Unleashing the Positive Power of Differences: Polarity Thinking in our Schools


Jane A. G. Kise

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Copyright


    For Brian, my favorite teacher and perfect partner for our lifelong dance of opposites

    List of Professional Development Activities

    • Activity 2.1: Using Polarity Thinking to Analyze a Failed Initiative 52
    • Activity 5.1: Mastering Calculations and Mastering Mathematical Thinking 99
    • Activity 7.1: A Forty-Five-Minute Introduction to Leveraging Differences 131
    • Activity 8.1: Mapping by Moving Through a Polarity 142
    • Activity 9.1: Reading With the Lens of Polarities 159
    • Activity 9.2: Mapping Any Article 161
    • Activity 9.3: Incorporating Polarity Mapping in a Book Discussion 163
    • Activity 10.1: Demonstrating Respect 179
    • Activity 10.2: Point of View Debate 182
    • Activity 11.1: Student Discipline 195
    • Activity 11.2: On-Your-Feet Arguments 199
    • Activity 12.1: Reflecting on Biases 239


    Not a word of this book could have been written without Barry Johnson, founder of Polarity Partnerships, who not only gave me permission to use his theories and tools in the arena of education but also invited me to training sessions, brainstormed ideas, cofacilitated with me, critiqued early chapter drafts, and in so many ways gave generously of his time and intellect. His passion for polarity thinking as a framework for helping people leverage the dilemmas of life is contagious! Thank you, Barry!

    Barry also connected me with many of his colleagues in the world of polarity thinking. Yarrow Durbin was instrumental in helping me frame some of the book's ideas and navigate between theory and practicality. Todd Johnson shared his wisdom, exercises, and practical advice gained from years of working with educators on polarity thinking. Rebekah Marler provided stories and shared her experiences in using polarities in schools. Ann Deaton and Cliff Kayser also critiqued chapters, and Cliff helped me develop PACT assessments to use with schools. Leslie DePol of Polarity Partnerships provided guidance on how we might best make the tools available to schools.

    Thank you, also, to my many education colleagues who willingly worked with me on early mapping of the issues in Part II of this book. Joellen Killion not only expanded my thinking on teacher evaluation but brought together a group of educators for a daylong workshop that was invaluable for tailoring the book to educators. Lois Easton provided key writing advice and feedback on early chapters. Robert Marzano, Marilyn Burns, and Lucy West listened to my early ideas and gave key suggestions. Bryan Goodwyn, Charles Kyte, Wendy Behrens, Lynnell Mickelsen, and Kari Ross all contributed to helping me present balanced views on the issues. Susan Powell, Erin Boltik, and Mary Rynchek allowed me to guide their teams in applying polarity thinking to real issues in their organizations as a way to develop the slides and scripts included in this book. And as always, Sue Blair, my psychological type colleague, helped me make these concepts practical and clear.

    The advice of the peer reviewers was also invaluable, including Dr. David Petrovay.

    Publisher's Acknowledgments

    Corwin gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following reviewers:

    Scott Bailey Assistant Professor, Stephen F. Austin State University Longview, TX

    Janice Bradley Assistant Professor, New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM

    Lois Brown Easton Educational Consultant and Author LBE Learning and Learning Forward Senior Consultant Tucson, AZ

    Ron Fielder Clinical Professor of Education Psychology and Leadership Studies University of Iowa Iowa City, IA

    Ruth A. Rich Mentor Coordinator/Teacher (Retired) Matteson, IL

    Dana Salles Trevethan Interim Assistant Superintendent Educational Services Turlock Unified School District Turlock, CA

    Rosemarie Young Principal, Jefferson County Public Schools Louisville, KY

    About the Author

    Jane A. G. Kise, EdD, is an educational consultant specializing in team building, coaching, and professional development. She is also the author or coauthor of over twenty books, including Differentiated Coaching: A Framework for Helping Teachers Change; Differentiated School Leadership: Effective Collaboration, Communication and Change Through Personality Type; Intentional Leadership; and LifeKeys: Discover Who You Are. She holds an MBA in finance from the Carlson School of Management and a doctorate in educational leadership from the University of St. Thomas, both in Minnesota.

    Kise has worked with diverse organizations across the United States and in Saudi Arabia, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Her clients include Minneapolis Public Schools and various public and private schools, the Bush Foundation, NASA, Twin Cities Public Television, and numerous other institutions. She is a frequent workshop speaker and has presented at Learning Forward, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics (NCSM), World Futures, and Association for Psychological Type International (APTi) conferences, including keynoting in Paris, Berlin, Sydney, and Auckland.

    Kise's research on coaching teachers for change has received several awards. Her research on patterns in Jungian type and how students approach mathematics became a TEDx talk. She is a faculty member of the Center for Applications of Psychological Type and a past president of APTi.

  • Conclusion: Moving beyond Polarization in Education

    Let's go back to where we started. Take a deep breath and hold it as you read this paragraph. Can you feel your anxiety increase? Or your energy drain away as you pursue this crazy notion of inhaling without exhaling? Perhaps a touch of panic, even?

