October 4, 2012

Miseducation Nation


“This is a song Charles Mansion stole from the Beatles, we’re stealing it back!” – U2

This week’s blog post is a topic that is on the front burner of social media “critics” and hashtag twitter  activists.  There is a strong belief by some that simply by citing the 2009 CREDO Stanford University study which finds that –‘charters only perform 17% better than neighborhood schools’ it is somehow written in stone as a fait accompli.  I do not dispute the accuracy of the research or the methodology – rather, I want to suggest a few things.  One, that the 17% statistic often cited is not a static number but is rather fluid, and  that the rational behind the number itself is misleading, especially in light of another hot topic in education reform/debate, “high stakes testing.”

I find it disingenuous at best that people want to highlight test scores of charter schools while at the same time deriding testing (or as they couch it “high stakes testing”) as a whole.  We cannot look at some schools and say, “they are failing” by citing testing while at the same time arguing for, correctly if I may add, the elimination of the emphasis on high stakes testing in public education.  This railing against the “privatization” of public schooling based on "high stakes test scores" is based on the foundations of a flawed premise.

Perhaps if we looked at the graduation rates and college acceptance of charter schools in comparison to their local neighborhood counterparts we'd begin to see a different story.  Examine any city with a significant number of charters and low income, minority neighborhoods, and you will see that charters not only “outperform” their local neighborhood schools. They blow them out of the water.  Let me be clear, I am not advocating for the elimination of neighborhood public schools, quite the contrary.  I am arguing that we need to stop being so divisive about determining what is and isn’t a public school, railing about the closing of one type of school while vigorously promoting the closing of another and instead find commonalities and examine what is working in these (and other) successful schools which are increasing the graduation rates among minority students in impoverished areas.   

It is illogical to argue that charters are “creaming,” “cherry picking” and the like when the pool of applicants for charters (i.e students) have been infected with the same maladies as those who attend the neighborhood schools – poverty, crime, homelessness, hunger, etc.  To simply imply that parents who have placed their children in charters have a higher “social capital” than their non-charter parental counterparts doesn't even come close to being a sufficient argument.

 Some of the findings from the CREDO Stanford Study: (http://tinyurl.com/27k5lkl)
  • Students do better in charter schools over time.   First year charter students on average experience a decline in learning, which may reflect a combination of mobility effects and the experience of a charter school in its early years.   Second and third years in charter schools see a significant reversal to positive gains.   
  •  Charter schools have different impacts on students based on their family backgrounds. For Blacks and Hispanics, their learning gains are significantly worse than that of their traditional school twins.   However, charter schools are found to have better academic growth results for students in poverty.
What is ironic is that nowhere in the Executive Summary of the Report is there a discussion about graduation rates, student/parent satisfaction, or college acceptance.  While this study suggest that the longer students stay in charters, positive gains are more likely, it also critiques Black and Latino student success based on testing.  Nonetheless, simply by examining test scores exclusively, we are stuck gauging public schools (both charters and neighborhood schools) based on a metric which many find offensive, wrong and demeaning both in terms of evaluating teachers AND students.

In a 2011 study done by Mathematica Policy Research which examined  other metrics, they found that by “Applying these methods, we find that charter schools are associated with a higher probability of successful high school completion and an increased likelihood of attending a 2-year or a 4-year college…” (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/658089)  

Clearly there is a strong movement to examine public schools by metrics other than simply test scores.  While it appears to be socially acceptable to view some public schools (neighborhood) by more than their test numbers, others (charters) are not afforded the same perspective.  Until we can firmly ascertain what our educational aims are – either creating students who perform well on test as a measure of success, or having students achieve high school graduation and college acceptance be the marker, we will continue to languish in the oftentimes contentious debate over school choice and the numbers game.  While we adults, pundits and prognosticators are having this debate, school children all over the country will continue and are continuing to fall through the cracks.  Perhaps, as Paul Tough and other have begun to articulate, it is time we look at character education, grit, resilience and determination in determining "student success" and not just test scores.

Note: To see an example of "success" as well as the vitriolic tone surrounding this debate, see Op-ed from Chicago Sun-Times from Principal of Urban Prep in Chicago. (http://tinyurl.com/8jg9vg2)

September 18, 2012

"I didn't think it was a game..."

Welcome back from summer vacation.

Right away it seems that this school year has stepped off, or perhaps into, a heap of controversy.  While good things are happening on the personal front for me academically, the blessings afforded me are not being spread through out the educational landscape.  With this said let me re-initiate my blog with a review of a previous blog post and a continuation of the discussion.

My post entitled "We Love that Basketball" (June 4, 2012) was my attempt to link sports analogies with the educational discourse.

In a "conversation" on twitter a woman engaged me in a heated discussion about educational policy which resulted in her using the line which is the title of this post.  I made the argument that the education policy landscape is a game.  I'd also argue that politics as a whole is a game - some would argue, more often than not, a zero-sum game. A zero-sum game is briefly defined as one making gains and the other side making equally similar gains and therefore the total gains are zero.  As a political science major, and policy wonk in both Washington DC and Chicago, I understand the hand to hand combat of politics - for better or worse.  I am also seeped in a deep, philosophical understanding that there are those in education who believe this divisiveness does not exist.  When speaking of education and education policy, they are the ones who generally speak in platitudes such as "all children can learn" or that "everyone deserves a fair shake."  The reality, for many of us, in particular persons of color, is that we know that the world is skewed towards "winners" and "losers."  To deny that this is, for better or worse, the current landscape, is to deny, and I believe disrespect, both the process and its participants, namely children.

We have to acknowledge that there are winners and losers in everything that takes place in the public arena. The goal shouldn't be to deny that the large chess board exists, but rather we should aim towards teaching everyone how to play the game.  The goal shouldn't be trying to espouse false platitudes or unrealistic goals or expectations, but rather fight to close gap between those who are "winning" and those who are "losing."  The most ideal situation would be one in which we are able to not only close the "achievement gap" of the nation's public school students, but also close the "political gap" which exists among many of their teachers.

I have thought long and hard about why what I call the "political gap" among teachers exists.  More to the point, I've often wondered why.  Here's a thought.  Let's look at the numbers in regards to who is teaching our children.  Between 1986 and 2011, the number of male teachers dropped from 31% to 16%.  Further, the race of those who teach our children has continuously been predominantly white 84% (down from 91% in 1986) (http://www.edweek.org/media/pot2011final-blog.pdf).  Consequentially in an increasingly "Browning" country our teaching population is predominantly white females.  For example, in Chicago, the current student population is only 9% white (which is similar to other large school districts such as LA or New York).

