Archives for the month of: January, 2014

Errol Louis is one sharp journalist. He is a newscaster for NY1, the city’s local all-news TV station. I have benn interviewed by him a few times and have always been impressed by his insight.

In this article, he explains how dumb merit pay is.

He notes that Governor Cuomo has proposed a $20,000 bonus for the state’s “highly effective” teachers. He didn’t say how he would pay for it. Maybe he would increase class size, lay off teachers, eliminate the arts.

Maybe no one told him that 50% of the state’s teachers were rated “highly effective.” That’s millions and millions of dollars.

Louis quotes Roland Fryer of Harvard, an economist who reviewed New York City’s failed merit pay plan.

Fryer says:

“I find no evidence that teacher incentives increase student performance, attendance or graduation, nor do I find any evidence that the incentives change student or teacher behavior,” Fryer wrote. “If anything, teacher incentives may decrease student achievement, especially in larger schools.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/education-reform-merit-article-1.1581217#ixzz2qikqOSoR

The indefinite suspension (firing) of five principals in Newark–who spoke out against the closure of their schools– by Chris Christie’s appointee Cami Anderson is going viral! Time for an anti-bullying program in New Jersey.

Jersey Jazzman shows in this post that the bullying agenda of Governor Chris Christie is advancing in many New Jersey towns, but it is no longer hidden.

Veteran journalist exposed it, I used Bob Braun’s expert reporting on the national “The Ed Show” on MSNBC, and the fight is on for the future of public education is on in New Jersey. Legislators from affected cities in NJ have introduced a proposal requiring that school closings have not only state, but local, approval. Call it the reverse-ALEC bill, since ALEC pushes legislation to override local control regarding school closings, charter schools, and privatization.

One other amazing fact: the NJ agenda of school closings and charterizing was underwritten by the ELI Broad Foundation in Los Angeles. The Broad money went to NJ with one restriction: it is contingent on Chris Christie remaining as governor. The bully foundation supporting the bully governor.

A reader sent this full expression of Dr. King’s vision of the best kind of extremism:

“The quotation, as presented, is quite truncated. Here are Dr. King’s full words:

” So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary’s hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime–the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.”

David Berliner has designed a provocative thought experiment.

He offers you State A and State B.

He describes salient differences between them.

Can you predict which state has high-performing schools and which state has low-performing schools?

The Roots of Academic Achievement
David C. Berliner
Regents’ Professor Emeritus
Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College
Arizona State University

Let’s do a thought experiment. I will slowly parcel out data about two different states. Eventually, when you are nearly 100% certain of your choice, I want you to choose between them by identifying the state in which an average child is likely to be achieving better in school. But you have to be nearly 100% certain that you can make that choice.

To check the accuracy of your choice I will use the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as the measure of school achievement. It is considered by experts to be the best indicator we have to determine how children in our nation are doing in reading and mathematics, and both states take this test.

Let’s start. In State A the percent of three and four year old children attending a state associated prekindergarten is 8.8% while in State B the percent is 1.7%. With these data think about where students might be doing better in 4th and 8th grade, the grades NAEP evaluates student progress in all our states. I imagine that most people will hold onto this information about preschool for a while and not yet want to choose one state over the other. A cautious person might rightly say it is too soon to make such a prediction based on a difference of this size, on a variable that has modest, though real effects on later school success.

So let me add more information to consider. In State A the percent of children living in poverty is 14% while in State B the percent is 24%. Got a prediction yet? See a trend? How about this related statistic: In State A the percent of households with food insecurity is 11.4% while in State B the percent is 14.9%. I also can inform you also that in State A the percent of people without health insurance is 3.8% while in State B the percent is 17.7%. Are you getting the picture? Are you ready to pick one state over another in terms of the likelihood that one state has its average student scoring higher on the NAEP achievement tests than the other?

​If you still say that this is not enough data to make yourself almost 100% sure of your pick, let me add more to help you. In State A the per capita personal income is $54,687 while in state B the per capita personal income is $35,979. Since per capita personal income in the country is now at about $42,693, we see that state A is considerably above the national average and State B is considerably below the national average. Still not ready to choose a state where kids might be doing better in school?

