Teaching and Parenting

This has been a long week at school, our first full week back after the false start February break (NYC schools were open Wed-Fri, to make up for time lost due to Sandy). Even though it’s only Thursday, the past few days really dragged, so by the time we dismissed today, everybody was ready for some rest.

But, since February will have ended by the time most people read this, we had to fit in our monthly PTA meeting. I was dreading it, but I made the decision that it was too important to miss. This was our first meeting since President Obama mentioned us by name, saying “We need to give every American student opportunities like this.” While we had a slightly higher turnout, by the time I walked out of school, I wasn’t thinking about anything but the relationships inside the school.

I was pleasantly surprised to see the mother of one of my students–alternately my favorite and most frustrating. He’s a sophomore, on the slow and steady improvement track after an absolutely disastrous 9th grade year–discipline problems, poor work habits, generally very immature. As a result, I’ve spoken to both of his parents on multiple occasions.

At the end of the meeting, she comes over to check in with me, and we chat about her son. He’s been doing fine in my class, and I mentioned some work he was missing. Then we moved to behavior, and we went back and forth on a few topics. I explained one incident, pulling out the common theme of a few times recently when he had lost his temper a bit. 

Here’s what she said, and it made my whole week: 

“Well Mr. E, you certainly know my son! I hope you have a blessed evening.”

If I’m ever asked for a secret to good teaching, good schools, anything to do with youth development, here it comes. The first several times this kid spoke to me, he had been kicked out of class for some kind of misbehavior. I’ll be honest, I had no idea how to deal with any of these situations, having received almost no training. So while I’d like to take credit for being persuaded of this approach’s power before trying it, half of any success I take credit for is luck. In any case, here’s what I did…here’s the secret:

I listened. I asked him to talk, and I listened carefully to each word he said. Now, this young man hangs on my every word, and he’s getting better, slowly but surely. He’s connected to school in a way that makes me confident that he’ll continue to mature and eventually graduate. Ultimately, education is about relationships. Students learn when they know their teacher cares about them, and as a teacher, my job is easiest with students I know on a personal level. 

The best way to wrap up a grueling day is to be reminded that your efforts are worthwhile. Hearing a mother’s joy that, yes, her son is known at school…that’s why I go in early, stay late, put in extra time. Because it matters. This kid, from a tough neighborhood, deserves a chance as much as or more than most anybody I know. He deserves to be known at school, and we’re successful to the extent that students like him put their trust into an institution that has screwed them over time and again. One by one, this is what teaching is about…slowly but surely.

What is College Readiness?

If you’re new to the conversation about “college readiness,” you might suppose that preparedness would be measured in multiple ways. Of course, many students who can score well on tests lack the personal and social skills necessary to succeed in college. On the other hand, some students struggle on standardized tests, but perhaps they could demonstrate readiness for college through grades, effort and teacher recommendation.

WRONG

According to the City University of New York (CUNY), the arbiters of college readiness for New York City public schools, it is much simpler than that. From the Academics section of CUNY’s website:

Students are considered proficient in reading and writing if they can document any one of the following:

• SAT I verbal score of 480 or higher or critical reading score of 480 or higher
• ACT English score of 20 or higher
• N.Y. State English Regents score of 75 or higher
• CUNY Assessment Tests:
  • Reading Test score of 70 or higher and Writing Test score of 56 or higher.

My school offers students college courses, at a CUNY school, as soon as they demonstrate proficiency by these standards, mostly Regents results. Lest you assume mathematics has more reasonable requirements, that discipline also publishes a set of scores that apparently correlate to “readiness” in a sense. Typically, students need to score an 80 on any math Regents exam, and earn credits in the other courses that offer Regents–algebra 1+2 and geometry. Look at the link above for detailed requirements for the different schools.

