I read this post by Yong Zhao when it came out 18 months ago. I remember thinking that his was a new and important voice in our debates about American education. Others discovered him long before I did, and I am glad I did too. I devour whatever he writes because he is not only a careful scholar but he is wise. He has great respect for creativity, initiative, originality, and inquiry; and he is repelled by standardization and conformity, which is the enemy of the foregoing. The fact that Yong Zhao was born and educated in China and has a deep knowledge of that nation’s education system gives him added authority. It also gives him the perspective needed to put our usual debates into a fresh and original framework. Yong Zhao is now at the University of Oregon and speaks often at international conferences.
I urge you to read his important book Catching Up or Leading the Way.
His new book, just published, is World-Class Learners, a must read.
I have read this essay many times and quoted it many times. I will quote it again, I am sure.
It gives me pleasure to share it with readers of this blog.
“It makes no sense:” Puzzling over Obama’s State of the Union Speech
“It makes no sense:” Puzzling over Obama’s State of the Union Speech
“It makes no sense” is perhaps President Obama’s favorite phrase, using it twice in his 2011 State of the Union speech. I like the sound of it and what lies behind it—a simple way to point out the obviously illogical things that need to change. That is how I feel about the education section of his speech. It makes no sense.
President Obama wants to win the future by “out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world.” “[I]f we want to win the future -– if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas -– then we also have to win the race to educate our kids.”
How to win the race to educate our kids?
More math, more science, more high school diplomas, more college graduates, more Race to the Top, more standards and standardization, more carrots and clubs for teachers and schools, and no TV.
Why?
Because China and India “started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science;’” because “[t]he quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations;” and because “America has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young people with a college degree.”
None of these makes much sense to me because they are either factually false or logically confusing. For one, President Obama suggested that parents make sure the TV is turned off. If every parent followed his suggestion and turned off the TV, there would be no one to watch his State of the Union next year. As with everything else, there is good TV and there is bad TV. More seriously, I did some fact checking and logical reasoning and here is what I found out.
Is it true that “China and India started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science?”
No, China has actually started to reduce study time for their children, with less emphasis on math and science
I am not familiar with education in India so I will stick to China and I assume President Obama meant education in schools, not education at home. Unless he meant 50 years ago, the statement is completely false. The school starting age in China has remained the same at age six since the 1980s when China’s first Compulsory Education Law was passed in 1986. Since the 1990s, China has launched a series of education reforms aimed at reducing school hours and decreasing emphasis on mathematics. According to a recent statement from the Ministry of Education (in Chinese):
Since the implementation of the “New Curriculum,” the total amount of class time during the compulsory education stage (grades 1 to 9) has been reduced by 380 class hours. During primary grades (grades 1 to 6), class time for mathematics has been reduced by 140 class hours, while 156 more class hours have been added for physical education. In high school, 347 class hours have been taken out of required courses and 410 class hours added for electives. (People’s Daily,http://edu.people.com.cn/GB/10320480.html)
Is it true that “the quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations?”
It depends how one measures quality. If measured in terms of test scores on international assessments, yes, but these test scores do not necessarily indicate the quality of math and science education and certainly do not predict a nation’s economic prosperity or capacity for innovation.
When he says that “the quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations,” President Obama ignores the fact that American students performance on international tests have been pretty bad for a long time, and believe it or not, has got better in recent years. In the 1960s, America’s 8th graders ranked 11thout of 12 countries and 12th graders ranked 12 out of 12 countries on the First International Mathematic Study. America’s 12th graders’ average score ranked 14th out of 18 countries that participated in the First International Science Study. In the 1970s and 80s, America’s 12th graders did not do any better on the Second International Mathematics study, with ranks of 12, 14, 12, and 12 out of 15 educational systems (13 countries) on tests of number systems, algebra, geometry, and calculus respectively. On the Second International Science Study, American students’ performance was the worst (out of 13 countries with 14 education systems participating, America’s 12th graders ranked 14th in Biology, 12th in Chemistry, and 10thin Physics) (Data source, National Center for Educational Statistics). In 1995, America’s 8th graders math scores were in 28th place on the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. In 2003, they jumped to 15th , and in 2007, to 9th place.
