The Role and Importance of Standardized Testing in the World of Teaching and Training

     In spite of the negative connotation caused by the two words, author and researcher Richard Phelps is a true believer in standardized testing. At the 15^th Congress of the World Association for Educational Research in Marrakesh, Morocco in June of 2007, Phelps presented his theories on the benefits of standardized testing,

     As part of his early remarks, Phelps acknowledges that standardized testing is the “greatest single social contribution of modern psychology, and may be the most useful evaluation method available for human resource-intensive endeavors.” However, he does manage to address both sides of the issue.

     In his research, Phelps brings some interesting data to the table, including a study on the evaluation of student work, which shows an incredible range between the lowest and highest scores in several instances. To my surprise, his studies date from the early 1910’s to today. As the author notes, studies on teacher grading objectivity have been going on for decades, and the results are always the same. As far as standardized testing is concerned, Phelps dates their existence all the way back to the Chinese civil service exam, which began centuries ago.

     It is evident that this author brings much research to the table to show both sides of the issue. He takes the trouble to examine the arguments against “test bias” and “discrimination.” Like any good persuasive arguer, Phelps defends his argument while answering the critics in the process.

The Role and Importance of Standardized Testing in the World of Teaching and Training

     Phelps begins his study by asking one simple question, “Why standardized testing?” He readily admits that they are not perfect evaluation tools, but can provide information that no other evaluation can provide.

     His main argument is a strong one, and the author has surprising evidence backing him up. Phelps’ main supporting argument for standardized testing is that without it, we would have to rely more on individual teacher grading and testing. At face value, this doesn’t seem valid, but there is almost 100 years of research backing up this point. The first study used comes from researchers Starch and Elliott (1912) who made copies of two actual English examinations and sent them to teachers to grade and return. To their surprise, the grades ranged from 50 to 98 percent. Of the 142 teachers used for this study, 14 scored the paper below 80 percent, while 14 scored it above 94.

     Surprised by the results, the pair repeated the procedure with an exam from another content area (Geometry.) The results were more stunning as these grades ranged from 28 to 92 percent. In this case, twenty of the 116 papers were scored below 60 percent, and nine above 85. Later researchers found the same results. In essence, teachers’ marks are an unreliable means of measurement.

     Further research on the topic has enlightened as to why this has occurred. Other studies have shown that American teachers consider “nearly everything” when grading student work, including class participation, perceived effort, student progress, and other factors. In one particular study, it was shown that 66 percent of teachers felt that their perception of a student’s ability should be taken into consideration in awarding the final grade (Frary, Cross, & Weber 1993). Needless to say, standardized tests do not reflect how many absences a student has or how well a student participates in class. There is no room for any type of bias, whether it is gender, ethnic, or class. Phelps wraps up this section of standardized test defense by stating that “it is more than an antidote to biased judgment. We need standardized tests because each of us is a prisoner of our own limited experiences and observations.” He also goes on to say that these tests provide an opportunity to be free of subjectivity, whether it is due to bias or Bayesian (time-saving) shortcuts.

Looking Far Into The Past

     As previously mentioned, Phelps goes far back for research to support his points. His first found use of the standardized test dates back to the administration of the Chinese civil service exam many centuries ago (Zeng, 1999, 8). This is a remedial example of the test, and the author adds that the “scientific” standardized test is actually about 100 years old.

     Because of the long use of standardized tests, Phelps’ second argument is that testing technology has improved at an amazing rate in a brief period. There are many reasons for this, including increased complexity and sophistication in the product, the ability to provide more information for the price, and a better format, with more reliability, fairness, and validity than its predecessors.

     While admitting that quick improvement in a product carries some risk, the author also argues that they have improved in quality and convenience, and actually become more difficult for the average person or policymaker to understand. Phelps does harbor negative feelings toward policy makers, especially when he discusses the No Child Left Behind act. He feels that the newfound complexity of testing for public purposes has been lost on the politicians and policy makers who have chosen other reasons to use standardized testing.

The Debate Continues: Are There Special Interests?

     Phelps continues his study with a long discussion about the ongoing debate with regard to standardized testing, and how the debates are “primitive and one-sided.” He goes on to explain the reason for this by citing a theory from the late economist Mancur Olsen (1965, 1982), which explained the political power of “special interests” in democratic societies.