    Now exhale and feel your spirits lift as you acknowledge the value of both poles in this simple yet crucial system. Our brains excel at picking up early warning signs that we're out of balance on the breathing cycle. For example, if you turn up the resistance on a stationary bike and pedal as hard as you can, your brain, ever so protective of its own oxygen safety margin, will interpret the increasing fatigue in your legs as a sign that your oxygen supply is compromised and scream, “Stop!” well before your legs actually tire out.

    In education, though, we aren't heeding early warning signs because we aren't recognizing polarities that are as essential as breathing in and out. We're too intent on action steps—or too afraid of the “problems” those action steps are supposedly solving—to note the downsides of our “solutions.”

    One might even say we're seeing late warning signs for many polarities in education—warnings as obvious as the alarm that sounds when a patient's oxygen level sinks to dangerous levels. At least, we should be alarmed by repeated patterns in reforms and policy reversals that aren't moving us forward.

    So how can move beyond polarization? By helping people see the difference between problems and polarities. As one of the early reviewers of this book wrote, “It's one of those ‘Why didn't I think of that?’ kind of ideas that, once you have it, you really can't see another way to do it.”

    To start helping others “see,” pick an issue within your own team or building or education community where you now recognize that a polarity is at work. Think about who might be open to exploring it through this new lens. The slides in Chapter 7 are ready to go at www.corwin.com/positivepower to help you walk others through the concepts. Then show them a map on a relevant issue. You could use any map in this book. Or you might create a simpler map using the simple blank polarity thinking map available at www.corwin.com/positivepower. Pick out just a couple of the positive and negative results for each pole to begin a conversation. Or use the common polarity we used with Pete's team back in Chapter 1. Have they seen pendulum swings in how we support students?

    Source: Map template copyright by Polarity Partnerships, LLC.

    You can share some of the action steps on page 22 that turn this into a virtuous cycle, emphasizing how the system needs adjustment over time. The polarity is there; the question is whether it is being leveraged well.

    Remember, though, that not all issues are polarities. For example, one problem absolutely needs to be solved in education:

    We're wasting the energy of educators by channeling it into “solutions”

    that are destined to create more problems

    because in fact the problems are polarities that cannot be solved!

    We can continue to see cycles of reform.

    Reforms will continue to create new problems.

    Problems will continue to drain our energy.

    And the vicious cycles will continue …

    OR we can start creating virtuous cycles by

    Seeing polarities Mapping them

    Assessing how well we're working with them

    Learning from where we are as we

    Leverage the positive power of our differences.

    The latter sounds like a better plan, doesn't it? If our greater common purpose is a meaningful education for each child, then certainly we can find the motivation to pursue it together!

    Appendix A: A PACT Process Case Study

    While Chapters 7 through 11 of Unleashing the Positive Power of Differences are designed to help you begin using the tools of polarity thinking immediately, more in-depth processes that allow for collection and analysis of data, as well as analysis of multiple polarities, can be even more powerful. Let's look at how Central Middle School1 benefited from using a formal process for PACT Steps 3 and 4, assessing and learning.

    Administrators and teachers at Central Middle School had implemented new homework and grading policies. Acting on the belief that all students can learn if given time and support, they were experimenting with accepting late homework without penalties and allowing test retakes.

    Halfway through the year, I introduced the staff to polarity thinking, and we mapped the two poles of Teacher Responsibility AND Student Responsibility as they applied to these specific policies. At the end of the session, the teachers in general reported that talking about their successes and concerns with the new policies had been of great value. However, they weren't sure where to focus going forward.

    The school's leadership team decided that it needed a survey for PACT process Step 3, assessing, before developing that focus. Drawing on the polarity map generated by the entire staff, we developed a survey to assess how frequently staff members were experiencing key positive and negative results for each pole.

    Figure A.1, on pages 250–251, shows the resulting summary report with the survey statements and scores. Note that all of the statements use the stem, “Based on what I've observed or experienced in the last six months, I'd say …

    The Results

    The results are consistent with other polarity thinking maps: The positive and negative results of each pole are in the four quadrants, with the greater purpose statement at the top and deeper fear at the bottom. The score contained within the black oval (65 in Figure A.1) is an overall indicator of how well the participants believe the polarity is currently being leveraged. Note that this score falls within the “good” range. Although this school chose not to, one can also compare answers from different demographic groups, such as teachers, administrators, and specialists.

    The graphs given for the quadrants show the mean scores for each question; the mean scores for the quadrants are shown within the arrows that point to the survey questions. Note that every statement is phrased so that a high score contributes to better results on the overall score for the polarity.

    Step 4: Learning

    Key themes of this step of the process are “How do these results inform our understanding of how we are leveraging this polarity?” “How did we get here?” “What is key to achieving/continuing a virtuous cycle?” The goal is to articulate a solid rationale for the next step of the process: designing the action steps and early warnings that will result in leveraging the polarity well in the future.

