Basic Functions of Management/Leadership

This is basically for my own edification and reminder reference as I have found that, over a very long career in diverse industries, these principles still hold. These are management tasks that must be performed to a more or lesser degree in all organizations. How a manager accomplishes the tasks is in the realm of management theory, a body of study and knowledge that continually evolves. The most recent trend in management theory seems to be a combination of customer/employee oriented factors involving coordination, communication and collaboration at the core (not unlike recent education trends) - mostly common sense. The race to develop adopted catch-phases that sell books might be more the driving force behind the theories than is the advancement of theory and practices. Some examples from recent books: "radical management"; "connected and engaged organization"; The Power of Pull; The Elastic Enterprise; "new management paradigm"; The Connected Company; and many others. This for another blog?

•  Planning (operational [tactical] and strategic):
  
  
  
  • Define where the organization is, identify a future ideal state then map how the company will move toward that future state.
  
  
  •  Outcomes:
    
    
    
    1. Ideal organizational vision, identity, culture, personality.
    
    
    2. Anticipated external environment (economy, government, etc.).
    
    
    3. Tactics and strategies.
    
    
    4. Timetable.
    
    
    5. Mission, goals and objectives.
    
    
    6. Resources needed.
    
    
    7. Marketing plan.
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  


•  Organizing:
  
  
  
  • Organize resources (human and material) to accomplish mission, goals and objectives.
  
  
  • Outcomes:
    
    
    
    1. Organizational chart.
       
       
       
       1. Spans of control.
       
       
       2. Chain of command.
       
       
       3. Lines of authority.
       
       
       
       
    
    
    2. Departmentalization.
    
    
    3. Position descriptions.
       
       
       
       1. Duties and responsibilities.
       
       
       2. Detailed tasks, conditions and standards.
       
       
       3. Position authority.
       
       
       4. Delegation of authority to include hiring, firing, supervising, disciplining, ordering, purchasing, compensatory time, etc.
       
       
       
       
    
    
    4. Policies, processes, procedures, systems and rules.
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  


• Leading (Directing) toward mission, goal, objective and task achievement:
  
  
  
  • Decision making
  
  
  • Motivating
  
  
  • Rewarding
  
  
  • Disciplining
  
  
  • Compensating
  
  
  • Communicating/informing
  
  
  • Supervising
  
  
  • Supporting
  
  
  • Training, educating and orienting
  
  
  • Evaluating
  
  
  • Consistency
  
  
  
  


•  Staffing:
  
  
  
  • Position analysis
  
  
  • Human resource inventory
  
  
  • Identification of position skills, knowledges and abilities
  
  
  • Recruiting
  
  
  • Testing and interviewing
  
  
  • Hiring, promoting, transferring, adjusting pay, terminating
  
  
  • Training, educating and orienting
  
  
  • Evaluating
  
  
  • Consistency
  
  
  
  


• Controlling:
  
  
  
  • Assigning, evaluating, and regulating resources on an ongoing basis to accomplish the organization's goals:
    
    
    
    1. Measuring performance against position descriptions and standards.
    
    
    2. Evaluating and measuring compliance and progress with and regulating plans, policies, processes, procedures, systems, rules, regulations, ordinances, laws, project drawings, specifications and other contract documents and budgets.
    
    
    3. Ensuring that organizational activities are consistent, effective and efficient.
    
    
    4. Soliciting customer, vendor and employee feedback.
    
    
    5. Making necessary changes and taking corrective actions as needed in response to outcomes of the first four principles above.
    
    
    6. Managing change.
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  

Where Are You On The Pencil Metaphor

The following graphic is applicable as well to business and not-for-profits organizations as well as the educational environments for which it was created.



 

 

“1. The Hangers-On
Hangers-on know all the right lingo, attend all the right seminars, but just don’t do anything.

2. The Erasers
These people endeavour to undo much, if not all, of the work done by the leaders.

3. The Ferrules
These people hang on tightly to what they know. They keep a strong grip on their traditional practices, and feel that there is not a place for technology in their classroom.

4. The Wood
These people would (get it?) technology if someone would just get them the gear, set it up, train them, and keep it running. All they need is help from some sharp person, and they would be doing it too.

5. The Sharp Ones
These are the people that see what the early adopters have done, willingly grab the best of it, learn from the mistakes of others, and do great stuff with their students.

