The Two Million Minutes Blog

My Reply to Washington Post Columnist Jay Mathews

Washington Post columnist Jay Mathews, with whom I have a running debate about global education, recently wrote about a new book: Someone Has to Fail – The Zero Sum Game of Public Schooling.

The book, written by Stanford academic Dr. David Labaree, specifically calls out my film Two Million Minutes as “the video version of the Nation At Risk report.” He is sharply critical of both 2 Million Minutes and A Nation At Risk.

Mathews felt “thrilled” that Labaree “disembowels the argument made for higher U.S. school standards made by Bob Compton.”

Now having now read Labaree’s book, I can say I don’t feel “disemboweled” at all. And I disagree with both Labaree and Mathews.

Labaree deserves more than a small measure of respect, as he is clearly an expert on the evolution of US schools since their creation 180 years ago.

Unfortunately, Labaree strays from the subject he knows so well and meanders into areas that he doesn’t understand, e.g. – global economic change, business management, entrepreneurship, venture capital and global job creation.

He is simply naïve about how business works and what role education plays in global economic growth.

Labaree’s primary criticism is about “the film’s central argument…that students in China and India are putting their time to good use by concentrating on studies (particularly math and science)…[while] American students are spending their time on everything but their studies…”

He concludes, “the film makes a strong argument that…the Americans are wasting their two million minutes on marginalia…I make the opposite argument.”

 

LABAREE MAKES HIS CASE

Dr. Labaree sees the American school system as the superior one for these reasons (pp. 211 – 221 in his book, unless otherwise noted):

1. The American model let’s “students delay specializing until the last possible moment…keeping their occupational options open."
2. American high schools produce “generalists, with thin knowledge about everything”
3. Thin knowledge provides “good prospects for changing careers and adapting to a future unanticipated by their schooling.”
4. “What students learn in the classroom is irrelevant; what matters is…a diploma – which they can cash in on a good job.” P 196
5. “Silicon Valley start-ups are often populated with college dropouts” p 169
6. “Education provides a signal to the employer about an applicant’s trainability.” P. 207
7. American schools “encourage students to lag in their studies early, but take them more seriously as they…get closer to specialization and employment.”
8. Historically, “the primary value of American schooling has been its accessibility to all and it’s low academic standards.” pp. 206 & 220
9. American students learn how to “game the system…how to do the minimum to satisfy school…”
10. American schools produce “a smaller number of zealots and a larger number of accomplished hustlers”
11. “Both students and society may be better off if schools focused more on producing hustlers.”
12. “Maybe the lesson is, it is dangerous for individuals to take school too seriously.”
13. Intensive focus on academic learning creates “stressed out students”
14. For the economy, society and the individual “it may turn out to be advantageous…to have an American-style approach to education, which discounts learning and encourages the students to game the system.”
15. “The best preparation for life, in short, may not come from getting an education, but from doing school.”

COMPTON RESPONDS

OMG!

I’m speechless…almost.

Where to begin? Wow…

Spending the past 25 years as a professional venture capitalist, entrepreneur and angel investor, I see the 21^st century a tad differently from Dr. Labaree.

Here are my views of what lies ahead:

1)    This century will be the most competitive in modern times, with China and India displacing Japan and Germany as the second and fourth largest global economies and as other countries – Brazil, Russia, Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam and Korea – continue to expand rapidly,

2)    China and India will have the world’s fastest growing large economies and wealth will accumulate very quickly in both countries,

3)    While economics is not a zero-sum game, there will be individual winners and losers in global competition; America will likely lose some of its major industries and leading companies,

4)    The economic winners will be those that create new knowledge and have a sufficient quantity of people with the education and skills for fast growth,

5)    Money will move to the economies with the highest risk-adjusted rate of return,

6)    Production of goods and services will move to areas which have the most talent of the right quality at the lowest cost,

7)    The new companies that entrepreneurs start will create most of the good-paying jobs of the future,

8)    The majority of good paying jobs will require more technical knowledge and more cognitive skill than in the 20^th century,

9)    Undergraduate engineering, science and math degrees are among the few that can be “cashed in on a good job,” as Labaree puts it. They will continue to be the highest paying degrees – at graduation and at mid-career http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/degrees.asp

10) High school students who have taken four years of math plus physics, chemistry, biology, computer science, English literature & grammar, world history and four years of a foreign language (preferably Spanish or Mandarin) will keep the most occupational options open, particularly for high paying careers. Additional electives and extra-curricular activities are recommended.

If one believes my points about the 21^st century to be true, it does not follow that American high schools should have “low academic standards” or produce graduates with “thin knowledge.” It is a stretch to see how such students would succeed in life “doing the minimum to get by” and “gaming the system” or being a “generalist hustler.” As an entrepreneur, I see nothing compelling about Labaree’s students.