     Here’s Olsen’s argument. Individuals join specialized groups with political power, such as a professional association of educators. The members receive benefits and become entrenched in the status quo. Increased benefits, such as the absence of standardized testing programs, come at a cost (lowered student achievement.) Over time, the wealthy and powerful groups become more accepting of the faulty system because of the benefits they have received in the past.

     Since there is an extensive breakdown of governance in the educational systems, from the Federal, to state, to local levels, there are numerous opportunities to saturate the country with preferred policy related information, while blocking out contrary points of view. Olsen’s feels that the importance of standardized testing got lost in the political shuffle, and make it a point to argue that the supporting literature is hard to locate. Phelps views this as unnecessary censorship.

Response – Is Phelps Creditable?

     I was impressed with the breadth of Phelps’ findings. It is remarkable to uncover findings from a 90-year-old study and realize that the findings are arguably valid in 2008. Phelps appears more credible by stating that many other studies over the past 90 years have supported the argument of wide variance in teacher grading. I do wish Phelps had chosen to identify more of these studies, but realize that this paper was presented at a global conference and may have required parameters, including a content limit.

     Still, the author does a good job at making his argument for standardized testing and directing his points toward the most explosive topic in education today, the No Child Left Behind Act. Personally, I believe that there can be some teacher bias in grading, but am surprised to find that one credible (I assume) teacher scored a paper 98 while another gave the same paper a 50.

     I am not sure that a national standardized testing system is the best answer.  I am not sure that Phelps is convinced of this either. It appears that his point is that the forces of censorship and suppression should be removed so that the public can have a better look at the benefits of standardized testing. With all of the knowledge in hand, the American public will be in a better position to make up its collective mind. Without all of the information, we leave these decisions to the policymakers and keepers of the status quo who may not have the best credentials to make these decisions.

References

Frary, R. B., Cross, L. H., & Weber, L. J. (1993). Testing and grading practices and opinions of           secondary school teachers of academic subjects: Implications for instruction in measurement, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(3), 23+.

Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups,

     Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.

Olson, M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations: Economic growth, stagflation, and social 

    rigidities, New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press.

Phelps, R. P. (2003). Kill the messenger: The war on standardized testing. New Brunswick, NJ,

    

     USA: Transaction Publishers.

Phelps, R. P., Ed. (2005a). Defending standardized testing. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence

     Erlbaum.

Phelps, R.P. (2007a). The dissolution of education knowledge. Educational Horizons, 85(4),

     232–247.

Phelps, R.P. (2008). Educational achievement testing fallacies, Chapter 3 in R.P. Phelps (Ed.),

     Correcting fallacies about educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC, USA:

     American Psychological Association.

Phelps, R.P. (2008). The role and importance of standardized testing in the world of teaching

    and training. Nonpartisan Education Review / Essays, 4(3). Retrieved [date] from:

    http://npe.educationnews.org/Review/Essays/v4n3.htm

Gauging the 2012 Republican Presidential Candidates – Is there a legitimate contender?

Sometimes timing is everything. Last Thursday, I broached the idea of developing a list of potential Republican candidates to compete against President Obama in 2012 while gauging some of my Obama predictions from three years ago. Lo and behold, last Friday, nationally syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer weighed in with his “horserace” odds for the party of elephants. After a weekend to digest the scorecard, political watchdog Dick Morris chimed in with his analysis of Krauthammer’s odds – out of professional respect, of course.

But the prognosticating was not limited to the “inside the Beltway” bunch. Even “King of All Media” Howard Stern weighed in about his buddy Donald Trump for the benefit of his Sirius radio audience. Don’t underestimate Stern’s knowledge of politics. For the uninformed, he made a run for the New York governorship against Mario Cuomo in 1994. To the shock of many, he was well entrenched near the top of the leaderboard (as a Libertarian nonetheless!) before the question of personal finances came up. Stern refused to disclose his personal wealth and the momentum quickly faded.

There appears to be agreement on the cast of characters holding a hat in hand. For the sake of argument, and with deference to the professional politicos, here is one person’s opinion of the most likely Republican candidate to Rock the Red (sorry fellow Caps fans!) states.

Just for fun, I’ll even go as far as trying to pick the order of dropout.

