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?  

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. 

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. 

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…

The Gas Face

I have a tremendous amount of respect for those who put themselves on the front lines, even if I disagree with their tactics and conclusions.  I am quite aware of the multitude of confusing information and misinformation that passes as “news” in this hyperbolic, 24/7, social media era.  Consequentially, I can understand how some can be in a state of confusion...a little bit.

With that said, let me be clear, “opting out” is a copout.

Photo from Kelly Ann Photography

The picture of this young lady on the left has become “viral” and is being used as conclusive evidence surrounding the idiocy of "high stakes testing."  As I have said previously, ANYONE who knows me personally, knows that I abhor testing and most simple quantifiable measures of academic performance.  As an avid sports fan I can see the merits of numbers.  However, when it comes to the classroom and life outside the lines, there are so many variables which enter the equation that it is difficult to quantify performance exclusively by using such measures as A,B,C or “proficient,” “basic,” or the dreaded “below basic.” 

So Stuart, since you think it is wrong to opt out of this overindulgent, excessive amount of "high stakes testing," you are in favor of testing our babies incessantly and measuring the worth of their hard working teachers by their test scores?  If I had $5 for every time someone wanted to pin that on me, I’d be riding around in my new 2014 Range Rover.  So for the umpteenth time, let me clarify my position and my disdain with the incomplete conclusions drawn from my fellow bloggers at The Chalk Face and by those who call themselves so called Badass Teachers. 

     1) To describe the face of the young girl as “hearbreak” is well…disingenuous.  I know countless teachers who would look at that face of frustration and see not just the frustration but also persistence (yes a dirty word for some of y’all) and resilience (even worse, I know).  What these two words mean to me is that yes, things are hard, but with time, patience, practice and yes teaching (both from parents and educators) it will get better. 

I am 100% positive that James Baldwin, Miles Davis, Itzhak Perlman, John Lennon, Michael Jordan, Hank Aaron or any other person who has achieved excellence in their respective profession (intellectual or otherwise) has had, at some point, that same exact look, or worse, on their face as they drove to reaching the highest levels of proficiency in their professions. 

2) What message are we sending to children of this generation if we insist that if they, or others think something is “hard” then they can “opt out?”  It is already bad enough that there is a false sense of accomplishment with this generation concerning receiving awards for simply showing up and participating on the soccer field or other sporting endeavors. When these same kids enter the classroom, they expect that if they do the same thing (show up) their simple attendance equals positive academic achievement.  Sorry, it doesn’t work that way, no matter how many ways people try to spin it.  Hard work and success require significantly more than showing up.

      3) “The testing culture has created an environment where kids are told almost constantly, by way of test scores, that they are not good enough, regardless of how hard they try.” (The Chalk Face - Nelson 2/12/14)  Really?  I constantly see people on social media, in professional development trainings in my years in the classroom, and at academic educational conferences, constantly repeat the refrain that teaching is as much an “art as it is a science.” 

With that said, science is about the process of failing, learning from ones mistakes, making adjustments and retrying from the beginning, and ultimately succeeding.  So yes, you’re not good enough on your first try, or maybe your second, but if you simply “opt out” you’re never going to learn.  Does that take the joy out of learning?  I’m sorry, my perspective is that is EXACTLY where the joy is.  In finding different routes to conclusions, in examining the inquiry process, in learning with and from your classmates, in finally finding the answer and quickly raising your hand to be acknowledged.  THAT is the joy…So for all of you who think that because something is hard, we should not try, think about your own life experiences.  Did you give up?  Did you simply crawl into a hole because you could not do something?  Sure, sometimes that hole is comfortable and comforting, but as the saying goes “if you can make it through the night, there is a brighter day.”

So in my most humble opinion, don’t opt out, opt in…


We can all agree that we should reform the incessant high stakes test preparation that passes as pedagogy these days, but overall we need to keep going, keep fighting, and keep pushing towards teaching our children to find the joy in the simplest discoveries, and yes, in the process.  Another adage that I used to have on my classroom wall was from the inspirational speaker Marianne Williamson, “it is not up to you what you learn, but whether you learn through joy or pain.”  