    Rather than acting as a diagnostic, the results foster informed conversations about where to best concentrate future efforts. If the questions are well-designed, the discussion draws on collective experience within the organization rather than hearsay or the experience of just a few team members.

    As the Central Middle School leadership team met, we discussed several key questions, such as these:

    • What do these results confirm? What is a surprise?
    • Which policies or actions might be tied to these results?
    • Are our current actions, and any changes we have made, having the desired impact?
    • On what might we concentrate more? Less?
    • Where might we be most at risk as we try to sustain success?

    While my goal as a facilitator is to allow conclusions to form via the collective wisdom of the group, I made the following notes as I reviewed the results and prepared for the team meeting.

    • The overall score of 65 indicates that, while they see room for improvement, survey participants believe that the school is experiencing a virtuous cycle for this polarity. Our goal is to note where these results suggest that we create/refine/revisit action steps and early warnings.
    • The higher mean scores on the Student Responsibility pole indicate that participants believe they are seeing positive results from the current focus on this pole—students have been encouraged to take more responsibility with the new policies and, according to the teachers, are doing so. What practices might be having this effect?
    • Note that Item C in the lower quadrant of the Student Responsibility pole received a score of 55. “Sometimes” isn't a particularly low rating, but we might probe deeper into grading data for such items as the number of students chronically turning in late work or who fail to improve grades on test retakes.
    • In the upper quadrant for the Teacher Responsibility pole, the “Sometimes” score for Question B may call for more discussion of action steps to provide in-school homework support. And with the “Sometimes” score for Question C, we may wish to investigate whether the policy of allowing retake tests is improving student learning outcomes.
    • The lowest-scoring quadrant was the negative results of an overfocus on teacher responsibility to the neglect of student responsibility. If teachers feel the policies are burdensome, that may affect future leveraging of this polarity.
      • Respondents could enter comments on each item. For Question A in this quadrant, three respondents indicated that many students do not seem to be studying for tests but instead are taking them “cold” to find out what they need to study. Developing potential action steps to ensure that students give their best effort each time might be a priority, especially since this is the lowest-scoring item on the survey.
      • For Question B, comments about the workload focused on finding time for makeup quizzes or creating alternate-form tests. Is there an interest in looking at ways the school schedule might support makeup opportunities? Or ideas for lessening the workload of administering a test multiple times?
    • During our original mapping exercise, we heard many comments about late homework interfering with curriculum pacing. However, notice that the answer to Question C in the lower Teacher Responsibility quadrant indicates that this seldom happens. We can probably concentrate action step planning elsewhere, although determining an early warning for this item may be important.

    Note how the discussion has the power to focus the planning of action steps; all too often, action plans tackle too many different goals and strategies. The full PACT process, with the addition of a formal survey, provides a sound basis for selecting the most important areas for action.

    Pact Assessments and your Organization

    The Polarity Maps Public Library contains several generic tools for schools. Mini-PACTs exist for the following polarities.

    • Academic Success AND Whole Child Success
    • Teacher Responsibility for Learning AND Student Responsibility for Learning
    • Teaching Reading Skills and Strategies AND Student Choices in Reading Materials

    Readers willing to engage in a free debriefing (via phone) of one of these tools may contact jane@janekise.com to schedule a survey opportunity.

    Existing surveys for all of the topics discussed in this book can also be customized for a team, school, or district. As can be seen in the preceding case study, the data often focus the action plans on the areas respondents view as most troublesome and may help you avoid the problem of the “squeaky wheel getting all the grease.”

    Organizations about to embark on major initiatives or those in the midst of processes that seem to be not fully leveraging polarities may wish to engage in a fully customized process. In these cases, the surveys may contain questions for several polarities, including ones that deal with change efforts, leadership distribution, and other universal organizational polarities. Contact jane@janekise.com, or visit www.polaritypartnerships.com to learn more.

    Figure A.1 Sample PACT Survey Result

    Source: Map template copyright by Polarity Partnerships, LLC.

    Appendix B: Chapter 9 Reading: How do We Help Students Succeed?

    Most teachers live for those moments when every student eagerly digs in to complete an assignment—not for a grade or a reward but because he or she is intrinsically motivated. We know that trying to motivate adults or students via extrinsic rewards doesn't work in the long run, unless the work is boring and repetitive (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Pink, 2009). Since we aren't working to create classrooms where boring, repetitive work is the norm, we want students to develop a desire to learn and to work hard—and that internal motivation involves self-discipline, right?

    In the past, people thought that intelligence, not perseverance or self-discipline, predicted school success. Until the 1960s, dropping out of high school was an option since plenty of good jobs existed for people who lacked a diploma; the graduation rate was only about 60%. However, as manufacturing occupations diminished, earning that diploma became more and more crucial for earning a living wage—and schools found themselves tasked with educating all students.

