Tag Archives: Extreme Ownership

MOB: Teaching Prioritization

Term: MOB – Meat On Bones

I’ve committed myself to teaching students the Extreme Ownership “Laws of Combat” as our “Laws of Learning” this year in my secondary math courses.

In the first quarter of the year, my focus is to teach them two of the four: “Prioritize and Execute” and “Simple.” That’s not a plan, it’s just a new school-year’s resolution. It’s time to start figuratively “fleshing” things out. Thus the phrase I will use from now on: “Meat on Bones,” abbreviated MOB.

I’m not coming to this via my career as an educator — I found all of this by becoming a fan of Jocko Willink, one of the co-authors of Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs Lead and Win, and a secondary member of Eric Weinstein’s “Intellectual Dark Web.” This began as self-improving entertainment for me — learning about leadership from awesome people — but once I took a look at the search engine results for “teaching students to prioritize,” I realized that this is not new territory for teachers — or, at least, it shouldn’t be.

Teachers: have you ever heard of “executive functions”? If the answer is yes, then you are ahead of me on this path. I had not ever heard of executive functions. This is not good. Teachers should spend significant time learning about executive functions and how to teach them intentionally  — I have only been teaching them tangentially. This is not good.

Executive functions are:

  1. Inhibition — stopping behavior, actions, and thoughts at appropriate times
  2. Shift — moving freely between situations, thinking flexibly to respond correctly
  3. Emotional Control — modulating emotional responses to rationalize feelings
  4. Initiation — beginning a task, generating ideas, responses, and strategies
  5. Working Memory — holding information to complete a task
  6. Planning and Organization — managing current and future-oriented demands
  7. Organization of Materials — imposing order on work, play, and storage
  8. Self-Monitoring — monitoring one’s own performance and measuring it

“Prioritize and Execute” is Initiation.

This list came from an article at LD Online by Joyce Cooper-Kahn and Laurie Dietzel titled “What is Executive Functioning?”

I believe that, if we teach students to do these things well, they can learn anything they want to know. If I prioritize and execute in my own classroom, regardless of content, executive functions must come first: they are the key to learning how to learn. Most importantly, students who master these things are capable of imagining, selecting, planning, and executing plans that lead to achieving long-term goals.

If I’m a teacher at all, then this is a very high priority in teaching every subject: in fact, I’m not sure how we can get students to do challenging and worthwhile tasks without teaching executive functions. Perhaps this is why teaching students to do authentic projects well is such a challenge. Are we making these things priorities? Shouldn’t we?

I now realize that The Laws of Combat taught to U.S. Special Forces (or at least, by them) are militarized versions of executive functions. “Combat is reflective of life, only amplified and intensified,” according to Willink. When we strip down the basic combat doctrine of Navy SEALs, we find those executive functions waiting for us. They are not new, but the clarity created by combat experience illuminates them dramatically, which is why you should read Willink’s and Babin’s book.

Teaching Prioritize and Execute:

Here are some ideas for teaching this Law of Learning:

Discuss prioritization in the context of note-taking.

I’m planning to teach my students to take notes in the Cornell Notes format this year, so this will fit seamlessly into that lesson.

Discussion Prompt: “How do you select what to record as you take notes?”

Discussion Prompt: “When you did well on a unit, how did you decide what to study?”

Give a slide show of photos, paintings, or video clips.

Discussion Prompt: What do you think is the most important detail or big idea? (ask for each item in the show)

Select three motivational memes you think are “good.”

Rank them in order, from good to best.

Discussion Prompt: “What qualities did you use to decide how to rank them?”

Create an exemplary outline that designates prioritized main topics and lesser subtopics.

This complements note-taking when we discuss the purpose of keeping notes.

Create three different versions of this outline, blocking out some and less crucial content for struggling note-takers and more and more important content for advanced note-takers.

Have students use these outlines for both note-taking and study.

Give students opportunities to prioritize and experience consequences of failure.