Find the joy.  

Black is the New Black

So it’s Black history month. I want to focus on two documentaries which had their premieres on PBS this month – American Promise and The Prep School Negro. I had the fortune of seeing both documentaries in Philadelphia before they hit PBS.  I saw American Promise in the theater this past November, after being unable to find it showing ANYWHERE in the state of Arizona (which is another blog post all together).  I saw The Prep School Negro in an earlier incarnation with the director at an event sponsored by the Arts Sanctuary.  I highly recommend both films, not just to Black folk trying to raise sons, but to every educator who thinks they understand their students, think they are “progressive,” think that they are being genuine when they present the false concept of being “color blind” or living in a “post racial America.”

The film American Promise centers on the lives of two young Black boys, Idris and Seun who attend the prestigious Dalton School on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.  At the end of their eighth grade year Seun transfers to a predominantly Black charter school while Idris continues to matriculate through Dalton to graduation.  The film is directed by Idris’ parents who are not afraid to show all their warts in the film.  Some have criticized them for being “helicopter parents” or for being “tiger parents.” I find judging parenting styles extremely problematic, especially when they are positively looking out for the best interest of their child.  

In The Prep School Negro, Andre Robert Lee reflects on his experiences at another prestigious independent school, Germantown Friends (GFS) in Philadelphia.  Unlike Idris and Seun, Andre received a scholarship to attend the school through a special fund created by the school to increase minority enrollment.  Another difference is that Andre attended GFS just for high school, thus accelerating his need for acclimation into a different world.  Rather than growing up around diversity (i.e. White folk), and high academic

expectations, Andre grew up in what he describes at the “ghetto” in Philadelphia.  Ironically in the film, he seemed to be ostracized more at home than at GFS, where he seems to outwardly adjust quickly.

I want to explore three common themes from these two films. Early in American Promise, one of the administrators at Dalton expressed that both Idris and Seun were bright, sensitive and curious. They also expressed that the school promotes a sense of self-esteem and nurturing a “voice” in each child.  One of the critiques of urban public schools is that they mirror the prison system and prepare students not for a world in which they are allowed to be “independent thinkers” but rather “cogs in the machine.”  Is this intentional?  Is it structural/institutional?  Perhaps. Imagine if urban public schools truly sought to explore and nurture the inner “voice” in each student.  What would that look like?  How would their experiences be different?

Another commonality is that all three of these students experience explicitly what Du Bois called “double consciousness” – a sense of living in two worlds, one Black and one White.  What has always been problematic to me is the definitions of these two worlds.  I doubt Du Bois would argue that living in a “Black” world would consist of loose fitting pants, speaking in a particular slang, and listening to hip-hop.  In fact, those very descriptors are problematic to not just Black folk, but many Whites as well. Ironically many teens of varying ethnicities, genders and races have co-opted that particular self-representation.  Do we, as Black people, define Blackness as a checklist of characteristics and exclude people like a bouncer at a velvet rope if certain folk don’t fit?  Or do we allow for a diversity of perspectives, opinions, musical taste, clothing options (which include cardigans which were discussed in American Promise in a funny scene between Idris and Seun)?  Identity, regardless of what age, gender or race/ethnicity is a tenuous, difficult process which should not ever be broken down into its most simplistic parts.  It should be allowed to be messy, confusing and public.

