Archives for the year of: 2013

As the politicians and bureaucrats debate how to recalibrate their ideas about reforming the nation’s schools, it’s a good time to read what a teacher wrote about what Washington is doing to them. Maybe some thoughtful person could enter this into the record of the NCLB hearings. Is there no one in Congress who hears the voices of educators? Why don’t they invite real teachers, real principals, and real superintendents to testify instead of DC think tanks and state commissioners?

Heather wrote the following:

I am a teacher because of the love I had for school. I loved my teachers. I loved having fun while learning. I loved the interaction with my peers. I felt safe and successful at school…even when I made mistakes.

Politics and non-educators have changed our schools. They have turned them into businesses focused only on numbers and status. They have taken away the human component. Instead of teachers focusing on the well-being of the children, we have teachers forced to shove massive amounts of information down the throats of children who actually need love and nurturing. They have taken away the time to incorporate fun that kids need in order to develop a love for learning. Instead of doing all we can for our kids, we are told not to touch them…They are children. They need hugs and pats on the back. They need to know that it is okay to show affection and that there is an appropriate way to show it.

The kids aren’t the only ones affected by the decisions of these people who have never stepped into a classroom. The teachers are being stifled. They are feeling that their only purpose is to cram as much information into these children as possible. The teachers are beginning to crack under the pressure. They are criticized and made to feel that their opinions and professional knowledge are worth nothing.

These non-educators should step into a classroom. They would see the child who dominates the class time with their rude insolent behavior. They would see the child who crawls on the floor and cowers in the coat cubbies. They would see the kids who come in without breakfast or clean clothes. They would see the kids who crave attention and stand as close to the teacher as possible. They would see the tears and anxiety as the teacher plows through lessons.

Then let’s have these “experts” visit with parents who do not have a moment to spend with their kids but feel that it is all the teacher’s fault when their child misbehaves or earns poor grades. They should see the disrespectful manner in which some parents speak to the teachers…and that the teachers are instructed to “just take it”.

The paperwork and class interruptions should be the next on their list of observations. They should see that while there is a planning time it is often taken away due to parent meetings,team meetings,assemblies,and paperwork.

They should stay with the teachers until the teachers have completely stopped working for the day. This would involve them heading home with the teacher and managing a household while continuing their work for school.

Maybe after a visit with the kids and teachers, they would see that they have it all wrong. Schools are not all about numbers…schools are for the heart of the kids. Schools are meant to instill a love of learning that will last for life.

Until this happens, I fear that our schools will continue their journey of dehumanization.

A reader shares her experience grading tests.

I am not a teacher, but I admire them. I attended public schools in CA in the 1950s. Our class size was around the 20’s. We were integrated. We did fine. I am absolutely opposed to standardized tests. I used to grade the old TX TAAS tests. I heard the comments about “Ghetto children.” I’ve worked for 2 testing companies and they cheat like Lance Armstrong. No randomized sample selection, they falsify data, they increase one portion of the data (minority data) without increasing the whole sample size. And, no one monitors them. They are accountable to no one. No one checks their data or their test results. These are the tests you are teaching to. These are the tests they are closing schools for. These are the tests they are eliminating Arts programs for. (pls. pardon my hanging preps)

No child Left Behind is without question the most destructive, the most intrusive, and the most misguided federal education legislation in history.

It has undermined federalism and put the federal government in charge of very public school in the nation, a role unimagined when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed in 1965 or when the Department of Education was created in 1965.

It has usurped the role of state and local authorities.

It has made standardized testing the be-all and end-all of education.

It has labeled children, teachers, principals and schools by test scores.

It has been responsible for the closing of schools whose “crime” was that they enrolled to many students with low scores.

Yet at Congressional hearings, none of these issues were raised. Instead, friends of tough accountability demanded more NCLB, please. More accountability, please. More of what’s harming children, please.

Who elected these people? To whom do they listen?

DWC High: How A School Can Teach Us All (Trailer)

This is a preview of a new hour-long documentary about the fight to keep New York’s DeWitt Clinton High School alive. Based in the Bronx, home of the NY Yankees, “The Bronx Bombers” It has educated more than 200,000 students over a hundred years. It is now being faced with plans by “Educational Reformers” to scale it back in a threat to it’s tradition of excellence. Help us get the word out. See our Facebook page, Facebook.com/dwcfilm for how you can order and help distribute the whole film by Clinton grad Danny Schechter “The News Dissector.” Help us save DeWitt Clinton and public education.

