Branded!

I have lost track of the number of emails I receive that end with, “Sent from my iPhone” or something similar. I see countless people each day wearing clothing with the name or logo of a company, team, or college in large letters. Why do people feel the need to brand themselves? Why would people turn themselves into free advertisements?

Is this about showing off? Is this really saying, “Hey, look. I have this cool toy,” or “I can afford this expensive piece of clothing” or “I don’t give a damn about the price of gas!” Perhaps it is bragging about being included in something exclusive. Some middle schools have banned the wearing of bar and bat mitzvah clothing because it is really about demonstrating who is “in” and who is “out.” Someday, I am going to set up a little stand in front of our middle school and sell shirts that say, “I went to Alan Shepard’s bar mitzvah – and you didn’t!”

Some of this branding might be about social status. Let’s face it, the cool kids in school were often those who could afford the good stuff, be it clothing, electronics, cars, vacations or other status symbols. Superficial popular trends frequently center around celebrities and personality. So by imitating the “rich and famous” (or perhaps the popular and wealthy), a little of their social capital rubs off on their little clones. When we buy these popular products, we are getting far more than a purse or a car.

This could also be about identity. I sometimes wonder if there are people who are so empty that it they need to be filled up with consumer products. Who am I? I am the sum of things I own. Identity (or status) is siphoned off from these brands. So I am a little bit Cadillac, Bulls, Harvard, and Hollister. Aren’t I special?

But to be branded is to be owned. Who owns whom here? You paid a premium for that purse or SUV or phone that advertises a brand. Are you now an agent of that brand? You are certainly a human billboard. Perhaps you could have paid less for a comparable item but you chose to spend more for the label. Mr. Barnum would love you! I’ll bet the brands love you too!

Of course there is the intangible, “feeling” quality of the product. The product just makes me feel better and that is why it is worth more money. I know that logically, the shirt without the logo is more practical, but I like the shirt with the logo more. What does that sound like? It sounds like marketing and advertising work! It sounds like a cop-out rationalization for wasting money. You might as well say, “I know I am being manipulated, but I am okay with that.” Why?

Identities built on conspicuous materialism are not real. You are NOT what you own. The clothes do not make the person. The desire to define oneself, to individuate and discover one’s unique qualities is a human trait. To purchase these characteristics off the shelf is cheating. Identity must be created individually and authentically. It is better to have an organic identity and be real than to have a pre-processed brand and be plastic.

The College Search Process: Part 1

This past spring break, my family and I went on a college trip. It was not our first foray into the college search process. In the year we have been visiting colleges, we have discovered important strategies that have helped us better understand the schools we consider and visit.

Our first few visits almost don’t count. They didn’t teach us as much about the schools as they served as introductions to how to go about this process. Our visits consist of several key elements: the obligatory information session and tour, a meal in a student dining hall, and usually a conversation with alumni from our high school. The information session is the least valuable part of the trip and our time with a grad from our school is the most important.

Frankly, all of the college presentations we have seen are similar. One must sit through them, but their usefulness varies from not at all to a bit. They are a marketing pitch at best and an obligation at worst. We do our homework and rarely do these sessions provide new information. Often a young admissions officer gives these presentations. The quality will depend on that person – and that can vary widely! Many of these admissions officers are in their mid-twenties. They have only a few years (or less) on the job and may not be graduates of the college. I have asked myself, is this person qualified to read my child’s application?

The presentation might identify some of the institution’s priorities. One school began its presentation talking about the social atmosphere of the campus and didn’t deal with academics until twenty minutes in. Another began with the reason for the school’s founding and the values of the founders. About half of the presentations will involve a student. About three quarters will have a PowerPoint presentation and/or a video. The presence or absence of the screen has not, we have found, made the presentation better or worse.

Two of the schools we visited were very clear about the values that sit underneath their universities. This clarity of purpose was central in the presentation and, in both instances, overshadowed mediocre presenters. While this purpose may or may not fit our child (one did and one didn’t), they became one of the primary items on our search list. We wanted to ascertain what where the underlying values of the university. Just because you can’t clearly see them in the presentation doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

Student voices were more important to our understanding of the school than the adult pitches. The main value of the tour is for the information from the guide rather than seeing the campus. Most campuses are pretty in some way. Libraries are libraries. Dorms are dorms. Nice dorms are great to have are not deal breakers for us. The tour guide is the first (and sometimes only) student we have a chance to meet. His or her commentary, experiences, and answers to questions are often far more telling than the tour.

