Let's Go Crazy

As we enter the full swing of summer for most educators, I wanted to take some time to reflect on some of the conversations in which I have participated in online and in person this past academic year.  As someone who recently relocated as well as finished his dissertation, this year was a year of changes.  However there were some things that remained constant.

People in this country tend to live in boxes.  Not just the houses they inhabit, but mental boxes in which it is much easier, to simply see things that exist as either or propositions.  Either you are with me or you are against me.  Either you are black, or you are white.  Either you are female, or you are male.  This drives me nuts.

Having grown up in the complex world of Chicago – both in terms of race relations/neighborhood divisions, as well as politics, I tend to view the world from a lens of; “yeah, things are bad, they could be worse, now what?”  In other words, let’s get on with the business of doing the hard work of change and while not dismissing historical, structural and institutional ineptitude, bias, racism, sexism or the like, we need to figure out a way to move forward.  The direction we as human beings should be moving is forward. 

MLK being pelted with Rocks, Cicero, IL 1966

Let me be clear.  That is not to dismiss any of the social justices which occur, it is simply to say, how do we move forward from them?  In too many instances, in the academic arena, in social circles, and on social media, we are too quick to condemn.  Too quick to isolate, and too quick to judge.  In the immortal words of the great 20th century poet, T.A. Shakur  “only God can judge me.”  Further, what is the end result of judgment?  Especially if people are more often wrong than right?

So how does this ethos manifest itself?  There are many who criticize the President’s “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative as being 1) just for boys, 2) putting the onus on the young men as opposed to the structural inequalities which exists and 3) does not allow for minority community groups to engage in the grant process or contribute to the dialogue.  Let me state the obvious.  If dismantling systems and structures were so easy, we would have accomplished our goals decades, if not centuries ago.

What can we do? 

We can begin by trying to understand that if we are uplifting one group, it does not, and should not mean we are denigrating, denying or dismissing another.  We can do the much needed uplifting of young black males, and help them achieve positive social and academic outcomes.  We can also strive to dismantle the structures which have hampered that progress for decades.  We can highlight the inequities surrounding being black and male in this country, and in many urban education systems, while also helping to advance young women of color (Black, Latino and otherwise) who are struggling with their own issues in those same structures and systems.

In short we can do multiple things at once.

Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the doors to society have legally been open for all to walk through.  We all know too well that in the place of concrete doors, there have been erected invisible doors and walls, but too many spend too much time lamenting – “well they’re doing X, I want X too…” rather than saying, “good job, look at them doing their thing, I (we) need to do our thing too.”

Please do not confuse those statements with an oversimplification of structural and institutional inequity.  I get it.  Even those of you who give me the side eye, let me respond again, I get it.

 

Another example is the current discourse surrounding the President and his Education Secretary.  As people prepare to pack up and head to Washington DC for yet another “rally” or “protest march,” people need to understand politics 101.  If you want to achieve meaningful results or get something done, the last thing you need to do is agitate those in power to the point of insult.  Too many so called progressives have not learned the lessons of the past and are treating this Administration as if it were Romney or McCain sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  They’re not.  As such, insulting and name calling out people who you want to do something – e.g. reform education, should not be the normative behavior. We are all adults. We are all professionals. We should be able to have intelligent, engaging conversations, even disagreements, without resorting to simplistic name calling. 

  

So as we embark on this weekend celebrating our Nation’s birthday, let’s remember to treat each other in the way and through the kinds of actions we would like to be treated.  Even if we disagree. 

California Love

In the wake of the Vergara decision regarding teacher tenure, there has been an explosion of commentary both positive and negative. Some are ready to pour dirt on the entirety of teacher tenure.  Others see the decision as a slap in the face of teachers across the country and as another “nail in the coffin” for due process.  Of course, I see it through a third lens.

Back in 2005, which seems like a long time in terms of education policy/politics, then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed on the November ballot an initiative called Proposition 74.  In short, that Proposition advanced the notion that, god forbid, teacher’s be given five years to receive tenure instead of the extremely short window of only two years.  At the time, in my own District, United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA), as well as the California Teachers Association all worked vehemently to defeat this proposition.  They felt it was a slap in face of, you guessed it, due process.  While at the same time people want to engage in historical amnesia concerning this Proposition, they are also failing to advance their own best interest.

If Prop. 74 had passed, both the public and the politicians would have seen the measure as a step in the right direction of teachers understanding the need for more rigor in the tenure process.  Oftentimes, both the perception and the reality is a war of attrition.  Sit in one spot for 2 years (with perhaps 2-3 walk-through's from administrators) and poof, you’re fully tenured.  I understand that there should be more to it, but oftentimes it is not. Let’s be clear, 95% or more of the teaching population is doing the right thing, but that 5% is anchoring us down.

 

I believe in acknowledging the hard work of teachers who show up for work every day, ready and able to fight the good fight and advocate for their students.  As I used to say when I was a high school classroom teacher, “its not the kids who (mess) up my day, it’s the adults.”  With that in mind let me direct my focus to the adults who insist on acting like the children they teach. Rather than engaging in the reflective discourse of what can be done to improve the profession, people have engaged in the dangerous slope of arguing in absolutes.  Either you agree with tenure or you don’t.  Of course, the “truth” lies somewhere in between both extremes.

Highlighting the FACT that there are an extremely small number of teachers who do not do right by their students is not an indictment on ALL teachers who are in the classroom.  Let me say it another way, if you do the right thing, participating in education groups on social media, grading papers, showing up to work early/leaving late, lobbying for better educational reforms, and in many cases raising your own children, no friend, I am not talking about you.  I am talking about those who languish in the darkness, or sometimes right in front of us, and insist on doing the bare minimum or worse. What is abhorrent is that we as the "good" ones do not shed light on those who need help, or assistance (see: No Snitching from 3-5-12)

It seems as if everyone has a story about a teacher - positively and negatively.  Let me highlight why I believe that teacher tenure needs significant reform.  Without going into great detail (to protect the guilty), a “colleague” of mine in South Central, earned his Ph.D online while he was supposed to be “teaching” his class.  Why does this matter?  Well for obvious reasons of doing ones job, but personally his students would come to my classroom crying begging to be in my already overcrowded class.  How could I say no? Real talk.  Is he an aberration? Absolutely.  But he's not alone. Let’s have an honest, truthful discussion. There may not be anyone as bold, or in my mind abusive, as he was, but there are folk who try to “get over” in every profession.  To deny otherwise is simply weakening our argument that this profession should be view as a top-tier profession.