First of all, here’s who we won’t see come New Hampshire time:

Donald Trump – as mentioned last week, I am with the group that sees Trump’s run as a publicity stunt. Stern agrees. “I know Donald. He’s not running...it’s a goof!” Admittedly, I find him fun to watch. But, I think Trump accomplished his mission on Wednesday by forcing Obama to hold a press conference to address the birth certificate issue. Speaking of which, how surreal was that??? I was waiting for the Andrew Shepherd moment… “Trump, your 15 minutes are up. My name is Barack Obama and I AM the President!” My guess is “the Donald” claims victory for the conservatives, continues to rant and rave for six more weeks, and then drops out -- not quietly, of course.

Sarah Palin – really, does anyone really see her running? I believe that her presidential aspirations ended the day she quit as governor of Alaska. Yes, quit. Then again, it may have been the day she realized that being paid to stump for others was easier than facing the fire herself. And paid well, indeed. Between the books, TV shows, and appearance fees, Mrs. Palin is poised to possibly earn about $50 million over the next eight years. The good part is, we don’t have to consider voting for her. Not that I was going to anyway. Her interview with Katie Couric spoke volumes without saying a whole lot except the VP candidate was quite obtuse.

Haley Barbour – just dropped out. I don’t know much about Barbour except that he was a well-liked Southern governor in the Clintonian sense. But, he’s not running anyway, so never mind.

Now, for the candidates, in the order they will drop out:

Ron Paul – saw him in the paper today considering a run, which means he probably believes the third time is the charm. It won’t be. Paul might not make it through New Hampshire.

Newt Gingrich – I would love to have Gingrich as a history professor. He is usually the brightest bulb in a room. But he is a retread of sorts. Back in 1993-94, the former House speaker enjoyed rock star status and enjoyed every second as the anti-Clinton. Then Clinton beat him at his own game over the government shutdown and the fire subsided. Between the fact that no one under 30 really knows who he is and his previous failures at marriage (a president should be a stable family man), I don’t think he has much of a chance and will be gone before his bus can get out of the Granite state.

Michelle Bachmann – since Palin has not declared herself to be a non-candidate, I don’t see Bachmann having enough time to build momentum after Palin bows out. They appeal to the same voters (Tea Party) which keeps them from being viable if they both run. I don’t know much about Bachmann either, and at this point I should know something without having to watch Fox News.

Mitch Daniels – former governor of Indiana. Good reputation and apparently no major flaws or scandals. Daniels is known for education work as governor, particularly with school choice. He is able to lead, as governorship is a good stepping stone to the White House (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and G.W. Bush). I just don’t think he is well known enough and will have some fund raising trouble versus the more experienced campaign machines. But he’ll get a message out and leave a mark for later.

Tim Pawlenty – another former governor (Minnesota). Good reputation and the important Republican players seem to keep mentioning his name, so I think he outlasts Daniels and emerges from the fray as a VP candidate. Morris mentioned something about a Gov. Pawlenty plan enabling Muslims to buy interest-free homes as a liability. I’d like to hear more about. Honestly, I can’t pick him out of a lineup…yet.

Top Two

Mike Huckabee – in 2006, I was attending a Bishop Ireton/St.Mary's Academy High School homecoming with the 25^th reunion (class before mine) being hosted by SMA alumna Kirsten Fedewa. Kirsten has worked on Capitol Hill as a lobbyist and also in politician’s offices, but her business these days has expanded beyond politics. However, five years ago, she had one focus. “I’m working for Mike Huckabee.” My first (and second and third) response was “Who?”  Reply - “The Governor of Arkansas...I’m working on his presidential campaign.” The “Who?” was followed by “What?” Actually, Kirsten was handling his press and public relations in the D.C. area among other things. She must know her stuff as millions learned about the Arkansas minister turned governor.

I like Huckabee. His show might be the only one I watch on Fox. He is honest and wholesome and plays the bass! He was the governor of Arkansas and begins front office experience to the race. His surprise showing in 2008 shows an ability to appeal to the masses and his show of humility on Saturday Night Live’s “Weekend Update” was priceless. “Governor Huckabee, you know that you have been mathematically eliminated from the race?”… “Oh.”

Barbour’s departure opens up the South for Huckabee.

