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.

What We Learned from the Oughties – We Need Help

There were countless lessons learned from the first decade of the 2000′s: countries don’t like it when you invade them, bubbles always burst, and nothing is impossible. One takeaway comes in above all the rest though, while it also encompasses each of the aforementioned: we need help. Individually, our families, communities, corporations, governments – we all need help, and this is the major learning from the oughts.

Take, for example, that first big lesson: sovereign nations don’t like being invaded. When it’s framed in this way, this seems like a big “duh” moment. On the other hand, questionable intelligence and selective use of it can lead even the most brilliant foreign policy analysts into the morass of “liberation” ideology. Although the arguments for and against the wars, particularly in Iraq, are complex and have certainly been run through for years, a little help would have gone a long way in avoiding this monumental mistake.

President Bush led the country into this foolhardy war, I think , because he was fooled. Or maybe he was misled–in any case, he had bad information which led him to make a bad decision. How did this happen? He wouldn’t take any help. Rummy and Dick had a plan in mind, and despite the expertise advice of Colin Powell and others, the U.S. invaded Iraq, killing millions and spending billions. This was a big mistake, one of many, but it could’ve been avoided or at least lessened if he had listened to others, sought further counsel, and accepted the help he so desperately needed to run the country.

Even in the Obama era, even at the state level, governments need a lot of help. The financial troubles of the federal treasury are well-known; states have similar concerns about ballooning deficits and giant debts. States have been begging the feds for additional funding, municipalities are asking states for more, but the pot isn’t getting any bigger. Current policies are inadequate to address this giant set of interconnected problems, but the inertia of inaction is too strong. Governments at every level need help!

It goes beyond government, although this one’s related, too. Companies obviously need help; in the oughties, we called this a bailout. In the future, this help should take the form of government regulation. If the feds increase the stringency of regulation, corporations won’t be able to manipulate consumers, abuse customers and generally rip people off with impunity. These are bad things that currently we allow companies to get away with. We shouldn’t. Frankly, regulation helps companies, too. This is the help they need.

And individuals have realized that they need help, too. More people are in therapy of all variety, and there’s an increasing drive to look outside of our everyday lives to address issues that people have. At the family level too, we’ve begun asking others to help, and this is so important. There isn’t anything wrong with going to therapy, getting mediation for a messy divorce, or asking a consultant to help figure out how to solve a complicated problem. More centrally, we must not be afraid of working together to address the vast problems facing each of us, our families, companies, states and country.

The answer is collaboration and leaning on each other. Few of us can solve big problems by ourselves, but by working together with one another, we can add our capacity together to reach unforeseen heights. This is what makes democracy so valuable. Vibrant democratic societies succeed not only because of the opportunity all citizens have to influence public policy, they succeed when and because the quality of policy and solutions is better when broader perspectives have input. Diverse participants in a conversation lend both breadth and depth.

I hope we will see this in Tunisia and Egypt very soon. The people are desperate for self-rule, for democracy, and it looks like they will get their chance. If true democracies and strong civil societies develop, the future in both countries and across the region will be bright. But a broad cross-section of society must participate in order for the state to function at a high level.

Molding good democratic citizens is what education is all about. Recognizing our weaknesses–and our strengths–allows us to grow and reach new heights. When students learn that it’s ok to ask for help, it’s ok to be wrong, this is an incredibly powerful learning experience. Some schools of thought on teaching suggest that instructors should never admit not knowing or being wrong–I think the opposite is true. Students learn and grow more genuinely through learning with their teacher, not being instructed directly by him or her. These rich experiences are too often absent from classrooms and boardrooms alike, all because we are afraid of being wrong and asking for help.

We learned from the oughties that we–the largest conception of we–are in need of lots of help. Let’s not hesitate to go out and get it.

College & Career Readiness

The new fad in high school reform seems to be moving beyond the diploma, into the postsecondary realm.  Preparing students for the 21st century, for college and/or a career, this is what the educationistas have been parading as a sort of paradigm-shift in education.  It’s also part of the standard call for reform emanating from corporations and billionaire philanthropists, along with the Obama administration and Sec. Arne Duncan.

You hear it from Jeb Bush, charter school operators, the Education Equality Project, plus it’s a prominent part of Obama’s blueprint for ESEA revision.  And, let’s be fair, it is a very meaningful objective.  A diploma only serves a purpose insofar as it is a proxy for true achievement and preparation for what comes next.  One reason “postsecondary readiness” is so popular is that it’s pretty non-controversial.  But what does it mean?