So rather than continue to rant and point fingers, here are 4 things we can and should do to reclaim the tenure discourse:

1. Increase the number of years from 2 years to 4 or 5 years.
2. In addition to the administrators “observations,” there should be bi-annual meetings with a consortium of parents, teachers, students (if 6-12^th grade) and other stakeholders.  Teaching is not just what you do in the classroom, it is how you affect and interact with the school community as well.
3. There has to be some evidence of academic growth, either through Professional Development credits or attendance at academic conferences.
4. As a part of tenure, the portfolio of the evaluation should include; a written component by the teacher, 2-3 letters of recommendation (including the department chair), a written evaluation by an administrator, and some sort of statistical evidence of student growth (not just test scores).

These are just a few of the ways teachers can “take back” the narrative surrounding teacher tenure.  K-12 tenure is not as rigorous a process as the tenure process at the higher education level, nor should it be.  But these four ideas help towards alleviating the misconception that once teachers receive tenure that they become like my former colleague, inept and lazy. 

Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever…A Change That Never Came

As my first post-doc post, I want to throw my hat into the ring regarding the 60^th anniversary of Brown v Board of Education of Topeka KS (1954).  "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."  Those words spoken by the newly inaugurated Governor Wallace of Alabama in 1963 could not ring more true today.  However, those who are...articulating a false narrative concerning “resegregation” or lamenting that charters or other school reforms equal the “new segregation” are misrepresenting history.

Let me be as explicit as I have ever been about anything…In regards to local public high schools, School segregation NEVER took place.  Let me say that again, school segregation, as intended by Brown NEVER took place in the United States of America.

What did happen?

In the North, and places where there is more than one local high school, we have seen very few instances of positive examples of integration in America.  What occurred is that in areas where school buildings were integrated, much of the population of White students were placed into honors or advanced placement courses and Black and Brown students were placed in remedial courses and vocational education courses.  From the early 1960s until it became a policy non grata, segregation within the school building was primarily done through tracking and other tactical means of keeping “those students” away from their white counterparts. 

Another example of what happened was that in the wake of Brown, especially in the cities with strong ethnic neighborhoods such as Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia, white flight occurred.  The feeling was, you want to integrate the school, fine, I’m moving to the suburbs. In response, school districts tried to “force” integration by demanding students be bused from one school to another [see Eyes on the Prize volume 2 regarding South Boston v Roxbury, 1974].  This vain attempt to integrate schools beyond neighborhood boundaries was extremely problematic and even dangerous as the first and second wave of integration took place post-Brown. The resentment from this failed attempt could arguably be considered to still be prevalent today.

Why is this historical recollection important?  It is important, no, essential, because without the knowledge of the historical events which occurred in the wake of the historic Brown decision there is a tendency to fall prey to the false narrative that Brown integrated schools and even worse, that racial “progress” that was made in those years, has dissipated and we are now fraught with segregated schools, some worse than before the momentous decision.

I have argued that the Brown decision did more to integrate every other aspect of American life EXCEPT public education for a long time.  That statement is usually met with disdain or contempt.  But let’s look at the realities of our surroundings.  As long as we cannot force people to live in integrated communities, and as long as cities previously mentioned and others, want to insist on the antiquated notion of “local, neighborhood schools” we are going to be fraught with racial (and class) isolationism. 

Hence scholars and pundits who wish to use the term “resegregation” or segregation do so knowing it is a loaded term filled with visions of women and men spitting, hitting and cursing young Black boys and girls on their way to enter the school house gates.  It is a term which denotes racial animus, and legal and moral acceptance of the purposeful separation of the races.  It is a term which hearkens back to a day when people such as Ruby Bridges and others were constantly under death threats because of their social justice actions.  It is a term which has zero place in the discourse surrounding public education today, except in the context of trying to create hyperbole and misrepresent the current educational landscape. It is also grounded in the notion that segregation has been used as a mechanism of inequality, and that integration should not be the goal in and of itself.  Instead, we should aim towards dismantling the systems which have created racial and class-based inequality in too many areas of this country for decades if not centuries. Thus I cannot see how we, knowing the history, can continue to use this term to describe the current state of public education. 

In his work, Freeden Oeur who focuses on single-sex schools, notes that separation does not always equal segregation.  Further, it seems to me as if it those who insist on using the term to articulate today’s public school backdrop are using the term to incite the public into action.  The question is what action, and at what costs?

The way I see it, it is unfortunate that many progressives are coming from a position in which their implicit bias is that if it is Black (or Brown) it is wrong.  Very rarely is this notion is expressed explicitly , but usually this “truth” hides under the veil of progressive educators and scholars articulating a vision of creating a public school system which is equitable and just.  While these altruistic goals are highly desirable, to achieve them, one does not have to believe that simply by integrating public schools will solve all their ills.  While some research does demonstrate positive effects of school integration, and as one who went to a fairly integrated public school in Cambridge in the mid-1970s, I can attest that there is tremendous cultural and social capital gained from being raised in a diverse population.  In contrast, I also strongly believe that an all-Black, all-male, or all-Latino environment can also achieve positive academic gains for their students.  Thus the question remains whether or not we are arguing the need to dismantle the 2^nd wave or segregation based on race or class?

It is duplicitous and disingenuous to lay the “blame” on charter schools or other schools of choice as being “resegregated” when we should not only look at the racial and socio-economic make-up of the neighborhoods in which they reside, but also their academic outcomes.  Are they graduating their students and sending them to college?  Are they providing them with opportunities to engage in extra-curricular and co-curricular activities that allow them to be exposed to things that are not the “normative” behavior in their neighborhoods?  Are these students allowed to travel both around the country and the globe to see how others live?  In short, are they allowed to break out of the dominant paradigm and low expectations placed upon them because of their race, SES, gender or other bias?  We need to shift this discussion from the pervasive negative, deficit lens to one of a more positive lens. 

In short, the discourse should not focus exclusively on a schools racial disposition (although I do understand that "urban" equals less than in terms of funding), but rather how can we make ALL schools, regardless of their structures economically viable, safe, trustworthy, highly engaging, high expectations based and outcome centers of positive academic and social learning?  

Failure as Fuel for the Fire

What could have been:  A speech I submitted to the College of Education for consideration for the Graduate Student Keynote Speech...

