Mr. Rogers' solution to urban poverty

Remember Mr. Rogers?  My kids would sit in rapt attention watching his show on public television.  For some reason, his soothing voice and always-nice patter drove adults crazy, much like the purple dinosaur that succeeded him as toddler favorite.  The theme song for the show, It’s a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, might well describe the Rochester, NY suburb in which I now live. 

Nice neighborhoods create a terrific environment for kids.  Growing up, my brothers and I went to good schools, had a strong family culture and always felt safe.  Eighty-six percent of my high school graduating class went on to college. 

Last week, NPR reported on a study by a Harvard University team, led by Professor Raj Chetty.  Titled the “Moving to Opportunity Study (MOS)”, the team reports on new data about neighborhoods and how they affect economic prospects.   This study was a follow up to the Equality of Opportunity Project, a study that examined the factors leading to equality of opportunity in the 50 largest cities in the U.S.  Their conclusion, which I first discussed in a blog post in February 2104 (Confessionsof a Former Yuppie), was that cities with less segregation, more stable families and better education tended to have greater social mobility.

The MOS dug deeper.  In the 1990’s, the federal Department of Housing and Development (HUD) provided vouchers to 4600 families in poor neighborhoods that enabled them to move to better neighborhoods.  A follow up by HUD, reported by the National Bureau of Economics after 10 to 15 years, found improved health among those who moved to better neighborhoods.  However, their economic prospects hadn’t improved.

But, the Harvard team found that, after 20 years, the children of those families were performing better in measures of economic self-sufficiency.  For example, they were 30% more likely to have gone to college and their annual incomes were 30% higher than their peers in the neighborhoods they had left behind. 

Further, the study validated that the earlier a child moved out of poor neighborhoods, the better they did.  “Every year matters,” avers Dr. Chetty.

This study tracks with other studies done at both Princeton and Stanford, reported by CityLab last year.  It seems clear, or perhaps intuitive, that one’s surroundings affect behavior, values and other attributes leading to economic well-being. 

Perhaps that’s what made me think of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood.  It was a positive environment that emphasized emotional development, self-worth, values and the behaviors that contribute to well-being.

Even in poor neighborhoods, there are attributes of households that lead to success.  As I discussed in a post in March of last year (Movin’ on Up: How George JeffersonSucceeded), a study – the Early Childhood LongitudinalStudy (ECLS) – attributed success to the level of the mother’s education, the number of books in the household and two parent families, among many other factors.  Black children underperformed all others but if one controls for the other factors, black children performed as well as their white and Asian peers. 

In other words, there was no difference in the performance of white and black children from two parent families with a well-educated mother and a home full of books.

Those in government and the non-profit community concerned with social welfare and income inequality would do well to consider these data when formulating solutions.  It is unlikely that a one-size-fits-all central planning approach to these challenges will succeed.  As a friend of mine, Germaine Smith-Baugh, CEO of the Urban League of Broward County, puts it:  “Give me a family and I’ll give you a block.  Give me a block and I’ll give you a neighborhood.  Give me a neighborhood and I’ll give you a community.”

Mr. Rogers would have agreed.

WHO WILL LEAD?

On social mobility: confessions of a former Yuppie

My first Bimmer

Remember Yuppies?  In the early days of demographic stratification, I was classified as a Young
Upwardly-mobile Professional – a Yuppie.  But, I am no longer young or upwardly mobile; so, I don't qualify.

My Dad was a Yuppie, too.  No one was called a Yuppie in his day; but he was young and upwardly mobile.  He was also a businessman.  Today we would call him an entrepreneur.  He and two partners each deposited $2000 in the bank and started a company. 

It was quite an accomplishment given where he started.  When I was born, he was collecting Aid toFamilies with Dependent Children (AFDC, a federal/state financial aid program).  Thank God for the safety net!

Later in life, Dad sold his business to retire.  He would never have been described as wealthy; that was not his goal.  His goal was to be secure in retirement and he achieved that. 

Dad also achieved something I never did.  He transcended his socio-economic class.  He started poor and became upper middle class.  I started upper middle class and became – well – upper middle class. 

Dad worked hard and played by the rules. 

In the context of today’s debate about social mobility, he would be a success story.  He relied on government assistance when he needed it but paid it back many times over by paying his taxes when he was economically successful. 