Alright, if you are still cautious in expressing your opinions, here is some more to think about. In State A the per capita spending on education is $2,764 while in State B the per capita spending on education is $2,095, about 25% less. Enough? Ready to choose now?
Maybe you should also examine some statistics related to the expenditure data, namely, that the pupil/teacher ratio (not the class sizes) in State A is 14.5 to one, while in State B it is 19.8 to one.

As you might now suspect, class size differences also occur in the two states. At the elementary and the secondary level, respectively, the class sizes for State A average 18.7 and 20.6. For State B those class sizes at elementary and secondary are 23.5 and 25.6, respectively. State B, therefore, averages at least 20% higher in the number of students per classroom. Ready now to pick the higher achieving state with near 100% certainty? If not, maybe a little more data will make you as sure as I am of my prediction.

​In State A the percent of those who are 25 years of age or older with bachelors degrees is 38.7% while in State B that percent is 26.4%. Furthermore, the two states have just about the same size population. But State A has 370 public libraries and State B has 89.
Let me try to tip the data scales for what I imagine are only a few people who are reluctant to make a prediction. The percent of teachers with Master degrees is 62% in State A and 41.6% in State B. And, the average public school teacher salary in the time period 2010-2012 was $72,000 in State A and $46,358 in State B. Moreover, during the time period from the academic year 1999-2000 to the academic year 2011-2012 the percent change in average teacher salaries in the public schools was +15% in State A. Over that same time period, in State B public school teacher salaries dropped -1.8%.

I will assume by now we almost all have reached the opinion that children in state A are far more likely to perform better on the NAEP tests than will children in State B. Everything we know about the ways we structure the societies we live in, and how those structures affect school achievement, suggests that State A will have higher achieving students. In addition, I will further assume that if you don’t think that State A is more likely to have higher performing students than State B you are a really difficult and very peculiar person. You should seek help!

So, for the majority of us, it should come as no surprise that in the 2013 data set on the 4th grade NAEP mathematics test State A was the highest performing state in the nation (tied with two others). And it had 16 percent of its children scoring at the Advanced level—the highest level of mathematics achievement. State B’s score was behind 32 other states, and it had only 7% of its students scoring at the Advanced level. The two states were even further apart on the 8th grade mathematics test, with State A the highest scoring state in the nation, by far, and with State B lagging behind 35 other states.

Similarly, it now should come as no surprise that State A was number 1 in the nation in the 4th grade reading test, although tied with 2 others. State A also had 14% of its students scoring at the advanced level, the highest rate in the nation. Students in State B scored behind 44 other states and only 5% of its students scored at the Advanced level. The 8th grade reading data was the same: State A walloped State B!

States A and B really exist. State B is my home state of Arizona, which obviously cares not to have its children achieve as well as do those in state A. It’s poor achievement is by design. Proof of that is not hard to find. We just learned that 6000 phone calls reporting child abuse to the state were uninvestigated. Ignored and buried! Such callous disregard for the safety of our children can only occur in an environment that fosters, and then condones a lack of concern for the children of the Arizona, perhaps because they are often poor and often minorities. Arizona, given the data we have, apparently does not choose to take care of its children. The agency with the express directive of insuring the welfare of children may need 350 more investigators of child abuse. But the governor and the majority of our legislature is currently against increased funding for that agency.

State A, where kids do a lot better, is Massachusetts. It is generally a progressive state in politics. To me, Massachusetts, with all its warts, resembles Northern European countries like Sweden, Finland, and Denmark more than it does states like Alabama, Mississippi or Arizona. According to UNESCO data and epidemiological studies it is the progressive societies like those in Northern Europe and Massachusetts that care much better for their children. On average, in comparisons with other wealthy nations, the U. S. turns out not to take good care of its children. With few exceptions, our politicians appear less likely to kiss our babies and more likely to hang out with individuals and corporations that won’t pay the taxes needed to care for our children, thereby insuring that our schools will not function well.