These scores, used as a gatekeeper for credit-bearing courses, are inevitably arbitrary. Although the assessment experts could (and have) explain how they were determined, scores on standardized tests that change regularly cant possibly be consistent measures of something as nebulous as college readiness. In fact, the foremost experts in assessment identified these scores after a study by Dan Koretz of Harvard University. This was a way to halt the score inflation that skyrocketed under former chancellor Joel Klein and Mayor Bloomberg, allowing them to claim credit for score increases each and every year of the administration.

Unfortunately, the tests remain fairly meaningless. While a score of 80 on a math Regents may indeed predict initial success in a college math course (Koretz and his team say C+), there is little predictive value beyond the first course. Likewise, the Internet masses agree that the Regents are a poor indicator of college readiness. Oh, and as an aside, there’s quite a bit of debate over the fairness of any standardized tests. More importantly, college readiness remains a proxy for income, demographics and geography.

The Coalition for Educational Justice published an extremely valuable map of college readiness throughout the five boroughs. East New York, one of the poorer areas of Brooklyn and where many of my students reside, graduates 12% of students ready for college. Park Slope, an upper class neighborhood about 2 miles away, is at 48%. Across the city, the numbers are fairly predictable. Is college readiness simply a proxy for wealth? Zip code?

The school where I work was founded to remedy this apparent inequity in the education provided for our youth. Our staff meets regularly with college professors to map requirements for their courses back to our instruction at the high school level, meaning we have more information than most about what college readiness truly means. Yet, due to the rigid proficiency requirements linked above, students are not deemed “college ready” until they meet the test score benchmarks.

Before I began teaching, that requirement simply felt wrong to me…but I couldn’t define why or how. As a student, I had an easy time with tests and exams, so I rarely spent much time considering the impact of these clumsy instruments on students who do not perform well. But now, they’re sitting in front of me. Since we know, from reliable social science, that high-stakes standardized tests have unfair outcomes for minority, poor and ELL students (e.g. Heubert, Fleming & Garcia, Linn), it seems puzzling that we still insist on the numbers. While NYC is home to an extremely diverse population, very few Black and minority students ever attain “college readiness” by these measures; on the other hand, my short time in a school tells me that, given a real opportunity, these kids are extraordinarily capable.

State of the Union Shout-out

As I sat down to watch the State of the Union on Tuesday evening, carrying the usual skepticism that is owed to political oratory, I was hoping for new ideas that would guide the country towards progressive change in a second term. Although I work in a school, I listened for talk of education as well as climate change, gun control and foreign policy, among the myriad of topics covered in such a massive speech.

In his first term, Obama and his Education Secretary Arne Duncan offered the Race to the Top competition. Much criticism has been levied at this initiative, mostly attacking the goals of the program–more charter schools, teacher evaluations and the removal of tenure protections, and the turnaround models that have been the subject of controversy in NYC. In addition, Obama and Duncan have been lambasted for designing a program that is based on competition rather than need. Civil rights groups have been especially vocal critics.

 

I find most of these critiques compelling. Race to the Top, while an effective federal program in terms of persuading states to adopt favored policies, does little to improve the in-school experience of our most vulnerable young people. Other aspects of Obama’s educational agenda are less controversial and more popular among progressives: expanding early childhood education and enhancing career and technical education for workforce readiness. These ideas received the bulk of attention in Obama’s speech, including a reference to the apprenticeship model employed in Germany, which combines high school and college to prepare students for meaningful career opportunities.

“Now at schools like P-Tech in Brooklyn, a collaboration between New York Public Schools and City University of New York and IBM, students will graduate with a high school diploma and an associate’s degree in computers or engineering. We need to give every American student opportunities like this.” (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/12/us/politics/obama-state-of-the-union-2013.html?hp)

P-TECH, or Pathways in Technology Early College High School, is a new school in its second year of operation in Crown Heights, in the Paul Robeson High School building. The idea, as the President explained, grew out of a collaboration between IBM, the NYC Department of Education and the City University of New York. Students begin in 9th grade and have the opportunity not only to earn an associate in applied sciences degree, but also to gain meaningful work experience through internships and a sequence of work-based learning activities developed jointly between the partners, including the school’s staff. Having worked on the school’s design dating back to an internship at the DOE’s Office of Postsecondary Readiness, I later transitioned to a role as a community coordinator at the school. I now teach social studies and coach the campus’ soccer team…only 3 years after my own graduation from college. I left college in May 2010 with a BA, entering an uncertain and challenging job market. Through some luck, I met a DOE official who hired me, one thing led to another and I have been working on P-TECH ever since. I feel deeply caught up in the school’s development–it is my main, really only, professional achievement, and I could not be prouder.

