Is College Worth It?

CollegeA recent survey done by the Pew Research Center found that Americans both with and without college degrees accurately estimate the difference in average yearly earnings at $20,000. The official number, according to the report, is just a hair under that at $19,550.

Of course, a closer look at their research shows that even that number varies greatly depending on field of study. For example, as you can see in chapter 5 of their study, liberal arts and education degrees are worth significantly less than an engineering degree. In fact, a degree in education is worth about half a million dollars less than the average Bachelor’s degree over the course of a working life. But I digress.

The real question here is the title of the study: is college worth it? It’s a question that does not often come up in discussions about K-12 education, but one that really should. Often (as is the case in my district) the assumption is that college is not only worth it, but almost required. The majority of our students graduate and go on to college. However, “the majority” is certainly not “all,” so the question becomes much more immediate. We are in the business of preparing students for success beyond high school, and if “success” does not necessarily mean going to college, we should be preparing students for whatever “success” might look like.

I have slowly come to believe that perhaps college (particularly 4-year liberal arts study) is really not ideal or necessary for many of the students we work with every day. Let’s ignore the rapidly increasing cost of a college education. I know a number of students who, as 9th graders, are excited about the prospect of doing some sort of skilled labor. One 9th grader, in particular, is already doing an apprenticeship as a blacksmith and is incredibly excited about that opportunity. Moreover, the Pew study shows that it’s very possible for them to make a better living doing this kind of skilled labor. It begs the question: is it worth it for this student to continue with a school and curriculum that is focused on preparing him for college?

Mike Rowe, of Dirty Jobs fame, talked to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee about this topic and espoused the desperate and immediate need for skilled labor across the country (read the text of his speech here). In the talk, Rowe shares a valuable insight and some interesting numbers. Most notably, he says

Right now, American manufacturing is struggling to fill 200,000 vacant positions. There are 450,000 openings in trades, transportation and utilities. The Skills Gap is real, and it’s getting wider. In Alabama, a third of all skilled tradesmen are over 55. They’re retiring fast, and no one is there to replace them. [Emphasis Added]

If we are preparing students to be successful the real world, it would seem that helping them develop valuable skills in these trades is one means to that end. These skills, as Rowe points out, are lifelong skills that don’t go away. In addition, as my own father likes to point out, skilled labor simply cannot be outsourced. Having this sort of skill is job security, and for many in those fields, it pays very well (in all likelihood, much better than teaching does).

In addition, such as that in this New York Times article, is suggesting that maybe a college education isn’t impacting students anyway. In fact,

a large number of the students showed no significant progress on tests of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing that were administered when they began college and then again at the ends of their sophomore and senior years.

If a student goes to a 4-year college and demonstrates absolutely no gains in thinking skills (as 36% of the subjects did), there seems to be a serious problem with the quality of the “education” these students are receiving. As we in K-12 education are trying to educate students and prepare them to be successful after high school, if the colleges they attend are not helping prepare them to be even more successful, what is the point (apart from, of course, that magical degree)?

So the question posed by the title of the Pew survey remains – is college worth it? As is nearly always the case, the answer is much more complex than “yes” or “no.” However, I think it might be safe for us to say that college is likely not the best option for every student. In fact, for many, there are probably better options that will allow them to be more successful in every regard than a college education would.


Playing Without Fear

Mike Singletary

A guy who played without fear

When the last football season ended, there were several topics that our staff needed to do some research on. One of these was “Playing Without Fear.” In talking one-on-one with players after the season, it became clear to our head coach that many of them experienced performance anxiety – fear – before and during some of our bigger games. In hindsight, it explained a lot – blown coverages, missed tackles, dropped game-clinching interceptions. Our kids simply didn’t execute when there was pressure because of this fear. In researching this topic, we wanted to figure out how we could help them play without fear – how to coach them to play with confidence and “swagger.”