Guide reflection and improvement through revision. Have students estimate progress, keep records of their progress, and revise schedules when they fall behind in achieving their benchmarks.

Give an assignment with clear expectations of the outcome and an analytic rubric of requirements, each with a point value. Have students make lists of tasks and put them into a sequence to follow from beginning to completion. Provide a template for scheduling the tasks.

Students assign a percentage value to each task according to information in the rubric and use these to aid in prioritization. Students record time spent on each element. Note that the weight of a task on the grade is not necessarily its priority: some lower-percentage tasks may have to be completed before high-percentage tasks can be attempted.

Set aside class time for reflection and revision of the plans during execution. Set aside time after completion for reflection and a final prioritization based on experience.

The ideas above came from an article at Edutopia by Judy Willis titled “Prioritizing: A Critical Executive Function.”

Time is an issue.

I can hear you think it. I understand. My own school year appears to have 158 days in it that could be devoted to instruction in a structured way, meaning that each is a full day of school with a full period of class assigned for the subject. At 52 minutes per period, we have 158 x 52 / 60 = 137 hours of instructional time in each of the three math courses I teach.

I think executive functions are the highest priority in my classroom and that they ought to be the highest priority in any classroom. If I give them the weight they deserve and teach them in parallel with the content I contracted to teach, then the right weight seems to me to be around 20-25% of our time, or 32 to 40 instructional days.

How will focusing so much on executive functions influence our progress through content?

First, this questions my prioritization. In my mind, there is no question that executive functions, which are skills everyone needs to succeed at life, are more important than math content. If priorities mean anything to us, then executive functions outweigh subject-specific content every time.

Second, I expect that, as students improve in executive functions, they will improve at assignments that are genuinely worth doing. I don’t know if they will do math exercises or worksheets better, but I really don’t care, as these things do not pop up regularly in adult or professional life.

I will, of course, teach my students the skills of mathematics and we will do exercises together to establish these skills — but I will also give them tasks to do that combine their developing executive functioning skills, which I stumbled into by way of my interest in leadership, with these mathematical concepts.

The challenge is to give students tasks to do that develop their math skills while also forcing them to use executive functions. Let’s give these a nice name: How about “worthwhile tasks?” Yes, that implies that assignments that do not force students to use executive functions might not be worthwhile. I’ll start putting up some fortifications on that ground. It feels like high ground to me.

How much content can we cover that way? Will time be an issue? My educated guess — at this point unburdened by research, though I will be building case studies and anecdotes all year — is that once we get executive functions ramped up, students who do well there will be able to move through content much faster while learning it more deeply. The executive functions will make the math I am teaching more accessible, even if we do not get to it this year, because, if these young people need that math, they will have the tools to acquire it independently. We may not get to all of it — but the students will have more and better tools for learning it or anything else they need to learn in the future.

Stay tuned to see how it works out.

Image Credits

Featured image from: CIO, address: https://images.techhive.com/images/article/2015/09/decision-pathway-question-where-to-go-prioritize-100613710-primary.idge.jpg


Book Report — The History of Math, Part 1

In Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs Lead and WinJocko Willink and Leif Babin explain the importance of getting team members to believe in the mission. As a math teacher, this is one of my greatest challenges. In the words of Dan Meyer, Chief Academic Officer at Desmos, and a prominent pundit on math education, in his breakout TED Talk from 2010, as a math teacher

“I sell a product to a market that doesn’t want it but is forced by law to buy it.”

In other words, the team doesn’t believe in the mission. Dan (we have met) talked about his ways of getting them to believe in the mission. My favorite way, so far, is to engage students in the story of math and the people who discovered or invented it (that dichotomy is itself a fun or frustrating debate, depending on your perspective).

My reading program now consists of three different books: The Professional Chef (9th edition)the textbook for The Culinary Institute of America; Physics with Applications (6th edition), by Giancoli; and Math Through the Ages: A Gentle History for Teachers and Others (Expanded Edition), by William Berlinghoff and Fernando Gouvêa, published in 2004 by Oxton House Publishers and the Mathematical Association of America.