But enough political commentary: Here is the most important part of this thought experiment for those who care about education. Everyone of you who predicted that Massachusetts would out perform Arizona did so without knowing anything about the unions’ roles in the two states, the curriculum used by the schools, the quality of the instruction, the quality of the leadership of the schools, and so forth. You made your prediction about achievement without recourse to any of the variables the anti-public school forces love to shout about –incompetent teachers, a dumbed down curriculum, coddling of students, not enough discipline, not enough homework, and so forth. From a few variables about life in two different states you were able to predict differences in student achievement test scores quite accurately.

I believe it is time for the President, the Secretary of Education, and many in the press to get off the backs of educators and focus their anger on those who will not support societies in which families and children can flourish. Massachusetts still has many problems to face and overcome—but they are nowhere as severe as those in my home state and a dozen other states that will not support programs for neighborhoods, families, and children to thrive.

This little thought experiment also suggests also that a caution for Massachusetts is in order. It seems to me that despite all their bragging about their fine performance on international tests and NAEP tests, it’s not likely that Massachusetts’ teachers, or their curriculum, or their assessments are the basis of their outstanding achievements in reading and mathematics. It is much more likely that Massachusetts is a high performing state because it has chosen to take better care of its citizens than do those of us living in other states. The roots of high achievement on standardized tests is less likely to be found in the classrooms of Massachusetts and more likely to be discovered in its neighborhoods and families, a refection of the prevailing economic health of the community served by the schools of that state.

Maureen Reedy taught in public school in Ohio for 29 years. She ran in 2012 for the state legislature and narrowly lost. She continues to be a leader in the fight against destructive privatization and excessive high-stakes testing.

She writes:

New Year’s Resolutions For Public Education:

First of all, Kudo’s to Ohio’s Plunderbund investigative journalist, Greg Mild, public school teacher, for his multi-article series exposing the shell games of ECOT’s 100 million dollar salary earning CEO, who only graduates 35% of his students, William Lager. Greg is brilliant!

On to New Year’s Resolutions:

Wouldn’t it be great if tens of thousands of educators, parents and other concerned community members made it their New Year’s resolution to join or start their local, grassroots Public Education group?

That is what IS turning the tide, that is what will ultimately preserve and protect our children, their futures, public education and our teaching profession for this generation and generations to come.

Yes, it would be great to have advocates for public education in Ohio’s State House, as Chiara Duggan suggests in previous comment here.

But, it is tough to get in, because the big money, corporate, for-profit, shell game charter operators are the largest contributors to the GOP. The GOP controls our state legislatures by gerrymandering district lines drastically in favor of candidates for the legislature that will craft laws straight out of the ALEC playbook which funnel our tax dollars to crooked charter school operators like William Lager of ECOT.

As 1 of the 12 public school teachers who ran for the Ohio House of Representatives last cycle, I can personally vouch for the great lengths ECOT founder, William Lager, White Hat founder, David Brennan, Michelle Rhee and other for-profit charter CEOs went to keep teachers OUT of Ohio’s State House.

We ran for the Ohio House, some of us, taking personal leave and giving up a year’s salary, to become advocates and a collective voice, for our children, public education, and our teaching profession.

ECOT’s William Lager, White Hat’s David Brennan, StudentsFirst(Last) Michelle Rhee and the GOP spent 1.5 million dollars in the last 2 weeks of the race against just my campaign, I do not have the total $ spent against all 12 teachers, but rest assured, it is in the millions.

So, what to do? Is all lost?
Do we lose our resolve to restore resources, authenticity and integrity to our public schools, the bedrock of our communities and our democracy?

NO!

Here is what I am convinced will turn the tide… along with following the incredible work being done day in and day out by Diane, Anthony Cody, Greg Mild of Plunderbund, and other bloggers across the country who are giving us resources and ammunition as warriors and patriots for Public Education:

• Join your local grassroots organization for preserving and strengthening our Public Schools, if there isn’t an organization in your area, start one.