Obama also said in his speech:
Remember -– for all the hits we’ve taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers — no workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We’re the home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.
So who has made America “the largest, most prosperous economy in the world?” Who are these most productive workers? Where did the people who created the successful companies come from? And who are these inventors that received the most patents in the world?
It has to be the same Americans who ranked bottom on the international tests. Those 12th graders with shameful bad math scores in the 1960s have been the primary work force in the US for the past 40 years. The equally poor performers on international tests in the 70s and 80s have been working for the past 30 years now. And even those poor performers on the 1995 TIMSS have entered the workforce. Apparently they have not driven the US into oblivion and ruined the country’s innovation record.
Is it true that Race to the Top is the most meaningful reform of public education in a generation?
Again, it depends. It depends on how one defines “meaningful.” If defined as the scale of impact without questioning whether the impact is beneficial or not, it may be true but considering the actual consequences, Race to the Top is neither meaningful nor flexible. It does not focus on “what’s best for our kids” nor spark “creativity and imagination of our people.”
I wonder if Obama knows what Race to the Top actually does because it is just the opposite of what he asks for. He says:
What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny…It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?”
“Our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world” perhaps explains why the American students scored poorly on tests but have been able to build a strong economy with innovations.
But Race to the Top is about killing ideas and forcing students to memorize equations by imposing common standards and testing in only two subjects on students all over the nation; by forcing schools and teachers to teach to the tests; and by forcing states to narrow educational experiences for all students to a prescribed narrowed defined curriculum.
Race to the Top is precisely what he said it is not: “We know what’s possible from our children when reform isn’t just a top-down mandate, but the work of local teachers and principals, school boards and communities.” It is nothing but a top-down mandate. Race to the Top applications required states and schools to be innovative in meeting the top-down mandates: adopting common standards and assessment, linking teacher evaluation/compensation with student test scores, offering more math and science learning, and allowing more charter schools. In the first round of competition, Massachusetts was penalized for not wanting to rush to adopt the common standards. Pennsylvania was penalized for proposing innovative practices in early childhood education (Source: Let’s Do the Numbers: Department of Education’s “Race to the Top” Program Offers Only a Muddled Path to the Finish Lin By William Peterson and Richard Rothstein)
Race to the Top is anything but what Obama says “the work of local teachers and principals, school boards and communities.” States that were desperate for cash had to use all means to coerce teachers, principals, and school boards to sign on to the application because participation of local schools was a heavily weighted criterion. And if teachers and school leaders did not agree, they risked being accused of not supporting children’s education.
And with regard to common standards, while it is true that they were not developed by Washington, but Washington definitely helped with billions of dollars to make them adopted nationwide.
Is it true that “America has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young people with a college degree?”
It depends for a number of reasons. First, different countries have different definitions of a college degree. Second, not all college degrees are of equal quality. Third, the changes in rank do not necessarily indicate America’s decline. It could simply other countries have caught up.
President Obama may be drawing the figures from a report published by the College Board recently. The report cites OCED data and suggests that “the educational capacity of our country continues to decline.” But the data actually do not support the statement.
According to the report, in 2007, America ranked sixth in postsecondary attainment in the world among 25-64-Year-Olds. It ranked fourth among those ages 55 to 64. But for the 25-34 age group, America ranked 12th. Simply looked at the rankings, America is indeed in decline. But looking at the percentages of postsecondary degree holders shows a different picture. For the age group of 25 to 64, 40.3% of Americans held a college degree. The two countries that were immediately ahead of America, Japan and New Zealand, had a lead of less than 1% at 41%. The other three leading countries were Russia (54%), Canada (48.3%), and Israel (43.6%). For the young age group (25-34 year olds), America had 40.4% and five out of the 11 countries led by about 2%. The countries with over 10% lead were Canada (55.8%), Korea (55.5%), Russia (55.5%), and Japan (53.7%). For those ages 55 to 64, America ranked fourth, but the percentage was 38.5%. The countries ahead of America were Russia (44.5%), Israel (43.5%), and Canada (38.9). Based on this data we can draw two conclusions. First America was never number one. Second, the percentage of college degree holders in America has actually increased.
