“Leadership” is a fuzzy word, but in contexts like this I get the sense that it’s used to mean something like agency) -- specifically, the habit of making choices, and of making them based on expected outcomes rather than perceived social expectations. That’s a prerequisite to effective management, but actual management skills are something different, and quite rarely taught to children as best I can tell.
There’s also a fairly clear relationship to debiasing. I admit I’m skeptical of the practical implications of the OP’s link, though; the concept sounds promising enough, but the buzzword density is fairly high and I don’t see any evidence of good implementation that I wouldn’t expect any reasonably science-savvy educators to generate. That might be the NYT’s fault rather than the school’s, though.
Close to zero if we’re averaging over all schools, somewhat higher but still not great if we’re looking at a narrower reference class, but that’s not a very informative statistic either way. If I was considering whether to enroll a hypothetical child in an expensive private school, I’d primarily be interested in whether I could expect better educational outcomes, not whether the educational philosophy’s closer to ideal in some abstract sense. There’s a lot of ways for a school to have good intentions and fail in implementation, and still more for a school to signal good intentions and fall short of them in practice.
The NYT article’s leading me to suspect the latter. Still, I suppose I should give some credit for effort.
Am I the only one who’s not quite sure of what is meant by “leadership” in a context like this? Is it just a fancy way of saying “management”?
“Leadership” is a fuzzy word, but in contexts like this I get the sense that it’s used to mean something like agency) -- specifically, the habit of making choices, and of making them based on expected outcomes rather than perceived social expectations. That’s a prerequisite to effective management, but actual management skills are something different, and quite rarely taught to children as best I can tell.
There’s also a fairly clear relationship to debiasing. I admit I’m skeptical of the practical implications of the OP’s link, though; the concept sounds promising enough, but the buzzword density is fairly high and I don’t see any evidence of good implementation that I wouldn’t expect any reasonably science-savvy educators to generate. That might be the NYT’s fault rather than the school’s, though.
Close to zero if we’re averaging over all schools, somewhat higher but still not great if we’re looking at a narrower reference class, but that’s not a very informative statistic either way. If I was considering whether to enroll a hypothetical child in an expensive private school, I’d primarily be interested in whether I could expect better educational outcomes, not whether the educational philosophy’s closer to ideal in some abstract sense. There’s a lot of ways for a school to have good intentions and fail in implementation, and still more for a school to signal good intentions and fall short of them in practice.
The NYT article’s leading me to suspect the latter. Still, I suppose I should give some credit for effort.
Would you call military commanders or revolutionary organizers managers?
In my experience? Yes.