• In Ohio, there are 3 active non-partisan groups of engaged community members, planning community wide forums and other action steps to educate the public and expose the for-profit (or non-profit, managed by for-profit) charter scam as well as the dangers of high stakes testing, A – F ranking of schools, evaluating teachers by test scores, etc. There are hundreds of other such groups across the country, you can find them on Diane and Anthony Cody’s Network for Public Education website:http://www.networkforpubliceducation.org/

• Here are the Face Book links to Ohio groups:

Central Ohio Friends of Public Education:https://www.facebook.com/COFPE

Northwest Ohio Friends of Public Education:https://www.facebook.com/NWOFPE

• Join the Diane and Anthony’s Network For Public Education, make a weekly donation of $5 to support candidates for school boards across the country who will fight for public education:http://www.networkforpubliceducation.org/

Wouldn’t it be great if tens of thousands of educators, parents and other concerned community members made it their New Year’s resolution to join or start their local, grassroots Public Education group?

That is what IS turning the tide, that is what will ultimately preserve and protect our children, their futures, public education and our teaching profession for this generation and generations to come.

This is a true story.

A mother who lives in Iowa wrote her Senator to complain about her daughter’s terrible experience in Teach for America. Her Senator is Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate Committee responsible for education. The Senator sent her a response which she found unsatisfactory. She sent the Senator”s letter to me, and I asked Dr. Julian Vasquez Heilig of the University of Texas to review the accuracy of the letter.
So, first comes the letter sent by Senator Harkin, then Dr. Heilig’s critique:

Mrs. XXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXX, IA
Dear XXXXXX:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I always welcome the opportunity to hear from my fellow Iowans.
Let me first apologize for the extreme delay in responding to your concerns. As you can imagine, I receive a tremendous amount of mail, and on this occasion a processing error let to a number of letters being misdirected. For that, I sincerely apologize. Now, let me turn to the concerns you raised in your letter.
I was deeply sorry to hear about your daughter’s disappointing experience with Teach for America (TFA). Although TFA includes five weeks of rigorous training to prepare program participants for difficult and challenging placements, it would appear from your description of XXXX’s experience that her training was inadequate and the on-site support services in the New York region lacking.
Notwithstanding XXXXX’s unfortunate outcome, I have supported this program over the years as a model to address persistent socioeconomic achievement gaps in public education by recruiting highly qualified, dedicated recent graduates to teach in disadvantaged, low-income urban and rural districts. It has been my experience that the vast majority of TFA participants conclude their rotation positively, gain valuable teaching skills, and make a lasting impact on the students they teach. Indeed, recent public surveys indicate that nearly two-thirds of TFA participants remain as public school teachers beyond the two year commitment, and after five years nearly 15 percent remain at the same low-income school in which they began.
Despite this, I find it invaluable to hear feedback from constituents who have had first-hand experience with federally-supported programs like TFA. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) and Chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds education initiatives like TFA, please know that I will remember XXXXX’s criticisms and suggestions when I consider future legislation or budget items related to this program.
Again, thank you for writing to me. I hope that XXXXX’s experience with TFA does not dull her passion for public service and civic engagement. Please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future about any issue that concerns you.

Sincerely,

Tom Harkin
United States Senator

Now what follows is the letter that Dr. Julian Vasquez Heilig wrote, paraphrasing Tom Harkin’s constituent letter:

@ProfessorJVH on Assignment: Rewriting Tom Harkin’s Constituent Letter

Dear Constituent,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I always welcome the opportunity to hear from my fellow Iowans. Let me first apologize for the extreme delay in responding to your concerns. Honestly, I have been really busy here in D.C. To understand how busy I am, I refer you to an article by Stephanie Simon at Politico

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the education appropriations subcommittee, led the push to use the bill reopening government and lifting the debt ceiling as a vehicle for renewing a provision that defines teachers still in training as “highly qualified” under federal law.

