Table of Contents
Introduction
The “Leader in Me” program, inspired by Stephen Covey’s renowned book “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,” has been widely adopted by many American schools with the aim of nurturing leadership qualities and character development in students. However, its rapid adoption has sparked a spectrum of critiques, challenging its efficacy and potential implications on student growth. This article seeks to present a comprehensive view of the program’s potential shortcomings and its broader impact on the educational landscape.
A Brief Overview of the “Leader in Me” Program
Rooted in Covey’s “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,” the program endeavors to instill leadership capabilities and character virtues in students. It integrates these seven habits into daily school routines, aspiring to mold students into responsible, efficient, and successful individuals. The habits are:
- Be proactive
- Begin with the end in mind
- Put first things first
- Think win-win
- Seek first to understand, then to be understood
- Synergize
- Sharpen the saw
While commendable in its objectives, the program has faced criticism. Detractors argue that these habits, though presented as novel, are essentially repackaged age-old wisdom. They further contend that proposing these habits as universally applicable oversimplifies human behavior’s intricacies and the diverse contexts in which individuals function.
A Review From a Teacher
Oh, it’s no trend. My school has been doing it for the last 10 years or so. It’s nothing more than a corporate cash grab.
When we first started, when Stephen Covey himself was still running the show, it didn’t feel all that “mormony” to me, and I live and work in a place with a significant Mormon population.
I could see that the 7 habits were based on “universal values”, and I liked having common expectations and language. I was never a full convert, but I taught the lessons and made my peace with it.
But then Covey died and his sons took over, and holy shit, does it suck now. Sanctimonious, patronizing videos, programs that are hot trash and created by people who are clearly not teachers, telling us how to teach. it’s meaningless to kids, families don’t care and have no intention of doing it at home, and the religious overtones come through loud and clear. The only families that love and practice it are the LDS ones.
The cost is outrageous, and I have no idea what we get for our money. I know we pay thousands of dollars every year to Franklin Covey, and other than a few banners and access to their website, and lots of symposiums that my admin team gets to go to, that’s about it.
And just wait till your admins decide to go for lighthouse status, as we did a few years ago. What do you get when you are a lighthouse school? Ummmm . . . a big lighthouse and some t-shirts. That’s it. Did it make us a better school? It didn’t change a damn thing. We had to pay for the privilege, at least $15 000, probably more. But, we will never know the actual cost of this program, that’s a closely guarded secret.
Then we learn that there are levels above lighthouse. If we work really hard, and lay out even more money, we can become a Legacy Scholl. Yippee! No one has any idea what a legacy school does, but now admin has their eyes on the prize.
My superintendent loves the program. My admin team loves the program. My principal, who isn’t actually LDS, loves to get up and proselytize at every opportunity, she’s got the Good Book and the Transformational Figure, and she wants to share the Inspirational Word of her Lord and Savior Stephen J. Covey. Meanwhile, chaos reigns supreme in the hallways and on the playground, and she pretends not to notice. We are told constantly to “make our own weather”, and “use our 7 Habits thinking” when we ask for admin support.
Tldr: It sucks, and I hate it too.
The Corporate Influence and Compliance Culture in Education
The introduction of the “Leader in Me” program into schools is a testament to the growing influence of corporate ideologies in the educational sector. While Covey’s Seven Habits have proven transformative in the business world, their application in education raises questions. Can principles guiding corporate leaders genuinely shape young minds? Or are we risking authentic childhood learning experiences by imposing a business-oriented framework?
The language of “The Leader in Me” program echoes corporate jargon, often referred to as “business bullshit.” Such language, when imposed, creates a false culture. Authentic culture must emerge organically from the roots. The assumption that practices from one culture can be directly transplanted into another without understanding the intricacies of the receiving culture often leads to failure.
Teaching children to think and communicate using business jargon, especially language owned and licensed by a corporation, can be seen as inauthentic. Authentic communication is crucial for genuine understanding and growth. The spread of empty management-speak or “business bullshit” needs to be challenged. Instead of using hollow terms, there’s a need for meaningful dialogue that truly enriches understanding.
Culture, Authenticity, and the Dangers of Imposed Ideologies
Culture is an organic entity, evolving from the grassroots. Imposed culture, however, is a facade, lacking authenticity and depth. The “Leader in Me” program, with its corporate jargon and structured approach, seems to be an attempt to force a particular culture onto students. Such attempts often fail, as culture always triumphs over tools and technologies. The business world’s tone-deaf approach to understanding culture is now seeping into our educational institutions, leading to a potential erosion of genuine learning experiences.
