A reader named Alice poses a challenge to readers of this blog: What are we fighting for? How would you propose to change public schools so they provided a better education for all? The schools as they are today have been shaped by 14 years of misguided federal policy. The heavy reliance on testing has distorted their priorities and turned them into places that do not encourage creativity or passion. We need to repel the corporate assault, we must reject the “no excuses” boot camps that instill obedience and conformity.
Suppose we win? Suppose the entrepreneurs, billionaires, ideologues, and profiteers get bored and give up? What would you do next? How big is your dream?
This is Alice’s challenge:
“Can we have a different discussion regarding charter schools? One that doesn’t force us into the uncomfortable position of blindly defending public schools because we’re under such life and death attack. The “reform” movement agenda, of which privately funded charters are only one piece, completely drowns out all other conversation about public schools. We (those questioning the privately funded charter movement) have been forced to defend “public schools” as a single entity, without being able to discuss the many problems that public schools have and have had for decades. There seems to be a fear of that discussion as though it might prove that charters are necessary, in any form. (and I apologize if this has come up on this blog before. If it has, it can’t hurt to have the conversation again for those who missed it or are new…)
“Can the conversation change from Charters – yes or no – to “what can we do to improve education for everyone in a free and appropriate system?” What can we do to move towards a positive education experience for all kids? Is it possible for a public school system to do such a thing when funded by tax payers only? Is the only way to offer viable options in education to allow private money in? Would the private benefactors be as interested in offering the alternatives they claim out-perform public schools if there was no money to be made?
“Where are the models of true learning in charters (as opposed to test score raising, behavior-modifying, Spec student-limiting charters we hear so much about) that public schools can be pressured to emulate? Are there more than a handful of those? Why aren’t they (if they exist) the models all other schools are striving to compete with? Can you imagine what it would look like if all public schools were in competition with each other to see which ones could be more authentic, more inclusive, more student-centered, more teacher empowering than the other? How amazing would it be if charters were competing for public money in order to provide the most developmentally appropriate, student-centered, authentic learning environments where teachers were empowered to teach and guide students to reach for the stars?!
“Now those would be charters I would be willing to fight for!””
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Perhaps the single most detrimental factor to joyous learning in the classroom comes from the dreadful quality of the textbooks and their worksheets, study questions and tests. These materials were designed to make teaching easier (e.g. less creative) for the teacher. If everyone in a grade level is using the same book it makes a pacing calendar easier to adhere to. My suggestion is to get the curriculum folk to the library and start reading the wonderful, exciting, vetted books in all disciplines that cover the same material in a much less mundane way that the text books. Let kids get excited and diverge into independent study when they find something interesting. Turn the knowledge into projects. Kids need to be exposed to excellence–that’s why the classics are taught in ELA classes. But in all other disciplines it seems we are determined to teach them how to read bad writing. My nonprofit organization publishes short essays of excellent nonfiction FREE on the web every day. Our little publication is becoming subversive–which is what good teaching is also becoming. Check it out for yourself: http://www.nonfictionminute.com. It can be a start to turning the corner. Maybe kids will now want to read longer works by these great authors, which are already on their library shelves.
Thank you for the link to your publication. I listened to a few of the stories. They could use illustrations in order to make the stories more accessible to younger children.
“The “reform” movement agenda, of which privately funded charters are only one piece, completely drowns out all other conversation about public schools. ”
I agree. It’s what bothers me most about “choice” in Ohio. It so dominates the discussion among lawmakers that we never seem to reach “improving public schools”.
Ohio has a limited form of open enrollment where I live, so is a different take on the “choice” issue. The districts that are close enough to be a reasonable distance for parents to provide transportation are about the same as far as mix of incomes (they’re all about half low income) so maybe open enrollment hasn’t made a huge difference here, but I’d like to see some discussion of choice within public schools. I don’t see it discussed at all among ed reformers.
I know parents who open enroll and I know some schools are “receiving” (means they take more students than they lose to another district) and some schools are on the losing end, but I’ve never seen it analyzed anywhere. No one here has ever complained that the open enroll parents were weakening public schools, so maybe it’s “choice” without the downside systemic effects of charters and vouchers and privatization generally?
You might note that we include an audio file of the author reading his/her Minute to make the content more accessible to less fluent readers. We would love to include more art but we are mindful of copyright restrictions and since this effort is entirely voluntary, we have not had the time or money to make the valuable improvements you suggest.
I don’t have a problem with “charters” if they were run under the supervision of the DOE and accountable to the public – not private boards where their authorizers don’t do any oversight unless the school is financially in trouble. In fact, didn’t schools like Central Park East start out that way? There are other schools like the Brooklyn New School and Children’s School that must follow DOE regulations.
The problem is you can’t have charter schools if they are only accountable to a separate charter authorizer whose main goal is high test scores. That will always create a corrupted system. The charter schools that prosper will be the ones with the highest suspension rates and attrition rates and they will be the ones who multiply while the ones really trying to do the job of offering an alternative education to at-risk kids will be closed down for “poor performance”. And the overall charter authorizer will encourage this because it’s far better for the charter system to push all expensive kids back to the public system.
I support starting new types of schools. NYC has done this for years — Mayor Bloomberg supported the growth of many new small city high schools. Choice schools. And the ones that had “high standards” where struggling kids didn’t go had high test scores. The ones that took everyone didn’t. I don’t know why you’d outsource the education of the cheapest to educate students to a private entity via a charter school. If you really think you have a great idea for a school, you shouldn’t be afraid of transparency.
Alice doesn’t acknowledge that most here will fight any charter, regardless of what they’re doing. The fight is about power and adult interests, not about what’s best for kids.
While I acknowledge that for-profit and online charters (for example) are very far from what she describes, there are many not-for-profit charters that are very much like that.
