Ever have someone lump you into a group into which you didn't belong? Feels pretty bad, doesn't it? Why, then, do so many of us do this to the folks who educate our kids? This week, in our ongoing weekly series on education and learning, we'll be exploring some of the ways in which statistics can help us to not do this, along with some ways in which statistics can legitimately guide us in evaluating our kids' educations.

Personal "Statistics"
For weeks now, you've been hearing me rake statistics through the proverbial mud. Statistically based grade assessments; bad. Fractally based visual assessments; good. This week, however, we'll be doing the very opposite. We'll be looking at the good in statistics. And believe me, it's been there, all along. Right in front of our noses. Or at least, right in front of our eyes. Given, of course, you know where to find it. You see, this good exists only in certain situations. Primarily, those which involve big groups of numbers.

Why look for the good in statistics? Because I recently had a very compassionate conversation with a fellow who is a professional statistician. This fellow is warm, human, and sees the good in numbers. By his own admission, though, he's recently made what he sees as some pretty big mistakes in his personal life. Why? I think, because he used his professional knowledge of statistics to guide him in some very personal decisions. Rather than following his head and heart.

Does it sound like I am implying his mistake came from his not using his head and heart?

In truth, I am not saying this. At least, not entirely. What I am saying, then, is that he should have used both. He should have used both his knowledge of statistics and what he felt in his head and heart.

How can you do both though? Aren't statistics pretty much the opposite of human intuitions, as in, they're "cold hard facts"?

At times, yes, statistics can be cold hard facts. At other times though, like when we need to take our nation's temperature with regard to how well we're teaching our eight graders math, these numbers can stir up some pretty strong personal reactions.

Are you curious as to how we're doing? Not well. Thirty two percent of our eight graders, nationally, can't do basic eight grade levels of math. And only six percent of these kids achieve advanced levels of math (NCES Digest of Education Statistics, 2005).

Feeling anything? I sure am. Why? Because by eight grade, a full third of our kids probably hate math. And probably will for the rest of their lives. Translation. We're failing these kids. And failing ourselves. This based on our national statistical evaluations for the years 1990 through 2005.

Now what though? So maybe we're failing to get these kids to like math. Aren't some people just "bad at math?" Moreover, can we even trust what these numbers imply?

My opinion? Yes, we can trust these numbers. Moreover, we should trust these numbers. As well as what these numbers imply; that for all our advances in education, we are currently failing a full third of our kids in the area of math.

Now consider what this failure means. It means that a third of our kids will probably grow up to be poor money managers. Or at least, they'll probably hate doing things like balancing check books and budgeting for vacations. They'll also probably feel pretty bad about themselves for being like this. In fact, many will feel downright stupid, or angry, or ashamed. Or at the very least, be reluctant to be in situations wherein they may be asked to understand numbers. Like budgeting money with a spouse or colleague.

What other kinds of activities am I talking about?

• Coaching a son or daughter with homework;
  ("You need to ask you mother to help you, son. You know I'm bad at math.")
• Applying for mortgages or college loans;
  ("What does all that fine print mean, sir, and how long will we have to pay this?")
• Enlisting the help of a financial advisor;
  ("How can we know he's not duping us? Maybe we should just wait to open a retirement account.")
• Shopping for food and interpreting the sale prices;
  ("Why'd you buy this size, honey? You paid twice as much for the laundry detergent."
• Evaluating fellow employee performance fairly;
  ("Ah, you know that guy is just a screw up. So what, his numbers say he's doing okay. You know how numbers lie.")
• Discussing with your husband how much life insurance you need;
  ("Do we have to talk about this now. You know how I hate talking about money.")

Now stop.

And breathe.

Now consider what this implies.

It implies that failing to teach kids eight grade math will permanently affect their self worth. As well as their ability to see themselves as being as good as others who can do math.

It will also likely affect their desire to go on to college. As well as their willingness to seek advancement in their careers.

Aren't these conclusions too personally biased to be accurate though? I am, after all, emotionally involved.

Okay, yes. I admit it. My conclusions are personally biased. And I do feel emotionally involved. More to the point, though, I should be emotionally involved. Why? For one thing, because my feelings are a part of what drives me to write this weekly column; I feel personally invested in making a difference in how kids feel about learning. Including about math.