During the offseason, I’ve been to a couple of clinics and heard some good talks, but none that really hit home on this topic. The closest I came was at the “Marine Combat Fitness” session, which talked about training your body to be in peak performance mode. What has really influenced my thinking on this subject, though, are the books I’ve been reading. I have made a conscious effort to read as many books by great coaches as I can, from John Wooden (Wooden on Leadership) to Vince Lombardi (What it Takes to Be #1) to Bill Walsh (The Score Takes Care of Itself) to Pete Carroll (Win Forever). In the course of reading these books, I have noticed that each coach has a similar way of addressing this topic of playing without fear. To me the solutions they describe are simple, easy to implement, and (based on the success these coaches have had) they work.

1. Strive for Mastery. The common message on the topic of playing without fear in all the books I read is very simple. In Win Forever, Pete Carroll says, “That state of mind, when you are truly competing for the sake of performance alone, is when you are performing in the absence of fear.” This seems to be the primary focus of all these great coaches: they focus only on what they can control – attitude, effort, concentration – and strive only to maximize their own performance. By focusing on improving yourself, you focus on something you can directly influence and cannot be influenced by others. Others have called this a “mastery orientation” to performance, meaning they focus on perfecting their skills rather than on the outcome. This is true in other sports, such as golf, where constantly competing with oneself is an obvious key to success.

John Wooden said this a little differently: “Success is found in the running of the race. How you run the race – your planning, preparation, practice, and performance – counts for everything. Winning or losing is a by-product, an aftereffect, of that effort.” It’s never about the winning or losing. Wooden goes on reiterate this point many times – focus on doing everything you can to maximize your own performance. He said he never talked about winning or losing because those were never the goal – being the best you could possibly be was the goal. Even Coach Wooden’s famous definition of success says nothing of winning or losing; it’s all about “knowing you made the effort to become the best of which you are capable.”

Vince Lombardi’s philosophy was no different. Though many point to his “winning is the only thing” quote, Coach Lombardi believed that the goal was to do the best one is capable of. “Not victory for its own sake, but victory as a test – a test of how far you could push yourself to your limits and beyond, a test of your ability to overcome your doubts and weaknesses, and a test of how much your G0d-given talent and ability you were willing to expend in the pursuit of success and victory.” Even for Lombardi, who preached winning to his teams, victory was only a way to measure how well you were performing. Games are simply a measuring stick to see how good you are and where you can continue to improve.

And Bill Walsh, well, he said it simply. “Control what you can control; the score will take care of itself.” Like these other three coaches, he believed that playing without fear means to focus on making oneself better at all times. He talks about his “Standard of Performance” – the way of doing things, the end goal, the ideal. All members of the 49er’s organization strive for the Standard of Performance in their own job. Winning was nothing more than a byproduct of being the best you can possibly be – aiming for that Standard of Performance. By doing this, they are able to play without fear.

2. Opponents are Only Opportunities. For all of these coaches, the opponents were never “the enemy.” They did not try to demonize the opposition or make them seem stronger or weaker. Rather, your opponents are simply a means to an end, a tool that will help you become the best of which you are capable. The better the opponent, the better test of your ability. As Coach Carroll said, “My opponents are the people who offer me the opportunity to succeed…At the end of the day, that opponent is the person who makes you into the best competitor you can be.” By viewing one’s opponents as a means to an end, it takes away the aura (or lack thereof) of whomever you may be playing that week. When that opponent is viewed in this way, there is no reason to fear that opponent; rather, it is a reason to appreciate and thank that opponent, because they will help you see where you are at.

Each of these coaches add that an added component of playing without fear is playing with supreme confidence in what you are doing. How do we accomplish this as coaches? Preparation. We prepare our players for every contingency, every possibility, every look that might arise during a game. And when we do, our players are confident in their ability to react to that situation when it arises. As John Wooden says, “You must be at your best when your best is needed. Enjoy the thrill from a tough battle.” So we must practice critical situations frequently, we must create pressure so players get used to the butterflies in their stomachs, we must help our players gain the confidence they need in the game. And when they do, they can play without fear.