Also, she seems under the impression that charter run on private money. The few that get a substantial amount of it are the exception, not the rule, and the vast majority of charters operate on less money per student than their local traditional public schools.
She also repeats the ridiculous notion that “private benefactors” are there because there is “money to be made”. Benefactors give money without return, conspiracy theories notwithstanding.
“Benefactors give money without return…”
Yes, that’s what the people who donate to Americans for Prosperity say. They just believe in the system, not because they have any political agenda.
Most here will fight any charter that insists it should be free of oversight except by its’ board. But if you believe in private charters, I assume you would believe that a child should be able to use his $15,000 allocation to a private school in the form of tuition, right? There doesn’t seem to be any difference, so why bother to even have charter schools at all? Just call them private schools and vouchers.
“conspiracy theory notwithstanding”. Read reporter Doug Livingston’s articles in the Akron Beacon Journal, or reporting in the Republican- driven, Columbus Dispatch, or reporting in the Democrat-driven, on-line news source, Plunderbund, all who could be sued for libel if inaccurate in their portrayal.
Linda,
They are talking about instances of fraud, which certainly exist (especially in Ohio). What I object to is people saying that philanthropists are in it for the “return” they get from charter schools.
I agree that the oligarchs are not in it for the money. But calling them philanthropists is wrong. These particular billionaires are venture philanthropists and what they are doing stared in the 1990s as a way for a few to control what the many does.
Venture philanthropy takes concepts and techniques from venture capital finance and business management and applies them to achieving philanthropic goals—-who decides what those goals will be — the people through the democratic process of one man like Bill Gates?
Compare the previous definition with the one for philanthropist.
“a person who helps the poor, especially by giving them money” – Cambridge Dictionaries Online
The Merriam Webster dictionary says: the practice of giving money and time to help make life better for other people.
The Oxford Dictionaries says: The desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes.
The difference is the venture philanthropist doesn’t just donate money to a good cause like The Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders. They control every aspect of how that money is spent to achieve goals they want and are more than willing to buy off the media and elected officials to achieve those goals.
1), “Alice doesn’t acknowledge that most here will fight any charter, regardless of what they’re doing.”
I have followed this blog since it’s beginning. As written, it would be far far more accurate (notice the modifier “more”?) to have written:
2), “Alice doesn’t acknowledge that most rheephormistas will fight any public school, regardless of what they’re doing.”
#1 is dead wrong.
#2 is generally correct.
The first, a gross misstatement pure and simple, is driven by the “soft bigotry of low expectations” of the shot callers and enforcers and enablers of the corporate education reform movement. All in the service of the “hard bigotry of mandated failure imposed on public schools” by the same when they capture control of a public school district [think John Deasy, for one].
Vanity projects. ROI/monetizing children = $tudent $ucce$$. Accomplished by replacing/ displacing/eliminating public schools.
Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, haters gotta hate…
Rheeally! And in the most Johnsonally sort of ways too…
😎
KrazyTA,
So, it should be easy for you to point me to a post where one of the regulars here says something positive about a charter school, as well as one where one of the regular reformers here says something negative about a public school, right?
Please do.
By definition, a benefactor would be someone who gives to help another or a cause; it does not say they might not have ulterior motives. The fact you refer to another reader’s notion as “ridiculous” will not endear you to readers here. The push for charter schools, largely fueled by ultra wealthy people (Waltons, Broad, Gates, et. al.) is all about making money, and keeping money where it currently resides.
Schools are a state level entity so continuing to repeat that the “majority” of charter schools are this or that is meaningless.
80% of charter schools in Michigan are for-profits and the charter “sector” in Ohio is a disaster. The single charter school that outperforms the public schools where I live is located within a high performing, higher-wealth public district. It’s essentially an arts magnet school for better-off public school kids, yet every ed reformer in my area points to it as representative of “charter schools”. It’s not.
Just like I couldn’t point to Massachusetts to defend Ohio public schools, showing me national stats on charter schools means nothing.
State by state, and district by district, just like public schools. Apples to apples. That’s the comparison.
Linda: don’t confuse said commenter with facts.
It will only confuse and disorient him.
😎
(1) Ohio’s Supreme Court recently ruled that assets bought with taxpayer money revert to the private owner, when a charter school ceases operation. If the charter school owners didn’t want the taxpayers’ assets, they wouldn’t have filed the court case.
(2) Bill Gates is on the record, saying his plan for schools will create a new market. Two summers ago, Microsoft announced a deal with Pearson to develop curriculum for copyrighted Common Core.
(3) There is an on-going federal investigation into specified multi-state charter schools, associated with a foreign national. Allegations that funding, intended for education, is being diverted, have been leveled and questions about visas are under review.
(4) Reed Hastings can be seen in a YouTube video calling for the elimination of democratically elected school boards. Bill Gates worked with Capital Impact Partners to develop a financing source for schools like those partnered with Hastings. Currently, Wall Street receives a return of an estimated 10-18% on charter school debt.
(5) The World Bank, was recently criticized, by more than 100 international organizations, for promoting, for-profit schools, backed by Pearson, Gates and Zuckerberg, to the exclusion of public schools (Bridge International Academies).
John, you should be asking your U.S. senators and representative to conduct congressional hearings.
Thank you for your post, Alice, and your response, Vicki. I would like to add to both, “Yes, and….” Then also being reminded of Dewey’s finding that quite often we ask the wrong question. To that I suggest a question to advance the discussion to be something to the affect of “what is ‘it’ that causes both traditional and charter public schools to fail at advancing ‘learning’ for all students?” And a second question, “Should the profession, practice, and belief paradigm of ‘teacher’ and the ‘system of education’ be evolved into profession and system of ‘facilitator of learning based from lived experience, needs, and interests’?” Perhaps we all need to be on the same proverbial page upon answering these questions as basis rather than being feigned into a misplaced problem source being “traditional vs charter”?
