Monthly Archives: November 2015

My Take on What Smart Students Say They Want From School

Leave a reply

Screen Shot 2015-11-29 at 5.27.07 PM

They say it’s always good to listen to your users.

So I read this with interest: how today’s “smartest” teens (those who attended a camp at Singularity University) would change education.

Clearly, these teens are not representative of all their peers, but anyways…. here’s their list (at least as described by the writer):

  1. Increase personalization.
  2. Increase project based learning + real world interaction.
  3. Decrease testing.
  4. Decrease solitary online learning.
  5. Increase teacher coaching, decrease teacher lecturing.
  6. Increase teaching of practical skills.
  7. Increase internalization of growth mindset.

Some reflections:

1) The students want school to be less boring:I surely sympathize with them. School can be very boring, and increase personalization, projects, and practical skill acquisition – as well as decreasing lecturing – probably would make school less boring.

2) The students deemphasize content mastery: The students expressed a greater eagerness to do than they did to master content.  Moreover, their skepticism over testing can also be read as a skepticism of needing to be held accountable for knowledge acquisition. Some of my greatest mistakes have come from when I acted without expert knowledge. You can’t become a content expert by spending ten minutes googling something. To think you can could end up being the next generation’s greatest mistake.

3) The students are pragmatic: It was interesting to hear less about major social issues (racism, poverty, etc.) and more about learning practical skills such as money management and working in teams. It’s unclear to me what to make of this.

Much to consider.

Reflections on the Hive Mind

Leave a reply

41ryk7ggnll-_sx331_bo1204203200_

I just read by Garett Jones. It is well worth reading.

Garett’s thesis is this:

  • Average IQs vary across nations.
  • A nation’s IQ (the average of the IQ of its citizens) is extremely important for economic development.
  • It is so important, that, for the average individual, it’s much better to have a lower IQ and live in a nation of high IQs than it is to have a high IQ and live in a nation of lower IQs.
  • National IQs can increase.
  • We don’t really know how to raise IQs, despite the fact that many nations have done it.

If you want to evaluate the thesis yourself, you should read the book. It’s not too long.

Here are questions I’m left with after reading the book:

What’s Going on with China?

China’s per capita income (lower) and corruption levels (higher) are different than most countries with similar (high) IQs.

On , I asked Garett for an explanation, and he pointed to Mao as a destructive force whose legacy still causes China to underperform.

I then pointed out that China underperformed its IQ in 1935, before Mao.

Garett then pointed to the decline of the Qing dynasty.

Fair enough, I guess. But if you have to explain away a hundred years of underperformance across a dynasty, a communist tyrant, and the modern Communist party – at some point the story risks becoming a little suspect.

Given China’s game playing with international education tests, my first instinct was that China is overstating its IQ by discounting its rural population.

However, and others have demonstrated that China used to be a world leader in energy production and technology, so perhaps the IQ is (or used to be) there.

Which leads to an interesting question: did China go from a relatively high IQ society to a low / mediocre IQ society to a rising IQ society?

Maybe.

Which leads to a larger issue: most of Garett’s data is from the 20th century – in general, it would be fascinating to try to understand how IQ changed over past centuries and / or millennia.

Test Scores vs. Educational Attainment…. Fluid vs. Crystallized Intelligence

Garett toggles between pointing to test scores (standardized tests) and educational attainment (years of school), while usually emphasizing test scores as a better indicator of progress.

Schooling ain’t learning, after all.

However, in some areas, such as economics, education is a good predicator of supporting sound policies (those aligned with expert opinion).

Readers of this blog will know that Jay Greene and I have been debating whether or not increased educational attainment matters if it is not associated with higher test scores.

My guess is that, broadly speaking, increases in test scores are more important for society, while increases in attainment are more important for the individual.

Which creates an interesting K12 accountability question: should we measure K12 school performance more for impact on test scores or for increases in attainment?

My guess: probably on both, with an emphasis on a certain floor being met.

Moreover, test score performance can be broken down into fluid test score performance (abstract thinking) and crystallized test score performance (factual knowledge).

High-performing charters have been both applauded and jeered for raising crystallized test score performance but not fluid performance.

Even more complicating: most research shows that domain expertise is not transferable, which, perhaps, calls into question our fetish for fluid intelligence (save for the caveat that increased fluid intelligence might help someone gain greater content expertise).

