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. 

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.  

Letter to Rethinking Schools

Here is a repost of a letter I just submitted to Rethinking Schools regarding an article from their Fall 2013 issue.  Will let you know if it gets published in the Summer issue.

Dear Rethinking Schools:

While I am neither a proponent or opponent of charter schools en masse, I have some issues concerning Stan Karp’s article on charter schools (“Charter Schools and the Future of Public Education,” fall 2013) 

     1) His point that charters have shifted away from “community-based, educator initiated local efforts designed to provide alternative approaches for a small number of students,” only highlights the efforts of national charters (e.g. KIPP, Mastery, Green Dot, et al) it does not take into account the significant numbers of local community based charters who do have the best interest of their students, parents and teachers at heart.  More importantly for some, it also does not highlight that there are an increasing number of charters who are unionized.

      2) If education advocates want to eliminate or greatly reduce the influence of high-stakes testing, why do people insist on using it as a metric to either praise (rarely) or critique (more often) charter schools?  There are a significant number of other metrics people can cite which articulate the distinctions between all types of healthy performing schools and those that are underperforming.  For example, parent satisfaction, college acceptance and student safety are but three metrics that could be used rather than exclusively high stakes test scores.

       3) It is my belief, perhaps naively, that charters were never created to “take over” a school district (acknowledging the extreme case of New Orleans as an exception).  I think it is more appropriate to view charters as a one mechanism in the toolbox of school choice, much like magnet schools, gifted programs, alternative schools for pregnant girls, etc, are options for students. Why do we spend so much effort on critiquing when we should be looking at best practices from all types of healthy performing schools?

          4) There is an explicit, 

         visceral response most people feel whenever the word “segregation” is discussed.  Images of Little Rock, the National Guard and vitriolic parents screaming racial epitaphs and hurling rocks at black children come to mind.  However, in this day and age there is a significant 

      difference between state sanctioned segregation and self-selection (e.g. the work of Freeden Oeur).  If schools are designed to serve neighborhoods, then it is imperative that we have an honest discussion about neighborhoods and their racial and socio-economic structure.  It appears as if this reasoning implies that white (or integrated) schools are the only types of schools that can best serve students of color.

Finally, parents and poverty.  Poverty seems to be the Progressive go to when it comes to critiquing educational choices.  Poverty of the mind, of options, and expectations for children in any educational setting, seems to be more problematic than the distressing financial poverty many students face.  While acknowledging and respecting the obstacles and immense challenges of being financially insecure, it is disrespectful to the sacrifices of hard working parents who want positive academic (and social) outcomes for their children, but who themselves remain in economic distress. 

When it comes to charters and school choice, we need to listen to, and perhaps observe, the choices parents are making.  Schools of any type cannot exist without students.  If there is a proliferation of charters and those charters are turning away students because of enlarged waiting lists, we have to examine why this is occurring.  Yes, it can be because of the influx of influential external forces, but it can also be community driven.  We must be able to have the conversation about both the inorganic and organic forces of school choice in a more honest and respectful manner. 

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.

Waiting for Tom Petty

Photo from 20th Century Fox

Having finally watched the film "Won't Back Down" over the long holiday weekend, I have to say that, while it does delve into cliches just a bit, it brought back memories of the my own experiences in the ed reform struggle. What was poignant was how the film tried to present the various sides of the education reform issue through the lens of different individuals.  What was crystal clear is while many unions dismissed this film, and of course their rank and file followed, the one thing we should be able to agree upon is that the venom, animosity, and vitriol pertaining to education reform has reached a nadir.

What I find so confusing and dare I say, hypocritical is that too many people who claim to "want what's best for children" somehow seem to be the ones who mirror their actions.  I remember in 1989 when the book "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" by Robert Fulghum first came out, people were really focused on simplification.  Be kind to one another.  Treat others the way you'd like to be treated. Coincidentally, in 1989 the Berlin Wall also came down thus signaling the beginning of the end of the "Cold War."  Since we as Americans no longer had a common enemy, perhaps we lost our focus concerning the exact points Fulghum was aiming to address.

Put simply, on the micro level in the education reform arena and in the macro level as a country, we have lost our humanity towards one another.  Especially when it comes to those with whom we disagree.

As we exited the "greed is good" anything goes Yuppie era of the 1980s and entered the somewhat progressive 1990s with the election of Bill Clinton (before the scandals), there was a hope that things could change.  We had witnessed history take place on the other side of the globe and for those of us exiting college during this time, we truly believed we could make a significant difference.  A 1960s ethos was building around those of us in our 20s.  For example, a young idealistic woman from Princeton wrote an undergraduate thesis proposing that because of a growing teacher shortage, high achieving college graduates should have a way to enter the classroom to teach in underserved areas of the country.  This idea, as we of course know, ended up changing the face of public education, depending on your perspective, for better or worse.

So where are we now, some 20 plus years later post 9/11/01, or more importantly post 9/12?  Because of various events which have taken place both in this country and internationally, we are living in a cloud of fear. We are in an era in which the simplistic assertion of if you're not "with me, you're against me" is the prevailing mantra.  It is as if we've become a nation filled with Hatfield vs McCoys, Yankees vs Red Sox, or White Sox vs Cubs.  Life is one big game (yes, as I said in an earlier post, sometimes a "zero sum game"), and yes there are "winners" and "losers."  But to think that we have lost our sense of sportsmanship, humanity and common sense is extremely disheartening.