Needless to say I wasn't accepted.  I've heard one should never let a good speech go to waste so here it goes...

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you President Theobold, Dean Anderson, and distinguished Faculty of the College of Education. It is an honor to be the graduate keynote speaker for the College of Education.  Let me begin by acknowledging a few people, for whom if it were not for their assistance, guidance and support, I would never have made it this far.  The original, OG Doctor Rhoden, my mom.  As they say, the duplicate is never as good as the blueprint. I intend to do my best to honor and uphold the dignity and scholarship of the “family business.” I would also like to thank my Dissertation Committee, which covered three departments and two colleges and helped to guide my intellectual and emotional push towards successful completion.  Without their encouragement, both in person and long distance via e-mail, and Skype, I would not be standing here. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends, and of course, my wife and son, who perhaps one day might be standing here before such an audience.

I would like to focus my remarks around utilizing failure as fuel and motivation.  From middle school on, I wanted to be a lawyer. I read about law, interned at a law firm, and of course, watched every law movie and TV show out there. Fortunately, in my educational background, I never experienced what I colloquially called a “Malcolm X moment” in which, to paraphrase, his teacher told him that he should not aim so high.  My teachers, family and friends all encouraged me to achieve my intended goal.  Of course, standing here today with an educational doctorate, we know that that dream did not happen…yet??  Instead, my intellectual journey was eventually driven, albeit in a crisscrossing, bi-coastal long strange trip, towards urban education.

The greatest basketball player ever, Michael Jeffery Jordan is quoted as saying “I can accept failure. Everyone fails at something.  But I cannot accept not trying…Fear is an illusion.”  Everyone sitting in this audience today understands failure and fear.  Unfortunately in the current microwave society we live in, failure is magnified and fear is unspoken. Rather than being a blip on an overall trajectory of positive outcomes, our failures and foibles are retweeted, shared and posted on social media.

 

One of the key findings from my dissertation is that trust is essential to building resilience. This is vital in helping to counteract fear of failure. We feel immense pressure to be perfect, to not make a mistake, to hold back our true thoughts for fear of offending someone.  If anyone knows me, they know that I’m not afraid of offending anyone.  Not deliberately or maliciously, unless the person opposite me is a New York sports fan, but rather, I seek to engage in meaningful, respectful discussions about controversial issues.  I trust that the dialogue will help advance our knowledge, even if it is sometimes painful. We have to not be afraid to be wrong.  We cannot be afraid to be afraid.  And most importantly as educators, we cannot be afraid of both engaging in uncomfortable discourse and in saying, humbly, “I do not know.” 

As I was writing my dissertation in local coffee shops around both Philadelphia and Phoenix, and let me give a shout out to local coffee shops, I would sometimes be overcome by the magnitude of what I was writing.  Was I honoring the Black male students I interviewed, or just my own educational experiences?  Was I telling their truth or interpreting, or rather misinterpreting their truth through some distorted lens of educational privilege?  Were my conclusions really what I saw, or was my analysis somehow flawed?  All of these negative thoughts, and a few others that I cannot say in a family environment, weighed heavily on my shoulders trying to push me to open Facebook and procrastinate.  Two other important findings from my dissertation are that it is critical to seek out assistance from peers and mentors, and that understanding the connection between socio-emotional, racial and gender identity is extremely important to positive academic outcomes.

My fear of failure, and of not finishing, fueled me towards being, arguably, as focused as I have ever been concerning an intellectual goal.  Thankfully, whenever the inevitable self-doubt and fear crept into my psyche, I had a longstanding support network to lift me up. And that, is indispensable.  I know a lot of quantitative people who looked at my college GPA, or GRE scores and determined “unequivocally” that I would not succeed, nor should I even be in education. Without my network and, of course, the folk at Temple who saw beyond my abysmal numbers and instead saw my intellectual potential, even when I had self-doubt, who knows what I would have become. No doubt, not a lawyer, and not an academic.

So what does failure as fuel mean?  As we embark upon our next journey, for the undergrads, perhaps into grad school, and for us grad school graduates out into academia or the harsh realities of the world as it is, I am reminded of the words of Melissa Harris-Perry, the MSNBC talk show host, and Professor at Tulane University. In a commencement speech at Wellesley College in 2013, she said; “Never become so enamored of your own smarts that you stop signing up for life’s hard classes.  Remember to keep forming hypotheses and gathering data.  Keep your conclusions light and your curiosity ferocious…”

Nelson Mandela eloquently concluded after 27 years of physical imprisonment mostly on Robben Island, that; “I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it.  The brave (wo)man is not (s)he who does not feel afraid, but (s)he who conquers that fear.”

Let us all go forth, not in absence of fear, but with that fear as a blanket to be used as a fuel to guide us towards making positive social change.  Not for our own financial or professional benefit, but for the honor of using our education to assist in the service of others and in seeking to reduce the educational inequities that exist in this country and elsewhere.

Thank you.  

Guns Don’t Kill People, Bullets Do…

As I stated last week, Teach for America can be considered a piece of low hanging fruit in the discourse surrounding their role in public education.  This week, I’m aiming my sights on another piece of progressive rhetoric, poverty.

In their book of the same title, Howard, Dresser and Dunklee (2009) noted that “poverty is not a learning disability.”  It seems as if progressives, in particular progressive teachers working in low income, urban areas have increasingly wanted to condemn their students because of their parent’s socio-economic status.  This is the epitome of the type of deficit thinking that has permeated public education for the last few decades. Incidentally, I would attribute the increase in this type of thinking to several things. The main elephant in the room in American public discourse is that it is much easier to discuss issues in terms of economics versus race.  However there is an interconnectedness that cannot be uncoupled when it comes to public education, particularly in urban areas (which is another example of us being uncomfortable with race – “urban” more often than not equals “Black and Latino”).  Thus liberals and progressives find it easier to frame the discussion as one of economic neglect rather than racial inequality.  This is problematic.  It is even more so because of the increasing lack of diversity in terms of the teacher population.

Without going too Stephen A. Smith on folk, we have a race problem, not a poverty problem when it comes to public education.  (In best Stephen A. voice) There I said it.