In addition to a different view of the future, Labaree makes a few incorrect assumptions about business, entrepreneurship and hiring talented people. It’s obvious he has never created a product, sold a service or met a payroll from his own bank account.

First, college dropouts do not “populate” Silicon Valley start-up companies. The Valley does see the very rare new venture started by a uniquely brilliant and exceptionally talented college dropout – e.g. -Steve Jobs, 35 years ago.

Most Valley start-ups that I know are hiring savvy engineers, technical sales reps, seasoned marketing execs and well-educated finance professionals just as fast as they can. A few college dropouts, with valuable recent work experience might get in, but they hardly “populate” the Valley.

Second, start-up executives don’t look for diplomas as a “signal” of trainability. They look for technology smarts, product creativity and marketing savvy. In the early years, high growth start-ups are hiring experience, not trainability. Degrees that demonstrate cognitive skill, perseverance and an intensity of concentration are well regarded in high growth businesses.

My conclusion is that Labaree and Mathews just don’t see the link between the education of a populace and that society’s ability to educate people who create new technologies that lead to new products, new companies and new jobs.

I believe American education, particularly in high school, must make radical improvements if America is going to remain an economic leader in the 21^st century.

I’m joined in that belief by the authors of Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future: 

Dr. William Baker, Chairman, Bell Labs (retired)
Dr. Craig Barrett, CEO, Intel Corporation (ret)
Dr. Gail Cassell, VP Scientific Affairs, Eli Lilly
Dr. Steven Chu, Director Lawrence Berkley National Lab
Dr. Robert Gates, President, Texas A&M University
Dr. Charles Holliday, CEO, Dupont
Dr. Shirley Jackson, President, Resselaer Polytechnic Institute
Dr. Joshua Lederberg, Nobel Prize Winner & Professor emeritus, Yale
Dr. Richard Levin, President, Yale, & former Chair of Yale Economics Dept.
Dr. Dan Mote, President, University Maryland, former Engineering Chair, Berkley
Dr. Cherry Murray, Lawrence Livermore National Labs
Dr. Lee Raymond, CEO, Exxon Mobil
Dr. Robert Richardson, Professor of Physics, Cornell
Dr. Roy Vagelos, CEO, Merck (ret)
Dr. Charles Vest, President, MIT (ret)

 

Are Teachers Laborers or Professionals?

NEA calls for national summit on labor-management collaboration

The Teachers Unions (AFT, NEA and their local affiliates) are sending mixed messages about how teachers view themselves and how they want to be treated.

The Unions proclaim teachers are "professionals" and want to be treated like other professionals, such as doctors, lawyers, accountants and architects.

But if teachers are professionals, why are AFT President Randi Weingarten and NEA President Dennis Van Roekel calling for a National Summit on Labor-Management Relations?

 
When was the last Accountants National Summit on Labor-Management Relations? Are doctors "laborers?" 

I have always disliked the term "labor" when referring to a group of people- it diminishes their intellectual contribution. In the knowledge economy, very, very few jobs involve just manual labor.

Now in the steel, airlines and auto industries,the labor-management schism clearly delineates how those employees want to be treated. They are "labor" and the other side is "management."

Their relationship is confrontational and adversarial. And we see where that approach has taken the people employed in those industries. United Auto Workers membership has declined from 1.5 million in 1979 to 390,000 today.

Teachers and their Unions need to choose - are teachers "laborers" or "professionals?" 

One is either a "professional" - distinguished by education, experience and paid according to ability and performance. 

Or one is "labor" distinguished by union representation, undifferentiated compensation and postured as an adversary to "management" - management for teachers ultimately being the taxpaying public, I guess.

The Unions can't have it both ways - switching from one to the other when most convenient.

I hope teachers see themselves as the professionals they are and demand their Unions end the 20th century mindset of "Labor-Management Relations." 

Background on the Teachers Unions:

THE AFT UNION: The American Federation of Teachers is an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, and represents 3,000 local affiliates nationwide, 43 state affiliates and 1.5 million members. It's tag line is "A Union Of Professionals."

THE NEA UNION: The National Education Association is the "national voice of more than 3.2 million public education employees." Tag line - Great Public Schools for Every Student. 

Union Tag Line Mashup - "Professional Laborers in Great Schools"

 

My Interview With Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC - The Video

Andrea Mitchell Hosts Bob Compton on MSNBC

Education Filmmaker Interviewed on MSNBC

Waiting For Superman Adds Awareness to Education Documentaries

 

Washington, DC – 10/12/10 – Veteran NBC News Correspondent Andrea Mitchell recently interviewed documentary filmmaker Robert A. Compton on her MSNBC show. The release of Waiting For Superman has raised interest in the national media for other documentaries about education and education reform. 

