The First-Year Principal: 52 Practical Lessons to Help New Principals Thrive as Conscious Leaders

[00:01] Announcer:

Welcome to Principal Center Radio, helping you build capacity for instructional leadership. Here's your host, Director of the Principal Center, Dr. Justin Bader. Welcome, everyone, to Principal Center Radio.

[00:13] SPEAKER_00:

I'm your host, Justin Bader, and I'm honored to be joined today by Dr. Daniel Willingham. Dr. Willingham is a cognitive psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. He holds a PhD in psychology from Harvard University and is the author of numerous books and peer-reviewed scholarly articles. He's also a frequent contributor to the Washington Post, the LA Times, and other outlets where he helps educators and the public understand the implications of cognitive psychology and neuroscience for teaching and learning.

[00:41]

He's the author of Why Don't Students Like School? A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom, now in its second edition, which we're here to talk about today.

[00:53] Announcer:

And now, our feature presentation.

[00:55] SPEAKER_00:

Professor Willingham, thank you for joining me on Principal Center Radio. Thanks, Justin. Pleasure to be here. I'm thrilled to speak with you again, especially about this book, because this is the one that people tend to cite over and over again as kind of an authoritative interpreter of much of the research that is a profession we've been ignorant of for far too long. So I have to ask as a starting point, what is some of the reception been to the first edition and kind of what prompted you to update Why Don't Students Like School?

[01:22] SPEAKER_01:

Well, I'm not sure I have any startling stories regarding the reception of the first edition, other than I've been pleased that it's sold well and I've gotten lots of good feedback about it. One thing that I didn't really anticipate was that it would start being used as a text. in schools of education. And I was very, very pleased about that. I didn't write it as a textbook, but professors at schools of ed who talked to me about this said that their finding was that their students, future teachers responded well to it. And, you know, it sort of hung together and made sense for them.

[01:56]

The reason I wrote a second edition was twofold. One is that I started to get feedback from some folks that they thought, well, I kind of like what it says, but at the same time, it's so old. That book came out in 2009. And so I just didn't really know whether things had changed or not. And so I felt like I needed to do a new edition just to, well, first reassure myself as to what had possibly changed and thought I knew that what...

[02:22]

was in the book was still current, but I wasn't 100% sure. And then there, I did want to add a few things. So one thing that I'd heard over the years, it was that people really wanted discussion questions. And I wanted to add that. I also heard from a lot of folks that glossary would be really useful. So I wanted to add that.

[02:40]

And then I added a chapter on technology, just because that's another thing that I'm asked about a lot. And so I thought that would be useful.

[02:48] SPEAKER_00:

Well, when it comes to understanding fundamentally how learning works, I think one of the enduring values of this book is that it really gets into the fundamentals that often we overlook. Things like memory, short-term memory, long-term memory, thinking, things that we just kind of take for granted in K-12 schools and don't really deeply think about. And especially in your first couple of chapters, you talk about challenge, you talk about how memory works. Let's get first into the question that's on the cover. What are some of the central reasons rooted in neuroscience that the students tend to not like school sometimes?

[03:24] SPEAKER_01:

Well, and it's funny you asked that because you just asked me a moment ago sort of the reception of the book when it first came out. And one of the things, one of the negative things I heard was people don't like the title because they feel like that's not really what the book is about. Like I thought you were going to tell me why students don't like school and you sort of did in the first chapter, but that's not really what the book is about. And that's 100% true. The book title was selected because it sounded fun. And I think the publisher thought it would sell copies if we had a catchy title.

[03:55]

So all of that is backdrop to say there are lots of potential reasons why students might not like school. And of course, many students do like school. And the funny thing is, if you look at the book cover, you'll see that the word like is in italics. And very few people notice that or they think it's a design choice. I was actually very self-conscious on my part because my feeling was not that. What I was trying to emphasize was they should like it more, like they should really like school, right?

[04:24]

Like we have this idea like people like to learn, kids like to learn, then they should really like school, not just feel neutral about it. Now, as to why they don't, again, lots of reasons they don't. But the one from a cognitive perspective that I wanted to emphasize is that we don't really enjoy thinking under all circumstances. This is what teachers want students to do, is to think. And in chapter one, I point out the brain is really set up to save you from having to think. Because even though thinking is something that humans do marvelously well under many circumstances, thinking is really quite slow.