As the teaching population ages, those teachers who mirrored the communities in which they taught are retiring.  As Time Magazine recently reported, one in six teachers are teachers of color.  For some of us who have been in public schools and in teacher training arenas, this is a duh moment.  While there is absolutely nothing wrong with white teachers teaching black children, and children of color, what is cause for concern is how they are teaching them and what kinds of expectations they hold for those children who look different from them.  While I do not have empirical evidence, I would strongly hypothesize that there is a correlation between white progressive thought centered on the “woe is them, those kids” mentality versus the retiring black teachers who came from the community and knew how to balance tough love with reality of their students’ surroundings. Let me be clear, this is not 100%.  There are a silent number of black teachers who also held (hold) a deficit thinking mentality towards their minority students, but the preponderance of them do not.  Equally valid are the small number of white teachers who hold minority students to high standards regardless of their parent’s economic or social status.

In another recent study, Nikole Hannah-Jones from ProPublica found that there is (in her words) a “resegregation” of America’s schools.  As someone who has studied the landmark Brown v Board of Education (1954) Supreme Court decision for years, and has taught the case in AP US Government class, I can attest that desegregation, in urban areas never occurred.  As late as the 1990s there were court cases in the north seeking to racially balance public schools (see: New York Times). What Brown did accomplish was that, in places where there were one or two public school options, especially high schools, they became “integrated.”  However, segregation still took place inside the school walls with white students and higher SES students being “tracked” into one type of academic coursework and those students of color and poorer SES students being tracked into another.  Thus economic and racial inequality in public schools has existed as a unspoken reality for far too many educators unwilling, or unwanting to articulate what was in plain sight, for decades. 

Remember the Titans 2000, Buena Vista Pictures

In an interview with Democracy Now, Hannah-Jones articulated that black and minority students tend to be in schools where they are receiving an “inferior education” based on their lack of rigorous curriculum, unequal access to Advanced Placement courses, and high number of inexperienced teachers.  Thus the notion of “separate but equal” is still par for the course.  What is interesting is that Hannah-Jones articulates this through the lens of comprehensive public schools and not charters.  So the question is can charters contribute positively to level the playing field and reduce the differentiation in educational opportunities for minority students versus their white counterparts?

What is…insidious in the underlying insinuation of this question and of the overall tone concerning the use of such terms as “resegregation” or worse “apartheid schools” (more on that in a minute) is that it perpetuates the problematic tome of “if it’s white it’s right, if it’s black, it’s whack.”

Hannah-Jones highlights important points concerning rural and small town areas in which there is great possibility to increase racial equity in public schooling.  However, in large urban areas there is another factor which contributes to racial inequity in public schooling, housing.  In many of my graduate classes, I received the side eye from not just professors but colleagues as well when I proposed that perhaps it is time to open up enrollment citywide for all urban public schools.  What this idea has the potential to do is to try to diversify schools in a more equitable manner.  What we cannot do is legislate where people can and cannot live.

Finally, the new buzz word around trying to discredit charter schools, is the argument focusing on them being “apartheid schools”- meaning they have over 90% minority enrollment.  I’m sorry, but if you examine ANY urban area, there is a strong stench of “apartheid” in every type of public school imaginable, perhaps save for magnet schools.  Why single out charters?  Here’s why…

People are pontificating about “silver bullets.”  There is no such thing as a silver bullet, not for the Lone Ranger, not for a sports team, not for a city, and definitely not for a public education fraught with as many moving parts, and as many localities as we have in this country.  PERIOD.  Stop trying to find one.

So in short: Poverty is not destiny, stop looking for silver bullets, stop looking at economic inequity without coupling it with racial inequality, and let’s move towards ways to increase positive academic and social outcomes for minority students -especially in all minority settings, rather than trying to single them out as being in “apartheid” conditions or worse. 

Teacher Bashing - a Two-Sided Coin

It seems that the low hanging fruit in the education discourse these days is Teach for America.  An organization which was founded to help reduce the teacher shortages in the 1990s and has persisted through the last two decades as a controversial alternative certification program.

What I find problematic is not Teach for America in and of itself, but rather the discourse surrounding Teach for America, or rather Teach for A minute as some have dubbed the organization.  Rethinking Schools has devoted a significant amount of ink its latest issue to the subject of “Resisting Teach for America.”  Let me be clear, I am not a proponent nor opponent of TFA.  I am a proponent of being able to utter the name of an organization that is in the business of educating educators who enter hundreds, if not thousands of classrooms annually, in a respectful manner.  While I agree that TFA is problematic (more on that in a moment), I find the discourse surrounding its existence and practices even more disconcerting.

One of the articles in RS highlights the type of ironic, hypocritical discourse I am speaking of.  A quote, which is highlighted in bold print in the text, argues that “we are all victims – the students, the parents, the communities and the TFA teachers themselves…”  This type of deficit thinking (e.g. we are all victims) is exactly the opposite of my experiences with TFA teachers. As a Small Schools Coordinator in a persistently dangerous and underperforming high school in South Central LA, our school was inundated with TFA teachers each fall.  Rather than be embraced by the general faculty, they were dismissed outright as “only being there for a moment” or “not knowing anything about anything” and worse. [For a better articulation of TFA experiences at my former school see Donna Foote’s excellent book Relentless Pursuit] 

Rookie pitcher carrying Hello Kitty Backpack

Sorry to go here again, but to use a sports analogy, you do not ride the rookies so much that they want to leave as soon as their first contract is up.  You want to make sure that they become an integral part of the team.  Thus, we can do two things at once - criticize TFA as an organization, and uplift those new teachers who are our colleagues in our buildings.  What is even more egregious, when I have made this statement in other forums, the response of too many veteran teachers is that Teach for America corps members are “not teachers to begin with.”  My how quickly the crabs in the barrel try to pull others down, and how quickly people forget their own first few years in the classroom.

My personal journey towards the classroom began around 1999 or so. I went into the Chicago Public Schools district office to get a form to become a substitute teacher.  Remember back then, there was no NCLB and one did not have to be “highly qualified.” Rather than being treated with respect and encouragement, I was summarily dismissed by the staff and handed a form.  I left with a bad taste in my mouth, but still a desire to teach.

Fast forward a few years, after years in politics, public relations and working with students outside the classroom and occasionally substitute teaching, I applied to Teach for America.  In the early months of 2003, after submitting a written application, I was called into an office building in downtown Chicago for an interview which consisted of a focus group discussion, a one-on-one interview and a 5 minute classroom presentation of a lesson.  At the same time I was going through the application process with TFA, I also applied to another alternative certification program, The New Teacher Project, specifically the Los Angeles Teaching Fellows (LATF).  I was also called into LATF to perform a similar job presentation, this time in Los Angeles.  I flew out with what few funds I had, with visions of entering the classroom as a history teacher. 