For this post, I’m quoting (rather extensively) the latter, as its ideas may help my fellow math teachers looking for hooks for lessons or even the year’s courses. I won’t be doing the one-and-done book report I’ve done for other books because I expect to take a slower pace through this book, and the other tomes I mentioned above are going to slow me down (and that’s okay with me, obviously).

Here are my highlights from the chapter titled “History of Mathematics in a Large Nutshell,” particularly the first two sections: “Beginnings” and “Greek Mathematics.”

  1. Mathematics developed with writing:

    “No one quite knows when and how mathematics began. What we do know is that in every civilization that developed writing we also find evidence for some level of mathematical knowledge.”

  2. We detect the development of mathematics by applications:

    “It became important to know the size of fields, the volume of baskets, the number of workers needed for a particular task. Units of measure, which had sprung up in a haphazard way, created many conversion problems that sometimes involved difficult arithmetic. Inheritance laws also created interesting mathematical problems. Dealing with all of these issues was the specialty of the ‘scribes.’ These were usually professional civil servants who could write and solve simple mathematical problems. Mathematics as a subject was born in the scribal traditions and the scribal schools.”

  3. We’ve found different evidence from different cultures, and then, as now, the hike from Egypt to Iraq was apparently not a popular trip for scribes:

    “… we have only a few documents that hint at what Egyptian mathematics was like….The situation with respect to the cultures of Mesopotamia is quite different….These two civilizations existed at about the same time, but there seems to be little evidence that either influenced the other’s mathematics.”

  4. Egyptian math (and learning it) was not terribly different from the way we see math today (which I think has more to say about us than the Egyptians):

    “The Egyptian mathematics of 4,000 years ago was already a fairly well-developed body of knowledge with content very similar to some of what we learn about calculation and geometry in elementary and high school today. It was recorded and taught by means of problems that were intended as examples to be imitated.”

  5. The Babylonians (remember, we know more about their math than about the math of Egypt) built math around the problems of government and management, and, after the work was done, the Babylonians went back for MORE:

    “The mathematical activity of the Babylonian scribes seems to have arisen from the everyday necessities of running a central government. Then, int he context of the scribal schools, people became interested in the subject for its own sake, pushing the problems and techniques beyond what was strictly practical. Like a musician who is not satisfied with playing at weddings and graduations, the well-trained mathematical scribe wanted to go beyond everyday problems to something more elaborate and sophisticated. The goal was to be a mathematical virtuoso, able to handle impressive and complex problems.”

  6. Despite the current preeminence of ethnic Chinese in mathematics, we have little to go on regarding the ancient development of the subject at the other end of the Silk Road:

    “We do not know a lot about very early Chinese mathematics….The mathematical texts we do have seem to reflect the rise of a class of civil servants who were expected to be able to solve simple mathematical problems. Like the texts from Egypt and Mesopotamia, they contain problems and solutions. In China, however, the solutions are often presented together with a general recipe for solving this type of problem.”

  7. What of the other Cradle of Civilization, you ask? Well you might:

    “We know even less about early Indian mathematics. There is evidence of a workable number system used for astronomical and other calculations and of a practical interest in elementary geometry.”

  8. The mathematics of China did not affect the Western development of the subject much, but:

    “The Indian mathematical tradition influenced Western mathematics quite directly.”

  9. Now we get to the meat of the early history of math, the culture that built the Mediterranean network of cultures in rivalry with the Phoenicians and, thanks to Roman victory over Carthage, wrote the history of math and many other things which dominates the story today:

    “Many ancient cultures developed various kinds of mathematics, but the Greek mathematicians were unique in putting logical reasoning and proof at the center of the subject. By doing so, they changed forever what it means to do mathematics. We do not know exactly when the Greeks began to think about mathematics. Their own histories say that the earliest mathematical arguments go back to 600 B.C.. The Greek mathematical tradition remained a living and growing endeavor until about 400 A.D..”