The renewal was opposed by a coalition of nearly 100 civil rights, union and educator associations. Members said they were stunned to see it in the budget bill, especially given that Congress has not yet received data it requested last year analyzing whether the novice teachers are disproportionately assigned to schools serving poor and minority children…

Teach for America, which relies on its teachers being certified as “highly qualified” to place them in classrooms across the country, has been a big supporter of renewing the definition. Spokeswoman Takirra Winfield declined to comment on TFA’s lobbying efforts or any last-minute push to get the renewal in the budget bill…

I have been very pleased with the impact of NCLB and the watering down of the high-quality teacher provision. Why? My support of a weak high-quality teacher definition has resulted in an explosion of under-qualified teachers entering the classroom across the nation. National data show that NCLB has exploded under-qualified individuals into schools— as about 133,000 teachers entered classrooms with limited training in the seventeen years before NCLB compared to 359,000 in the seven years after its introduction— a 270% increase. Typically, poor children are primarily taught by the under-qualified teachers— not children attending wealthy schools. Why would the wealthy allow their children to be taught by teachers that are under-qualified? That is a silly proposition. BTW You’re Welcome. (See Alternative certification and Teach For America: The search for high quality teachers)

Now, let me turn to the concerns you raised in your letter.

I was deeply sorry to hear about your daughter’s disappointing experience with Teach for America (TFA). I am very familiar and comfortable with TFA. For example, I have a history of hiring individuals from the TFA organization as my Senior Education Policy Advisor for K-12 Issues was an alumnus (she did actually have 6 months of teaching experience). We are also deeply indebted to TFA here on the Hill. Stephanie Simon reported that TFA has access to millions of dollars and the legislative process to directly influence Capitol Hill by paying for “education” staffers for congresspeople on the Education and Workforce committee. Which of my colleagues have accepted education staffers paid by TFA via a California billionaire? In case you are interested,

Tom Cole was included to be sure that TFA is a symbol of bi-partisanship.

Although TFA includes five weeks of summer training to prepare program participants for difficult and challenging placements, it would appear from your description of your daughters experience that her training was inadequate and the on-site support services in the New York region lacking (In case you didn’t know, I take off five weeks all the time in fact, in fact our work calendar in Washington was only 126 days in 2013). Now that you mention it, turns out that TFA alumni have recently published ideas for the reform of TFA and its summer institute in prominent media outlets such as the Harvard Crimson, Harvard Magazine, The Atlantic, and on education blogs.

I can understand your daughter’s unfortunate outcome, I have supported this program over the years as a model to address persistent socioeconomic achievement gaps in public education by recruiting highly qualified, dedicated recent graduates to teach in disadvantaged, low-income urban and rural districts. But it turns out, it is not as good as advertised. The practical question faced by most districts is whether TFA teachers do as well as or better than fully credentialed non-TFA teachers with whom those school districts aim to staff their schools. On this question, the predominance of peer-reviewed studies have indicated that, on average, the students of novice TFA teachers perform less well in reading and mathematics assessments than those of fully credentialed beginning teachers. Although the differences are small, TFA teachers do better if compared to other less-trained and inexperienced teachers. Again, the comparison group matters greatly. (See Teach For America: A Review of the Evidence)

TFA also has a turnover rate much higher than the national average for new teachers. TFA typically claims about 50-60% of their alums remain in the “education field.” This vague assertion avoids noting the much smaller percentage of TFA teachers that actually stay teaching in public education and the even smaller percentage of TFA teachers that stay in their initial placement. Independent peer-reviewed research published by Donaldson and Moore Johnson found that while the majority of TFA teachers leave their assignments after two years, 28% of TFA teachers do remain public school teachers after five years— compared to about 50% of non-TFA teachers. After seven years, only 5% are still teaching in their initial TFA placement. TFA will toss out all sorts of attrition statistics in casual conversation and in the media, but these are independent data.

I find it invaluable to hear feedback from constituents who have had first-hand experience with federally-supported programs like TFA (The feds give TFA tens of millions of dollars every year). As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) and Chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds education initiatives like TFA, please know that I will remember her criticisms and suggestions when I consider future legislation or budget items related to this program.