Let me be clear, I am not disparaging the work of these teachers, but rather I highlight this to raise a few questions.  One, what role does the teacher's gender and race play in the expectations of their students?  Two, what role does the teacher's gender and race play in their interest or engagement with the oftentimes confrontational and heated arena of politics?  It is noted by folks far more intelligent than I, that women tend to be less confrontational and less interested in politics at the school site for a multitude of reasons, not the least of them being the many other hats they wear as a teacher (mentor, role-model, advisor, counselor, etc...).  As such many teachers tend to do or listen exclusively to the leadership of their union which brings me to the next point.

As I have raised on twitter and elsewhere, this seems to be a huge case of irony. While these same teachers teach students to "challenge authority" and they themselves challenge authority, namely the School Board, the Administration and the like, they seldom seem willing or wanting to challenge their union en masse.  With the exception of large scale turnover of union leadership, which occurs rarely, teachers (regardless of gender) seem content to believe and follow their union.

While I am in favor of both teachers and unions, I do not think that teachers unions, over the past few decades, have served the needs of their rank and file as positively as they could have.  No one can argue that there is an extreme need for infrastructure repairs in many of our crumbling urban schools.  No one can argue that class size should be lower, and that teachers need more autonomy.  The questions are how do we achieve these goals while at the same time, 1) continuing to teach our students to love learning and ask critical questions 2) balancing the budgets and 3) increasing graduation rates and reducing drop out rates?

I do not have the answer, but I do know that more teachers need to examine the leadership of their unions as closely as they scrutinize the schooling choices of their Mayor's children or any of the other multitude of distractionary arguments which have been advanced since Chicago teachers went on strike Monday (9/10).  As this strike thankfully comes to a close, examining the residual effects will be something which will be under the microscope in the next few weeks and months.  It will be interesting to see what becomes of the current leadership of the Chicago Teacher's Union and how the teachers will repair their relationships at the school site.  Trust is key, but also extremely hard to build.

July 9, 2012

Black ain't Nothin' But a Color


Note: I have been trying for weeks to figure out a way to write this idea down in a way that won’t offend too many folks.  Of course I am going to offend some, that’s the nature of raising some of the issues raised on this blog.  However, I seriously want to parse this issue carefully, not to save face or maintain allies in certain places, but rather because I want to treat the issue with the temerity and seriousness it deserves, while also being honest.

With that said…

It has come to my attention that many people (more than I ever knew) are mired in the race based philosophies of an earlier era.  It is not just those in the streets (see Occupy and radicals), but it has unfortunately shown its ugly head in the ivory towers of academic institutions, as well as the public sphere of intellectual conversation/discourse.  What I explicitly mean is too many folk rest on the notion that since the history of America, as this camp so eloquently articulates, was built on the backs of Black and Brown folk that we – those of us who are Black and Brown, must somehow hold this country forever responsible for whatever societal ills which happen to us.  In short, structural, institutional and societal racism has and will always hold us back from achieving the “American dream.” 
            What many who adhere to this belief insist upon is that simple isolated advancements/achievements, from being able to sit/eat/shop/walk anywhere in this country without being legally harassed, not to mention the current (and future) occupant in the White House, do nothing to change the singular insistence that “things have not gotten better, nor will they ever.” 
            I’m sorry, but as I sit here, in Los Angeles, a true melting pot or stew (which, of course has its boiling points and warts) I look out on the block and see a sea of humanity, or as Prince, expanding upon Jesse Jackson, put it, a sea of “rainbow children.”  I know there are undercurrents of anger, resentment and yes racism, but walk into the shops along this block, or enter the place where I just got my hair cut.  See who owns these shops, not just who patronizes them.  If you don’t think change (financial, social and otherwise) has come to many of these entrepreneurs, you are doing a disservice to their hard work, perseverance and dedication.
            As I think about my experiences in my current residence on the other side of the country, I can only think of a few instances and individuals which truly represent the “rainbow children” mentality.  And let me be clear, I am not so much speaking so much to those who have traditionally been in power or were the perpetrators of racism in this country (i.e. white folk), I’m talking to you, my brothas and sistas.
            Since when did it become socially and culturally acceptable in too many places to see race through a singular lens?  If I’m not mistaken, the history teacher in me can examine as far back as DuBois and Washington, or Malcolm and Martin the dichotomy which has existed in the our community.  In short, there are too many examples of what it means to live, act, socialize and thrive as a Black/Brown person to conclude that only one way should be socially acceptable.  What is hurtful for those of us without a home (not fully embraced in either the dominant society or their “home” culture) is that as we advance the ladder – whether it be in business, academia or simply by living in a mixed community, we are further and further excommunicated by our own.          
If those of us who try to present a third way to Black/Brown folk, or actually see the dream King envisioned becoming a reality (albeit not as fast as it should, but no one is drinking out of a segregated water fountain) ever challenge the “norm,” we become pariahs, traitors or liars.  Yet in the dominant world, we are seen as “angry” “dangerous” and “threatening” if we challenge not how far we’ve come, but how much further we still need to go.  In some circles, we are increasingly held to a different standard even if we have the same credentials, same education, live in the same neighborhoods and frequent/enjoy the same cultural artifacts.
            So what is a 21st century brotha/sista to do?  While I personally am not afraid to challenge anyone or, in the same vein, learn and grow from others, I see fear emanating from both sides.  Fear of change.  Fear of the unknown.  Fear of failure.  If we, as Black/Brown folk acknowledge, yes, things have changed since the 1960s, or even the 1980s, we run the risk being dismissed and reduced to an inaccurate conclusion that change has produced a “post racial world.”  If we challenge white folk in the same manner and approach their peers/colleagues do, on an intellectually level playing field, we run the risk of being dismissed as “dangerous” or “threatening.”
            In short, in this day and age, the younger generation doesn’t see race as we once did (or some still do).  What that means is that for them it is OK to like both Drake and Taylor Swift, to eat sushi, tacos and grits all in the same week, or participate in any other culturally hybrid phenomena which exist today.  Maybe we can learn from their hybridity, and maybe they can learn the historical constructs of the past from us.  We have the puzzle pieces in place, now the difficult part of putting them together must take place.  It starts with what the late Rodney King said so famously 20 years ago during civil unrest in LA “Can’t we all just get along?”  Getting along doesn’t mean forgetting the past, it means understanding, acknowledging and as Mandela and the Apartheid Movement has taught us, Ubuntu – “I am what I am because of who we all are.” 