Mitt Romney – another experienced campaign veteran. Former governor of Massachusetts. Some complain about his failed health care plan in the Bay State, but it’s better to learn from one’s mistake as governor than on Pennsylvania Ave. Devout Mormon. I don’t see his religion being a negative among centrists. I see many others concentrating on his role as a family man.

Also, Romney is appealing because of his vast wealth. A candidate who gives the appearance of invincibility when it comes to needing money always draws attention. It’s hard to dislike a candidate willing to invest tens (probably hundreds if he lasts long enough) of millions of his own money into a campaign. He can wait out the pretenders.

Romney has seen and done it. Back in 2008, there was a prevailing feeling that it was McCain’s turn. Give the war hero and long-time Senator a chance. There is no sentimental favorite this time.

My hunch is that these two will duke it out through the second half of the campaign season and one will emerge as the candidate. I’d give Romney the slightest of nudges.

Who do I think will win the general election in 2012? Stay tuned.

How to define “an educated citizenry” in the 21st century

Founding father Thomas Jefferson is often credited with the quotation, “an educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.” Although the citation is inaccurate, it is a fairly precise paraphrasing of our third president’s views on the importance of education.

While Jefferson may not have uttered these words almost 200 years ago, the importance of the thought is as relevant in the 21^st century as it was in the 19^th. Even today, educational groups will gather to discuss the meaning of “educated citizenry.” After coming to a consensus on the definition, the next step is to determine how to acquire it.

Expanding Beyond the Schools

The quest for meaning transcends beyond the educational milieu. For example, in December 2010, the Missouri State Senate announced the creation of its education report, entitled “Educated Citizenry 2020.” The objective was to set standards for Missouri students to reach by 2020 and the panel addressed several issues including goals for standardized passing rate (75%) and graduates earning college degrees (60%).

 Other issues addressed focused on the process to be used to reach these goals. Included in the report were sections dealing with the expansion of charter schools and reformed teacher compensation, particularly the addition of voluntary merit pay for teachers. These additions mirrored the ideals presented by the Department of Education’s Race to the Top program, a series of mandates delivered from the federal to the state level requiring state systems to make adjustments in return for increased federal funding. States earn points for implementing various federal guidelines and money is delegated based on the placing of each state – hence, a race.

 The View from Hollywood

 Even filmmakers and celebrities have gotten into the act of defining “educated citizenry.” In September 2010, Davis Guggenheim introduced us to his vision of education’s current state. Called “Waiting for Superman,” the movie focuses on the lives of five diverse students. The intention was to have at least one student remind the viewer of someone he or she knew, thus enhancing the connect to and affection for each student. The film acted to serve as a motivational factor for teachers and “reality lens” for non-educators.

The charter school movement has also gained several famous followers, most notably Oprah Winfrey, who has opened her own Seven Fountain Primary School in South Africa, while donating millions of dollars to several charter school systems through her Angel Network. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has also donated billions of dollars to various educational organizations, in many cases to enhance technology as well as math and science curricula. In one instance, the foundation donated $1.37 billion dollars to the United Negro College Fund for the creation of the Gates Millennium Scholars program.

Our Global Neighbors Agree

The quest to define “educated citizenry” is not limited to American citizens. A recent article by Michael White in London’s Guardian newspaper centered on the need for an educated workforce and educated citizenry. White theorized that educational issues had become front page news because of the tie-in to a country’s economic situation. With the decline of manual labor positions, education has become more important for survival in an increasingly scholarly society. Also, the author looked at the export value of a quality education for the country of England as a whole.

While there may not be an agreement on the definition of “educated citizenry,” the core of the meaning focuses toward educational progress on a global scale. There may be disagreement on the means necessary to achieve the end result, but the goal remains constant.

Obama in 2011 - How Does My Prediction from 2008 Look?

A little over two years ago, Helium.com, a writing web site that I am a proud member of, posed a question to its aspiring writers. Barack Obama was not yet president, but had just been elected. The question presented was, “What do you think will happen during a President Obama administration? What will the world be like in four years?” Sorry, that’s two questions.

Last week, the White House announced that President Obama is now in campaign mode. I’m bothered by this news. First of all, he spent more than half of his Senate career running for President; now it appears that he will spend almost half of his first term running for re-election. One may beg to disagree, but do the math. After twenty-six months of a 48 month term, the hat is back in the ring and the fundraisers are a go.

