Show me the data...

“The final result is that technology aids our thoughts and civilized lives, but it also provides a mind-set that artificially elevates some aspects of life and ignores others, not based upon their real importance but rather by the arbitrary condition of whether they can be measured scientifically and objectively by today’s tools.” Donald Norman, Things That Make Us Smart, 1993.

I was struck by an LM_Net  posting yesterday from Brenda a librarian who was asked for  library "data" by her teachers to support what sounds like a building improvement plan. Brenda was, to say the least, frustrated and angered by the request. She finally asks:

Does anyone have recommendations for good "library skills" books with lots of reproducibles, so I can collect plenty of mostly meaningless data for these teachers?

"Proving" the effectiveness of any program, resource or method in education with empirical data is both difficult and dubious - and as a result, frustrating. Perhaps it's time we as practicing educators stop wasting time on data gathering and go back to using our common sense and hearts to determine what is worth having in schools and what is not. How DID we get hoodwinked into buying into the "if you can't count it, it ain't valued" mentality?

 
Keith Lance has done a great job using regressive data analysis in showing correlations between good library programs and higher test scores. But the true empiricists won't be convinced. (Correlation is tricky - mother's level of education, amount of green space surround a school, etc. have also  been noted as "predictors" of educational success.) Ross Todd's Ohio study is a lovely collection of anecdotes and an important work. But again, many a researcher is happy to remind you that "the plural of anecdote is not data." Yes, of course, I will use the numbers from the Lance and Todd and other state studies with decision-makers when ever I can. It's the best we have and the best we can do for those who want empirical data.

I know of no reliable way at a district or building level of determining whether a good library, library program or librarian causes test scores to go up. (Or a technology implementation.) What school is willing to give half their students library experiences and half not for an extended number of year, ruling out all other possible variables in order to do a true controlled study? What building is willing to try only one new thing a year to improve test scores? Who has the statistical knowledge at a building level to determine whether  a change is significant?

Yes, it doesn't hurt to collect and report some numbers to let our administrators know that we are doing more than napping behind the magazine rack - circulation numbers, number of library visits, number of collaborative units taught, number of inservices given, tech requests answered - whatever.

But maybe, just maybe, we should change tactics and simply say "Libraries are so good they need no justification." Since when did we have to start justifying our efforts to create kids who love to read by calling it " free voluntary reading" or "practice reading." Why does doing puppetry and folktales now result in "cultural literacy" and not just fun? Since when did having a safe, welcoming, interesting and exciting place where kids and teacher want to be require numbers to stay open. Why, along with art, music, sports, drama, chess club, dance, computer lab, woodshop, and just about anything that kids really like, should libraries not just be considered a prima facie good in schools?

It's time, fellow subversives, to rise up and shout "Show me the data that shows data driven decision-making has improved student learning!" Otherwise let me follow my heart in advocating what my experiences show is good for kids.

And not Or

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people with very strongly held opinions in the blogosphere. Well, in all media actually. I feel like I've been reading (and contributing) to a good deal of either/or type thinking this week.

• Separate or integrated tech/info lit curriculum
• Encyclopedia Britannica or Wikipedia
• Evolutionary or revolutionary change
• Content knowledge or process skills
  
• Testing or assessment
• Mandated skills or teacher choice
• Print or online
• Libraries or technology
  

Guess it is this sort of black and white thinking that makes stimulating reading and engenders reader outpourings of love or hate. 

I'd encourage you, however, to go back and read an old column by Walt Crawford called The Dangers of Uniformity that appeared in American Libraries (it's OK tech folks - you won't get cooties reading it) in September, 2004. In it he says:

...why do so many of us look for single solutions to current problems, single technologies, single media? Why do so many writers, futurists, and speakers tout X as “the future” rather than “a part of the future”?

I’ve used the slogan “And, not Or” for more than a decade. There’s another slogan that goes along with it, one that I believe to be at least partly true in most walks of life: “The answer to most multiple-choice questions is Yes.”

That requires some clarification. I’m talking about real-life multiple-choice questions, ones that are often phrased in terms of a single choice: “Is the future for fiction e-books, audiobooks, or print books?” “Should reference work be done over the Internet in real-time chat, via e-mail, at a reference desk, or by walking around to see who needs help?” “Should library databases offer Google-like single boxes, simple fielded search options, or complex Boolean capabilities?” “Will scholarly journals be electronic-only, electronic and print, or print?”

