Yet another female friend was recently diagnosed with a thyroid issue, so I've got to put this up: Home Page of Mary Shomon. This is an author I found when trying to figure out why I felt SO much better when all I had been diagnosed with was "subclinical hypothyroidism."
She's a widely-cited author who is herself hypothyroid. She writes simply, aggregates research, and the one thing that comes out loud and clear: this is a fast-changing field!
Well, I tried several times to post a comment to Stanford Social Innovation Review but they're having some sort of server problem. So here are my thoughts on what to do about the concern that Perla Ni raised:
My question to you, dear reader, is this: Who will pay for social
services in our country if neither government nor foundations will?
I completely agree that these are key issues, and I have had the same sorts of observations and am happy to see them raised here. I believe that the short answer isn't as horrible as you fear.
In TIME's article, How to Bring Our Schools Out of the 20th Century, the authors touch on the major problem with the frame of "no child left behind," which that it rather precludes children from getting ahead. What happens to gifted children in schools where the efforts are so focused on keeping kids moving forward -- no matter how ill-suited a school might be for what the student needs -- that academically-oriented and talented students are left behind compared to where they would be in a different school? If those students could be adequately resourced, would that help the community overall?
Fundamentally, one of the issues with education, more fundamental than establishing the "right" objectives, is that for all students, at some point in their life, their schooling isn't the most compelling thing going on. Maybe it's a death in the family or a divorce; maybe it's a new house or new sibling; but until schools are part of a living support system, they won't reach their full potential.
Luckily, there are a few resources to help us think about what this looks like.
Adapted from my blog on vox (evidently, I'm in reruns):
realized that I am at odds with what appears to be society's prevailing
perception of Generation X as being the domain of anti-heros. I
frequently hear consternation expressed that we're going to have a
"shortage of leaders," which makes no sense to me for two reasons: first, there are already great leaders who have been born into the cohorts of Generation X. Second, the size of the generations are equivalent, as I've discussed earlier in this blog. I've also spoken
elsewhere about how the environment that forged the excellent Boomer
leaders was different than the environment that has forged the
excellent Generation X leaders (of today and tomorrow). The type of leadership needed yesterday and today is not the same type of leadership for today and tomorrow.
This isn't a new concept. Any MBA curriculum in
Strategic Management will discuss what types of leaders are more
effective in different organizational stages or when achieving
But my son's class just studied Odysseus and, with it, the heroic journey. Revisiting the concept of the Hero's Journey, coupled with the perception of vast hordes
of Generation X who haven't yet moved into leadership roles has caused me
to realize that
there's a different way of looking at it: that they've (we've? Full
disclosure: I was born in 1962, interpret that as
you will) had a Hero's Journey but, for many people in the generation, the Return to Society has been
aborted, confounded, or just delayed.