6. The Leaders
These people are the first to take on the technology, the early adopters would.

Not sure who first created the graphic but here are a few links where it might have begun:

• ICTeD Services


• Steve Wheeler


• NCS Tech

 

Net Bias

Net Bias

If you label a concept you support as "neutral", by definition then, an opposing concept would be "bias" and anyone supporting the opposing concept by attachment is thought to be bias as well. Biasness, no matter how justified, in our PC world is a pejorative word. So be it. I am proudly bias against Obama's push toward net neutrality. The following article says it all.

Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality?

From <http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/>

If you watch the news, it seems just about everyone is in favor of “Net Neutrality” legislation. Despite being a tech-addicted entrepreneur, I am not. No, I am not a paid shill for the cable industry. I am no fan of Comcast or any other ISP I’ve ever had the “pleasure” of dealing with. I’m skeptical of large corporations generally and dislike the fact that in this debate I appear to be on their side. While I have no problem with net neutrality as a principle or concept, I have serious concerns about Net Neutrality as legislation or public policy. And since a false dichotomy is being perpetuated by the media in regards to this matter, I feel an obligation to put forth a third point of view. In taking this stand, I realize I may be the only techie, if I can aspire to that label, opposed to Net Neutrality and that I open myself to accusations of killing the dreams of young entrepreneurs, wrecking free speech, and destroying the Internet. Nevertheless, here are three reasons I’m against Net Neutrality legislation.

I Want More Competition

Proponents of Net Neutrality say the telecoms have too much power. I agree. Everyone seems to agree that monopolies are bad and competition is good, and just like you, I would like to see more competition. But if monopolies are bad, why should we trust the U.S. government, the largest monopoly of all? We’re talking about the same organization that spent an amount equal to Facebook’s first six years of operating costs to build a health care website that doesn’t work, the same organization that can’t keep the country’s bridges from falling down, and the same organization that spends 320 times what private industry spends to send a rocket into space. Let’s try a thought experiment–think of an industry that has major problems. Public schools? Health care? How about higher education, student loans, housing, banking, physical infrastructure, immigration, the space program, the military, the police, and the post office? What do all these industries and/or organizations have in common? They are all heavily regulated or controlled by the government. On the other hand we see that where deregulation has occurred, innovation has bloomed, such as with telephony services. Do you think we’d all be walking around with smartphones today if the government still ran the phone system?

The U.S. government has shown time after time that it is ineffective at managing much of anything. This is by design. The Founders intentionally created a government that was slow, inefficient, and plagued by gridlock, because they knew the greatest danger to individual freedom came from a government that could move quickly–too quickly for the people to react in time to protect themselves. If we value our freedom, we need government to be slow. But if government is slow, we shouldn’t rely on it to provide us with products and services we want in a timely manner at a high level of quality. The telecoms may be bad, but everything that makes them bad is what the government is by definition. Can we put “bad” and “worse” together and end up with “better”?

I don’t like how much power the telecoms have. But the reason they’re big and powerful isn’t because there is a lack of government regulation, but because of it. Government regulations are written by large corporate interests which collude with officials in government. The image of government being full of people on a mission to protect the little guy from predatory corporate behemoths is an illusion fostered by politicians and corporate interests alike. Many, if not most, government regulations are the product of crony capitalism designed to prevent small entrepreneurs from becoming real threats to large corporations. If Net Neutrality comes to pass how can we trust it will not be written in a way that will make it harder for new companies to offer Internet services? If anything, we’re likely to end up even more beholden to the large telecoms than before. Of course at this point the politicians will tell us if they hadn’t stepped in that things would be even worse.

If the telecoms are forced to compete in a truly free market, Comcast and Time Warner won’t exist 10 years from now. They’ll be replaced by options that give us better service at a lower price. Some of these new options may depend on being able to take advantage of the very freedom to charge more for certain types of Internet traffic that Net Neutrality seeks to eliminate. If we want to break up the large telecoms through increased competition we need to eliminate regulations that act as barriers to entry in the space, rather than create more of them.

I Want More Privacy

Free speech cannot exist without privacy, and the U.S. government has been shown to be unworthy of guarding the privacy of its citizens. Only the latest revelation of many, Glenn Greenwald’s new book No Place To Hide reveals thatthe U.S. government tampers with Internet routers during the manufacturing process to aid it’s spying programs. Is this the organization we trust to take even more control of the Internet? Should we believe that under Net Neutrality the government will trust the telecoms to police themselves? The government will need to verify, at a technical level, whether the telecoms are treating data as they should. Don’t be surprised if that means the government says it needs to be able to install its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic. Once installed, can we trust this government, or anygovernment, to use that access in a benign manner?

While privacy and freedom of speech may not be foremost on your mind today because you like who is running the government right now, remember that government control tends to swing back and forth. How will you feel about the government having increased control of the Internet when Republicans own the House and Senate and Jeb Bush is elected President, all at the same time?