All in all, I’m left with more questions than answers on this subject.

How Can We Raise National IQs? Which Interventions Will Work in Which Nations?

Garett explores the varied research on how we (might) be able to raise IQs.

There aren’t many clear answers.

Here’s a few guesses, drawing both from Garett’s review of the research and my own reflections.

Extreme Poverty: In nation’s that suffer from chronic malnutrition and disease, ameliorating health deficincies is probably the best way to quickly raise IQs, as well as providing for a sound basic education.

Low Income Nations: In countries that are poor but not extremely poor, more effective education (preferably through high school) and modernization (living in a world where you’re constantly dealing with abstract issues rather than issues like hunting) may provide a bump.

It’s interesting to think about interventions that could increase the modernness of an environment at low costs. Perhaps technology and media can do this effectively.

Middle Income to Wealthy Nations: There are statistically significant IQ differences between wealthy nations, with a few (often smaller) East Asian nations often outperforming Western nations.

At this margin, it is very unclear to me if increasing IQ is the most direct path to increasing flourishing in already high IQ nations (would you rather live in the United States, Singapore, or Japan?).

But I do think there are gains to be had, especially with those citizens who are greatly underperforming national averages. My guess is that for a wealthy nation as a whole,  it’s culture first and education + early career work as a potential second.

I really have no idea how to change national culture, but my instinct is that it only really happens due to extreme events.

As for how to increase educational outcomes, readers of this blog will know that I favor relinquishment, whereby power is handed back down to educators (to run schools) and families (to choose from these schools) with some government regulation (to close bad actors and keep an eye on equity).

Time will tell if this is true, though signs are encouraging.

In Sum

Garret’s thesis is a fascinating one. If it’s true, it has implications for health, education, economic, and immigration policy, to name a few.

Moreover, Garett, handles potentially tricky subjects (differences in national IQs) with grace and evenhandedness.

The subject is also complex enough that I’m sure I got things wrong in the above…

Lastly, though this is more of case of fortune than author intention, Garett’s conclusions point to the fact that raising IQs across the globe is potentially possible and likely transformational.

Our marching orders are clear.

Looking for a Great Teammate to Join the LJAF Education Team

Leave a reply

logo

We’re considering adding a senior level teammate to our education team at the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

We’d love to work with someone who embodies these 5 characteristics: 

  • is deeply passionate about empowering educators and families;
  • is obsessive about learning and getting better;
  • can thrive in a decentralized organization with a small and geographically dispersed education team;
  • diversifies the way our team approaches and solves problems; and
  • has content expertise in city-based, system-level education reform, with the potential to be one of the top experts in the nation.

If we find an exceptional teammate, we will be 100% committed to mentoring and preparing this teammate to be a highly effective CEO or management team member of a high-performing organization, whether that’s at LJAF or at another organization.

We will also be 100% committed to learning from whomever joins our team, so that we can improve.

If you knock it out of the park with us, you will have a diverse set of influential champions who will support you in your next steps, whatever those next steps might be.

If you’re interested in this being the next step in your journey, or you know someone who might be a great fit, drop me a quick note at 

Book Review(s): 6 Books on Our Mental Limits

Leave a reply

I’ve had some good reading time over the past two months and have been able to get through six books (as well as the new Dragon Tattoo book, which will not be reviewed here):

  1.  (adult behavior change)
  2.  (predictions)
  3.  (Google’s HR systems)
  4.  (utilizing simple rules to guide decisions)
  5.  (evolution as a principle for all change)
  6.  (how national IQ is more important than individual IQ)

All are worth reading.

Here are some major themes that ran through them all:

We Have Weak Minds

Triggers pushes hard on how much environment impacts us.

Super forecasting details how badly pundits do at prediction because they rely on situational judgment rather than baseline data.

Simple Rules makes a convincing case that the world is too complex to navigate by fully analyzing every situation.

The Evolution of Everything rightly argues that even our geniuses are most often well situated for breakthroughs due to past intellectual evolution, not because they along were capable of achieving such breakthroughs.

Collectively, We Have Better Minds

Hive Mind demonstrates how individual minds are made more effective by having other good minds around.

Triggers lays out an accountability regime whereby other people hold you accountable for your behavior commitments.