We have found it important to spend a meal on campus in a student dining area. This experience gives a more authentic feel for the social character of the campus. We note how kids interact in the dining area. On one campus, they were slobs. On another, they were sitting in pairs or by themselves. On another, they lingered in groups and the dining area was clearly a social center. Yes, the quality of the food matters, but like the fanciness of the dorms, it is not as important as what goes on at mealtime.

My daughter tries to sit in on a class on each campus. This has been minimally important. Some of these classes were interesting. Some were not. Some of the professors were welcoming and warm, while others were indifferent. Sometimes students interact with her but more often they do not. However, she gets to see what “class” looks like on the campus. She gets a tiny taste of a college schedule and how it might feel to go to school there.

The most important piece, for us, is the contact with alumni from our high school. Having an individual ambassador who knows where we come from provides as much information as all the other parts of the trip combined. Over and over, this has been the most important part of the visit. These kids have graciously told us their stories, taken us into their dorms, given us the “other” tour of parts of the campus where the admissions tour does not go. We often have a meal with these students and talk to some of their friends. Their words have rounded out the “official” line and allowed my daughter to really try on being a college student at that campus.

Using these strategies during our half-day on each campus allows us to better understand the unique qualities of each college. Frankly, the colleges are far more similarities than different. The goal is recognize schools – and there are many –which are a good match for our daughter.

Yes is Best in 113!

Although I have strong political beliefs, I am usually reluctant to share them. I avoid lawn signs and do not often advertise my support of candidates or causes. However, I have taught in the community for twenty-five years and lived here for almost as long, and the health and well being of our schools and community is very important to me. Recently, the question I receive almost everywhere I go is what do I think about the District 113 referendum.

Here is the very short answer: I support the referendum.

Here is the short reason why: Deerfield and Highland Park High Schools are light years behind all other area schools in both technology and physical education facilities. Our buildings are aging and need significant improvement. Our pools are becoming unsafe and, at times, unusable. And if we do not make these improvements now, we will have to address them later and it will be at a higher cost to both taxpayers and kids. And we can do all this without increasing taxes!

Here is the longer answer:

Deerfield and Highland Park’s athletic facilities are some of the worst in the area. Our track kids are running through the hallways after school. Our soccer, baseball, softball, football, lacrosse, and other teams are often unable to use their fields. We do not have enough gym space for classes or athletic practices. Why would someone purchase a home in our district when our neighbors have far superior facilities (especially if athletics or technology are very important to his/her child)?

Deerfield and Highland Park are far behind in technology. Our wireless system at DHS cannot keep up with the demand. There is not enough access to computer labs and our computer equipment is aging and out of date.

Classrooms at Deerfield are poorly heated and most are not air-conditioned. Classrooms can get into the 90s in the fall and spring. Teachers in various areas of the building are experiencing various forms of work place related illnesses. The building’s infrastructure needs significant improvement.

Although low interest rates are bad for our bank accounts, they are good for loans. The district is trying to take advantage of these rates to make these improvements at the lowest cost. Many of these issues will have to be addressed eventually. Where will that money come from? If the referendum does not pass, then many pressing needs will not be met and our students will have to live with leaky roofs, poor ventilation and out dated technology, not to mention inadequate athletic facilities. And if we are eventually able to address these needs, the costs of labor and materials will be significantly higher. We will leave it to the students to bear the burden if the referendum is not passed.

This referendum will not increase our taxes. The bond from the prior capital improvement is scheduled to expire and this referendum would replace it and taxes would remain the same. In other words, with no additional expense, the kids and communities benefit greatly!

Here is a link that will give you some more information and a video tour of both buildings:

http://dist113.org/community/fac_tech/Pages/default.aspx

Voting for this referendum is in everyone’s best interest. It is good for taxpayers, students, parents, and the community at large. If you are trying to sell your home, it will make it more attractive. If your children are coming to the high school, it will improve their experience. If we do this later, it will cost more. Please vote “yes” for the referendum on April 5th.

Instead of Tests, Tenure or Taxes, Can We Discuss REAL Education Reform?