The school is special because it is not based on the competition inherent in other parts of the President’s education agenda. We are an open enrollment school, with students who cover the whole range of NYC public school students. With our legacy class of students in their second semester of what would be 10th grade, over 60% of students are enrolled in college courses, including computer science, speech and engineering technology. A white man from Connecticut, I led the school’s recruitment efforts for the first two classes of students, meaning I met nearly all of our 227 students before they arrived at the school for their first day.

None of our students look like me–in fact, most of my kids think I look like every other white man, from Kevin Love to Steve Burns, best known as Steve from Blue’s Clues.  Working in a community where I am an outsider is invigorating, and it gives me a chance to relieve some of the burden of white, male, suburban privilege that I carry by virtue of the accident of my birth. As a representative of the dominant culture, often one of the few my students have come to know on a personal level, I have become sensitive to the subtle discrimination that for centuries has denied those who look like my students all manner of equal opportunity. The basic unfairness, not just of the past but also of the present, is a big part of what motivates me.

 

The model that is employed at P-TECH is powerful because it does more than provide opportunity, it presents students with the real possibility of a middle class career at a company like IBM. All students are matched with a mentor from IBM, which along with site visits, opens up the world of the corporation to young people who, with rare exception, had not previously envisioned themselves in this kind of future. Watching my students begin to see themselves in brighter futures, with a true pathway to get there, is the greatest inspiration. The work is hard, and it has to happen again every day, but this is a structure that encourages the investment on the part of staff and students, because the future holds such promise, both real and imagined.

The worst way to end a conversation

As a teacher who occasionally bumps heads with administration, I wonder how much of that is felt by students and families. Does it matter if we argue behind closed doors? I tend to believe that debate is a healthy and necessary component of democracy, so I push in that direction. In fact, shutting down discussion (absent a compelling reason) is an antidemocratic act, and it’s something I strive to avoid. You can imagine, then, how I felt after a particularly stupid exchange…

My school released new programs (schedules) for students and teachers today. I work at a relatively new small school in New York City, and today was our first day in a brand new block schedule. This means that we see one class Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and another class Tuesday and Thursday. At the high school I attended, in suburban Connecticut, we had block scheduling that alternated on A and B days, back-and-forth ad infinitum. That way, both courses balanced into equal duration over time. With the schedule I received today, students permanently operate on a different schedule; one group receives 50% more instruction than the other (2 90-minute sessions versus 3, or 180 minutes to 270).

This structure occurs a few times throughout the school’s program, so after dismissal today I discussed the imbalance with a math teacher (how do you think I came to understand the proportion?). At some point during our conversation, the AP who did programming began eavesdropping. She chimed in with some comments about the discrepancy, basically declaring that there was no other way it could be done. OK, no big.

I wondered, though, if the students with less time would sit in class for enough hours to receive course credit. As a NYC high school, we are evaluated on credit accumulation as well as Regents scores; not to mention, it’s important to students that they understood how many credits they are due to receive in a given course. I asked the AP about the credit hour issue, and her response was…chilly to say the least.

“That’s none of your concern, don’t worry about it. The principal has been working for x number of years, he knows what he’s doing.”

Leaving aside the meaningless assertion that experience leads directly to expertise, it was the first line that is sticking with me. First of all, whether as a teacher I have the professional right to know the number of credits that is to be awarded for courses I teach is irrelevant. I know how to check the various data systems which, once updated, will answer the question for me. I can probably even research the issue and look at other schools that have done similar things before, answering the question for myself. Still, I was shocked to hear that something that affects my students so meaningfully could be considered outside of my purview or the scope of my legitimate concern.