In addition, I see being openly honest as the basis for trust in personal relationships. Thus, if I want you to personally relate to me, I must be personally honest with you. Including about what may appear to be some statistically unsound opinions. And biases.

Admittedly, these opinions and biases are not enough though. I might, indeed, be too personally involved to make a clear decision. So how do I account for this possibility?

I research my personal feelings to see if statistics and I see eye to eye. And you know what? When it comes to teaching our kids math, we do agree. Being bad at math does affect people's overall feelings of being as good as others. This based on my personal research on math over the past two years. So much for the common wisdom that emotionally charged personal feelings have no place in research.

Now for the killer idea.

From what I've just told you, we know we are failing to teach a full third of our kids normal everyday math. Moreover, I feel confident these statistics accurately reflect the problem. The thing is though, these statistics are based on something I've been railing against for weeks now. They're based on the very same test grades I say may injury our kids' love of learning.

Doesn't this mean that I'm now contradicting myself as to whether we should rely on grade to measure our kids progress in school?

Not really.

Let's see why.

To read the rest of this article, click here.

P.S. If you wish to read more of these articles, you can find the complete Education and Learning Series, beginning here, on the Emergence Site.

Even get a teacher you were badly matched to, a person who seemed to grate on your nerves from the first moment you laid eyes on her? This week, in our ongoing weekly series on education and learning, we're going to be exploring some of the ways in which fractal testing could improve our kids' educations. Including how a fractal test taken from Emergence Personality Theory could be used to all but eliminate these student to teacher mismatches.

Big Groups - Yea! - Little Groups - Hmm!
Let's start this week by briefly recapping what I've said so far about statistics versus fractals.

To me, that we need statistics is a given. Including that statistics should be the tool of choice for measuring certain parts of our kids' educations. The thing to be clearer about is which parts.

The answer? The parts which assess big groups of measurable things, such as the big group of measurable things I referred to in last week's column; the state wide math achievement levels of all U.S. eight graders.

Clearly, what we should not be using statistics for is to assess kids at the individual level. Why not? Because as any professional statistician will tell you, the validity of statistics falls apart as soon as you try to analyze anything below the big group level. For example, things at the single kid to single teacher level.

Unfortunately, the way we currently assess things in our kids' educations often ignores this fact and uses statistics anyway. For what? For things like matching individual kids to individual teachers.

How do we make these matches? In essence, we make them based on statistical averages of both classroom work and standardized tests. Along with an occasional bit of human input, should these statistical outcomes outright challenge our sense of logic.

So how has this been working out? The truth? Not well. In fact, many teachers will tell you, it's down right uncomfortable. A regular, pressure filled, lottery type crap shoot. So much so, in fact, that every year, parents, regularly and frequently, assault their kid's schools with demands their kid be reassigned.

Can this situation be changed for the better though? Yes, it can. We could augmenting our accurate-at-the-big-group-level, impersonal statistical analyses with a simple fractal test taken directly from Emergence Personality Theory. A test which, in less than six minutes, can accurately predict the overall quality of peoples' one-on-one relationships. Or lack there of. Even before these people meet, and with no need for in depth, psychologically personal questions.

Sound intriguing? It should be. Why? Because if what I'm going to tell you about in the next few weeks is even partially true, then these little tests could effectively raise the quality of our kids' educations in less than one year. Not just for some of our kids, but for all of them. For all the kids in the United States.

Does it sound like my ego is currently verging on inflating to the size of the whole United States? If this is what it sounds like, please forgive me. I do tend to get a bit enthused at times. Nonetheless, I am in no way exaggerating the potential of these tests.

I guess the question then becomes, so how can I be so certain they're this good? The answer? I, and my colleagues, have been accessing the power of fractal testing for over a decade now, for one thing, in guiding our efforts to find where peoples' stuckness comes from, both in personal relationships and in classroom settings. These efforts include a New York teacher who has been blowing peoples' minds with how he has been using Emergence Personality Theory to design a way in which kids not only learn to read and write but also, come to love learning to read and write.

