Team Duncan – Strategic Planning vs Strategic Thinking

Arne Duncan has been at his post as Education Secretary for several months now. I’ve been following his escapades closely at change.org and my own blog. High off Mr. Obama’s election as President, I was on board Team Duncan when I heard of his appointment. Since then, I’ve taken a different stance. Not quite a 180, but I’ve developed a healthy criticism for Duncan and Obama’s education policies.

Way back in 2007, Robert Evans wrote an article arguing against the strict application of strategic planning for schools. “The Case Against Strategic Planning” was given to me by my father in-law after he attended, of all things, a planning sessions at a local private school. The paper is a great read for anyone involved in education, parents and kids too. I suggest you take some time to read the whole piece.

As I read Evans’s article I began to realize much of what Duncan and Obama have detailed in their “race to the top”, “pillars of reform”, etc. are exactly what should not be happening.

Evans states people often confuse construction of plans with creating an actual strategy. Strategic plans focus on step-by-step problem solving, timetables, measurable results, and fixed outcomes. Plans focus on structure and are not open to flexibility, often avoiding addressing uncertainty and unpredictability.

Just look at Team Duncan’s support for merit pay, longer school days, standardized testing, and charters. Not that I disagree with those things, Duncan and Co. fail to realize all the nuances of each approach and think about how to utilize them best to reach their goals.

Duncan and Obama are ignoring all the flaws of strategic planning. They are basing their policy decisions on predictability, objectivity, and structure.

Predictability:

Every teacher knows that schools are fluid environments, as are the communities they operate in. Political, technological, and social landscapes have changed drastically in even five years. Sometimes in ways we could not have predicted(twitter who knew?). The world will not wait while you debate. A plan cannot become and end in itself. Saying we want to close the bottom 5,000 schools and reopen them in five years might seem like a blueprint to better education, but it cannot be a replacement for addressing the realities facing our schools.

Objectivity:

In crafting a beautiful plan it can be easy to overlook the soft data effecting schools. Hard data is so nice, cut and dry. I love it. Graduation rates, test scores, and the like line everything up so nicely. When we base a merit pay system or funding system like No Child Left Behind, which Duncan and Obama still support, on something like our current testing system important mitigating factors are ignored. Our current testing system does nothing to show a students understanding of the material. Current standardized tests prove nothing except how well a student can memorize and fill in bubbles. True understanding can only be shown from written exams asking for problem solving and analysis. This is something I have argued for time and time again.

I also spoke recently on how one disruptive, which doesn’t necessarily denote misbehaving, student can skew test scores for an entire classroom. Linking merit pay to the current testing system doesn’t take this into account. Nor does it factor in the many other tasks teachers perform such as implementing new technology, mentoring colleagues, or tutoring students for example. Without this soft data one cannot get the complete picture of what a teacher is doing.

Structure:

Schools do not often produce rational outcomes. Anyone with children knows kids are pretty damn irrational at times. I don’t care, toddlers to teenagers just do some stuff that make you slap your forehead. Human judgement can adapt to whatever kids can dish out better than a strict plan. Focusing on the plan as an end all be all puts all the weight on the means totally forgetting the end. Look at the 5,000 schools business again or the D.C. voucher debacle. Duncan is missing the most important questions he should be asking. “Why am I doing this? Is this the best way to pursue my objective?”

I’ve spent all this time criticizing Team Duncan on what they should not be doing, I’m going to switch gears and talk about what they should.

Duncan and Co should employ some strategic thinking. Strategic thinking is in many ways the antithesis of strategic planning. Strategic thinking is flexible, creative, considers hard and soft facts, and collects opinions from teachers and students. An outline, not a blueprint.

Innovations are not something to push out like merit pay, charter schools, or longer schools days. New reforms should be adaptable. We should expect to modify them during implementation, as education is fluid. Static reforms are bound to fail. Like so many things in life, reforms must evolve or be pushed aside.

Simplify plans. Having many standards forces us to spend less time on each one. Testing many standards will bring us down the same road. Leaner standards and adaptable skills allow us to prepare students for anything that is thrown at them.

Strategic thinking leaves room for schools to roll with the punches. Less targets over shorter periods of time keep a school flexible. A school can adapt to new situations, instead of being bound by a five year plan that was out of date in less than five months.

Lastly, strategic thinking takes information from many sources into account. Something as trivial as gossip or hearsay from teachers and students can provide valuable candid insight into what’s happening in the trenches. Students and parents should be surveyed on the status of their school and learning experience. Weak spots can be caught quickly and strengths bolstered. Hey, if parent involvement matters to Obama and Duncan, then it should be encouraged in all forms, especially one as helpful as this.