Ronnie Lott3. Press On Toward the Goal. Bill Walsh tells the story of Ronnie Lott, the Hall of Fame safety that played with the 49er’s. Lott, he said, could be characterized in two words: commitment and sacrifice. “Lott,” Walsh says, “was constant in his drive to excel.” He goes on to tell the story about Ronnie Lott’s finger – rather than risk missing the first game of the season, Lott chose to have part of his pinky amputated. That’s how passionate he was about the game. “‘Ronnie Lott’ character reveals itself most starkly in two completely different circumstances: when victory or success is almost a given, and conversely, when there is little or no likelihood of victory. The former tempts an individual to start bellyaching and quit. Ronnie never gave up or let down. Consistent commitment and sacrifice in all situations was his trademark.” It is this ability to commit completely to a cause – the team, the Standard of Performance, whatever it may be – that made Lott and the 49er’s successful. Because of his ability to continue striving for perfection, Lott had no problem playing without fear, regardless of the situation.

Similarly, Pete Carroll mentions that, “We never dragged the past along with us, because the past is not a place where we can compete…We never allowed the disappointment of losing to diminish the attitude and energy we needed to bring every day.” Whether winning or losing, we must put past results behind us because lingering distracts us from striving to be better. While we must certainly reflect on what we did, we only think about past successes and failures as a measure of where we used to be. They are the markers of our journey towards perfection. When we are able to commit ourselves completely to that end goal – that ideal – and when we are willing to sacrifice to achieve that transcendent cause as Ronnie Lott did day in and day out, then we can play without fear.

When I have told players in the past to be confident, to play without fear, I’m not sure these are the concepts I had in mind. However, they make sense. When a player is focused on being the best he can be, when he sees every practice and every game as an opportunity to improve, and when he is committed and willing to sacrifice to make himself better, regardless of the outcome, he is certainly not going to be afraid of the opponent. In fact, there is nothing to be afraid of for this player – he is only continuing what he has done in the past. He is only finding another way to make himself better.

And if I believe John Wooden, Vince Lombardi, Bill Walsh, and Pete Carroll – four coaches who had more than a little success in their careers – this mentality is the key to playing without fear.

Which One is “Real” Education?

I have to share a quick story from a colleague that frustrates me. [A quick note – this is my frustration, not his. He was telling me about this class and I asked him what this past week was like, thinking it must have been an amazing teaching opportunity. He was, and is, quite professional about the whole thing and is wise enough to recognize that he has no choice but to move on. I, on the other hand, remain perturbed on his behalf.]

There is apparently a class at the high school called “20th Century War and Terror.” It sounds like a fascinating class, covering everything from the Armenian genocide and World War I to the Desert Storm conflict. If this class had been an option at my high school, I would have signed up in a heartbeat; looking at history through the lens of warfare fascinates me.

Needless to say, the last week could have been an amazing opportunity for students to study the subject matter in real-time as the Osama bin Laden story unfolded in front of their eyes. Talk about relevant learning – it would be like teaching a class on theatrical tradition when Shakespeare or Christopher Marlowe died, or studying music history when John Lennon was killed. I can only begin to imagine the possibilities.

I say “could have been,” though, because the class was not allowed to use computers this past week. 8th graders in our district were taking the online version of the state’s standardized test all week (and into next week), so teachers and students across the district (including those in this class) were asked to minimize internet use as much as possible.

So rather than analyzing the reactions from different parts of the world, discussing the ramifications on international relations, or researching similarities to other historical deaths, students were left to quickly gloss over the topic and then continue on with their regularly scheduled programming.

So I’m left with the nagging question – which one is real education? The state (and federally) mandated testing or the clearly relevant current event intricately connected to the course content?

Jake Locker and the Wisdom of the Masses

Jake LockerFor 5 years now, I’ve had the privilege of watching Jake Locker develop as a quarterback at the University of Washington. I have seen every game he’s played in as a collegiate athlete, and I’ve seen the impact he’s made off the field, as well. Last week, “Montlake Jake’s” college career reached its end when he was drafted 8th overall to the Tennessee Titans. As a Husky fan and an admirer of Locker’s, I couldn’t be happier for him.