I Want More Freedom

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. – James Madison, The Federalist No. 51

Many of us see the U.S. government as a benevolent and all-knowing parent with the best interests of you and me, its children, at heart. I see the U.S. government as a dangerous tyrant, influenced by large corporate interests, seeking to control everyone and everything. Perhaps these diverging perspectives on the nature of the U.S. government are what account for a majority of the debate between proponents and opponents of Net Neutrality. If I believed the U.S. government was omniscient, had only good intentions, and that those intentions would never change, I would be in favor of Net Neutrality and more. But it wasn’t all that long ago that FDR was locking up U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps and Woodrow Wilson was outlawing political dissent. More recently we’ve seen the U.S. government fight unjust wars, topple elected democracies, and otherwise interfere in world affairs. We’ve seen the same government execute its own citizens in violation of Fifth Amendment rightsguaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Simply put–I don’t trust the U.S. government. Nor do I trust any other government, even if “my team” wins the election. I see any increase in regulation, however well-intentioned, however beneficial to me today, as leading to less freedom for me and society in the long term. For this reason those who rose up against SOPA and PIPA a few years ago should be equally opposed to Net Neutrality.

What Instead?

Internet bandwidth is, at least currently, a finite resource and has to be allocated somehow. We can let politicians decide, or we can let you and me decide by leaving it up to the free market. If we choose politicians, we will see the Internet become another mismanaged public monopoly, subject to political whims and increased scrutiny from our friends at the NSA. If we leave it up to the free market we will, in time, receive more of what we want at a lower price. It may not be a perfect process, but it will be better than the alternative.

Free markets deal exceptionally well in the process of “creative destruction” economist Joseph Shumpeter championed as the mode by which society raises its standard of living. Although any progress is not without its impediments and free markets aren’t an instant panacea, even U2’s Bono embraced the fact entrepreneurial capitalism does more to eradicate poverty than foreign aid. Especially in the area of technology, government regulation has little, if any place. Governments cannot move fast enough to effectively regulate technology companies because by the time they move, the technology has changed and the debate is irrelevant. Does anyone remember the antitrust cases against Microsoft because of the Internet Explorer browser? The worse services provided by the large telecoms are, the more incentive there will be for entrepreneurs to create new technologies. Five years from now a new satellite technology may emerge that makes fiber obsolete, and we’ll all be getting wireless terabit downloads from space directly to our smartphones, anywhere in the world, for $5/month. Unrealistic? Just think what someone would have said in 1994 if you had tried to explain to them everything you can do today on an iPhone, and at what price.

Joshua Steimle is an entrepreneur and U. S. citizen currently residing in Hong Kong. 

From <http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/2/>

Net Bias

Net Bias

If you label a concept you support as "neutral", by definition then, an opposing concept would be "bias" and anyone supporting the opposing concept by attachment is thought to be bias as well. Biasness, no matter how justified, in our PC world is a pejorative word. So be it. I am proudly bias against Obama's push toward net neutrality. The following article says it all.

Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality?

From <http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/>

If you watch the news, it seems just about everyone is in favor of “Net Neutrality” legislation. Despite being a tech-addicted entrepreneur, I am not. No, I am not a paid shill for the cable industry. I am no fan of Comcast or any other ISP I’ve ever had the “pleasure” of dealing with. I’m skeptical of large corporations generally and dislike the fact that in this debate I appear to be on their side. While I have no problem with net neutrality as a principle or concept, I have serious concerns about Net Neutrality as legislation or public policy. And since a false dichotomy is being perpetuated by the media in regards to this matter, I feel an obligation to put forth a third point of view. In taking this stand, I realize I may be the only techie, if I can aspire to that label, opposed to Net Neutrality and that I open myself to accusations of killing the dreams of young entrepreneurs, wrecking free speech, and destroying the Internet. Nevertheless, here are three reasons I’m against Net Neutrality legislation.

I Want More Competition

Proponents of Net Neutrality say the telecoms have too much power. I agree. Everyone seems to agree that monopolies are bad and competition is good, and just like you, I would like to see more competition. But if monopolies are bad, why should we trust the U.S. government, the largest monopoly of all? We’re talking about the same organization that spent an amount equal to Facebook’s first six years of operating costs to build a health care website that doesn’t work, the same organization that can’t keep the country’s bridges from falling down, and the same organization that spends 320 times what private industry spends to send a rocket into space. Let’s try a thought experiment–think of an industry that has major problems. Public schools? Health care? How about higher education, student loans, housing, banking, physical infrastructure, immigration, the space program, the military, the police, and the post office? What do all these industries and/or organizations have in common? They are all heavily regulated or controlled by the government. On the other hand we see that where deregulation has occurred, innovation has bloomed, such as with telephony services. Do you think we’d all be walking around with smartphones today if the government still ran the phone system?

