RailsGirls Baltimore Recap & Survey Results

Women: Damned if you do or don't

Lean in... but not so far that you become out of touch. That seems to be the critical response to Sheryl Sandberg's new mantra to career women everywhere. Maureen Dowd's op-ed in the New York Times this week, "Pompom Girl for Feminism" says:

"Noting that her Facebook page for “Lean In” looks more like an ego wall with “deep thoughts,” critics argue that her unique perch as a mogul with the world’s best husband to boot makes her tone-deaf to the problems average women face as they struggle to make ends meet in a rough economy, while taking care of kids, aging parents and housework."

Elsewhere in the NYT this week, in "A Titan's How-To On Breaking Glass Ceilings" Jodi Kantor writes: "Even her advisers acknowledge the awkwardness of a woman with double Harvard degrees, dual stock riches (from Facebook and Google, where she also worked), a 9,000-square-foot house and a small army of household help urging less fortunate women to look inward and work harder."

For crying out loud. It's not as though she skipped to the end of a rainbow and found a pot of Harvard MBAs and Google stock certificates. Sandberg isn't an heiress to her wealth. She has earned everything she's got - isn't she exactly the kind of woman whose advice you should take?

At precisely what point in your career are you successful enough to have influence en masse, but not so successful that you have become out of touch with the everywoman? Sure, Marissa Mayer and Sheryl Sandberg "have it all" - including help, a luxury afforded by their self-made success, which ironically seems to strip them of their right to talk about being working women. Never mind the 15 years of their careers that led up to their C-suite positions - now they have stock options and huge salaries, so what do they know? 

"While she may empathize, does she really know what it is like for the single mom with a disabled child who has no choice but to work to put food on the table?" one commenter asks. If said-single-mom, by her own grit and brilliance, should find herself elevated to the sort of international soap-box necessary for a widespread audience and influence, it's more than likely that her meteoric rise would be accompanied by the sort of paycheck that eliminates these economic burdens. Is she now forbidden to speak of her former struggles? On the path to success, does the arrival delegitimize the journey? 

People seem to have forgotten that Sandberg and Mayer didn't simply roll out of bed one morning and land in a giant pile of money. They both obtained bachelor's and graduate degrees from top-notch schools (Harvard and Stanford), which means they have likely been busting their asses since grade school. And while Sandberg now has the luxury of leaving the office at 5:30, she undoubtedly pulled some all nighters earlier in her educational and professional career. Mayer has been famously noted for sleeping under her desk at Google and pulling 130 hour work weeks. (Side note: when I searched for that article to link, "Marissa Mayer, sleep_" auto-completed with "sleep her way to the top.")

"Sandberg describes taking her kids to a business conference last year and realizing en route that her daughter had head lice. But the good news was that she was on the private eBay jet," quips Dowd. Frankly, being trapped in an airtight space with a lice infestation seems like a nightmare, regardless of who owns the plane/train/automobile. Is the eBay jet equipped with professional delousers and a supply of RID and fine-toothed metal combs? Otherwise, it's irrelevant, because all the Veuve Clicquot in the world couldn't defeat those little demons. In another light, this might be seen as an example of how wealth and success do not immunize her to the common trials of motherhood, but instead, Dowd highlights her luxe mode of transportation. So what? She got an extra bag of peanuts while digging bugs out of her kid's hair? Fancy.

Billionaire men throw money at cars, planes, yachts, hotels, casinos, and other obscure material luxuries, and people want to point fingers at Mayer for having a nanny? And Sandberg for having a cooperative husband? Does Jack Dorsey have a cleaning staff? Probably, but no one's writing articles about how out of touch he is from middle-class bachelors everywhere.

Angela Benton wonders why more female founders are not accepting positions in the NewMe accelerator. Possibly, the sort of under-the-microscope analysis of "work-life balance" that accompanies female success gives women reason for pause.

Whether you marry or don't, whether you have children or don't, whether you hire a nanny or don't, whether you breastfeed or don't, whether you stay home or don't, whether you have an "easy" baby or don't, whether you speak up or don't, whether you "lean in" or don't, one thing's for sure: you're damned if you do or you don't. 

The Lynchpin of Suspension

This week, The Baltimore Sun's education reporter, Erica Green, ran a story on a controversial Baltimore City Public Schools incentive program: teachers and principals are eligible for monetary rewards up to $9,500 for successfully reducing suspension rates.

Great, right? Educators can be compensated for reducing suspensions:  improving school culture and decreasing disciplinary issues to keep kids in school and safe environments.
Oh, logical fallacies are so sneaky!

Logical fallacy: A reduced number of suspensions are necessarily the result of improved school culture and/or a decrease in serious misbehavior.