Of course, to survive as a teacher in the city you need thick skin, so I got over my hurt feelings pretty quickly. The bigger concern is how that attitude might already be infecting the school culture and our students. My primary ethos as a teacher comes primarily from Paulo Freire: I am a learner as well as a teacher, and education only occurs through active dialogue. In my classroom, students know that mistakes are encouraged, questions are (almost) always welcome, and the teacher is not the keeper of knowledge. We are all constantly trying to improve, even me, and that process is how we get by.

One thing I have learned in my short time in the NYC school system is that attitudes and relationships transfer–so the way the Chancellor works with his deputies influences the relationships below, and the way a Principal deals with teachers affects the way teachers interact with students. This is how the culture of a school forms, through the efforts of students, teachers, and administrators, all in concert, if not in total agreement. I have yet to discover if the opposite can also be true, if those of us at the front lines can make change from the grassroots, bottom up instead of top down.

In any case, I will go back to work tomorrow, with some group of students in front of me, and we’ll work together to get through a little more of the curriculum. I will keep my door open, I will listen to students and meet their needs, and most importantly, I will continue to ask questions. Because, well, education is all about asking the right questions.

Bloomberg’s Disgrace

This week, New York State released graduation and college readiness statistics, data which was announced with much fanfare in New York City. The city saw graduation rates reach a new record high, with 65% of students graduating (this number includes August graduates, which the state does not count). Unsurprisingly, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Dennis Walcott lauded the data and took much credit for the increase. Although some criticism has arisen due to the much lower (22%) rate of college readiness–assessed primarily by Regents exam scores–the reception in the media and around the city has generally been positive.

Bloomberg also highlighted the achievement of black and Hispanic students in the city, with 61% and 58% graduating on time, respectively. Compare this with white and Asian students, who graduated at rates of 78% and 82% respectively. By this measure, it would seem that the much-talked about “achievement gap” has shrunk under Bloomberg’s reign. Indeed, these numbers paint a relatively rosy picture of the performance of racial minorities in the city, good news for all.

Now let’s look at types of diplomas: here, unfortunately, the racial achievement gap remains. In NY state, students can earn a local, Regents, or Advanced Regents diploma (easiest to most difficult). In the city, 14% of Hispanic and 13% of Black students graduated with the local diploma–which will no longer count in 2011–compared to 9% of white students. More strikingly, 32% of white students earned an advanced diploma, compared to 8% on average for minority students.

Only 22% of city students leave high school “college ready” by the state’s measure, and the vast majority of these are white and Asian students. Minorities remain at the bottom of the barrel, barely graduating when they do, while huge proportions still fail to complete high school. One interesting part of this story is where the college-ready grads come from: over half of the students meeting this benchmark come from 20 high schools, including Stuyvesant, Brooklyn Tech, Bronx Science, LaGuardia, and Francis Lewis–all schools which serve disproportionately few students of color. At Stuyvesant, often regarded as the top high school in the city, only 7 black students were admitted in 2011, out of over 950 total.

In fact, under Mayor Bloomberg the racial achievement gap has remained steady or possibly even grown. Despite the mayor’s assertion that “We are closing the shameful achievement gap faster than ever,” as he said in 2009, the gap appears to have remained stagnant in real terms. The data used to support such claims prior to 2010 was based on flawed state tests that had been getting easier and easier. After the state called in psychometric experts and rejiggered the tests, the achievement gap reared its ugly head again, calling out this administration for its failure to serve minority students. Using this more reliable data, the achievement gap widened in the city.

Many smart commentators have written about the disgraceful achievement gap in NYC schools, but this isn’t even the disgrace I refer to in the title. Over the past several years, leaders of NYC’s school reform movement have done little but trumpet the supposed gains made since Bloomberg took control of the schools and hired Joel Klein as Chancellor. Nationwide, observers took notice of the progress the city seemed to have made. Yet on the NAEP, the most reliable exam to judge progress, NYC made no more progress than other urban districts, and the achievement gap stagnated.