A Harvard study published last year indicates that there has been little change in social mobility since my Dad’s day.  Still, we are having a debate – which is bound to affect policy, the budget and, eventually, taxes – about how to help those in need move up the economic ladder.  The study pointed to geography as the most important factor in social mobility.  Areas where there was less segregation, more stable families and better education tended to have greater mobility.

Michele and her family

Yet, the debate seems to be about raising the minimum wage.  How will that provide the stable environmental factors that will enable people to move up the economic ladder?

So, I am confused.  We lionize hard working Americans and say we want to help people move up the economic ladder; but, the prescription has nothing to do with hard work.  It is to unilaterally hand more money to people for the same amount of work. 

I support the concept of a social safety net.  My Dad took advantage of it when he really needed to.  But, he succeeded perhaps more than most of his day because he worked hard and made tough choices about how to live his life and support his family.  His success was self-made.  It was not the result of the government reapportioning wealth.

Perhaps, the best perspective I have read on this topic came from my cousin’s daughter, Michele (my first cousin, once removed, if you’re keeping score).  She and her husband are raising three boys on Long Island.  They’re working hard and playing by the rules.  Here is what she said on her Facebook Timeline:

“I usually don't do this on FB but can't help it because it's too irritating. Fast food workers are striking because they want minimum wage to be increased to $15 an hr.?? So after I pay my student loan bills and taxes they will make the same as me??? … So that's what we do now? Protest to make more money?? What happened to making more money based on merit and how good u are? Ok I'm done now:)”

So am I.

WHO WILL LEAD?

The 10 best... er, the 7 leading... oh, whatever

My brother Chris exhorted me to write about the 10 (or X) greatest leaders of our time… or some time. He told me that I too often write about the failings of our institutional leaders.   I should write about the good guys for a change, he says. 

I thought about it for a while and decided to reject the idea. Why?  Because it’s been done (and done and done).  Time magazine created a list of 100 Most Influential People in the World.  How can I top that?  The Harvard Business Review tells us that to be a better leader is to have a richer life.  HBR exhorts us to “be real”, “be whole” and “be innovative”.  Am I going to quibble with Harvard? 

Beside, in this world of cable news, the Drudge Report and hyper-partisan politics, someone would attack any name I could come up with.  After all, even great leaders are only human.  And, there will always be someone in the media who can identify their all too human faults.  Indeed, being named a great leader might be the equivalent of the Sports Illustrated curse.  Get your picture on the cover and you’re heading for a fall. 

But I thought about Chris’s idea anyhow.  It’s too compelling.  Maybe I could come up with a month-by-month example for the year 2013.  December:  Mandela... 

The best writers in the world have eulogized him and who do I think I am anyway?

In November, we paused to reflect on the 50^th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.  JFK was a great leader for his generation.  His inaugural appeal to “ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country” was a perfect message for the WW II generation who had lived through the pain of the Great Depression and the suffering of the big war.  His call to the nation to “commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth” not because it was easy but because it was hard resonates even today.

Yet, historian Paul Johnson paints him as a womanizing lout who was addicted to painkillers in his book, A History of the American People.

Is nothing sacred?

So, how do we define leadership in this new millennium?  How can we identify exemplars without fear that they will be brought down by the cynical human urge that too often rules the day?

Perhaps I should focus on the ingredients that make a great leader.  Business Insider lists the “10 Behaviors All of the Greatest Leaders Have in Common”. 

10??  Are you kidding me?

First, we must realize that no one exhibits all 10 behaviors of great leaders.  And, even those who come close are subject to the inconsistencies of their humanity. 

Oracle President Mark Hurd reduces the list to 5.  To be a great leader, he says you must be good at: 

1) Getting the strategy right.

2) Executing that strategy.

3) Putting the right people in the right places.

4) Managing dual priorities that others see as conflicting.

5) Keeping everyone focused on what matters.

Well, that might work for the shareholders.  But what about the rest of us?  Apple’s late founder and CEO might be the best example of a leader who fits Hurd’s model but if you were one of the folks who helped him start the company and later got screwed out of your stock options, you might not think of him as a great leader. 