Likely reality: A reduced number of suspensions are the result of assigning fewer suspensions.

If Destiny and Jaqueline get into a physical fight in class, the suggested disciplinary action in the Code of Conduct is a suspension, but the actual disciplinary action comes down to administrative discretion. If the principal is eligible for a monetary reward for reducing the number of suspensions, on which side of the disciplinary action spectrum do you suppose that discretion will fall? It doesn’t take a doctorate in behavioral psychology to imagine the negative consequences of this policy.

Unfortunately, the attention to the flaws of this initiative obscures the crux of the matter: suspensions don’t work. Suspensions have almost nothing to do with school and everything to do with home and parenting.

In 13 years of rigid Catholic schooling – where you could get detention for the wrong-colored socks, being one minute late, or wearing a flagrant hair accessory – I never got a single detention. Why? Well, because I was a goody-goody. But ALSO, because I did not want to even fathom the sort of wrath I would incur from my parents for receiving disciplinary action. Because I was terrified of even a single indiscretion on my “permanent record,” which I believed was very important because my parents told me so since forever. Because I knew the disciplinary action I received from school would pale in comparison to whatever my father deemed a suitable punishment. I did not worry about school infractions. I worried about what my father would say when he found out. I still shudder to imagine.

So what happens if this sort of disciplinary support doesn’t follow through at home? Nearly all of the punishing effect of detentions and suspensions are predicated on parents reinforcing the seriousness, legitimacy, and severity of these consequences at home.

In reality, many of my students viewed suspensions as a mental health day: a day of video games, Cocoa-Puffs, and Facebook.  At worst, they were bored. At best – vaaaaacation!

As a teacher, I had many students with incredibly supportive parents – we chatted frequently on the phone, via email, and at conferences. They checked homework, helped with studying, and monitored grades. Not so coincidentally, these students were never in danger of being suspended.
For fairly obvious (yet complex) reasons, it is the students who do not receive adequate support and attention at home who are usually the repeat offenders for misbehavior, violent conduct, and truancy. Suspensions won’t work, because the lynchpin of the punishment is missing. Unfortunately, sending a message that extreme or violent misbehavior will be ignored or downplayed is a recipe for school chaos – that message travels fast.

What to do? These students do need some form of disciplinary action to send a clear message that certain behaviors will not be tolerated. However, they are also likely in desperate need of additional support services. Unless you have an intensely Hobbesian view of human nature, it’s fair to say that students don’t generally go around cursing, punching, and threatening people without an underlying cause.

Without digging deeper to unearth and address the root causes of the misbehavior, those students (and their schools) will be caught in a vicious cycle of crime and punishment. Maybe they need therapy and counseling services, maybe they need a positive outlet for aggression (like joining a sports team), maybe they need a personal tutor… but one thing’s for sure: a mental health day won’t fix the problem, and neither will sending them back to class.

Unpacking Male Privilege

This week, several articles, tweets, and websites reignited the issue of diversity in technology, specifically in conference settings.

On January 4, Rebecca J. Rosen, senior associate editor at The Atlantic, published "A Simple Suggestion to Phase Out All-Male Panels at Tech Conferences."  Rosen borrows an idea from the non-profit organization Advancing Women Professionals and the Jewish Community: men should simply decline to sit on all-male panels. The column was spurred by the announcement of the overwhelming male majority of panelists for the Edge conference.

It was, as the title claimed, a simple suggestion. Unfortunately, some people do not understand the definition of "suggestion."

On January 6, designer Andy Rutledge launched a satirical website, Conference Quotas, poking fun at the discussion around increasing diversity at tech and design conferences:

To the credit of the Internet, most people were not amused:

Jamelle Bouie posted a spot-on response, "Diversity? That's for Racists."  For further reading, Baltimore writer Rodney Foxworth had published an outstanding essay on conference diversity and inclusiveness just a few weeks prior.

But wait there's more!

As if women and racial minorities are now pitted against each other, vying for the enviable "token" status. As if gender diversity and racial diversity are mutually exclusive issues. As if we're only capable of addressing one minority group at a time, and it must be the least-represented.

And there's that word again: privileged.

The word is frequently misused and is now commonly interpreted to mean "born with a silver spoon in your mouth" or "never had to work for anything," but that's a distortion of the actual definition. Privilege is more about advantage and immunity than wealth or work ethic.

In the late 1980s, Peggy McIntosh published "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Backpack."  McIntosh compiled a list of subtle and not-so-subtle advantages that white people can expect on a daily basis, such as, "I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race" and "I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group." 

The Tech Lady Mafia crowd-sourced a list of male privileges (advantages, immunities) they have encountered in various business transactions, conference settings, and social gatherings. 