Finally, what do these three “gain” from going to Dalton and GFS?  Have they discovered a key to unlock racism?  Do they know how to navigate the world as it is a bit better?  Can they code switch a bit more effectively?  Were these the desired goals of their parents when they sent their children off into this “new world?” In my own experiences in Independent schools I can attest that the “cultural disconnect” articulated in both films is real. I think it takes a strong individual to be able to be rejected from their “home community” (as I have been for decades) and at the same time not feel completely adopted by their “new community.”  I call it being without a “home.”  This is a confusing paradox.  On one hand I appreciate my ability to be able to relate to and interact with those in tuxedos and gowns at night while working in partnership with the community during the day, but there is still a certain...longing to completely belong? What gets consistently challenged, by, myself most importantly but others as well, is which "me" is the authentic self? While there are some physical markers which indicate a particular race, gender and the like, once children who grow up in Independent schools and other types of mixed environments enter a world in which they are supposed to perform race in a particular way, they are oftentimes at odds, internally and externally.

In the end, what is the real purpose of education?  To achieve intellectual proficiency, social integration, identity development, or conformity? 

All Around the World Same Song...

During the early 1990s in Los Angeles, there was a significant "gang problem."  Rather than try to rectify the situation simply with one method, policing, the community, the police and politicians brought together the rival gangs (we all know their names) and sat them down in a room.  The ensuing truce lasted for several years and served as a major reason for the reduction of gun violence and death in South Central LA, Watts, Compton and the rest of the micro-cities in the area.

Fast forward to 2013.  Rather than a gang problem (which does still exist in many urban areas) we are now plagued with an educational "gang" problem - not because of closed schools which is a blog for another day. One one side of the block we have those who advance the ideas of school choice and on the other, we have those who insist that the problems that plague public schools can be fixed if we only (and I use that word with every hint of sarcasm) "eliminate poverty" and treat the "whole child."  Two gangs, both claiming the mantle of "social justice" and "reform."  What's a teacher, educator, parent, social activists to do?

As noted in an earlier blog, education policy debates usually end up being simplistic rants of if you're not with us, you're against us. This belief, ironically enough, is one of the central tenants of gang culture.  There is no parsing whether or not you have a blue or a red rag, you have one or the other and there is no discussion - and, unfortunately being caught in the wrong area with the wrong color has potentially fatal consequences.  What colors are the two sides in the education debate wearing?  Is there such a "clear" distinction between these two gangs?  Further, is anyone wearing grey?

This blog and my frequent posts on FB and Twitter are not designed exclusively to upset folk or offend - although for some reason, that's quite the primary response on social media regarding me.  My intent is to challenge folk to move beyond their preconceived notions, even long-standing ones, to think of a third way. Sometimes changing one's perspective or lens is difficult.  It is desperately needed. In order for us as educators to advance into the Post-NCLB era, we must move beyond simple black/white, or blue/red dichotomies.  Reading some of these posts online makes me sick. Seeing otherwise intelligent people try to dehumanize and dismiss people (ironically the same thing many K-12 educators claim is happening to them) simply because of; number of years served in exclusively a K-12 environment, on their side of the aisle or ballot box, or singing the same note they are means we will NEVER advance into a more positive future.  

What can we agree upon?  Here are three simple things:
1) Public education needs to change
2) Even if we eliminate poverty there will always be the "haves" and the "have nots."
3) Expectations matter

What are the three things that you think everyone can agree upon?  Please comment. 

No One is Untouchable...

"He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue.  That's the Chicago way..." - Jim Malone (The Untouchables, 1987)

Let me preface this week's blog by saying I'm PISSED.  If you take offense easily, then this week you may need to fall back, because I'm going HAM on a host of issues and groups.

Let me start by saying that if you want to challenge my credentials to be in the education game, you're racists.  It is akin to checking Obama's birth certificate and transcripts.  While I may not agree with people (especially this week), I never challenge the notion that you have a right to say what you want to say and that those comments are grounded either in experiential knowledge, research based or otherwise.  Period.  You say your peace, make your points, I get to make mine.

Now the problem is that too many people, not just on social media, but in certain buildings and departments at my grad school (hint: near the SEPTA station, not the Broad St. Line) want people to sing one note.  Repeatedly.  And if you don't sing that note, in their key, you're wrong.  You're disrespecting your race, you're "self hating" or worse.  And on social media, you're "misguided," "a hack" "moron" "not even a teacher..."  Everything but the child of God.  And to make matters worse, only two people in the last week have even ASKED what my particulars are.  Most assume, most use Google.  I'm right here, ask.