I worry about the impact of this on assessments.  The same people who are pushing college & career readiness have been promoting high-stakes standardized tests for quite a long time.  The incoming #2 for NYC Schools, Shael Suransky, recently told the New York Times that he wants “more and better tests.”  Better tests, absolutely, but more?  Is that possible?

If our new metric for success is postsecondary readiness, what do assessments look like?  Are the same one-size-fits-all standardized tests appropriate to measure such a diverse goal?  With extremely diverse students populating our schools, successful postsecondary outcomes are just as diverse.  What is the impact, then, of holding all students up to the same bar in math and ELA?  Of course proficiency in these basic subjects is important for all students, but with the new measure of success being postsecondary readiness, general “proficiency” becomes meaningless.

If I were a principal, preparing my students for high-stakes tests would fall to the bottom of my list of priorities immediately.  To prepare students for life after high school, they need opportunities to explore their interests and learn how to pursue them.  I was lucky to find my way to a liberal arts college where I could explore a variety of disciplines and subjects before finding my passion.  I was also extremely lucky to receive financial aid and be able to afford an elite university which provided me with these opportunities.  But many of our public school students are not so lucky.

We need to resist the shift towards test-based accountability and truly align standards with postsecondary success.  On a policy level, it’s so crucial to expand the definition of success to include all types of fulfillment and personalized success…so scoring a 4 on all your Regents exams isn’t necessarily more valuable than learning to paint and exploring that as a career.  If a student graduates high school ready to become an automotive technician but still struggles with algebra, is he or she not ready to complete high school and move forward with a lucrative, meaningful career?

Math and English standards, however rigorous and well-researched, will never deliver broad postsecondary readiness in our public schools.  Basic skills in these two disciplines provide an important foundation for future success, but there are boundaries to their usefulness.  As this link suggests, judging a student’s postsecondary readiness by these two extremely limited metrics is like buying a car based purely on top speed and estimated MPG.  While these are characteristics that will play an important role in the final purchasing decision, they are two of many.  Likewise, scores on standardized tests in math and English are also very limited; they don’t give us the information we need to know.

It’s a real problem…and the solution isn’t more tests.  It’s more trust and reliance put in teachers and principals.  If this is about improving education for everybody, how does it concern art classes?  There just isn’t a good way to measure if a student has had his or her passion enlivened by meaningful instruction.  The only legitimate measurement practice is the scaling up of New York’s “Where Are They Now?” reports, which follows specific kids.  Or, I don’t know, asking their parents, the teachers and school-based professionals who know these kids best.  I think many policy makers would be surprised to find how strong a predictor teacher confidence might be for postsecondary success.

The Fall of the Technocrats

Bloomberg magazine recently announced that it would begin running an opinion section.  I think this is a good idea, generally, because newspapers and publications need to receive meaningful feedback in order to operate at their best.  The plan from Bloomberg, however, has one serious flaw.  The opinion section will be “ideology-free.”  You might wonder what this looks like in practice–I know I have many questions.  Over at Salon, Alex Pareene offers a pretty obvious litany of complaints regarding this truly unprecedented move.  The main takeaway:

This is the purest expression yet of the pathology of Bloomberg. His “opinion section” refuses to admit that its opinions will be anything other than cold, objective, science-based facts. The Bloomberg position is considered to be the “ideology-free” position. You have to be terribly self-satisfied and fairly stupid to think that whatever you think about things is the “ideology-free” position.

Yes, this is all true.  Someone will be deciding which opinions are ideological, and which are…well, ideology-free, or simply “true”.  I suppose this is Mayor Mike, but he’s hired some big names to make this look like a legitimate effort, and not just an announcement that Bloomberg Magazine is officially a soapbox for its’ founder.  (former State Dept official Jamie Rubin & former NYT op-ed editor David Shipley).

This is typical of the way Bloomberg views education reform and how he has run New York City’s schools since winning control in 2002.  The idea is that there is a right way of doing things, and for everything to work, we simply need to identify a set of “best practices” and replicate them.  It’s a technocratic way of solving problems, and it has had some results for NYC schools, as outgoing Chancellor Klein will tell you himself (via Rick Hess).  However, the reform agenda that Bloomberg & Klein have dubbed “Children First” focuses solely on these kinds of technocratic reforms, while ignoring people, communications, and social forces.