[05:06]

It's unreliable. You don't know whether when you think the outcome is actually going to be good or not. And it's effortful. Memory, in contrast, is none of those things. Memory is fast. Memory is very reliable.

[05:19]

And it's not very effortful. And so your system is really set up to rely on memory to guide you most of the time. So most of the time, anytime you're confronted with a problem, your bias is not to think. Your bias is to search memory, to see whether you've encountered this problem in the past, whether it was solved successfully. And if the answer is, yes, you've encountered this before, yes, you solved this successfully, you're going to do what you did before. That's very, very likely.

[05:48]

And in school, kids are continuously confronted with problems where they're being asked to think. So that poses a challenge. Now, I go on to point out that there are circumstances under which we really like to think we actually are a curious species. So things are not quite as grim as I made out, but all of us know, and we could get more deeply into sort of what feeds curiosity. But it's pretty intuitive that you're not curious about things that you basically already understand. And you're not curious about things that are just obviously too deep for you.

[06:26]

There's sort of a sweet spot of problem difficulty where you think, you know, if I thought about that a little bit, I might be able to solve it. I have some sense I could come up with a solution to that problem you're presenting to me. And solving problems is fun. Solving problems does feel good. So that's what's going to tempt me into trying to solve them. And that's the answer to the question, why don't students like school?

[06:49]

Students don't like school because it's very difficult for teachers who have 25 or 30 kids in their classroom to present a problem that's at that just right level of difficulty for all 30 of those kids simultaneously.

[07:05] SPEAKER_00:

And thinking especially about that challenge of, you know, kind of fine tuning difficulty of choosing essential questions or a focus for a lesson that's going to be in that sweet spot of difficulty and yet solvability for a student. you know, for a particular question. You give the example of Sudoku and how, you know, how enjoyable it can be to play Sudoku, which, you know, if you've never played Sudoku before, it looks incredibly dull, right? You're filling numbers into a box. There's only one correct answer. You know, why do people enjoy that?

[07:38]

Why do people enjoy that? And what do people dislike under conditions that they dislike it? Because I think there's something deeply fundamental there.

[07:45] SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, I mean, it is an example of the type of problem that a lot of people do find satisfying. And I think that's the key bit of information or insight is that we do find problem solution satisfying. And if you look at the neurochemistry of what's happening when people solve problems, you see overlap in the reward system and problem solution. So it literally feels good to solve problems. The question that I find especially interesting is when is it we decide to tackle a problem? If solving problems feels good, why don't we solve problems all over the place?

[08:28]

Well, the answer, again, is the sort of difficulty of the problem. So if a problem is too easy, skip Sudoku and make it, because I don't know Sudoku very well, but make it a crossword puzzle. So if we start... If you and I started collaborating on a crossword puzzle that was really designed for second graders, we would be really good at it.

[08:47]

We would solve that problem, right? But there would actually not be any sense that we had really solved the problem. Instead, it would feel like we just drew things from memory. And drawing things from memory is not pleasurable. And at the same time, if we looked at a crossword puzzle that was one of those crazy cryptograms written for people who are really, really into crossword puzzles, Likewise, we would probably give up pretty quickly. So it's all based, curiosity is really based on this assessment.

[09:18]

If I put a little bit of effort into this, am I going to get that pleasurable feeling of having solved the problem? So that's what's going on with Sudoku or crossword puzzles or math problems or history that we ask students to read in school. It's all sort of comes from the same well.

[09:39] SPEAKER_00:

So you said two things about memory so far that I think are really important for us. One, that retrieving things from memory is much less effortful than thinking. And two, that it's not really fun to retrieve things from memory. Thinking and finding a solution is fun, but just recalling something is not a lot of fun. What does that mean for us in the classroom?

[09:58] SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, and I want to highlight what you just said. Thinking and finding a solution is fun. Thinking is not always fun. If you're making progress in intermediate steps and you sense you're getting closer, that can be enjoyable. But thinking with no sense that you're making progress on a problem really isn't very much fun. I mean, I think it's an interesting question.