Maybe I might make an about-face on the high-quality teacher provision that I weakened and snuck into the budget bill to reopen the government. Or maybe I will reduce the tens of millions of dollars that are authorized for TFA from the federal government each year. Or maybe I will discourage colleagues and committees from accepting education staffers paid by a billionaire to do TFA’s bidding in the capitol. Or maybe not.

Again, thank you for writing to me. I hope that your daughter’s experience with TFA does not dull her passion for public service and civic engagement. Please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future about any issue that concerns you.

Sincerely,

Tom

United States Senator

Mercedes Schneider has created a test question for corporate reformers.

She proposes a compare and contrast between Martin Luther King’s original “I Have a Dream” speech and the vision of “reformers” who claim that their tactics to leave no child untested and no  public school undisturbed is “the civil rights issue of our time.”

On his blog “Cloaking Inequity,” Julian Vasquez Heilig remembers Dr. King as an extremist and quotes his words.

Heilig writes:

So if you are a supporter of union busting via mayoral controlparent triggervouchers, and charters you are at odds with MLK, and you will find yourself on the wrong side of history. Screen Shot 2013-12-15 at 4.22.57 AM

Says Heilig:

Be inspired to be a creative extremist for unions and living wages. Honor MLK’s memory and reject the “right to work” neoliberal nonsense.

EduShyster has a dream, but it is not the one that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke about in 1963 at the March on Washington.

She has a dream of Dr. King returning today to see the new “reform” movement which so often claims that it is the “civil rights movement” of our time.

He tours the “no excuses” school and sees that it is segregated. He discovers that the new “civil rights movement” is funded by many billionaires.

He might be shocked to discover that poverty is now considered “an excuse,” not something to be opposed and banished.

He might be even more amazed to discover that in today’s world, the labor unions are an obstacle to closing the achievement gap, and not–as he thought–a valued ally in his efforts to advance social justice.

As he completes his tour of “excellent” charter schools, more surprises in store for him:

Separate but innovative
Tough news on this issue, reformers. Even Dr. King 2.0, now with more excellence, might have a problem with our apparent abandonment of the ideal of universal public education. In Detroit, for example, where he delivered his speech at the Great March in 1963, there are now dual school systems: one of charter schools and the other a public system that must accept all children and is rapidly becoming the last resort for the toughest-to-serve kids. And in Washington DC, where King dreamed of an equal future for children of all races, two separate systems, one for strivers, one for discards, compete for public resources. I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that even Dr. King 2.0 would not be a fan of “separate but innovative.”

 

I am going to violate the unwritten rule of blogging here by reprinting the entire post, plus adding the link. Typically, I post only a summary and the link, to drive traffic to other bloggers. But in this case, I think Mark Naison has written such a valuable summary of Dr. King’s legacy that I want to share it with you, crediting him.

He writes:

http://bknation.org/2014/01/troubled-legacy-dr-martin-luther-king-jr/

By Dr. Mark NaisonAs an historian and political activist, I find the legacy of Dr. King to be as haunting and as troubling as it is inspiring. Don’t get me wrong, he deserves the national holiday that honors his memory. No one person did more to transform the United States into a multiracial political democracy — one in which race and national origin do not restrict people from voting, from serving on juries, from running for political office, or from making use of public facilities — than Martin Luther King.

The two most important pieces of legislation that ended legally sanctioned segregation in the South –the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed as a direct consequence of huge, non-violent protests organized by Dr. King…the first in Birmingham in the spring of 1963 and the second in Selma in the spring of 1965. In each instance, Reverend King chose to mount large protests in cities in which he knew that authorities would engage in horrific acts of violence against protesters. Thus, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson would be compelled to intervene to preserve America’s reputation abroad…as well as their own legitimacy as national leaders.