June 13, 2012

Letter to my Son


Dear Son,

You are just over 9 months old and have accomplished so much in your young life.  Let me first say that I am extremely proud of you and have anticipated your arrival for over 40 years (well at least since I’ve been old enough to think about kids of my own).  You are loved by so many people, some of whom are close to you, but what is more interesting to me are the dozens of people who come up to me or your mom and comment on how “smiley” and “friendly” you are.  I’m not sure about nature or nurture, but I do know that your disposition seems to be on course to be a friendly outgoing person.  My only wish is that living life never takes that away from you.

What do I mean by that?  Well, as much as I’d like to buy into the notion that since the 2008 election of President Barack Obama, we live in a “post-racial” society.  I sincerely hope and pray that by 2028 when you are approaching 30, that we as a society will HAVE achieved this goal.  Until then there are some things that you need to know being a young black (mixed) man in this society.   Those lessons will be somewhat difficult and confusing, not to mention frustrating, and will be advanced in time, but they are lessons we will need to learn/teach nonetheless.

Something else that will make the transition from childhood, where there are no such things as hate, prejudice and discrimination, to adulthood even more challenging for us, will be that these lessons were not taught to me by my father or any singular male figure.  If you haven’t noticed, this family is heavy matriarchal on both sides.  Your mom has her father, your grandfather in her life, but besides that, it’s mostly women.  Let me be clear, that is not to say you cannot grow up to be a “man” by being raised by women, in fact I am saying the opposite.  Your father, me, grew up to be a man by being raised by women.  You, are lucky to have the best of so many worlds.

So let me say this, as we celebrate father’s day this weekend, our first, it is my wish that we never stop going to baseball games, never stop singing, never stop dreaming, never stop showing love and affection for one another, and, as selfish or cynical as this sounds, never stop demonstrating and showing other people that there is a different model of black male parenthood besides the one that is so prevalent in the media and the public discourse.  While I will continue to argue that I am a work in progress, and that there are a host of things I could do better (not the least of them being more patient), I will concede that every time we step outside the threshold of our house, we help to change the meaning to so many people about what it means or looks like for fathers, black fathers in particular to help raise their children.  I take from the experiences of watching male and female (as well as black and white) examples of extraordinary coaches, teachers, mentors, family members and yes media images (e.g. Bill Cosby) who have helped me become the father I am growing into. 

As Whitney Houston sang, I will always love you.  Ms. Whitney, also famously sang I believe that children are the future, teach them well and let them lead the way.  Lead the way son, I will follow.


Love always, Dad

June 4, 2012

We love that Basketball…


In honor of the NBA Conference Finals, I wanted to think out loud about a few parallels between sports (basketball in particular), education policy/discourse, and teaching.   It seems like the sports adage, “winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing” has permeated into the educational discourse.  We are hell bent on “winning” (all apologies to Charlie Sheen).  What does winning mean?  Who wins?  And, as I used to implore my history students to ask, who wins and at what cost?

In an earlier blog post, I lamented about teachers, it seems like everyone from Diane Ravitch, to Randi Weingarten to the local teacher doing lunch duty of helping their children cross the street, feeling as if they  are being “bashed,” “scapegoated” or worse.  Let’s examine this current political climate and discourse through the lens of sports (sorry for those of you who are sport phobic).

If schools and their stakeholders are “teams,” who is the “owner?”  Parents?  The Community?  The District?  Let’s put the ownership aside and look at the micro level.  If teachers comprise  the “team” we have to admit, as in any sporting endeavor, that there are “superstars,” “stars,” “role players,” and “has-bens.”  On a basketball team, there are 12 players. Multiply that dynamic in a school building and you have the potential for a powder keg.   While everyone wants to believe that they are either the “superstar” or the “star” most people are “role players.”

During their unlikely and improbable run to the Eastern Conference Semi Finals, the Philadelphia 76ers were the epitome of “overachievers.”  They survived the first round of the playoffs only after the reigning MVP of the NBA, Derrick Rose went down with a season ending knee injury.  They were helped even further by an injury to another important starter and one of the biggest energy guys in the league, Joakim Noah.  The Sixers not only dispatched of the Bulls in 6 games, but in the next round, took the 2008 NBA Champion Boston Celtics to 7 games before succumbing.
 
The point of mentioning the Sixers is not to whine more about my beloved Bulls being upset in the playoffs, but to make this point.  There are teams, organizations and situations which look perfect on paper but in the practical application of events, things fall apart – in other words, stuff happens.  Could have’s begin to dominate the conversation as opposed to what actually is taking place.  In the discussion surrounding public school teachers, too many pundits and especially many "leaders" in the teachers unions would like us to believe what I said above, that there are only superstars and stars.  In the discussion surrounding education reform, no one mentions the role players or worse, the has-beens. 

What this means is that ed reformers and pundits continue to present a false dichotomy.  Whereas in sports, those of us who have played the game, or are avid fans, know that in order to make a truly great team you need a mix of players and coaches who know how to bring the best out of their teams (see Phil Jackson, or more recently Greg Popovich as examples of excellence).  

In schools therefore, it is critical that we not only be more honest about the make up and composition of our teams, but also that we help attract and foster coaches (administrators) who are able to bring the best out of their teams.  Hopefully we can begin to have the tough conversation of acknowledging that not everyone is a superstar.  But that is ok.  It takes all members to not just think they are a superstar, but to strive to be one.  Not the one who scores the most points, or gets the most endorsements, but the one who knows their role and is the best in the clutch and, most importantly, helping their team win.  It goes without saying that more successful teams allow for coaches to have the ability to create, organize and manage their own teams and members, but that discussion is for another day.

May 16, 2012

Voting While Black



There are several books which are currently on the market which speak to “post-blackness” or articulate a redefinition of “blackness” in this confusing era (see http://tinyurl.com/bvfgkoy).  In my humble opinion, and that of noted Professor and scholar Henry Louis Gates and others, there is no one definition of blackness, nor should there be.  However, the arguments’ surrounding what is and is not blackness and how it relates to the overall political discourse in this country is something that has been troubling me.

The latest example comes from North Carolina.  Amendment One – the measure which sought to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman was approved by the residents of North Carolina overwhelmingly.   What is problematic is not that a state with such historical ties to oppressing human/civil rights is up to their old tricks, but rather what is surprising is who, in part, the culprits are contributing to the denial of rights to a group of American citizens. 

Much in the same manner as in 2008 with California Ballot initiative Proposition 8 – which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, this ballot measure in North Carolina is nothing but solidifying hatred and discrimination into codified law.  That black folk, supposedly religious black folk, supported both of these ballot measures in great numbers is something that I cannot fathom.