    Researchers quickly realized that students from poverty struggled in school. In the 1970s, Hart and Risley (1995) identified the huge vocabulary gap between students from families with different levels of income. In response, preschool programs provided richer language experiences. While short-term effects were promising, the learning gap grew again as students journeyed through school.

    Researchers then found differences in the nature of parent-child interactions.

    Extrapolated to the first four years of life, the average child in a professional family would have accumulated 560,000 more instances of encouraging feedback than discouraging feedback, and an average child in a working-class family would have accumulated 100,000 more encouragements than discouragements. But an average child in a welfare family would have accumulated 125,000 more instances of prohibitions than encouragements. (Hart & Risley, 1995, p. 5)

    This “encouragement” gap is even harder to overcome, since discouragement affects curiosity, self-confidence, and willingness to take intellectual risks. Attention turned to whether interventions in early childhood education could teach these traits.

    In How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity and the Hidden Power of Character, Paul Tough (2012) terms the vocabulary and other knowledge-based programs “the cognitive hypothesis”: If we fill young children with the right input, eventually they'll acquire the knowledge and skills needed for success in school. Many researchers and practitioners in psychology, economics, and education are challenging that hypothesis.

    What matters most in a child's development, they say, is not how much information we can stuff into her brain in the first few years. What matters, instead is whether we are able to help her develop a very different set of qualities, a list that includes persistence, self-control, curiosity, conscientiousness, grit, and self-confidence. (p. xv)

    Advocates for this position believe that K–12 character education can help students develop these crucial noncognitive skills.

    The work of Carol Dweck of Stanford (2006) also supports the importance of noncognitive factors. Students with a “fixed intelligence” mindset, believing that you either are or aren't smart, are less likely to persevere on difficult problems. Further, the quality of their problem-solving strategies deteriorates as problems increase in difficulty. Students with a “growth” mind-set, believing hard work makes you smarter, not only persevere but also improve their strategies. Whereas “fixed” mind-set students made comments such as “This problem is stupid,” the “growth” mind-set group said, “This problem is hard, but it's more interesting.”

    Related research found that teachers trained in a “fixed” mind-set complimented underachieving students to improve their self-esteem. Those trained in a “growth” mind-set actively worked with the students to understand why they weren't learning and brainstormed new ways to assist them (Feinberg, 2004). Thus, both teachers and students needed to internalize that working hard would make them more successful.

    But is it possible to nurture self-discipline? Many educators remembered the “marshmallow experiment.” Walter Mischel (Mischel, Ebbesen, & Raskoff Zeiss, 1972) of Stanford offered preschoolers a marshmallow to eat but told them that if they waited to eat it until the researcher returned to the lab room, they could have two. When Mischel followed up on his subjects years later, those who had waited the longest had better social skills and higher SAT scores. His early conclusion was that the ability to delay gratification is key to success.

    However, Mischel (Mischel et al., 1972) himself pointed out that those able to wait knew how to distract themselves. They sang songs, played with a toy, or made up stories while waiting for the researcher to return. Mischel concluded that using willpower to “bear up” is the wrong approach, especially for difficult or boring tasks. The essential skills involved distracting oneself or changing circumstances so that temptations are less tempting! These strategies involve skills that can be taught. Organizations such as the KIPP schools have created measures and progress reports for attributes such as politeness, self-control, and the ability to focus.

    Then, subsequent researchers found that a predictable, trustworthy environment had a major impact on how long students would wait for those marshmallows (Kidd, Palmeri, & Aslin, 2013). They recommended that schools focus on creating trustworthy learning environments to support students from more turbulent homes.

    Critics, though, think the pendulum is swinging too far toward noncognitive skills as the key to success. E. D. Hirsch (2013), founder of the Core Knowledge Foundation, faults How We Succeed for downplaying the importance of knowledge. He contends that in the era of No Child Left Behind, schools have emphasized tests, not knowledge. “On the contrary,” Hirsch writes, “‘mere information’ has been disparaged in favor of how-to strategies and test-taking skills. What Tough calls ‘the cognitive hypothesis’ with regard to academics might better be called the ‘how-to hypothesis.’”

    Hirsch (2013) points to research from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth; it shows that the biggest single predictor of student success is a general vocabulary measure that serves as a proxy for general knowledge. The second biggest factor is fine motor skills, which also ties to cognitive skills. Noncognitive skills come in third. Self-discipline can't overcome a lack of knowledge.

    In his article “Why Self-Discipline Is Overrated,” Alfie Kohn (2008) provides more reasons to be concerned about the emphasis on self-discipline, which he defines as using willpower to accomplish desirable things. In contrast, self-control helps us avoid temptation or delay gratification. People with too much self-control have problems, too, lacking the spontaneity, flexibility, and creative expression that lead to a balanced life. Further, there are limits to the value of perseverance. We need to be able to ask for help, focus energy toward our interests and talents, and learn from failure. He summarizes that success comes from knowing when to persevere or follow the rules and when these actions will not be helpful.

