New Models of Improvement

In training for the last three days, we have learned and practiced a shift from evaluation to a growth model approach to improving teacher practice. In the past, there were boxes to check and comments at the bottom. The focus, then was to see how many boxes were checked and a general overview evaluation in each area.
The new approach is different in a few ways. One is that there is a more descriptive guide to quality in each dimension of good teaching. Another is that that the method provides a process for professional growth rather than a question of covering all of the boxes. A part of the approach is that there is one focus on strength and one focus on growth.
A frustration in growing is competing commitments. Usually, when we fail at change, it is because of a loss of attention and focus. I like this quality of focusing one one thing until it is mastered before moving on to another thing or trying to change multiple things at one time.

Social Model Shift

The last few weeks have been both enlightening and confusing. I have been to three conferences in education and have read a couple  of books on learning, teaching, and learning about teaching, as well as leadership and motivation. At the same time, my conversations and thoughts on religion, spirituality , psychology, and growth individually have informed my thoughts on economics and politics corporately. My Doctoral focus on social learning is a result of that.
Arguments on capitalism and socialism, selfishness and selflessness, are at the center of this political debate, whether it's immigration, economic and tax policy,  health care, or national security, the tension rests on the question of the power of selfishness or collectiveness as the effective strategy and motivation to improve these problems. Should we put our money in collectively to solve these problems or should we use the allure of individual  riches to have individuals solve these problems?
My reading of the situation is that there tends to be a cycle or a swing in the pendulum in thinking socially about these problems. Since Reagan, the people have chosen leaders that are corporation friendly. Even the Democratic presidents were protective of the corporation in regulation and trade. I feel that the thinking is that keeping corporations safe and profitable will help all Americans: "What is good for General Motors is good for America."
The anomaly in this trend for the last two and this election cycle is that the electorate has chosen a branded socialist and the new socialist choice is gaining popularity quickly. It seems that the mental model of protecting corporations at all costs has soured on the American people, especially as it comes to light how much the profits of their work has flowed away from them to the top one percent. This is true globally, as the Pope and other world leaders have called out income inequality as the major issue.
Religiously, selfishness and the love of money has been singled out as a root of all kinds of evil. Psychologically, we may find the same occurrence. Daniel Pink in Drive and Dan Gilbert in Stumbling Towards Happiness argue that there is a limited positive effect on personal gain and motivation. Maslow's hierarchy of needs identifies physical needs as basic but the higher needs moving away from what the physical reward can provide. Victor Frankl and others show that the the mental and spiritual has a more powerful effect on the physical than physical reward alone. Research shows that we are strongly social creatures and that we are missing the connections of belonging following the mantra of individual gain. Maybe a more balanced approach between individual and the group is in the future.