Perhaps it’s a sign of the times. But, I think the President is getting back to what he does best, which is communicating with Americans. He inherited a huge mess, but as time goes on, the blame for the mess has now transferred to him. He needs to get out and remind people why they voted for him in 2008, so yes, posting a bid for re-election will work for Obama.

Most knowledgeable people realized that one person was not going to shake up the entire way things are done in Washington. The Founding Fathers took care of that with the system of “checks and balances.” Those that did believe in the myth have now processed the Kool-Aid and are either going back for seconds or switching to tea.

But all said, I’m sure our president is trying. My angst over the re-election announcement comes from my belief that there is really no formidable competition. No Democrat has emerged and probably won’t as the bold act of challenging the incumbent usually becomes the kiss of death to the  party in the White House (think Kennedy vs. Carter in 1980 or Buchanan et al vs. George H.W. Bush  in 1992). Obama is safe within his own party.

How about the Republicans? I’m not seeing any challenge yet. Let’s look at the cast of characters. Actually, I’d like to do that for next Thursday.

But, I will add this. The biggest noise from the Republicans this week is coming from Donald Trump. This alone should prove my theory about no real competition.

I have another theory about why this has happened. First of all, it's hard to imagine that Trump is a serious candidate. The job doesn’t pay enough and his “art of the deal” doesn’t play well among political types.

So why run? PUBLICITY! As we know, the real estate market is in a massive slump. Does anyone remember what happened the last time the market headed south? Trump almost went broke. Here’s the irony. He was so far underwater that his creditors (billionaire owing lots of folks money?) could not just write him off. They had to partner up and work with “The Donald” in order to save their own behinds. By being broke, Trump managed sweetheart agreements and kept most of his companies in tact. Savvy business move.

But this is 2011. Are we to believe that his numerous properties are not devaluing like everything else out there? When a business is in trouble, the solution is to sell the brand. With Trump, he IS the brand. I heard him today bragging that he was worth $7 billion dollars. Either he’s lying (which would make him a politician!) or he was worth $10 billion three years ago. Just something to think about...

And now for my Obama prediction from late 2008. You will have to trust that I did not touch this. I am happy about the Hillary Clinton prediction, as well as the Dow at 12,000. Stay tuned for the $1.1 billion for the re-election campaign. White House has already said $1 billion. McCain in defense hasn’t happened and the five percent unemployment is laughable. Way off on the 2010 Congressional prediction.  I’ll save any comments about the Palin/Jindal 2012 ticket for next week.

Here it is:

November 30, 2008

It's 2012, decision time again: Did President Barack Obama live up to his great promise? Even in 2012, the Internet continues to amaze me. Four years ago, Americans proved to the world that we were worldly, and elected a true Renaissance man as President. Back then, we laughed at the Verizon television commercials suggesting that a cell phone user would be followed by thousands of people from the network. As it turned out, the network could not only hear us, but reach back to us as well.

Obama entered office with his own army of three million Internet users, poised and ready to act on the new president's call. The same mass of keypunchers who helped Obama in the 2008 election also proved to be better than any lobbyist group on K Street. Thanks to modern technology and dreaded cookies on computers, Big Brother became more than George Orwell's vision of the future; it turned into part of our daily existence. I cannot fault Obama for this new twist in our democratic process. As it turned out, he put together a great Cabinet, and in the spirit of good government, brought Republicans and Democrats together in a way we have not seen in our lifetimes. Hillary Clinton proved to be an effective world leader as Secretary of State, and John McCain proved to be a great Secretary of Defense after finishing his Senate term. President Obama did a very smart thing in properly delegating military and foreign affairs to others while he concentrated on the American economy.

As the president prepares for his re-election against the Palin/Jindal ticket, I think that he is in for a tough fight to reclaim his seat at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., but some signs are favorable. The economy made a turn upward, but did not quite reach expected numbers. The Dow index hovers around 12,000, and it is safe to invest in stocks again, particularly with utilities, health care companies, and Wal-Mart. Unemployment is at five percent, as many Americans have found jobs. Still, many other Americans choose to live from the benefits of the social programs reinstated in the past four years, in spite of Obama's strong rhetorical pleas for those individuals to get jobs. Free health care is easier to find for those who need it, but universal care remains an unforeseeable happening. Although the 2010 congressional elections added six more representatives and two senators to the Democratic side, the filibuster proof Democrat-run Congress fell a bit short, as the Republicans pulled all of their resources together to hold on to needed seats.