    Most troubling to Kohn, though, is that if schools focus on buckling down and trying harder, then it becomes easy to ignore unjust societal, economic, or educational structures. We may fail to question whether schoolwork is meaningful, requiring self-discipline, or not worth doing, requiring self-control. He concludes that

    to identify a lack of self-discipline as the problem is to focus our efforts on making children conform to a status quo that is left unexamined and is unlikely to change. … Aside from its philosophical underpinnings and political impact, there are reasons to be skeptical about anything that might produce overcontrol. Some children who look like every adult's dream of a dedicated student may in reality be anxious, driven, and motivated by a perpetual need to feel better about themselves, rather than by anything resembling curiosity. In a word, they are workaholics in training.

    At KIPP Schools, which emphasize both cognitive and noncognitive skills, the college graduation rate for low-income students is four times the national average. However, their graduates receive a level of support that society doesn't offer to every high school graduate—and it still isn't enough. KIPP's own website states that they have a long way to go toward their goal of graduating their students at the same rate as high-income students. Do we understand how to help every student yet lack the national will to support them? Or have we yet to find what really helps all students succeed?


    Akinbami L. J., & Liu X. (2011, January 12). Asthma prevalence, health care use, and mortality: United States, 2005–2009. National Health Statistics Reports, No. 32. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr032.pdf
    Alberti S. (2012). Making the shift. Educational Leadership, 70(4), 2427.
    American Federation of Teachers. (n.d.). Teacher development and evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/issues/teaching/evaluation.cfm
    Anderson L.H. (2002). Catalyst. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
    Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2012a). Making the case for educating the whole child. Retrieved from http://www.wholechildeducation.org/assets/content/mx-resources/WholeChild-MakingTheCase.pdf
    Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2012b). The whole child. Retrieved from http://www.wholechildeducation.org/
    Barnes G., Crowe E., & Schaefer B. (2007). The cost of teacher turnover in five school districts: A pilot study. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/NCTAF-Cost-of-Teacher-Turnover-2007-full-report.pdf
    Barth R.S. (2005). Turning book burners into lifelong learners. In DuFour R., Eaker R., & DuFour R. (eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp. 114133). Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
    Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Working with teachers to develop fair and reliable measures of effective teaching. Seattle, WA: Author.
    Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2013). Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating findings from the MET Project's three-year study. Seattle, WA: Author.
    Billings L., & Roberts T. (2012). Think like a seminar. Educational Leadership, 70(4), 6872.
    Boaler J. (2008). What's math got to do with it? How parents and teachers can help children learn to love their least favorite subject. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
    Boaler J. (2012, October). Jo Boaler reveals attacks by Milgram and Bishop: When academic disagreement becomes harassment and persecution. Retrieved from http://stanford.edu/~joboaler/
    Bransford J. D., Brown A. L., & Cocking R. R. (eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
    Brooks J. G., & Dietz M. E. (2012). The dangers and opportunities of the Common Core. Educational Leadership, 70(4), 6467.
    Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings. (2012). The 2012 Brown Center report on American education: How well are American students learning? Washington, DC: Author.
    Bruchac J. (2003). Our stories remember: American Indian history, culture, and values through storytelling. Golden, CO: Fulcrum.
    Bust B. (2013, January 7). The school cliff: Student engagement drops with each school year. Retrieved from http://thegallupblog.gallup.com/2013/01/the-school-cliff-student-engagement.html
    Campbell D.T. (1975). Assessing the impact of planned social change. In Lyons G. M. (ed.), Social research and public policies: The Dartmouth/OECD conference (pp. 345). Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College, Public Affairs Center.
    Case Western Reserve University. (2012). Empathy represses analytic thought, and vice versa: Brain physiology limits simultaneous use of both networks. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121030161416.htm
    Clarke J. (2012). Invested in inquiry. Educational Leadership, 69(5), 6064.
    Collins J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don't. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
    Columbia world of quotations. (2013). Retrieved from http://quotes.dictionary.com/The_test_of_a_firstrate_intelligence_is_the
    Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012a). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
    Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012b). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf
    Cronin J., Dahlin M., Adkins D., & Kingsbury G. G. (2007). The proficiency illusion. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
    Damasio A. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
    Danielson C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Reston, VA: ASCD.
    Darling-Hammond L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
    Darling-Hammond L. (2012, March 5). Value-added evaluation hurts teaching. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/03/05/24darlinghammond_ep.h31.html?r=453642
    Dawkins R. (1996, November 12). Science, delusion and the appetite for wonder [Speech on BBC1 Television]. Retrieved from http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins/lecture_p1.html
    Deci E. L., Koestner R., & Ryan R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627668.
    Delpit L. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press.
    Dewey J. (1990). The school and society & The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original works published 1902)