I was subsequently rejected from TFA and was hired into the 6-week induction program for LATF.  While I cannot concretely point to the reasons I was rejected from TFA, yet hired by a similar program, I believe that I was too “old” having been 33 years old when I interviewed rather than the norm of around 23 for Teach for America corps members and, according to a new article, perhaps too Black – see: A Racio-Economic Analysis of Teach for America.  Nonetheless, what is problematic a decade later is not that both organizations are still around (not LATF, but NTTP), but rather why does Teach for America bear the brunt of the criticism while The New Teacher Project (TNTP) gets off scot free?  It is because it is easier to critique “neophyte” young people who are straight out of college, even if they are graduating from top institutions and at or near the top of their classes , versus second or third career “veterans” who have experience in the professional world, albeit not in the formal classroom?

Many of my peers from LATF are still in the classroom a decade later.  The six-week training we experienced was as intense, perhaps more so, than any teacher education program I have encountered.  The question is, it a matter of paying “dues” through years accrued in an undergraduate teacher program, or learning the skills necessary to perform well in the classroom?  I argue, as does Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond, that teacher education programs are not doing as good of a job as they can in training teachers either. 

Perhaps we need to reevaluate the “we are all victims” mantra that has permeated the discourse in public education and flip the script to we are all heroes.  Or maybe we are all learners.  Or we are all in this together.  If we do not begin to become proactive towards a positive goal, as opposed to simply being “against” an organization, educational policy, specific politician, etc…then we are going to be doomed to a continued level of educational inequity and lack of social justice we all wish to achieve.  The time for band-aid’s passing as policy reform has long since passed.  It is now time to begin to marshal our forces towards positive change by being more positive.

At the Crossroads – AERA 2014 Postscript

Coming back from a self-imposed blog break for AERA and vacation, I’m back as energized as ever.  For the past few months I have been in a now admitted post dissertation haze and exhaustion.  Going to the granddaddy of them all of educational conferences, the American Educational Research Association (AERA), seeing colleagues, attending amazing presentations by esteemed academics, and seeing even a few friendly faces in Philadelphia, has recharged this battery. 

I have also come back with a renewed sense of antagonism and anger aimed towards the current state of not only public discourse, but academic discourse as well.

As a newly minted, fresh out of the box PhD, my experience at my second AERA was somewhat at a

crossroads.  I am no longer a student, yet I am not a fully hired Professor either.  I sit at the intersection of teacher/student as I have done most of my life, but this time, my student self (at least in the formal sense) is the one that is slowly becoming a memory.  This presented me with an interesting perspective on viewing the sessions I attended. In fact, it also perhaps influenced the sessions I choose to attend in the first place.

In an unnamed session I attended, after several interesting presentations on teacher diversity and teacher identity, I raised a question concerning the teacher pipeline and perhaps ways in which we could increase the number of college students of color who become teachers of color.  Rather than acknowledge that this is a challenging area in teacher education programs, one of the presenters dismissed my inquiry as a “problem for policy makers” and then proceeded to pontificate about the education policy ills we have all heard an nauseam.  I am not exactly sure that her rant answered my question, but I am sure that it is an explicit example of what is problematic about the current discourse surrounding educational inequities, public education and education politics/policies. My take away from this encounter is that there appears to be an academic (and public) hierarchy based on several factors.  Let me lift the veil and say, perhaps I should not, in my gender, race or age positionality, have been asking a question in a public forum that would seem to be “challenging” the authority of the presenter.  

Interesting considering this is an educational conference...

Regardless of my experience in that one session, I of course, persisted in continuing to be curious and in asking questions, and even making a few comments which garnered nods from some in the audience. Overall, my biggest gripes with the conference was that most of the sessions did not allow for time for insightful, meaningful and divergent perspectives from the audience.  Most sessions went right up to the time it was allotted, and if there were a few minutes for questions, they were usually few and did not provide time for follow up.  I believe growth takes place in that messy middle where disagreement lies.

Another gripe, was that there were too many sessions that had a singular aim rather than a more multidimensional approach.  What I mean is, for example, I attended a colleague’s presentation on rites of passage programs of young black women and upon leaving that session a group of noted scholars on black males were outside waiting to enter the room.  Why were there two separate, but equal sessions surrounding the same issue/area. I am eager to both see more sessions in which the confusing, muddled interesctionality of topics is met head on, as well am eager to emerge as one scholar willing to assist in creating such sessions and participating in such sessions.  

I also found it problematic that there were so many sessions related to social justice that were of critical importance, perhaps only to me and the few other people who were in attendance, on the last day.  For example, the last session I went to was a sparsely attended session on the “cradle to prison pipeline.”  This was one of the best sessions I have attended in my young academic career.  This was a session in which there were multiple perspectives, although not one in which there was anyone in favor of the prison industrial complex, present and a lively discussion ensued.

Lastly, my own presentation, yes held on the last day, went well.  It was interesting to be at the table with several colleagues who were further along in their careers, as well as a few who were still finishing their dissertation work.  That made for an interesting mix of opinions, collegiality and perspectives.

 

So what does AERA have to do with the public discourse of education policy and politics?  My twitter

friend and Philadelphia education activist, Helen Gym, in a standing room only presentation with Dr. Diane Ravitch, implored us as researchers to be more activists.  In another session I attended which honored the late Dr. Jean Anyon, Pedro Noguera noted the link between activism and the academy, articulating how the research/perspectives both he and Dr. Anyon have created have been strongly influenced by their activism prior to entering higher education. 

It seems that between now and 2015 AERA, which is home in Chicago, we as researchers and higher education folk need to be more connected with what is going on in the trenches, and, where appropriate and necessary, become activists in our own right.  However, the caveat I have been imploring for months for all of us, is that we need to do this work with a humility that affords us to listen to various perspectives…not just the perspectives we believe, or the perspective of someone with “years of experience,” a few letters at the end of their name, or who look like us, but rather all perspectives. 

It is the only way we can successfully bind the intersection of research, policy and practice. 

Nino Brown

New Jack City, Warner Bros. 1991

In 1991 the urban classic film New Jack City, Nino Brown (played perfectly by Wesley Snipes), and his right hand man, G-Money, throughout the film repeat the phrase “am I my brother’s keeper.  Yes I am.”  In fact, those are the last words uttered between the two before Nino kills G. 