The U.S. government has shown time after time that it is ineffective at managing much of anything. This is by design. The Founders intentionally created a government that was slow, inefficient, and plagued by gridlock, because they knew the greatest danger to individual freedom came from a government that could move quickly–too quickly for the people to react in time to protect themselves. If we value our freedom, we need government to be slow. But if government is slow, we shouldn’t rely on it to provide us with products and services we want in a timely manner at a high level of quality. The telecoms may be bad, but everything that makes them bad is what the government is by definition. Can we put “bad” and “worse” together and end up with “better”?

I don’t like how much power the telecoms have. But the reason they’re big and powerful isn’t because there is a lack of government regulation, but because of it. Government regulations are written by large corporate interests which collude with officials in government. The image of government being full of people on a mission to protect the little guy from predatory corporate behemoths is an illusion fostered by politicians and corporate interests alike. Many, if not most, government regulations are the product of crony capitalism designed to prevent small entrepreneurs from becoming real threats to large corporations. If Net Neutrality comes to pass how can we trust it will not be written in a way that will make it harder for new companies to offer Internet services? If anything, we’re likely to end up even more beholden to the large telecoms than before. Of course at this point the politicians will tell us if they hadn’t stepped in that things would be even worse.

If the telecoms are forced to compete in a truly free market, Comcast and Time Warner won’t exist 10 years from now. They’ll be replaced by options that give us better service at a lower price. Some of these new options may depend on being able to take advantage of the very freedom to charge more for certain types of Internet traffic that Net Neutrality seeks to eliminate. If we want to break up the large telecoms through increased competition we need to eliminate regulations that act as barriers to entry in the space, rather than create more of them.

I Want More Privacy

Free speech cannot exist without privacy, and the U.S. government has been shown to be unworthy of guarding the privacy of its citizens. Only the latest revelation of many, Glenn Greenwald’s new book No Place To Hide reveals thatthe U.S. government tampers with Internet routers during the manufacturing process to aid it’s spying programs. Is this the organization we trust to take even more control of the Internet? Should we believe that under Net Neutrality the government will trust the telecoms to police themselves? The government will need to verify, at a technical level, whether the telecoms are treating data as they should. Don’t be surprised if that means the government says it needs to be able to install its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic. Once installed, can we trust this government, or anygovernment, to use that access in a benign manner?

While privacy and freedom of speech may not be foremost on your mind today because you like who is running the government right now, remember that government control tends to swing back and forth. How will you feel about the government having increased control of the Internet when Republicans own the House and Senate and Jeb Bush is elected President, all at the same time?

I Want More Freedom

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. – James Madison, The Federalist No. 51

Many of us see the U.S. government as a benevolent and all-knowing parent with the best interests of you and me, its children, at heart. I see the U.S. government as a dangerous tyrant, influenced by large corporate interests, seeking to control everyone and everything. Perhaps these diverging perspectives on the nature of the U.S. government are what account for a majority of the debate between proponents and opponents of Net Neutrality. If I believed the U.S. government was omniscient, had only good intentions, and that those intentions would never change, I would be in favor of Net Neutrality and more. But it wasn’t all that long ago that FDR was locking up U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps and Woodrow Wilson was outlawing political dissent. More recently we’ve seen the U.S. government fight unjust wars, topple elected democracies, and otherwise interfere in world affairs. We’ve seen the same government execute its own citizens in violation of Fifth Amendment rightsguaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Simply put–I don’t trust the U.S. government. Nor do I trust any other government, even if “my team” wins the election. I see any increase in regulation, however well-intentioned, however beneficial to me today, as leading to less freedom for me and society in the long term. For this reason those who rose up against SOPA and PIPA a few years ago should be equally opposed to Net Neutrality.

What Instead?

Internet bandwidth is, at least currently, a finite resource and has to be allocated somehow. We can let politicians decide, or we can let you and me decide by leaving it up to the free market. If we choose politicians, we will see the Internet become another mismanaged public monopoly, subject to political whims and increased scrutiny from our friends at the NSA. If we leave it up to the free market we will, in time, receive more of what we want at a lower price. It may not be a perfect process, but it will be better than the alternative.