  10. It is the cultural hegemony created by Greek colonization and the military might of its successor civilization, Rome, that makes Greek mathematics what we consider it to be:

    “It is important to stress that when one speaks of “Greek mathematics” the main reference of the word “Greek” is the language in which it is written. Greek was one of the common languages of much of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of commerce and culture, spoken by all educated people. Similarly, the Greek mathematical tradition was the dominant form of theoretical mathematics.”

The rest of my reading at this point (the above and below quotes are from pages 6-24) makes a nice list which I have used for several years to build a historical reference framework of names and stories in my classes. The Greeks that make the cut are:

  1. Thales (circa 600 B.C.) —

    “… the first person to attempt to prove some geometrical theorems, including the statements that the sum of the angles in any triangle is equal to two right angles, the sides of similar triangles are proportional, and a circle is bisected by any of its diameters.”

  2. Pythagoras (circa 500 B.C.) —

    “Most scholars believe that Pythagoras himself was not an active mathematician … [Pythagoreans] seem to have been much concerned with the properties of whole numbers and the study of ratios (which they related to music). In geometry, they are, of course, credited with the Pythagorean Theorem. … It is likely, however, that the most important success often credited to the Pythagoreans is the discover of incommensurable ratios (my note: this led directly to the idea of irrational numbers).”

  3. Euclid (circa 300 B.C.) —

    “What we have are his writings, of which the most famous is a book called Elements. It is a collection of the most important mathematical results of the Greek tradition, organized in a systematic fashion and presented as a formal deductive science. The presentation is dry and efficient.”

  4. Archimedes (circa 250 B.C.) —

    “Archimedes wrote about areas and volumes of various curved figures …”

  5. Apollonius (circa 200 B.C.) —

    “…Apollonius wrote a treatise on conic sections that is still an impressive display of geometric prowess.”

The book then delves into a favorite topic of mine: the three great geometric problems of antiquity: the quadrature of the circle, the trisection of the angle, and the duplication of the cube. This is a favorite theme of mine when students are primed to discuss how and why people do mathematics, meaning discovering, proving, teaching, and publishing it.

I believe it is essential that we teach our students about the role of unanswered questions in driving human knowledge. The three great geometric problems of antiquity were not solvable with compass and straightedge — though the Greeks and many later investigators devised other tools and concepts and used them to solve the problems. The work they did under those limited conditions produced many prodigious mathematical achievements that, nevertheless, were not solutions to the original problems. A quick look at the careers of the great 20th century mathematicians shows that this is still what drives the science of mathematics forward today.

This section wraps up with another list of great mathematicians of the Roman imperial period, still called Greek, remember, because Greek was the language of intellectual and financial transactions:

  1. Ptolemy (120 A.D.) —

    “He wrote on many subjects, from astronomy and geography to astrology, but his most famous work is the Syntaxis, known today by the nickname given to it by Arabic scholars many centuries later: Almagest, meaning “the greatest.” Ptolemy’s book provides a workable practical description of astronomical phenomena. It was the basis of almost all positional astronomy until the work of Copernicus in the 15th century.”

  2. Diophantus (circa 220 A.D.) —

    “Diophantus … was probably one of the most original of the Greek mathematicians. His Arithmetica contains no geometry and no diagrams, focusing instead on solving algebraic problems; it is simply a list of problems and solutions. In the problems, Diophantus used a notation for the unknown and its powers that hints at algebraic notation developed a thousand years later in Europe…. Diophantus usually worked out the conditions under which his problems are solvable, thereby confirming that he was trying to find general solutions.”

  3. Pappus (circa 350 A.D.) —

    “Perhaps the most important part of Pappus’s work, from a historical point of view, was his discussion of ‘the method of analysis.’ …. Pappus’s discussion of analysis is not very specific. This vagueness ended up being very important, because the mathematicians of the Renaissance understood him to mean that there was a secret method behind much of Greek mathematics. Their attempts to figure out what this method was led to many new ideas and discoveries in the 16th and 17th centuries.”