[10:19]

I've not thought about it before. To me, one of the obvious things that it implies is something I think every teacher already knows, which is going over content that everybody already knows pretty well. That doesn't feel enriching to students. It doesn't feel very fun or very interesting to be quizzed on content you know, even though you're getting all the answers right. It doesn't feel very fun. And I would add it, it doesn't feel like there's much value to it.

[10:49]

Although in point of fact, there can be value to it. This is the phenomenon called overlearning. Overlearning means continuing to study something, continuing to quiz yourself, even though you're getting 100% right, you know everything. And the reason overall, it's not something you wanna do all the time, but it's something that's useful in protecting against forgetting. One of the things that, and this is something I'm always pointing out to my students, if you study until you know something, You're self-quizzing and you get 100% and then you stop. Well, if your quiz is 18 hours later, you're probably not going to get 100%.

[11:26]

Your forgetting is going to happen in the intervening time. So it doesn't feel very fun and it feels pretty pointless as you're doing it. But if you're really determined to ensure that you are going to know this content later, you should probably do a little bit of overlearning.

[11:44] SPEAKER_00:

Well, Dan, one book that cites your research extensively is Natalie Wexler's book, The Knowledge Gap. And she came on Principal Center Radio. Our listeners can find that interview to learn more about The Knowledge Gap. But Natalie Wexler argues that a lot of what we think of as skills in the classroom are not really skills. They're not really identifiable or measurable as skills. They're simply functions of knowledge.

[12:11]

And often as educators, we get mixed up about that. We try to teach, quote unquote, reading comprehension skills that there's not really much evidence for as skills. So what is the relationship between background knowledge or just knowledge and what we might think of as skills?

[12:30] SPEAKER_01:

So the relationship between knowledge and skills is complicated because there's a couple of different ways to answer the question that you offered. One way is, I said before that thinking is not very pleasurable and that we rely on memory if we can. And that's a type of knowledge. So when we see someone who's very, very skilled at something, what this likely means is that they have encountered many, many similar situations in this sort of problem domain. So if they're a chess player or if they're a chef or whatever it is, when you're seeing them deal with what looks like a crisis and they're so calm and collected and they're doing it marvelously, they've been here many times before. And so it could be that what to you or I requires a great deal of complicated thinking actually for them is kind of old stuff and they know what to do.

[13:28]

Another way that says one type of knowledge, this would be sort of action routines, if you like. Another way that knowledge can make an absolutely vital contribution to skill is that sometimes we can know what to do, but we need knowledge to deploy that skill. So one of these examples I like to use from my own field of conducting scientific experiments is the construction of a control group. So when you're going to do an experiment within education, say, I may have one group that is going to get a new reading curriculum and another comparison group that's sticking with the old curriculum. and I'm going to compare the two. Okay, so the old curriculum is supposed to be the control group, right?

[14:16]

And it's the comparison that's absolutely key to let me know whether or not my, you know, what the results of my experiment were. Well, you can tell people what a good control group is supposed to be. A good control group is supposed to be just like the experimental group, except they differ only in the crucial variable that you're trying to evaluate. But the truth is when you do behavioral research, You're never going to have two groups that are exactly the same. So for example, suppose that in the experimental group, I've got 70% girls, and in the control group, I've got 50% girls. Is that a problem or not?

[14:56]

Well, the answer is it really depends on what my experiment is. In some cognitive domains, that wouldn't really matter very much. You'd have a little bit of explaining if you're an experimenter, but it wouldn't necessarily be fatal. Because you could argue boys and girls are generally the same on these two things, so it doesn't really matter. But when you think about it, there is a world of variables that you could measure. So like, do I know whether or not I've got the same number of right-handers and left-handers in the two groups?

[15:26]

Do I know whether their ages are the same? If it's a reading intervention, do I know whether they have the same level of background knowledge between the two groups? For all of these, the answer is it really depends on the nature of the experiment. So something as simple as creating a control group, which we think of as part of sort of scientific skill, someone who is good at conducting science experiments. Here's a little aspect of the skill that initially we think, well, isn't that complicated? Here's the definition of a good control group.

[16:00]

But then you see when you're actually trying to deploy that definition, it quickly really depends on background knowledge. You need to know which are the variables that matter for this particular type of experiment that I'm conducting. The last way that knowledge can matter is I think the way that Natalie Wessler was talking about, which is in particular in reading comprehension. The funny thing about reading comprehension is There's a good case to be made that by the time kids get to school, there's very little room for them to improve in comprehension. The reason being that reading comprehension overlaps significantly with oral language comprehension. And their ability to understand sentences is already really good.

