Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Innovation, Authenticity, & Results

I want to be the kind of principal who empowers teachers to find innovative and authentic ways to make their students better learners.  The most prudent way I can ensure that happens is for myself to pursue innovative and varied means to allow my teachers and students to thrive.  When I make suggestions or share observations/philosophies with members of the team, I must be able to offer alternatives or to provide an outlet to reflect in a meaningful way what is currently being done.  Without a personal experience with experimentation and risk taking, I will not be an optimal agent of change or growth.  As expectations naturally evolve as business and politics change, schools must be ensuring that students are learning timeless lessons in modern and relevant ways, and the principal is the obvious point person to facilitate these diversifications.

Not all 21st century innovation is exclusive to technology.  The ideas of research, the scientific method, and communicative skills are as timeless as ideas get, but taking an innovative approach and allowing extreme amounts of creative license promotes an evolution of the assignment that keeps it fresh and relevant to the students.  If access to technology is an issue in a given school, that cannot be the excuse that prevents the creation of a 21st century learning environment.  

Also not to be ignored is the importance of inviting community leaders to share in the experiences of our students.  Effective networking and presentation skills are paramount modern traits, and a school leader must actively create opportunities for students to showcase their abilities in front of and in collaboration with successful  local businessmen, politicians, and residents.  Meaningful student performance is about creating authentic situations for them to succeed in.  A relevant project utilizing 21st century resources with an authentic and knowledgeable audience combines all the necessary ingredients for fantastic student results.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Actions are Louder

Case studies from history provide aspiring and current leaders alike the opportunity to reflect on what works and what does not when attempting to gain the trust of those whose following one seeks.  Examining the presidential election of 1976 and Gerald Ford's unique situation shows any "leader" that actions and decisions communicate values and competency a lot more effectively than words. Below is an excerpt from an essay I wrote for a Master's program in American History...

Gerald Ford faced remarkably difficult circumstances in running for President in 1976.  His assumption to the presidency under unfortunate and unique circumstances following Agnew’s and Nixon’s resignations combined with controversial domestic and foreign policy decisions provided numerous obstacles, as did his poor relationship with Congress.[1]  But, what especially plagued Ford’s hopes of being elected President was the public’s lack of faith in his ability as the chief executive of the United States.  From his handling of the economy to his golf game, there was general skepticism about his ability to be presidential.[2]  Ironically chosen to replace Spiro Agnew because of his lack of assumed presidential ability, Ford began his campaign to be elected to a position he already held on the defense.[3
On the eve of the February 24, 1976 primary contest in New Hampshire, New York Magazine’s Richard Reeves details Ford’s first official campaign event and echoes the description of Ford’s unusual situation provided by James Patterson.  Reeves cites a February 8 poll in the Boston Globe in which only twenty two percent of 849 Republican or Republican leaning respondents described Ford as “very intelligent, smart,” and makes a point to use quotation marks every time he describes Ford as presidential.[4] He notes that while most people at the event seemed to like “Jerry,” he was not sure that many of them actually thought that he should be president.  When writing about Ford’s conversations and demeanor on the campaign trail, Reeves’ analysis is that Ford was trying to prove competence and an ability to handle the job that he already had.[5] Even when giving Ford credit for having strong individual performances, Reeves is extremely critical of Ford’s staff, giving Dick Cheney and the rest of Ford’s team credit for a combined thirty minutes of national campaign experience. 
             The reflections on Ford’s campaign as it was happening mirror Patterson’s assessment that Ford was likable and “meant well.”[6]  He wished his legacy would be that of a healer, and Reeves notes his conciliatory demeanor while campaigning in 1976.[7]  However, Reeves also reflects Patterson’s note that the individual decisions, such as pardoning Richard Nixon, of the Ford administration combined with a general doubt that he should be president left his presidential aspirations a long shot.[8]
            Consulting primary sources such as this provides valuable insights into the media coverage and portrayal of President Ford.  While Patterson surveys the period with depth and analysis, Reeves confirms and expands of the precise concerns Americans had when deciding to grant him a term of his own.  Primary sources such as this allow researchers to catch a glimpse into a given era without the barrier of someone else’s interpretations or bias clouding the situation.  Reading articles such as the piece written by Richard Reeves brings the history to life and allows the researcher to experience the campaign as it was happening.
            The bias of the primary source must be taken into account when using it to make determinations regarding any historical situation, and Reeves clearly had bias against Ford.  Patterson specifically names Reeves when discussing reporters who wrote negatively of Ford, highlighting an instance where Reeves portrayed him as a clown in 1974.[9]  It must also be noted that Reeves wrote for New York Magazine, a city where Ford faced certain unpopularity after the troubles surrounding a financial bail-out of the city.[10]  Relying solely on pieces written by Reeves would obviously paint a very negative picture of Ford, and researchers conducting more extensive studies of the election of 1976 would be advised to utilize a greater balance of sources.  Just as we must analyze the bias of secondary sources and current media outlets, the primary sources we consult must be scrutinized equally.
            Despite the bias, the chosen primary document correlates nicely with Patterson’s analysis of Ford’s campaign.  The same decisions and doubts iterated by Patterson as key obstacles in Ford’s election bid were clearly reiterated when reading Reeves.  Both men note that Gerald Ford, while likable and, at times, on the mark, was never able to convince America that he was qualified to hold the office he was already in.

Bibliography
Patterson, James T. Restless Giant: The United States From Watergate to Bush v
Gore, New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. 
Reeves, Richard, “Ford in New Hampshire (He was Good, and Nobody Noticed,) New
York Magazine, February 23, 1976, http://books.google.com/books?id=c-MCAAAAMBAJ&q=gerald+ford#v=snippet&q=gerald%20ford&f=false, (Accessed December 20, 2011)




[1] James T. Patterson, Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush V. Gore (New York, 2005), 96
[2] Ibid, 98
[3] Ibid, 104
[4] Richard Reeves, “Ford in New Hampshire (He was Good, and Nobody Noticed),” New York, Feb. 23, 1975, 32-33
[5] Ibid, 32
[6] Patterson, 92
[7] Ibid, 94
[8] Ibid, 106
[9] Ibid, 93
[10] Ibid, 98