Texas Republicans are hearing from their constituents–in the grocery store, at the barber, wherever they go.

People think that testing in Texas is out of control.

The last state commissioner Robert Scott said so. He called the testing obsession a “vampire,” sucking the life out of education.

More than 80% of local school boards agree.

Elected officials have to listen.

They cut $5.4 billion from the school budget but managed to find $500 million to pay Pearson.

Superintendents are sick of it. School boards are sick of it. Parents are fed up. Students hate it.

Put a stake through the heart of the vampire.

Why do we have public schools? Would we be better off, as certain reformers now think, if everyone had school choice and went to a charter or used a voucher to go to a private or religious school?

Do we need public schools?

I asked Carol Burris, principal of South Side High School in Rockville Center, New York, how she would answer these questions.

How would you answer?

This is what Carol wrote:

“When I think of the purpose of public schooling I always think of Dewey’s famous phrase that is stenciled into the entrance wall of Teacher’s College ““Schools are the fundamental method of social progress and reform” (Dewey,1897). I believe that these words are as true today as when they were first included in John Dewey’s “Pedagogic Creed” .

“There is a compact that exists between a community and its public school. It is a promise that the school will teach every child that passes through its doors—poor children, affluent children, children with disabilities and children who show great academic promise. The common public school is required to teach the easy to teach and the difficult to teach. The common public school is there for the student with strong parent advocates and for the child who is, for all practical purposes, alone.

“Most important of all, it is where such children meet and sit side by side in classrooms, on bleachers and in cafeterias. They learn from each other as surely as they learn from their teacher. That social learning is also what gives rise to the promise of social progress and social reform.

“I attended a private high school where I met children who looked like me, thought like me and prayed liked me. It was a good school, but I did not have as rich an experience as the public school students who attend my school. There were no students with substantial learning disabilities in my high school. It was a test-in school so no one struggled with academics. Only two of the students who attended were Black, and none of the students were poor. There was learning that I missed during my teenage years. I am glad we sent our daughters to public school.

“Charters and privates are not designed to serve all students—they are designed to serve students who are more like each other than not. Although there may be some diversity, those who are truly different either never apply, are never accepted or are counseled out. . One has to only look at New York City Schools, which are becoming more segregated and stratified by income than ever before, to understand the outcome of charters, selection policies and choice.

“We can take the easy road that leads to improvement for some kids at the expense of others, or the more difficult road that will improve education for all kids. Without vibrant, supported public schools, the second option does not have a chance.”

Carol

On January 20, I published a post by a teacher who asked about how to deal with the heterogeneity of the student population. She said that charters appealed to parents who wanted less heterogeneity.
Here is an excerpt:
“We complain that charters are skimming the top, we have to take all comers and we can’t cherrypick; we can’t dump the least school ready students. We wear it as a badge of honor; we’re a force for egalitarian education for all. We’re a place where all children come together to learn. Well, that’s great.”BUT… a parent who wants to limit negative influences or increase challenge of instruction may not care about the general mission if the impact of that mission upon their child is negative. I’m not sure we can stem the tide of charters when we use middle class children as social equalizers and consider the annual limitation upon their achievement and growth as an acceptable loss. That’s an insufficient mission. This makes public school less desirable for parents who have prepared, able children.”

I sent a copy of the post to Jeannie Oakes, who is one of the nation’s leading experts on the subject of tracking, and I asked her to comment.

Here is her response.

Diane,
 
I’d like to weigh in on the post laying out concerns about the relationship between heterogeneous grouping and the appeal of charter schools to parents of high achievers.   In particular, I was struck by two points the poster made:
 
One, he/she identifies a key source of resistance to heterogeneous grouping:
 
“BUT… a parent who wants to limit negative influences or increase challenge of instruction may not care about the general mission if the impact of that mission upon their child is negative.”
 
