3. Purpose means that the task is really


important to us; it’s a cause bigger and more enduring than we are, worthy of the best that we have to give, a higher-order goal. Obviously, these three conditions pro-


duce the best results when they are interre- lated and mutually reinforcing. What struck me most about all this is that


over the past decade, in the hundreds of low- performing schools in which I’ve worked, we have been the most successful when these three conditions have been effectively cul- tivated. This approach has provoked high levels of encouragement, inspiration, hope, hard work, positive relationships and new solutions to old problems in some of the most struggling schools in the state.


Bad cop, good cop At end of last school year I began toying


with a typology of contrasting motivators. One set characterizes the old school of “car- rots and sticks,” while the other lines up more with the newer school of “autonomy, mastery and purpose” (see chart at right). Now, I’m not saying that I haven’t en-


gaged in activities and language related to column one. It’s almost impossible for any of us not to do so, given the context within which we work. In fact, sometimes I think it helps to let “the system” play bad cop (left column) while the rest of us play good cop (right column). For sure, threat is an atten- tion-getter! But, unmitigated, it limits the degree to which we can tap into our own and our colleagues’ most powerful motiva- tions and competencies. And that means slower progress for our students or, in the most painful cases, none at all. This brings me to the main theme of this


article: keeping our eyes on the prize. By “prize” I mean our current goals and focus areas. For example, I routinely push for “ambitious” targets beyond what the state and federal governments require. We shoot for 30-50 points API growth in my schools, not the state’s 5 percent. We shoot for 40 percent to 60 percent of our ELL students to score Early Advanced or Advanced on the CELDT and at least 15 percent or more le- gitimate reclassifications each year, not for the state’s lower AMAOs. Although clear, ambitious, public targets


A typology of contrasting motivators: Carrots and sticks vs. autonomy, mastery and purpose


Old school Threat; pressure; fear New school


Help & support; offering new know-how; insights; pats on the back; encouragement; hope


Punishment; sanctions Change Reduced choice and autonomy in


spending, hiring, decision-making Competition


Accountability Teaching; learning; reflection Growth Judgment; voice; choice; engagement Cooperation; collaboration


Data analysis; reflection with a ‘no- blame’ ethic; transparency; two ways to win (score high or make gains); set new targets


Constructive criticism; a deficit model Descriptive feedback; a recognition of guiding change; a focus on weaknesses (the glass half empty)


strengths; next best steps for growth (the glass half full)


Compliance/fidelity


Some voice, choice & latitude; creativ- ity; judgment; guidance & leadership; focus on getting better; mastery


Mandatory targets (API, AYP, AMAO)


Ambitious public goals, locally developed, connected to higher-order purposes supported by data (closing the achievement gap; proportionate equity between minorities and majorities; higher scores leading to better choices in life)


cause higher performance, there’s a new, higher-order prize now available that would better address one of Pink’s three main motivators, purpose. That is, many of the low-income, minority schools I now work with are within 100 points or fewer of clos- ing the achievement gap for Hispanic and black students with white students in Cali- fornia. If we can pull it off, this would be the first time in history that so many minority schools actually close the achievement gap for this generation of children. Lower-order


goals such as scoring 800 or getting out of Program Improvement, although signifi- cant, pale in comparison. And, lest we trivialize this target in light


of the upcoming Common Core Standards, note that the quality of California’s current accountability system is the highest in the na- tion. There are three reasons for this claim: 1. Our standards have been given an “A”


rating twice in the last decade by the Ford- ham Foundation (Finn et. al., 2006). My “sources” tell me that the new Common


March/April 2012 33


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40