Just to give you the numbers, in the same election in which over 90% of the black population voted for Barack Obama for President, 7 in 10 blacks voted yes in favor of Proposition 8 in California.  In Los Angeles County alone, if that number had been reversed, the measure most likely would not have passed.  As it stood, the measure passed 52-47%.  Most recently in North Carolina, Amendment 1 passed with a 2-1 margin of the black vote and an overall percentage of 61-38%.  While the majority of blacks may not have carried Amendment 1 to defeat, they certainly added to its victory.

During the fight for equality in the 1960s there were a host of allies who sought to help the Civil Rights Movement achieve their goals.  Most notably both Bayard Rustin and James Baldwin were two openly gay black men who fought on the front lines of the Civil Rights Movement.  Further, as one recent article noted, everyone who has ever sung in a black church choir knows someone who is gay – either openly or suspected.  What is the most disappointing thing about my own people’s abandonment of civil rights in the name of “religion” or worse, in trying to define “Civil Rights” as only those rights negotiated and fought by and for blacks, is the hypocrisy.  Not only were there black gay leaders, there were whites, women, and other minorities all fighting in the struggle. In the early 20th century, it was the prevailing wisdom of whites to use a biological determination concerning the need for the separation of races before it was found to be illogical, ill-conceived and downright wrong.  

Another critique of miscegenation was that it was an “abomination” of God that the two races (they never include other groups besides “black” and “white”) shouldn’t mingle, much less procreate or marry.  That some blacks are using the same arguments to deny rights to LGBT couple who want to marry (especially in certain states where the STRAIGHT divorce rate is above 50% but that’s for another day), is completely 180 degrees from everything that the “Movement” stood for.

Let me be clear, certain black folk both in and out of the public arena have continually been outspoken in favor of LGBT rights before Obama’s announcement, including, ironically the Rev. Al Sharpton and Dr. Michael Eric Dyson.   However, there are too few foot soldiers who do not challenge the negative, ignorant assumptions made in barbershops, locker rooms and elsewhere about LGBT folk.  Too few of us who stand for human rights mean it in regards to everyone.  

On a personal note, in much the same way as President Obama, I too came to the epiphany of being open to not just marriage equity – which is somewhat new on the policy/political agenda, but LGBT issues in general.  I was never “against” gays, I just didn’t know anyone nor was I openly exposed to the culture.  Attending a liberal arts college in Los Angeles will change that lack of exposure real quick.  I was confronted with people who I respected, admired and yes even had crushes on who were lesbian or bi.  I was forced to reconcile my dream at the time of being a “Civil Rights” lawyer with my own hypocrisy of not including all rights under that banner.  While I would consider my mother and the rest of my family religious, I would also consider them to be extremely progressive.  Sometimes those two can reconcile themselves, and other times they cannot.  The one thing I can say is that I strongly believe that education and exposure are key.

So how do we educate black folk to both “love the sinner while hating the sin” and keeping their religious convictions (which no one is trying to deny) out of the polling booth?  My initial response is education - education not only in the home, but in the pulpits – which, when it really comes down to it, shouldn’t be in the business of telling us who or what to vote for anyway.   Finally, we need to publicly expand what blackness means.  It does not have to include oppressing other groups in the name of hyper masculinity, religious beliefs or other reasons.  It can include being more understanding that while our struggles for justice and rights are far from over, we will never completely overcome as long as Black folk continue to be the oppressors of other people, many of whom look like them. In order to truly make this a more perfect Union, we need to join with other groups still in their middle stages of their fight for equality.  Together, with as many allies as possible (and we now have a tremendous ally in the White House) we will one day be able to achieve equality.


May 10, 2012

We'll treat you like a King...


 In the wake of the "uprising" which occurred in Los Angeles in response to the Rodney King verdict in 1992, I was a 22 year old college senior one semester away from graduating.  It was April/May 1992 and most of my friends whom I started college with were finishing up their final semester.  At this time, my college was on the trimester system meaning we did not finish until the beginning of June, as opposed to some other schools who were finished in early May. Consequentially, we were in the midst of classes, partying and once the verdict and ensuing violence began, panic.

I vividly remember my roommate at the time, a white brother from near Chicago, who immediately went down to the reconciliation meetings which took place at a South Central Church. His roommate was a bit apprehensive.  Being a Black man in his early 20s, regardless of my impending college degree, I was afraid of getting caught up in the mix. I believed that although there were well intentioned Black folk doing good work down there, I didn't think that the combination of my...being an outsider and being Black was a good mix.  I struggled with this decision to stay "safe" on campus while my college community was quick to respond.

Another friend of mine, one who was associated with a religious organization on campus which was always performing service, was also quick to respond with a broom, garbage bags and the like to help in the clean-up efforts. She loaded up her car with as many friends as she could and proceeded down into the fray, unafraid and in my opinion heroic.  Unfortunately her family did not see it the same way and she was "requested" to return her car to her mother because her mother did not want her daughter in harms way.  As a new dad I can understand her mother's anguish, but would not have responded in the same manner.  Her daugher was doing what she was taught, not just at our liberal arts college, but through her faith.  She was performing God's work.

As I reflect on the 20 years since the King verdict, I am trying to look critically at where we've come - how far we have come.  Obviously race relations have changed, but to what degree?  Not only has America grown over the past 20 years - see OJ trial in the same city a few years later, the increase in the number of Black politicians and police chiefs (obviously Barack Obama being at the head of that lists), and the number of Blacks who have graduated college and matriculated into the middle class. All of these are signs that things have changed in this country tremendously. However, as the saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

For a certain portion of the Black population, things have become increasingly worse.  Unemployment and underemployment, persistently violent neighborhoods and schools, hopelessness, anger and yes fear.  While many in the middle class of Black folk have been - in the words of the Jefferson's theme, moving on up, but at the same time, we are leaving millions behind.  As we increase our educational outcomes, one of the first things we (I'm including myself in this equation on purpose) do is to leave the neighborhood.  This leaves the neighborhood left with those who struggle to make ends meet, who do not have the same social and cultural capital and of course the economic and intellectual capital to make a transition. 
 
What is increasingly problematic is the type of persistent deficit thinking that has permeated too many black folk both in the neighborhood AND in colleges and universities. 
It is my hope that as we reflect on 20 years after Rodney King and his infamous words “why can’t we all get along?” that we take the time to truly begin to get along.  Not just with those who sit on the opposite aisle on the political spectrum, or who are of a different race/ethnicity, gender or otherwise - but most importantly from within.  