How did the Republicans manage to hold a relative measure of power? Essentially, there was a backlash as Americans became tired of the requests for help and money from the army of Obama networkers. Whether the pleas came by e-mail or door-to-door canvassing, the privacy that many wish for was interrupted over the past four years. There was a benefit for the President as the network did raise $1.1 billion for the Obama 2012 re-election campaign.

President Obama has done an admirable job living up to his great promise. I am sure that his gray hair is a testament to his effort. However, as re-election looms in the near future, Obama has come to realize how great the obstacles are. He is making progress and should win re-election. As Americans, this will mean hunkering down for the next wave of communications from the network. Yes, we can hear you now. Good.

Of course, comments are welcome, especially since we’ll be back on this topic next week. Have a wonderful weekend!

Examining Fullan's "Culture of Change"

Michael Fullan opens his preface to “Leading in a Culture of Change” by noting that “the more complex society gets, the more sophisticated leadership must become.” I am thankful that Fullan didn’t prove this point by inundating the reader with hundreds of pages of material regarding the complexities of leadership.

This is a useful book which reads quickly because the author sticks to five basic components of leadership that are used to represent what he calls “independent but mutual reinforcing forces for positive change.” By sticking to his script, Fullan delivers an impressive argument for future leaders everywhere.

Fullan’s five framework components are - moral purpose, understanding change, relationship building, knowledge creation and sharing and coherence making. His points make sense because they work as long as the leader continually works on improvement with each component with the energy and enthusiasm requested by the author.

The first component is moral purpose. Business leaders might lose sight of this, but it should be of utmost importance in an academic milieu. The main thought of this argument states that the means are as important as the ends. In other words, the importance of moral purpose comes from the trust and stability built into the relationships developed. Human relations are the key. This theme resonates over many of Fullan’s components, and it should. A leader truly is nothing without followers, and they are built through relationships. It is felt that working on improvement with all five qualities will naturally lead to an increasingly moral pursuit.

The next component is understanding change. With the great speed and “nonlinearity” of change, Fullan suggests that there will be messiness involved with any creative breakthrough. While others may say that change is not “rocket science,” Fullan strongly disagrees, although the witch doctor source (Micklethwait and Wooldridge, 1996) may have been extreme.

I appreciate how well Fullan cites other processes in search of the happy medium. On the topic of change, his take on others theories is that it seems contradictory and that one could get confused deciding on a best theory to follow. Perhaps change cannot be “managed,” but it can be led and the leadership is meaningful. Goleman’s six leadership styles were an interesting addition to the argument, particularly by stating that two (coercive and pacesetting) led to a negative climate and reduced performance among groups. The argument for being careful about trying to make too many innovations is sound advice for any leader.

Next is what I think is the most pertinent of the five components, relationship building. Fullan puts it as “job two” but I think you need one for the other (moral purpose - job one). The genuineness in relationships is very important and I appreciate the statement about burying the cynic who said “leadership is about sincerity, and once you learn to fake that, you’ve got it made.” There is no room for “faking it” in education, as even the kids can see through a phony persona.

The example of Superintendent Alvarado in District 2, San Diego is a good case study of the case re-culturing or an educational organization and the seven principles of the reform strategy (instruction only, instructional improvement as a long, multistage process, shared expertise, focus on systemwide improvement, talented people work together, clear expectations, followed by decentralization and collegiality, caring and respect being paramount) are a good model for others to follow.

Knowledge building is the fourth of Fullan’s five principles. This works best when we look at the power of people and see people as the root of knowledge. This sounds like such a simple task to accomplish, but so few organizations, especially in the education industry put out their best efforts toward collaborating the resources of their members through knowledge sharing activities. In the culture of change, the sharing of knowledge toward the acquisition of new knowledge is key. Relationships may be the key, but shared knowledge is crucial among groups. This sharing should not be mandated, but freely transferred back and forth. If treated as a core value, the sharing helps build relationships among group members, helping the overall culture of the organization. The session with an instructional leader and 22 principals studying a video of one of the principals conducting a staff meaning leads to a true learning opportunity.

