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…

Dear Arne:

Don’t do it!  Don’t fall prey to those with whom, on most issues, we both agree.  Don’t fall into the trap they are setting by using terms like “racial disparities”, “inequities” and “segregation.”  Don’t listen to many well-intentioned but politically naïve people who do not understand how Washington works.  

Friends of Whitney Young High School

Let me be clear.  I am a strong advocate for equitable, good schools.  However, I believe that for decades, many public schools in urban areas, have experienced neglect, disorganization, lack of infrastructure, safety concerns and the like. Unfortunately, the suit being brought forth by community activists from 15 cities (including my hometown and yours of Chicago, as well as Philadelphia, where I currently reside) is without merit, has the potential to be detrimental to educational reform for decades and is not in the best interest of those with whom the plaintiffs think they are defending – young children of color from urban neighborhoods in this country. (see: Education Department to Hear School Closing Complaints - NYT 1-29-13)

Here is the simple assertion, in many urban areas, poor performing schools are concentrated, for the most part, in poor performing neighborhoods.  They are asymptomatic of bigger structural inequalities which exist throughout, but are best exemplified through the neighborhood school – specifically the high school since there are fewer high schools than other types of public schools.  Whether this is the “fault” of public schools or public policy is open for debate and interpretation.  What is clear is that as long as we have had public schools in this country there has been inequality.  The Supreme Court decision of Brown v Board of Education in 1954 did not “end” inequality; it ended legalized segregation of the races.  Brown did not integrate neighborhoods based on race, class or social standing.  In fact, some would argue that Brown did the reverse; it created inner cities which increasingly became populated with more people of color as “white flight” took place.  What is not discussed openly at least in this country, is that in addition to “white flight,” there was also class flight where middle class black and brown folk also left these neighborhoods as soon as they were able to become “upwardly mobile” with redlining and other restrictions being eliminated.

So what does this all mean for the current state of not just public education, but of urban areas in this country?  We have now, in the wake of the increase in accountability, social media and 24/7 news cycles, become incensed about a problem which has been in the shadows of public policy for decades.  Feigning indignation about this situation now is being tardy to the situation at best, and at worse being, in the words of Holden Caulfield, phony.

So Mr. Secretary, I implore you and Mr. Holder to acknowledge that while school closings are not the most desirable situation, they are an important component to restructuring and rebuilding infrastructures.  Not just for downsizing, or “right sizing” Districts, but also because after years of persistent failure (even before the NCLB era), we cannot afford to continue to do the same thing, change the chairs on the Titanic (by replacing administrators, teachers and the like) and expect students (namely students of color) to succeed.

Beverly Hills High pool/basketball court

Change is hard.  That goes without saying.  What needs to be acknowledged openly is that schools are perhaps the last vestiges of what used to be a cohesive, close knit community.  Schools have served as beacons and anchors of neighborhoods for decades, as in the decades of the 1950s and earlier.  In many higher socio-economic and higher social strata communities, they still do – which is why their schools are not called into question, or being closed.  If there is a “problem” in schools in those areas, the community possesses the social capital to make change happen – both politically and economically.  In many urban school districts however, those conditions of social capital change does not exist. Instead, these schools have been persistently, slowly eroding ever since the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s. 

How long, not long.  How long must we wait to create not just surface change, but long lasting meaningful change that, in the short term, may hurt, may be an affront to our “normal way of doing things,” but in the long run has the potential to transform lives?  Clearly the current structures and systems are inadequate and not working.  Why not take a chance and work together to not fight the closures, but to make sure that they never happen again by supporting good public schools from their inception.  Not only do we need “school reform” we need a serious discussion and commitment to “neighborhood reform” as well.  In order to achieve change, we need to eliminate these types of frivolous, attention grabbing law suits, and being the difficult task of working together.

Sincerely yours,

Stuart Rhoden

Running to Stand Still...

I absolutely love the term "running to stand still" which is the title of a U2 song from "The Joshua Tree" album (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDKV0ekjIj0). I say it to my wife whenever we are at the airport and as soon as the announcement to board comes some people immediately jump up or "hurry" to be 1st in line.  This annoys me to no end.  ESPECIALLY when the person or persons in question are seated in row 10 and takes 5 minutes to put their stuff in the overhead bin clogging up the process!

In education...Many critics of the Obama Administration and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan are saying and feeling the same annoyance in regards to the competition for the unprecedented millions being granted to states for education funding known as the "Race to the Top" funds.  Sec. Duncan and the Department of Education (DOE) have reviewed the first set of applications and granted Tennessee and Delaware the first "awards."  The critique on both sides of the aisle surround the idea that education can be (or is seen as) a "competition."  Many see this philosophical transformation as the beginning of the end of public education as we know it.  I'm sorry to say, we've already reached that conclusion about five/six years ago when we started converting large comprehensive schools into smaller parts en masse across the country. Regardless of your position surrounding No Child Left Behind (NCLB) one thing is abundantly clear, change is here.  When it comes to education and reforming the current system, we are constantly running to stand still - whether it be in continually leaving children behind or in concerning ourselves with whose ox will be gored (a political term for someone "losing" the debate).

I hear people who do not want people (namely children) to "lose" in this critical "competition" for funds, but the question is what process could we create in which there would be no "losers?"  Let me be clear (like Obama), I am in no way saying that we should continue to neglect schools and students who have been left even further behind by the current incarnation of education legislation, NCLB and the increased demands on testing, testing, testing. If we are truly invested in meaningful reform from an honest standpoint, we have to acknowledge that in this country there are always winners and losers. 

The problems lie when one group or class of people are continually the losers or continually neglected - whether systemically, by choice or by other means.  I am still uncertain whether or not I believe the rising tide lifts all boats analogy currently in vogue with the Administration, but one thing I do know is that (as one of my former principals always said) we can not continue to do the same thing and expect different results.