Then, later, he/she identifies students who benefit from heterogeneous or homogeneous grouping, based on his or her personal experiences and reading:
 
“However, it is also my experience that the lowest skill level student makes no progress in a heterogeneous setting and would benefit more from a homogeneous, small class with more focused and direct instruction. It is my experience that the middle top and top does not receive academic benefit from heterogeneous instruction. I don’t know of any study of heterogeneous grouping that shows a positive academic impact on above average students.”
 
In fact, studies do show benefits of heterogeneity for all “levels” of students, as many high-quality reviews of the literature conclude. But this is not to say that simply mixing up students in a class will work well; neither will experimenting with one or a few heterogeneous classes in an whole-school environment that is otherwise heavily tracked.  Many studies showing “no benefits” have looked only at students in single classes or over limited time or without accounting for important instructional, learning, and school climate variables. Furthermore, unsuccessful attempts to achieve heterogeneity or “de-tracking” do not necessarily reflect on teachers’ competence, work ethic, or good will; but successful detracking does require training, resources, and a network of supports. One study, for example, examined practices and outcomes at a network of “Talent Development” middle and senior high schools in urban Philadelphia. These schools offered a rich, academic curriculum (such as great literature), provided ample opportunities for students to assist one another, and used authentic assessments in heterogeneous classrooms. Their middle-school students showed significantly higher achievement gains than did tracked students in comparable “control” schools with lowest- and highest-performing students making considerable gains.
 
However, the conflicts over tracking and heterogeneous grouping involve more than straightforward/empirical determinations of the “best” or most efficient way to conduct schooling. In this sense the contentious arguments  bear some similarity to other current social issues that reflect broader views of what constitutes a good society (gun violence; climate change; income gaps; and a long list of equity challenges—racial, gender, disability, sexual orientation, age; and others come to mind.) Each of these disputes has aspects that are normative (involving culture, beliefs, and values,) technical (best practices and laws,) and political (the power to impose or preserve practices.) Unless all three dimensions—norms, practices, and politics—are exposed and addressed in our civic discourse, we won’t see much fundamental improvement (a “better,” more caring populace; practical, efficacious school practices that promote achievement; and a more democratic and just society.)
 
The post suggests a conflict between a “general mission” and benefits to parents’ own children—perhaps seeing the two as incompatible. Another perspective, one that I hold, is that everybody loses if the common good is neglected in the pursuit of individual gain; and widespread scholarship supports, even if it doesn’t “prove,” this perspective. Still, as with other great issues of our time, data (however important) do not provide clear pathways through the fog of conflicting norms and power arrangements. Data do not produce the will to enact gun controls; empirical evidence does not settle citizenship options for immigrants; popular sentiments (even elections) are slow to ensure civil liberties. Yet data are crucial and must not be dismissed because of false equivalences; for example, saying that because data “exist” on both sides, both sides are equally reliable and therefore one, the other, or neither conclusion has value. More to the point, arguments for or against heterogeneous classes cannot be decided simply on the basis of which one wins the race for highest standardized test scores.
 
So we have no easy answers for parents who are eager to negotiate, through tracking, some perceived advantage for their children: many people believe that that’s a parent’s job. It’s not for us to tell a parent to reject a rare better schooling option in favor of a lesser one. But all are diminished by systems that force us into making such choices. Further, we can hardly fault teachers who work very hard at becoming accomplished at what the school wants them to do.  But we’d ask those teachers and parents to consider that they can both do their very best within the system and work to change the system.  Finally, as with all contested aspects of social life, our advice is to identify your own and others’ deeply held values and beliefs and decide where you want to go with them, determine who has power and who benefits from its use, and then as Eleanor Roosevelt said many years ago, “You must do the thing you think you cannot do.”
 
Regards,
 
Jeannie
 
Jeannie Oakes, Presidential Professor Emerita, UCLA

Thank you for reading the blog.

Thank you for joining what must surely be the liveliest discussion about education issues anywhere on the Web.

I did not know how this blog would evolve when I started it on April 26 last year. Since then, it has had more than 2.7 million page views. So I know it meets a need for a place that welcomes candid exchanges about the issues that concern us all.

This is an unusual platform. It is a place where the voices of educators, parents, and students get a full hearing. It is a place where those who exhibit unusual courage on behalf of public education and freedom of expression are honored. It is a place for the candid exchange of ideas.

I want to share a few thoughts.

