Archives for the month of: February, 2016

Andy Hargreaves is a professor at Boston College whose work has won wide recognition, including the 2015 Grawemeyer Award.

 

In this article, he contrasts the schools of Scotland–which value teacher professionalism and collaboration–with the schools of England, where conservative ideologues have imposed the “business capital model.”

 

He writes:

 

Scotland values a strong state educational system run by 32 local authorities that is staffed by well-trained and highly valued professionals who stay and grow in a secure and rewarding job. Teachers serve others, for most or all of their working life, in a cooperative profession that supports them to do this to the best of their abilities.

 

England no longer values these things. About half of its schools are now outside local authority control. England offers a business capital model that invests in education to yield short-term profits and keep down costs through shorter training, weakened security and tenure, and keeping salaries low by letting people go before they cost too much.

 

By comparison, Scotland models what is called professional capital: bringing in skilled as well as smart people; training them rigorously in university settings connected to practical environments; giving them time and support to collaborate on curriculum and other matters; and paying them to develop their leadership and their careers so that they can make effective decisions together and deliver better outcomes for young people.

 

Hargreaves writes that the business model is in retreat:  The evidence of high-performing nations such as Canada, Singapore and Finland hasn’t been on its side, and countries like Sweden that followed the free-school business model, and saw their results collapse, are reversing course.

 

The business model works on three assumptions, none of which improves education or teaching:

 

First: Teachers are already paid too much. When given the chance, cut their salaries.

 

Second: Professional development is a waste of time. Better to rely on incentives and sanctions that professional growth.

 

Third: (Echoing our own Michelle Rhee) Collaboration is greatly overrated. Better to have teachers compete.

 

Hargreaves asks:

 

So what is it to be for England: the vanguard or the guard’s van of teacher change? With or without free schools, academies and chains, where does England want its teaching profession to go next – to be one that can make high-quality judgments in an increasingly complex environment, or to be a standardised occupation that is flexible and cheap?

 

Sounds familiar to American readers, who have seen the same failed and noxious policies imposed here by corporate “reformers,” who don’t give a hoot about teacher morale.

Yes, we are moving into the New Dark Ages of ignorance.

 

The New York Times reports today that a growing chorus of governors wants to increase STEM funding and cut funding for liberal arts.

 

When the Kentucky governor, Matt Bevin, suggested last month that students majoring in French literature should not receive state funding for their college education, he joined a growing number of elected officials who want to nudge students away from the humanities and toward more job-friendly subjects like electrical engineering.

 

Frustrated by soaring tuition costs, crushing student loan debt and a lack of skilled workers, particularly in science and technology, more and more states have adopted the idea of rewarding public colleges and universities for churning out students educated in fields seen as important to the economy.

 

When it comes to dividing the pot of money devoted to higher education, at least 15 states offer some type of bonus or premium for certain high-demand degrees, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

 

“There will be more incentives to electrical engineers than French literature majors, there just will,” Mr. Bevin, a Republican, said after announcing his spending plan. “All the people in the world who want to study French literature can do so; they’re just not going to be subsidized by the taxpayers like engineers will be, for example.”

 

Or, as Gov. Patrick McCrory of North Carolina once put it, higher-education funding should not be “based on butts in seats, but on how many of those butts can get jobs.”

 

The outcry against the liberal arts is loudest among Republican politicians. Senator Marco Rubio, for example, has called for more welders and fewer philosophers. 

 

A while back, Governor Rick Scott said we don’t need more majors in anthropology (his own daughter majored in anthropology).

 

President Obama said we don’t need majors in art history. (At least, he apologized, but his instinct was to demean those who want to study art history and to shower praise on those getting work skills.)

 

Who are these guys? A decent society needs philosophers as much as it needs welders; it is good for welders to study philosophy. A decent society needs teachers and students and scholars of foreign languages, literature, art, history, the social sciences, and the humanities.

 

The new utilitarians are yahoos. H.L. Mencken called such shallow people the “booboisie.”

 

If you don’t know who you are, how you got here, why life is worth living, what kind of life is a good life, how to balance difficult choices, then you will indeed live a life that is nasty, brutish, and short.

 

 

Robin Alexander, head of the Cambridge Primary Review and prominent British educator, learned that the conservative Education Minister wants to bring a US charter leader to run the British school inspectorate, called Ofsted. He was not happy. He knows what corporate reform is, and he doesn’t want their leaders in Britain.