What is most disgraceful is the credit-claiming that has gone on unabated, despite the altered information. The data clearly suggests a reversal on the achievement gap, with action required to remedy the situation, but instead we hear only brags from Emperor Bloomberg.

Education is about learning how to check for bias and evaluate a situation objectively. On this front, and many others, the Mayor needs to go back to school.

Astroturf and Education

Poison

A threat to democracy

In the past, conservative groups like FreedomWorks have been pilloried for organizing and advocacy tactics called astroturf. These organizations imitate grassroots citizens’ organizing campaigns, creating a false, misleading impression that citizens are independently rising up to support a cause, when instead, money is being spent to create just such an illusion.

It isn’t tough to see why tactics like paying staffers to post comments or posing as a supporter to catch an NPR executive saying something stupid on camera ought to be seen as a threat to open and honest political dialog. Just as importantly, this type of fake activism creates an atmosphere that allows politicians and public policy makers to remain uninformed about the public’s true perspective on an issue. It’s manipulation of public information at it’s devious best, mixing up even honest politicians with confusion over where the public stands.

In the worst cases, astroturf organizing pollutes the debate on an issue to such a severe extent that it’s impossible to discern where public opinion falls. A vicious cycle ensues where leaders respond to their mistaken perception of public opinion, rallying more support for policies and causes that are favored only by the monied few. This is precisely what is happening in education with Michelle Rhee’s new organization, StudentsFirst. The current policy featured on her homepage, and one of the group’s major initiatives, is ending what’s called “last in, first out” (LIFO) lay-off policies, which is the law of the land in most states.

The way the issues are framed by Rhee and her compatriots around the country is starkly similar to the way opponents frame the contrary position. Both parties claim their side protects great teachers and treats them more fairly. Of course, opponents are interested in protecting teachers writ large, with the understanding that most teachers are good, hard-working professionals–while Rhee and her astroturfers only look out for the young, well-educated teachers with less than 4 years of experience–the population that is affected most directly by LIFO. It advantages these (usually) young people, along with budget and finance officers and edu-privatizers, at the expense of highly-qualified, experienced teachers; not incidentally, these teachers are better paid and therefore more expensive than their younger counterparts. The fact that they have earned salary increases as a result of years of service educating children and improving their practice seems immaterial.

Many good arguments have been penned to oppose the destructive reforms that Rhee has proposed, perhaps none better than this thank you note rebuttal, from an educator in Michigan who unwittingly signed a petition in support of Rhee’s movement. It’s clear that the writer, Michael Paul Goldenberg, had no intention of supporting Rhee, and he inadvertently signed on due to malicious tactics employed at Change.org, with Rhee and StudentsFirst as the primary beneficiary.

Along with Care2, another internet petition service, Rhee and StudentsFirst have utilized change.org to manufacture support for an unpopular shift in personnel policies in school districts nationwide. This is troublesome, but it isn’t the full extent of Rhee’s manipulation of public opinion to support her agenda. Recently, the organization has taken things a step further, hiring experienced social media professionals to become active in supporting her cause. That step is actually wise business, and not cause for concern…until you realize that the folks she has been hiring have been making comments online in support of her agenda, without identifying themselves as employees. This is the standard operating procedure of astroturf.

This is wrong on so many levels, but most of all because it waters down and damages the real conversations that we must have to improve public schools. There is a legitimate debate to be had on lay-off policies, particularly during a time of great budget uncertainty. Yet, the needed democratic exchange, over this issue and similarly controversial changes, devolves into screaming matches and lawsuits rather than productive conversations.

Education is about learning how to discuss disagreements in an adult way, not in a childish fashion more akin to kicking and screaming than a professional exchange. We can and must disagree without being disagreeable–and also without being underhanded. Until we reach the point a point of more open, honest debate, the future of our public schools appears grim.

