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. 

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.  

I Am Whatever You Say I Am...

NOTE: I took the month of October off to finish my dissertation.  I hope everyone understands.  It is now in completed draft form and awaiting revisions and edits. Thanks for your support...

Part I:

In the past month, I have been continually challenged about my "credentials" or background to speak on public education, Philadelphia and pretty much everything else relating to public policy, education reform and education policy. This is the first, and last Blog post I will write to finally address the naysayers who think I'm a drive-by educator, have no business talking about these issues and/or worse. 

Let me begin with the personal and then get to the political.  I was born into an education family.  

 Being raised by a single mother who earned her PhD while little 5-7 year old me wanted to go out and play, go to the movies, to Red Sox games (we lived in Cambridge, MA at the time) and the like must have been difficult. I can only imagine how difficult it was being away from our family.  After my recent experiences, I know how hard it is to grind out a dissertation with multiple distractions.  However, my experiences pale in comparison to the experiences of a typewriter using, single Black mother from Chicago, away from her family and friends in the equally segregated Boston area in the mid-1970s. 

My first two years of formal schooling (I spend several years in pre-school in one of the best nursery schools on the South Side of Chicago) were spent at a public school in Cambridge, MA.  Upon returning to Boston recently to present at the Eastern Sociological Conference, I drove by the school and saw it to be much smaller than remembered, but still at the forefront of educational excellence.  The building today is home to several clusters of classes, is a Montessori school and continues to pursue educational excellence for the children of Cambridge, MA.

 I have a profound respect for my teachers who saw in me a student who came to school with many of the tools necessary to succeed.  I could read, write and express myself (imagine that) above grade level.  Rather than assign me work that I already knew, my teachers pushed me to the next level.  For example, rather than continue to read silently alone, they recommended I go next door to the Kindergarten classroom to read to them out loud, which of course helped me advance my reading ability further.  They also pushed me in the other disciplines, but I especially remember them pushing me towards things I was interested in - history, sports, numbers (not necessarily math)  and reading.  I knew the history of the Red Sox, White Sox, Jackie Robinson and the Negro Leagues from doing research and book projects well beyond what any 5-6 year old should know. These public school teachers were my 3rd wave of role models in education and the foundation they help build, with the help of my mom and my nursery school serve as invaluable lessons to me to this day.

I said all of that because I want it to be clear.  My first years of formalized schooling were in the public setting, and my mom, godmother, godfather, and numerous family members and family friends were all a part of the Chicago Public School System from the 1960s through the 1990s.  Even today I have many friends who are still educators (both public and independent school) in Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington DC, Philadelphia and elsewhere.  I get it.  Public schools are the lifeblood of the existence of the middle class and of upward mobility in this country.  Of course there are structural and historical barriers to that success, but those complicated issues are for another day. 

Fast forward to 1995. 

After graduating college with a political science degree and minor in philosophy, I moved to DC in January of 1993.  After some time interning on Capitol Hill and working for a non-profit as a Research Assistant, I decided to part ways with the non-profit I worked for.  I was at a crossroads in Washington DC.  To me I had three options - I could either know somebody and use nepotism to advance my political career, go to grad school (which at the time for me was law school), or move back to Chicago.  What ended up immediately happening in 1995 was neither.  A year later, I did eventually move back to Chicago, but first I was hired to be a Faculty Advisor (FA) for a conference that brought in high achieving students (3.6 GPA or higher) from around the country to experience DC through simulations on the 3 branches, Embassy visits, trips to Capitol Hill to meet their Members (or staff) and a Model Congress held in one of the office buildings of the US Capitol. 

It was during those 8 weeks of intense 6 day conference sessions that others realized I had the "gift" of teaching.  In my mind, I still had plans for law school, and never intended to get into what I describe education to be, the "family business."  Several mentors (fellow FAs) kept insisting that I should get an education degree, and that I should forgo law school.  They explained that I connected with the students in a way that was indicative of a deeper level of teaching ability beyond just a week long intensive 8-week conference.  I pushed back that it was just dumb luck, stupid jokes and the fact that I was 7 years or so older than most of the participants and was part of their generation.  I ended up doing that conference 3 different 8-week cycles.  Each time I had the same rapport with the students, same high marks from the leadership of the organization and same ability to get the information to the students in a humorous, but straightforward manner.  I went home to Chicago with an experience in education I thought would help me in law school, and one that gave me a greater understanding of politics, but not one that would change my career trajectory or life's mission.