That Jake was the first Husky QB ever drafted in the 1st round, however, is not what I’m thinking about right now. Rather, I am reflecting on the entire draft process, specifically from a media perspective. Beginning last year, the draft hype around Jake has been fascinating. First, Mel Kiper said it was “etched in stone” that Jake would be the first pick in the draft. From there, other “experts” and talking heads all hopped on the bandwagon.

Of course, they all forgot that Jake played for a team that was still only a year removed from the worst season in Pac-1o history. So when the Huskies, and consequently Jake, struggled, the “experts” suddenly agreed that Locker was overrated and had made a bad decision. All along, Locker insisted that he had no regrets, and continued telling the “experts” that, all the way to San Diego and a Holiday Bowl victory. Did Jake suddenly get worse? No – the perception of him changed based on his circumstances.

As the season ended and Locker became a pro prospect (again), there was much discussion about him. As some said, he is a polarizing player. On the one hand, nobody doubts his character, work ethic, or even his athletic ability. Coaches, players, fans, and “experts” alike agreed that he had all the physical tools (arm strength, size, etc.) for the NFL, and all agreed his character was above reproach. However, the “experts” had problems with Locker’s numbers – specifically, with his 53% career completion percentage. There was much bandying about Jake’s accuracy in college, with one side of the debate focusing on him and the other side focusing primarily on his team (offensive line and receivers).

What became fascinating for me during this debate was not the argument itself, but the way these opposing sides adopted certain “facts” about his accuracy that may or may not have been true. For example, one comment I heard often from the pro-Locker “experts” is that his receivers dropped an unusually high number of passes, leading to the lower completion percentage. Unfortunately, that is not a statistic that is publicly kept, so we have no way of knowing if it was true or not. Nevertheless, it quickly became a common theme in the discussion, both among fans and among talking heads.

Similarly, on the other side, there were a number of anti-Locker talking heads who adopted several “facts” of their own. For example, some pointed to the Nebraska game, saying that this was the “only pro-style defense Locker played against” and pointed to Locker’s poor statistics in those games. Of course, they neither define “pro-style defense” or explain how, say, USC is not a “pro-style” defense. In fact, Nebraska’s “Peso” defense may be less of a “pro-style” defense than most Pac-10 teams. Nevertheless, the critique became commonplace – both the “experts” and fans began spouting the same criticism of Locker without delving into further explanation.

Sadly, nobody – from scouts to coaches to players to fans to talking heads – ever put all the pieces of analysis together. As a result, there are a number of questions about Jake that never were really answered – What actually caused the 53% completion percentage? What kind of incompletions did he throw? Did his receivers drop an inordinate number of passes? Did he have less time in the pocket than other prospects because of a faulty offensive line? How many passes did he throw away compared to other QB’s? What specifically is wrong with his “footwork” (which is always the default problem when people can’t pinpoint a quarterback’s specific mechanical flaw)?

Since NFL scouts don’t really speak publicly, the answers, arguments, and “evidence” in response to these questions all begin with the so-called “experts” that make a living analyzing the NFL draft. Before Mel Kiper made his “etched in stone” comment, Locker was barely mentioned as a draft prospect. Afterwards, it is restated ad nauseum as the gospel according to Mel. The same story appears with Jake’s completion percentage, the dropped passes, and the defenses he faced. These become common wisdom only when a proclaimed expert declares them to be the case.

Of course, the NFL draft is not the only place where this sort of thing happens. Many teachers can probably point to a few examples in the last few months of the media demonizing educators and teachers’ unions and how their communities have adopted the same arguments. Did the teachers change? No – the perception of them did. The same salaries that were considered “noble” for teachers to make given the work they do suddenly became “selfish” because some talking heads said it was. But I digress.

See, it’s very easy for the “experts” to be critical (I’m looking at you, Todd McShay and Arne Duncan). They can form any opinion they choose and if they’re wrong, oh well. I hesitate to adopt the views of anyone in that situation. The people I want to hear from are the ones whose livelihoods are affected by the decisions they make. I want to hear from the scouts that evaluate players for a living – the guys who get fired if they badly predict a players’ future. They have a lot more invested in being right than the talking heads.  I want to hear from the teachers, who work day in and day out with the students and know those students’ learning habits better than their families do, whose butts are on the line when test scores are lower than expected for some reason. What do they think is going on? I want to know what really happened – the intricate web of causes behind the low test scores or the accuracy numbers. I’m tired of the critics offering up the easy answers.