Consultant and author Don Schmincke of Saga Leadership simplifies it further.  He would tell you it’s all about “the story”.  Leadership requires that we commit to a common cause that’s bigger than ourselves by creating a compelling story.  And, it requires that we gain the commitment of others to that bigger thing by consistently telling and living that story.  As author Simon Sinek so eloquently puts it, “it’s not what you do; it’s why you do it”.

For JFK, it was to inspire a nation to make the sacrifices necessary to do great things – a moon shot, civil rights, the Cold War.

For Steve Jobs, it was a commitment to elegant design.

For Nelson Mandela, it was to succeed as a nation after a century of repression. 

Each of them told a compelling story to an audience for whom the message resonated.  Each leader had failings as human beings.  Each could be (and has been) criticized for their personal and professional failings.

And, yet each is a great leader in his own right. 

Sorry, Chris.   I can’t come up with a list of 10, or even 5 of the greatest leaders. Each of us responds to different messages in different ways.  If I am a cynic, perhaps it’s because I grew up in the time of Eisenhower and JFK.  It was a time when the nation had common cause, when corporate leaders saw themselves as having responsibilities toward their communities, including their employees. 

Common cause seems to be a thing of the past.  Yet, people – whether as citizens, shareholders or employees – crave leadership.  So, I still have to ask…

WHO WILL LEAD?   

IS YOUR KID'S TEACHER AN IVY LEAGUER?

“My education was dismal. I went to a series of schools for mentally disturbed teachers.”

 Woody Allen

In the great debate about the deteriorating quality of American public school education, the quality and talent of America’s educators is often questioned. The answer to the headline question – is your kid’s teacher an ivy leaguer – is likely NO. Ivy Leaguers are meant for more prosperous careers. They are not only the best and brightest but also among the nation’s wealthiest college students. Many go on to top business and law schools, become captains of industry and our leading politicians.

Teachers more typically come from state colleges and universities. They are underpaid, overworked and much maligned. The quality of their training is questioned; as is their effectiveness.

I recently was introduced to a contemporary who had just retired from a 30 year teaching career. What an eye opener. Imagine, if you will, heading out for work every day with an absolute requirement that you be “ON” at 7:30. By ON, I mean ready for anything. Forget that long walk with your dog. Skip the trip to the gym. That third cup of coffee will have to wait until after 3rd period.

No matter if you are just too tired, too bored or just fed up. There is an honor student wanting to show her prowess; a malcontent disrupting your class; or, worse, a physical threat that must be contained.

Meanwhile, we read news reports almost daily that tell us about deteriorating student performance and Washington’s plans to reverse that course. Billions have been spent but the news keeps getting worse anyway.

A career in teaching is both physically and emotionally challenging. Why would an Ivy Leaguer want that job when a more luxurious future awaits elsewhere?

Teach for America.

Ignoring the national debate and foregoing government funding, a non-profit organization called Teach for America (TFA) has been working for the last 20 years to solve to improve education from the front lines.

Recently, the NY Times published an article about how difficult it is for graduates of Harvard, Yale and Dartmouth to be accepted by Teach for America. With only 4500 openings, less than 10% of applicants are admitted. Imagine if you will, America’s best and brightest college grads going into the teaching profession.

TFA doesn’t just drop these young recruits into the classroom. It provides a five week summer course in classroom practices before assigning its graduates to teach in inner city and rural schools. The organization sets goals for its teachers and assigns Program Directors to follow up and monitor the members of its “corps”. According to Education Week magazine, each of TFA’s corps members is expected to achieve at least one of the following goals: “…move student learning forward at least 1 ½ grade levels, close achievement gaps by 20 percent, or ensure that 80 percent of students have met grade-level standards.”

But, this blog is not about education; it’s about leadership. What struck me about the Times article was the number of Ivy League grads who applied. Eighteen percent of Yale and Harvard undergrads applied. Those rejected had to settle for alternatives like becoming a Fulbright Scholar, attending University of Virginia Law School or teaching at their alma mater.

TFA’s founder is Wendy Kopp who proposed the creation of Teach for America in her undergraduate thesis at Princeton – and then followed through upon graduation!!

So, when we ask the question that serves as the theme of this blog – Who Will Lead? – we need look no further than Wendy Kopp and the 4500 college grads who, this year, will dedicate their considerable intellect and energy to the task of improving student achievement throughout the United States.

Each sacrificed other opportunities to become teachers. Each dedicated themselves to making a contribution. Each of them will lead.