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.
Grappling with questions surrounding public education reform many think about, but oftentimes are unwilling to pose or challenge in public.
September 18, 2012
July 9, 2012
Black ain't Nothin' But a Color
With that said…
It has come to my attention that many
people (more than I ever knew) are mired in the race based philosophies of an
earlier era. It is not just those in the
streets (see Occupy and radicals), but it has unfortunately shown its ugly head
in the ivory towers of academic institutions, as well as the public sphere of
intellectual conversation/discourse.
What I explicitly mean is too many folk rest on the notion that since
the history of America, as this camp so eloquently articulates, was built on
the backs of Black and Brown folk that we – those of us who are Black and
Brown, must somehow hold this country forever responsible for whatever societal
ills which happen to us. In short,
structural, institutional and societal racism has and will always hold us back
from achieving the “American dream.”
What many
who adhere to this belief insist upon is that simple isolated advancements/achievements,
from being able to sit/eat/shop/walk anywhere in this country without being
legally harassed, not to mention the current (and future) occupant in the White
House, do nothing to change the singular insistence that “things have not
gotten better, nor will they ever.”
As I think
about my experiences in my current residence on the other side of the country,
I can only think of a few instances and individuals which truly represent the
“rainbow children” mentality. And let me
be clear, I am not so much speaking so much to those who have traditionally
been in power or were the perpetrators of racism in this country (i.e. white
folk), I’m talking to you, my brothas and sistas.
Since when
did it become socially and culturally acceptable in too many places to see race
through a singular lens? If I’m not
mistaken, the history teacher in me can examine as far back as DuBois and
Washington, or Malcolm and Martin the dichotomy which has existed in the our
community. In short, there are too many
examples of what it means to live, act, socialize and thrive as a Black/Brown person
to conclude that only one way should be socially acceptable. What is hurtful for those of us without a
home (not fully embraced in either the dominant society or their “home”
culture) is that as we advance the ladder – whether it be in business, academia
or simply by living in a mixed community, we are further and further
excommunicated by our own.
If those of us who try to present a
third way to Black/Brown folk, or actually see the dream King envisioned
becoming a reality (albeit not as fast as it should, but no one is drinking out
of a segregated water fountain) ever challenge the “norm,” we become pariahs,
traitors or liars. Yet in the dominant
world, we are seen as “angry” “dangerous” and “threatening” if we challenge not
how far we’ve come, but how much further we still need to go. In some circles, we are increasingly held to
a different standard even if we have the same credentials, same education, live
in the same neighborhoods and frequent/enjoy the same cultural artifacts.
In short,
in this day and age, the younger generation doesn’t see race as we once did (or
some still do). What that means is that
for them it is OK to like both Drake and Taylor Swift, to eat sushi, tacos and
grits all in the same week, or participate in any other culturally hybrid
phenomena which exist today. Maybe we
can learn from their hybridity, and maybe they can learn the historical
constructs of the past from us. We have
the puzzle pieces in place, now the difficult part of putting them together
must take place. It starts with what the
late Rodney King said so famously 20 years ago during civil unrest in LA “Can’t
we all just get along?” Getting along
doesn’t mean forgetting the past, it means understanding, acknowledging and as
Mandela and the Apartheid Movement has taught us, Ubuntu – “I am what I am
because of who we all are.”
June 13, 2012
Letter to my Son
Dear Son,
You are just over 9 months old and have accomplished so much
in your young life. Let me first say
that I am extremely proud of you and have anticipated your arrival for over 40
years (well at least since I’ve been old enough to think about kids of my
own). You are loved by so many people,
some of whom are close to you, but what is more interesting to me are the
dozens of people who come up to me or your mom and comment on how “smiley” and “friendly”
you are. I’m not sure about nature or
nurture, but I do know that your disposition seems to be on course to be a
friendly outgoing person. My only wish
is that living life never takes that away from you.
What do I mean by that?
Well, as much as I’d like to buy into the notion that since the 2008 election
of President Barack Obama, we live in a “post-racial” society. I sincerely hope and pray that by 2028 when
you are approaching 30, that we as a society will HAVE achieved this goal. Until then there are some things that you
need to know being a young black (mixed) man in this society. Those lessons will be somewhat difficult and
confusing, not to mention frustrating, and will be advanced in time, but they
are lessons we will need to learn/teach nonetheless.
Something else that will make the transition from childhood,
where there are no such things as hate, prejudice and discrimination, to
adulthood even more challenging for us, will be that these lessons were not
taught to me by my father or any singular male figure. If you haven’t noticed, this family is heavy matriarchal
on both sides. Your mom has her father,
your grandfather in her life, but besides that, it’s mostly women. Let me be clear, that is not to say you
cannot grow up to be a “man” by being raised by women, in fact I am saying the
opposite. Your father, me, grew up to be
a man by being raised by women. You, are
lucky to have the best of so many worlds.
So let me say this, as we celebrate father’s day this
weekend, our first, it is my wish that we never stop going to baseball games,
never stop singing, never stop dreaming, never stop showing love and affection
for one another, and, as selfish or cynical as this sounds, never stop
demonstrating and showing other people that there is a different model of black
male parenthood besides the one that is so prevalent in the media and the
public discourse. While I will continue
to argue that I am a work in progress, and that there are a host of things I
could do better (not the least of them being more patient), I will concede that
every time we step outside the threshold of our house, we help to change the
meaning to so many people about what it means or looks like for fathers, black
fathers in particular to help raise their children. I take from the experiences of watching male and female (as well as black and white) examples of extraordinary coaches, teachers, mentors, family
members and yes media images (e.g. Bill Cosby) who have helped me become the
father I am growing into.