Each protest was a high-risk undertaking conceived by a master political strategist who understood the constraints on Presidential action—as well as a moral leader capable of inspiring acts of great personal sacrifice among his followers. In short order, the Jim Crow system — a product of the early 20th century in the South — quickly disintegrated When I was doing research in Alabama in the early 1970s, the signs indicating “White” and “Negro” bathrooms…Negro sitting rooms…Negro restaurants…Negro parks, Negro hospitals all disappeared—cast aside to the scrap heap of America’s sorry history of racial injustice. African-American friends in Alabama now voted, ran for office, and served on juries, without putting their lives at risk.

What a remarkable legacy! No protest leader in American history did more to change unjust laws and free people from arbitrary legal constraints based on race and national origin than did Dr. King. He did not look back on these legislative victories with satisfaction—comfortable with the future he saw unfolding. He died in 1968 — a deeply troubled man, frightened by America’s trajectory. The twin specters of war and economic inequality weighed heavily upon him. He envisioned forms of injustice, of violence, and of exploitation that would replace those of the past.

The rapid escalation of the War in Vietnam, engineered by the same president, Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act, left Dr. King deeply shaken. Sending hundreds of thousands of American troops — most of them drawn from the poor and the working classes — into a small, poor country and subjecting that country to saturation bombing and the use of chemical defoliants — seemed to be the acts of a valueless, corrupt nation.

In a speech Dr. King gave at Riverside Church in the Spring of 1967, which will likely be remembered as the greatest anti-war statement in modern American history, he expressed in near apocalyptic language what he saw happening in Vietnam, saying he feared the nation was approaching “spiritual death:”

When machines and computers, profit and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered. This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

King feared that the Civil Rights Act, the anti-poverty programs, and other legislation passed by Lyndon Johnson as part of the “Great Society” would be undermined by the capitalist drive for profit and new markets that motivated American policy in Vietnam. Riots in places like Los Angeles, Detroit, and Newark — in which Black people and Brown people felt trapped in patterns of dire poverty and injustice — troubled him deeply. Dr. King began to wonder whether the promise of American democracy could be achieved without tackling the insidious cycle of economic slavery.

In what 1968, the final year of his life, Mr. Luther King focused his activism on uniting poor and working class people — across racial lines — to fight for workplace rights, greater economic opportunity, and redistribution of wealth. As his major political initiative, Dr. King organized the Poor People’s Campaign—culminating in the encampment of the poor in Washington, DC. He died in Memphis, TN, while participating in a movement to fight for higher wages and better working conditions for that city’s sanitation workers.

Martin Luther King delivered many powerful speeches that year — the one that I always share with my students — is a sermon on leadership that he gave at Ebeneezer Baptist Church…immortalized under the name “The Drum Major Instinct”. Prophesizing his own death, he told the congregation how he would like to be remembered. The words that follow provide a haunting window into Dr. King’s self-perception on the eve of his assassination and challenge each of us to acknowledge our own ambitions and to dedicate ourselves to serving humanity.

“…every now and then I think about my own death and I think about my own funeral. If any of you are around when I have to meet my day, if you get somebody to deliver the eulogy, tell them not to talk too long…tell them not to mention that I have a Nobel Peace Prize—that isn’t important. Tell them not to mention that I have three or four hundred other awards—that’s not important. Tell them not to mention where I went to school.

I’d like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others.

I’d like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody.

I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question.

I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry.

And I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were naked.

I want you to say on that day that I did try in my life to visit those who were in prison.

I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity.

If we apply this standard to ourselves today, we will be as restless and troubled as Martin Luther King, Jr. was in the last years of his life…demanding justice for the two million people in prison and the ten million economically and politically disenfranchised ex-inmates…protesting the wars that we continue to wage…questioning the enormous size of our military…insisting that we address the scourge of poverty among our nation’s children…demanding a rise in the the stagnant incomes of American workers who struggle in an economy that rewards the rich and the super-rich with an obscenely disproportionate share of our nation’s wealth. While we justly celebrate Dr. King’s vision and his achievements, let us not forget his prophetic indictment of war and of economic inequality during the last years of his life, and take up the challenge he gave to us to be “Drum Majors for Justice.”