April 23, 2012

Why do I need I.D. to get I.D.?


Since the 2008 historic election of Barack Obama to the Presidency, there have been an increasing number of states which have begun to implement new voter ID laws – laws requiring people to present photo identification when voting in an election.  This seems to be a no brainer to some, and a controversial, voter suppression, reversion back to Jim Crow laws to others.

Here in Pennsylvania the campaign season arrives tomorrow (http://tinyurl.com/d2tzhya).  On television and in print media, there has hardly been any coverage of this election cycle.  If there has been any coverage about the upcoming election, it has focused on the new voter ID law passed by Governor Corbett just six weeks ago which requires voters in the state to present identification when casting a ballot.  Overall there are approximately 34 states which have begun to push these measures through their respective state legislatures.  My biggest question, concern is not whether or not this potential law is a new form of voter suppression, but rather a more philosophical question; why in the 21st Century are there people in this country who do not have identification in the first place?

I am keenly aware of the historical significance of the 1965 Voting Rights Act which eliminated such punitive and racists measures like poll taxes and other means which denied citizens  - namely Black Americans, their right to vote.  I am also quite aware of the history of one of the groups promoting voter ID laws throughout the states, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and their intention to gain Republican votes simply through the elimination of Democratic ones.  They believe; “Our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”  I am also aware of the legitimate arguments made by progressives and Democrats who argue that there is an unintended cost to voting, that by having to purchase an identification card (or update an old card) one can conclude that if one has to pay for identification, they are basically paying to vote.

My problem with my fellow progressives and Democrats is this; why wouldn’t we want the most fool proof way of having our votes count?  Through presenting legitimate identification (which can range from state issued IDs to other types of photo identification), there can no longer be the “excuse” that a person’s absentee ballot should not count, that our names do not match (because of misspelling or other “mistakes”) and thus we need a provisional ballot, or any other structural limitations to our being able to express our freedom to vote.

What is also problematic is the lengthy list of places often frequented where one does need identification; to cash a check (either at a bank or a check cashing store, to open a utility account (electric, gas, cell phone…), to travel (not just through the air, but also via train or bus), to enter 21 and over establishments, to receive discounts based on age (whether student rates or senior citizens fares), to rent an apartment or other housing, and finally to receive a voter ID card itself.  These are just but a few examples where people need to present identification. 

I understand my position goes against what many in the progressive community believe.  I respectfully disagree.  While there have been very few, if any, examples of voter fraud based on identification in the past few years, as we hope to grow voting to include perhaps online voting, same day registration and the like, it seems to me that the easier it is to identify who is casting a ballot, the easier it will be to make sure that that vote counts.

Finally, with such laws already on the books such as the “Motor Voter Bill” and in some states, same day registration, we should be in the business of making it easier to increase the voter rolls rather than reduce that number.  As it stands, outside of the historic 2008 election, voting in the 2010 Congressional races, 2011 municipal elections and the current primary season has been dismal without these voter ID laws in place.  In two examples, Chicago and Philadelphia, the election turnout in the past two elections has been well below 40 percent.
It is unclear whether or not these new voter ID laws will increase voter populations or as some believe, suppress voter turnout even further.  What is encouraging is that groups like the NAACP and the ACLU, while fighting the Constitutionality of the law, are also fighting in the streets, educating the voting population on what they need to be able to go to the polls in cities such as Philadelphia, not just during primary season, but in November for the general election.  Hopefully, this civic education will benefit the electorate as opposed to what ALEC intends which is to sway the election in their favor.  

April 17, 2012

Fall Down Seven Times, Get up Eight.


Recently there was an interesting article in the Philadelphia Inquirer  by Kristen Graham (http://tinyurl.com/d3ecu5d) about a young man who is currently lamenting his participation in a program in which he committed to teach in the Philadelphia Public Schools upon graduation from college.  He is second guessing his participation in this school district because of its mismanagement, so much so that he is quoted as saying “It saddens my heart that I don't want to teach in Philadelphia…”  Many responded both on Graham’s blog/webpage as well as on the Inquirer page.  The comments ranged from support to derision.  The critical take away from this article is why would this young man, young man of color to be exact, want to renege on his promise?

Let me be clear, I can understand and appreciate his sentiment.  However, perhaps because of my upbringing, or my stubbornness, or a combination of both, I’d see the troubles surrounding Philly and other major school districts as a blessing, not a curse.  I’d see it as a challenge rather than an impediment.  I see it as an opportunity to effect change and...Oh wait, I did just that.

Back in 2000 I made a failed attempt at my dream career.  I wanted to be a lawyer.  I had always been told that I would make a good lawyer, and wanted badly to be able to argue for a living.  Not to mention, I had a dream of becoming the next Thurgood Marshall, even all the way to the lifetime appointment in the building which cites “Equal Justice, Under Law” as its premise.

Alas that did not happen.  In 2003, I made the cross country journey in a car I did not own 48 hours before to a city where I did not have a home to “just” became a teacher – the family business.  What I did to become a teacher was all in.  I left my home city, moved to another city without the promise of a job, and had no where to stay.  I did so because of a plethora of selfish reasons (not wanting to be in my family's shadow in Chicago was the main one), but also because I wanted to help the students of South Central - I wanted to teach them they way I was taught in an independent school setting, in their public school environment. 

My journey into the classroom is not what I want to focus on today.  I want to critique a culture and a society in which this young man is increasingly becoming the norm rather than the exception when it comes to giving back through teaching as well those who continue to demean young folks who want to get into this business of education. Psychologically speaking for a long time (and perhaps even now if you ask some) I feel as if I let myself down by becoming an educator, that I missed my life calling.  What makes me forget that feeling are the constant reminders of the influence I have had on a large number (over 1000) young people – from a diverse range of races as well as social classes.  Not just in the classroom, but in the streets volunteering, building homes and communities with young folk from many states.  Contributing to that number of young people in such diverse educational experiences has to have had a profound impact on the leaders of tomorrow - not to mention how I view the world.  However, I strongly believe that I was not THE difference in their lives, but rather A difference in their life.  Marianne Williamson said it best; “I am not the teacher in life, I am the student.”  I have learned so much from my students, mentees and other young people that I would be disingenuous if I said otherwise.

So to the young man who doesn’t want to stay in Philadelphia after his initial teaching contract expires and for those Teach for America teachers who are constantly maligned by naysayers on both sides of the aisle, in the immortal words of two late 20th century poets T.S. Shakur said; “Keep ya head up” and Billy Joel concurred by encouraging at the end of each of his concerts to “Don’t take no s**t from anyone!”