The Realities of Modern Work and the Shift in Education
The traditional script of education, based on years of structured schooling followed by specialized training, is rapidly becoming obsolete. The modern world demands competencies over credentials. Software-driven transformations are disrupting the traditional middle-class life script, emphasizing real skills over academic achievements. The “Leader in Me” program, with its emphasis on compliance and structured learning, seems out of touch with these evolving realities.
From the viewpoint of someone who has mentored and hired developers and designers, the language and framing of “The Leader in Me” are liabilities in creative cultures. Modern work environments value diversity of thought, creativity, and genuine leadership skills over rote learning and conformity.
The traditional education model, which emphasizes grades, test scores, and degrees, is becoming obsolete. In the modern world, real competencies are valued over academic credentials. Programs like “The Leader in Me,” which seem to prioritize compliance over genuine skill development, are out of touch with the needs of the modern world.
Criticisms of the “Leader in Me” Program
Monetary Implications
The “Leader in Me” program demands a significant financial commitment. Schools often face challenges allocating resources for training, materials, and ongoing support. The initial investment can range from $40,000 to $75,000 per school, with annual costs for sustained support and training reaching up to $15,000. Given the financial constraints many educational institutions face, it’s crucial to weigh the program’s potential advantages against other educational initiatives.
Religious Affiliations
Stephen Covey’s association with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) has raised concerns about the program’s suitability for public schools. While the program doesn’t overtly propagate religious beliefs, the principles rooted in Covey’s convictions might not resonate with every school community’s values.
Research Deficiency
The program’s impact remains under-researched. Limited studies have been conducted, with some finding no significant influence on student academic performance or behavior. The program’s promotional materials often highlight anecdotal success stories, which might not represent its broader impact comprehensively.
Simplistic Leadership Model
The program’s linear approach to leadership development has faced criticism. The 7 habits aren’t evidence-based, and their universal application might not resonate with every student. An overemphasis on these habits could lead to a superficial understanding of real-life challenges.
Reliance on Extrinsic Motivators
The program’s heavy reliance on rewards and punishments to drive student behavior has been criticized. Such an approach might foster extrinsic motivation, potentially undermining students’ intrinsic drive to learn.
Promotion of Conformity
The program emphasizes conformity over genuine leadership skills. Its focus on individual responsibility often overlooks systemic factors like poverty and social injustice, potentially stifling creativity and independent thought.
Narrow Worldview and Systemic Neglect
The program’s focus on individual success might inadvertently promote a self-centric worldview, sidelining the importance of community engagement and collective action.
Questionable Academic Impact
Despite its widespread adoption, there’s scant evidence supporting its efficacy in enhancing students’ academic performance or behavior.
Reinforcement of Stereotypes and Social Inequality
The program might inadvertently perpetuate certain stereotypes and social inequalities. Research suggests that such programs can reproduce power dynamics that privilege specific groups while marginalizing others.
Increased Burden on Teachers
The program places an added strain on educators, who now have the added responsibility of integrating the “Leader in Me” program into their daily routines.
Detriment to Academic Instruction Time
The program’s potential to encroach upon academic instruction time is a significant critique. Critics argue that the time and resources dedicated to the “Leader in Me” program could be more effectively channeled towards evidence-based strategies that directly enhance academic achievement.
Anecdotal Concerns: Does It Really Work?
While the “Leader in Me” program often highlights success stories, it’s essential to consider the experiences of educators and parents who have witnessed the program’s implementation firsthand. Several anecdotes shed light on the program’s potential shortcomings and challenges:
- The Case of the Disappearing Funds: Some schools faced budgetary constraints, leading to the elimination of essential positions, yet funds were still allocated to the program.
- The Overemphasis on Data: A shift to data collection overshadowed genuine student learning in some instances.
- The “Leader Day” Dilemma: Some educators have expressed concerns about the authenticity of “Leader Days” events, arguing that they are highly scripted.
- The Pressure on Teachers: The program’s implementation has added significant stress to teachers, with some feeling pressured to ensure their students performed well during “Leader Days.”
- Questionable Impact on Behavior: Despite the program’s claims, some educators haven’t observed a significant change in student behavior.
The Leader in Me and Compliance Culture
The Corporate Influence in Education
The language of “The Leader in Me” program echoes corporate jargon, often referred to as “business bullshit.” Such language, when imposed, creates a false culture. Authentic culture must emerge organically from the roots. The assumption that practices from one culture can be directly transplanted into another without understanding the intricacies of the receiving culture often leads to failure.