    Note that, once again, the presence of an unsolved mystery drives mathematical discovery and innovation far more effectively than neat and clear presentations of methods and solutions. I think I’ll put that on a poster in my room this year, to answer all the complaints I will get along the lines of “Why don’t you just tell us how to do it?”, as though driving through difficulties to solutions and then discussing their merits has no intrinsic value.

  4. Heron (10 A.D. – 70 A.D.) is out of chronological order because he is noted for trying to bridge the chasm between the completely abstract endeavors of “scientific” mathematicians in the Greek tradition — the others named here — with the practical math that obviously was also developing throughout that time. Heron was more of an engineer, but his namesake formula for the area of a triangle in terms of its side lengths remains in the modern curriculum.

The authors note that both the “scientific” mathematical tradition of the great heroes of math and the “sub-scientific” mathematical tradition of merchants, government officials, mariners, and soldiers featured recreational problems, challenge problems, and puzzles. Like the Babylonians, those at all levels of the Greek mathematical tradition liked to do math “off the clock” as well as on. In fairness,we should note that we don’t have any indication of how common that was with the Egyptians, as we have spent much more time digging in their burial grounds than in the hearts of their cities (probably because those cities are under modern cities).

Well, that’s as far as I’ve gone, but stay tuned: this is just a first installment. There will be more of this, especially when I encounter historical information that I know I’ll use to help my troops believe in the mission in my classroom.

Decentralize Command

Teachers are leaders. As leaders, they must reckon with the Laws of Combat: Prioritize and Execute, Cover and Move, Simple, and Decentralize Command. If a teacher is going to do these things in a formal leadership role, then the teacher has to be able to take a step back while students are learning and detach, observe, and be the strategic genius. That means that students have to be trained to self-direct and to make decisions, and that students must lead each other at times so that the teacher can gather data and manage relationships during class.


In Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs Lead and Win, Jocko Willink and Leif Babin give examples of Decentralize Command in both combat and business. In the combat examples, we see subordinates taking initiative and leading up the chain of command to prevent friendly fire incidents and make their teams more efficient and lethal. The business example explained that leaders cannot lead large numbers of subordinates effectively, and that leaders should plan the distribution of direct reports among subordinates leaders carefully.

If we do not apply Decentralize Command, then we have to have control of everything in the room at once. Control works in both directions: if we cannot step back from a group’s activities to observe and manage at a small distance, then that group controls us through its behavior and performance. This keeps us from stepping outside the activity to see how students fare when directing themselves and leading each other. This is not Teachership.

Having to control all action in the room also forces us to use identical activities to help each student learn. Each student is unique, so, while this might seem the most fair way to do things, it is actually very unjust, because it cannot optimize growth for each student. Students at either margin — those who struggle most and those who find the regular content of the course to be very easy — receive inferior service.

Decentralize Command puts all students into leadership positions by encouraging them to use initiative. In groups of any size that follow this Law of Combat, team members learn that good leaders will listen respectfully to their concerns and suggestions, and allow them latitude to make certain decisions according to the leader’s intent. Leaders who comply with Decentralize Command know that they do not have to carry the entire burden of planning and preparation: as subordinate leaders develop initiative, top leaders can delegate certain tasks.

Delegation frees a leader to manage the “big picture” and shape a clear “leader’s intent.” Then the leader can communicate “leader’s intent” to teammates so that they understand how to make decisions in leading within the team and up the chain of command. If we are practicing Teachership, then our students will grow in initiative throughout the year.

We are implementing Decentralize Command for two key reasons. First, students will learn content more deeply when they are leading and collaborating with each other. Second, students learn leadership when they must exercise their initiative and step up to help their teams succeed.