My message is simple.  Youth are the leaders of tomorrow.  Sometimes us “older” folk have selective amnesia when it comes to our own youth.  We look in the rear view mirror and only see our mistakes and what we shouldn’t have done.  Rarely do we see the good, and our reflexive mirror seems bent towards the negative.  Thus either through trying to protect young folk, or because we think they are too "immature," we want younger people to be “seen and not heard” to “learn the lessons from their elders” and other types of sayings that are as old as the typewriter they were written on.  In sum, in order to lead, you have to make mistakes.  If we want “perfection” we will never achieve change.  In other words, you have to fall down seven times, get up eight.  Learn from your mistakes, dust yourself off, and continue the fight.  Otherwise we will forever be mired in slow, methodical change from top down rather than organic, grassroots change from the ground up.

April 10, 2012

"Service is the Rent We Pay for the Privilege of Living on This Earth" - Shirley Chilsom

This weeks blog (due to grading and the holiday) is from the vault.  Enjoy...

Mandatory Service seems like an oxymoron, in the sense that one is being forced to perform or participate in what is generally perceived to be an inherently voluntary act. However, when it comes to service learning in schools or in urban communities, one can see that there is a strong need to for youth to reach out to either their own population or populations in which they share common boundaries. These youth perhaps might otherwise not be engaged in learning about their communities or the inhabitants, if service was not a part of their school curriculum, religious or non-profit organizations mission or purpose.

In my experience as Assistant Community Learning Program Director at the University of Chicago Laboratory High School, oftentimes I had to explain to sophomores from, in general, a higher socio-economic background, that their mandatory high school graduation requirement of two semesters (approximately 20 weeks) of service was required, but it was up to them to decide what type of service experience they wanted to perform (afterschool program, working with seniors, homeless, hospital setting, etc). Oftentimes I repeated a quote from Marianne Williamson which says “It is not up to you what you learn, but whether you learn through joy or pain.” Having to participate in service learning, regardless of your background, has been shown to raise academic performance, self esteem, connect students to their communities, and fosters an increased acceptance of diversity (Newman, Wehlage, Lamborn (1992), Blyth, Saito & Berkas (1997), Billig (2004)). Regardless of whether or not these students had previous experience with service through their churches or synagogues or other out of school organizations, creating a shared experience behind service for all of the sophomores concerning issues surrounding community, “isms” and social justice, really made their excursions into the community an overwhelming success. One of the major questions in examining this approach to service learning is – why did students respond to mandatory service more positively than many who have been required to perform service and had less than stellar results?

Service learning has the potential to transform lives. When people (especially high school students) are required to perform service, it is incumbent upon those who place the requirement or are stewards of the implementation of the requirements to make sure students are trained to be prepared for a vast array of experiences. When the adults are not trained correctly, the likelihood of students having a positive service learning experience is greatly reduced (Seitsinger, 2005). It is incumbent then that we as both researchers and educators make sure that when students are mandated to perform service, the adults are also mandated – mandated to undergo rigorous training in order for authentic service learning to occur. When we are diligent in our implementation of training adults to administer service learning programs, then the experiences of students are more likely to be positive, sustained and has the potential to be life altering experiences in which students will want to engage in for the rest of their lives.

One of the final benefits to having mandatory service is the motivational effect. In short, students need positive reinforcement and positive examples of service in order to have a favorable impression of service. Being mandated to do service – especially when programs are of high quality and possess all of the characteristics of “successful” service (Seitsinger, 2005). While working at Lab, the positive effects on the students were many. I saw students who were afraid, skeptical and uncertain about themselves and what they had to contribute, blossom into confident, concerned and engaged budding community activist. In our program, one of the benefits which seemed to be an unintended consequence was that these students would discuss their experiences at home, with their parents and others, who in turn were in positions of authority and/or influence in the city or community. Therefore the engagement of their daughters/sons had a direct impact on their own visions of the city and the community which affected their professional practice (whether they were lawyers, doctors or university professors). It will be interesting to see as the mandate for service learning expands into public schools, how this mandate will affect family members and guardians of the student participants.

April 2, 2012

Fear of a Black Planet

In the wake of the Trayvon Martin murder, the reelection campaign of President Obama and the general state of racial affairs in this country, many people have been repeating the phrase “we do not live in a post-racial society.”  They’ve said it in print, on the air, in the blogosphere, and in countless discussions on social media.  The one question I’ve been thinking is – who “invented” the term post-racial in the first place?

Well of course in this day and age, I took to Google to do a perfunctory search of the term.  I came across several interesting links.  The first one was a definition from the Urban Dictionary which read:
A term used to describe a society or time period in which discussions around race and racism have been deemed no longer relevant to current social dynamics.  Popularized after the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States of America in 2009.” (www.urbandictonary.com)
Of course there are many books on the subject of race in general and the concept of post-racial, including Racism without Racists by Edward Bonilla-Silva.  In the book’s latest edition, Bonilla-Silva devotes the entire last chapter to the election of President Obama and what it means for race relations in this country. 

Another example is a book entitled The Myth of Post-Racial America: Searching for Equality in the Age of Materialism by Roy Kaplan.  What is problematic from the title of this book is that there is a presupposition that the discussion about post-racial America has already taken place, and we all agree that it is a myth that we do indeed live in a post-racial world.  I  have never seen this discussion take place on the nightly cable talking head shows, or the Sunday morning shows.  When did we actually have this discussion and reach the conclusion that it is unanimously preposterous to think that we live in a post-racial world?

Presently, the reelection campaign of Barack Obama has given us an opportunity to reflect on the past three and a half years and examine whether or not we live in a world which, as Ronald Reagan when running for the Presidency said, is “better off” that it was four years ago.  In terms of race, of course that is a complicated question.   
For those who naively thought that the election of President Obama would all of a sudden make a black and white world Technicolor (as in the Wizard of Oz, or the park scene in She's Gotta Have It) maybe their glasses were rose colored from the beginning.  For most of us, the reality of the complexities of race has always been a shade of grey.  In a recent article in the Washington Post (http://tinyurl.com/7psmtxr) Reniqua Allen articulates the current difficulties in bringing up race in a mixed setting.  She brilliantly highlights the same sentiments I feel, that after the latest tragedy (fill in the blank... Trayvon, Oscar, Sean, Troy Davis, Rodney King, etc…) “we have big debates over racial prejudice and disparities in this country, and then nothing happens.”   Her premise is that due to Obama’s election, it has made it hard to talk openly about race; I contend that we never had these conversations in the public square in mixed company in the first place.  Normally these conversations, if they take place at all, take place exclusively in single race, or occasionally singularly oppressed group (i.e. Blacks and Latinos) company.

