"One Size Fits One", the title of an article in CLO magazine, discusses the importance of making the engagement in the workplace of utmost importance.  In order to do that, the article suggests that the workplace be "customizable and flexible", especially on issues like where and when employees accomplish their agendas, how they pursue and have access to further education and training, and how and when they progress through the workforce hierarchy.  The idea is that employees whose needs are met, who are challenged, and who feel comfortably engaged will become loyal to the employer. 

I agree that the ideal, utopian workplace is one where each individual is treated as such and valued for that individuality.  Where thoughts are encouraged, where hard times are understood, where ideals are shared, where folks feel at home....these are the hallmarks of such a workplace.  This type of environment is fostered through intentionality, being intentional about cultivating the potential within each individual.

But is this too lofty a goal?  Part of me thinks that the workplace just described is just a figment of my imagination, while the other, hard-working, part of me wants to say 'suck it up, it's a job not a marriage, you go to work to get paid and hopefully to enjoy it in the process but not to be fulfilled and completely satisfied'.  What happened to the ideal of hard work for the value of a job well done?  It doesn't require any stroking or exceptions, it requires that you show up and do what is expected of you, sometimes more but never less than that.   This generation of entitlement may have gotten it's claws too deep into the workforce.  We ought to be grateful for the job we have, not spending time wishing it was something it is not.  

In a recent speech to the National Urban League, President Obama was defending his education initiative with the following statement:  "It's an economic issue when 8 in 10 new jobs will require workforce training or higher education by the end of this decade.  It's an economic issue when we know that countries that outeducate us today will outcompete us tomorrow."  According to the report in the New York Times, many concerns have been voiced about the Race to the Top program's ability to help struggling schools with high minority rates. 

President Obama is correct.  Education is an economic issue.  We must be constantly, proactively seeking ways to deepen and strengthen our public school systems.  Where we disagree is in the methodology.  Obama would argue that the Race to the Top competition will breed competitiveness which pushes folks to perform better.  I would argue that some schools, school systems, and even states are so far behind that they can't possibly be competing in the same race.  One is a sprint: let's propose a lot of changes and see how it turns out.  The other is a marathon: let's train and plan, and train and plan, for the changes that will ultimately see us to the finish line.  I think we need the marathon approach here. 

I would agree with Obama's statement that it is an economic issue when 8 out of every 10 jobs will require workforce training or higher education by the end of this decade.  So what allowances for that workforce training has Obama's Race made?  What would be radical is to change the mindset of Americans, especially those in government, who only see the value in a diploma from an accredited university.  Workforce training will be, and already is, vital to the success and improvement of our economy.  I'm just not sure that enough focus is being put on that essential element.  It really is ok for some folks not to go to college.  In fact, it's better that way.   

The U.S. is falling behind in the number of college graduates compared to countries around the world, according to the New York Times.  As the article discusses, enrollment is not necessarily the issue.  Students are enrolling in colleges across the country but not so many are sticking with it to completion.  As stated, other contributing factors are the cost of college tuition and the current state of K-12 education in general. 

So what's the nation to do about it?  This trend is concerning if we want to remain competitive in the global economy.  Higher education is a necessity to many high-market fields.  Certainly the first step to remedying the problem is to identify the causes.  If follow-through, cost, and K-12 education are the issues, the solutions must resolve those.  Initially, we must identify what it is about the K-12 programs that causes students to not complete or begin their degrees. 

Cost is another limiting factor in this equation.  If students and parents cannot see the future financial benefits, with some measure of security for the return on their investment, they are not going to take the risk.  Is the extreme cost involved with quality higher education a result of inflation or does it accurately represent the true cost of the services recieved?  I'm not sure that education should be run like a business by trying to get rich off of their clients.  As for the follow-through, the first year of college is tough but years 2-4 aren't much easier.  Parents need to encourage their students to stick with it without providing them with excuses for why they shouldn't complete what's been started.   

The college gap won't be an easy one to close, especially given the state of our economy and jobless rates but those things, too, are impacted by what happens at the college level. 

Lazy is only a positive word when it is used to describe a Sunday afternoon.  It is never a positive term in light of schooling, work, or service ethic.  Yet, the Washington Post writes that many college students may be experiencing grade inflation that is making students lazy.  Click here to read more.    The article suggests that professors have slacked up on their grading which makes college less-demanding, giving students more down time or lazy time. 