If the charter schools are going to get tax money then they should not be allowed to turn away or kick out students in special education or with behavior issues. Public schools should have a class size limit on all classes. So use charter schools like magnet schools – have charter schools with an arts theme, or an environmental focus.
Where would Alice like to receive response to “What are we fighting for” and “How would you propose…?”
This blog would be the perfect venue. Others will hopefully be interested in your thoughts.
And hopefully your thoughts will help move this dialog forward in a positive way…
A note to all who have thoughts on the questions I asked, I would kindly suggest we focus on the bigger issue of real school improvement. Let’s not get side-tracked by whether or not “most” charters are in it for the money or whether or not there are a few successful charters. Let me slightly rephrase my last question:
How amazing would it be if school alternatives supported by politicians, policy makers, and would-be donors were getting attention in the mainstream media precisely because they provide the most developmentally appropriate, student-centered, authentic learning environments where teachers were empowered to teach and guide students to reach for the stars?! How amazing would it be if the schools we most admired as a society were the ones that served the real needs of children (and teachers, while we’re at it…)
Does that change the conversation at all?
🙂
I know philosophy takes a beating. I think everyone lives according to a philosophy whether they call it that or not. The problem now is that the general philosophy has become that students should do well on tests (which then translates to the ability do do a certain job) and education is solely a means to making money. The business model is the way to go now so we have all this language about competition, winning, getting/racing to the top, being the best and reaching for the stars. This creates winners and losers according to a societal standard. I wonder if schools have ever created an atmosphere where students can explore their passions and creativity. When you look back on your own K-12 experience, were your passions and creativity encouraged and supported? I think as a country, we need to have a broader discussion about the purpose of education and even about materialism. The two are intertwined. By the way, I was at a social gathering last night, and a woman was telling me about her daughter who got a degree in art and then became a welder! It’s funny but it makes me wince.
I agree. I like your suggestion of a “broader discussion”. And, yes, the obsession that some people seem to have with the idea that there always has to be winners and losers is so counter-productive to what schools should be doing.
You ask, “When you look back on your own K-12 experience, were your passions and creativity encouraged and supported?” Absolutely. And, when I think back about the teachers who supported that type of learning they were not only my favorites but did the best job, too.
My own two children performed in a school play Friday night and then were up in the morning at 5 a.m. yesterday to go to a speech/debate tournament. I didn’t see them again until last night. And, they had a wonderful time this weekend, learning incredible things with superb teachers. And, you can be sure that not one multiple choice test question was answered, not one bit of data was recorded and shipped off to the bean counters in Albany. (And, much more important than the winning and losing part of the speech tournament were the comments written by the hardworking judges. I was up until late in the evening as my kids pored over every word, talking about it with me, planning how to do better the next time.)
Our country needs to be listening to these great teachers before, during and after we “win” Give THEM the microphone, not pompous blowhards like Donald Trump, Bill Gates and Arne Duncan.
It’s the wisdom and common sense and generosity of spirit of EVERYDAY PEOPLE like you, Mamie, that did and still can save this nation. And, on that note…cue Sly and the Family Stone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JvkaUvB-ec
Enjoy your Sunday!
“I think as a country, we need to have a broader discussion about the purpose of education and even about materialism.”
Yes and YES!
Long before the most recent ed reform mess we’ve been handed, I talked with friends and colleagues about the need for dialog about the purpose of a public school system. Back then, it seemed we were floundering without direction because there was no real consensus on why we would spend so much tax money on a system designed to educate a nation’s children. I did a little research into how we ended up with what we have, and although many know far more details than I, the one thing that stuck was the desire for citizenry to be able to read in order to be informed participants. (Yeah, I know in the beginning, it was to teach kids enough to read the bible so they could be informed Christians, but the issue of educating so people could participate more fully in society was definitely part of the thinking.)
Without this getting us (readers of this blog) side-tracked into debates on the origins of our public education system, (please, let’s not get side-tracked,) I wanted to agree with Mamie that it would still be a worthwhile discussion to bring into the public view:
Why do we have a public education system in this country? What do we think our public education system should be achieving?
I believe the Community School design is extremely viable. Looking at KY, we can use school councils, as collaborative decision making teams. These teams can personalize curriculum and instructional resources. Resource centers can be attached to the schools. These centers can address the needs of families provided by other public agencies.
These schools don’t have to be charters. These schools should be public!
If you start with the premise that education affects poverty and the growing wealth gap instead of the other way around, you will devise detrimental solutions to a false problem. If you start with the premise that public schools, in the most successful democracy on Earth, are failing and need to be reformed, you will try to fix what ain’t broke. Please let me do my job without all the top down meddling.
Though an art major gets a degree in art does not mean that she is unable to make art. Many,many artists have jobs that support their art-making. The problem comes in when a technocrat perspective in society makes all liberal arts and humanities look worthless. We know the value of a well-rounded education, and the impact on job skills. Why can’t we quit making education look like nothing more than a ticket to specialized job skills, which in no way are the complete answer to problems in our society.
What good is it to make a car that looks good, drives well, and gets you there in record time if you don’t know where to go??
Hello Cindy,
Yes, I agree. The liberal arts and humanities are being cut in high schools and universities all over the country. The reason why we “can’t quit making an education look like nothing more than a ticket to specialized job skills” is because this is the prevailing philosophy of education. In order to change it, we will have to do some thinking about what different philosophy we want to have.
Thanks for bringing this up. Increasingly, I think charters run by the teachers in them could be a step forward. I still think charters have some other places, too, such as places that might address disruptive students or students who get picked on because they’re a little different. I have these same questions as you.