Free markets deal exceptionally well in the process of “creative destruction” economist Joseph Shumpeter championed as the mode by which society raises its standard of living. Although any progress is not without its impediments and free markets aren’t an instant panacea, even U2’s Bono embraced the fact entrepreneurial capitalism does more to eradicate poverty than foreign aid. Especially in the area of technology, government regulation has little, if any place. Governments cannot move fast enough to effectively regulate technology companies because by the time they move, the technology has changed and the debate is irrelevant. Does anyone remember the antitrust cases against Microsoft because of the Internet Explorer browser? The worse services provided by the large telecoms are, the more incentive there will be for entrepreneurs to create new technologies. Five years from now a new satellite technology may emerge that makes fiber obsolete, and we’ll all be getting wireless terabit downloads from space directly to our smartphones, anywhere in the world, for $5/month. Unrealistic? Just think what someone would have said in 1994 if you had tried to explain to them everything you can do today on an iPhone, and at what price.

Joshua Steimle is an entrepreneur and U. S. citizen currently residing in Hong Kong. 

From <http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/2/>

Fixing Our Education System-Who Knows?

The following is an analysis of a Chicago Tribune article about a certain [financially failing?] Chicago Catholic school receiving financial assistance from the Archdiocese in order to implement a third-party program purportedly designed to save the school. Reference to the school and its circumstances at the time are not relevant. (Should you be wondering after reading, St. Gregory's will close at the end of this school year.) What is relevant is that while this was written about four years ago I believe that many of the thoughts remain pertinent, although some of the terminology may have evolved.

Thoughts on:

Chicago Tribune article "High school puts eggs in a high-tech basket," March 24, 2010, by: Pete Reinwald.

At the outset I feel obligated to say that there is little agreement among educators or industry leaders regarding how to fix our assumed failing education system. Worse, there is no scientific evidence that any of the proposed "fixes" have or will improve results. Technology, national curricula and standards, revised pedagogies, revised classroom management techniques, more or better teachers, charter schools, longer student days, fire the entire faculty and staff, year-round schooling, close failing schools, monetary incentives (teacher and/or student), funding infusions, you name it, we simply don't know what can or will yield the outcomes we expect.

The article points to St. Gregory's lack of funds as the major issue. We don't know if there is also a problem with student achievement resulting from the lack of funds. If such is the case, given the low student/teacher ratio, some would agree that there is justification for adopting the rather drastic and very questionable Arne Duncan reconstitution reform tactic of firing all and rehiring all. I often wonder how this would play out if we also required school board members, and district/diocese and state administrators to reapply for their positions. Anyway, it does seem clear that St. Gregory is a failing school, at least from a financial perspective. Their (or at least Tony DeSapio's) strategy appears to be to increase enrollment, grants and individual donations through implementation of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills framework. Of course, this strategy will work only if the revised curriculum is marketed successfully and the added new students' families are able to pay a significantly higher tuition. Increasing enrollment will involve catering to a different demographic and require redefining the mission of the institution, at least implicitly. Regarding marketing of the new curriculum, the Partnership provides all the current buzz words and a plan. None-the-less such a turn-around could take years and a considerable investment in advertising, marketing, infrastructure improvements, curriculum development, professional development and technology.

I do not understand how the Archdiocese decides which high schools will receive what amount of financial support from the Archdiocese. If the article is even somewhat accurate, it seems that even Sister McCaughey does not know the formula and has little control over the Archdiocese's contributions. At least she admits that St. Gregory's receipts are "out of whack." I also question the tuition. If the tuition is (will be) $7,700 and 85% of the students are receiving (will receive) financial assistance of $3,200, the out-of-pocket tuition for those families is only $4,500 (assuming one student/family). There is not enough information in the article to determine the sources of other revenue. Having had considerable experience with budgets and finance at rather high levels, I can say with some confidence that while St. Gregory might be able to implement "a new technology-based teaching and learning initiative," unless it finds other sources of revenue, it will do so without a sufficient and significant increase in hardware, software and technology professional development.

