom experience, we further decrease the rebelliousness of its use.

Additionally,almost all cell phones today can be used as still and video cameras.  With free online editing software, teachers could do video projects without any cost to the district. 

Problem:  Paying for extracurricular programs can be very expensive. This is especially true for non-athletic programs as they often do not have the support of booster groups.

Traditional Solution:  Pay for the programs with school funds or have the groups fund-raise.

My Answer:  This isn't so much a unique idea, but rather a plan for a multi-faceted approach to fund-raising.  Don't rely on school funding (spend that money in the classroom) or have students do fund raising (takes their time, gets annoying).  After all, how many candy bars and do-it-yourself pizza kits can your community buy?  instead, plan one huge event and leverage various groups to increase its fundraising capacity.  This is what I did:

This was developed more or less by accident, but turned out to be a huge event with incredible potential for growth.  I had a few people that came to me with the idea of creating a gathering of barefoot runners (it's a hobby of mine) for a large race here in Michigan.  The idea eventually evolved into an attempt to break a word record fr the most barefoot runners ever to run in a single race.

After doing research, we found the Guinness stipulations wouldn't allow us to use that race.  We needed to find another location.  We were set to use a friend's business, but a fellow teacher approached me about a 5k she was planning as a fundraiser.  Realizing the barefoot race would be an excellent opportunity to boost the attendance for her 5k, we decided to move the event to my school.

The event itself ivnoved student volunteers, several of our non-athletic extracurricular groups, community volunteers, alumni, several local businesses, and a large international corporation.  We were able to leverage all of these groups to publicize the event.  We managed to attract about 300 people to the event.  Some came from as far away as Georgia and San Diego!  For fundraising, we had our school store make t-shirts that were sold, and I gave them copies of my barefoot running book to sell.

The best part- the local news picked up the story, which resulted in several newspaper and TV news stories immediately before our district was voting on a bond proposal.  We had a positive, fun story about our district... it was great PR!

The event was held and it was a ton of fun.  Unfortunately we didn't set the record as there were several logistical mistakes I made.  Guinness had very specific accounting procedures, which I messed up.

After the event, I was flooded with interest from runners and sponsors... they wanted to know what they could do to be part of the 2011 version.  Unfortunately the district put an end to the event, but this is what could have been:

• Several major corporations were prepared to sponsor the event, which would have included valuable publicity AND plenty of freebies to distribute to participants,
• Several local running groups were eager to get involved,
• Participation was expected to explode... perhaps several thousand participants.

 If we would have attracted a conservative 2,000 participants, charged no participation fee, and sold one tshirt to each for a profit of $10, we could have raised $20,000 in one evening.  It would have been an event that would unite students, community members, local businesses, and large corporations.  It did and would provide great positive PR for schools.  It's a model that could be used in a variety of settings.

These are just a few ideal someone could use in an educational setting.  As costs rise, it makes sense to cut spending in areas that can be replaced by free alternatives.  

Do you have any similar ideas?  Leave your suggestions in the comments below!

###

Apathy in the Face of Crisis

There's an interesting trend among teachers.  I see it locally.  I see it at the state level.  I see it at the national level.  Teacher pay and benefits are under attack from all angles.  The response:  Apathy.

At the local level, my district is at the bottom of our county in regards to pay, yet we are above average in per-pupil spending.  Essentially, other districts pay their teachers more with less resources.  Yet we're expected to "make sacrifices", which is code for taking a pay cut. 

At the state level, legislative bills have been introduced that will force all public employees to pay 20% of their heathcare costs.  Another bill would lop off 5% of our pay by side-stepping collective bargaining.  Finally, our tenure laws are going to be seriously weakened.  These three measures would likely cost every teacher thousands of dollars per year.  The bills seemingly have support in both houses of the legislature and from the governor.  Public support is on their side.  It's not a matter of "if", rather "when".  The collective response:  Apathy.

At the national level... well, I think most of us are familiar with the plight of public education at the national level.

The apathy I see is a little shocking.  Teachers (and support staff and administration) are on the bring of losing thousands of dollars from their yearly salaries and an erosion of our powers to collectively bargain, yet nobody seems to care.  It is as if they think this won't happen if they just ignore it.  

Psychologically, we have a tendency to ignore disaster preparedness.  If we know something bad is inevitable, we still won't prepare.  Why?  Preparing creates a sense of pessimism and uncertainty about the future.  Go to an earthquake-prone area.  How many people are prepared for "the big one"?  Not many.  