    Dillon S. (2011, May 4). Failing grades on civics exam called a “crisis.” New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/education/05civics.html?_r=0
    Downey M. (2012). Bill Gates in Atlanta: Don't rush teacher evaluations. Do it right [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2012/07/12/bill-gates-in-atlanta-dont-rush-teacher-evaluations-do-it-right/
    Durlak J. A., Weissberg R. P., Dymnicki A. B., Taylor R. D., & Schellinger K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405432.
    Dweck C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
    Dweck C. S., & Leggett E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256273.
    Erdrich L. (1999). The birchbark house. New York, NY: Hyperion.
    Ericsson K., Prietula M. J., & Cokely E. T. (2007). The making of an expert. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 118.
    Felder R. M., Felder G. N., & Dietz E. J. (2002). The effects of personality type on engineering student performance and attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education, 19(1), 317.
    Feinberg C. (2004, July 1). A possible dream: A nation of proficient schoolchildren. Ed.magazine (the news source of the Harvard Graduate School of Education). Retrieved from http://www.efficacy.org/Resources/TheEfficacyLibrary/tabid/227/Default.aspx
    Fisch K., McLeod S., & Xplane. (2007). Did you know? Retrieved from http://shifthappens.wikispaces.com/file/view/Text%20of%20Did%20You%20Know%2020.pdf
    Fishbane M. (2007, August 30). Teachers: Be subversive. Jonathan Kozol, author of Letters to a Young Teacher, talks with Salon about why No Child Left Behind squelches learning and about reading Rilke's sonnets to first graders. Salon. Retrieved from www.salon.com/2007/08/kozol/
    Fosnot C. T., & Dolk M. (2002). Young mathematicians at work: Constructing fractions, decimals, and percents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    Freedman M. (1992). Initiative fatigue. Strategic change, 1(2), 8992.
    Freedman S.G. (2005, November 9). “Innovative” math, but can you count? New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/education/08education.html?pagewanted=all
    Gates B. (2013, April 3). A fairer way to evaluate teachers. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-03/opinions/38246518_1_teacher-evaluation-systems-classroom-observations-student-test
    Gewertz C. (2012, November 29). Testing group scales back performance items. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/11/30/13tests.h32.html?tkn=UPLFfYzJ%2BlzJu%2FQzgzku%2BR
    Gilovich T. (1991). How we know what isn't so. New York, NY: Free Press.
    Gladwell M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. New York, NY: Little, Brown.
    Haidt J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
    Hart B., & Risley T. R. (1995). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3. American Educator, 27(1), 49.
    Hiebert J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM standards. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 319.
    Hill H., Blunk M., Charalambous C. Y., Lewis J. M., Phelps G. C., Sleep L., & Ball D. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 430511.
    Hill H., & Ball D. L. (2009). The curious—and crucial—case of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(2), 6871.
    Hilton P. (1998, May). Review: The Pleasures of Counting by T. W. Körner. American Mathematics Monthly, 105(5), 481485.
    Hirsch E. D. Jr. (2001a). Breadth versus depth: A premature polarity. Common Knowledge, 14(4). Retrieved from http://www.coreknowledge.org/mimik/mimik_uploads/documents/22/BreadthVSDepth.pdf
    Hirsch E. D. Jr. (2001b). The roots of the education wars. In Loveless T. (ed.), The great curriculum debate: How should we teach reading and math? (pp. 1324). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
    Hirsch E. D. Jr. (2013). Primer on success: Character and knowledge make the difference. EducationNext, 13(1). Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/primer-on-success/
    History literacy failing among American students: Study faults colleges’ lack of core subject requirements. (2012, October 10). Huffington Post Education. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/study-rates-colleges-base_n_1954987.html
    Jackson R.R. (2009). Never work harder than your students and other principles of great teaching. Reston, VA: ASCD.
    Jehlen A. (2012). Boot camp for education CEOs: The Broad Foundation Academy. Rethinking Schools, 27(1), 2534.
    Johnson B. (1992). Polarity management: Identifying and managing unsolvable problems. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
    Johnson B. (2012). The polarity approach to continuity and transformation. Sacramento, CA: Polarity Partnerships, LLC.
    Kerr S. (1995). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), 714.
    Keiser J. (2010). Shifting our computational focus. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 16(4), 217223.
    Kidd C., Palmeri H., & Aslin R. N. (2013). Rational snacking: Young children's decision-making on the marshmallow task is moderated by beliefs about environmental reliability. Cognition, 126, 109114. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.08.004
    Killion J. (2012). Taking the long view on Common Core [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning_forwards_pd_watch/2012/11/taking_the_long_view_on_common_core.html
    Killion J. & Kennedy J. (2012). The sweet spot in professional learning: When student learning goals and educator performance standards align, everything is possible. Journal of Staff Development, 33(5), 1017.
    Kim K.H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance tests of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285295.
    Kirby L. (1997). Psychological type and the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. In Fitzgerald C., & Kirby L. K. (eds.), Developing leaders: Research and applications in psychological type and leadership development (pp. 331). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
    Kise J. A. G. (2007). Differentiation through personality types: A framework for instruction, assessment, and classroom management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Kise J. A. G. (2012). The impact of student Jungian psychological types on student approaches to mathematical tasks. Unpublished manuscript.