Alexander writes:

“A check on the touted names makes it clear that the search is less about talent than ideology. The reputation of every US candidate in which the Secretary of State is said to be interested rests on their messianic zeal for the universalisation of charter schools (the US model for England’s academies), against public schools (the equivalent of our LA-maintained schools), and against the teaching unions. This, then, is the mission that the government wants the new Chief Inspector to serve.

“Too bad that the majority of England’s primary schools are not, or not yet, academies. Too bad that Ofsted, according to its website, is supposed to be ‘independent and impartial’; and that Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills is required to report to Parliament, not to the political party in power; and that he/she must do so without fear or favour, judging the performance of all schools, whether maintained or academies, not by their legal status or political allegiance but by the standards they achieve and the way they are run. Too bad that on the question of the relative efficacy of academies and maintained schools the jury is still out, though Ofsted reports that while some truly outstanding schools are academies, many are not. And too bad that the teaching unions are legally-constituted organisations that every teacher has a right to join and that, by the way, they have an excellent track record in assembling reliable evidence on what works and what does not.

“When we consider the paragons across the pond who are reportedly being considered or wooed in Morgan’s search for Michael Wilshaw’s successor, mere ideology descends into dangerous folly. One of them runs a charter school chain in which the brutal treatment of young children in the name of standards has been captured on a video that has gone viral. Another leads a business, recently sold by the Murdoch empire (yes, he’s there too), that having failed to generate profits in digital education is now trying to make money from core curriculum and testing. A third is the union-bashing founder of a charter school chain that has received millions of dollars from right-wing foundations and individuals but whose dubious classroom practices have been exposed not just as morally unacceptable but, in terms of standards, educationally ineffective. A fourth, yet again a charter chain leader, has published a proselytising set text for the chain’s teachers tagged ‘the Bible of pedagogy for no-excuses charter schools’ that, according to critics, makes teaching uniform, shallow, simplistic and test-obsessed. Finally, the most prominent member of the group has been feted by American and British politicians alike for ostensibly turning round one of America’s biggest urban school systems by closing schools in the teeth of parental protest, imposing a narrow curriculum and high stakes tests, and making teacher tenure dependent on student scores; yet after eight years, fewer than a quarter of the system’s students have reached the ‘expected standard’ in literacy and numeracy.

“As head of Ofsted, every one of these would be a disaster. As for the US charter school movement for which such heroic individuals serve as models and cheerleaders, we would do well to pay less attention to ministerial hype and more to the evidence. In England we are familiar with occasional tales of financial irregularity and faltering accountability, and of DfE using Ofsted inspections to bludgeon academy-light communities into submission. But this is as nothing compared with the widely-documented American experience of lies, fraud, corruption, rigged student enrolment, random teacher hiring and firing and student misery in some US school districts and charters, all of which is generating growing parental and community opposition. Witness the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools and this week’s nationwide ‘walk-in’ in defence of public education. Yet the culture that American parents, teachers, children and communities are combining to resist is the one the UK government wishes, through Ofsted, to impose. Ministers believe in homework: have they done their own?”

John Thompson, historian and teacher, read David Denby’s tribute to the importance of teachers on Valentine’s Day and was inspired to write a Valentine to his students.

 

He writes:

 

 

Thank you David Denby for your “Valentine for Teachers.” https://dianeravitch.net/2016/02/14/david-denby-a-valentine-for-teachers/ You wrote the unvarnished truth that explains the teacher-bashing of the last generation. “This rage” is due to a dilemma “that’s hard to talk about, and so it’s often avoided: the dismaying truth that we don’t know how to educate poor inner-city and rural kids in this country. In particular, we don’t know how to educate African-American boys.”

 

 

We know how to educate poor children of color but our segregated society doesn’t know how to scale up systems that treat all of our kids with the respect they deserve. My book, A Teacher’s Tale, is a valentine to my students. They taught me how to teach to “the Heart,” not just “the Head.” Its subtitle, Learning, Loving, and Listening to Our Kids, previews doable solutions. (Other than the obvious exceptions, the names below are pseudonyms.)

 

 

During my first semester teaching in a neighborhood school, I learned that our kids’ emotional and moral consciousness is the first rock on which great education systems must be built. Davina did not ask permission to get up and walk across the room. As I kept teaching, I wondered what was in Davina’s mind as she went to the far back corner. She acted as if she owned the place, but then again, there are worse things than students taking over their own classroom. She took a seat next to the only white kid in the room, a new transfer. Davina put her hand on the girl’s hand and said, “Honey, you look scared. Don’t worry. You will be alright.”

 

 

Yes! If we build on our kids’ decency, our democracy will be alright. And, we must stop this ceaseless focus on remediating children’s weaknesses and build on their strengths.