The film "Won't Back Down" is just one of the latest examples of a Hollywood cinematic representation of what is occurring in too many cities in this country when it comes to public policy debates as a whole and educational reform policy specifically.  So what is the "solution?"  Simply put listen more, talk less.  And that includes this blogger.

More complexly, I believe that finding the good in others is not something that is easily achieved.  A coach who has walked the sidelines of both Chicago and LA with much success is in such high demand because he has been able to accomplish this task to the tune of 11 NBA Championships.  If it were easy, every coach would follow suit - especially those who succeed in his mammoth footsteps.

Photo from 20th Century Fox

In public education, regardless of your positions on charters, high-stakes testing, state capitals funding public education (or not), Washington DC (reauthorization of ESEA), Department of Education, Common Core or whatever the issue may be, let's begin to find the humanity in those with whom we seemingly are in opposition.  We must remember, we are all searching as best we can, for "what's good for the children."

Relaunch of Rhoden's Blog...Version 2.0...or is it 3.0?!?!

This is the relaunch of my blog...again!  

I have been away for a while because of several life changing events.  Those of you who know me, know that I have recently relocated to the Phoenix area while still continuing to finish my dissertation.  Driving cross country (2x actually) has reawakened my broad sense of perspective allowing me to see things from an even more national perspective.  Driving through those "fly over" states of Oklahoma, Iowa, Nebraska and the like and listening to the talk radio for as long as I could stand, has informed me in ways many of us who reside on the coasts or in the major cities never get to be exposed.  Consequently, rather than the rant I was going to post about the good, bad and the ugly surrounding my 6+ years in the city of "brotherly love," I am showing some love and keeping my mouth shut about the ills of Philly for once. Instead I'm going to talk about two issues regarding educational reform that are close to my heart. Rather than addressing the biggest issue this summer, the budget crisis in my former city, this post is about character education, and testing.

Character education is a controversial subject for some.  Many feel those of us who advocate for character education somehow do not understand that, yes, students do need to learn the basics of schooling and that yes, poverty, inequity, and violence exists in too many children's lives.  What gets lost in translation is that there is a vocal few who want to prescribe an either/or approach to education reform.  For example, some would advocate we either have to have character education or high stakes testing.  We either have to have traditional education (reading, writing, math), or we have to spend time building children's self efficacy and esteem.  This false dichotomy leads many to throw up their hands and reduce character education to an after-thought - something that because isn't "tested" is considered unnecessary.  I and others who advocate for this type of pedagogy believe that it is essential, not just for the student's social self, but also their academic selves.  According to an article in Education Week from earlier this year (http://tinyurl.com/mus4t7g), character education has the potential to positively change children's negative behaviors.  While I am not here to advocate for one singular approach to education, I do believe that implementing character education from an early age will show positive effects on students and schools, both academic and socially, in the long run.  

The other, somewhat more controversial topic is, in the words of one of my former Principals, testing, testing, testing. According to an AP-NORC poll, a majority of parents are in favor of standardized testing. If you don't believe me, here is the article (http://tinyurl.com/kqmr5s8).  What this means is that those teacher advocates in Seattle and elsewhere who are directing their parents and children to boycott high-stakes test are an anomaly and there is a silent majority of parents out there who believe testing is important to their child's schooling. Overwhelmingly, 75% of parents believe standardized test are a solid measure of their children's academic abilities. What was not asked in the survey, and is perhaps more problematic, is the incessant test prep which has taken over too many aspects of schooling in poor urban, underperforming schools.

Putting these two situations into context, what seems to be the case to this educator is that there are some things which the progressive establishment, including teachers unions, many outspoken rank and file members, and allies want us to believe is that theirs is the "correct path" towards reform.  While I do consider myself among the ranks of the progressive left, I do not believe that the path to education reform is linear, nor universal. Rather, I believe the best way to describe the current state is that in large part to too many cooks who don't know how to boil water, are making wrong turns and moving in the wrong direction.  

Wouldn't teacher's valuable time be better spent, not test prepping students for these high-stakes exams - which let me stress, I am NOT in favor of, nor begging for parents to "boycott" them, but instead spending their professional development and other limited time creating and advocating for better testing instruments themselves? Wouldn't it be far more prudent for those teachers, advocates and administrators who dismiss character education as "soft" or non essential, to at least examine the validity of those who believe it is extremely vital and critical not just for the student's but for the betterment of the overall climate of their school?

Like I said in the tag line, I am not trying to find a singular answer to the multitude of issues and concerns facing public education, but rather, I am trying to engage the issues in a forum in which a variety of perspectives can be heard and respected. That simple premise is too rare these days. On these two issues, there seems to be only choir director and one note being heard.  Here's hoping that in 2013-14, we can begin to hear other voices in the choral ensemble as well.

PS - the name "Education Provocateur came about from an "exchange" with an advocate from Philly who on twitter thought she was demeaning me by calling me this.  Although she shall remain nameless, I thank her for the compliment!