Legislators and pundits keep talking about educational reform. William Bennett recently wrote on CNN.com that we are now ready for “real” reform. Well, it is about time. School has not changed much in more than a century. Other than the presence of technology and a slightly more student centered teaching focus, our grandparents would find today’s schools very similar to their experiences. It is time to put away the assembly line model of education. The reforms of the past are like saying we are going to redesign the automobile by painting the tires a different color. The educational debates in legislatures across the nation assiduously avoid substantive issues and focus on testing, tenure, and taxes.

What would real educational reform look like? What would we need to do to revolutionize our school systems? We need to go beyond the simplistic test and “data” driven measures of success and redesign the car starting with the engine!

That engine has four components: students, parents, educators and communities. Schools live at the intersection of these four worlds. How these worlds connect, relate, and support (or work against) each other provides the impetus for learning. Parents and community must be integral parts of the school. Classes, if we even still call them that, must take children out of the schoolhouse into the community. Parents must be more than an afterthought in education. Regardless of whether or not there is “homework,” home should be highly connected to school.

One way that parents become more involved in the educational process is to start it far earlier. Instead of waiting until a child is five to begin public education, we need to work with parents before the child is born and, perhaps, before the child is even conceived! Education starts with parent education! From prenatal information and pregnancy guidance, nutrition to discipline, sleep issues and play time, our system should enfold the family from its very beginning.

Our current educational model looks like an assembly line. Kids arrive in age groupings and moved from grade to grade and subject area to subject area just like Chevys. Just as our industrial society has transformed into an information and service based world, our schools must also move beyond the assembly line.

Children don’t all develop the same way at the same time. Just because two children were born in the same year does not mean they have the same needs. Grouping children by age is not the best way to meet individual educational needs. Instead, we need to allow children to learn at a pace that matches their learning temperament. While students will work in groups, those groups should be multi-age. They should form for specific purposes and, when those objectives are met, new groups for new goals should form.

The other half of the assembly line needs to change as well. We have built artificial subject areas and forced them on the students. Reading, writing, problem solving, creating, communicating, exploring, questioning, and thinking are universal. While there may still be some basic “content” that we want students to “know,” it is no longer reasonable or desirable to think of education as simply turning our kids into little encyclopedias. They need to know how to find the information they need and then how to evaluate and use it. We are moving from a content-based education to a skill-based curriculum. The lines between English, math, social studies, science and other academic disciplines have become less useful. In fact, these content labels discourage kids from transferring their skills from one “subject” to another. We build fences between subject areas and then are disappointed when our students can’t leap over them.

If we are not grouping by age and we don’t have rigid subject areas, then education is not only going to be more individualized, but students are going to get much more independence and control. The range of activities that constitute “schoolwork” will broaden significantly. Students will work with their parents and other adults in the community. Students will create their own learning experiences and adults will merely facilitate them. Rather than teaching kids, we will help kids teach themselves.

And how will we know if we succeed? Will there be a series of big tests that each child must pass? What would be on these tests? Tests are good at measuring a finite amount of knowledge. Knowledge based learning died in the late Twentieth Century. We need to find a new way to measure and evaluate learning.

In a skill based “school,” students should be evaluated based on the skills they have mastered. Just as a girl scout must prove she is capable to earn a merit badge, we should have sets of skills that our children must master. There will be as many roads to skill mastery as there are children. And those who know and work with these children will help them self-evaluate and, if necessary remediate, their skills.

Of course teachers and schools will be accountable for this kind of evaluation, but parents, community members, mentors, and even lawmakers will also share this accountability. And the largest share will reside with the students themselves!

If you are thinking that this idea is difficult and different and will require remarkable, creative, and brilliant people to make it happen, you are right. Our educators need to be the best of the best. We need to attract and retain people who are gifted in a wide variety of areas. We cannot afford to stick with a narrow definition of “smart” for our children or our teachers. Those who guide and coordinate this process should be highly trained, dedicated, and richly rewarded professionals. As a nation, we should create a system that not only attracts those who are best suited to teaching, but also encourages them to stay in the system!

The final reform that will be critical to the success of our education revolution is the most difficult. Schools are a reflection of their communities. If our children live in poverty and have to fight gangs, drugs, and the myriad of social ills each day, they will not learn. If they have not eaten well and their parents cannot give them adequate attention because they must work long hours, they cannot learn. While an improved educational system may help alleviate some of these problems, these problems will prevent our children from thriving. All children, all families, have a right to live in a safe community free of violence and fear. All families have a right to healthy nutrition, a productive job and a decent wage. These issues must be addressed or we will be forever divided between the haves and have-nots.