 
Teaching a challenging and authentic curriculum is one way to demonstrate respect for our kids. Some will recoil at reading aloud New Yorker articles, such as Marshall Frady’s “Children of Malcolm” and Connie Bruck’s “The Takedown of Tupac,” in classes where most of the kids carried felony raps, and reading comprehension ranged from 2nd grade to college level (with most being around 5th or 6th grade in comprehension.) But my kids had the background knowledge required to understand the stories’ deepest themes and how they fit into the Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois traditions (which were in the Standards of Instruction that I was required to teach.) For instance, to place the story of the hip-hop artist Tupac Shakur in its proper context, a reader had to, “Listen while I take you back and lay this rap … About a snitch named Haitian Jack.” If the New Yorker told the story of Tupac, “Shug” Knight, and “Biggy” Smalls so that middle-aged whites could understand, then it was comprehensible to these kids who knew these rappers’ stories.

 

 

At the beginning of his freshmen year, my Black Nationalist, Akili, challenged me daily. During his senior year, he borrowed every issue of my New York Review of Books. One evening we were shocked to learn that it was past 6:00 and we had been talking for hours. He had wanted to discuss Herbert Gutman’s theory about the black family. Akili said, “You are the coolest white man I’ve known. Here we are having an intellectual discussion. You respect my brain.”

 

 

The first rule of teaching should be: Listen to the students and they will teach you how to teach them. Above all, teaching is an act of love. A transfer student asked whether I had black kids, imitating my Okie accent and saying that I always talk about “ma kids.” From all across the room came shouts, “D.T. has hundreds of black kids!” One announced, “Yeah, D.T. is a playa!” High fives were shared throughout the room.

 

 

The way to scale up high-quality instruction is invite the full diversity of our society to participate in the team sport that is teaching and learning. Nothing could be more exhilarating than the cross-generational sharing of what we love. For me, it was daily pick-up basketball games and as many interactions as possible where my students and the city’s movers and shakers schooled each other. But, our kids all have different personalities and they need a diverse range of mentors.

 
The following passage, which starts in 1999, is just one example of why teaching in the inner city is the greatest calling that I can imagine but, I’ll admit, it’s my personal favorite:

 

 

By that time, my relationship with a former student, Brandy Clark, had grown especially intense. Brandy was a survivor of some of the worst generational poverty and abuse in Oklahoma’s “Little Dixie.” A turning point in our relationship occurred during a camping trip to the Grand Canyon. Our other traveling companion was Abbas, a black Muslim student. The road trip debates were endless. Being part Mexican, Filipino, and Chickasaw Indian, Brandy defined herself as both black and “multi-generational, multi-cultural,” and that upset Abbas, who defined himself only as “black,” saying he was “just keeping it real.”

 

 

My travel partners also sought clues about the secret lives of white people, and that gave me the opportunity to tell, with a straight face, why my people refuse to bring an extra change of underwear on extended camping trips. The punch line, “you all on the right, change with you all on the left” brought howls of derision, giving me a chance to reply, “just keeping it real!”

 

 

Hiking out of the Grand Canyon, Brandy introduced me to the hikers as “grandpa.” “He’s old,” she added, “I’m looking for a place to dump his body when he dies.” At the same time, Abbas reclaimed his “Indian roots” that explained his ability to scoot back and forth, discovering one new world after another. Abbas would rush up breathlessly, “I just met some Sikhs! Sikhs are monotheists in the Punjab who believe in …” Or, “this Polish family taught me …!”

 

 

The thin air and the hiking were tougher on Brandy. During a break when we were close enough to the top to see that victory was assured, she blurted out, “Nobody has ever done that before!” Nobody in her family, Brandy clarified, had ever encouraged her as I had when she struggled up the canyon. She had been warned against the trip because hiking was “just something that white people did,” and she wouldn’t be able to keep up.

 

 

Brandy was supposed to be preparing for her university scholarship audition, but she slacked off on that task. Procrastination was unlike Brandy, and her answers were unsatisfactory so I made her schedule an appointment at the Drama Department. As we pulled out of the school parking lot, Brandy said “D.T., you are going to yell. I missed my audition. … I can’t compete with those white girls from the rich schools with years of experience.” “You’re damned right I’m going to yell and yell,” I replied, “But by the time we pass 63rd Street, I’ll calm down, we’ll get it together, and you will win that scholarship!” Sure enough, Brandy swept them off their feet.

 

 

… In 2006, on the eve of taking her certification examination in preparation for moving to New York, I mentioned how I always said that I loved her “like a daughter,” and I wished that I did not have to put the qualifying phrase on the end. The next morning when driving Brandy to the testing center, we stopped for breakfast. Brandy then introduced me as, “my dad.”