I would support any educational program or effort designed to replace rote memorization and curricula replete with standards and objectives not readily transferable to life after college with "a curriculum based on a national model that emphasizes analytical thinking, problem solving and communication. . . .” It just makes sense to me that that should be the direction we should be heading, in part and admittedly, arguably so. The pedagogical model espoused by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills is not new. It is simply "constructionism" or "constructivism" organized, operationalized and digitalized. The Partnership calls it a "framework" and as is usual with academic models, is represented by a graphic:

The rainbow in the upper portion of the graphic represents student outcomes and the light blue rings on the lower portion represent support systems or "inputs" in systems theory. Notable is the emphasis on outcome skills rather than knowledge. Skills have historically been associated more with training than with formal education. This is a bit of a clue to how the program operationalizes learning. Additionally, I am concerned that Information, Media, and Technology Skills occupy a separate outcome area implying that they should continue to be skills learned separate from the core subjects and life and career skills. I question whether learning technology for technology's sake is an efficient use of educational time, or that using technology only as an advanced digitalized pencil, whiteboard or calculator is an efficient use of very limited funds. One can summarize 21^st Century skills as the ability to use a range of electronic technologies to access, synthesize and apply information; the ability to think critically and creatively and evaluate the products of one’s thinking; and the ability to communicate effectively and collaborate with others, particularly in diverse and multicultural settings. While I have only given their 28 page guide a cursory look, I think the Partnership does intend that technology be fully integrated into the other outcome categories. And the guide does not recommend or even encourage a 1:1 learning initiative (a laptop for every student). So, what’s new except the cant--“21^st Century skills?” Except for the introduction of electronic technology (certainly not restricted to the 21^st Century), these skills have been recognized as desirable educational goals as far back as Aristotle. Lastly, while I find reference in the 21^st Century skills mantra to creativity as it relates to utility and workplace productivity, there is no mention of  aesthetics, intellectual play, imagination, the pleasure of a subject, and just plain wonder. How un-engaging is that?

1:1 programs are rightfully controversial among educators and technologists alike. There are obvious disadvantages almost all of which tend to be practical and financial. The advantages, purported to be educational, are not so obvious and certainly not scientifically validated. In upper income environments, 1:1 programs tend to benefit students. However, in lower income environments, the challenges presented by the disadvantages tend to nullify the potential advantages. Because it is so difficult to establish controls in the educational environment, each side of the issue has the right to have issues with the results of any 1:1 experiment. I come down on both sides. If a school can afford it and the students are coming from a culture that values and supports early and life-long learning, a 1:1 program's advantages will outweigh the disadvantages. On the other hand. . . . In other words, I do not think that St. Gregory will benefit from a 1:1 learning initiative (other than as a marketing ploy).

Dr. Alford and her curriculum consulting company appear to be spearheading the program using Holy Family Catholic Academy as a template. As a model for St. Gregory, Holy Family does not fit well. It is a Pre-K-8 institution in a relatively homogeneous upper class suburb. St. Gregory is a high school serving a diverse under class population. Twenty-one percent of Holy Family’s students receive financial aid; 85% of St. Gregory’s students receive financial aid. Holy Family’s student body is more than double that of St. Gregory. Holly Family has 44 teachers and a staff of seven; St. Gregory has 16 teachers and staff of 11 (top heavy?). Holy Family has a relationship with a local college that affords Holy Family students frequent access to state-of-the-art science labs, computer labs and a performing arts theatre (surely at some cost to Holy Family) and their faculty includes six adjunct Harper College faculty members; it is unlikely that St. Gregory has such a relationship. Holy Family’s middle school students possess netbook computers, either family-leased or provided by the school. (As an aside, the article mentions that Holy Family students use Harper College’s computer and technological facilities three mornings a week, yet the middle school has implemented a 1:1 program and their website boasts, “All classrooms have wireless internet connections and are equipped with multiple computers.”)

In conclusion, I fail to see any causal relationship between the initiatives outlined in the article and resolving St. Gregory’s financial difficulties.

Fixing Our Education System-Who Knows?

The following is an analysis of a Chicago Tribune article about a certain [financially failing?] Chicago Catholic school receiving financial assistance from the Archdiocese in order to implement a third-party program purportedly designed to save the school. Reference to the school and its circumstances at the time are not relevant. (Should you be wondering after reading, St. Gregory's will close at the end of this school year.) What is relevant is that while this was written about four years ago I believe that many of the thoughts remain pertinent, although some of the terminology may have evolved.

Thoughts on:

Chicago Tribune article "High school puts eggs in a high-tech basket," March 24, 2010, by: Pete Reinwald.

At the outset I feel obligated to say that there is little agreement among educators or industry leaders regarding how to fix our assumed failing education system. Worse, there is no scientific evidence that any of the proposed "fixes" have or will improve results. Technology, national curricula and standards, revised pedagogies, revised classroom management techniques, more or better teachers, charter schools, longer student days, fire the entire faculty and staff, year-round schooling, close failing schools, monetary incentives (teacher and/or student), funding infusions, you name it, we simply don't know what can or will yield the outcomes we expect.