With all due respect – and I have tons of it – for Diane, I strongly disagree when she has said we should not have school choice. Nobody should be trapped in lousy schools, and that does happen in many low-income neighborhoods. Yes, we should fund equitably and so forth, but to force everybody into the neighborhood school whether good or not is just not okay, in my opinion. Some schools are dangerous, for goodness sake. This is one of the reasons the reformers are winning. (Not as big a reason as $$$$, but this is how it is easily sold to the public. People know that behavior problems in low-income schools are affecting other students.) There is no magical way to stop the right to disrupt right now. I know; I do this. My other students are affected because of poorly-behaving students because I lose time to them. This issue must be addressed realistically! That means, probably, let teachers who live it come up with some policy.
It will take many years to deal realistically with these problems, if it ever happens. Meanwhile, charters can be improved by requiring more transparency, making sure they are non-profit, and capping salaries.
One way or another, let’s all work at a system where teachers have a LOUD VOICE in education policy!
Taxpayers “shouldn’t be trapped” in the inevitable fraud of campaign contributions and charter schools. Charter schools make public assets into private assets (Ohio court decision), siphon public money to non and underperforming “schools”, (KnowYourCharter.com) and operate without democratic safeguards. (Reed Hastings in a YouTube Video).
Small classes filled with hands-on materials in all four corners of the bright and homey classroom, with walls lined with age-appropriate multicultural children’s books for use during free voluntary reading times. One corner of the classroom should have costumes for dress-up and putting on plays read to students and with students and composed by students. Another corner should have all kinds of building materials for kids to make castles, houses, space ships, tipis, what have you. A third corner should be for drawing, painting, claymation, sculpting, art-making of all kinds. The fourth corner should be a science place with small animals tended and growing flowers and plants tended by the kids, safe experiments of all kinds.
Teachers should invite students to write and to read about their self-designed and teacher-led activities in all the corners. Take the kids on field trips to study nature outside and then come back to write and read about what they encountered. Take the kids on trips to bakeries and garages in their neighborhoods to interview people there on how they do their jobs and watch adults working, which they can write about when they return. Hire buses and take the kids to special places which show them what a grand world they live in. to meet folks in these place, and to learn what people are doing in different places. Invite govt. officials, union people, workers of all kinds, and senior citizens to come into class and tell stories about their work and their lives. Have the school run by a committee of teachers, parents, administrators and student delegates. Make the school a cooperative enterprise of all stakeholders.
No money wasted on standardized testing. No learning and teaching time wasted on standardized testing. No invasion of testing or programmed learning or computerized modules. Teachers encouraged to design their own learning materials to fit the needs and interests of students, avoid wasting precious district funds on commercial vendors and consultants. Use computers for student projects and for hook-ups to kids and schools in other places.
Provide breakfast, lunch and healthy snacks to all kids to guarantee none go hungry. Do a winter clothing drive so that all kids are warm when cold winds blow.
Have a lot of recess for physical activities. Singing and dancing are good for kids and they love it.
It’s no mystery what children need to grow and learn in school, at home and in society. We’ve known for 100 years now how to make schools great places for children. We haven’t been allowed to practice what we know is best for children. We also know how to raise non-racist kids who respect others in schools that enable equality among boys and girls and stop bullying.
Send the billionaires packing. Keep out the commercial vendors. Push away the state regulators who want to standardized everything.
Our kids cannot defend themselves from all the forces standardizing and hollowing-out their schools. It’s up to us to defend our kids from the abuse and to reinvent the schools into places fit for children.
Your idealized school reminds me of the diverse public school in which I taught in suburban NYC prior to the arrival of NCLB. Even with standardized testing starting in grade 3, it was a wonderful collaborative environment for the students and staff. The testing was not the focus of the school, and nobody was bullied or fired due to results on standardized tests. We were still accountable to the principal and state for our work. As a matter of fact, we were a Blue Ribbon School in 2005. We didn’t not have wrap around services, but we had a part-time social worker and family resource center (mostly for parents of ELLs). We did lots family outreach and raised money to help pay for glasses, even sometimes dental care, college application fees and class trips for our poorest students. It was a successful, supportive setting for our neediest students, and a win, win for most.
Today’s climate in education has killed innovation. Now that public schools are in a constant state of siege, teachers are in survival mode. This unhealthy ambiance has teachers trying to swim against the current and complete mountains of paper work while they are being intimidated and denigrated. Change requires trust and freedom, and there is none is public education today.
We know what schools impart higher order thinking and skills. It’s not a mystery. Nearly every child of all ability level who attends Exeter, Thacher, and a thousand other similarly ossified schools, not only completes high school, excels.
When reformers start agitating to emulate the best 7-12 schools in the country, I’ll pay attention.
1. Reduce all class sizes to below 18
2. Put Harkness tables in every humanities classroom
3. Stop doing industry’s bidding
4. Require teachers to have master’s degrees in subjects, not the loopy, moving targets that define so-called education courses
5. Require all children to study language(s), including computer languages
6. Differentiate in a real world way, not in the canned, programmatic manner our public school administrators require
Not the whole picture, but a start.
The question is not just what to do after we “win.” It is also what we can do now to bring about meaningful change. Better ideas in the present will help us “win.” We don’t have to completely hold our breath for 20 more years. Think what you can change now in your personal practice and in your community.
Just don’t use your “better ideas” in front of administrators who have their own rigid checklist. Teachers have to be skilled subversives. If I ever hear another administrator use the words “with fidelity”(which is code for follow the script), it will be too soon. Let teachers teach! Let teachers use their professional judgement. Give them time to plan both alone and together.
“Just don’t use your “better ideas” in front of administrators who have their own rigid checklist. Teachers have to be skilled subversives”
Agreed… 🙂
The question should be, How can we provide equity in funding? Competition among schools for funding, no matter how well intentioned, results in school foci on marketing campaigns rather than improving teaching and learning. I’m sorry to have to be so bluntly one sided, but the very idea of school choice promotes increased inequality and segregation. Period. If we win, charter schools lose all their grants and tax breaks, and become democratically, publicly run, traditional, public schools.