I don't think it's fair to put all the blame on the professors.  Our culture has changed significantly since the generation in comparison, the 1960's.  With the increase in technology and decrease in physical labor, our entire population has become lazy.  And not only that, but we have developed a sense of entitlement that makes us think that we deserve better grades for less effort.  Unfortunately, this attitude starts much earlier than college as elementary school teachers are forced to deal with parents who think their child is entitled to a certain grade because of their effort, however insignificant that may be. 

As far as the lasting implication for grade inflation?  The educational institution whose reputation is at stake will suffer most in the long run.  The students, too, will experience difficulties as they transition into the workplace where there are certain expectations about what you ought to know and how well you ought to know it, despite what your GPA says.  In general, the workplace, as they offer training to new hires, will correct any deficits in knowledge that result from college grade inflation.  So, for the student out there, it's best, even if it's not the easiest, to work as hard as you can...and if it seems too easy for college, it probably is which means you need to pursue the topic on your own. 

States across the nation are considering the adoption of new national education standards.  The Obama administration and Arne Duncan, Education Secretary, will be awarding points to those states who decide to adopt the standards in their "Race to the Top" competition.  Presumably, the administration hopes to achieve some state-to-state continuity with the implementation of these standards.  But what are the ramifications of this standard adoption?

For those states who choose to adopt the new standards, there is the hope of being a step to closer to the grand prize in the "Race to the Top" competition.  Certainly some states will be awarded enormous amounts of money to implement, but what about the others?  New standards aren't just a paper change.  They will require a lot of other changes:  teachers will need to be retrained in some instances, textbooks will need to be created and adopted to support the new curriculum, supplementary materials will need to be created, pacing guides and curriculum outlines will need to be made, and the list goes on.  The implemenation of the new standards is totally different from the adoption alone.  Will the states who make these adoptions be penalized in the future for non-compliance if they can't make the changes necessary for financial reasons?

For the states who choose not to adopt the standards, is that really going to be an acceptable position in the eyes of the federal government?  Can they really be called national standards if not every state in the nation adheres to them?  Will these states lose federal funding in the future for not adopting the standards?  Some states are caught between the desire to remain autonomous and the desire for much needed financial assistance.  Can the federal government entice these states with the hope of money for their programs?

An article in the New York Times titled, "A Popular Principal, Wounded by Government Good Intentions", describes the end of a successful career for one Vermont principal.  Reportedly, this principal was working in a very high poverty, high immigration, low-performing area.  Although the school was changing drastically under her direction, the principal was asked to leave so the school could qualify for stimulus funding from the Obama program "Race to the Top".  According to teachers, other principals, even state senators, this principal was doing her job, and doing it well.

Clearly the author of the Times article sees the "Race to the Top" as a positive initiative for education.  But I disagree and this article is exactly the reason why.  I realize that there is a lot to be said for statistics and numbers but when you are dealing with people, with children, they must be treated individually because they are....individuals.  You can't expect a kid, just off the boat from Haiti, to perform as well as a kid from the home of a doctor and a lawyer.  But this system does.  You can't look at a group of statistics, pass rates on standardized tests for example, and draw a conclusion about those students or those educators.

The "Race to the Top" competition has made education in to a cut-throat business that isn't concerned about people's success in life.  The solution for this school that has lost a great educator, leader and visionary: to replace her with an interim and eventually another principal.  In other words, for the students: upheaval and inconsistency, and for the teachers: a message that money trumps good educators anyday.  What a sad story. 

A blog from the Washington Post is asking the question: Are final exams necessary and effective?  Most educators would automatically respond yes on both accounts.  Why?  Mostly out of habit.  We are accustomed to assigning final exams, making a big deal out of them, and using them to determine a student's academic worth (or at least part of it).  But is this really accurate? 

Most final exams are defined by their cumulative nature which, assumingly, allows educators to know whether or not a skill has been mastered during the course of study.  Some educators would argue that the paper and pencil standard for cumulative exams is not necessarily the most effective tool for evaluating mastery. Those teachers would most likely develop a final project, performance, etc to serve as their evaluation. 

Do you see a theme?  Educators desire to measure a student's mastery or achievement at the END of their time together.  Final exams, projects, performances, presentations, etc all serve the same purpose.  I'm not sure there is a way around the concept of a final evaluation.  But do they necessarily have to be cumulative?  Do they have to be in the exam form?  Do they need to count so much towards a student's final grade?  These are all important questions that should be left up to each individual educator to answer for his or her class. 