[16:48]

Something like a pretty complicated syntax, like, I don't know why you got me vanilla pudding when you know I like chocolate better. A six-year-old has absolutely no problem understanding that, right? And so we don't need to sort of teach them. Once they know how to decode when reading, once they know how to decode that sentence, we don't need to teach the comprehension of that sentence. They already come to school knowing how to comprehend it. So instead we say, well, then why do kids differ so much in comprehension?

[17:19]

And this gets into what fuels reading comprehension. And in point of fact, it's background knowledge, knowledge about the topic, which is what Natalie's whole book is about.

[17:30] SPEAKER_00:

Yeah. And I appreciated her point that, you know, attempting to teach quote unquote skills, you know, especially in a remedial capacity to, you know, do all these, you know, skill-based lessons, like that's never really going to fill in the knowledge, the vocabulary, just the understanding of how the world works that a lot of our students who start to fall behind, especially in fourth grade reading are dealing with. You talk a little bit about the fourth grade slump.

[17:56] SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, and this is actually another example. What you're describing is another example of what I described in terms of the science experiment where you can know what you're supposed to do, but you need knowledge to actually do it. This is a general feature of metacognition. So metacognition means thinking about thinking, and it generally means we tell kids, here's the way to think about this. When you're confronted with this, here are the thought processes you want to use. We can tell kids what to do, but a lot of times they won't know how to do it.

[18:27]

So, for example, with reading comprehension, we can say, look, it's very important that you coordinate meaning across sentences. You can't just read sentence by sentences. The sentences influence one another. They connect one another. So you have to think about how they connect to one another. The problem is very frequently to do that, you need knowledge of the topic because the writer, writers and speakers routinely omit information they are counting on the reader to have.

[18:58]

And you can't, you know, a strategy is not going to replace that knowledge that the writer was hoping that their audience would have.

[19:08] SPEAKER_00:

Well, Dan, despite your huge volume of professional work and peer-reviewed studies and other books, probably the thing that you're most quoted on is your debunking of a lot of the kind of edu myths around learning styles, multiple intelligences, and that set of concepts that we seem to keep getting wrong. There are these kind of zombie myths that keep popping up again about learning styles and just how kids learn in different ways. What are some of the main myths that you tackle in chapter seven of the book?

[19:42] SPEAKER_01:

I think what I talk about is I talk about learning styles and I talk about multiple intelligences. Multiple intelligence theory really isn't a myth, but it goes with learning styles because the two of them are frequently confused. And when you talk about it being a zombie idea, I think... A good part of the reason for that is that something kind of like that is right, but people draw conclusions from the theory that are not accurate.

[20:14]

And even worse than them not being scientifically accurate, they could lead to classroom practice that would not really be what you'd want to do. So a really crucial distinction that I talk about is the difference between styles and abilities. This is, I think, a considerable source of confusion. So ability, there's really no argument about what's meant by ability. The way psychologists use that term is very much the way it's used in everyday conversation. It means how well you're able to do something.

[20:44]

Start with multiple intelligence. Multiple intelligence theory is an abilities theory. And what it's saying is something that seems intuitive to all of us, which is different people have different abilities. And some people are really good with words and some people are really good with numbers and so on. That's not at all controversial. What has been somewhat controversial or was somewhat controversial within psychology of measurement from about 1920 to about 1993, I will pinpoint the date for you, is whether it's best to think of intelligence as kind of one thing, like abilities are all kind of the same, though sure there's some differences, but those aren't that important, or whether, no, from my perspective, the differences are really important.

[21:28]

So you still had some adherence saying there's one type of mental ability and then others who said it's many things. In 1993, a theory was put forth by John Carroll that I think most people thought sort of captured what is probably right, which is that the right way to think about this is hierarchical. So you can describe an overall type of intelligence and then nested within that are more specific types of abilities. So this whole getting back to multiple intelligence is the whole idea of there being controversy about how to slice up intelligence. This has been a conversation for 100 years. Psychologists have never thought that Howard Gardner's theory was an especially good theory.