Fast forward to 2014, the President of the United States is Black and he has revived the phrase “My Brother’s Keeper.”  This time, the aim is not to keeping his “boys” from the neighborhood in line, but rather it is an initiative designed to keep all boys of color in line by being more responsible and compassionate towards one another and for us, as a society, to value boys of color in more positive ways rather than strictly as drug dealers, corner boys, high school dropouts, unemployed, or deadbeat fathers.

whitehouse.gov

While one would think that the premise advanced by the President and his Administration would be seen as beneficial both for the community and from the community, there are those who have been vocally critical, or at the very least, skeptical of the merits of this initiative. 

Last month when the initiative was rolled out, in addition to Magic Johnson, Colin Powell and others Black leaders being in attendance at the White House, the President had a cadre of young black boys from a predominantly all-black high school on the south side of Chicago behind him as he gave his speech.  The optics were one of positivity.  Seeing black boys out of the “context” of expectations, meaning suited up, clean cut standing tall and proud behind the first Black President, was an important visual.  However, where I am conflicted is whether or not we should EXPCECT Black boys and boys of color to “perform race” in multiple ways such as this example, or should the narrative exclusively be relegated to their supposed stereotypical “authentic” urban, hip-hop selves?  In my own experience, it was irrelevant whether or not I was wearing a suit or a sweatshirt, too many cabs from Washington DC to Chicago have passed me by.  Why does this happen?  If adults with a little bit of status (as exemplified by wearing a suit) are seen as “problematic” or “threatening” (let me add not just by white cab drivers, but by a large number of Black immigrant cab drivers too), then how should we as a society view even younger Black male bodies?

Historically we know that Black and Brown bodies have been problematic to the dominant group, and seen systemically and structurally as “inferior.”  Does one initiative by the first Black President change those systems and structures overnight?  Of course not.  Anyone who bought into the false premise of living in a “post-racial” society simply because of the election of Obama is living in a Willy Wonkaish dream world.  

However, as I have repeatedly articulated, how do we flip the script and create a counter-narrative that both honors the historical background, but is not stuck there?

I will not repeat the statistics concerning boys of color the President cited. In citing the statistics in this context, in my opinion, he was not framing the discourse from a deficit perspective. Rather he was framing it from a structural and historical one.  I think this aspect went unnoticed by many of the critics who claim that this initiative is nothing more than talk.  It is not as if a President, of any race by the way, could explicitly come out and say that we are starting this initiative because the United States was founded on and has historically demonstrated institutional, and structural oppression, violent hatred and racial animus.  As a politician, even one with no campaign on the horizon, any President would be cautious about exactly how “honest” he can be.  By stating the obvious narrative of his own history of growing up without a father and citing this issue as one of “national importance,” he is saying implicitly what all the prognosticators, academics and critics would like to see him make explicit.  

Dr. Lewis-McCoy in a piece in Ebony is quoted as saying “creating change is not simply about behavior but also about changing the pervasive unequal systems that ensnare young men of color.”  No doubt Dr. Lewis-McCoy is 100% correct, but is it not possible to change systems and structures AND hearts and minds of the boys of color at the same time?  Is it not possible to both encourage boys of color to be resilient and demonstrate persistence AND teach them about the world as it is – perhaps by articulating examples of our own experiences of navigating through the world as positive black males through highlighting difficulties in being unable to get a loan, being denied housing, tenure or a job simply because we are “too aggressive,” or any number of negative experiences even “successful” black males endure?

Mychal Denzel Smith both in the Nation and on the Melissa Harris-Perry show on MSNBC explicitly called the initiative “flawed” and “counterproductive.”  His premise is similar to Dr. Lewis-McCoy’s in that he claims the initiative does not address structural problems, specifically the two examples of stop-and-frisk and mass incarceration.  I believe that any initiative when first launched cannot and should not be so etched in stone that it cannot adapt to legitimate criticisms such as articulated by these two commentators and scholars.  However, I am realistic, or perhaps optimistic enough to know that just like it is difficult to lose weight gained over years of neglect, so too is it difficult to change structures and institutions overnight.

Changing the narrative from a negative to a positive one is never easy.  Oftentimes people see highlighting what is good as disrespecting the history or reality of the negative.  That does not have to be the case.  We can, as Smith says “turn every black and brown boy into a ‘respectable’ citizen” AND advance society by eliminating the historical inequities inflicted upon them.  We, as communities of color cannot succeed alone in changing the narrative.  It will take allies from every walk of life to make change happen.  I believe that the President’s initiative is a step in the right direction. Not the entire marathon, but a much needed, and long delayed step towards positive social change. 

Failure IS an Option...

My last post of 2013 was an introduction to my educational journey. After a few more recent dust ups on social media, my credentialing still being challenged, and other personal attacks being aimed in my direction, let me aim back and set the record straight.  I completely understand that in this microwave era, many folk have already made up their minds about my positionality to respond to the inequities in public education, education policy, and my intellect all together. However, if you are someone willing to listen to truth and complexity, here we go...

As I left the Public Relations agency and entered the world of formal education, I came to the profession with trepidation.  My grades never reflected my “true abilities.” This was a term I saw all too often on report cards all through middle school, high school, and if there had been a place for them to have made the comment, in college too.  I have always been a cerebral person who tries to think from multiple angles.  What that means is that while I can write with precision, that precision becomes less impactful when given multiple choices via test or through short answer responses.  Further, the more personal my relationship was with my teachers and professors, the more they understood that I my poor outcomes on testing demonstrating “text anxiety” and not “laziness,” or lack of intellect.  

In retrospect, some 25 years later, seeing the pervasive and disparate numbers of black boys in special education, remediation, suspensions and the like, I wonder if I too would have fallen “victim” and become a negative statistic rather than a positive one?  If I had attended public school for more than a year in high school and two in grade school, would I have succeeded in all the arenas I have entered?  Would I have been exposed to the same opportunities?  Would I have the same friends who have been there for decades to pick me up and motive me towards success?  Of course I cannot definitively say, but one can wonder...

When I started teaching Service Learning (called Community Learning) at Lab, I was “going home.” 