In perhaps the most interesting and honest discussion available about the idea of a post-racial America,  NPR held a discussion nearly one year after the election of President Obama entitled “The Post-Racial Conversation, One Year In.”  In this discussion, two scholars discussed race and the term post-racial.  The first, Ralph Eubanks (author of House at the End of the Road) defined post-racial in two ways; first – race is no longer an issue or an impediment in American society and two – a colorblind society where race is not an issue, we’re all Americans (http://tinyurl.com/yamtnfa).  The other participant in the discussion Mark Anthony Neil (http://newblackman.blogspot.com/) articulated an interesting premise.  He contends that there is a difference between post-racial and post-racists in which the latter is perhaps a time in the future where slights no longer exist.  He also contends that many want to jump into a post-racial society not because the discussions on race have already taken place, but so that those conversations disappear, in other words conversation fatigue. 

Both authors highlight two critical points which are profoundly meaningful to my work; one, that hip-hop has served as an influential conduit or bridge in helping to advance even the possibility of a post-racial society upon at least one if not two generations of young people and two, that those same young folk have what I call historical amnesia.

Perhaps...ok we do not currently live in a post-racial world.  But that day is coming – how long, not long…What is problematic to achieving this lofty ideal is that those of us with direct links to the 60s era Civil Rights Movement (either as the daughters/sons of those who lived through that era, or lived through that era ourselves) want to impose our racial standards and constructs on what we deem, “naïve” children or young adults.  Perhaps the current transformational shift through which the younger generations view race in this country is another example (like the aforementioned Civil Rights Movement itself) of older folks sitting back and allowing younger folk to lead us into a better society.  Not through the absence of a deep and profound historical understanding of what has transpired throughout the tumultuous history of America, but because of that understanding. 

Coming to terms with our own racial history and the painful, oftentimes deadly history of race in this country does not mean we have to keep reliving that pain.

March 26, 2012

My Adidas...

Back in the early 1980s hip-hop icons Run DMC came out with a famous song highlighting their love for Adidas:

I wore my sneakers but I'm not a sneak
My Adidas cuts the sand of a foreign land
with mic in hand I cold took command
my Adidas and me both askin P
we make a good team my Adidas and me
we get around together, rhyme forever
and we won't be mad when worn in bad weather

Run DMC was one of the first hip-hop groups to talk about their love for a particular brand.  Now of course the idea has morphed into larger more expansive discussion or commercialization of consumer culture (or “bling bling”) which includes beverages, watches, cars, etc…Run DMC didn’t intend to, but they helped perpetuate the whole idea of clothes being an integral part of identity, in this case hip-hop identity.  They also helped foster in an era in which hip-hop was seen as not just a musical genre but a lifestyle – one which was quickly coming to a suburb near you.

Fast forward to this Century.  As we know, hip-hop identity has now been incorporated, commoditified and globalized.  Hip-hop culture has become, if not the quintessential American youth culture, then at least one of the dominant ingredients of Black youth culture.  This includes the ever present use of hooded sweatshirts – more colloquially known as “hoodies.”

On Gloria Ladson-Billing’s Facebook page, she posted a link (http://tinyurl.com/cb4fxjd) which highlighted (or perhaps lamented) Geraldo Rivera’s comments about Travyon Martin and his hoodie being as responsible for his death as Zimmerman.  I don’t want to rehash the entire discussion which ensued, but the range of comments went from “disgusting” to “a village is missing it’s idiot” to “blaming the victim” to questions of race and clothing. 

In American society, as Melissa Perry-Harris noted on her show this past weekend (http://tinyurl.com/cvgurpt) , there is an unofficial dress code for Black boys – No colors (especially red (Bloods) or blue (Crips)), no sagging pants (in some cities it is actually “against the law” to do so), and no hoodies – especially up.

Pictured in this blog, are two images of Travyon Martin.  Take a real good look at them.  Are the clothes he is wearing indicative of “typical” young Black culture?  In perhaps the most widely shown photo of Travyon, he’s wearing a “Hollister” t-shirt.  How many brothas in the hood do you know who wear that brand?  In a different photo, Travyon is at a ski resort with his snowboard and goggles.  How many brothas do you know who snowboard?

The answer to those two rhetorical questions, as Touré articulates in his excellent book Who’s Afraid of Post-Blackness is that there are thousands of Black folk, young and old who wear Hollister, American Apparel, Abercromie & Fitch, Lands End or any other brand of clothing.  What is problematic is that we as a culture in our minds eye create stereotypes based on certain types of clothing being worn by particular groups.  And when this happens, we create a sometime deadly equation – perception/stereotype + fashion + race = fear.

One is left to wonder, if Travyon was wearing his Hollister shirt would he still be alive?


**On a personal note, I concur with the President.  Not only IS my son Travyon Martin, so was (am) I.  This is a deeply personal situation, but one which is not even remotely new.  What I see as extremely problematic is that we highlight the injustices whenever cases such as this arise and partake in the usual street theater and feigned surprise at the injustice, but, after a period of time (say when the news cameras and Roland Martin’s of the world leave) we move on back to our normal daily lives until the next time, and the next time.

Emmet Till, Amadou Dialou, Shawn Bell, Oscar Grant, Travyon Martin….

March 19, 2012

On The Playground Is Where I Spent Most of My Days...

This week, in honor of March Madness, I want to focus on collegiate athletics.  Specifically I want to focus on an article from last fall in The Atlantic by noted historian (and biographer of Martin Luther King, Jr.) Taylor Branch (http://tinyurl.com/43s7pzm) and a recently released report from The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports (http://tinyurl.com/834m6of).  Each of these articles focus on the differentiation between white male athletes and their Black male counterparts.  They also identify some of the positive things taking place with Black male athletes. 