[22:10]

So it has overlap with some other theories. There are other ways in which it's quite different. And the ways in which it was different, people thought like, yeah, we don't love that one. We don't think it really aligns with the data all that But it really took off in education. And Howard has said in interviews more than once that it is because he talked what other people had called an ability, he called intelligence. So things like musical ability or kinesthetic ability, sort of body sense that would make you good at dance or sports or other physical activities.

[22:44]

He called those intelligence abilities. And so obviously there's sort of all kinds of value judgments wrapped up in that. That was what I went over in the multiple intelligence as part of the chapter. The main thing I wanted people to know is that the theory is, the multiple intelligence theory is definitely right in part, but the things that make it really unique compared to other theories of intelligence are the parts that most psychologists don't really like. They don't think or make it the best description of intelligence. Now, styles is something completely different.

[23:18]

And Howard actually published a piece in the Washington Post in like 2013 or something. I think I quote it in the second edition where he sort of said, like, look, multiple intelligence theory is not a learning styles theory. People keep calling it a learning styles theory. It's not. It's an abilities theory. So the difference between abilities and styles is this ability.

[23:40]

is how well you do something. Style is the way that you like to do it. And I think an intuitive distinction, the one I use in the book, is that you draw an analogy to athletics. So you can have two soccer players who we would agree are equal in terms of ability. They're both really, really good players. But they could have very different playing styles.

[24:01]

One of them being a very conservative player really chooses her shots carefully. And the other one's kind of a hot dog and is always trying, you know, always wants the ball and is always ready to take the shot and so on. So style is just is another distinction that I've heard drawn that I think is useful is having one style and another shouldn't be preferable, but you'd always want more ability. So styles theories, learning styles theories make a particular claim, which is many tasks are open to different styles. And so if you have a task that's open to being approached from different styles, you will do better if you match your style to the way that you do the task compared to if someone tries to encourage you to approach this task in a way that's incompatible with your style.

[24:57] SPEAKER_00:

Which has huge implications for differentiated instruction, right?

[25:00] SPEAKER_01:

It certainly could. If this were right, this would be huge. And again, sort of totally making up why this is a zombie theory, because we don't have any good data on this. But one intuition we could have is that it would be so wonderful if it were true that you can imagine people really wanting it to be true. But and the reason is, I mean, it's not like differentiation would be such a snap. But if you could, if you had some sort of an instrument, like your kids come in on the first day, and you give them this brief, whether it's paper and pencil or whatever, some sort of a little test, and you're like, okay, this kid's a visual learner, this kid's an auditory learner, and so on, then you would know, like, as I'm doing, maybe I'm mostly doing whole class instruction, but like, When Justin doesn't get something, I've got this in my back pocket that he responds really well to visual learning.

[25:49]

So I'll try a diagram with him or something. I'll get him to draw a diagram, whatever it is. But unfortunately, there's just no evidence that this works at all. And when I wrote the first edition in 2009, a lot of the data were pretty old. These ideas go back to the 1950s. And candidly, psychologists kind of gave up because if you're...

[26:09]

a psychologist trying to make your way in the world and get grants and get tenure and all the rest of it. It felt like beating a dead horse to keep on testing learning styles theories. There was just no data. So psychologists really lost interest in this in the 1970s, but it really lived on in education. Since I published the first edition of One on Students Like School, there have been several new studies. And I think part of it was psychologists suddenly realized there are a lot of educators who think this is right, who take this seriously.

[26:42]

And for the most part, we did not know it. I'll tell you, I learned this in one of my very first talks in front of teachers. And I was taught something else. And I just sort of in passing said like, you know, something about, I said, Oh, you know, for example, learning styles theories, like we all know that's wrong. And the atmosphere in the room changed. And it was as if, you know, like I had said, Oh, I love children.

[27:08]

Like, especially with a nice basil cream sauce or something like that. You know, it's just like, it's like saying the earth is flat. Yeah. It was heresy clearly. Although people were, I have to say, people were really nice about it. People weren't like, uh, aggressive or anything.

[27:22]

They're just like, back up. What are you talking about? Everybody knows that's wrong. I think a lot of psychologists for that reason now discover, oh my God, everybody thinks this is right. And so since 2009, there have been several really high quality studies on this, which sort of verify what we'd seen before. And with one or two new wrinkles, there's a guy named David Kramer at Dartmouth who's done some especially nice work in brain imaging showing that under certain circumstances, people who strongly think that they're a visual or a verbal learner will really try to learn as visual or verbal learners.