Fullan’s final component is coherence making. Having already acknowledged the messiness associated with change, it made sense to have the last component deal with the “cleaning-up” involved with change. The effective leader is the one who recognizes that not all change starts out as a neat process, and the ability to let go and then rein in is a requirement. The disturbance involved has to be deliberate and have a desired outcome at the end. This is especially important in education where mandates can come from many different levels and the burden is almost overwhelming from outside the building. This gets back to the importance of not undertaking too many projects at once. Hatch’s (2000) survey showing that roughly two-thirds of schools were engaged in three or less programs bodes well for the mental health of their employees.

The truth is that the new interactions resulting from a major change do cause shifts in the organization and this situation can build coherence, but only if the effort is led properly with an end result in mind. Few positive changes happen by accident, although there may be by-product positive changes which are unexpected. The “strange attractor” term works well here, much like the “politics makes strange bedfellows” argument from class.

There are some other thoughts about Fullan, particularly with the Tortoise and Hare analogy. There are several concepts mentioned in this text which appear to go against the grain. The idea of seeking out resistance seems to go against some leadership teachings of the past. But the term “slow knowing” jumped out at me. If leadership in a culture of change is about learning how to cope in a quickly changing world, is there time for slow, calculated thinking?

Claxton (1997) believes so and his reasoning is as follows: “...the more patient, less deliberate modes are particularly suited to making sense of situations that are intricate, shadowy or ill defined.” The belief is that it takes a patient and confident leader to be able to wait. Claxton calls it “inner security.” Part of this skill includes having the ability to listen and to think things through after hearing all of the information. By comparison, less successful leaders make up their minds quickly and listen less afterwards.

I agree with almost all of Fullan’s viewpoints because they make sense and depend on skills that most people possess, but don’t always build. To be capable of leading in a culture of change requires listening skills, the ability to build relationships, strong moral beliefs, team building skills and knowledge creation. The effective leader understands and is willing to accept the chaos when may initially ensue when change occurs. However, having patience and a set objective can lead to success. This a useful, no-nonsense book.

  References

Claxton, G. (1997). Hare brained and tortoise mind. London: Fourth Estate.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.

Hatch, T. (2000). What happens when multiple improvement initiatives collide. Menlo Park, CA:

       Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Micklethwait, J., and Wooldridge, A. (1996). The witch doctors: Making sense of management

       gurus. New York: Random House.

Should College Athletes Be Paid?

As the college basketball season wound down to a close earlier this month, millions of fans watched the Cinderella dreams of  Virginia Commonwealth (VCU), and then Butler, falter under the pressure of better talent. In the end, Connecticut, a longtime roundball powerhouse, cut down the nets in Houston and gave their 68-year old coach Jim Calhoun his third championship.
 
For Calhoun, the celebration was the culmination of a trying season, which saw his Huskies finish ninth in the Big East. After thirty-plus years of coaching, Calhoun could probably live for another season with a ninth-place finish, but his reputation was tarnished more by charges of recruit tampering within his program, which turned out to be true, resulting in a three-game suspension for next year.
 
But Calhoun may not stick around for next season. His contract with U. Conn paid him a handsome $2.3 million salary this season, plus bonuses with added hundreds of thousands more. Calhoun is a rich man and a Hall of Famer who probably doesn’t need to face the embarrassment of watching someone else coach his team next year.

However, his base salary paled in comparison to the $3.8 million paid to Kentucky’s John Calipari or the $3.575 million shelled out to Florida’s Billy Donovan. In fact, all three men were paupers next to Louisville’s Rick Pitino who earned over $7.5 million this year, mostly due to a $3.6 million bonus which he earned for .. wait for it.. completing three years of his contract. There is another $3.6 million waiting for him in 2014, assuming he can simply do his job.

 It was newsworthy when VCU’s Shaka Smart saw his salary quadruple from 325K to 1.3 million over eight years, but in reality, his salary would still be lower than 26 of the coaches from the NCAA tournament.

Oh yes, this does not necessarily count the money coaches make from “camps,” shoe deals and TV/radio shows.