Cathie Black out, Dennis Walcott in at helm of NYC schools

This is almost old news by now (7 hours after the announcement), but a shocking announcement this morning: now ex-Chancellor Cathie Black stepped down from her job leading New York City schools, leaving behind 1.1 million public school students and lots of headaches. In her place, Mayor Bloomberg taps Dennis Walcott, a city native who has overseen education and health care initiatives as a deputy mayor since Bloomberg took office in 2002.

At a presser this morning, Bloomberg–who appeared with Walcott, Black notably absent–talked about Black’s departure. ”I take full responsibility for the fact that this has not worked out as either of us had hoped,” the Mayor said, adding that he and Black mutually agreed that it was time for her to go. Although many sources are wondering aloud if Black was forced out, it makes sense that it was a mutual decision–the Chancellorship is an impossible job, particularly for someone like Black with no experience (or knowledge…) in education or city politics.

Enter Dennis Walcott, an African American from Queens who is everything Black is not. A former teacher, social worker, nonprofit executive and deputy mayor, Walcott has received an overwhelmingly positively reception, with a few exceptions, principally coming from the Deny the Waiver coalition, which responded in a measured way by asking for a chancellor who would not require a waiver from the state to serve–in other words, a credentialed principal with experience in schools.

A prominent member of that group, outspoken DOE critic assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, had this to say on the decision to replace Black:

“The resignation of Cathie Black represents an extraordinary public acknowledgement by City Hall that her appointment did not serve the best interest of our public school children,”

Although few would argue that trading Black for Walcott is anything but an improvement for the school system, there are concerns about the direction Walcott will lead schools in. “I serve at the pleasure of the Mayor,” he noted in remarks delivered today, which in addition to his role at City Hall have led most to believe that he will continue the policies of Joel Klein. This includes punitive accountability and a heavy emphasis on standardized test scores. These are policies which hurt kids and are destructive to schools and communities, and we hope that under Chancellor Walcott, the city can transform education into a positive experience for all kids. Public education can and should be a powerful experience for kids, but too often in this city, kids are damaged and injured by their schooling.

Education is the cornerstone of a young person’s life. We need to make sure that no matter who the chancellor is, we keep that in mind and focus on children.

South Korea’s Diane Ravitch, test prep, and inequality

There has been extensive debate about the reasons for the poor educational performance of American students in comparison to students in other countries, particularly in Finland and South Korea. Both of these countries get very high marks on the internationally-benchmarked PISA, and educators in the United States are looking for ways to emulate this achievement. But how?

One novel approach (reminiscent of Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”) seems unlikely to gain much traction, but a less innovative idea just might be catching on. One practice that many of the high-performing Asian countries have in common is heavy emphasis on rote memorization and test prep. In China, Singapore, and Korea in particular, schools have really emphasized test preparation, which often means drilling and memorization, leading to a narrowing of the curriculum.

American schools, particularly those that serve populations with higher rates of poverty, already emphasize memorization to a severe extent. Despite complaints from parents, teachers, and myriad others, schools in New York City and elsewhere continue to be judged by the test scores of their students. There is also a push to evaluate teachers based in part on student performance on standardized tests.

This all serves as prelude to this story from Ed Week, published over the weekend. A senior South Korean minister recently advised the U.S. not to follow that country’s model for success on tests too closely.

Just as the U.S. is moving to a more test-centered approach to public education, the highest performing countries (as measured by…tests) are moving in the opposite direction.  Like Diane Ravitch, Byong Man Ahn, the former minister of education, science, and technology in South Korea, has rejected his former policy stance in favor of testing and the narrowing of curriculum to meet the demands of these tests. Unlike Ravitch, his shift seems to be indicative of a larger movement in his country to alter the education system.

South Korean officials have taken several steps to try to de-emphasize exams, Mr. Ahn said. The government, in cooperation with universities, is retooling college entrance procedures to encourage institutions to judge applicants on having diverse talents and interests, a movement that Mr. Ahn said is “gaining momentum.”