How many more math and science graduates does the US need?
President Obama wanted “to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the fields of science and technology and engineering and math.” This is driven by the belief that America does not prepare enough talents in these areas. But according to a comprehensive study based on analysis of major longitudinal datasets found “U.S. colleges and universities are graduating as many scientists and engineers as ever before.” The study was conducted by a group of researchers at Georgetown University, Rutgers University, and the Urban Institute. “Our findings indicate that STEM retention along the pipeline shows strong and even increasing rates of retention from the 1970s to the late 1990s,” says the report. However, not all STEM graduates enter the STEM field. They are attracted to other areas.
“Over the past decade, U.S. colleges and universities graduated roughly three times more scientists and engineers than were employed in the growing science and engineering workforce,” one of the study’s co-author Lindsay Lowell was quoted in the study’s press release, “At the same time, more of the very best students are attracted to non-science occupations, such as finance. Even so, there is no evidence of a long-term decline in the proportion of American students with the relevant training and qualifications to pursue STEM jobs.”
What America really needs?
President Obama actually got the destination right when he said “the first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation.” But he chose the wrong path.
To encourage American innovation starts with innovative and creative people. But a one-size-fits-all education approach, standardized and narrow curricula, tests-driven teaching and learning, and fear-driven and demoralizing accountability measures are perhaps the most effective way to kill innovation and stifle creativity.
What America really needs is to capitalize on its traditional strengths—a broad definition of education, an education that respects individuality, tolerates deviation, celebrates diversity. America also needs to restore faith in its public education, respects teacher autonomy, and trusts local school leaders elected or selected by the people.
In addition, America needs to teach its children that globalization has tied all nations to a complex, interconnected, and interdependent chain of economic, political, and cultural interests. To succeed in the globalized world, our children need to develop a global perspective and the capacity to interact and work with different nations and cultures, the ability to market America innovations globally, and the ability to lead globalization in positive directions. That includes foreign languages and global studies.
Even the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), a direct result of Sputnik and a product during the Cold War, was broader in terms of areas of studies than conceived in Race to the Top and the blueprint for reauthorization of ESA. It included funding for math, science, foreign languages, geography, technical education, etc. Moreover, it did not impose federal mandates on local schools or states.
Heading north for south: A Chinese story for the President
A Chinese story best illustrates the danger of choosing the wrong path for the correct destination. This story was recorded in Zhan Guo Ce or the Records of the Warring States, a collection of essays about events and tales that took place during China’s Warring States Period (475-221 BC). Here is my recount of the story.
The king of the state of Wei intends to attack its neighboring state of Zhao. Upon hearing the news, Ji Liang, counselor to the king rushes to see him. “Your Majesty, on my way here, I met a man on a chariot pointed to the north,” Ji Liang tells the King, “and he told me that he was going to visit Chu.”
“But Chu is in the south, why are you headed north?” I asked.
“Oh, no worry, my horses are very strong,” he told me.
“But you should be headed south,” I told him again.
“Not to worry, I have plenty of money,” he was not concerned.
“But still you are headed the wrong direction,” I pointed out yet again.
“I have hired a very skillful driver,” was this man’s reply.
“I worry, your majesty, that the better equipped this man was,” Ji Liang says to the King, “the farther away he would be from his destination.” “You want to be a great king and win respect from all people,” Ji Liangconcludes, “You can certainly rely on our strong nation and excellent army to invade Zhao and expand our territory. But I am afraid the more you use force, the farther away you will be from your wishes.”
So how do we get Obama, Duncan, Bloomberg, and the entire faux reform gang to read this?
How do we get this into the local papers across the country?
Why does their BS fly freely across the media waves and pieces like this do not?
Thank you for posting Diane. I learn so much everyday.
Considering that Obama and came out with that clearly unbelievable part about education, I really believe that he is not speaking to public schools, parents, teachers, students but is talking as a politician. After Bush, it was wonderful to hear the president speak of raising science back into the proper perspective of value for the nation. Now, he is just as likely a president to ignore ( he has not actually come to deny) the actual facts and data that would help form his educational statements. I feel as if I have lost my religion in a way. Bush was climate change and out and out attacking climate change scientists and Obama is so much more insidious as he spouts credulous misinformation. ( not sure if that is a proper pairing of terms).