Basketball coaches are not alone. Many football coaches enjoy seven figure salaries, free country club memberships, complimentary cars, use of the university plane and such to walk the sidelines of proud football schools like Michigan and Ohio State. In a true story of irony, Buckeye coach Jim Tressel and several of his players fell under the watchful eye of the NCAA sanctioning committee when it was learned that the players may have sold memorabilia for as much as ..wait for it again.. $2,500.

Oh Mother of Pearl, the humanity!!!

For what it’s worth, a university which can produce a football team worthy of making one of the five BCS bowls stands to rake in almost $20 million.

One of the best movies ever made regarding this topic is 1994’s underrated “Blue Chips,” starring Nick Nolte, with Shaquille O'Neal and Penny Hardaway playing two of the players recruited into a clean program gone dirty after a 15-17 season at the fictitious “Western U.” In one memorable scene, a disgusted Nolte, as coach Pete Bell, leaves his watering hole after the appearance of “Happy,” a corrupt booster and “friend of the program” who has been selected to make sure that Nolte’s three recruits get what they want. As Bell chastises Happy in the parking lot for buying players into the Western programs, an equally disgusted Happy (J.T. Walsh) retorts with a cry that echoes even today. “We owe it to them Coach..we OWE it to them!!”

But do we?

In theory, I am sickened by the disparity between what coaches and players receive for their part in being part of a successful college program. Coaches such as Calipari and Pitino seem to leave their trail of destruction behind at every stop. Calipari has been to the Final Four three times, but the first two were vacated after allegations of NCAA violations were found to be true. Bob Huggins of West Virginia left the University of Cincinnati after a DUI charge, and it was later rumored that none of his players graduated.

How does the NCAA respond? By stating that players receive free tuition, books, as well as room and board. Period. As ably noted by Sally Jenkins in a recent Washington Post article, there is more. Players receive “world-class professional training, the showcase in front of prospective employers, the medical care, the free head-to-toe Nike or Adidas gear, the plush travel and nice hotel rooms...” I might also add the collectable memorabilia (like the kind the Ohio State players sold) and in the case of a BCS football game, swag bags full of watches and other knick knacks.

Originally, I was all for paying college athletes, but Jenkins’ article made me engage in deeper thought. Most of the schools in question cost $25-40 thousand a year to attend, as many of the players are from out of state. The athletic gear is worth thousands of dollars a year (i.e. basketball players can expect a brand new pair of $150 kicks every month, never mind the sweats and other apparel). And you can bet that the U. Conn’s and Ohio State’s of the world do not send their players to the Super 8 to rest for a big game. Their hotels need to include lots of room for the high charged and high balled alumni who tote their vast wealth from city to city to follow their team. Talk about a networking opportunity???

Here’s the other problem. We’re talking about two sports. Women’s basketball is close to becoming the third and completing the trifecta, but I’ll wait to see what happens after Pat Summitt and Geno Auriemma retire. From the two sports, not everyone is enjoying in the profits. It was interesting to see point shaving charges leveled against a sports betting business that ran in cahoots with the University of San Diego basketball team. I don’t recall USD being on the national radar before this.

Problem number two. Most college athletic programs don’t make money. Even with football, considered to be the biggest cash cow, only about a dozen or so of the 117 Division I-A (BCS) schools turn a profit. Just doing a quick math check. If 80 players are making an extra $25,000 a year, we’re talking about $2 million. Maybe a few schools could suck it up, but it would affect the budgets of the lower rung teams. A fair share of the money generated goes to help the swimming, cross-country, water polo and gymnastics programs at a lot of these schools. Should they lose the $2 million? And where is the dividing line? Is it just male football and basketball athletes earning the money? That would put a major league dent in Title IX, and the next sound you hear will be the lawyers knocking each other over en route to the courtrooms around America, ready to sue the big bad NCAA.

And lest anyone forget that this is just Division I. Obviously, the Division II and III schools would lose out even more because they already have to be flexible with financial aid for their athletes.

My own feeling on the subject is that paying athletes would only widen the gap between the have and have-not schools, thereby erasing the chance us fans have of watching the rise of a program such as Boise State football and Butler basketball. Of course, with the NCAA Executive Committee running things, the concept of paying athletes will never reach fruition. Less money for the bigwigs. Probably why we don’t have a playoff system in the BCS. Unfortunately, the current system isn’t free of corruption either; otherwise, these thoughts wouldn’t be discussed so often.