Rediscovering America

In the last chapter of the book, “Rediscovering America”, the authors make a really interesting comparison between America and IBM. They explain how IBM, a company that made huge advancements in technology, was eventually surpassed by other companies with the development of the personal computer. While IBM created this product, other companies took the concept to a new level. The authors cite a quote from IBM chairman and CEO, Samuel Palmisano. He says, “You spend more time arguing amongst yourselves over a shrinking pie than looking to the future”. Rather than looking at where technology could go, and how IBM could take it there, the company focused more on issues within the company.

America today is facing something similar to what IBM’s chairman described. Political parties in America today are fixated on the flaws of the opposing party. Chapter twelve, “Whatever It Is, I’m Against It” shows how polarized these parties have become. With this in mind, it is worthwhile to think of IBM and how too much emphasis on internal conflict forced them to temporarily lose ground in their industry. The last line on page 353 offers an important piece of advice, “When you start thinking of other departments and colleagues in your own company as the opposition—instead of focusing on the other companies against which you must compete—you have lost touch with the world in which you are living”. I think the same can be said for the current political climate in America.  

"Show me an obstacle and I will show you an opportunity."

I really loved this section of the book, especially the notable theme that many of us still grasp opportunity when all seems lost. Despite our shortcomings and the grave outlook of the future...and let's face it, some of the classes we'll teach...there is hope that we'll fight and there is hope that some continue to do the right thing. I was touched by the soldier serving his 6th term. 6!!!! I can't wrap my mind around that. I was and am too cowardly to even consider enlisting. Perhaps even in our own lives as teachers (especially during that February and March time), we focus too much on the negative and not enough on the positive---a focus on too much that is not done correctly and not enough on what is done correctly. Wendy Kopp saw the negative, but didn't focus on it. She pursued a passion that has not only helped many students in poverity-stricken areas, but has also made thousands of accomplished men and women aware of the other side. I might need to re-read this section again after homeroom attendance on a cold, dark morning in early March just to remind myself that we do make a difference and we do have a purpose.

Coddling for Self-Esteem

In the section on education (I wish it were longer!), the authors comment that "self-esteem is important, but it is not an entitlement. It has to be earned." And later, "American young people have got to understand from an early age that the world pays off on results, not on effort." I wonder how we can begin to change this culture in our American society--perhaps the consistency must begin in our homes. Perhaps it needs to come from top-down education as was discussed in our recent Race to the Top book club. After reading those books, we took a hard look at what our students do to achieve; in some cases, they cheat, manipulate, and lie in order to "achieve" a grade that will get them into a better college. Obviously this is not what we want for our students, but it seems that the majority of our students expect to receive high marks for mediocre work. As Laura Hughes alluded to in her last post, if we challenge students by expecting more and by making them write a second draft (oh no!), then we are shattering their self-esteem by implying that their first effort wasn't good enough. I hope our students and parents are watching the Olympics. Not every athlete has achieved a dream. In fact, few have. But, they have all worked insanely hard and have sacrificed precious moments. I am sure their teachers and coaches are not praising a job somewhat well done. Coddling our students does not equate to self-esteem. Challenging them and having them work hard to earn rewards and positives is what will drive their self-esteem.

Devaluation

I just read this section and found myself agreeing that "people in positions of authority everywhere have less influence than in the past."  I could certainly relate to the quote from Thomas Benton about the difficulty teachers have when it comes to giving students honest feedback--"The slightest criticisms have to be cushioned by a warm blanket of praise and encouragement to avoid provoking oppositional defiance or complete breakdowns."  So true, and so frustrating!  When did this shift occur?  Why is it so difficult for educators to give constructive criticism without getting a backlash from students, their parents, or even worse, their own administration?  If we cannot be honest with our feedback, we cannot challenge our students.  Thinking back, the best teachers I ever had growing up were the ones who challenged me, not the ones who simply praised everything I did.

Those jobs aren't coming back.

Parts I and II got me thinking about this current election and how I am constantly frustrated by the dishonesty... no, not dishonesty... that's probably the wrong word choice. Refrainment, perhaps? The refrainment from being honest about our current employment situation. I remember having an argument with my mother a few months ago about our unemployment rate. "We just have to get those jobs back."

I want a politician to be honest and tell the public, "Those jobs are gone. They're not coming back. They don't exist anymore."  New jobs need to be create. New industries need to be formed; current, modern industries need to be expanded. But those old jobs? Those industries that are disappearing or have left our country? Those jobs are gone.

My husband's former company laid off 30 employees during the height of the unemployment crisis a couple years ago. They laid off that many people, not because they were in financial distress (in fact, they were thriving), but because the economic crisis gave them an excuse to cut costs. Why not have one person do the job of three when you can? Those jobs are not coming back. They have not hired 30 more employees since then and they won't be in the near future. When the economy was booming, companies hired more people than they needed to because they could. Now they've cut back. Those people aren't getting their jobs back. I wish a candidate would just say that. But I guess they can't. Because like the example in the book about Bob Inglis and the man at the town hall meeting who he was honest with about Medicare, being honest doesn't always get you elected.

In addition, as discussed in Parts I and II, the IT revolution and globalization are causing many jobs to disappear. Industries that used to take decades, generations even, to evolve, now change every few years. I look at my father's industry as a perfect example of this. He owns an independent film company and in just his career alone he has gone from selling films on Beta and VHSes, to LaserDiscs, to DVDs, and to our current electronic form. He has had to evolve very quickly and change his business in order to survive.

I think this is why it is so important for our students to leave high school with a well-rounded set of skills. As the book states, it is rare anymore for a person to do the same job their entire lives (our profession is a rarity).

When did mediocrity become ok?

A theme I'm finding to run throughout the book is the idea that mediocrity is no longer acceptable. Americans have become complacent. We've been taught we're the best, so we just are - no work is necessary to maintain this greatness.

This rang true for me when it comes to our education system. I remember attending the Model Schools Conference a few years ago and feeling this message throughout every session I attended. Even if your school is not on a warning list, even if it's making AYP, even if your students gets good grades, have great attendance, and graduate, it does not mean you're a great district. You could be mediocre. I remember a debriefing meeting we had when we came back from the conference and this was something I expressed to the group as an important lesson: good is the enemy of great. Average should not be acceptable when it comes to a child's education. Because H-H was not a struggling district, there was no external force pushing us to be greater. We were relying on teachers and their internal motivation to push themselves as teachers to be better. Now thankfully, part of what makes our district great is that we have teachers who are very involved, who are constantly striving to be better, and who take initiative. But I certainly know there are districts that are not so lucky.

From the final paragraph: "What we need instead is to understand our own history.  ... We need to reconnect with the values and ideals that made the American dream so compelling..."
As a teacher of social studies and history, I find that message both encouraging (yes, learn the history!) and daunting - the entire culture needs adjusting.  It's one thing to look at society and recognize its tendencies, its flaws, and its strengths - that's sociology!  It's entirely something else to try to create cultural change from one's classroom. 
To make my own small impact, I'll continue to challenge students and myself, and even up the ante on that challenge - push harder, do better rather than more, etc.  But it's August, and I'm really feeling like I want to pour as much of that energy into my personal life - kids, husband, home, & self - as possible.  That may be where my greatest efforts to impact cultural change are best spent.