Thank you for this brilliant comment–finally.
This is the crux of it. Education and competition do not belong in bed together. Diane has diligently outlined the problems with so-called “failing” schools stemming from community issues. Why are we ignoring the quality-of-life inequities so many children face and instead calling the schools “lousy?” I don’t suggest we oversimplify the solution, but the gist of what needs to happen is this: Improve the community and children will be ready for their schools. Then we can have a conversation about education.
That’s why I find the idea of community schools so appealing where community services are delivered within the school system. Deal with those life stresses, so children are ready and able to focus on learning.
The Marshall Plan was focused on forward planning. But, the plan had no chance of implementation, until Americans won.
Given (1) the oligarchs’ power over the political process, media and their resources to create astroturf groups ( 2) the available payoffs for, current and prospective, Secretaries of Education (3) the available payoffs for governors and senators from both parties (e.g. Cory Booker, Andrew Cuomo, Al Franken, John Kasich, Chris Christie, Pence) (4) the unwillingness of presidential candidates to acknowledge the threat to democracy, from privatized and corporatized public education (5) the court systems’ incarceration of Atlanta teachers but, not state executives that manipulate performance data, and (6) the lack of awareness by the general public that there is a war, given all of that, I admire Ravitch commenters that reflect the American spirit of optimism.
I think it’s a good suggestion to come up with a counter proposal to the reformers test and punish to improve public education.
My first suggestion is to put teachers in charge of curriculum and teaching in the public schools like Finland does with its teachers. It is arguable that in the U.S., except for a few exceptions, this has never been done before where teachers were allowed to teach without interference from above.
In fact, I actually experienced that in the first school where I taught under contract full time. It was a middle school with more than 90% of the children living in poverty, and later I discovered what we were doing was only happening in that one school, because of the principal, Ralph Pagan, who believed in putting his teachers in charge of everything and then supporting them. The rest of that small school district with 19,000 students and less than 1,000 teachers was under the usual thumb of top down control and Pagan fought to keep that top down thumb from crushing his teachers.
And it worked wonders turning that school around from one of the lowest performing most violent schools in the San Gabriel Valley in Los Angeles Country into a success story until Ralph had a stroke, almost died and retired early. Then the thumb came down from on high and us teachers were tossed out of the lush education garden Ralph created into a desert of the usual top-down terror.
My second suggestion would be to do what most if not all of the highest performing countries with the best education systems in the world are already doing with teacher training, and that’s a year-long residency program where teachers in training not only take the requisite classes to earn a teaching credential but also spend an entire school year working full time under the watchful eye and guidance of a master teacher in that master teacher’s classroom. In fact, those teachers in residency should be paid at least minimum wage for their hours in the classroom learning how to interact with and teach students.
Third, fully fund education so all schools are funded equally regardless of the wealth of the local community so schools in the poorest areas are funded at the same level or higher than schools in the most affluent areas.
These are three areas that are being ignored by the public school demolition derby of the corporate reformers who are fixated on test and punish repeatedly.
Your teacher training program fairly well describes the program I went through at Southern Utah University. I spent 4 months in a Kindergarden classroom, 4 in a 3rd grade class, and 4 in a 7th grade classroom. I took classes at night, taught in the school, using observations from the day’s classes.
My teacher training was through an urban residency program offered by Cal Poly Pomona’s back in 1975, and it lasted an entire school year. I worked full time in a master teacher’s 5th grade classroom in a public elementary school that had a childhood poverty rate that was between 90% – 100% —- and I was paid a small monthly stipend. My master teacher started out having me work with individual students and then small groups. Near the end of the year, one day she turned the class over to me and walked out, and I’m still friends with her and her husband who was also a teacher once. They are both in their 80s now and retired. In fact, last Friday I had a long phone conversation with my master teacher’s husband.
The classes I had to take to earn that credential were held after school hours in the late afternoon or evenings, but it worked out. Cal Poly was halfway between the school and my home.
Hear, hear, L.L. And, I think the phrase “…public school demolition derby of the corporate reformers..” really nails what is going on.
Why don’t we start by basing our schools on the private schools all the billionaires’ children attend. We have to create schools that we would want our own children and grandchildren attend. We must demand professional treatment of all educators, support personnel and parents.
An absolute MUST…get legislators, Billionaires, polisci majors and journalists out of our classrooms and out of reach of our children.
All testing moving forward must be reviewed because all testing and measurement data and so-called research has been manipulated, bought and made equal to a bingo game. Nothing makes sense with their data. Burn it!
Kinder and gentler schools are needed, asap, before we lose more children and highly effective educators. The brain-drain of these educators is at a critical level. No 22 year old, no matter how high their SAT, or daddy’s fat wallet, can replace a highly experienced and credentialed teacher.
Save our children!
Save our schools!
Save our teachers!
Save our nation!
fascinating discussion. Ira Shor’s description of the ideal classroom fits the schools where the “reformers” (heavy sarcasm) send their own children. Fund a thousand versions of the Quaker school the Obama and Clinton children attended. and of course, full day operation and meals.
Yes, exactly what I had in mind, the expensive private schools where the reform crowd sends its own children–the Obamas to Sidwell Friends, the Gateses to Lakeside, private schools for all the billionaire kids given small classes, well-paid/well-trained teachers, plenty of classroom materials for hands-on learning, lots of projects and field trips and exhibitions, etc. The super-rich already set up this elite sanctuary for their own kids but will not allow it for our own children in the public sector, where worker-bees who follow orders and fit into the unequal status quo are the most important product.