Some bloggers post once or twice a week. I post anywhere from six to twenty times every single day.

In other words, I work very hard to provide you with information and discussion from all parts of the nation–and occasionally from other nations as well.

And I expect a lot from you. You get lots of posts from me every day. Some people don’t like that. They have a right not to like it, and if they don’t want all that information they should not subscribe. No one is compelled to read here. You have freedom of choice to stay or go.

I also count on you to correct any errors I make. Sometimes I forget to add the link. A few times I have posted without the title. Sometimes I make typos. You help me by pointing out my errors so I can fix them.

I don’t have all the answers. I often turn to you to get your thoughts. I lean on you for your knowledge. I respect your experience as teachers, students, administrators, parents, and school board members. If we put our heads together, if we listen to one another, if we learn from one another, we can move forward. I believe we are having a national impact. Some posts from this blog have been quoted in the national press.

Because I respect your views and want to hear them, because we need a space to share our ideas, I take offense when people use the comment section to behave in a rude and uncivil manner. I won’t permit it. I also won’t permit anyone to ride a hobbyhorse and bash teachers or any other group. There is unlimited space on the blog for disagreement, but not for prejudice and bile..

Sometimes people ask me how I get so much information from districts across the nation. The short answer is that I depend on the kindness of strangers. Readers send me clippings from their local and state media. I don’t post everything I get but I try to share what I find interesting. And I frequently post your comments. If you sign your name, I include it. If you don’t, then I reprint your words without your name. I understand why many people–especially educators–need anonymity in a time when dissent is not welcome.

Sometimes I get guest posts, and I share them with you.

As I have pointed out in the past, I am the sole moderator of the comments. I read them all. The only ones I block are those that contain obscenities; those that insult me personally (sorry, it’s my space); and those that go on a rant about how Newtown never happened or 9/11 was a U.S. government plot or other nutty themes. I believe in freedom of speech, but I have my limits. This is my living room, and I don’t want rude, uncivil people to dominate the conversation or to insult the host.

This is a site to discuss better education for all. It is a conversation. I thank you for joining the conversation and making it a place where the voices of parents, students, and educators are welcomed with respect.

Let me know what you think. My goal is to let you know you have allies in our shared vision for better education for all. My goal is to provide a forum where we can figure out how to survive the deluge of misguided reforms that are overwhelming our schools. My goal is to support those who are doing the work of society by educating children. My goal is to give you a realistic picture of where we are, what is happening, and why we must continue to work for real change.

I believe that good sense and good ideas will eventually prevail so long as we work together and demonstrate courage on behalf of what’s right, not what’s demanded or imposed by higher powers.

We are everywhere.

Diane

Glenda Ritz, the new State Superintendent of Public Instruction in Indiana, thrashed reform idol Tony Bennett last November. She received more votes than anyone else on the ballot except the Attorney General (she ran ahead of the governor).

Tony Bennett, who famously supports free-market solutions to education problems, is an advocate for charters and vouchers, for evaluating teachers by test scores, and for for-profit online corporations and charters. Tony Bennett is one of the nation’s loudest supporters of the Common Core.

Ritz is a Democrat; Bennett is a Republican.

Ritz was supported by a curious coalition: by parents and educators who disliked Bennett’s privatizing policies and his punitive treatment of teachers. She was also supported by Tea Party enthusiasts who dislike national standards and saw the Common Core as an effort by the federal government to impose national standards and tests.

Some Republican legislators in Indiana want to withdraw the state’s support for Common Core. Now they will have a state superintendent who agrees with them.

The politics of the Common Core are interesting indeed. And they will become even more interesting in the next few years as states are required to come up with the money for implementation, new technology, new materials, and professional development.

The Village Voice has a fascinating article about the battle between the charter schools that moved into the gentrifying neighborhood of Williamsburg in Brooklyn and the parents who resisted.

The “Superman” story goes out the window. The schools are not broken, and parents are not crying out to be “saved” by Eva Moskowitz and her husband, each of whom has their own charter.

The narrative of “Won’t Back Down” is turned upside-down, because in this case it is the parents trying to save their neighborhood public school who won’t back down.

And the tabloids claim that the unions-must-be-behind-it-all doesn’t explain why parents are up in arms.

This is a fresh take on a story that matters in cities across the nation.