Klein’s style, characterized frequently as chilly and impersonal, is also based on this.  He isn’t interested in engaging with parents, teachers and other stakeholders in education, because he says they have the interests of adults in mind, rather than the interests of children.  If you disagree with the Bloomberg-Klein agenda, you must not favor putting children first.  Either that, or you are representing an ideology and not looking at the facts impartially, as the benevolent corporate executives at the helm of NYC’s schools always do.  They claim the mantle of facts and scientific solutions, leaving little room for opponents to stake out competing views.  We all believe that the solutions we put forth are based purely on evidence, but if we (opinion writers) are thoughtful, we should recognize that we come at questions with biases and, yes, ideologies.  Only by recognizing your unique lens and ideology can a person even approach Bloomberg’s ideal of 100% empirically-based solutions.

There is a pervasive attitude in conversations about education reform that there are right and wrong answers, truths and lies.  There is never a need to speak truth to power, because the powers have all the truth.  And when you control the truth, you do have all the power–it’s a vicious cycle.  And this disrespects the ideas of folks like Diane Ravitch, a brilliant woman with ideas which differ from the NYCDOE orthodoxy.  Most importantly, she has a voice, and she’s not afraid to speak truth to power.  The real tragedy of the DOE’s approach is the way it treats democracy and the impacts it has on the public.  As a taxpayer (in NYC, no less), I have the right to have my voice represented in major policy decisions, and I think that should extend beyond the ballot box.  Bloomberg seems to disagree, and that is very sad.  Without voices from disparate circles advocating for what they believe is best, you can sometimes make the “right” choice, when one exists, but you will rarely make decisions which align with the values of a public you represent.

And that’s what it comes down to: as a public institution, education isn’t just about democracy, education is democracy.  And technocrats like Bloomberg will never get that, because his values were shaped during a very successful tenure in the financial sector.  Education and finance couldn’t be more different, yet the Mayor wants to apply his values across his personal portfolio of projects, regardless of public opinion and values.  Neither Bloomberg nor Klein (nor incoming Chancellor Cathie Black) sent their kids to public schools; they aren’t stakeholders and they never were.  Somehow, despite all their lofty educational credentials and degrees, these folks never got a handle on values and recognizing and acknowledging bias.

As I wrote in a furious email to a friend after first reading about the Bloomberg Views “ideology-free” stance, there is no such thing as an ideology-free opinion.  Everyone views a situation with their own set of prejudices, past experiences and values, which all work together to form an ideology.  The idea that data should inform decision-making is part of Mike Bloomberg’s ideology and bias, but he somehow doesn’t see this.  It’s the difference between respecting differing opinions and always thinking you’re right–an arrogant feature that many of us often have, but a destructive one when it lives in a public official.

To think that you alone can view a situation without the lens of ideology and make pronouncements that are “ideology-free” is absolutely galling and insulting to those of us who recognize and embrace complexity.  In education in particular, we face many very difficult, complicated problems that must be resolved.  The problems we face are multifaceted, and they cannot be solved through a simpleminded, obtuse approach which disregards opposition opinions.  It’s not just problematic for public policy, it’s stupid.

Technocrats will never rule a city or any public entity successfully until they become small-d democrats, too.  It’s clear that in the halls of the Department of Education, both in NYC and in Washington DC, technocratic solutions have prevailed over those reached democratically, with input from stakeholders, academics, experts, and all those concerned.  It may be unwieldy, but it is the only way to truly get at the values to which public officials ought to aspire.

A moving story

Just writing to share and promote an anonymous story from The Daily Beast: I’m an Illegal Immigrant at Harvard.

It’s a moving account and one which deserves the attention of politicians in Washington and in our state capitals.  Passing the DREAM Act is a moral imperative as well as a political and economic boon.  The people who would be affected by this legislation were children when they came to this country illegally and/or overstayed visas.  Creating a path to citizenship for those illegal immigrants who go on to earn a bachelor’s degree will create a better-educated and more patriotic citizenry, and it will enable more smart, motivated, innovative college grads to stay in the U.S. and contribute to our economy.  It benefits global competitiveness and, on every level, it makes sense.

Please, contact your representative and urge them to support the DREAM Act.  You can reach them via email by using this link.  Education is about equality, and we shouldn’t artificially and punitively bar people from fully joining the country and its’ civic life.