At the end of the story, Jake Locker was still drafted 8th overall by the Titans. In spite of his supposed accuracy issues, and likely because of his character and work ethic, he has achieved his lifelong dream of being an NFL player. Whether the talking heads and “experts” agreed with the pick or not, scouts said that Locker was a franchise quarterback. And fans in Seattle (myself included) hope those scouts are right.

3 Lessons from Coaching that Improved My Teaching

As I mentioned previously, my experiences coaching have given me reason to remain optimistic about teaching. One reason is that I’ve learned some valuable lessons from coaching young student-athletes that translate well into the classroom. To be honest, many of these have come from one of the most valuable professional development trainings I’ve been a part of – annual coaching clinics.

In particular, though, I think there are 3 lessons I’ve learned through coaching that have made me a better teacher.

  1. Yes, we are talking about practice. This year, I’ve taken a different approach to teaching reading and writing skills. I’ve adopted a simple model – show them what to do, help them do it, then allow them to practice it on their own and give them feedback (or, in edu-speak – model the skill, provide guided practice, then allow independent practice with ample feedback. And yes, I realize that this is already best practice in teaching…it just took coaching to help me realize it).
    For example, when teaching students how to improve their sentence fluency, I gave them a sentence, then showed them different ways to tweak the length and structure of the sentence [model]. Then, I gave them a different sentence and had them try it in their notebooks. I pulled a couple of notebooks at random and displayed them on the document camera and we reviewed them as a class, pointing out positives and also making additional suggestions [guided practice]. Finally, I had students pull one sentence (preferably a longer one) from the draft of their essay and revise it in three different ways. They turned this in on our Moodle site and I was able to grade and give feedback on these sentences [independent practice]. Has it worked? I think they’re better writers as a result, but that brings me to lesson two…
  2. Failure is ALWAYS an option. Sometimes, even when we’re trying, things go wrong and we don’t accomplish what we’d hoped. This is true of me as a teacher and coach, but it’s also true of students and athletes. In baseball, for example, there’s a saying that even the absolute best hitters fail 6 times out of 10. How we manage that failure is the challenge. I think this is true in school, as well, and even more so in writing. For example, in the sentence fluency activity described above, some students didn’t do well – they didn’t understand what I was teaching them. So what do we do about it? The same thing a baseball player does when he makes a mistake: reflects on what he did poorly and finds a way to fix it (with or without my help) the next time. In football, too, we watch the film, see what we did wrong, and fix it when we go back out to the field. In school we should look at what we did on the assignment, take in the feedback, and give it another shot. But do students do this? If I’ve learned anything, it’s that there’s one big difference between sports and school, which is lesson number three.
  3. You have to COMPETE. There are many reasons athletes get better, but all of the coaching books I’ve read, from Vince Lombardi to Bill Walsh to Pete Carroll, agree on one simple thing – competition breeds success. However, that doesn’t mean that we want kids competing with each other. Rather, it is the individual competing with himself that breeds success. Pete Carroll says he wants to do things “better than they’ve ever been done before.” Great athletes – successful athletes – compete against themselves and try to do it better. Why? Because they have a desire, a motivation to be successful in their sport. The biggest difference I see between students that are successful and those that are not is this simple fact – the successful students are always trying to improve, while the others simply want to get by. There may be many causes for motivation, but that desire to become better, to improve, to compete, at writing, reading, or anything else is what makes students successful.

We practice, then we fail, so we practice even harder. It seems simple in theory. Why is it so difficult in reality?

A Dismal Future for Education?

In case you haven’t read John Kuhn’s “Letter from the Alamo” yet, it’s really a brilliant little piece of writing. In it, Kuhn (the superintendent of the Perrin-Whitt school district in Texas) pleads with the state government to “come to our aid” and rescue education from the quagmires in which it we are currently stuck.