    Kise J. A. G., & Russell B. (2008). Differentiated school leadership: Effective collaboration, communication, and change through personality type. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
    Kohn A. (1998). Only for my kid: How privileged parents undermine school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(8), 568577.
    Kohn A. (2008). Why self-discipline is overrated: The (troubling) theory and practice of control from within. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(3), 168196. Retrieved from http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/selfdiscipline.htm
    Lavon R. (2009). Real justice in the age of Obama. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Lawrence G. (1998). Descriptions of the 16 types. Gainesville, FL: Center for Application of Psychological Type.
    Lawrence G. (2009). People types and tiger stripes: Using psychological type to help students discover their unique potential. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type.
    Lehto B.A. (1990). A comparison of personalities and background of teachers using a whole language approach and a basal approach in teaching elementary reading. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51/03-A, 740.
    Leithwood K., Louis K. S., Anderson S., & Wahlstrom K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
    Lengel J.G. (2012). The kindergarten education gap. Retrieved from http://www.powertolearn.com/articles/teaching_with_technology/article.shtml?ID=171
    Lester W. (2005, August 17). Poll shows America's love-hate relationship with math. Lawrence Journal-World. Retrieved from http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/aug/17/poll_shows_americas_lovehate_relationship_math/
    Littky D. (2011). Whoever wanted a standardized child anyway? In Elmore R. F. (ed.), I used to think … but now I think (pp. 101111). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Lockhart P. (2009). A mathematician's lament: How school cheats us out of our most fascinating and imaginative art form. New York, NY: Bellevue Literary Press.
    London Mathematical Society, Institute of Mathematics and Its Applications, and Royal Statistical Society. (1995). Tackling the mathematics problem. London, England: Author.
    Lopez S.J. (2011). The highs and lows of student engagement. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 7275.
    Loveless T. (2012). The Common Core initiative: What are the chances of success? Educational Leadership, 70(4), 6063.
    Ma L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Madison B. L., & Hart T. A. (1990). A challenge of numbers: People in the mathematical sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
    Margolis J. (2010, June 22). Why teacher quality is a local issue (and why Race to the Top is a misguided flop) (No. 16023). Teachers College Record. Available at http://tcrecord.org
    Marklow D., & Pieters A. (2012). The Metlife survey of the American teacher: Teachers, parents and the economy. New York, NY: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Retrieved from https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/contributions/foundation/american-teacher/MetLife-Teacher-Survey-2011.pdf
    Mathematics. (2005). Online encyclopedia and dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.fact-archive.com/quotes/Mathematics
    Marzano R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Reston, VA: ASCD.
    Marzano R.J. (2011). The Marzano teacher evaluation model. Englewood, CO: Marzano Research Laboratory.
    Marzano R.J. (2012). The two purposes of teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 1419.
    Matthews J. (2005, May 31). 10 myths (maybe) about learning math. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/31/AR2005053100656_4.html
    McMurrer J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington DC: Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=309
    Milteer R. M., Ginsburg K. R. & Council on Communications and Media, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2012). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bond: Focus on children in poverty. Pediatrics, 129(1), 204213. Retrieved from www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/129/1/e204
    Mielke P., & Frontier T. (2012). Keeping improvement in mind. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 1013.
    Mikaelsen B. (2001). Touching spirit bear. New York, NY: Scholastic.
    Miller D. (2009). The book whisperer: Awakening the inner reader in every child. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    Ministry of Education. (2006). Nurturing every child. Singapore: Author.
    Mintz A.I. (2012). The happy and suffering student: Rousseau's Emile and the path not taken in progressive educational thought. Educational Theory, 62(3), 249265.
    Mischel W., Ebbesen E. B., & Raskoff Zeiss A. (1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(2), 204218.
    Mooney M.E. (1988). Developing life-long readers. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.
    Moore E. (2000, April 3). My turn: Why teachers are not those who can't. Newsweek, 135(14), 13.
    Myers I. B., McCaulley M., Quenk N., & Hammer A. (1998). MBTI manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
    Myers I. B., with Myers P. B. (1993). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
    Nakamura T., Takahashi A., & Kurosawa S. (1989). Jugyookenkyuu no susumekata, fukamekata, norikirikata [The lesson study] (Vol. 10). Tokyo, Japan: Tooyookan Suppansha.
    Nardi, D. (2011). The neuroscience of personality. Los Angeles, CA: Radiance House.
    National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for action. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=17278
    National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
    National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
    Newton X., Darling-Hammond L., Haertel E., & Thomas E. (2010). Value-added modeling of teacher effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and contexts. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 18(23). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/810/858
    No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
    Omar S. (2012). Question at heart of Chicago strike: How do you measure teacher performance? U.S. News on NBC News.com. Retrieved from http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/11/13808109-question-at-heart-of-chicago-strike-how-do-you-measure-teacher-performance?lite