Having been a student there for four years, I was, by no means a lifer as so many of my friends were, but I did feel a sense of home that had been absent from many of my professional endeavors.  My position gave me the best of both worlds at Lab.  I was able to explore the city with students who had been out of the country abroad, but had hardly scratched the surface of their own city.  Because of my status as an alum, which I never wore on my sleeve, but was quickly found out nonetheless, I was able to connect with the day to day milieu that so many students experience in independent school settings – test, homework, community service (both religious and “required” from school), extra-curricular activities, travel, college expectations and pressures, and of course being a high school teen. This meant that I "understood" them and expected their excuses and challenges before they even were uttered.

At the beginning, some of those sophomores who entered my “classroom” (i.e. the Van that carried about 25-40% of the students to and from their service site) thought I was nothing more than a glorified bus driver.  That sentiment quickly vanished when they realized that in most instances (hospitals being one area where I did not), I volunteered right alongside them, modeling how to work with the various populations of ‘other;’ Latino grade school kids in Pilsen, Senior citizens in Woodlawn and Uptown, and Black youth from the Cabrini Green Housing complex on the near north side, just to name a few of my favorite sites.  In each of these areas, for the duration of my tenure I not only modeled, but taught, mentored, comforted and educated bilaterally – meaning those we were serving had preconceived notions of our students, and of course our students had preconceived notions of where we were volunteering.  One of the best ways I acclimated many of the students not just to the volunteer site, was through immersing them into the community, oftentimes through food, but also various cultural events.  This, as I found out later, was the epitome of John Dewey’s philosophy of “learning by doing.” Thus whenever someone ask me about my number of years “in the classroom,” I always include my years at Lab because the community and van were my classroom and I affected intellectual change deeply in those students who entered this domain as much as any book or test about community would have, even more so. 

After a point, as I was approaching 30, I realized that as much as I loved (and still do) this position, it was time to take my knowledge from Capitol Hill and the communities of Chicago to my desired career goal, law school.

As the new century approached, I applied to many law schools on the west coast.  I was rejected from most, in part based on my poor LSAT score, and was wait listed at one, in northern California. Rather than wait to find out if a spot opened, I took a crazy chance and went up to the Bay Area to meet with the admissions folk and a few professors face to face.  After a few weeks of pounding the pavement in the Bay Area, nothing worked out.  Not only did I not get into law school, I couldn’t even find a job in the area.  In retrospect, perhaps then I should have looked at entering the classroom as a substitute teacher then, but it was not on my radar at that time.

Rather than come back to Chicago, I flew down to Los Angeles, a place where I had gone to college and still had a few contacts and friends.  I came to LA LA Land at exactly the wrong time.  There was a transit strike going on, and of course, here I was without a car.  Again, I persisted and tried to make things work for a few weeks, but eventually returned home to Chicago.  Broke, embarrassed, and a failure.

Part III coming soon…

BAT Dance

I have had enough with all these so called “progressive” education reform groups who want to change (revamp, renew, restructure, etc…) policy and practice but are barely able to change the toner in their printer.  They act, ironically enough, like the millennial students they lament are entitled and whiny.

I have never seen the level of discourse from “well intentioned” folk be this divisive, and more importantly, this divergent.  It’s well beyond two ships that pass in the night.  One is a ship and the other is a whale.  We are not even relating as the same species. What is even more problematic is that these same folk see their students continuously, even though some think they are not, through their deficits rather than their assets.  For me, this cannot stand.

A few years ago in 2011, I braved the extreme humidity of Washington DC and drove down from Philadelphia for an event entitled “Save OurSchools (SOS) Million Teacher March.”  I am not sure what I was expecting to see, having been witness to many of the largest civil rights marches of the 1990s in Washington (Million Man March, March for Women’s Lives, 30^th Anniversary of the Civil Rights March of 1963, just to name a few). What I saw when I arrived was a small stage with an even smaller number of individuals (5000 according to SOS estimates, but even fewer in my opinion). I was encouraged to come down based on the number of key speakers who I have generally philosophically aligned myself with – Deborah Meier, Jonathan Kozol, Pedro Noguera and Diane Ravitch.  I was anticipating that their presence would lend some levity, and most importantly historical perspective, surrounding the cyclical nature of American public education.  Unfortunately their words were drowned out by those yelling for an end to high-stakes testing, to reclaim public education and the incessant complaints that teachers were being “bashed” by policies that were designed to “privatize” the profession.

Fast forward three years and while SOS is still kicking (albeit on life support), another new organization has taken hold across social media – Badass Teachers Association (BATs).  There is a great deal of overlap, but their two biggest gripes are Common Core and high-stakes testing. They too are holding their own “march” in Washington this coming July (doesn’t anyone know how hot is it in DC in July?!?!).  They have even created a 10 point “Contract” in which they are DEMANDING change (see picture to right).  To me they first need to come to grips with a few things concerning what I have dubbed “Politics 101” before even being considered serious challengers to the status quo, and more importantly achieving meaningful reform.

In many of these so called progressive organizations demanding to “reclaim public education, White privilege, which I mentioned begrudgingly in last week’s post, has completely taken hold. In organizations such as BATs, Philly Coalition Advocating for Public Schools (PCAPS), and to some extent Teachers Action Group (TAG) (just to name a few), much of the so called “leadership” claims repeatedly that they are “inclusive of all perspectives.”  What does this mean?  It means that too many within the leadership and rank and file of these organizations clamoring to be the “saviors” of public education know very little if anything about the history of the schools they are trying to save. 

For example, imagine the dialogue if folk had a better understanding of the history of some of their biggest gripes – Teach for America (TFA), high-stakes testing and charter schools (just to name a few). I am far from naïve. While I do not believe that simply understanding the history of TFA, testing or charters (especially local charters) would mean an end to the incessant “bashing” and complaining, I do think we would be better off in regards to having a higher level of sophisticated discourse and respect pertaining to the educational the landscape.