Thank you both for raising the “topic that cannot be mentioned” among the rhephormsters—
The choices they make for THEIR OWN CHILDREN that are qualitatively different than those they impose on OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN.
Bill Gates. Lakeside School. He went there. His two children go there.
Link: http://www.lakesideschool.org
Just peruse the website. Then read his speech to his alma mater of 9-23-2005 [google].
Lakeside School for everyone. No excuses. No exceptions. Whatever it takes.
😎
“Mixed Fruit”
Apples and oranges shouldn’t be mixed
“Public” charters should be nixed
Problem’s not the school per se
Problem is the funding way
When I became a teacher I was partly motivated by a desire to improve education in the nook of the world I would occupy. When I got to my nook I discovered that a lot of good things were happening. The problems we faced had to do with poverty and the dangerous nature of the neighborhoods (I began teaching in the Watts section of Los Angeles). The students that came to school every day were among the most motivated students I have taught (granted that most unmotivated students just didn’t come to school). I found parents to be for the most part concerned about their kids and supportive. Every one I worked with was trying very hard and doing very effective things to help their students succeed. When I started teaching there I was told that any student I had that graduated high school and went on to graduate from college would be the first in their family to do so. If I went back today I assume the same would be true, because those that got their college education would likely have moved to the suburbs as soon as they could where the children could get a better education. Those that are “left behind” are generally the children of those students that could not succeed and begin school with same disadvantages their parents had. When we talk about school reform we talk about it in term of teachers being the problem and we (the “we” is not the people on this blog, but the “we” that is the nation) want to avoid the effects of poverty and neighborhoods. These latter problems are very difficult if not impossible to fix and charters, private school vouchers or any of the other programs the ed reformers put forward do not acknowledge these problems.
Whenever my department (I teach English) in each of the schools I have taught have gotten together to discuss how the new standards could be implemented the meeting always begins with the chair saying something along the lines of “we already do this stuff we just have to document how we do it.” Hence, my definition of public school teachers being those that document in great detail what they would do if they had time to teach. Each year with each additional reform it becomes more difficult for me to do the job I need to do because I have more and more of my time eaten up by meeting the “documentary” requirements of ed-reform. I live and work in Massachusetts and it concerns me that children who live and go to school in Mississippi are not getting the kind of education they should, but that has to do more with how Mississippi runs its schools than anything else and until the local population decides to fix the problems there, no federal mandate is going to change much. Local communities have to accept responsibility for educating their children. And I think some of the problems in states like Mississippi has more to do with politics than with education, but not living there that is only speculation.
For me (and I know I have talked about this before without much comment so I do not know where this fits in with the thinking of others here) the biggest problem with reform is not Charters (though this is a problem because Charters are generally judged on the whole by the best among them while conventional public schools are judged on the whole by the worst among them) but with the nature of standardized tests. These tests put the focus on the skills as an end in themselves while in my classroom the skills are the vehicle we use to study the content of the discipline. We do not study Calculus or or Algebra to become better at arithmetic, we study these things to become more skilled at thinking mathematically. In math once I have set up the equation I have solved the problem, the rest is arithmetic, yet it is with the arithmetic that much of standardized tests are concerned. I agree that the arithmetic is important but it is not what is most important. As a Humanities teacher, the ability of students to read and write is a concern of mine, but my greatest concern is with my students ability to make judgments about what they read and their ability to formulate their own ideas and thinking into a written language that others can understand. The focus is not the quality of the writing but the quality of the thinking. Clear thought requires mastery of the skills, but it is possible, and often happens, that demonstrations of the mastery of the skills do not reveal much about the quality of thought. It is important to be able to write well, but it is also important to have something to say. As Thoreau suggested about the transatlantic cable that would allow folks in America to send telegrams to folks in England, what if folks in America have nothing to say to folks in England.
As a teacher I was “raised on robbery.” That is I exploit everything I find that is effective in the classroom and I do not care if it comes from a Charter, a private school, or a conventional public school. I try to take what I find and adapt to my temperament, my skills (such as they are), and my practice. To paraphrase T. S. Eliot, bad teachers photo-copy, great teachers steal. The more ed-reform takes hold in my school the more of what I do in the classroom is scripted by folks who do not know my students or understand their struggles. I do not believe there are many that would invest the five or six years or more of education, let alone the expense, that is required to get a teaching credential in most states if they were not committed to educating children and to educating them well. Most that cannot do this leave within five years, and many that could do this quite well leave also, not because they are incapable of doing the job but because they are not allowed to pursue their practice in ways that make sense to them and that they see as having true educational value.
I understand there are failing schools and that they need to improve, but I think the problems are more complex than the quality of the teacher and the quality of the school. I know there are many Charter schools that are successful, but there are many that are not. My problem, I think, is not charters, or standards, or testing. My problem is with the premise of ed-reform as it is practiced today. It is often driven not by educational concerns, but by politics. Often it is put forward by people, like Bill Gates, who may be well intentioned but know little or nothing about education and how it works. It would be like me setting down rules that computer programmers and engineers had to follow while doing what they do. I do not know enough about the technology to construct such rules, but if I had the power to do so I am sure I could do significant damage to the computer industry.
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.