This may be the same phenomenon.  We have a belief that if we just put our heads down and go about our business, everything will work out.  Unfortunately, this attitude is the exact reason these things are happening in the first place.  This attitude is the exact reason these changes are inevitable.  This attitude is the exact reason these things will continue to happen.

Maybe legislation is too abstract.  Maybe people would have a more visceral response if someone actually took several thousand dollars from their checking account.  Maybe it would be helpful to point out how much those thousands of dollars could add to their children's college fund.  Maybe a pamphlet for a tropical vacation would elicit some type of response. 

Apathy.  [sigh]

Roadmap to Innovation Part Three: Toxic People

In every walk of life, you may encounter toxic people.  These are people that will stand in the way of innovation.  These are the people that assure mediocrity.  When building an innovation-fueled organization, avoid these personality types.

The Gossip

The gossip is the person that derives intrinsic motivation from the sharing of negative knowledge.  They will repeat and rumor they acquire and go to great lengths to always be "in the loop".  Their information may be useful, sensationalized, or completely fabricated. 

It should be noted- humans frequently talk about each other, this is a method we use to build mutual trust and social bonding.  However, only about 5% of these conversations are negative.  This percentage is significantly higher among gossips, which also harms social bonding.

The gossip will ultimately hurt morale because they create an under-current of distrust.  The members of the organization become guarded, which limits the free flow of ideas.  This bottle-necking of creativity hurts innovation.

A gossip is difficult to correct.  If confronted, the gossip will simply find another less-detectable medium to spread their "news".

The Complainer

The complainer verbalizes their dissatisfaction on a frequent basis.  Their frequent highlighting of the negative corrodes overall morale much like the gossip.  While some attention to the negative aspect of any idea can be valuable feedback, the complainer's griping is not intended to be productive.

The complainer may manifest themselves in several ways.  Some may appear cheerful to the casual observer.  Some are grumpy and withdrawn.  Others are marked with a whiny disposition.  In any case, they frequently have a self-righteous attitude and a tendency to blame others.  

Complainers complain because the behavior provides self-validation.  First, it shifts blame to others.  Second, they can then compare themselves to others; their "goodness' overshadows others "badness".

Some complainers can be corrected by routinely highlighting their complaints as they may not be consciously aware of their habits.  In others the habit may be so ingrained no intervention will be effective.

The Suspicious Person

I have always found this personality type interesting.  Ninety-nine percent of the time, this personality type is toxic.  Many times, the suspicion of others is a manifestation of guilt.

It works like this.  When we assess the behaviors of others, we often frame their behavior with our own perception of the world.  If we believe all people are fundamentally good, we assume others think the same way.

It is relatively easy to see this phenomenon in action.  Simply observe how a person interacts with others.  You will quickly begin to see how they perceive the world.  More importantly, you will see how they perceive others. 

Back to the suspicious personality.  This personality type has a few hallmark behaviors, including:

• Preoccupation with trust and loyalty,
• Often believe others' behaviors have malicious motives,
• Have few close relationships and may appear socially-awkward,
• Are generally quiet, but can easily become argumentative,
• Are especially sensitive to criticism,
• Prefer passive-aggressiveness to direct confrontation,
• Often exhibits a superiority complex (believe they are better than others),
• Exhibits a black-and-white sense of right and wrong,
• Are ineffective in team or group situations,
• Often believes there are hidden meanings in seemingly innocuous events.

Where does this behavior type come from?  In most cases, certain parenting styles seem to cause it.  Parents generally spend a great deal of time teaching the child to be hyper-vigilant about making mistakes and make the child feel as if they are different from other children.

The interesting thing about this personality type is their behaviors are often incongruous with their beliefs.  They assume others have something to hide because they have something to hide.

If these people are part of your organization, be very cautious when considering their input.  Distrust is the antithesis of innovation.  In the educational or organizational setting this toxic suspicion will impede any real creativity and innovation.

Conclusion

Each of these three personality types are toxic to the innovative organization.  All three will limit the organization's ability to grow and prosper.  Be aware of these personality types when building a team. 

More importantly, consider yourself.  Do you have any of these characteristics?  Personally, I have fallen into the "complainer" trap before.  For me, it is an easy pattern of behavior to adopt.  Recognizing its futility has helped me identify the times I've fallen into that particular behavior pattern.

In future posts, I will continue to explore various personality types and their affect on organizations.

How about you?  What are your experiences with these personality types?