Decentralize Command Is a Better Way to Learn Content

Cornell University’s Center for Teaching Innovation provides a list of research-identified benefits for “collaborative learning” that opens with “development of higher-level thinking, oral communication, self-management, and leadership skills.” There are more on the list, but these are the benefits we want to achieve for our students in Teachership. The development of higher-level thinking — analysis, evaluation, and creativity — is a vital goal. Anyone can memorize, understand, and apply content, and we will teach those skills, but if students are to learn deeply and have that knowledge available to support more learning, then we must help students learn beyond the basics.

Possibly the most difficult thing for us to do is to get students to discuss or debate relevant academic content. By being present, we have a profound effect on how students participate in these activities. If a student leader can manage a team and if we can supervise the team at a small distance, then the teacher should arrange higher-level thinking activities that way. Students involved in this group will begin to take ownership of the team’s work, and they will engage in that work more completely than in a teacher-led full-class discussion or drill session.

Aren’t You Going to Teach?

We are not abdicating the teaching role to student leaders. Groups cannot begin to address problems and projects until the they can remember, understand, and apply the necessary concepts and skills. The teacher must present these to the whole class and guide practice until all students have access to the necessary knowledge by notes or other resources. Discussion, note-taking, and guided practice, led by the teacher, are still in the program — but their roles are to establish an arsenal of ideas, which students can explore and share in working on problems that challenge their analytic, evaluative, and creative skills.

We are not choosing the easy path in applying Decentralize Command or any of the other Laws of Combat. At its beginning, developing the correct conditions for collaborative learning under student leaders requires more work than teacher-centered instruction. Before implementing group activities under student leaders, we must train the class in effective note-taking and study methods, establish expectations for student self-discipline, and train all students in appropriate collaborative behaviors. We must also select and train the leaders. Falling short in any of these areas will prevent Teachership from happening at all.

What If Some Students Can’t Work Without the Teacher?

There is one exception to having students engage in collaborative learning under student leaders: some students will not acquire the necessary note-taking, social, and basic academic skills that support effective participation in these groups. These students will still be in a group and will still engage in collaborative learning, but this group will have the teacher as its leader, so that the teacher can continue to mentor these students and help them master content and skills while developing leadership skills.

There is an obvious supervision challenge here. When the room breaks to group work, we teachers take our seats in one corner of the room, with our backs to the corner. The groups we lead gather with us, and we use our location to supervise all students, as they should all be within 90˚ of our field of view. We plan our groups’ work so that, when students need a few minutes to work on a task, we may leave our seats for a few moments to observe and support the other groups.

Decentralize Command Helps Students Become Leaders

Students will have to make decisions and share ideas on their own initiative in these groups, and initiative is crucial to leadership at every level of the chain of command. Student leaders are not dictators, and we do not want their teammates to follow them blindly. We will train our leaders to check their egos, listen, and incorporate good ideas that come from teammates.

Leaders do have to make decisions — and teammates need to follow their leaders when that happens. But if leaders are serious about optimizing performance, then they will listen to others’ concerns and ideas, and incorporate them into their plans according to their judgment. Leaders will help their teammates take ownership of their work on problems and projects by listening to their ideas, adopting the best ones, and making counter-suggestions to flawed ideas. We will teach our students to do these things. When teams operate this way, our students grow in leadership, initiative, and responsibility.

When We Decentralize Command, Behavior Changes

We should begin to see more confidence and more efforts to lead up the chain of command, even when students are not working in groups. Kids push limits, and in this case, we hope they will. When Decentralize Command is working for us, our students will start to share ideas and concerns with us during whole-class activities. We must welcome and consider their ideas, listening respectfully, and then making the necessary call. If the students’ ideas are sound and helpful, then we should model the “ego check” and adopt them. If they are flawed ideas, we should make counter-suggestions respectfully. Good leaders are good listeners and amenable to good suggestions. We must model that.