I used to think that if Obama just got the facts and really went into the schools he would wake up but he is a DFER in everything but name only. Sad. We swing between bad and worse and when will it be before we have a real president for and of the people.
Nowhere in his speech was he vilifying the people who teach in these institutions. Nowhere in his speech was he damning the structure of all schools per se, despite the insinuation that American students are not getting the education they should.
The strategies of putting down educators and the public schools are tactics his opponents take. He has been an ally to educators throughout the country, and it is important that educators take the time to join the dialogue into the politics of education.
If you are an educator who does not like what he says, educate him, but do not oppose the only presidential candidate who respects what you do and wants you to continue doing it. You may feel despair, but you can affect change with this man.
Well I know of teachers that have written him and I have read a few heartfelt pleas for him to reconsider what is happening under Duncan. There has been a dump Duncan petition for a while now. Teachers have either had no reply or a form letter that did not address the issues outlined in their letters. Duncan has appeared publicly with Michelle Rhee. That was the final nail in his coffin for me.
Duncan claims to have reformed Chicago and look at it now. I feel much more than despair. Many are leaving the profession and once you have a mass exodus they will be left with an ever revolving door of Stepford test prep drones and teach for awhile recruits who will slum for a few years in public schools while they decide on their real career. We are heading in that direction and I don’t see Obama dumping Duncan or truly understanding what is happening and by the time he catches on it will take years to repair.
I can assure you the constant test prep, testing, testing the next test and high turnover rates for teachers is not happening at
Sidwell Friends in DC.
Sorry for typos on IPhone.
Linda, your fears are understandable. Sometimes I cannot sleep at night living here in NJ with a governor hell-bent on ruining our schools and with the plight of those educators in Wisconsin and NYC running through my head.
But the point is, Obama is playing the political game. He has to, and so do we. I think Obama needs more education ABOUT education.
Educators took the bull by the horns in NJ by taking the time to educate the NJ legislature on topics of school reform. We have found that even well-meaning politicians can and do make poor decisions when they do not have all the facts. Turned out that many of them were voting with very little information about the inner workings of school systems. We have been able to “stop the bleeding” that the governor has caused by getting the message out to the people who are making the decisions and by speaking to changes to the many reform bills that have been in committee for some time. We have organized our responses and executed a plan to have them heard. The result? They have heard us, and they have voted with much more research in hand. Now with the revisions in the latest bill on tenure-reform, the governor is poised to not sign it, but the legislature has spoken. The governor is still pushing his anti-teacher agenda in an effort to divide the state. This is politics.
I agree that Duncan MUST go–it frustrates me that Obama even listens to that creep. Rhee has been found out for who she is, a failure in education–you would think that Duncan would be called out for getting into bed with her business practices, but so far, that hasn’t happened on any national front. I think that the national groups that support public education and CAN affect change are tip-toeing around the Duncan issue, as well, in an effort to keep support for Obama so that he can win another term. I predict that they then will move forward on the agenda to rid the public of Duncan’s influence.
I think that Obama can and will change his tune if re-elected. Right now, he has to appease those on the political fence, but if given an opportunity to serve a second term, he is going to be much stronger about all of his policies.
I believe that the people who are in the know can never give up on the political process. If we do, we are part of the problem.
Keep the faith, my friend.
LG..thank you for responding…you are having a somewhat calming affect on me or is it the Chardonnay? Well, anyway, similar reform activity via teachers, union and the legislature here in CT. Our buffoon of a Governor Malloy insulted teachers from the get go and then he like to brag about how we all worked together to come up with meaningful reform (when he had no intentions of including us and was very willing to demean teachers). We had the pleasure of the Rheeject showing up for a rally…way too funny, but there were about 7 people there and 2 reporters. She received money from Bloomberg to air commercials, tv and radio, with fake teacher voices saying they supported Malloy’s reforms.