It is time to redefine school and I don’t think lawmakers have the guts or ability to do it. Their mistakes and machinations have created the system we are trying to reform. It is time for families, teachers, and community leaders to take the lead. It is time to put our tax dollars where our hearts are: with the children, with our future, and make real change!

Here is an excellent video that explores this topic further:

What Follows the Race to Nowhere?

My first thought after watching the documentary, Race to Nowhere was that none of the criticisms of our stressed out educational system are new. Kids do get too much homework and much of it does not have educational value. Our children are not resilient and find mistakes and failures devastating. Cheating and unhealthy competition and pressure are clear results of an overcharged desire for entry into the most elite colleges. It is easier to have our children’s lives programmed to the nanosecond than allow them unstructured time to find their own ways. As a nation, we see education as merely a stepping-stone to financial gain. It has no real purpose beyond making us wealthy.

And that may be the heart of the problem. One of the unstated themes of Race to Nowhere is our highly simplistic and numerically based desire to measure educational success. We use grades, test scores, college entrance exams, and other statistics as the primary way to determine educational accomplishment. We want proof of our children’s achievements in cold hard statistics. That system isn’t working.

We want an easy answer. We don’t want to deal with the fact that education is complex and messy. We cling to the simplistic success formula: Good grades in high school lead to admission in a “good” college. An education at a “good college” will eventually land a child a “good” job. A “good” job means a “good income” which will bring happiness. How many people do we know who do not fit this formula? Our economic crisis was caused by the college-educated people who recklessly and selfishly pursued financial gain and created a worldwide catastrophe. This formula is more than faulty, it is dangerous.

And it is stealing our kids’ childhoods. The film clearly shows how we are asking our kids to grow up too quickly. How many times has someone noted, when looking at a child’s homework, “I didn’t do that until I got to high school, college, or graduate school”? Our simplistic thinking says that, if we make our children do more and do it earlier, they will be smarter. What idiot came up with that?

The film notes two pieces of governmental action that fueled this fire: the Nation At Risk report in 1983 and more recently the No Child Left Behind Act. Both of these declared that the sky was falling and that the solution was to measure the fall and punish anything that fell. What the film does not point out is that, in the almost three decades since Nation at Risk, we have subjected students to more and more high stakes testing and put more and more “teacher accountability” measures in place. Has it made things better? Has it improved our system? Is all this testing working? Even the aforementioned idiot could answer that question.

Which leads to my primary criticism of the film: it does not spend enough time on solutions. Solutions to this issue cannot be simple numeric testing, additional homework, or tutoring third graders in calculus. We need to truly reimagine our educational system. We need to, as the film states, “invest up front” and put more money, time, skill, and talent into education. This will not only help prevent many of the costly social ills created when students are chewed up and spit out of the system, but may help bring back the joy of learning.

The brief suggestions for students, parents, teachers, medical professionals and administrators are not enough. And where were the suggestions for lawmakers, by the way? This film is calling for an educational revolution: a complete and total restructuring of our current system. It will be a messy and difficult process. The simplistic formulas have failed and at a great price. Race to Nowhere challenges us to get dirty and go beyond the superficial attempts at educational reform of the past.

What does this educational reform revolution look like? The film doesn’t say. Stay tuned.

Questioning Grades

Grades can suck the joy out of learning. When I first started teaching, I said I didn’t want to use grades. I was told I had to give grades. Fine, I said, then I’ll give everyone A’s. No, that wasn’t an option either. Since that time, I have asked a lot of questions about grades’ effects on learning. Like a strong spice, you cannot have grades nearby and not be flavored by them. They change the nature of the learning and the relationship between the student and teacher. They shift the focus from the good deed to the gold star.

So if grades are a necessary evil, how do we put them in their proper place? The way we approach grades is a snapshot of the way we see school and learning. To change my metaphor: if grades are like a powerful medicine, when used carefully and in proper proportion, they can be healthy. However, they can also be addictive drugs that do great harm.

As a teacher, I know what I want students to learn. Grades should be a measurement of that learning. However, this isn’t always the case. It is easier to count grammar errors than evaluate analytic thinking. It is easier to have a scantron test than an essay. Rather than grading the real learning, it is easier to grade what I can easily measure.