In each of those cases, and in most similar cases, the best answer is Yes. All of those are correct, certainly across the range of libraries.

Walt's philosophy is one worth adopting. Next time I am asked if something should be x or y, I'll try to answer, "Yes, x and y."

Have a wonderful weekend. 

Keeping Kids in their Place

The ugly list called “Dumbing Down Our Kids”  (or is it Keeping Kids in their Place?)  attributed to Charles Sykes is making the rounds again. I detested the thing when I first saw it and it still creeps me out. Sykes’s original is in bold; my response is not.

Rule 1: Life is not fair; get used to it.  Life is absolutely fair. We all get the same odds of absolutely arbitrary good and bad things happening to us.

Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something before you feel good about yourself.  The world doesn't care about anything. Only people have the capacity for caring and there are plenty of caring people in the world. We should teach people to feel good about a much wider scope of "accomplishments" than that narrowly defined by the business world: artistic talent, empathic gifts, being a good friend, being healthy, etc.

Rule 3: You will not make 40 thousand dollars a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice president with a car phone until you earn both.  I know kids who come out of high school (or a year of technical college) Novell or Cisco certified that make 40K easy. Artistic, athletic, entrepreneurial, and musical talents are rewarded at an even higher rate. Age and experience are not an indicator of earning power. Talent and rare or valued skills sets are.

Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss who doesn't have tenure.  Very funny. Have you ever seen an employee evaluation done in the private sector? They are a joke. We have a negative unemployment rate here in our area of Minnesota in many sectors of our economy. (1 applicant for every 25 manufacturing jobs.) Good bosses aren't tough. They are teachers and coaches and mentors. At least the ones who wish to keep good employees are. (And that's driving the old white, bald, cigar-chomping, I-say-jump bosses nuts!)

Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your grandparents had a different word for burger-flipping; they called it opportunity.  Depends on whether it is at MacDonalds or Chez Bovine. Any work into which a person cannot bring imagination, creativity, and personal-goal setting should be automated. I hate seeing humans doing the work of machines nearly as much as I hate seeing machines trying to do the work of humans (Internet filters, telephone automated responses, etc.)  

Rule 6: If you screw up, it's not your parents' fault so don't whine about your mistakes. Learn from them.  You haven't seen some of the parents my students deal with.  Sometimes it IS the parents' fault.

Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way paying your bills, cleaning your room, and listening to you talk how about how idealistic you are.  I thought they got that way because they lost their idealism by for working for people like you, Mr. Sykes.

Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life has not. In some schools they have abolished failing grades, they'll give you as many times as you want to get the right answer. This, of course, bears not the slightest resemblance to anything in real life.  Really? Then why do I always read about the number of times people like Harlan Sanders (KFC) failed before making it big. Good schools never give up on kids. We've learned that some people take a little more time to perform at an expected level of competence, but given time, energy and motivation, everybody will eventually get the "right" answers. Schools can't afford to be social sorting devices anymore, since there aren't places for D and F kids in society anymore.  

Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off, and very few employers are interested in helping you find yourself.  Do that on your own time.   If you are smart and talented enough you can have as much time off as you wish. If you are not finding yourself though work, you are in the wrong job.

Rule 10: Television is not real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.  Unless you are a writer, consultant, salesperson, or work from home (or with a cell phone and laptop out of a coffee shop). I would agree that television is not real life. Real life is a whole lot better. Thank goodness.

Rule 11: Living fast and dying young is romantic-only until you see one of your peers at room temperature.  But living fast IS romantic. If you aren't a little wild while you are young, you'll have to be a little wild during a middle-age crisis when it's a lot more expensive and you'll look a great deal more foolish. The longest book is not always the most interesting book.

Rule 12: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for them.  Be nice to everyone. Chances are true "nerds" will be working for you. Learn what motivates them and makes them loyal and productive.

Mr. Sykes, lighten up and get a grip. 

Internet denizens, stop forwarding this crap.

I’m feeling rather contrary lately. Have you noticed? Must be all this Christmas, no Holiday, no Christmas, no Holiday, no ... Whatever shopping getting to me.