According to the Washington Post, American University is joining a new trend among post-secondary school to eliminate the standardized test requirement for college applicants.  In other words, students applying to AU are not required to submit SAT or ACT scores to be considered for admission.  Admissions committees are instead focusing on the overall picture painted by the applicant's high school experience, admissions essay, and recommendations. 

How refreshing to know that some schools are finally listening to the research that indicates that SAT and ACT tests, and other similar tests, are biased.  And not only are they listening, but they are doing something about it.  My brother is an excellent example of why those scores can't be trusted to give the whole picture.  He was awarded the merit scholarship for achieving a perfect score on the SAT's.  He got a full-ride to a small, private, out-of-state college because his scores were phenomenal.  Had the admission committee studied the rest of his application they would have noted that his GPA and attendance in high school were less than stellar.  Unfortunately for him, my parents, and the small, private, out-of-state school, he flunked out after just two semesters.  He is extremely intelligent as evidenced in his test scores, however, he is not skilled at balancing academics and life.  High test scores are not equal to high achievers.

I am not a good test taker.  I have tried really hard to be one but I tend to freeze up or get overwhelmed by the sheer amount of test in front of me and become hopeless.  However, in the classroom I can maintain impressive GPA's and produce high quality work.  My academic abilility was not showcased by the SAT's or the MAT's when I took them.  Thankfully, I was accepted to college and, later, to graduate school anyway.  I think AU is taking the right step in reducing the amount of weight that these tests carry on a student's application. 

Does stress contribute to your level of productivity? An article from Chief Learning Officer's website reports that the business industry is taking stress seriously and looking for ways to fight it.  To read that article click here.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that Americans, in general, are stressed.  They have too much to do and too little time to do it in.  And the workplace contributes to this.  We continually expect more performance for less incentive and in less time. 

The article offers a variety of strategies to deal with stress in the workplace.  Some of them may be a great place to start.  However, I think the best, most effective way to combat stress is in the attitude.  If an employee can go to their employer with an issue, whether it is work related or not, and expect to find understanding and compassion then the employee is already less-stressed.  What's more, if that same employer then takes steps to assist with the issue then they have gained loyalty and respect from the employee.

I can remember when I was frantically trying to balance being a teacher and new mom.  I felt like a failure on both accounts.  My son would wake up with a fever and sore throat and would only want me to comfort him.  Unfortunately, I would call in to work to arrange for a substitute only to be met with guilt and reminders that my students need me too.  Inevitably, the job would win out and I would find someone to keep my sick child.  If only I could have had a little support from the system that is supposed to be all about the welfare of kids.  This tension was a source of great stress.  My principal was cold and uncaring.  She added to the stress and did nothing to diminish it.  After three years, I left that school to be a stay-home mom and I have very little feeling of loyalty or respect for that principal.  Stress is a genuine issue in the workplace but I suggest addressing it with an attitude change before implementing any strategies or seminars. 

An article in the New York Times describes a situation in Belgium that is interesting and unusual.  Reportedly, Belgium's goverment is essentially non-existant right now because of tensions between the French-speaking and Flemish-speaking citizens.  The nation is at a stand-still because ridiculous laws and historical precedents are creating a difficult, if not impossible, atmosphere for success. 

The majority of the issues center around language and culture that makes each group distinctive.  One would think that Europeans, of all people, would be excited and engaging to those who come from different backgrounds.  The European community as a whole makes up a very small geographical area, however, the diversity of cultures, languages, and ethnicities makes it a veritable melting pot.  It's hard to imagine a country in the midst of this diversity soup that isn't striving to preserve their unique flavor as countrymen but is instead trying to divide and blame.

What does this have to do with learning and training?  At first glance, maybe not much.  As you begin to examine the situation more closely you see that folks are holding on tight, too tightly, to what's happened in the past.  This is preventing any growth or development, both parties are suffering.  Learning can be like that.  We can learn one way and work really hard at doing it well.  Years later a new, better way is developed but we are so tightly wound around the old way that we can't give it up.  Our work and our way begin to suffer.  Change is difficult to accept, but like the Belgians, if we want to succeed and experience harmony, we will have to compromise on some things.