Author Archives: Allison Crean Davis

Don’t Sell Us Short, Dilbert

Dilbert

Book cover image from Amazon.com

Today the bespectacled, techie character Dilbert sprang from his longstanding, corporate comic strip existence into my inbox. In response to a piece I recently wrote about Trump’s character deficit and his disconnect with the movement for social emotional learning in education, a colleague forwarded this Wall Street Journal article that highlights thoughts from the cartoon’s creator, Scott Adams.

My article discussed how educators should double down on working with children to enhance their own social skills and emotional development, and help them identify those that deviate significantly from reasonable social norms — limiting the damage they can inflict. But Adams’ position is more futile, in keeping with the social commentary within his strip. He argues that Trump’s ability as a “Master Persuader” appeals to people’s fears and undisciplined emotions. People are incapable of thinking rationally, he suggests, and this has paved the way for Trump.

He’s partially right.

What Adams points out is pure psychology and represents what we know about cognition. In fact, it reinforces the work being done by educators (and, I might add, parents, coaches, and other caring adults) to shape our children into thoughtful human beings ruled not simply by base instincts, but also by reason and morality. Emotional, and at times, irrational response is consistent with the geography of our brain: Emotion and memory, residing in the amygdala and the hippocampus, are next-door-neighbors. Fear and emotion often drive our decision-making because they make immediate and searing impressions on our brains. Reason is not part of that equation. It’s the rationale behind so many commercials and yes, campaigns. And while fear and emotion are important to decision-making, unless we’re in a real fight or flight situation, they’re not enough.

When people stop there, they often make decisions based on limited and faulty information that reveal themselves as life gets complicated, nuanced, and real. After all, much of life is highly ambiguous and requires analysis and problem-solving. From classroom projects to organizational strategy, personal relationships to international partnerships, and parenting to policymaking, we must lean on the decision-making calculus performed in our frontal lobes, our mind’s “executive.”

This is where the support of educators can help move children from responding exclusively to emotions as they are generated to behaving with emotional regulation. Social and self-awareness, self-management, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making are competencies that develop over time within the context of a child’s environment, which includes homes and schools. Social emotional skills that engage our ability to process, synthesize, and analyze information can be taught and reinforced, allowing us to move beyond knee-jerk reactions and decisions to more considered thinking that capitalizes on the actual power of the human brain. Making an effort to develop these skills in children reaps both social and academic rewards.

The success of Adams’ Dilbert series relates to his incisive analysis of human behavior as it intersects with personal and professional politics. He then sprinkles this with a dash of humor, appealing to our emotions. That’s linking our base instincts to our executive functions.

If Dilbert can do it, so can our kids.

Just Say “Yes” to Assessment, and Other Revelations from Six-year-olds

This is the second time I’ve written this post, and not because I enjoy doing things twice. But in the short window of time that my editor worked through my first draft, a group of six-year-olds shredded my hypothesis. I’ve never been so happy to be wrong.

Let me explain. Yesterday, a dear friend posted something on Facebook that drew me in. Now a first grade teacher, she taught my own twin boys in preschool and wowed me with her ideas, insights, and ability to be an effective communicator with both 4 year olds and their adults. But with her post, I suddenly had a bone to pick: “How’s this for honest?! My teacher friends can relate, I’m sure… week before report cards AND AIMSweb = assessment city! Poor kids : (“

Then she added a photo of what greeted her students as they entered the room thaAllipromptinitialt day: “Dear friends, Guess what we are doing today….that’s right, more testing! Do you like taking tests?” (followed by the option to indicate ‘Yes’ or ‘No’)

As a believer in the power of data to refine and personalize instruction and also someone who is perhaps a bit weary of the pushback on assessments, I assumed this question had been designed as a big old “No” magnet. How many little (or big) people would endorse the taking of tests? This, I felt, was not the right question, because the intention of assessment is not to take tests, but rather to get feedback. Continue reading

The Hand-off of a Lifetime for Native American Students

This is the first post from our newest team member, Senior Advisor Allison Crean Davis.

Inasmuch as an hour and a half can sufficiently examine an issue that exemplifies “a long history of broken promises” (per Chairman John Kline), last Thursday’s Committee on Education and the Workforce hearing on Native American schools provided a public mea culpa from a government that has consistently failed to provide quality education for Native American students. While the hearing, entitled “Examining the Federal Government’s Mismanagement of Native American Schools,” allowed us a peek into the challenges at hand and emphasized hope moving forward, nagging questions remain.

First, let’s talk about what was clear. There were an abundance of grim words used to describe the longstanding status of Indian education: “bungling bureaucracy,” “bleakest outcomes,” and “individual and national economic tragedy.” As cited during the hearing, approximately 93% of Native children attend traditional public schools and 7% attend schools run by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), part of the Department of Interior. Within the public schools, only 69% of Native American children graduate high school. For those in BIE schools, the number is barely 50%. There is a long list of BIE school facility issues documented over a decade ago and still being addressed, which includes heating problems, gas leaks, buckling floors, and popping circuit breakers. There are also the problems of mobility: students and families move frequently, there have been 33 BIE Directors in the past 36 years, and a heap of restructuring attempts has left educators in the system chasing moving targets.

The jury’s out on what’s required to provide adequate financial support for schools serving Native American students both on reservations and in our towns. At first blush, BIE schools have the highest per-student spending in the country at over $20,000 per year. That’s nearly double the national average. Then how is it possible that there are crumbling walls in these schools? As BIE Director Charles Roessel suggested, some of these schools are so remote they have to allocate their own resources to areas typically covered by city and town infrastructure, such as water and fire safety. We also know that funding formulas for rural education may not sufficiently address these additional and necessary supports.

It is indisputable that change is needed. Generations of Native American students have failed to thrive academically within the public school and BIE systems. The consensus during last week’s hearing was that this change needs to address a fundamental yet long neglected concern: the need to better integrate the rich history, languages, and cultures of Native American students into the educational content and process to bolster a stronger sense of identity. How to do so? Transfer control for the education of these children to their tribes. Continue reading