I began teaching in 1965 at The #1 school in our district that slowly changed as the city moved north. Then I moved to the HS 2 blocks away….27 years of challenging but rewarding teaching. Then moved on to a middle school in the socio economically deprived SE part of town. Kids attendance was poor, behavior was worse. Community wanted the best for the kids but didn’t have the resources and the principal was unresponsive. Then we got a new, inspired, caring, skilled principal who had enough insight to give his faculty an open hand in developing curricula and setting policy During hot summer days, we visited the home of every incoming 7th graders and talked to students and parents alike. Between 1992 and 1995 we reduced the suspension/expulsion rate from the 3rd highest in the district to the 3rd lowest and the attendance rate went from the 3rd worst to the 3rd best in a district of 106 schools and 80,000 students. Disciplines integrated, teachers came to school early so kids could get extra help and they stayed late. If I got to school at 6:20am or 6:30 am I was rarely the first one in the parking lot and the principal was ALWAYS there by 5:30am. Schools need to start at 7:00am and have classes until 7:00pm, staggering the staff depending on who wants to start early or later. It best serves the needs of families and for our parents who often worked 2 or 3 (low paying) jobs, it was a life saver. Art, music and technology played a big part in re-interesting students, but what really changed the atmosphere was our physical education program. For the most part we threw out the old “Athletic Model” of PE and introduced active lifestyles and we got kids out of the neighborhood into the natural world. Skiing and fly fishing units took kids into the mountains and to both local rivers to fish and also to participate in the “Trout in The Classroom Program” which we did with great success. We used heart monitors and taught fencing, golf, dancing and bocci ball and a whole host of new and novel activities. The students response was amazing and heart warming. Kids started coming to school because they WANTED to and their behavior, their intra-personal relations improved in quantum fashion. Even though we were not part of the “academic teams” the classroom teachers welcomed us warmly into the fold and we interacted with them at every opportunity.
Parents became more involved with the school, the community bought into what we were doing in complete fashion. The local paper did 3 separate articles on our physical education department and a couple of others on the school. The faculty liked our program so well that they voted to take one extra student in every class so that our class sizes, traditionally very large, became equivalent with theirs and we were able to provide a wealth of new experiences for our students, but also able to meet and deal with them as individuals, not as a barely manageable group of 55 or 60 middle schoolers.
Schools can be made better, more functional, more interesting, more meaningful if administration at all levels gives its teachers more say in the totality of the operation of the school. Flexibility is one key and novelty is another. The brain loves novelty more than anything else, and our program was able to provide that and the vast improvements that I have mentioned came in surprisingly short time. The positive neuro-physiological and emotional/social, academic effects of art, music, hands on learning and physical education are well documented and should form an integral consideration of any educational system. We weren’t a charter school, just an inner city middle school led by an open minded, dedicated principal who had trust in his teachers, which we proved to be fully justified. Yes it takes more finances to accomplish this, but restructuring is achievable if all parties can agree to compromise and to do see that the end results benefits students in the most effective fashion. An extended school day costs more and often strains facilities, but the benefits are more than worth the cost. Virtually all teachers I’ve talked to support the idea because it can be beneficial to them and to their families. In 1995-96, we were voted the outstanding middle school PE program in California.
The so called Reform Movement” has stultified education in our schools and it remains to parents and teachers to step forward and insist on change, going back to some of our old practices as is fitting and instituting new concepts based on science and common sense understanding of children and young adults. We cannot acquiesce to the “test and then test again” insanity and we have to stop demeaning our public school teachers if we expect to get the best they have to offer. Educating all children in equal fashion makes sense and has been and must continue to be the goal of a civil society. I only hope that we’re up to the task.
I think this is an important insight. Communities know their students best and if the leadership of a school and the staff of a school can work together to provide students a meaningful education that works in the context of the school (which includes lots of things like economics, neighborhood dynamics, the “indigenous” culture, and the like) there is a much greater likelihood of success. Too many of the people that run schools, from the lowest rung of local administration to the highest rung of the national bureaucracy, are motivated more by personal and political advancement than they are by the specific needs of students. Of course, some attention has to be paid (and perhaps this focus on stuff outside of the school itself has as much to do with personal survival as with personal interest) because there has to be at least the appearance of success. It seems the more reform takes hold in the country the less autonomy principals, teachers, and communities have in making the educational decisions that are in the best interest of their students.
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.
I am not sure any schools should be competing in any form for funding. Competition in its very nature creates winners and losers. There can be no losers in education.
I wholeheartedly agree with the importance of Alice’s question. As more educators, parents, community, political, and opinion leaders become aware of the harm done and the lack of results from high-stakes accountability based on reading and math test scores ( “test and punish”) and privatization (“choice, charter, and competition”), they are increasingly open to alternative strategies. A viable replacement is staring us right in the face–not primarily from the limited number of excellent charter examples but mainly from our most successful schools, districts, and states which follow a more positive, engaging “build and support” agenda.
Massachusetts could offer a powerful model. It performs better than just about every country in the world. Similarly, our nation’s most successful districts and schools such as Long Beach, designated as one of the three best in the country and among the top twenty on the planet should inform this alternative to the top-down, harsh reform agenda. Many comments on this blog describe such schools. Several years ago, a broad coalition in the state of California rejected the major tenets of the “reform” movement, used Massachusetts and high-performing districts as a model, and is pursuing this more positive “build and support” agenda.
What are the hallmarks of the alternative “build and support” approach? First of all, it is patterned after what the best educational and management scholarship has advised, irrefutable evidence has supported, and the most successful schools and districts here and abroad have adopted.
These states, districts, and schools have placed improving instruction and teaching as the main driver of raising student performance. Their policies and practices center on implementing a rigorous and broad based liberal arts instructional program aimed at not just job preparation, but also citizenship, and helping students reach their potential. Curriculum, instruction, and materials embody a shift to a more active, collaborative classroom incorporating questions, discussions, and performances. Implementation efforts build on and improve current practice and endeavor to deepen learning for each child.
Crucially, successful states have provided local schools and districts the leeway and resources to accomplish these improvement goals. They have substantially increased school funding. They attend to class size, teacher pay, and investing in building capacity to continuously improve.
In addition, these “build and support” entities stress fostering the capability and motivation of educators to support improvement efforts by emphasizing improved working conditions, respect for teachers, the value of teacher engagement, and school-site team building. They also encourage the use of significant information about each student’s progress to better school and student performance. Policies have broadened the definition of accountability from primarily relying on test scores. They have also divorced accountability from high-stakes testing measures and instead employ it primarily for informing collaboration and continuous improvement efforts in mutual fruitful discussions.