In 1996 I was fortunate enough to work for the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.  It was a political and professional goal I had ever since I entered politics.  If the Convention EVER returned to Chicago (after the 1968 debacle) I wanted to be there.  What I thought was going to be the pinnacle of my political career ended up being my swan song.  Shortly after the Convention ended, I had the opportunity to interview at a very prestigious public relations firm on the 40+ floor of an immaculate North Michigan Avenue building. 

During the interview, the Senior Account Executive who was interviewing me asked me about my background and professional experience.  I spoke of spending time in DC on Capitol Hill and the non-profit doing advocacy work for women and children.  I spoke of the most recent experience with the DNC and the great time I had there.  Finally, she asked me what I did in the interim between those two gigs.  I told her of my experiences at the Conference for high school students.  After what seemed like a few minutes, she sat back in her chair and said that I'd make an excellent Account Executive and that I would do a great job for the firm.  Of course I smiled.  She then said something that changed my life.  She said that when I spoke about the Conference, my eyes lit up and that the passion and specificity in which I described the experience made her feel that I would be doing myself a disservice if I didn't try to enter the education field.  She said to think about it and get back to her.

As I was going down the elevator, I was torn...Did I just get a job, or was that the nicest rejection ever? After talking about it to a few people, of course my mom included, I decided to take the Senior Account Executive’s advice.  I went down to the Chicago Public Schools main district offices which were still on Pershing Road.  After a few hours trying to navigate that dark, confusing, bureaucratic maze, I came away with the forms to become a substitute teacher.  However, I had more questions than answers.  The whole experience left me cold, isolated and confused.  At this time I also applied at several independent schools and a newly opened charter school on the northside.   After a glowing interview, I immediately began subbing at the charter and was eventually hired at one of the independent schools to serve as the Community Learning Program Assistant.  I was well on my way to becoming an educator...

Next week: Part 2 of my journey to PhD...

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. 

Quality is Job One

Back when I was growing up in Chicago, I used to describe what my mom did for a living as "teaching teachers how to teach."  Little did I, or she for that matter, know that she was also teaching her son how to teach.  Hearing story upon story of her drive up and down the length of Chicago (usually avoiding such high traffic areas such as the Kennedy or Dan Ryan) on Western Avenue or Halsted Avenue visiting her student teachers and recent graduates, I was privy to a daily report of the problems, inequities, successes and failures of 1970s-80s Chicago Public Schools from not just one side of town, but from the entire city. Hearing about such a diverse array of neighborhoods and schools was something that only in retrospect I realize was unique.  Most people only have experiences with their local schools directly, or on the peripheral, the larger system as a whole.  There are many in urban areas who have zero experience with public schools. With that background, coupled with my own practice in the classroom both in Chicago and Los Angeles, as well as my research and doctoral work in Philadelphia I should merit standing to be able to make the assertions I am about to make in this blog.  I'm sure, for some of you, my experiences will only count as an outlier or aberration.  For that, let me only say, in the words of Lonnie Rashid Lynn (aka Common), one day it'll all make sense.

I recently heard a piece on WBEZ (http://tinyurl.com/pupl9dt) about the push for teacher quality in the state of Illinois and how an unintended consequence of raising the entrance test scores on the Test of Academic Proficiency (TAP) has created a racial gap among new teachers.  Let me first say that for the past ten years I have noticed, perhaps because I've frequently been one of the few Blacks let alone males in the room, this phenomenon up close and personal.  It is an imperfect storm.  As teachers from the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, the same ones my mom used to mentor and teach, retire, the incoming mix of teachers has becoming increasingly monolithic.  One of the negatives (and yes, we can argue there are many more) about Teach for America is that they have contributed greatly to the "whitening" of the teaching population.  According to the National Center for Education Statistics, as of 2010 (the latest numbers), the teaching population is only 7% Black. Further, even more problematic is that out of the approximately 235,000 Black teachers in the country, only 58,000 are male.  No wonder I was one of only the few in the room.  According to the documentary (which I HIGHLY recommend, American Teacher), the numbers are even more depressing.  In 1970, 34% of the teaching population was male.  In 2002, that number was 22% and today, it sits at an alarmingly low 16%. In fact, statistics such as these are the reason why it was so difficult for me to leave the classroom and start my PhD program. I didn't want to leave my students of color behind.  I came to the realization that having a PhD, and doing the type of research I intend to do will hopefully multiply myself 10 fold.