The article points to St. Gregory's lack of funds as the major issue. We don't know if there is also a problem with student achievement resulting from the lack of funds. If such is the case, given the low student/teacher ratio, some would agree that there is justification for adopting the rather drastic and very questionable Arne Duncan reconstitution reform tactic of firing all and rehiring all. I often wonder how this would play out if we also required school board members, and district/diocese and state administrators to reapply for their positions. Anyway, it does seem clear that St. Gregory is a failing school, at least from a financial perspective. Their (or at least Tony DeSapio's) strategy appears to be to increase enrollment, grants and individual donations through implementation of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills framework. Of course, this strategy will work only if the revised curriculum is marketed successfully and the added new students' families are able to pay a significantly higher tuition. Increasing enrollment will involve catering to a different demographic and require redefining the mission of the institution, at least implicitly. Regarding marketing of the new curriculum, the Partnership provides all the current buzz words and a plan. None-the-less such a turn-around could take years and a considerable investment in advertising, marketing, infrastructure improvements, curriculum development, professional development and technology.

I do not understand how the Archdiocese decides which high schools will receive what amount of financial support from the Archdiocese. If the article is even somewhat accurate, it seems that even Sister McCaughey does not know the formula and has little control over the Archdiocese's contributions. At least she admits that St. Gregory's receipts are "out of whack." I also question the tuition. If the tuition is (will be) $7,700 and 85% of the students are receiving (will receive) financial assistance of $3,200, the out-of-pocket tuition for those families is only $4,500 (assuming one student/family). There is not enough information in the article to determine the sources of other revenue. Having had considerable experience with budgets and finance at rather high levels, I can say with some confidence that while St. Gregory might be able to implement "a new technology-based teaching and learning initiative," unless it finds other sources of revenue, it will do so without a sufficient and significant increase in hardware, software and technology professional development.

I would support any educational program or effort designed to replace rote memorization and curricula replete with standards and objectives not readily transferable to life after college with "a curriculum based on a national model that emphasizes analytical thinking, problem solving and communication. . . .” It just makes sense to me that that should be the direction we should be heading, in part and admittedly, arguably so. The pedagogical model espoused by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills is not new. It is simply "constructionism" or "constructivism" organized, operationalized and digitalized. The Partnership calls it a "framework" and as is usual with academic models, is represented by a graphic:

The rainbow in the upper portion of the graphic represents student outcomes and the light blue rings on the lower portion represent support systems or "inputs" in systems theory. Notable is the emphasis on outcome skills rather than knowledge. Skills have historically been associated more with training than with formal education. This is a bit of a clue to how the program operationalizes learning. Additionally, I am concerned that Information, Media, and Technology Skills occupy a separate outcome area implying that they should continue to be skills learned separate from the core subjects and life and career skills. I question whether learning technology for technology's sake is an efficient use of educational time, or that using technology only as an advanced digitalized pencil, whiteboard or calculator is an efficient use of very limited funds. One can summarize 21^st Century skills as the ability to use a range of electronic technologies to access, synthesize and apply information; the ability to think critically and creatively and evaluate the products of one’s thinking; and the ability to communicate effectively and collaborate with others, particularly in diverse and multicultural settings. While I have only given their 28 page guide a cursory look, I think the Partnership does intend that technology be fully integrated into the other outcome categories. And the guide does not recommend or even encourage a 1:1 learning initiative (a laptop for every student). So, what’s new except the cant--“21^st Century skills?” Except for the introduction of electronic technology (certainly not restricted to the 21^st Century), these skills have been recognized as desirable educational goals as far back as Aristotle. Lastly, while I find reference in the 21^st Century skills mantra to creativity as it relates to utility and workplace productivity, there is no mention of  aesthetics, intellectual play, imagination, the pleasure of a subject, and just plain wonder. How un-engaging is that?

1:1 programs are rightfully controversial among educators and technologists alike. There are obvious disadvantages almost all of which tend to be practical and financial. The advantages, purported to be educational, are not so obvious and certainly not scientifically validated. In upper income environments, 1:1 programs tend to benefit students. However, in lower income environments, the challenges presented by the disadvantages tend to nullify the potential advantages. Because it is so difficult to establish controls in the educational environment, each side of the issue has the right to have issues with the results of any 1:1 experiment. I come down on both sides. If a school can afford it and the students are coming from a culture that values and supports early and life-long learning, a 1:1 program's advantages will outweigh the disadvantages. On the other hand. . . . In other words, I do not think that St. Gregory will benefit from a 1:1 learning initiative (other than as a marketing ploy).