Flexibility has always been a key to education reform. It is a corner stone of strategic thinking. If we are talking in business terms, as some reformers including myself occasionally do, what business can expect to last long that is not adaptable to change? Remember the key to strategic thinking is in the name. Thinking! We should be thinking, considering, evaluating, reevaluating reforms. Always adapting to changes when applicable. Otherwise we will fall back to more of the same ol strategery.

Now Let’s Talk About Money – Duncan’s Ed money watch

The numbers are in. $100 billion will be going to the nations school districts. That’s the share Ed Secretary Arne Duncan will dole out as part of Obama’s stimulus package. This sum is a boon to many districts facing large budget shortfalls with teacher and programs on the chopping block to make ends meet. Duncan has said up to $40 billion will be rushed to districts over the next couple of months.

from NY Times

The message, which went out Friday in documents e-mailed to governors, state education commissioners and thousands of school superintendents, provided the first broad guidelines for how the Education Department intends to channel $100 billion to the nation’s 14,000 school districts over the next few months. The expenditure is part of the Obama administration’s economic stimulus package.

Some $44 billion will be made available to states before the end of this month, Mr. Duncan said, in the hope that layoffs can be averted. Hundreds of thousands of job losses in schools had been projected for the fall because of growing state budget deficits caused by a steep drop in tax revenues.

This isn’t money for nothing however. If districts want to get any of the remaining $56 billion they will have to toe the line that Dunc sets. In order to receive any more cash, state’s must prove they are complying with new laws to improve teacher quality, standards, assessments, data systems, and get failing schools on an upswing. That’s a tall order, but I’m less concerned with that then with what will happen when this stimulus money runs out.

from NY Times

The guidance admonished educators to spend the stimulus money, which is temporary, in ways that would minimize the dislocation that could follow when it ran out in two years. Some department officials are describing the exhaustion of the stimulus money in two years as a “cliff” over which school districts could plunge if they do not spend the money wisely.

If districts spend this money on things they really don’t need the results will be disastrous. Thought it would be nice to re-do the gymnasium, update the computer lab, or even hire a slew of new teachers, in the long run those would be poor choices. I hope districts look to the future when they are spending this money. What might look appealing today may bankrupt you tomorrow. This money is meant to cauterize some of the wounds in the education system, not to buy it a shiny new watch. Then it’s onward and upward.

Now Let’s Talk About Money – Duncan’s Ed money watch

The numbers are in. $100 billion will be going to the nations school districts. That’s the share Ed Secretary Arne Duncan will dole out as part of Obama’s stimulus package. This sum is a boon to many districts facing large budget shortfalls with teacher and programs on the chopping block to make ends meet. Duncan has said up to $40 billion will be rushed to districts over the next couple of months.

from NY Times

The message, which went out Friday in documents e-mailed to governors, state education commissioners and thousands of school superintendents, provided the first broad guidelines for how the Education Department intends to channel $100 billion to the nation’s 14,000 school districts over the next few months. The expenditure is part of the Obama administration’s economic stimulus package.

Some $44 billion will be made available to states before the end of this month, Mr. Duncan said, in the hope that layoffs can be averted. Hundreds of thousands of job losses in schools had been projected for the fall because of growing state budget deficits caused by a steep drop in tax revenues.

This isn’t money for nothing however. If districts want to get any of the remaining $56 billion they will have to toe the line that Dunc sets. In order to receive any more cash, state’s must prove they are complying with new laws to improve teacher quality, standards, assessments, data systems, and get failing schools on an upswing. That’s a tall order, but I’m less concerned with that then with what will happen when this stimulus money runs out.

from NY Times

The guidance admonished educators to spend the stimulus money, which is temporary, in ways that would minimize the dislocation that could follow when it ran out in two years. Some department officials are describing the exhaustion of the stimulus money in two years as a “cliff” over which school districts could plunge if they do not spend the money wisely.

If districts spend this money on things they really don’t need the results will be disastrous. Thought it would be nice to re-do the gymnasium, update the computer lab, or even hire a slew of new teachers, in the long run those would be poor choices. I hope districts look to the future when they are spending this money. What might look appealing today may bankrupt you tomorrow. This money is meant to cauterize some of the wounds in the education system, not to buy it a shiny new watch. Then it’s onward and upward.

A Rest On Standardized Tests?