LAUSD Pay Grid

The WBEZ piece noted that in the past over 60% of Blacks passed the TAP exam.  Today that number is 17%.  As a qualitative person, I want to go beyond the numbers and try to understand what that really means.  Does it mean that there was an over-inflation of Black folk passing the test previously, and now this is a leveling out? Or does it mean that the colleges and universities are grade inflating and those wishing to enter the profession aren't as prepared as previously thought?  Is it a combination of both, neither, something else?  Those are tough questions to isolate.  What is known is that there is a problem.

In Illinois, and elsewhere, the population of white teachers has hovered between 82-85% for decades.  At the same time, we know the population of public school students, particularly in urban areas has becoming increasingly students of color (I would no longer use the word "minority" since they are clearly the majority of the school aged population).  So what can we as educators, activists and politicians do?

I strongly believe that we need a minority equivalent to Teach for America.  I also believe that we need to cease this us versus them mentality when it comes to veteran educators versus first year teachers.  I also feel that, much in the same way as there is a dearth of Black baseball players, some argue, because of the minor league system, some students of color feel as if the road to becoming a teacher is too long for the amount of pay on the front end.  Thus a program like TFA would serve as an alternative route, and of course tackling the challenge of teacher pay would be another.  Scholars such as Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond and others have also recommended a review of teacher pay.  We can no longer simply live by an outdated model of the current grid structure (see above LAUSD grid as an example).


As the Black teaching population continues to age out of the profession, I think having an honest, serious discussion of what, in the 21st century, does it mean for teachers of color to teach students of color.  In addition, let me be clear. I, by no means am disparaging white teachers who continue to serve students of color with honor and high expectations. In fact, my own schooling is littered with many such examples. Perhaps it is an expectations problem. In too many cases, for too long we have had low expectations of our teachers, and they, in turn, have had low expectations regarding their students.  When we examine good schools, two things are always present, high expectations and trust.  Let's trust that as we raise the bar for teachers, they will in turn raise the bar for their students.

Dear Arne:

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

Friends of Whitney Young High School

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

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

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

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

Beverly Hills High pool/basketball court

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

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

Sincerely yours,

Stuart Rhoden

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)

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

Welcome back from summer vacation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We love that Basketball…

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

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

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

During their unlikely and improbable run to the Eastern Conference Semi Finals, the Philadelphia 76ers were the epitome of “overachievers.”  They survived the first round of the playoffs only after the reigning MVP of the NBA, Derrick Rose went down with a season ending knee injury.  They were helped even further by an injury to another important starter and one of the biggest energy guys in the league, Joakim Noah.  The Sixers not only dispatched of the Bulls in 6 games, but in the next round, took the 2008 NBA Champion Boston Celtics to 7 games before succumbing.

 

The point of mentioning the Sixers is not to whine more about my beloved Bulls being upset in the playoffs, but to make this point.  There are teams, organizations and situations which look perfect on paper but in the practical application of events, things fall apart – in other words, stuff happens.  Could have’s begin to dominate the conversation as opposed to what actually is taking place.  In the discussion surrounding public school teachers, too many pundits and especially many "leaders" in the teachers unions would like us to believe what I said above, that there are only superstars and stars.  In the discussion surrounding education reform, no one mentions the role players or worse, the has-beens. 

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

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

Welcome Back...

After an arduous six months of teaching and learning I am FINALLY finished with course work and spring semester. I am now finishing up my Dissertation Proposal and look forward to defending it by mid summer.

It's been a long time, I shouldn't have left you...

Now that I am back, I want to briefly revisit the last blog post I wrote way back in December.  It seems as if Education Week has caught onto the idea that teachers need to be more politically astute and aware.  In her article Ms. Van Shura stresses that educators must become political animals (Why Educators Must Become Political Animals).  I too echoed the same sentiment in my last post.  Interesting.

An internet note, I've recently been spending time on the Student's First (the new non-profit education reform group created by Michelle Rhee) Facebook page (Students First FB Page).  While I have never been a 100% supporter of anyone, I do think that much of what Ms. Rhee has done in her quest to create a better educational environment  is on the right course.  I encourage you to check out some of the discussions and even chime in.

Over the course of the next few weeks as we lead up to the SOS March and Call to Action (SOS) I'll be discussing in greater detail some of the topics raised on the SF page, and other ideas that I have been kicking around in my mind since I've started this PhD process.

I look forward to a more regular dialog on this page.  Please, let's remember to be civil.  - Peace