Harvard, Day 4, Part 1: Efficacy

I don’t even know where to start.  Dr. Jeff Howard from The Efficacy Institute was our speaker. It was inspiring to say the least. Here are my takeaways:

Dr. Howard talked about being accepted to an elite high school based on his scores on an admissions test. Then all students who were accepted were tracked into three levels. He so clearly articulated the problem with this tracking. All students who were accepted had top test scores. 

However, in the environment of the school, the lowest group was the “dumb” group. They felt it, it created animosity between the students, and it labeled them as not good enough. These high-achieving students were made to feel “less than.” If a school can make high achieving students feel this way, imagine how it can make students feel who haven’t yet reached their potential.

He contrasted that experience with his experience at Harvard. During an early student experience, the president of the university addressed his freshman class. I’m paraphrasing, but the president stated that he believed they would graduate in four years because Havard doesn’t make admission mistakes. 

Think about the contrast. One organization segregated the best-of-the-best from the worst-of-the best. The other believed in the success of all students and empowered them to work hard and learn.

He said, “People play the role you create for you them.” I loved this message so much. So much.

Dr. Howard also talked of the “Room 206” idea. He asked if any of us knew of a classroom like Room 206, where tough kids with little educational background are working and engaged and achieving. Of course, we all know classrooms like that. The point, however, is that Room 206 proves it’s possible for everyone to achieve. Knowing that, Dr. Howard challenged us to consider this: Is it moral, then, to have rooms where everyone doesn’t achieve? Think about that for a while.

Proficiency does not have a flexible definition, he says. We sell kids short when we create different levels of proficiency for them based on what we think they can do. He describes the efficacy paradigm - everyone is capable of brilliance; capabilities are built over a lifetime through the action of effective effort. He addresses Adult Proficiency. He advocates the idea of “Getting Smart” rather than being smart.

It’s Dweck 2.0.

My favorite quotes:

“Are we saying that kids who are currently failing algebra can become engineers? Damn right.”

“If you can make a change [to help all students succeed] and you don't, you have to live with the moral consequences of that.”

You need to learn more from him. This article is a great one. I wrote the word “OUCH!” in the margin more than once.  I also found this pretty long video of him speaking. I didn’t watch it all, but I skimmed it. It seems very similar to what he shared with us. It would be worth your time.

I’m going to throw in one caveat. Dr. Howard focuses his arguments primarily on test scores. I’ve realized that the environment I’m in is very unique – where test scores are a source of information but not the only measure of success.  For educators all over the country, test scores are THE thing that defines them. This saddens me, as I don’t believe student learning can be completely quantified. So while I don’t believe in giving standardized tests any more power than they already have, I think Dr. Howard’s argument still holds true. I believe that all students can learn at high levels, and that’s his over-arching message.