On Monday in the town of my last known address, Michelle Rhee, Dr. Steven Perry and George Parker, former DC Teachers Union chief held a Town Hall at my future alma mater.  First, there was a message on a listserv announcing a protest outside, then an e-mail and Facebook post from the college distancing themselves from the event.  I have no problem with either, if it were Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist "Church") or Ted Nugent coming to campus.  This event, even though not sponsored by, was about education.  I understand not endorsing it, but the distancing was suspect.

Of course the event, a "Town Hall" event went as I would have predicted.  People listened for a few minutes, but otherwise came to the event with their minds already in one corner or the other.  Whatever happen to listening, taking ideas from one person, mixing them with some others, and coming to your OWN conclusions.  The proliferation of forced "Group Think" makes me sick.  Like I said above, and in last week's post, it is asinine to only believe if you don't agree with me, you're against me.

Later in the week, Saint, err I mean Dr. Diane Ravitch graced the same city, speaking at an event promoting her latest book.  You would have thought that God came down to read the 10 Commandments Himself.  As I have said both online and, in person to her when we met, I have profound respect for Dr. Ravitch, her views, her scholarship, and her transformation.  My only problem with "her" is her followers.  Much in the same way that to his flock, Tim Tebow can do no wrong, except not be able to throw the football or get onto the football field in a regular season game, Ravitch followers will swear you up and down the block if you do not feverishly believe that she and she alone can "save public education." Sorry, I don't believe in the hero worship, inflation of messianic individuals we as Americans, so desperate for leadership, perform time and time again on issue after issue.  This is one of our fatal flaws as Progressives, Democrats and as a society in general.
.

Finally, let me chime in on educational groups on social media.  It seems like every day another "teacher based organization" is popping up online.  And, humorously, just as quickly, I get banned from them... To my 3-4 readers I'm not going to give these groups their shine, but hint, one of them is where family money went to pay their salaries in Chicago. Let me paint these so called organizations with a broad brush.  Progressive organizations such as these, and others, are in serious need of not learning more about the issues or practice of education, but rather are in serious need of an evaluation of their lesson plans concerning their tactics, politics and how policy works.  Too many are content with being on the outside look in, singing that same singular note with protest sign in hand.  As someone who had to file the thousands of postcards sent to a Congressional member's office regarding a particular issue, answered numerous vitriolic phone calls and responded to angry constituents in person during member's breakfasts, I have experience on the other end of what these so called Progressive "groups" (more like a hodge podge of like minded folk) are doing.

Marching in the streets, writing letters, protesting only goes so far.  At some point, you have to decide what you are FOR rather than continue to yelp about what you are AGAINST.  So, with that said, whenever I enter a group or challenge people to do better, why is it that they take offense?  It is because we are not the same gender? Little do they know, for the most part, we are at least in the same generation. Perhaps it is because of race (as much as I despise saying that). No matter.  Like I noted above, people need to be able to have a conversation about division or tactics without being disagreeable - regardless of age, race, creed, nationality, age, educational level, etc...  Let me be explicitly clear, I'm not just talking to well meaning Whole Foods going Progressives, I'm talking to people that look like me as well.

I am sick of being challenged from all angles of the left.
 
So let me sum this rant up...Less fear, more listening.  Less reaching conclusions based on misinformation, more asking.  Less whining, more winning.  I already have 20 years in the education game and I'm going to be around for a lot longer, I'm not going away...If I can admit I am, or can be an asshole, are you willing to admit at the very least, the same?  Collaboration and cooperation is a two way street.  I'm coming to the table with both hands in plain sight, are other groups and individuals willing to do as well?

Here's to truth, reconciliation and Peace.

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)