Compton is executive producer of the film Two Million Minutes, a look at high school education around the world. He had been on Mitchell’s panel of experts the previous week during the NBC News event – Education Nation.

“Education reform continues to gain momentum in the public dialog,” said Compton, “It is gratifying that top news correspondents, such as Andrea Mitchell, are giving increasing attention to the serious decline of U.S. K-12 education.”

In addition to Two Million Minutes, Compton has produced The 21^st Century Solution – a film on charter schools - and A Right Denied – with education reform activist Whitney Tilson.

“I’m compelled to make films about global education out of my deep desire to help our children be competitive in the 21^st century,” stated Compton. “As a nation, we simply must raise our K-12 education to globally competitive levels. Otherwise, this generation of young people will be the first in U.S. history to have a lower standard of living than the previous generation.”

White House Personnel Changes Signal Major Shift In Education Policy

October 4,2010 - The news of Rahm Emanuel's departure from Washington has caused a flurry of education debate among DC's wealthy elite.

You see, Rahm's moving to Chicago to run for Governor. That likely means he's taking his family with him.

That's where the educational opportunities arise. Rahm's departure may open up several student slots in DC's elite private schools. [No top government official would send their kids to DC's schools - the worst in the nation]

Within minutes of Rahm's announcement parent blogs and bulletin boards were lighting up with speculation as to where and when these coveted slots would become available.

Here's a little of the local elite's dialog:

>Did he have any kids at the local privates?

>Maret. (Since this information has been published in the Post, I think it's probably okay to mention here.) Are you hoping for his kids' spots? 

>What grade(s)?

>I bet they stay through the end of the school year. That's what they did when he joined the administration.

>His kids are at Jewish Primary Day School, not Maret (JPDS)

>The Wash Post said his kids are split between Jewish Primary and Maret. It also said they would be staying to finish out the school year, plus their house in Chicago is rented out at least thru the summer so they would have no where to live if they left with him.

>Two kids at maret one at jewish primary day - sounds like they're staying thru year.

>He's not a shoo-in [as Governor]. The primary is in February.

>What if he loses, will he go back to the administration? 

>Let's hope not, because then our kids would get bumped.

>Damn Chicago people.

>I'm sending a contribution to his campaign.

>Should we hold a fundraiser for him here in DC?

>Yeah, let's call it - "Help Rahm's Kids Move to Chicago"

>LOL

> I'm not kidding...

 

OMG!! Post Reporter Just Can't Let Go Of Our Debate On CNBC

Sadly, Washington Post reporter, Jay Mathews, just can't get over our 2008 CNBC debate on Erin Burnett's  show. 

It was a one-time event and I made the more compelling arguments that day for raising standards in our K-12 state curricula. Because I had visited schools in India and China and because I have spent a career investing in new technology companies, I made the more persuasive points.

Jay felt I was too hard on him in that Jun 2008 appearance and he's been smarting ever since.

Well, he's at it again - calling me out in his blog today and using arguments from a new book by Stanford's David Labaree.

Jay finds Larabee's writing to be "dizzying in a fun way, like an intricate rollercoaster."

And Jay gets really worked up about "the thrilling part where Labaree disembowels the argument for higher U.S. school standards made by Bob Compton."

Well, let's see if we should all get the "rollercoaster thrill" that Jay experienced:

1- Who is Dr. Labaree? Here is how he describes himself on his Stanford web page:

"I am a sociologically oriented historian of education who seeks to explore some of the major processes and patterns that define the relationship between education and society in the United States.

In my research, I aim to analyze the evolving institutional character of educational organizations and the evolving role of key groups that affect education in the context of the broader purposes and functions of education in a liberal democracy."

NOTE #1: no mention of either a thorough understanding of, or any interest in, global education systems.

2- What is Larabee's claim that "thrills" Jay and "disembowels" my assertion that U.S. high school curricula are not sufficiently deep academically for global competitiveness?

"With economies changing so fast, [Larabee] says, it is better to produce generalists, like the well-rounded Americans in [Compton's] documentary, "[students] with thin knowledge about everything," so they can adapt to changing economies.

NOTE #2A: Larabee believes, and Mathews supports, the goal of graduating U.S. students "with THIN knowledge about everything."

NOTE #2B: Mission Accomplished: U.S. high schools are already graduating students with "thin knowledge" about everything.

3-What credentials does Dr. Larabee possess that qualify him to make such a bold assertion about U.S. education and changing global economies?