    Paige M. (2012). Using VAM in high-stakes employment decisions. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(3), 2932.
    Paine L., & Ma L. (1993). Teachers working together: A dialogue on organizational and cultural perspectives of Chinese teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(8), 675718.
    Pajak E. (2003). Honoring diverse teaching styles: A guide for supervisors. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
    Pallas A. (2012, May 15). The worst eighth-grade math teacher in New York City [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://eyeoned.org/content/the-worst-eighth-grade-math-teacher-in-new-york-city_326
    Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2012). About PARCC. Retrieved from http://www.parcconline.org/about-parcc
    Partanen A. (2011, December 29). What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/
    Perkins D. N., Farady M., & Bushey B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In Voss J. F., Perkins D. N., & Segal J. (eds.), Informal reasoning and Education (pp. 83106). New York, NY: Routledge.
    Peter Hilton quotes. (2013). Inspirational quotes, words, sayings. Retrieved from http://www.inspirationalstories.com/quotes/peter-hilton-computation-involves-going-from-a-question-to/
    Pink D. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead.
    RED Project (2012). Project RED: The research. Retrieved from http://www.projectred.org/about/research-overview.html
    Put Kids First Minneapolis. (2011). Contract for student achievement. Retrieved from http://www.putkidsfirstminneapolis.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60&Itemid=40
    Ramstetter C. L., Murray R., & Garner A. S. (2010). The crucial role of recess in schools. Journal of School Health, 80(11), 517526.
    Ravitch D. (2012, March 13). Why are teachers so upset? [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2012/03/why_are_teachers_so_upset.html
    Reeves D.B. (2005). Putting it all together. In DuFour R., Eaker R., & DuFour R. (eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp. 4564). Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
    Regents of the University of California. (2003). How much information? 2003. Retrieved from http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/execsum.htm
    Resnick L.B. (1999). Making America smarter. Education Week Century Series, 18(40), 3840. Available at http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1999/06/16/40resnick.h18.html?qs=Making+America+smarter
    Riley J.L. (2011, July 29). Was the $5 billion worth it? Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576461571362279948.html
    Root-Bernstein R., & Root-Bernstein M. (2013). The art and craft of science. Educational Leadership, 70, 1621.
    Rosales J. (2012, February 7). How bad education policies demoralize teachers. NEA Today. Retrieved from http://neatoday.org/2012/02/07/how-bad-education-policies-demoralize-teachers/
    Sagie A. (1997). Leader direction and employee participation in decision making: Contradictory or compatible practices? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 387415.
    Schmidt W. H., & Burroughs N. H. (2012). How the Common Core boosts quality and equality. Educational Leadership, 70(4), 5458.
    Schmoker M. (2012). The madness of teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(8), 7071.
    Schochet P. Z., & Chiang H. S. (2010). Error rates in measuring teacher and school performance based on student test score gains. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED511026.pdf
    Schoenfeld A.J. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253286.
    Stein M. K., Smith M. S., Henningsen M. A., & Silver E. A. (2009). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
    Stigler J. W., & Hiebert J. (1997). Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction: An overview of the TIMSS video study. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1), 467483.
    Tapping America's Potential. (2005, July). The education for innovation initiative. Retrieved from http://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/reports/050727_tapstatement.pdf
    Tough P. (2012). How children succeed: Grit, curiosity, and the hidden power of character. New York, NY: Macmillan.
    U.S. Department of Education. (2012). What we do. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/what-we-do.html
    Wagner T. (2006). Rigor on trial. Education Week, 25(18), 2829.
    Wason P. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129140.
    Weisberg D., Sexton S., Mulhern J., Keeling D., Schunck, J., Palcisco A., & Morgan K. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness (2nd ed.). New York, NY: New Teacher Project.
    Westen D., Blagov P. S., Karenski K., Hamann S., & Kilts C. (2006). Neural bases of motivational reasoning: An fMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 19471958.
    Wilkes J.W. (2004, July). Why do intuitives have an advantage on both aptitude and achievement tests? Paper presented at the International Conference of the Association for Psychological Type, Toronto, Canada.
    William D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
    Yazzie-Mintz E. (2010). Charting the path from engagement to achievement: A report on the 2009 High School Survey of Student Engagement. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy.
    Zhao Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in the age of globalization. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
    Zhao Y. (2012). Common sense vs. Common Core: How to minimize the damages of the Common Core [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://zhaolearning.com/2012/06/17/commonsense-vs-common-core-how-to-minimize-the-damages-of-the-common-core/

    Suggestions for Further Reading

    Haidt J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon.
    Kise J. A. G. (2006). Differentiated coaching: A framework for helping teachers change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Kise J. A. G. (2013). Intentional leadership: 12 lenses for focusing your strengths, managing your weaknesses, and achieving your purpose. St. Paul, MN: ShareOn.
    Johnson B. (2002). Polarity management: Identifying and managing unsolvable problems. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
    Oswald R., & Johnson B. (2010). Managing polarities in congregations. Herndon, VA: The Alban Institute.

    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website