No Child Left Behind, just reading the word makes many cringe and strong men faint. George W Bush’s magnum opus in education policy has become a symbol for his presidency, good idea with a terrible execution. Perhaps the most damaging aspect of NCLB was its push for standardized testing. Those in education have long debated standardized testing. How fair are they? Do they make teachers teach to the tests? What do they actually prove?

Should the government completely scrap No Child? No, it shouldn’t. I may be going out on a flimsy limb here, but NCLB is not a total disaster. Schools have just pushed students ahead for too long. The further along they are pushed, the larger the deficit in their education grows. By the time students reach high school, most are too embarrassed to ask for help and simply drop out. Few of these students will attend any type of higher education, becoming low wage earners and possible drags on society. It should be a crime in this nation to let any child fall into this position. NCLB took an important first step. No Child forced schools to set standards they should have set in the first place.

Don’t worry my praise for Bush’s baby ends here. No Child encourages teaching to the test. So what if a student can answer a multiple question? That doesn’t prove a child really understands the material. A child should be able to take what they have learned and apply it to many different areas and situations. Our lives do not function in a vacuum. Why should we expect our children to spout information in one?

Lastly, what do the tests themselves actually prove? What happens when a student who begins the year not being able to read, learns during the school year, but still does not meet the NCLB standard at the end of the year? NCLB considers hat child a failure. Growth based test scores are the answer. Each child is an individual, even each state and region of this nation are individual. How can we expect everyone to follow the same standard? The government needs to reward improvement. Curriculum and test requirements that focus on student growth are essential.

A Rest On Standardized Tests?

No Child Left Behind, just reading the word makes many cringe and strong men faint. George W Bush’s magnum opus in education policy has become a symbol for his presidency, good idea with a terrible execution. Perhaps the most damaging aspect of NCLB was its push for standardized testing. Those in education have long debated standardized testing. How fair are they? Do they make teachers teach to the tests? What do they actually prove?

Should the government completely scrap No Child? No, it shouldn’t. I may be going out on a flimsy limb here, but NCLB is not a total disaster. Schools have just pushed students ahead for too long. The further along they are pushed, the larger the deficit in their education grows. By the time students reach high school, most are too embarrassed to ask for help and simply drop out. Few of these students will attend any type of higher education, becoming low wage earners and possible drags on society. It should be a crime in this nation to let any child fall into this position. NCLB took an important first step. No Child forced schools to set standards they should have set in the first place.

Don’t worry my praise for Bush’s baby ends here. No Child encourages teaching to the test. So what if a student can answer a multiple question? That doesn’t prove a child really understands the material. A child should be able to take what they have learned and apply it to many different areas and situations. Our lives do not function in a vacuum. Why should we expect our children to spout information in one?

Lastly, what do the tests themselves actually prove? What happens when a student who begins the year not being able to read, learns during the school year, but still does not meet the NCLB standard at the end of the year? NCLB considers hat child a failure. Growth based test scores are the answer. Each child is an individual, even each state and region of this nation are individual. How can we expect everyone to follow the same standard? The government needs to reward improvement. Curriculum and test requirements that focus on student growth are essential.

The Problems and Potential of Change

I have been a member of Change.org since roughly mid-December. For those who aren’t familiar with the site Change.org is not in any way affiliated with Change.gov, Barack Obama’s transition website. The aim however is similar.

Change.org collects information on a number of issues all in one place. I’ll give you a rundown of a few causes they list: global warming, gay rights, immigration, education, fair trade, human trafficking, and middle east peace just to name a few. On any of the nineteen causes you can read daily blogs, start actions, join related non-profit groups, and participate in fundraising.

The potential of Change.org blows me away. Never have I come across a site that collects so many issues in such an easy to read manner. On the blogs today I could read about country of origin labeling , a plea to not forget Darling-Hammond on education policy – Oh man, I have more to say on that – and if charity really does make a difference.

The action creation aspect of Change.org is the true power of the site. Obama has pledge we are entering a new age of government; this will be an age of transparency and citizen involvement in government. Change.org is one of the first children of this new age. There are 16,887 members of the global warming cause. Imagine you write a petition for a way you wish the government to act on global warming. Then imagine that each one of those members signs your petition. That’s 16,887 letters to the president’s office, not to mention that you can send letters to your congressional reps, governor, and state legislature; it’s all as easy as clicking a few buttons. Even lazy, glass eyed, Gollums who never leave the glow of their screens can petition the government. Even your Grandma who chicken pecks the keys can petition the government.