Our new commissioner is a Yale lawyer who never taught school aged children one thing and he not only started a charter school, but a charter management company. Some state ethics commission found this NOT to be a conflict of interest. So we are all waiting for the next shoe to drop and Rhee proudly and arrogantly states she is not done with CT yet.
If you haven’t, check out http://www.rheefirst.com
I am not as optimistic. Duncan will stay where he is if Obama is re-elected. What else will he do? Go back and re-reform Chicago?
He applauded the teachers in Rhode Island who got fired. He did not personally villify them, he implied that ALL of them were incompetent teachers who he was glad were not longer standing in the way of these students finally getting educational parity. He did pull down the profession when he did that- the day after they were all summarily fired. I did not say that I was in favor of his opponent but after the experience with Bush and his cavalier approach to listening to experts in their fields, I had much higher expectations for Obama which have not come to pass. He makes speeches, applauds the actions of his secretary of education, has given the nod to Race to the Top and aligns himself with DFERs. What exactly is there to like about his approach to public school education?
concerned parent, thank you for bringing that up.
I did some research on the comments, but still haven’t been able to find the exact words that Obama said in complete context. I found a short news item that truncated his speech–it started while he was in mid-sentence. If you have a link to the complete speech, please post it.
What I HAVE been able to find is reports on Duncan’s words. If Obama made those terrible comments himself, I can see how you would not trust him–those words were outrageous. Many politicians shoot from the hip without asking questions first. This doesn’t give them a pass, by any means. I do agree that this stance is absolutely damaging to education as it does not show a willingness to address ALL the issues that would affect a school.
Some of the research brought me to this post about Duncan’s take:
From http://workinprogress.firedoglake.com/2010/03/03/obama-applauds-mass-firing-of-teachers-just-like-when-he-applauded-the-mass-firing-of-banksters-oh-wait
glock21: “Ducan [sic] says that the average number of days a teacher is absent is 23 days. True? Yes but the majority of these days were mandated professional development. Some teachers were out 50+ days for training. Not out sick!
The media reports that 50% of all student are failing all their classes. Not true! Noboday internally can find this data. Where is it coming from. Even Biden admitted he didn’t have all the facts after slamming the school.”
Has Obama addressed any responses about this and the comments of Duncan? Please post what you have.
I’m curious to know the demographics of this community. Are they similar in any way to the communities that Obama has tried to help or are they pretty standard? I remember the story, but I was not aware that these comments were ever made by Obama in the first place. If he is going by rhetoric brought to him by idiots like Duncan, that is a huge mistake for the inexperienced president.
Duncan is a snake, and he needs to be out of the president’s inner circle.
I believe in educating politicians if they are willing to listen. I’ve seen it happen here in NJ–this gives me hope that it can be done anywhere with the right people. I have not seen anything else except for this particular comment that would make me believe Obama cannot be educated on the issues. I am hoping that he has learned a great deal since 2010.
Linda, I was going to suggest wine, but I would be drinking every night if I took my own advice. I do not think any of us can fully relax in the midst of this warfare.
What is the CT teacher’s union doing to keep watch on the commissioner’s tactics? It really annoys me when people with ZERO experience in public education are hired to manage the public schools. The ideology that schools can be run like businesses is something that must change throughout the country.
Here in NJ, the NJEA has had an all-out war with the governor. The NJEA made it very clear what BS the blanket “reforms” the governor pushed really were. When it came down to brass tacks, the legislators saw that the NJEA had sensible reform ideas based in reality and the governor just had talking points based in rhetoric that evidently were not thought through. The bill sponsors in the NJ legislature used their power of reason and understanding to craft legislation that solved problems instead of creating more. I have a little more faith in the system despite the governor’s impending veto of one piece of legislation.
I didn’t know that Malloy insulted teachers. What did he say? He claims to be operating on the premise that he will not be the bully that Christie is, but how is his relationship with the state union, in general?
The State BOE approves anything Pryor wants and Malloy is in love with him. Malloy open the reform movement with a speech where he state that all teachers had to do was “show up” and tenure was theirs. Teachers went apeshit. We had a rigorous four year probationary perod with a portfolio and video component as a part of that process. A teacher can be dismissed for any reason during that time. If adminstrators are doing their job (big IF) they can easily get rid of anyone they want to. Believe me you don’t just show up.