 

 

During the next four years, Brandy and I shared our days’ school experiences during nightly phone conversations. Brandy’s observations about her middle school in Bedford Stuyvesant in Brooklyn were so similar to mine. Brandy said that the poverty in the projects of New York City and Oklahoma City was comparable. It was only a matter of degrees: violence and racial conflict in Oklahoma City were worse. Our state was first in incarcerating women and third in locking up men, so children brought gang loyalties with them to first grade.

 

 

Brandy now teaches in California and I’m even more convinced that she’s a genius who embodies what it really takes to provide the education that all of our kids deserve. And, guess what? This Christmas, my Jewish in-laws were visiting when Muhammad, the real “Abbas,” knocked on the door. The resulting conversation drew on close textual analyses of the Quran, the Torah, the New Testament, and contemporary politics. It was like we were back in school, sharing the joy of “teaching with an open door, an open mind, and an open heart.”

When I read this story, my eyes filled with tears. The community public school in Waynesville, North Carolina, is closing. Not because it is a failing school, but because of budget cuts by the state legislature, and because of a charter school launched by a very rich man in Oregon. You read that right: in Oregon! The public school lost nearly a million dollars to the new charter, and it couldn’t survive.

 

This is the price of privatization. The death of public schools. It is not an accident. This is what ALEC and StudentsFirst and DFER (Democrats for Education Reform) and the Gates Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation and the John and Laura Arnold Foundation and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation and the Dell Foundation and the Koch brothers and Michael Bloomberg want.

 

 

At one elementary school in the North Carolina mountains two-thirds of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch.

 

That would make you think that the school would not fare well on the state’s A-F grading system where poverty seems a reliable predictor of the arbitrary grade—97 percent of schools receiving a D or F have more than 50 percent of their students who are from low-income families.

 

But thanks to the efforts of teachers and parents and the community, the rural school managed a C grade in the latest state report card rankings and did even better as far as the N.C. Arts Council is concerned, earning an A+ for art-based education reform.

 

Clearly something is working at this low-income school, Central Elementary in Waynesville, but not for long.

 

The Haywood County School Board voted Monday night to close the school thanks to state budget cuts and the opening of a local charter school that has siphoned students and almost a million dollars in state funding from the local system.

 

Parents and other supporters of the school will appeal to legislators in Raleigh, but no one thinks they have much of a chance.

 

Most likely Central Elementary will close and the parents of the 250 students who are learning there this year will be reassigned and the community will lose a vital resource, a place where one parent said “…students from the whole socio-economic spectrum learn from the dedicated teachers and from and with one another.”

 

The proponents of the school privatization always claim that it’s all about parental choice and that competition is good.

 

But this is not a failing school that is closing, it’s one where students are doing ok despite the hurdles they face. And it is a school that parents and the community work hard to support.

 

Here is a local article explaining the financial situation of the schools, the budget cuts, and the effect of losing students to a charter, online schooling, and homeschooling. Read the comments. You will be reminded why some people home school; anyone can do it. No education needed. It is a way to preserve your child from the influence of “those children” and to preserve the parents’ religious views.

 

Once the privatizers and profiteers took control of the North Carolina legislature and governorship, schools like Central Elementary became just so much collateral damage. Its fate was decided by the privatization zealots in Raleigh and by a rich man in Oregon.

 

If the people of Haywood County don’t like what is happening, they should elect someone else to represent them.

 

 

Bill McKibben, author and environmental activist, has written a compelling review of Jane Mayer’s new book about the Koch brothers, titled “Dark Money.”

 

If you want to learn about the big money that is undermining our democracy, this is a good place to start.

 

“In this election cycle, for instance, the Kochs have publicly stated that they and their compatriots will spend $889 million, more than either the Republican or Democratic parties spent last time around. According to a recent analysis in Politico, their privatized political network is backed by a group of several hundred extremely rich fellow donors who often meet at off-the-record conclaves organized by the Kochs at desert resorts. It has at least 1,200 full-time staffers in 107 offices nationwide, or three and a half times as many as the Republican National Committee. They may be the most important unelected political figures in American history.”

 

Their father build the family fortune by building oil refineries for Stalin and Hitler. He was a founder of the John Birch society.

 

Read this book to understand our political scene today.

The mainstream media has been trying to portray John Kasich, a compassionate conservative who cares about everyone, not just corporations.

 
This resident of Ohio disagrees, in a comment posted here:

 

 

Let’s remember that Kasich eliminated the tangible personal property tax last year. This tax on businesses helped fund school districts (along with other entities dependent on levies such as park districts), and a lot of school districts are hurting as a result.