This sort of power is mind-boggling. Just the simple fact that the site collects all the email addresses of your elected officials from state level up to the president is amazing. And the vast amount of citizens you can inform on an issue is staggering as well. This is also one of the problems.

I receive somewhere around 80 request per day. These are a combination of non-profit groups, pledges, and petitions. Many of the actions are worthwhile. Petitioners asked me to support autism awareness and visit a nature preserve this year – that’s easy seeing as there is one directly next to my home. There vast majority are either too broad – eliminate violence against women, higher educational standards for all – or too impractical – support self published authors, ask people if they have their own bags. Do people think the government isn’t setting higher education standards already? Is eliminating violence against women not a goal in this society? If I get one more save Darfur action I’m going to digitally flick the senders ear hard!

That is another problem of the site. The type of people it attracts. These people tend to be far-left progressives. They tend to propose lofty changes without any concrete way of getting there. It’s a tough place for a centrist democrat to function. I’d hate to see some of my center-right friends attempt to accomplish something through Change.org. I take that back; I challenge the centrists of the web to get on Change.org and make your causes heard. Please! I’d love it!

Back to the lesson at hand. I stick to the education and health care, though I’ve certainly support actions from all over. Let’s look at the education cause for an example of how far left this site swings. The three featured actions are a petition to completely dismantle No Child Left Behind, a petition to appoint Linda Darling-Hammond somewhere in the Department of Education, and a pledge to be responsible for our children’s entertainment habits.

NCLB is not entirely bad; it should not completely disappear. It set standards schools should have already been setting themselves. Granted NCLB went about achieving its goals in an awful way, but it can be retooled. Many members of the site decry NCLB as some sort of dragon eating our children and burning down our schools. Have they researched NCLB on their own or do they just say, “Bush bad. He make NCLB. NCLB bad!” It certainly seems that way.

Linda Linda Linda. Everyone on Change.org seems to have a boner for Linda Darling-Hammond. One almost lives in fear of saying a kind word about Arne Duncan or Michelle Rhee. For people who belong to a site entitled Change.org so many of its members are afraid change itself. You mention “school reform” and you’re likely to get sent to the gulag. School reform means tough changes, changes unpopular with the teachers union. Many of the changes Duncan and Rhee proposed got results. They turned communities around. Who cares if the teachers union doesn’t like them? The students are what matter, which people seem to forget.

Change.org has huge potential. Great things will be accomplished from this site. This is a site for all Americans, not just the progressive left. It needs those centrist voices of reason on the right and left. This is too large for one man alone to handle. I’m sending a call to all of you great moderate bloggers and blog readers out there. Join Change.org today and get your voices heard! They are desperately needed to balance this great tool. I’m sick of getting all these requests to legalize pot!

The Problems and Potential of Change

I have been a member of Change.org since roughly mid-December. For those who aren’t familiar with the site Change.org is not in any way affiliated with Change.gov, Barack Obama’s transition website. The aim however is similar.

Change.org collects information on a number of issues all in one place. I’ll give you a rundown of a few causes they list: global warming, gay rights, immigration, education, fair trade, human trafficking, and middle east peace just to name a few. On any of the nineteen causes you can read daily blogs, start actions, join related non-profit groups, and participate in fundraising.

The potential of Change.org blows me away. Never have I come across a site that collects so many issues in such an easy to read manner. On the blogs today I could read about country of origin labeling , a plea to not forget Darling-Hammond on education policy – Oh man, I have more to say on that – and if charity really does make a difference.

The action creation aspect of Change.org is the true power of the site. Obama has pledge we are entering a new age of government; this will be an age of transparency and citizen involvement in government. Change.org is one of the first children of this new age. There are 16,887 members of the global warming cause. Imagine you write a petition for a way you wish the government to act on global warming. Then imagine that each one of those members signs your petition. That’s 16,887 letters to the president’s office, not to mention that you can send letters to your congressional reps, governor, and state legislature; it’s all as easy as clicking a few buttons. Even lazy, glass eyed, Gollums who never leave the glow of their screens can petition the government. Even your Grandma who chicken pecks the keys can petition the government.

This sort of power is mind-boggling. Just the simple fact that the site collects all the email addresses of your elected officials from state level up to the president is amazing. And the vast amount of citizens you can inform on an issue is staggering as well. This is also one of the problems.

I receive somewhere around 80 request per day. These are a combination of non-profit groups, pledges, and petitions. Many of the actions are worthwhile. Petitioners asked me to support autism awareness and visit a nature preserve this year – that’s easy seeing as there is one directly next to my home. There vast majority are either too broad – eliminate violence against women, higher educational standards for all – or too impractical – support self published authors, ask people if they have their own bags. Do people think the government isn’t setting higher education standards already? Is eliminating violence against women not a goal in this society? If I get one more save Darfur action I’m going to digitally flick the senders ear hard!