Some classes focus more on learning information, the content. Some classes focus more on skills: learning to do things. Most classes are a mixture of the two. In my discipline, I see the content as a means to learn the skills. I teach annotating as a means to learn how to read. I teach grammar as a way to become a better communicator. For me, the real learning will always be centered on skills much more than content. We live in the information revolution. We will never be able to hold all the facts in our heads. How we interact with that information, our information management skills, is what is really important.

If the skills are what are important, then mastering them is the focus of class. Grades should be a measure of students’ mastery of these skills: in English, how well they can communicate and analyze. But it isn’t that simple. What if George can master the skill in two tries and Lennie takes ten attempts. They both landed in the same place. They have both mastered the skill. Should George be rewarded for getting there quicker? If Lennie is a hard worker and does all his homework, should his grade reflect that? Is hard work a trait we want to encourage? What about errors? Lennie might make more mistakes than George. Should he be penalized for that?

It is easy to create tests and assignments that are worth a set of points and add them up and divide for a grade. Students and parents are used to that. The averaged point grade system may not in the best interest of learning. An averaged point system is simply the average of all the things we have counted over the term. If a student makes a mistake and then learns from it, that is not part of the average. If a student takes a risk and it doesn't pay off, the average goes down. If a student really learns and starts off doing poorly and gets better with each assignment, then the grade will be the average of where she started and where she finished. Does that make sense?

Despite my issues with the Boy Scouts, I think the merit badge system may provide a model for grading. Scouts get a merit badge when they have mastered a specific set of skills or activities. The criterion for each merit badge is clear and the same for all scouts. It doesn’t matter (that much) how long you took to get the badge or how many times you fell down along the way. What matters is that, after two or twenty attempts, you mastered the skills. Could we learn to be that specific and clear in the classroom? Could grades look like that?

What should our students learn? How do we know they have learned it? What habits, skills, and behaviors do we want them to master? If we must have grades, they should be the answers to these key questions.

Plan B

My favorite game is chess. I am not fond of games where the players’ success is dependent on chance: the roll of a dice, the deal of the cards, or random selection of tiles. While those games are certainly interesting and have their challenges, the player’s success is integrally connected to random chance. Not in chess. In chess, both players have the same “hand” and the only difference between them is who goes first. In chess, success or failure is the result of the skill of the player.

In my experience, the key to a successful chess game is the ability to think beyond the immediate move. Good chess players have many contingency plans. They think beyond the next move, the move after that and the move after that. They anticipate the moves of their opponents and create multiple versions of those plans.

This skill is critically important, not only in chess, but in life. Of course we want to, “live in the moment.” But how many of our own and our society’s problems are the result of short-term thinking? While all consequences cannot be predicted, many can. I would argue that a person with a plan B (and a plan C and D) is better equipped to deal with surprises than a person without.

Recently, the Chicago Tribune published an article providing drivers with winter safety tips. One of the those tips was to look head and see what was coming up, “Drivers should anticipate difficult situations by looking down the road far enough to identify potential problems. They also should be aware of drivers coming from other lanes and cross streets. ‘Across the board, that's the No. 1 mistake people make in driving, period: Not looking far enough ahead,’ said Mark Cox, director of the Bridgestone Winter Driving School in Steamboat Springs, Colo.”

A good driver is always looking ahead and asking, “what if.” What if that truck pulls out? What if the door to that car should suddenly open? What if that child runs into the street? What if the light changes now? Like a chess player, a good driver must have multiple plans to fit many possibilities.

It goes beyond chess and driving; it could be a philosophy of life. Whether it is with financial or personal choices, at home, school, or work, how much more successful would we be if we thought a few moves ahead?

This doesn’t mean that we save all our money because the pleasure we buy today would prevent us from purchasing food tomorrow. Not at all. Rather, it means that we consider the possibilities. It is prudent to anticipate needs. Americans are notorious for spending money they do not have. They are terrible savers. Buying a fun toy today is even more satisfying knowing that it will not jeopardize tomorrow’s necessities.

But it goes even further than these simplistic examples. Considering the options while making choices could help us with our relationships, the environment, and bring us more success. When I purchase a product, who is getting the money and what will they do with it? If I support this candidate, what is she likely to do in office? How will my words and actions affect my family, friends, and co-workers?

Thinking a few moves ahead will slow us down. It will help us have fewer of those impulsive mistakes. It will make us safer drivers and more successful chess players and human beings.