And throughout the school system, South Korea is seeking to reduce the number of required courses and academic material students are expected to cover, and give them more choice over their academic studies, he said.

Just astonishing. These are desperately needed reforms, both here in the states and in Korea. Good for them for moving on this, and shame on American leaders for taking an opposite track. Of course, the best schools in the U.S. have made many of these shifts already. The schools attended by scions of the wealthy and privileged support and allow the whole child to flourish, while these schools are rare for children in poverty. I wonder why…

And we continue to hear questions about how to improve this country’s test performance, particularly on international exams like PISA and TIMSS. The truth is, American students in general may have scored worse than some other countries, but this presents an incomplete picture of the results. Schools that serve very few poor students beat the mark for all of the countries ahead of us on PISA. Remember that “modest proposal” to export poor kids?

Schools in America with poverty rates comparable to those of other nations from the PISA beat those countries by a considerable margin. Finland, with a poverty rate of only 3.4%, received 536 on the PISA–the top overall score. American schools with less than 10% students in poverty scored 550, putting that group at the top of the charts. And yet, we hear over and over that poverty isn’t an excuse for failing schools. Not an excuse, but perhaps a logical explanation for poor performance? Being raised in poverty doesn’t doom children to lousy test scores, but these kids need extra supports in school, requiring extra funding. We all know this isn’t always available, and it’s clear what this means for scores on the PISA.

The real culprit, as usual, is the stunning income inequality in our country. Bob Herbert, in a fantastic column (his last at the Times, incidentally), uses the term “maldistribution of wealth,” which I love. The way money is taxed and allocated in this country is embarrassing–there is always money for war, never enough for schools. Even more importantly, the tax system is so broken that GE pays nothing and the fruits of cutthroat capitalism are concentrated in so few hands.

So it goes: poverty negatively affects test scores, so we hammer test prep for low-achieving students. Instead, we need to address the disgustingly high levels of poverty in this country in a sustained way. No child should go hungry in the wealthiest countries in the world, but millions do every day. It’s a fucking travesty.

Meanwhile, enlightened countries like South Korea are abandoning the memorization approach and working on addressing the whole child, encouraging creativity and self-directed learning. Maybe some time in the future, American policy makers will realize their folly and follow Korea’s lead once again. As we wait for that, kids are suffering and lots are getting a bad education.

Something must change in this country.

Links of the Day

Quick post to share some awesome reading materials that I’ve recently come across.

 

First, this report from the All Stars Project. It’s a great introduction to a pretty phenomenal organization focused on youth development. I found it pretty inspiring.

It got me thinking about some of the work going on in education to define competencies and “postsecondary readiness,” whatever that means. Well, David Brooks used his column in the New York Times to talk about just that, examining the “new humanism,” discussing habits of mind and deep talents that relate directly to education. Fascinating stuff.

Here’s a story to watch from Philly: a teacher is in danger of being fired for speaking out against district policy. http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-08/news/28668861_1_charter-school-district-plans-whyatt-mondesire

And the truth about teacher evaluations: The Numbers Do Lie is a great read, from the New York Times. I think like many, I would support getting rid of seniority-based layoffs, IF there were a sensible replacement available. We’re far from that in NYC and elsewhere, too.

Finally, Diane Ravitch’s blog entry from EdWeek yesterday is a must-read. Also check out her appearance on the Daily Show, if you haven’t already.

Why Education Reform Fails

For years now, we’ve been hearing of a growing consensus on the way forward for education reform. The consensus usually rests on whatever’s on Bill Gates’ mind at the moment, but the very notion of widespread agreement on education has proven to be false on a number of occasions. From Parents Across America, a new organization pushing back on this “consensus,” to education scholars and writers like Diane Ravitch (and many others) who have an alternate view of how to improve American education, there is a multiplicity of viewpoints on this controversial issue.