“A great fallacy born from the failure to study culture is the assumption that you can take a practice from one culture and simply jam it into another and expect similar results. Much of what bad managers do is assume their job is simply to find new things to jam and new places to jam them into, without ever believing they need to understand how the system—the system of people known as culture—works.” – Source: Why Culture Always Wins
The Dangers of Imposed Culture
The introduction of business jargon and corporate culture into schools through “The Leader in Me” program is alarming. Teaching children to think and communicate in business jargon, especially language owned and licensed by a corporation, is inauthentic and potentially harmful. Such language should be used with full awareness of its history and implications.
“Business bullshit can and should be challenged. This is a task each of us can take up by refusing to use empty management-speak. We can stop ourselves from being one more conduit in its circulation. Instead of just rolling our eyes and checking our emails, we should demand something more meaningful.” – Source: The Guardian
Commercialization of Education
The primary concern is the overt commercialization of education. Programs like “The Leader in Me” seem to prioritize business education over holistic child development. Such programs, with their corporate undertones, can be detrimental to fostering creativity, diversity, and genuine leadership skills in students.
“It’s about COMMERCIALIZATION. It’s about making all education a shallow form of business education.” – Source: Design Thinking is Kind of Like Syphilis — It’s Contagious and Rots Your Brains
The Conformity Concern
One of the most glaring issues with “The Leader in Me” program is its promotion of conformity. Statements from students such as “I’m a leader because I sit quietly” or “I am a leader because I always follow the rules” are indicative of a program that values compliance over genuine leadership and creativity.
The Perspective of an Immigrant
The program’s approach has been likened to brainwashing techniques observed in oppressive regimes. Comparisons have been drawn to the Soviet Union’s indoctrination methods, where individuality was suppressed in favor of state-promoted ideologies.
“Today I went to my grandson’s school to take a look at their “leadership” presentation. What I saw was a deliberate transformation of young children into obedient and thoughtless slaves.” – A perspective from a former Soviet Union immigrant
The Modern Work Perspective
From the viewpoint of someone who has mentored and hired developers and designers, the language and framing of “The Leader in Me” are liabilities in creative cultures. Modern work environments value diversity of thought, creativity, and genuine leadership skills over rote learning and conformity.
“The creative leaders of today understand hacker modes of social organization and “created serendipity” in “communication is oxygen” cultures.” – Ryan Boren
The Shift in Education
The traditional education model, which emphasizes grades, test scores, and degrees, is becoming obsolete. In the modern world, real competencies are valued over academic credentials. Programs like “The Leader in Me,” which seem to prioritize compliance over genuine skill development, are out of touch with the needs of the modern world.
“Students who only know how to perform well in today’s education system—get good grades and test scores, and earn degrees—will no longer be those who are most likely to succeed.” – Most Likely to Succeed
The Leader in Me and Its Cultural Implications
The “Leader in Me” program, while rooted in the principles of Stephen Covey’s “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,” has been met with a mix of acceptance and skepticism. Its introduction into the educational system has raised concerns about its cultural implications and the potential for it to foster a compliance culture.
Culture vs. Imposed Culture
Culture, in its true essence, is organic and grows from the roots of a community or organization. The imposition of a culture, especially one that doesn’t resonate with the ethos of its recipients, can lead to resistance and rejection. In the tech world, for instance, there’s a strong ethos that values the freedom to select tools and methodologies. Imposing a culture in such an environment can be counterproductive.
A significant concern is the assumption that practices from one culture can be seamlessly transplanted into another with the same results. This is a fallacy. Culture always triumphs over tools and technologies. The business world, unfortunately, often overlooks the importance of understanding and nurturing culture.
Commercialization and the Dilution of Authenticity
The “Leader in Me” program’s introduction into schools has been seen by some as a commercial endeavor, an attempt to infuse business jargon and corporate culture into the educational system. Such commercialization can lead to the dilution of genuine educational values. For instance, terms like “synergize,” which might be seen as punchlines in corporate settings, are now being taught to children without a full understanding of their history or implications.
Teaching children to think and communicate using business jargon, especially language owned and licensed by corporations, can be seen as inauthentic. Authentic communication is crucial for genuine understanding and growth. The spread of empty management-speak or “business bullshit” needs to be challenged. Instead of using hollow terms, there’s a need for meaningful dialogue that truly enriches understanding.