That is another problem of the site. The type of people it attracts. These people tend to be far-left progressives. They tend to propose lofty changes without any concrete way of getting there. It’s a tough place for a centrist democrat to function. I’d hate to see some of my center-right friends attempt to accomplish something through Change.org. I take that back; I challenge the centrists of the web to get on Change.org and make your causes heard. Please! I’d love it!

Back to the lesson at hand. I stick to the education and health care, though I’ve certainly support actions from all over. Let’s look at the education cause for an example of how far left this site swings. The three featured actions are a petition to completely dismantle No Child Left Behind, a petition to appoint Linda Darling-Hammond somewhere in the Department of Education, and a pledge to be responsible for our children’s entertainment habits.

NCLB is not entirely bad; it should not completely disappear. It set standards schools should have already been setting themselves. Granted NCLB went about achieving its goals in an awful way, but it can be retooled. Many members of the site decry NCLB as some sort of dragon eating our children and burning down our schools. Have they researched NCLB on their own or do they just say, “Bush bad. He make NCLB. NCLB bad!” It certainly seems that way.

Linda Linda Linda. Everyone on Change.org seems to have a boner for Linda Darling-Hammond. One almost lives in fear of saying a kind word about Arne Duncan or Michelle Rhee. For people who belong to a site entitled Change.org so many of its members are afraid change itself. You mention “school reform” and you’re likely to get sent to the gulag. School reform means tough changes, changes unpopular with the teachers union. Many of the changes Duncan and Rhee proposed got results. They turned communities around. Who cares if the teachers union doesn’t like them? The students are what matter, which people seem to forget.

Change.org has huge potential. Great things will be accomplished from this site. This is a site for all Americans, not just the progressive left. It needs those centrist voices of reason on the right and left. This is too large for one man alone to handle. I’m sending a call to all of you great moderate bloggers and blog readers out there. Join Change.org today and get your voices heard! They are desperately needed to balance this great tool. I’m sick of getting all these requests to legalize pot!

The Country Runs On Duncan – Praise for Education Secretary Arne Duncan

Since the Obama administration chose Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education there have been a variety of reactions. “Off with his head” and “He’s a witch. Burn him!” have been heard at many teacher’s union meetings and uber-left blogs. I for one feel the need to stand up for Arne Duncan. We should give Arne a fair shake before we send him to the gallows.

One problem many have found with Duncan is that he has never been a teacher. That poses no problem. Duncan has worked in education policy and management since 1992. I think that sixteen years experience in education policy and management qualifies a man to be the head of education policy and management in the United States. Much of that time Duncan has spent working at the top of the third largest school district in the country, Chicago.

Another argument I read, and one of the most outrageous, was that Arne doesn’t believe in democracy. If those who use this argument mean that Duncan sometimes makes decisions unpopular with teachers unions, then I’ll agree with them. As the head of Chicago schools Duncan has had to make tough decisions that didn’t win him any brownie points with the teachers. According to Chicago Teachers Union President Marilyn Stewart however, “[Arne] had my home phone number. He always returned my calls, and I returned his. You can’t not talk when you need something done.” Sounds like a real fascist to me.

“But he’s a reformer who supports * gasp * merit based pay!” What is so wrong with rewarding those who perform well or letting go those who don’t? A poor teacher will get through about a half to three quarters of the material in one year. The next year teachers must spend extra time on catching up before beginning new material. You can see the dangerous cycle for our children. A good teacher however can cover up to a year and half of material in one year. Children with a good teacher are also more likely to retain the information, rather than just learning to the tests.

Duncan’s reforms have worked in Chicago. In one of Duncan’s charter schools every single senior graduate last year. The Chicago school district as a whole had a 52% dropout rate last year. Teachers are required to meet weekly with a mentor to discuss individual child needs, in order to find week spots in lesson plans. Duncan may have pushed high teacher accountability, but he also has lobbied for greater funding for Chicago schools and given credit to schools that don’t meet standards.

Arne Duncan represents the middle road most of us expected the Obama administration to be. Duncan is willing to try a wide range of reforms. He will admit when things don’t work, scrap them, and try again. Duncan will take advice from both sides of school reform: those who want tough accountability standards and those who want more flexibility, money, and support. Duncan is the right man for the job. Give him a chance and he will prove it.