This rich diversity of views is to be expected; no major changes in America ever happen without divergent opinions and the proper voicing of those opinions. As time passes and more stories appear like this one, indicating that the majority of Americans support unions’ collective bargaining rights, it becomes clearer and clearer that the current landscape in public education reform is far from a consensus. (exhibit b: PEP hearings in NYC)

This shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody. There are distinct competing views of the way forward for education in America because there are competing views of America itself. There are two or maybe more visions of the country, disparate sets of values, hopes, dreams and expectations. Too often, these values divide the country along racial, socioeconomic, or religious lines. This is why there are complex racial and ethnic components to any discussion of education reform (don’t believe me? Teach For America is a great example).

This is where we are. It’s America, for better or worse, and it’s nothing new, but there are serious implications for education. Until the country comes together around central tenets of excellent classrooms, nothing will come out of the furor for reform except one-off strategies that are discarded as quickly as they are initiated. Look at the Gates Foundation, which has certainly done excellent work in education; they have also promoted suspect solutions which were later tossed aside in favor of the latest trend.

In fact, there is a pretty strong consensus around what works and what doesn’t in education. You wouldn’t be able to figure this out by listening to the outrageous debates populating the minimal media coverage of education; you’d also miss it if you talked to many of the most brilliant education scholars, including many of those profiled in Waiting For Superman and other public forums where education is discussed. It’s likely that many of the folks who discuss schooling and education reform know it, but they just don’t talk about it.

You’d be crazy not to be skeptical at this point. How can this no-name blogger have it all figured out when the brightest minds in society can’t come together on this huge question? I haven’t made a discovery at all, really.

It comes down to a question of what America is really about. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” or something to that effect. Put that into an educational context, and it seems clear what public purpose schooling should serve: the promotion of these key values. Safety and the protection of life is a given, but liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What does that mean for schools?

The central aim of public schools ought to be the promotion of these values through student-centered teaching and learning. That means that kids, not adults, drive learning–to an extent not seen often in public schools. Adults are in schools to support students’ exploration of ideas, concepts, themes and eventually career pathways. When asked for one thing I want students to learn in a class I might teach, the answer is always how to learn. I don’t care if students’ remember the full text of the Treaty of Versailles or how to calculate the cosine of a function (or something…I don’t remember much of my math classes, as you can probably tell). I want students to learn how to learn and continue learning for the rest of their lives. Keeping an open mind, analyzing evidence and making informed, intelligent decisions is what life is all about, and it should be what school is about, too.

Where do we find schools like this? Schools that allow students to drive their own learning, with the support of adults who care about more than students’ test scores and conduct. Teachers who are able to give students individual attention and do so regularly. More importantly, why should you believe that this vision of education is worth more than what others’ say and write?

Both of these questions have the same answer. This type of education is found at the rare public school, particularly those founded and/or led by inspirational leaders like Debbie Meier, Ann Cook and Linda Nathan. The other place you can find education like this is at the elite private schools attended by scions of the wealthy and well-connected. Sidwell Friends, Phillips Exeter and the like. These are schools with tiny student-teacher ratios, a high degree of personalization and the flexibility to allow students time and space for exploration. It’s no coincidence.

In fact, it’s quite ironic that these schools, which promote the very values that seem so central to the idea of America, are attended almost exclusively by the privileged few. These being the same few who, either through money or political power (or the poisonous intersection of the two), happen to run America’s schools. New York City is a great example: Chancellor Cathie Black sent her kids to the prestigious (and expensive) Kent School. Wonder if we’ll see some ideas from there making their way into NYC public schools…

President Obama is another example, and as a former campaign volunteer I hate to say it. His daughters went to Uni Lab in Chicago, and now they’re at Sidwell. These are exceptional, innovative schools, and there’s no shame in getting the best education for your kids. The problem (and the accompanying shame) comes in when you don’t hold that standard up for the rest of the country’s children. The standard for leaders and educators must always be “is it good enough for my kids?”

For my hypothetical kids, I believe in maximizing liberty and freedom. In the classroom and the country.