Unfortunately, in order to understand what going on here, and how to use this power, you must first grasp the basics of fractals. Learning this stuff is a bear, to be sure. I know. I've read enough books on fractals wherein an author tries to explain fractals and fails.

I've also had my own share of failures in this area, including in my teachers' group, wherein our whole group is currently struggling to learn how to use fractals in everything from physical therapy and accounting to massage therapy and graphic design.

Admittedly, as a group, we're progressing slowly. It's hard work to be sure. Still, our progress is clear and exciting to say the least.

My point here is, what I'm about to describe to you requires you understand fractals. At least, the fractal nature of the examples I'm about to show you. Know I'm admitting that this learning is hard. As well as outright encouraging you to endure this struggle. Why? Because if you can learn to create your own fractal tests, you will unlock in yourself an amazing ability. You will be able to blamelessly and accurately assess everything from your kids' math scores and reading abilities to the real problems underlying all personal relationships. Including your own.

Okay. So in order to grasp what I'm about to say, you need to understand at least the basics of fractals and fractal testing. So if this is so hard, how the heck am I going to do this?

I'm going to start by teaching you the basics of Emergence Personality Theory. Why? Because for one thing, this theory is where I derive my understanding of fractals from. For another, this theory is entirely fractal in nature and so, to understand it, you must understand fractals. Finally, because our minds are, by nature and education, biased against trusting anything non linear, unless you can see the good in fractals, you'll have a hard time trusting any of what I say. Including that in one-on-one analyses, the fractal tests taken directly from this theory can blow away traditional statistical grade testing.

Here, then, is where we will start this week. With a bit of background on Emergence Personality Theory. Beginning with how babies become needy.

To read the rest of this article, click here.

Ever wish you had a different teacher, because you just couldn't get along? This week, in our ongoing weekly series on education and learning, we're going to look further into how fractal testing could be used to better match kids to their teachers. This time, we're going to explore a second aspect of Emergence Personality Theory, something called, the four "Social Priorities."

It's About Neediness. Remember?
Last week we spoke about how babies are born, and how an aspect of human personality, "neediness," affects our ability to relate to others. Not just to some folks, but to all others, in fact.

I also told you that "neediness" is much more than a human emotion. Rather, as I define it, it is a full fledged drive within human personality. It is, in fact, our primary drive.

How, then, am I defining, "neediness?"

"Neediness" is the drive to resolve the pain of separation experiences without ever having to reconnect. Here, the phrase "separation experiences" refers to the middle moment of our three Birth Separation-Moment Experiences, the three being [1] feeling profoundly connected, [2] feeling profoundly disconnected, and [3] feeling needy.

These three events form our first experience of life. As separate beings, that is. These three experiences also define all experiences which follow our birth as well. Moreover, by age four, we all adopt a default way of responding to those times wherein we relive this three moment separation sequence. And the essence of this strategy is where we look to resolve our needs. We either look inward or outward.

Ultimately, these strategies, which I call, "Character Types," fall into four separate categories, each associated with one of the first four years of life. As well as with how we once tried to resolve our neediness in that particular year.

"One's," meaning, first year of life folks, resemble babies in their first year of life who are trying to resolve their needs. These folks tend to look to resolve their neediness only from external sources. From outside themselves. From others and not from themselves.

"Two's" then, meaning, second year of life folks, tend to look only inward for this resolution. Thus, these people tend to look to resolve their neediness only from internal sources. From inside themselves. And only from themselves, and not from others.

"Three's," then, meaning, third year of life folks, tend to do a combination of both. These people tend to look first outward, only, then inward, only. Thus, these folks look to resolve their neediness in both directions. First, they look to others to resolve their needs. Then they look inside themselves for the solutions to their needs.

Finally, "four's," meaning, fourth year of life folks, tend to do the same thing three's do, only in reverse. First, they look inward to resolve their needs. Independently. All by their lonesomes. Then they look outwards, looking for others to meet their needs.

In a way, we could say these four Character Types act as a sort of "need compass," in that they point us in the direction in which we believe our needs will be met. As well as to whom we believe can and should meet these needs. Others, or ourselves.

Okay. So we each have a default direction we look in when we are needy. And this is called, our Character Type. The question then to ask though is, what exactly do we look for?