He is not a critical reader and thinker. He believes the reform mantra and he has memorized five or six talking points and he repeats them over and over. He was and still is unable to answer any questlons of any depth. The original bill, SB 24, was designed by an organization with ties to NJ, Leeds Global, and Pryor tried to hide the fees used to pay them within another dept. Our version of your blogger, JerseyJazzman, is Jon Pelto and he revealed all. The original bill wanted to wipe away the requirement of a masters degree, tie each year’s evaluation to your salary, your movement on your certificate and ultimately the loss of your certificate. They were angling towards deprofessionalizing teaching thus a cheaper workforce.
Malloy has annoyed state troopers, teachers and word is the state employees are not happy with him for a variety of reason. When we had our CEA rally at the state capital, someone in the building held out a sign to us that read: Malloy, 4 more years, too long.
He only won by 6,000 votes and there are about 50,000 teachers. I don’t see him getting re-elected.
That is excellent; thank you for sharing it.
Asking a politician to come right out with the truth when the truth goes against the accepted political norm is like asking the politician to commit political suicide.
Do any among you honestly think that the public is ready for the truth about education? If history has taught us nothing else, ideology affects policy, and policy change does not happen overnight.
For decades, American public education has been under fire. While I do not agree with RTTT in its execution, its ideology is definitely important to the political structure. To base it on “creative readings” of statistics is to play the game. Anyone who has done research knows how easy it is to manipulate data in an effort to support a point. It is unfortunate that he had to resort to using these particular interpretations of stats to justify RTTT, but he was expected to have an education program in place as president. His making of those particular “justifications” for RTTT was certainly not the best move overall, but I think there are other factors at work here.
To whit:
1. His Commitment to At-risk Communities
Keep in mind that many of his education policies are married to what are called “failing” schools especially those in underprivileged communities. Using these communities as a measuring stick, Obama is attempting to work toward a solution to the societal problems that affect their public schools by calling for a restructuring of the public service of education.
The government can only affect what is in its in charge. Since home-life is not the business of the government, school is the next best thing. He and Mrs. Obama have made it their mission to attend to the needs of American children. Perhaps the belief in the restructuring of the schools in failing communities stems from the idea that by offering a non-traditional approach to public schooling (i.e. one that includes basic care, community services, etc.), the community can be affected positively.
How can he affect change in these communities without getting the public on board? How can he get the public on board to help these communities without people in every community believing that theirs is being helped because they NEED the help in the first place? Utilizing these interpretations of the statistics, he creates a national need. The problem is, all communities are the problems of society. We are ALL in this together. This brings me to the second factor…
2. The Necessity of Playing the Political Game
By promoting RTTT, he was playing the game–telling the public (which includes his opponents) that attention to public education is important so that America does not “fall behind.” Unfortunately, he was using statistics to frame a “need” that may or may not exist everywhere in America. The RTTT strategy was definitely a political move, but regrettably, it was one with real consequences to the very systems it purports to help.
The way I see it, Obama is trying to lure in the independent voters who have heard over and over about the so-called “failing” schools. While I do not condone the speaking of untruths by any one sitting president, I do see how he felt he had to jump on the band-wagon that claims American education is seemingly in “disrepair.” Whether armed with truth or not, going against the rhetoric about education in this country would just give fodder for his opponents to get the public against him. He would have no chance to gain the trust of the majority of people if he were to utilize research that goes against this unfortunate accepted and deceptive norm that “American public schools are failing.”
I think this man can do much more in a second term in comparison to his first, considering how his opponents get in his way with his every step. He is tip-toeing around many issues in an attempt to get re-elected so he can finally get to the business of what he needs to do. I would like to reserve judgement of him until he is in a position with nothing to lose. If he does have the privilege of serving a second term, only then can his work truly be evaluated.
If anyone thinks that one can support education with a disregard of politics, that person is in for a rude awakening. It is unfortunate, but the game must be played and delicately, at that.
Apologies…I do this all the time…it’s “to wit,” not “to whit.” I’m going to fire my editor straight away. 🙂
Or blame a teacher…that’s trendy these days.