As Whitney Houston sang, I will always love you. Ms. Whitney, also famously sang I believe
that children are the future, teach them well and let them lead the way. Lead the way son, I will follow.
Love always, Dad
June 4, 2012
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).
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.
May 16, 2012
Voting While Black
There are several books which are currently on the
market which speak to “post-blackness” or articulate a redefinition of “blackness”
in this confusing era (see http://tinyurl.com/bvfgkoy). In my humble opinion, and that of noted
Professor and scholar Henry Louis Gates and others, there is no one definition
of blackness, nor should there be.
However, the arguments’ surrounding what is and is not blackness and how
it relates to the overall political discourse in this country is something that
has been troubling me.
The
latest example comes from North Carolina.
Amendment One – the measure which sought to define marriage as
exclusively between a man and a woman was approved by the residents of North
Carolina overwhelmingly. What is
problematic is not that a state with such historical ties to oppressing
human/civil rights is up to their old tricks, but rather what is surprising is
who, in part, the culprits are contributing to the denial of rights to a group
of American citizens.
Much in
the same manner as in 2008 with California Ballot initiative Proposition 8 –
which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, this ballot measure in
North Carolina is nothing but solidifying hatred and discrimination into
codified law. That black folk,
supposedly religious black folk, supported both of these ballot measures in
great numbers is something that I cannot fathom.
Just to
give you the numbers, in the same election in which over 90% of the black
population voted for Barack Obama for President, 7 in 10 blacks voted yes in
favor of Proposition 8 in California. In
Los Angeles County alone, if that number had been reversed, the measure most
likely would not have passed. As it
stood, the measure passed 52-47%. Most
recently in North Carolina, Amendment 1 passed with a 2-1 margin of the black
vote and an overall percentage of 61-38%.
While the majority of blacks may not have carried Amendment 1 to defeat,
they certainly added to its victory.
During
the fight for equality in the 1960s there were a host of allies who sought to
help the Civil Rights Movement achieve their goals. Most notably both Bayard Rustin and James
Baldwin were two openly gay black men who fought on the front lines of the
Civil Rights Movement. Further, as one
recent article noted, everyone who has ever sung in a black church choir knows
someone who is gay – either openly or suspected. What is the most disappointing thing about my
own people’s abandonment of civil rights in the name of “religion” or worse, in
trying to define “Civil Rights” as only those rights negotiated and fought by
and for blacks, is the hypocrisy. Not
only were there black gay leaders, there were whites, women, and other
minorities all fighting in the struggle. In the early 20th century,
it was the prevailing wisdom of whites to use a biological determination
concerning the need for the separation of races before it was found to be
illogical, ill-conceived and downright wrong.
Another
critique of miscegenation was that it was an “abomination” of God that the two
races (they never include other groups besides “black” and “white”) shouldn’t
mingle, much less procreate or marry.
That some blacks are using the same arguments to deny rights to LGBT
couple who want to marry (especially in certain states where the STRAIGHT
divorce rate is above 50% but that’s for another day), is completely 180
degrees from everything that the “Movement” stood for.
Let me
be clear, certain black folk both in and out of the public arena have
continually been outspoken in favor of LGBT rights before Obama’s announcement,
including, ironically the Rev. Al Sharpton and Dr. Michael Eric Dyson. However, there are too few foot soldiers who
do not challenge the negative, ignorant assumptions made in barbershops, locker
rooms and elsewhere about LGBT folk. Too
few of us who stand for human rights mean it in regards to everyone.
On a
personal note, in much the same way as President Obama, I too came to the epiphany
of being open to not just marriage equity – which is somewhat new on the
policy/political agenda, but LGBT issues in general. I was never “against” gays, I just didn’t
know anyone nor was I openly exposed to the culture. Attending a liberal arts college in Los
Angeles will change that lack of exposure real quick. I was confronted with people who I respected,
admired and yes even had crushes on who were lesbian or bi. I was forced to reconcile my dream at the
time of being a “Civil Rights” lawyer with my own hypocrisy of not including
all rights under that banner. While I
would consider my mother and the rest of my family religious, I would also
consider them to be extremely progressive.
Sometimes those two can reconcile themselves, and other times they
cannot. The one thing I can say is that
I strongly believe that education and exposure are key.
So how
do we educate black folk to both “love
the sinner while hating the sin” and keeping their religious convictions
(which no one is trying to deny) out of the polling booth? My initial response is education - education
not only in the home, but in the pulpits – which, when it really comes down to
it, shouldn’t be in the business of telling us who or what to vote for
anyway. Finally, we need to publicly
expand what blackness means. It does not
have to include oppressing other groups in the name of hyper masculinity,
religious beliefs or other reasons. It
can include being more understanding that while our struggles for justice and
rights are far from over, we will never completely overcome as long as Black folk
continue to be the oppressors of other people, many of whom look like them. In
order to truly make this a more perfect Union, we need to join with other
groups still in their middle stages of their fight for equality. Together, with as many allies as possible
(and we now have a tremendous ally in the White House) we will one day be able
to achieve equality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