More recently, Education week did a little Q&A Interview with Mr. Kuhn and asked him about many of the things going on in education today. In this interview (well worth the time it takes to read), he raises many of the same issues I mentioned in my last post – bureaucracy, poor evaluation models, etc. – as things that are hindering education. He makes a lot of interesting points about how teachers have no choice but to “teach to the test” in order to keep their jobs, how teachers are expendable but testing is “non-negotiable” when annual budget cuts roll around, and how “accountability” is mostly just another word for blame in politics.

His most interesting point, however, is his suggestion for more comprehensive accountability:

“The other major gripe I have is this: if we really believed that accountability works, wouldn’t we have accountability for all public servants? Why do we not require our legislators to make “Adequate Yearly Progress”? We have the data from their congressional districts, do we not? There is crime data, health care data, poverty figures, and drug use statistics for every state and federal legislative district. Why, exactly, do we not establish annual targets for our legislators to meet? We could eliminate 100% of poverty, crime, drug abuse, and preventable illness by 2014!

If accountability is the answer, we must move from the selective accountability that merely targets schools to a universal accountability that targets all players. We know that poverty, illness, crime, and addiction in the home all have a direct impact on the educability of our students–when legislators fail, schools fail. But we only blame the second domino to fall–it seems very cynical to me.”

I can’t help but wonder how our representatives would react if the people voted and approved a “legislative AYP.” For example, crime, health, poverty, and drug use are the equivalent of the four core subject areas in school (English, Math, Science, Social Studies), and if those numbers are not progressing by 5% a year, then the legislator is first put on probation, then eventually fired. Not a bad idea to me.

On a side note, one of the commenters made a good point – the original “Letter to the Alamo,” written by LTC. William Barret Travis to Sam Houston, was ignored and all but two soldiers at the Alamo were killed.

Why I Love Coaching

After a 10 month hiatus, I finally feel a desire to start blogging again, primarily because I want to write about what I consider to be my most authentic teaching, which I do as a coach. When I got into teaching, I knew I wanted to be a coach. I love the lessons learned in sports, and how football, baseball, and ultimate are microcosms of “real life.”

After coaching for a few years, however, I’ve come to a realization – my role as a football and baseball coach is also where I get to be a teacher, free of all other expectations and bureaucracy. While my day job as an English teacher is wonderful, I am also saddled by the additional responsibilities that come with that – curriculum writing, state testing, and so on. To be honest, the politics involved in public education (both the small-scale and the large-scale) sometimes lead me to question whether I want to continue in this field.

Coaching, however, has given me a reason for optimism. When I coach, I experience the purest form of teaching I can imagine.

  • Everything I teach my student-athletes is based on what I know they need to learn. While there may be an overarching guide to what I teach them (offensive philosophy, for example), I have the freedom to affirm their strengths and help them overcome their weaknesses. I don’t feel that same freedom in the classroom.
  • Effective coaching is based on proven educational strategies – direct instruction, guided practice, repetition, scaffolding authentic feedback. I instruct players what to do (on the board), show them how to do it (walk through), help them do it themselves repeatedly (drills), and give them feedback via film. Even grading players (which I do in football) is more authentic because it is only done when necessary to show players their strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, grading in the classroom is a chore – I must have so many grades in the gradebook, whether they are informative of student learning or not. And it takes so long to grade that I can’t realistically give feedback as quickly as needed.
  • Student-athletes are not a captive audience like other students – they choose to be there, and as a result, they are much more vested in learning what they need to in order to be the best that they can be. This means that they are more receptive to the feedback I give and are more willing to work on improving in those areas.
  • The feedback I receive as a coach is wonderful – when my players don’t perform, it’s clear what I need to do better. When we watch film as coaches, the feedback I get is specific and helpful. While there may be criticism of my coaching and/or the players I coach, the goal is always very clear – to put our players in a position where they can be successful. The result is that I improve as a coach. This is feedback I do not receive in the classroom.

While there are plenty of other things that I love about coaching (raising up leaders, teaching boys what it means to be men, watching young people grow outside the classroom, etc.), I’ve realized that this is what I love most about it – the opportunity to simply teach.