LG, all of your rhetoric in support of President Obama does NOT change the fact that his administration, especially Arne Duncan, is corrupting the public schools system. If he’s do dedicated then he needs to stop the nonsense his administration is promoting. Who’s in charge, him or Duncan? He can change the destruction that the reformers such as Michele Rhee, Stephen Pryor and Paul Vallas by coming out and saying we need to do away with the privatization effort and reward “creativity” in inspiring children to learn. Defending him does not stop what’s going on now. Why don’t YOU educate him as to what’s going on with the union breaking such as in Wisconsin and the standardized tests being forced on inner-city public school children. If you are correct in the notion that this is not his intent, then he will do something about it. If he is as disengenuos as he seems to be at the moment, then this destruction will continue in the name of education reform because he won’t do anything about it. It needs to be stopped now. We won’t have two years to undo the damage that is already being done to our children.
Mitchy, nothing happens overnight. There are factions that can influence the president, but I believe they are waiting for him to be in a position to change policies without public outcry, vis-vis, “no re-election.”
Duncan must go, I have said it in another post here on this page, but the reality is, the matters of politics are delicate ones. You cannot just change the public perception that was created by the powerful who control the message. Obama has shown that his support for charter schools is only for the inner cities. He has not made any remarks that would indicate that privatization of all schools is on his political agenda. Therefore, I do not believe Obama is in complete support of charter schools across-the-board. He has never said that he wants to privatize every school in America. That is simply not true, and it would be unfortunate if any educator in America believes this, speaking of rhetoric.
And to be fair, charter schools CAN be run effectively with hybrid models that allow for educators to be trained and certified and given rights to negotiate terms for employment. A great many have failed. THIS is not public knowledge, but I do not blame the president for that. I blame the media for not exploring these failures. It seems that those in positions of money and power are doing their level best to keep that information out of the public eye since they answer to the money-holders. I’d be willing to bet that Obama knows this, as well. He knows what he is up against.
The sky is not falling in regard to Obama–he is trying to please everyone as he always does. I believe you will see a completely different man if he gets re-elected…more of the one who campaigned for president in 2008.
The thing you and pretty much all of America seem to be forgetting is that there are checks and balances in all aspects and at all levels of government. It’s easy to simplify issues by putting them on the backs of the president, and education is one such issue. States have far more power to “damage our children” than one president. This is a complicated issue, as are most that face our country. He is not poised to do either damaging acts or constructive ones without accomplices. Why not be an accomplice for the constructive acts? Get involved–he is a far better choice for president than other offerings since he supports educators while the other candidate(s) only vilify them.
Once again, I do agree that Duncan must go, but as I stated before, change does not happen overnight. Obama needs to be educated on the issues, just like every other politician who is not in bed with ALEC.
LG, your argument echos what I’ve been saying for some time: since education is (for now) in the public sphere, it is part of the political process. In that process, values, ideas, and ideologies matter. For the moment, the “other side” (which is a pretty diverse group, considering) has the advantage in framing public education as a bloated bureaucracy which has failed our children. There are enough bad examples, unfortunately, to lend credence to that. To change the policy, we must also change the political discourse, and that means engaging in the battle over ideas and reaching out to more Americans with reminders about the value and importance of truly public education.
I have been frustrated with the Obama Administration’s education policy, and I can’t say how much of it can be laid directly at the feet of Sec. Duncan. What is clear, however, is that a gap has opened up between what the President believes and wants to encourage and the real impact of Federal policy at the local level. Moreover, they are providing ammunition to those who want to “get government out of our schools” – a surprisingly poor read of the political situation. But while the presidency may be a “bully pulpit,” the fight has and will take place in state capitols and local districts. That’s why changing political discourse is so important, since we need broad-based support for truly public education.
Well said on all accounts. We need to get involved whether we want to or not.
I don’t think Obama is the second coming, but he supports the rights of working teachers which is more than I can say for the opposing candidate. I think, in time, Obama can come around, but for now, he is playing politics to keep his opponents at bay. He is also knee-deep in the education issues of inner cities. It is irresponsible for anyone, Obama included, to think that the issues in those communities are the same in all communities. It is also irresponsible to believe that those communities should be ignored by those who are not served by them.