This is not an attack against men. This is not a case of us vs. them. This is a starting point for further discussion. This is a call to awareness of the sometimes too-subtle-to-recognize digs at female presence, integrity, professionalism, and expertise. All of the contributions are based on real-life experiences of women in the Tech Lady Mafia, so please be respectful in your comments. 

2013 ResolvEd

This post originally appeared on Changing Media on January 3, 2013.

When I was a teacher, I made my annual resolutions in August.

I will not grade papers in bed.
I will eat lunch.
I will have a social life this year.

Much like the late-January decrease in gym attendance, I usually had sheets stained with red ink and highlighter fluid and was back to raiding the vending machines by October 1st.

Lately, I’ve noticed a trend in thematic resolutions versus quantitative resolutions. Instead of resolving to “lose 10 pounds,” we resolve to “be healthy.” We pledge to be brave, be disciplined, be frugal, be honest.

The thematic approach to reform fits nicely with trends in education. Even the most data-driven reformers are beginning to realize that learning is less about scores, more about growth. Teacher motivation is less about salary and hours, more about motivation and autonomy.

Here are my prescriptive resolutions for stakeholders in teaching and learning to make 2013 “the best year ever” for education.

Teachers: Be Fearless.

Trust that you know what’s best for your students and stick to your guns. If curriculum, tests, and policies don’t make sense for you and your students, push back (thoughtfully, intelligently, peacefully). You are the teacher. Your playing small does not serve your students well. If you have a union, use it well. Organize other teachers and campaign for better professional development, more comprehensive evaluations, more flexibility with curriculum, smarter school spending practices. When you advocate fearlessly for yourself, you also advocate for your colleagues, your students, their parents, and the community at-large.

Parents: Speak Up, Show Up.

If you think a school system is failing your child and other students, speak up. This doesn’t (necessarily) require controversy, picketing, legislation. If you’re concerned about your student’s progress, call the teacher and ask how you can help. She’ll be thankful for your support. Even better – call your student’s teacher to say “Great job!” once in awhile. You know that warm, fuzzy feeling you get when you receive a good report? It works both ways. A little positive praise goes a long way. If you have the time, show up at school once in a while, even if it’s just for 10 minutes. Your presence will do wonders for your child and other students. If you want to get involved at a higher level, by all means: blog, tweet, and campaign away.

Principals: Lead from Behind.

This quote has gotten muddled in recent foreign policy scandals, but the phrase is derived from a Nelson Mandela quote: “It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur.” By granting autonomy and leadership privileges to your teachers and students and refraining from micro-managing them, you not only empower staff and students, but also allow more time for observing classrooms, providing feedback, and cultivating local partnerships. When teachers feel a sense of autonomy over their curriculum, class environment, professional development and resource selection, passionate instructional leaders will blossom and thrive. When students assume leadership roles in school (through student council, hall patrol, internships, and teacher assistantships), school culture will improve with ease.

Reformers, Pundits, Thought Leaders: Think Progress.

Some of the public commentary on public education is downright vitriolic. There is an enormous spectrum of opinions on how to “fix” American public education. Let’s try to find some common ground, folks. There’s no need to attack people and policies with such venom. Let’s remember the students – isn’t that the whole point? Let’s think about progress, instead of tearing each other down. Let’s value different experiences, different perspectives – wouldn’t we teach our students to do so? Let’s disagree with civility. Let’s propose solutions and encourage experimentation and innovation. Some of the language I witness among educators would have warranted detention in my classroom – and definitely an apology letter. Instigating hyper-polarity among educators and other stakeholders will only stagnate reform. If we’re educating future congressional representatives, we must model more productive politicking.

Baltimore Startup Weekend Education

Last weekend was the first Baltimore StartupWeekend Edu, a 54-hour entrepreneurship competition. StartupWeekends take place every weekend in 90 countries and 300 cities around the world. StartupWeekend Edu is an offshoot of the original Startup Weekend program with a specific focus on innovative technology related to education. Both brands share a similar structure and goal:  pitch ideas, form teams, and launch a startup in just 54 hours before presenting the final pitch to a panel of judges.

On Friday night, nearly 75 educators, developers, designers, and business experts gathered in the offices of Advertising.com in Locust Point to embark on the 54 hour journey. About half of the participants lined up to pitch an idea to the room. All of the ideas were posted around the room on chart paper and each participant was given three Post-Its with which to vote on the pitches. The eight pitches that had gathered the most Post-It votes were selected as the startups to develop and launch during the weekend.

After the top eight pitches were announced, participants engaged in a sort of startup speed-dating activity, during which they formed teams with (ideally) a mix of educators, developers, designers, and business experts. Team sizes ranged from 2-12 people with a variety of different skill sets. Upon formation, teams got to work by delving deeper into the problem and mapping out their solution. Everyone worked furiously until they were kicked out of the space at 11:30pm: “You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.”