The answer. We each develop preferences for what kinds of experiences we believe will best resolve our neediness. I call these preferences, our "Social Priorities."

What exactly are our "Social Priorities?"

Social Priorities are the ways in which we humans distract ourselves from the pain of separation experiences. Literally. And like the four Character Types, there are four Social Priorities, in this case, representing the four main ways babies explore the world during their first four years of life.

What are the four Social Priorities? Comfort. Neatness. Understanding. Freedom. These four strategies are the four core ways in which we try to distract ourselves from the pain of separation experiences.

Know that in extreme cases, these four Social Priorities also form the core of most childhood learning disabilities, the four being Kanner's Autism ("comfort" type distractions), OCPD ("neatness" type distractions), Asperger's ("understanding" type distractions), and ADD ("freedom" type distractions). No coincidence, we refer to these conditions, especially the last one, as "distractions."

Finally, realize that what I'm saying here is not that these four priorities are how we make ourselves happy. Rather, they are the four ways in which we refocus ourselves away from the places wherein, in truth, we would ultimately be happiest; being connected to others.

Moreover, we do this because the Birth Separation Experience is so painful, we, from birth on, do our best to avoid situations wherein we may relive this painful separation. Thus, we focus our efforts to resolve our neediness on distracting ourselves, rather than on reconnecting.

Herein lies the heart of how knowing a kid's Social Priorities could be used to match kids to teachers. Because we tend to focus more on ways to work around connecting rather than on connecting itself, most of the times wherein we connect to others occur accidentally, in those times wherein we are in the presence of someone with whom we share a Social Priority. Thus, if we used Social Priorities to match kids to teachers, we could consciously stimulate these connections while at the same time, making things easier for teachers as well.

Know that ideally, we would need to match kids to teachers both by Character Type and by Social Priorities. Which may not always be possible. Or desirable. However, we, at least, need to explore how matching kids to teachers by Character Type and Social Priorities might lead to better classrooms. Why? Because doing this could improve our chances for better classrooms exponentially.

One last thing. While we each have one Character Type, we all have all four Social Priorities, just in different orders. Which is why they are called, "priorities." As for the "social" part, we call these priorities, "social" because they occur most markedly in social settings, especially in the times wherein we are entering into and leaving these settings.

Now let's look more at what these Four Social Priorities are, and at how they come into being.

To read the rest of this article, click here.

Ever try to persuade your parents your teacher had it in for you? Did they not believe you or tell you to just grin and bear it? This week, in our ongoing weekly series on education and learning, we're going to take our first look at the Emergence Personality Theory based, Social Priority tests. This time, we're going to look at one of the twelve tests I've designed to assess older kids and adults. For instance, this test might be used to assess teachers.

Alright, Already. Where Are The Tests!
Have you ever seen the 1931 Universal Studios version of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein? The scene toward the end wherein the townies arrive to kill the monster with clubs and pitch forks? Somewhere in the dark recesses of my mind, I picture myself awaiting a similar fate. Only in my case, it's at the hands of a group of fundamentalist educators, some armed with statistical pitch forks, some with wooden clubs notched with their alphabet-soup degrees. Not a pretty picture.

All kidding aside. Yes. It's time I show you the beef. Where are the blinkin' fractal tests, and why make such a big deal about these tests anyway? To see, we're going to take a look at a sample test. The one you see above, in fact. Know that in order for you to actually learn how these tests work, you're going to have to resist answering the questions for yourself. At least, until I finish explaining the testing process. Why? Because the validity of these tests rests, in large part, on how they are administered. Simply answering these questions will not result in a valid test.

Know, also, that the test you see above is not the only version of the test. Thus, while it is, indeed, a complete test, there are eleven other, equally valid tests. Why other tests? Mostly, because the test validity relies on that the person can answer spontaneously. No thinking. Just answers. Also, there are times wherein the first test results may not be conclusive. Taking a second test usually clears this up. And even a third test can be used, if need be.

Here, then, is what we'll be doing this week. One, we'll be examining at the various elements which make up these tests. Two, we'll be looking at what makes a valid test setting.

To read the rest of this article, click here.