Dr. Alford and her curriculum consulting company appear to be spearheading the program using Holy Family Catholic Academy as a template. As a model for St. Gregory, Holy Family does not fit well. It is a Pre-K-8 institution in a relatively homogeneous upper class suburb. St. Gregory is a high school serving a diverse under class population. Twenty-one percent of Holy Family’s students receive financial aid; 85% of St. Gregory’s students receive financial aid. Holy Family’s student body is more than double that of St. Gregory. Holly Family has 44 teachers and a staff of seven; St. Gregory has 16 teachers and staff of 11 (top heavy?). Holy Family has a relationship with a local college that affords Holy Family students frequent access to state-of-the-art science labs, computer labs and a performing arts theatre (surely at some cost to Holy Family) and their faculty includes six adjunct Harper College faculty members; it is unlikely that St. Gregory has such a relationship. Holy Family’s middle school students possess netbook computers, either family-leased or provided by the school. (As an aside, the article mentions that Holy Family students use Harper College’s computer and technological facilities three mornings a week, yet the middle school has implemented a 1:1 program and their website boasts, “All classrooms have wireless internet connections and are equipped with multiple computers.”)

In conclusion, I fail to see any causal relationship between the initiatives outlined in the article and resolving St. Gregory’s financial difficulties.

Excellent Article on What's Wrong with Education in U.S.

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2153/the_vampire_school.aspx#.UV6u0H9wo8E

The article is lengthy but a couple of significant points can be garnered from the following dialogue and the third to last paragraph.

The dialogue:

Someone knocks at your door.  “Hello,” says the fellow, flashing his card.  “My name is John Smith.  I hear you have a twelve-year-old boy here.”

“Yes, my son Bobby.  Has he gotten into any trouble?”

“Oh no, sir, not yet.  I am simply here to talk to him about sex.”

“I see.”

“Yes, I am licensed by the state and the school district,” he says, flashing another card, “to talk to Bobby about sex.  He is here, perhaps?”  The man elbows his way into the living room, glancing at the titles of the books in your bookcase.

“As a matter of fact, he isn’t.  He’s down by the pond fishing with his little brother.”

“A pond, fishing,” says the man, writing on a notepad.  “Unsupervised fishing at a pond.  Very well.  When may I see him?  My appointments are rapidly filling up.”

“Shouldn’t I first know something about you?” you ask, naively.  “Suppose you don’t believe the same things I believe.”

“My dear sir,” says the man, arching an eyebrow, and smiling ever so slightly, “it is not your place to know anything about me.  If there’s any knowing going on, it will be I who must find things out about you.  But really,” he continues, assuming an academic air, “the subject of sex is as scientific and precise as physics or mathematics, so that what you happen to believe about it is of no more import than what you believe about the composition of the moon, or the area of a circle.  It is a part of my work”—here he lowers his voice to something between a purr and a growl—“to disabuse young people of theprejudices their parents bring to sex.  Now then, when will your son be available?”

You hesitate.  More writing on the notepad.

“Will tomorrow at noon be all right?”

“Tomorrow at three, fine.”

You begin to close the door.  “Not so fast,” says Mr. Smith.  “There’s the little matter of the fee.”

“You mean you are going to charge me money for this?”

“My dear sir,” he beams, “recall, I am an expert.  You wouldn’t want to do your own plumbing, would you?  No, of course not.  Or prepare your own meals, except under duress?  Or provide your own entertainment?  Play your own musical instruments?  Invent your own sports?  Get together with your own neighbors to play cards?  Build your own garage?  Farm your own land?  Read your own old and musty books, and think about them by yourself?  Make love to your own wife without the aid of expert tips from magazines and pornographic videos?  Worship God with your fellow believers?”

“What’s wrong with that?” you stammer, but he snaps the notebook shut.  “I haven’t all day.  Here is my bill.  I make $50 an hour.  Sixty hours with Bobby should about do it.  If he fails, my colleague Ms. Jones will be available for remedial lessons.  Good day.”

And you give in.

The third to last paragraph:  'When children are ready to learn a subject, they will learn it. He tells of a group of his school’s nine-year-olds and twelve-year-olds, who suddenly announced that they wanted to learn arithmetic—all of it.  So he dug up a textbook from 1898, full of examples and exercises, and gave it to them.  Addition took two classes, he says, and subtraction another two.  The children memorized the multiplication tables, then tackled the exercises.  “They were high, all of them,” he says, “sailing along, mastering all the techniques and algorithms.”  Then they went on to long division, fractions, decimals, percentages, and square roots.  “In twenty weeks, after twenty contact hours, they had covered it all,” writes Greenberg, “six years’ worth.” '

I believe that applies as well to adults.