Superforecasting talks about how even the best forecasters improve when working together.

The Evolution of Everything narrates how it is our collective knowledge, built over the ages, that allows to enjoy the fruits of modernity.

Those Who Use Data Effectively Will Win 

Work Rules! vividly portrayed how heavily Google relies on data analysis to make any decision, be it about people or anything else.

One memorable quote went something like a manager saying this: “If you don’t give me data, I will give you my opinions, and you don’t want that.”

Super forecasting is all about how baseline data is needed to anchor any situational judgment.

Triggers recommends systematic daily tracking of any desired behavioral change.

How I’ve Changed Because of these Books

  1. After reading Triggers, I created an end of the day 10 question checklist to hold myself accountable for the behaviors I’m trying to implement (I use an app to record them every night).
  2. After reading Superforecasting, I’ve tried to ensure that we conduct a  research review of any issue before even beginning to make judgments, to ensure we understand baseline data.
  3. After reading Work Rules! I reflected on how much I over relied on my own judgment when I led NSNO. I should have done a better job of always asking for the data before making any managerial decisions.
  4. After reading Simple Rules, I revised a decision checklist I had made for grant making to include a priority rule (most of them were boundary rules and stop rules).
  5. After reading Hive Mind, I reflected on my strong preference for very open immigration. While I still hold this belief, the book helped me understand where and why I might draw limits.

I don’t know if I will be successful in sustaining any of these behavior changes. But I hope I can.

If you have a chance, I recommend picking any of the books up for holiday reading.

The Parable of the 3 Blacksmiths

3 Replies

Unknown

During a time long ago and in a kingdom far away, there once lived three blacksmiths.

All three blacksmiths worked under their lordship, Sir Tuda.

Sir Tuda was a benevolent lord. He wanted his blacksmiths to be as productive as possible, both so they and the kingdom could prosper.

Sir Tuda knew the old adage  – “a kingdom is never better than its blacksmiths” – and he took it to heart.

Unfortunately, Sir Tuda was not schooled in public policy, so instead of issuing a proclamation on his own, he wisely approached his top blacksmiths and asked them how to increase production.

“Tell me what you need from me, and I will make it so,” he told the blacksmiths.

The first blacksmith said: “I need autonomy! If you give me the freedom to run my shop the way I desire, I will increase production!”

Sir Tuda said: “Well then it is so.”

The second blacksmith, wanting to outdo the first blacksmith, said: “I need autonomy too! But I also need a board of directors to guide me!”

Sir Tuda said: “Well then it is so.”

The third blacksmith was actually not yet a full blacksmith. She was only an apprentice and she would not have even been invited to this meeting but for the fact that her boss was sick with the plague.

She like both of the requests that had already been mentioned, but what she really wanted was to start her own blacksmith shop.

So she said: “I want autonomy! And I want a board of directors to guide me! But I also want a charter to open up my own blacksmith shop!”

Sir Tuda said: “Well then it is so.”

Five years then passed and much changed, including the death of Sir Tuda, who was killed by the Kingdom of the Strategic Inconsistency, which had a long history of invading kingdoms, even those run by great lords.

So what happened to our blacksmiths?

The first blacksmith, who had asked for autonomy, did see a spike in production for two years, but when Sir Tuda died, the new Lord took away the autonomy and production decreased back to its previous levels.

The second blacksmith, who asked for autonomy and a board of directors, increased his production a modest but statistically significant amount; moreover, his board of directors protected him from the new Lord, so he was able to maintain his production increase.

The third blacksmith, who asked to be able to start a new blacksmith shop, gain autonomy, and be overseen by a board of directors, saw her production skyrocket. The young blacksmith had been experimenting with a new innovative method of blacksmithing, and it was only once she got her  own shop that he was able to implement his new method. And, like the second blacksmith, her board of directors protected her from the new Lord’s top-down blacksmith policies.

Lastly, and oddly enough, the new Lord kept on trying to prevent the third blacksmith from expanding even though her shop was so successful. The new Lord kept on muttering, “you’re stealing from me” even though all the blacksmith shops equally benefited the health of the kingdom.

But, by organizing and mobilizing her consumers, the third blacksmith was able eventually open up ten more highly effective blacksmith shops, which made the kingdom the number one in production in the world, even surpassing the Kingdom of Finland (I swear it’s true).