 
It wasn’t so much that years ago state Republicans decided to do away with this tax in the name of making the state “more business friendly,” it’s that they intentionally did not take action to find another source of support for the entities that would be affected. There was push back, and a freeze on what had been the gradual phase-out of this tax was put in place.

 
Kasich lifted the freeze and ended the gradual phase-out in one motion. Poof — an important revenue stream was gone!

 
One result will be school districts asking for higher levies, as mine is about to do. The effect is money from my and my neighbors’ pockets will go to fund a tax break for businesses. And even if the levies all pass, there will still be cutbacks, just not as severe.

 
This is similar to what happened when Kasich did away with the Ohio estate tax. Local governments lost a fair amount of revenue, and local services were cut and taxes were raised to make up the difference.

 
When Kasich gets teary-eyed and starts talking about America’s strength being its people, how it is up to all of us, he is really saying, “When I am President, all of you are on your own.”

Reader Eric Brandon posted a comment about the Zuckerbergs’ funding of online education. As I have noted in many posts recently, the U.S. Department of Education and many vendors are promoting online education, online testing, and other ways to increase technology in the classroom. He writes that reading on paper is better than reading online. This has been my own personal experience. I have long been an avid consumer of NAEP reports, for example. I used to study each page with care. Now that the NAEP reports are available only online, not on paper, I find it difficult to find information unless I know exactly what to ask for. I have also had trouble reading on e-machines. I sometimes flip 40-50 pages by mistake and have trouble returning to the page I wanted. But more important, there is something about the online experience of print that is not as satisfying as reading on paper. Maybe ten or twenty years from now, no one will read anything on paper and comments like mine will be lost and forgotten.

 

Brandon writes:

 

There is….strong evidence that reading on paper is better for students (and their eyes) than reading on screens. I find that I get a bit lost when reading a book on an e-reader when compared to a paper book. I can’t remember what I read and where to find it as well.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/

 

And a very exclusive Silicon Valley school does not allow computers in the classroom.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html?_r=0

 

Machine learning and robot teachers for the masses; paper books and human teachers for the wealthy.

This post is a Paul Thomas classic. Thomas, a professor at Furman University, writes powerfully about race, social justice, and literature. It was written in 2013 but remains timely.

 

This post is about why books and libraries are important. It is about why Ray Bradbury’s classic, “Fahrenheit 451” still matters.

 

It is science fiction, but it is about the world we live in. It is a warning. “Fahrenheit 451” can be read again and again, like Orwell’s “1984” and Huxley’s “Brave New World.” It is not just because they were so prescient about the future, but because they remind us of the power of literature to change our lives.

 

 

Jan Resseger, a social justice activist in Cleveland, reminds us that “no excuses” schools are not a new idea. There is nothing innovative about harsh discipline. If you want to read about them in the 19th century, read Charles Dickens.

 

She writes:

 

“I am a great fan of the later novels of Charles Dickens—Bleak House, Great Expectations and Our Mutual Friend, but 40 years ago, when I read Hard Times, the fable seemed so overdone as to be far-fetched. When I picked up this 1854 novel again last week, however, I discovered that these days, its critique seems hardly over the top at all. Hard Times is Dickens’ critique of inequality in a mid-19th century English mill town, of authoritarian schools that drill utilitarian economic theory, and of the social Darwinist ethic that celebrates the individual and the success of the self-made man. Bounderby, Dickens’ bullying One Percenter, like Donald Trump, creates a fictitious story of a humble origin as a means of promoting the myth of his rise on his own merits. And Thomas Gradgrind, the proprietor of the novel’s school, prefigures his modern counterpart, Eva Moskowitz….

 

“Dickens’ second chapter, titled “Murdering the Innocents,” begins with a definition of utilitarian education, the children described as “little pitchers… who were to be filled so full of facts.” Never mind their hearts. “Thomas Gradgrind, sir. A man of realities. A man of facts and calculations. A man who proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four, and nothing over, and who is not to be talked into allowing for anything over… With a rule and a pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in his pocket, sir, ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to. It is a mere question of figures, a case of simple arithmetic… Indeed… he seemed a kind of cannon loaded to the muzzle with facts, and prepared to blow them clean out of the regions of childhood at one discharge. He seemed a galvanizing apparatus, too, charged with a grim mechanical substitute for the tender young imaginations that were to be stormed.”

 

When you read this, you may be reminded of the developer of the Success Academy methodology, who said his goal was to turn the children into “little test-taking machines.” He succeeded.