Teams reconvened bright and early over coffee and croissants the next morning, refreshed and ready to get to work. Most teams worked for 12-15 hours on Saturday, then caught a few hours of rest before the final hours of work time on Sunday. Throughout the weekend, coaches – current and former entrepreneurs – circulated throughout the space to help teams work through tough questions. How will you validate your product? Is this a solution that customers want? Are you sure? Did you ask them? Will they pay for this solution? How much? How do you know?

Khalid Rudo Smith, one of the international organizers of StartupWeekened Edu and the co-founder of LessonCast, lives in Baltimore and originally pitched LessonCast at a StartupWeekend Edu in 2010.  On Sunday evening, Smith revealed that he brought StartupWeekend Edu home to Baltimore with a mix of trepidation and excitement - wondering if the event would live up to the hype, but intimately familiar with the potential for innovation in his home community. Throughout the weekend, Smith served as master of ceremony, coached teams, and advised the other coaches.

On Sunday night, the judges arrived to judge the final pitches, which included a dashboard tool for monitoring college admission and scholarship deadlines, a maker registry to connect educators with local makers, a tool to unblock educational sites blocked by the school district’s web filter, an app for learning students’ names, and a platform for searching for and organizing educational videos.

The third place team was BmoreHeard, a web platform for Baltimore City students to voice their opinions to local officials and politicians, pitched and led by Baltimore City student Keimmie Booth. In addition to a cash prize, judge Chris Tonjes, CIO of Baltimore City, offered the services of Baltimore City’s IT department to build a fully functional version of the site.

The second place team was CourseFly, a dashboard for college course registration that also displayed relevant information like the courses required for graduation, number of credits needed to graduate, and current GPA.

The first place team was Challenge Box, a literal box packaged with an interactive, multi-platform, choose-your-own-adventure story and materials for hands-on physical challenges.

The event was hosted and sponsored by Advertising.com in Locust Point and was also locally sponsored by MindGruband Digital Harbor Foundation.

Show Them the Money? Why Merit Pay Doesn't Work

Last week, Newark school district revived the debate on merit pay for teachers when the union passed a new teacher contract that awards $5,000 bonuses to highly effective teachers and up to $10,000 bonuses for highly effective teachers in low-performing schools and high-need subject areas like math and science. Proponents of merit pay argue for incentivizing effective teachers, while opponents of the measure claim that it will pit teachers against each other to the detriment of students. Merit pay doesn't work, but not for the reasons cited by the opposition.

Schools are not businesses and school districts are not corporations, but like businesses and corporations, schools and school districts are operated by humans, which means that basic laws of human nature apply. Educational leaders would do well to explore some of the literature and research on motivation and leadership that has been so heavily marketed to the corporate world. Almost all of the business and social science research from the last decade on motivation, drive, leadership, management, retention, and job satisfaction agrees: it's not about the money.

Again and again, research shows that the carrot/stick approach fails to motivate people. Daniel Pink, the author of Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us, draws on 50 years of behavioral science research to argue that external rewards like money are not motivators for high performance. Instead, Pink's research shows that the best motivators are intrinsic: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. When implemented strategically, these motivators lead to increased job satisfaction, higher retention rates, and stronger organizations.

One of the most famous case studies illustrating this point is Tony Hsieh's turnaround of Zappos. When Hsieh became CEO of Zappos in 2000, the company was worth $1.6 million and floundering. By 2009, Zappos was worth over $1 billion and cited as a world class example of corporate culture and growth.  Zappos achieved success by empowering every employee, down to call center representatives, to make whatever decisions necessary to make the customer happy.  Hsieh instilled a culture of delivering happiness (the purpose) and then gave every single employee the autonomy to achieve that purpose. He didn't build a company of devoted employees on bonus checks.

In spite of overwhelming research to the contrary, education "reformers" still think waving a fat check in front of teachers will somehow lead to higher test scores. This is insulting. It indirectly suggests that teachers are not already doing everything in their power to teach students successfully. It implies that by sweetening the deal with a few grand, teachers will magically whip out a secret arsenal of teacher tools they'd been holding out on until the district ponied up the cash. Oh, there's a check at the end of the line? Well, I guess I'll teach Johnny to subtract, after all! Sound ridiculous? It is.

No, school districts aren't selling shoes, and they're not looking to make a profit, but there is (or should be) a uniting purpose to educate students and grow their academic success. That won't be accomplished with a carrot/stick approach. It will be accomplished by giving teachers the autonomy to make decisions about how to teach their students and increase their own teaching mastery.

If you want a dog and pony show, then offer ribbons and prizes. Real, systemic growth and change can't be bought.