Wise readers will see the moral of this story.

Blacksmith autonomy is useful but fleeting.

Blacksmith autonomy coupled with non-profit governance will lead to modest but important improvements.

Blacksmith autonomy coupled with non-profit governance coupled with entrepreneurship can transform the kingdom.

RAND Study: Promising Evidence on Personalized Learning or Great Charter Schools?

2 Replies

Screen Shot 2015-11-14 at 11.32.14 AM

A friend just emailed me some questions about the RAND personalized learning study.

After reading the study, I too had some questions. My initial read is that the report did not do an effective job in drawing the right conclusions from the data.

Perhaps I’m misreading the study. The folks at RAND generally produce solid research. If I made some mistakes in my analysis, I’ll update the blog to reflect my errors.

Overview of Study Design: 

  • The treatment group implemented personalized learning strategies.
  • The treatment group included charter schools and district schools that received funding through a competitive personalized learning grant process.
  • The control group is made up of matched students and schools with similar performance,  demographics, and governance conditions.

Results:

  • Charter schools, in aggregate, achieved very significant and positive results: .1 to .4 effects.
  • District schools, in aggregate, achieved no positive results (the sample size was also smaller).

Concern #1: What is the Intervention?

The title of the study is “promising evidence on personalized learning.” But how do we know that personalized learning is driving the gains?

Those familiar with CREDO’s research on Charter School Growth Fund will remember that their portfolio achieves a ~.2 effect.

The charters in this study are hitting about the same marks, give or take.

So are we seeing promising evidence on personalized learning or further evidence on the effect of high-performing charter schools?

Running personalized learning charter schools through a rigorous selection model and then comparing them to other schools (even if they are schools of choice) is not a way to tease out the effect of personalized learning.

A better design would have had some high-performing charters adopt personalized learning and then compare their results to other high-performing charter schools.

Without this type of comparison, I don’t think we know that personalized learning is driving the gains; rather, the gains could just be caused by other elements of high-perfoming charter schools (culture, data usage, teacher coaching, etc.).

Concern #2: Is the Lede Buried?

The fact that district schools didn’t achieve positive results was the sixth “Key Finding” listed in the report, and it was not mentioned in the RAND website overview of key findings.

This happens too often.

Whether we’re talking about Newark, personalized learning, or some other topic, many times:

  1. Charters deliver most of the gains.
  2. The gains are reported out as positive.
  3. The fact the district didn’t improve (or improved much less) is not mentioned or is buried.

Yes, there are some exceptions, such as Washington D.C., where the district is also delivering real gains.

But too often charter effects are reported out as general effects.

In Sum

It’s great to see charters implementing personalized learning and getting strong results.

It’s disappointing to see that these gains were not achieved in district schools.

For me, this is further evidence that governance might be the most effective intervention we can deliver to ensure that all kids get the schools they deserve.

Why I Love Email

1 Reply

I think email is underrated as a productivity tool and overly criticized as being too all consuming.

Here is why I find email to be a great tool:

1. It’s a-snychronous. You don’t have to find a time for multiple people to meet. You send it when you have time and they read it when they have time. This is perhaps it’s most amazing feature. It allows for productivity flow on both ends of conversation if you use it right.

2. It’s only takes as long as it takes. Meetings are generally scheduled in 30 min or 60 min blocks and they often magically take up however much is allocated. An email takes as long as it actually takes, no more and no less.

3. It’s structured. While I try to talk in as a concise and structured manner as possible (and sometimes get mocked for doing so!), it’s still hard to organize information when you’re talking. Most of my emails consists of: a brief greeting + 3-5 bullets + next steps. The bullets provide the structure for the content.

4. It’s clear and transparent: So long as you’re writing structured emails, the information should clearly set expectations and can be used as a record of what has been discussed.

5. It’s an effective organizational tool: Email is very helpful to prevent dropping balls. I keep all requests in my inbox until they are completed. This helps me be conscientious, which I think is extremely important in building relationships, as well as getting things done.

6. It’s a foot in the door: You can get just about anyone’s email and try to get their attention. This is remarkably democratic. If you deliver a great message, you’ll generally get a response.

Yes, email has plenty of downsides.

And some things are simply best done via verbal communication.

But if you use email well, it can be a powerful force for doing good work.