For example, while there is a 20% gap in the graduation rates between Black and white male football players (which is identified as the “Graduation Success Rate” or GSR), the overall GSR for non-Black athletes is 40% and for Black athletes, 60%.  This seems to be a positive result that we can take away from athletic participation.  The key, of course, is to identify what Black student athletes receive that their same race non-athletic counterparts do not.  Perhaps it is the mentoring and tutoring programs athletes receive, the rigor (or lack thereof) of course selection, or group think in which being successful on the court or field translates to wanting to be successful in the classroom.  What is known is that while we can celebrate the differentiation between the Black athletes versus the non-athletes on campus, the numbers (40% versus 60%) are still extremely anemic.
As we take a breather from watching the games and examining our brackets hoping for the team we're rooting for to win, perhaps we should also examine the culture of collegiate athletics which breeds what Branch describes as an environment in which the “United States is the only country in the world that hosts big-time sports at institutions of higher learning.”  Why do we celebrate “March Madness” far more vigorously than May madness, otherwise known as Graduation?  Why is it that everyone is getting paid in college athletics, save for perhaps the swim coach, except the student-athletes?  Should we go so far as Branch and infer, either explicitly as he does, or implicitly as most do, that high profile college athletics is nothing more than a “plantation” mentality, meaning the athletes are the only ones not receiving compensation for their efforts?

More importantly than the idea of whether or not college athletes should get paid beyond their scholarships, which I believe they should, the question we should be thinking about as we watch the excitement of the NCAA Men’s Tournament is, how many of these young men (specifically young Black men) will be turning their tassels and throwing their hats in the air sometime in May (or a May sometime in the near future)?  Only one team can cut down the nets at the end of the Tournament, one team gets the confetti and their “One Shining Moment,”  hopefully more than that will receive their “One Shining Moment” walking across the stage and receiving their degree less than two months from now.

March 13, 2012

Broken Glass Everywhere...


Very rarely on this blog have I discussed my dissertation topic or even presented ideas surrounding black boys and public education.  Today I want to raise the issue because of two recently released reports concerning the issue.  The most widely distributed report noted that Black students (especially boys) face more harsh punishment in school than their peers. (http://tinyurl.com/86sfkod) The second report, less published in popular media (such as the New York Times) focuses on Black male student success in college (http://tinyurl.com/7thdcdn).  Both reports focus on Black males and public education, but one, the former, takes the usual deficit model perspective of this particular population, while the second report focuses on the successes of this population.  One is left to wonder why the New York Times focused on one but not the other.

What has been continually problematic in the public discourse is how various groups who have historically not had a voice have been presented in the public domain –i.e. popular media such as the Times and other mainstream publications including Time, Newsweek, the three major networks and three major news channels (CNN, MSNBC, FOX).  One question is why is it more “popular” to continue to talk about Black boys (or persons of color in general for that matter) as a deficit, rather than from a more positive perspective?  In plain language, what is so unique about highlighting faults rather than focusing on successes?

This trend of focusing on the negative is not unique to discussions surrounding Black boys and public education, but arguably has taken over the discourse in the public arena.  Putting the focus on the harmful aspects of student behavior, in particular Black boy’s negative behavior, serves what purpose?  It is as if the Department of Education (who released the report) needed validation for what many of us in public education already knew.  To use a sports analogy, for an example as glaring as this, we didn’t need empirical data for something which obviously passes the eye test with 20/20 clarity.  In other words, walk into any public school in America and look around. What do you see?  If it is a low performing school (especially high school), what you are likely to see is that an overwhelmingly large number of Black male students classified as Special Education, in detention or labeled (either publicly or through the teacher “grapevine”) as “troubled.”  Consequentially teachers, who more often than not do not reflect the diversity of the school where they are employed (see: Ann Ferguson’s excellent book Bad Boys: Public Schools in the Making of Black Masculinity), rather than seek solutions, immediately seek to eliminate the source of their “problems.”

What this ostracism does is create a self fulfilling prophecy for many Black boys.  In contrast, how often do we hear about a teacher, counselor or administrator taking a Black boy under their wing and mentoring them to achieve college acceptance?  Ironically, it takes place more often than people in the public discourse think.  Dr. Shaun Harper’s report on Black boys and college success demonstrates that more research needs to be done from the perspective of what these students can do academically rather than continually placing the emphasis on the low expectations anticipated of them by too many in public education.

March 5, 2012

No Snitching is Not Just a Neighborhood Phenomenon. Teachers are Guilty Too.

Starting with Obama’s Inauguration in 2009, it seems as if every public intellectual, public school teacher and education reformer felt that a new day in public education had arrived..  Gone would be the punitive NCLB law with its coercive mandates and demeaning labeling that goes with those measures.  Although the Administration has advanced new education policy measures, NCLB is still in existence and countless critics have argued that some, namely Race to The Top (RtTT) are as bad, if not worse than the previous Administration’s policies concerning public education.
          The largest numbers of hopeful people were public school teachers.  Public school teachers are overwhelmingly Democratic and their Unions (both the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA) contributed greatly to the Democratic Party and Obama’s Campaign.  What have they received in return?
            If one were to do a survey of public school teachers today, they would probably respond that the return on their investment has not yielded much, if anything positive.  In fact, many would say things have gotten worse.  Doing a simple Google search, over the past month the words public school and; “teachers sabotaged” (35k) “teacher bashing” (40k), “teacher failure” (3.4million) and “bad teachers” (3.8million) have shown up in the public discourse more than “Lady Gaga” (144k) and “Whitney Houston” (237k) combined.  What does this mean?
            At the very least, looking at the raw numbers, one can conclude that there is currently a large amount of public discussion centered on the efficacy and influence of public school teachers.  What is problematic is that “good” teachers either self-identified or otherwise, are generally the ones leading the chorus of cries about teachers being mistreated, bashed, sabotaged and labeled failures.  Absent from this discussion are the teachers who perform poorly, do no help students succeed, and do not serve their profession well.  Where are their voices?  When do we actually hear from those who are the ones all of these policy changes and accountability are supposed to flush out?
            Poor performing teacher voices are silent.  They are not the ones who write into the The New York Times (see: Confessions of a “Bad Teacher” - http://tinyurl.com/7bdgt9d and Hard Working Teachers, Sabotaged When Student Test Scores Slip http://tinyurl.com/7cs28ct as two recent examples).  They are not the ones who March on Washington (See http://www.saveourschoolsmarch.org/).  They are the ones who languish behind closed doors, out of the public eye and the public arena, and continue to contribute to the downfall of public education in this country. 
             While it is admirable for “good” teachers to stand up to “being bullied,” they also need to tell the truth.  Not everyone in the profession is as high achieving, motivated and disciplined as those who continue to feel bashed, and those who comment so frequently in the public arena.  Rather than feeling inadequate and less than, perhaps it is time for the good teachers to not just call out those who need assistance, but at the very least, admit they exist.  To deny their existence is to continue to deny the reality of the profession.  It also makes good public school teachers susceptible to feeling that when the public discourse speaks of inadequate and ineffective teachers, that they are talking to you.  It is time to start snitching and start telling the truth.