These successful schools and districts have also focused on student and community support, adopted enlightened human resource policies, and concentrated on hiring and training principals who can build teams, encourage distributed teacher leadership, and support instructional improvement efforts. They also have instituted effective recruitment, induction, and avenues of eventual teacher leadership for new teachers. Most importantly, these states and districts have avoided the more damaging initiatives proposed by the “reformers” to rely on measures that actually work.
Of course there are some healthy differences of opinion about some of the components of the “build and support” approach such as whether Common Core envisions the type of active, engaging curriculum students need (in California we think it does), the importance of an organized curriculum, the role of published materials both proprietary and open sourced versus teacher designed efforts, and the relative roles of teacher, principal, district, and state. Positive discussions about these issues need to occur and many legitimate different ways to proceed are warranted. But those discussions should not detract from the viability of the overall build and support approach as one anti-reformers should support and promulgate.
I do not think that I disagree with you in principle, but I have problems with the whole reform agenda because in the end it comes down to the definition of quality instruction, and I think many reformers get this wrong. The presence of standards does not guarantee quality instruction, though I agree that teachers need to have standards (which in my experience they do and in most important respects they have never differed greatly from the ones foisted on us by reformers). I teach in Massachusetts and I have seen the quality of instruction decline. So much emphasis is placed on the test, little else is focused upon other than the test, the more at risk the student body the more this seems to be true. The test itself is more concerned with skills than with content and it is the content of the discipline that is, in my view important. The content cannot be understood, communicated, or put into practice without the skills and therefore they are important, but the test treats them like ends in themselves and as a result at the end of high school students can write effectively and read well enough to get by, but the reason for reading analytically and writing clearly often gets lost in the process. And even if those schools that focus on teaching to the test to avoid the consequences of students not passing these tests are the exception and not the rule where schools do teach to the test they pass the tests, our school has, and as a result the test or the standards the test is intended to measure, has not improved rigor it has only sharpened skills, not a bad thing, but a deficient thing by itself. In the process much of the joy of learning gets lost and students look at education a bit more cynically. My school is not that much different (certainly not in any positive way) than it was before the testing began, we have just gotten better at getting students past the test. But as far as the content of my discipline (English Language Arts) students know less than they did before the testing and the skills are not noticeably better. If the reforms are “reforming” the wrong things and therefore improving the wrong things, there success or lack of success is not really that relevant.
I believe skills are important, as I said without the skills students cannot communicate what or if they have learned about the content. I agree that a “command classroom” is about as effective as a “command economy” and that in the end whatever results they get are predicated on an ineffective and inefficient program. I do not think a reform agenda that excludes the teachers that have the most experience working with our students can succeed. As I teacher it is clear to me that those that wish to reform education see me as the enemy and they do all they can to make my job more difficult. I think they want to see me and others like me quit and get out of their way. But I think they are wrong and I think they are harming our children. But they have a voice, in part because they have thee money to “pay for the microphone,” but I and most other teachers do not have a voice that will be listened to because our voice has been dismissed as irrelevant. To truly reform the American classroom the most important people in the American classrooms, need to be given a voice and a “place at the table.” My training, my expertise, and my conscience tell me what is in the best interest of my students. I am open to criticism and willing to listen to others, but when what others have to say contradicts my training and my expertise and my conscience I know which voices I need to listen to. In many respects I do not disagree with the diagnoses of some reformers, what I find troubling is their prescription.
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.
christophernorthjr said: “In many respects I do not disagree with the diagnoses of some reformers, what I find troubling is their prescription.”
Ditto. Key words being: in “many” respects, and “some” reformers.
Some of them get some of the problems right. But I haven’t seen many of them have more than a few good solutions. No doubt doing more harm than good.
But what is most troubling is the prescriptions, the proposed solutions. It is these solutions that seem to do nine tenths of the damage.
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.
We should abandon the factory school model that uses age-based cohort comparisons as the basis for determining individual or group “progress”…. because that model is the basis for justifying the use of standardized tests. We have the capability to tailor instruction to meet the needs of each child and the need to develop interpersonal skills in our children…. yet our method of grouping and comparing students by age assumes intellectual development is uniform and reinforces competition instead of collaboration.
To Linda, since I can’t hit a Reply button: Please don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say anybody should be trapped in charters. I said that I agree with having some choice – which is the opposite of being trapped anywhere – and not being trapped in bad public schools. I think the person who brought this topic up may have been pointing out that attacking what you don’t like (not to mention the legitimate opinions of others) while failing to provide an alternative is not a winning strategy. Doing so is one of the reasons the reformers are winning.
BTW, Linda, have you worked in schools full of disruptive, academically-behind students? Some of whom go home and ask their moms to go on the attack for them if they are so much as admonished? One of my colleagues is on the verge of quitting because of this. What would you suggest? I think my suggestion of teacher-influenced or -run schools is about as good as it’s going to get, just as worker-run businesses would be beneficial to many.
Just as teachers criticize those policy-makers who want to run things without ever teaching, I take issue with those who want to write policy for the types of schools that are being closed if they have little to no experience in those schools. (I am not saying you don’t, because I don’t know, but I am suspicious that you don’t, or else you are one of those who is obliviously in denial that hard-working kids who want to learn are being held back by those who want to disrupt.) Yes, I know there are reasons. I actually have worked with these kids for years. I do not dislike them. I do what I can to support them. But neither do I like the system allowing them to disrupt again and again.
Please, teachers, take the behavior and disruption issue seriously. This has to be addressed in myriad ways, not denied and ignored. Denial just feeds the narrative of the for-profit reformers.