Here’s a quick point by point critical examination of the BATs 10 point plan, err I mean list of demands:

1. Replace Common Core (CC) with??? What would high expectations and standards look like for BATs and others who critique Common Core?
2. This is intended to critique Race to the Top (RttT).  What percentage of student’s test scores in a teacher’s evaluation would be acceptable?  If the answer is zero, replace it with what?  Same with high-stakes testing, replace this accountability measure with??
3. Since the 1983 report A Nation at Risk the Federal government has been arguing that public schools are in decline.  What have large comprehensive public school districts done correct in the last 30 years that warrant their blind trust?
4. The curriculum in each district and school should be chosen at the local level.  Standards are not curriculum.  There is a difference.
5. What you’re really saying is replace Arne with Diane.  Tell the truth! Please show me the empirical or peer reviewed evidence that demonstrates the ineffectiveness of Duncan as compared to his predecessors.
6. Equity, adequate and appropriate are buzz words for give me what I want without qualification.  If there is an increased costs, who pays?
7. No problem here.  Looks like you’ve got one right…
8. ALL Public schools are public.  The information you seek exists out there.  Should we make Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and other confidential information public?  I think not. Free speech is not free.
9. Classic example of blaming the victim.  TFA is a product of an environment that has placed an undue burden on urban underserved schools to staff their buildings.  Too many “veteran” teachers upon reaching tenure run from these schools.  A better “demand” would be a formula that all schools have to have a percentage of a combination of TFA, Vets (3-5yrs, 6-10yrs, etc) and other teachers.
10. The protections of these important populations already exists.  No school is perfect for every population.  There has to be an honest acknowledgement that there is a need for some specialization and some differentiation between schools in a district.  One size does not fit all. 

Reform This!

In last week's blog (Gas Face 2/18) I concluded that opting out of high stakes testing was a cop out.  Some people tried, unsuccessfully to push back by saying that the test is wrong and because it is wrong, we should not subject our children to taking the test.  Upon further review…nope, still believe it is a cop out.

This past Saturday (2/22) I had the privilege of viewing the Daniel Hornberger documentary Standardized Lies, Money & Civil Rights: How Testing is Ruining Public Education. 
If I were Siskel or Ebert, I would begrudgingly give it a thumbs up.  As a teacher, I’ll give it a B-.  The reason being that there are several key things that struck me as fundamentally flawed and prevented me from liking the film more.  While I agree with the premise that the current batch of high-stakes testing is not benefiting students, there were several problems I had with the film.



1) Hornberger does an excellent job of painting the educational reform landscape since the late 1990s starting with the Clinton initiative “Goals 2000,” transitioning into No Child Left Behind (which is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization of 2002), and finally to Obama’s Race to the Top initiative enacted during his first term.  What I didn’t realize until seeing all of these programs en masse was that no one, or very few, have openly acknowledge that since the initial reauthorization of ESEA (dubbed NCLB, now back to ESEA) there hasn’t been ONE reauthorization of this most important piece of legislation.  This goes beyond insane.  Not only is NCLB an unfunded mandate, it is also a non-reauthorized one as well.  Imagine if Social Security or the Defense department was not reauthorized but simply languished in flux for 12 years? 

     2) Something else that is problematic is how some interviewed in the film create false notions of there being only one way of navigating through this muddy water.  They pretend that in order for “order” to be restored, you need to have gym, arts/music, social studies, etc…My thought goes beyond the simple either/or proposition to the more complex.  How do we get a child to read at grade level, assess where they are, assist in their growth and NOT lose these invaluable classes?  I do not believe that we need to boil down the school day into reading, math, science, and test prep.  I believe that this generally occurs in schools where there is a distrust between the administrators of a school and it's teachers which exists that does not allow for freedom at the school site level.  That seems like an easy proposition to solve.  Be counterintuitive, give MORE autonomy to failing schools.  Partner them with higher performing schools and see what happens.  Clearly drill and kill is killing not just the students, but the teachers as well. Why not try something new?

      3)  Some of the hyperbole in the film was laughable if it wasn’t so damaging. For example, one interviewee termed RttT as “extortion” while another made the statement that using data to drive instruction is not “teaching” students.  It gets even better, another interviewee stated that school reform equals “…Black and Brown kids being kicked out of their town and being replaced with White kids…” I have repeatedly lamented that the language of the educational reform discourse in this country is in dire need of improvement, but this is beyond depressing.  Not only are there these quotes and others which highlight the disrespect taking place, there is an entire segment of the film devoted to Michelle Rhee and other "reformers" which is simply embarrassing.  Teachers often lament that they are being “scapegoated” as the cause of the failure of schools and children.  Turning around and scapegoating someone else, regardless of her flaws, does not seem to me to be an intelligent action when seeking to eliminate the practice all together.

     4) Finally, when I saw the scene in the film in which the Long Island Opt Out group was meeting in the kitchen of one of the women’s homes, I realized what is so problematic about this entire faction of education reform. There are only two people of color in this film, Professor Yong Zaho of the University of Oregon and a young man calling Rahm “racist” during an impassioned speech to the Chicago Teachers during their strike. To me this fatal flaw is akin to why Colorado and Washington State have legalized “recreational” marijuana and Detroit does not.  Privilege has its positionality. 

Imagine if a group of Black or Latino parents wanted to opt out their children from taking…well from doing ANYTHING in the educational system?  Many would lament how “these” parents want special treatment, want affirmative action, want to hide the flaws in their children, etc…I’m sorry.  What is offensive is the notion (the false belief) that mothers and fathers in poor and urban neighborhoods do not possess the cultural and social capital to want better for their children and cannot advocate for them – thus we need “progressive” organizations and teachers to “fight” for our children. [Note: this concept was brought up again during the Q & A period of the screening when one woman said that her school district was a "great community."

In short, what has happened is too many people with White privilege have decided that this issue is too ripe to pass up.  They believe that they have the high moral ground to help "save our schools" by showing parents and students a "better" way.

For example, Hornberger made a comment during a Skype interview after the film that really was telling.  He said that the “SATs are a joke.”  This assertion has been known by decades of researchers who have lamented racial bias in testing, yet these tests are still here and still used (luckily to a lesser degree than when I applied to colleges in the late ‘80s).  Now that White folk whose families moved to the suburbs a generation or two ago in the wake of the Brown decision are gentrifying and “revitalizing” urban areas and
are subjected to not just the SAT/ACT high stakes but also the state test, they want come in and acknowledge what has been occurring for decades as if it is new?  NOW it has become a fight worth fighting?  Please.

So these are a few reasons why I give this film a B-.  In grad school parlance that’s a fail.  If you have seen the film, what are your thoughts?  How can we move beyond fighting words towards positive outcomes?  I’m sick of people using coded language such as “great community” to mean high SES, predominantly white and safe.  I am sick of films not presenting multiple sides of the issue by bringing in the perspective of people of color – either intentionally (which is bad) or purposefully (even worse).  

As someone else noted post screening, and as Marvin Gaye said so eloquently; “what’s (really) going on?”  There is no right answer, no singular solution.  Is that provocative? Perhaps…