It is absolutely true that states and local governments have most of the power. Yet, we all need to be vigilant about what happens in all districts. If we turn a blind eye to the inner cities, we are part of the problem–we are in this together. The structure of a society is only as strong as its weakest portion. The issues are not as simple as they have been made out to be by political rhetoric–this is what a lot of people do not understand.
If Obama is elected for a second term, you better believe that he will be inundated with petitions by teachers from everywhere. I still believe in the process, and I do have hope that he can and will listen to us. I believe his hands are tied politically in a lot of areas. In case people in education haven’t noticed, a large percentage of the general public tends to believe the rhetoric that all American schools are failing. I think he’s playing politics to bide his time–at least I hope so.
1. Obama chose Duncan.
2. Duncan has zero experience teaching.
3. Duncan is therefore not qualified to be the Secretary of DOE.
4. Obama chose an unqualified candidate, therefore Obama’s qualifications are questioned.
5. Obama is not a friend of public education despite your protestations to the contrary.
6, Obama does not get my vote, plain and simple, not only for the above mentioned reasons but also for not prosecuting Bush et al for war crimes, for Obama continuing the same war crimes and adding more, for being less transparent than the prior regime, etc. . . . Way too many to list here.
Agreed that Duncan was a bad choice. However, putting managers in charge of schools is a trend in education that is not going to go away anytime soon. I chalk it up to…once again…politics.
“Managers as saviors in public education” is not a new idea. I have two supervisors that have less combined experience in the classroom than I have, and a superintendent who was a business man before he became a teacher for the minimum amount of years. He moved right up through the ranks to the top positions in three school districts before coming to ours.
The best managers are those who respect and consult their greatest resource: the teaching staff. Unfortunately, Duncan has an agenda to “fix” inner city schools that leaves the true educators out of it. Obama himself needs to be educated about why most aspects of that agenda are bad for education. I think Obama can be shown the light better than any other candidate out there. I’d give the guy a chance to make the “change” he advertised. He is not in a position to do so as long as he’s opposed by the extreme right. A man in his second term can make the policy changes that are not necessarily popular with the masses. I do not believe you can say with certainty that the masses are in support of the current education system as we have it now, and Obama knows it. Like I said, he is playing the politics game, no question.
Who would you have be the next president? Mitt Romney? Politics is a delicate game…I think there is a chance to turn things around. Obama’s done that before.
Besides the replacement of Duncan, I would like to see congress and Obama take to task the Wall St. finance officers who made so many bad choices that our economy tanked. Those were among the worst “crimes” in our country’s history.
Sorry for my typos, I’m on a very short break and wanted to respond before I couldn’t get back to the site.
I main concern main concern when it comes to statistics is that we are comparing apples to oranges when it comes to US schools and the rest of the world. We are one of the only nations that educates all children, disabled and nondisabled. We are also required to include all students in state testing.
I understand that many countries students are tested and separated when they go into high school by college prep or trade school. In Japan the stress on students has driven them to suicide if they fail to get into the college track.
Do we want this for our students? As a special education teacher in one of the best school districts in my state I have a hard time pushing college as a goal for every student. We need mechanics, hair dressers, sanitaion workers, construction workers, and many others to keep our economy going. These jobs are seen as less important and undesirable. Many are will to go jobless then to serve fast food or any number of ‘unskilled’ jobs.
This I believe is our greatest problem and why the are so many illegal aliens that are able to find work here even though we had an unemployment rate around 8% currently.
You hit it on the nose, Jolene. I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing the phrase “American schools are failing,” when I know better. The majority of American schools are succeeding despite all the attempts at sabotage they have endured, but statistics can be skewed to say anything a person wants them to. It’s a trend in the country to blame the schools for any common failure. This will continue until we take steps to reverse it.
I think it’s our job as educators and supporters of education to get the right message out. It falls on us to educate the public about education. The big problem is…who trusts us anymore? I think we need to reach out to third party advocates who are influential enough to get the word out. Apples and oranges, while categorized as fruit, taste very, very different.