[27:56]

And what's so cool about this is he queried people about what type of learner do you think you are? How seriously do you take that, all that? And it was mixed in with a bunch of other questions. So it wasn't like really priming people. And then he brought people back two weeks later So again, they wouldn't necessarily have just thought of themselves and had this as a big part of their self-image. And he found, nevertheless, when he gave people stimuli that could either be coded verbally or visually, people would flip if it was in their non-preferred style.

[28:30]

But he also found it didn't help them do the task any better. And in fact, sometimes they would actually do this under circumstances where it made task performance worse.

[28:41] SPEAKER_00:

And I think when it comes back to that question of differentiation, I still hear, yeah, every day, I'm constantly hearing teachers talking about differentiating according to learning styles. And you're saying just the evidence is not there that that works. If something is a number-based task, trying to teach that using a different quote-unquote learning style, it doesn't really help.

[29:03] SPEAKER_01:

Right. It's not going to help at all. Especially when you talk about numbers, this is something... that Howard Gardner pointed out about his theory.

[29:11]

He said, one of the fundamental tenets of my theory is what makes different types of ability different is that they're not compatible. So you can, this was one of the ideas that people put forward about Gardner's theory, which he from the start said was wrong. And again, it's in direct conflict, is that you can make up for something that you're struggling with. You can make it easier by translating it into an intelligent strength. So if you're really good at bodily kinesthetic, but you're terrible at math, maybe you could kind of dance math problems and that that would help. And, you know, aside from the fact that I know a lot of people are like, oh my God, that's so silly, that like, you know, stupid progressive stuff.

[29:56]

You know, there are a lot of ideas that initially we think that can't possibly work and then they actually have some merit, right? So I don't want to be too quick to dismiss it. But in this case, I want to say like, yeah, the theory predicts the opposite of that. The theory is not agnostic about whether that'll work. Theory says that won't possibly work. because they're different intelligences, and they therefore use different mental representations that are not compatible.

[30:24]

And the other thing I wanted to point out, Justin, when you're talking about that you feel like you still frequently hear about teachers being encouraged to respect learning styles, I'll put this question to you. I mean, I feel like sometimes when people talk about learning styles in, they're sort of informally talking about anything that teachers would sense about kids that are different. So they're saying, you know, just however it ends up. And when they talk about like, everybody's got a different learning style, that's sort of, a shorthand for every kid's different, like in ways that you and I would agree that are very legitimate differences that bear on learning. So like kids have different interests. They have different background knowledge.

[31:07]

There's some kids who, you know, if you ask them to, if they in any sense get, feel like they're getting too much attention, they're going to shut down. There are other kids who revel in it, right? All these sorts of dimensions that we're familiar with. sort of get thrown into the basket of learning style just as a way of communicating. And it's not like a teacher saying, yeah, I respect kids' learning styles, would say like, and specifically, I mean, Kolb 1986, you know, that learning style theory, right? What do you think about that?

[31:38]

Do you think that might be true?

[31:40] SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, I feel like there's this general interest in knowing your kids and being responsive to their uniqueness and their interests and what motivates them. And I think there's a general respect for the idea of adjusting your teaching methods accordingly in order to help kids learn as much as possible. But yeah, I think there is a lot of confusion around some of the nuances that you got into about the nature of multiple intelligences and abilities, the kind of domain specificity of them, and just the relevant dimensions of differentiation. Well, thank you for that. I definitely want to encourage our listeners to dive in because there's a lot here. I mean, it's a modestly thick book, but there's a lot there just in terms of kind of the basic science around learning that often we don't get in our teacher education programs.

[32:29]

And it was interesting to hear you mention that it is being used more and more as a textbook. So hopefully... More people are coming into the profession with an awareness of some of this basic science about learning. But the book is Why Don't Students Like School?

[32:42]

The second edition. A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. Dan Willingham, thanks so much for joining me on Principal Center Radio. A real pleasure. Thanks for having me.

[32:53] Announcer:

Thanks for listening to Principal Center Radio. For more great episodes, subscribe on our website at principalcenter.com slash radio.