One can review his CV ( Download A Sociologically Oriented Historian ) and find a lot of qualifications. Sadly, none have to do with gloabl competition, changing economies or global education. 

Here are a few of his more notable publications:

• The Lure of Statistics for Educational Researchers - 2010
• Teach for America & Teacher Ed: Heads They Win, Tails We Lose - 2009 (Download TFA vs TE)
• Changing Visions of Virtue and Opportunity in U.S. Education - 2009
• 
• The Ed Schools Romance with Progressivism - 2004
• Progressivism and Schools of Education: An American Romance - 2005
• The Dysfunctional Pursuit of Relevance in Education Research - 2008
• Mutual Subversion: A Short History of The Liberal and The Professional In Higher Education - 2006
• Life on the Margins (not an autobiography) -2005
• Resisting Educational Standards - 2000

There there is everyone's perennial favorite:

Educational Researchers: Living With A Lesser Form of Knowledge - 1998 ( Download Living With Less Knowledge)

My reactions to Jay's blog post:  

1- Jay you simply must try to ride bigger rollrcoasters - you get dizzy too easily.

2- If there is anything in Larabee's life that shows a knowledge of global edcuation systems or a scintilla of knowledge about the drivers of economic change, it is well hidden in his CV. Larabee's life and his research show that he has "a razor thin knowledge of changing global economies."

3- After reading the blog and studying Larabee's work, Jay, I just don't feel disemboweled.

I must confess, I did get a pain in my side from laughing so hard!

Jay, if we debate again, I promise I'll let you win. I never imagined how hard losing would be on you.

 

Reform Failure: Chapter 5 – Teacher Compensation: Do You Get What You Pay For?

Teaching is not a highly paid profession in any country in the world.

Arguably, U.S. teachers are the best-paid educators in the world, with an average salary of $46,600 for the school year. At that salary, U.S. teachers are comfortably in the middle quintile of America wage earners: solidly middle class.

Top performing nations, however, differ in two important ways with regard to teacher compensation. The first is teachers’ salaries are market driven: so a high school physics teacher will likely earn more than a high school history teacher.

In the U.S., the teachers unions have bargained for compensation linked primarily to tenure and continuing education credits. The result: it is unlikely a physicist with a Masters degree will go into teaching in U.S. high schools.

The second way compensation of teachers in other countries varies from the U.S. is most work as tutors – after hours and weekends during the school year and full time during school breaks. In many countries, tutoring can be quite lucrative. In India, for example, it can pay more per hour than teaching itself.

With few exceptions, teachers in top performing countries are not paid bonuses based on student performance. China is the one large exception that I have seen. While the official policy is teachers are to be paid a salary, in practice bonus payments based on student test scores are quite common.

I have come to the conclusion, however, that bonuses are effective only at the margin.

Why?

A teacher who lacks deep subject knowledge is not going to suddenly develop advanced knowledge simply because a bonus is involved. It is like offering an adult a cash bonus if they increase their height. Try as they might, it is not going to happen.

Much more effective would be to pay higher salaries to attract teachers with both deep expertise in a given subject and solid teaching skills.

Next Post – Chapter 6 – Choice: If you only have a hammer, every problem is a nail.

Alternative Energy Technologies: China Makes Big Moves

While America is talking about alternative energy, other countries are delivering products and services to the energy markets that do not rely on fossil fuels.

No country is doing this on a larger scale than China.

The Chinese government has a national goal of producing 15% of its energy without using oil or coal by 2020.

To achieve that goal, Beijing has committed to spend $700 billion over the next decade on wind, solar, nuclear and other energy technologies.

Just this week, three Chinese wind and solar power companies went public - Ming Yang Wind Power has become the first Chinese wind energy company to list on the New York Stock Exchange.  

Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology and Trony Solar Holdings, went public on the Hong Kong Exchange.

Combined these companies raised $1.5 billion to invest in R&D, production and distribution of wind and solar products.

In alternative energy, China has both a government commitment and well-funded companies to develop these 21st century technologies.

Where is America headed?

In the decades ahead, the rest of the world, America included, will look to China for non-fossil fuel products.

 

 

How many MIT students does it take to light a lightbulb?

Simple science stumps students at the other end of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Surely MIT engineers know how to light a light bulb...

 

Simple Science Stumps Harvard Students

As U.S. high school students shy away from physics, chemistry, biology and math classes, American society becomes progressively less knowledgeable about the world arround us.

Even students at Harvard University struggle with simple scientific concepts - such as why the Earth has four seasons.

 

 

Does it matter that Harvard students don't understand something so simple when it comes to science? One wonders if they understand more complex subjects - the kind from which new technologies and new products are created.

In case you are as uncertain as Harvard students, here is a simple explanation for why we have four seasons.