The Leader in Me and Conformity
The “Leader in Me” program’s approach has been criticized for promoting conformity over genuine leadership skills. The program’s emphasis on individual responsibility often neglects systemic factors that play a significant role in children’s experiences. There’s a concern that the program’s rigid adherence to the 7 habits might stifle creativity and independent thought.
Statements from children such as “I’m a leader because I sit quietly” or “I’m a leader because I always follow the rules” highlight a potential issue. Leadership is not about blind compliance but about understanding, critical thinking, and taking initiative.
The Perspective of Neurodiversity
From the viewpoint of neurodivergent individuals and those who advocate for neurodiversity, the “Leader in Me” program might not be the best fit. The program’s language and framing can be seen as a liability in cultures that value creativity and diverse ways of thinking. The worldview underlying the “Leader in Me” program might be too narrow to accommodate the diverse minds that shape modernity.
The program’s approach might not resonate with those who value hacker modes of social organization or cultures where “communication is oxygen.” Modern creative leaders understand the importance of flexible and creative improvisation, which might be at odds with the “Leader in Me” program’s more structured approach.
The Shift Towards Modern Education
There’s a growing recognition of the need for a shift in the educational paradigm. Traditional models of education, based on regimented schooling and credentialism, are being challenged. The modern world requires competencies beyond academic credentials. Project-based learning, passion-based maker learning, and an emphasis on agency over compliance are seen as more in tune with the needs of the modern world.
The “Leader in Me” program, with its emphasis on compliance and structured learning, might be at odds with this shift. There’s a need for educational models that prioritize agency, creativity, and genuine understanding over rote learning and compliance.
Alternative Approaches to Education
The Need for Authenticity
In the age of information, where knowledge is at our fingertips, the traditional methods of education are being challenged. The emphasis on rote learning, compliance, and standardized testing is giving way to more holistic, student-centered approaches that value creativity, critical thinking, and real-world problem-solving.
Embracing Project-Based Learning
One such approach gaining traction is project-based learning (PBL). PBL emphasizes learning through doing, where students engage in real-world projects that are meaningful and relevant to their lives. This approach not only fosters deep understanding but also cultivates essential life skills such as collaboration, communication, and critical thinking.
“The MIT Media Lab principles for work in the modern world include Resilience over strength, Systems over objects, Disobedience over compliance, Pull over push, and Learning over education.”
Accommodating Neurodiversity
Modern education must also be inclusive, accommodating the diverse needs of all students. This includes recognizing and valuing neurodiversity – the idea that neurological differences are to be recognized and respected as any other human variation. Programs that promote conformity, like “The Leader in Me,” can be detrimental to neurodivergent individuals who may think and learn differently.
The Social Model of Disability
The social model of disability posits that disability is not an attribute of an individual, but rather a complex collection of conditions, many of which are created by the social environment. Hence, the solution is not to “fix” the individual but to change the environment to accommodate all. This perspective is crucial in education, where diverse learners must be provided with the necessary accommodations to thrive.
The Dangers of the Deficit Model
The deficit model, which underpins many traditional educational approaches, focuses on what students lack or cannot do. This model is not only demotivating for students but also fails to recognize and harness their unique strengths and abilities. In contrast, a strength-based approach, which focuses on students’ abilities and potential, can be more empowering and effective.
“The credentialist life script has been dying since peak centralization in the 70s. Grading systems and credentialist proxies lose their power when you can hire from anywhere in the world by audition.” – Breaking Smart
The Role of Technology
In the digital age, technology plays a pivotal role in education. From online learning platforms to digital tools and resources, technology can enhance learning experiences, making them more interactive, engaging, and personalized. However, it’s essential to ensure that technology is used purposefully and does not overshadow the core tenets of effective education.
Conclusion
The “Leader in Me” program, while well-intentioned, seems to be out of touch with the evolving needs of modern education. Its emphasis on compliance and conformity is at odds with the growing emphasis on creativity, critical thinking, and individuality in education.
As educators, parents, and stakeholders, it’s crucial to critically evaluate such programs and ensure that they align with the broader goals of education. The future of education lies in fostering genuine leadership, creativity, and critical thinking skills, rather than promoting a one-size-fits-all approach.
In a world that values innovation, diversity, and authenticity, it’s imperative that our educational systems reflect these values. By embracing holistic, student-centered approaches and recognizing the unique strengths and needs of each student, we can pave the way for a more inclusive, effective, and forward-thinking education system.