Our students will take the new skills and habits they like best with them to other classes and to their activities beyond the classroom. As we observe them in their various public activities, such as sport, musical performance, or theater, we will watch for them to use initiative and to communicate effectively with their colleagues. When we see this sort of growth — in or out of the classroom — we need to recognize it. Praising a student for fulfilling specific tasks is often counterproductive, but we should look for opportunities to acknowledge broad personal growth and maturity.

Our students are not automatons and we do not want them to practice the bad habit of following bad leaders in lockstep. We also want them to learn how to be effective in helping leaders find the best solutions to team problems. We want students to become citizens who can lead and collaborate responsibly in a self-governing nation built on the blessings of liberty. To achieve that, they must have a share in directing their own work in groups of all sizes as they learn. We are the leaders of that enterprise, but we must practice good leadership to foster leadership qualities in our students.

Decentralize Command.


There was a temptation to produce just one sentence and the graphic below and end this post. That might have been funny, but Simple is not that easy. Simple is difficult. Simple requires discipline. Simple is not as simple as one word.


In Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALS Lead and Win, authors Jocko Willink and Leif Babin make the point that Simple is a Law of Combat that saves lives. In combat, communication must be quick, packed with information, and clear. Simplicity is vital.

In Extreme Ownership‘s business example for Simple, two managers had devised a system of incentives for workers. Willink’s account of counseling these leaders begins with their explanation of the top two levels of data analysis in the system. There was much more to the system than this, however. The system was ineffective, and its complexity made it incomprehensible to the workers. Replacing it with a simpler system and putting more energy into communication about the system solved the problem.

We must make simplicity a priority in teaching. We might waste Day One of a school year on a list of rules and procedures and how we might grade students’ work. We could work through a syllabus and a heading for assignments and many other things. None of that matters on Day One, however. Prioritize and Execute: our first priority is to build relationships with students. Keep it Simple. On Day One, we initiate relationships, and, as the old saw reminds us, we only have one chance to make a first impression.

If students want to know our goals on Day One, we should have a simple and accurate statement of them ready to go. “Our goals are to become more self-disciplined and to increase our skill at learning.” That’s all there is to say about academic things on Day One. Get back to relationships. There will be plenty of time to explain goals, but there will not be another Day One, and Day One is for relationships.

Our broad goal in education is to unleash disciplined lifelong learners to work for peace and abundance in a chaotic world. But to help our students fulfill this vision, we need focus. We need determination. We need to be efficient and productive with time and energy in our classes and with the years our students spend with us in school.

We need to keep it Simple.

Inspiration for Teachership

extremeownershipI began studying leadership in 2017. I was an official student of school leadership for a few years in a graduate program, but as I only did it with the vague idea of gaining a credential and no sense of purpose, I won’t count those years. Yes, my twentieth year is rather late for me to start studying leadership, but it is good that I began, regardless of the timing.

I found a YouTube video by a favorite presenter of mine about a Navy SEAL commander who had led an urban combat operation in Iraq that ended in a “friendly fire” incident: his troops ended up shooting at each other. The officer had to account for the problems that led to this disaster and assign blame. The presenter explained that the officer had outlined all of the problems and given his SEALs a chance to own them, and then told each of his men that “You are not to blame.”

Then he announced to everyone in the room — his commanding officer, the investigators, and his own men — that he was to blame. He was the leader, and if outcomes were less than satisfactory, it was his fault. This didn’t mean that mistakes weren’t made by others, it just meant that he was not going to shift the blame to his men: he was going to fix the problems.

The SEAL officer’s name is Jocko Willink, and he and one of his fellow SEAL officers, Leif Babin, wrote a book about leadership: Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs Lead and Win.

I bought the audiobook and began listening. After listening to it twelve times over eight months, I bought the hardcover and took my highlighters to it.

The first thing I learned from this book was that every person leads, whether that person leads a large corporation just oneself. Implicit in that is, of course, that one cannot lead a team without leading oneself. The principles I present here — at least, in the beginning — are based on my understanding of combat leadership principles presented in this book. Extreme Ownership is the inspiration for beginning to study leadership and the book that inspires this blog.