The problem with living through big moments in history is that everybody has to talk about them constantly while they're happening. Remember when the interwebs were all about cute cat pictures? Boy, those were the days.
Meanwhile, remember to post and pass on things that speak to you.
Reading Is Knowledge
Horatio Speaks offers some words about the importance of content in reading (as opposed to the reformy idea that reading is just some free-floating skills).
How Did the Department of Defense End up in My Child's Classroom
Another good big-picture look at the continuing push to digitize student information and machine-ify education.
The Fight- Falling in Love
This week I realized that Amy Tan was not on my blogroll (that list of blogs to the right that you should be checking out) and I'm happy to correct that oversight with this great piece about how to pick up and regain focus.
Don't Raise Teacher Pay (To Be Nice)
A great rebuttal to one of my favorite bad arguments in favor of teacher pay increases.
How the Pioneers of the MOOC Got It Wrong
I did write about this piece this week, but if you missed that, read this article about how the launchers of MOOCery screwed up some pretty basic fundamentals
Little Nesting Doll
A new-to-me blog by an American mother raising four kids in Great Britain. Interesting and different perspective.
Building Bridges Beats Building Walls
Russ Walsh with some important reminders about what sort of structures best serve us all.
Democrats Reject Her But They Helped Pave the Road to Betsy DeVos
Valerie Strauss offers some perspective on why leading Democrats don't get to pretend that Betsy DeVos is a shocking departure from the proper educational path
Educational Justice in the Next Four Years
The Annenberg Institute offers a whole big series of interviews about how to approach the next four years of education with an eye on justice and equity. I found this because one of the interviewees is Jose Vilson, but there are a great thought-provoking bunch of pieces here.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
The Most Troubling Lie
Sure, we know that Trump has a tendency to tell whoppers, stretch the facts, and just make shit up. But his insistence yesterday that his inauguration crowd was not smaller than Obama's 2009 inauguration crowd-- well, this one I find extra troubling. Here's why.
It's so transparent. It's not like you can look at the photos, squint, and say, yeah, I can see how if you're really a fan of Trump, you would interpret his crowd as larger. This lie is literally "Who are you going to believe. Me, or your own eyes?" The "they were slowed down by the security" lasted five minutes until the Secret Service said, "No, we weren't doing that."
It's unnecessary. Trump's crew could have spun this any number of ways. They could have said that of course, 2009 was a large crowd, because it was an historic occasion with the installation of the first black President ever. They could have plead weather-- on Friday, it sucked. They could have used any number of spins to explain away the difference in crowd sizes-- but, no. They could have just pulled out a picture from Obama's second inauguration, or either Bush. But no-- they had to just deny reality.
It's pointless. Sure, our leaders often lie to us, but generally it's in the service of some policy goal, because politicians often succumb to "the end justifies the means" logic. So they do things like tell us lies to get us to go to war. It sucks, it's reprehensible, and it's indefensible-- but it's at least comprehensible from the standpoint of politicians trying to achieve their policy goals. This lie accomplishes absolutely nothing. It doesn't sell us a policy idea. It doesn't achieve a larger goal. It just preserves the delicate ego of our new president. Well, a takes a blunt swing at press credibility.
It enlisted the powers of the federal government. It wasn't enough for Trump to just, say, tweet his claim at 3 am. The White House Press Secretary, in his official capacity at an official press conference, was sent out to tell this lie to the press. The National Parks Service had their twitter accounts taken away for contradicting the lie.
[Update: It's an assault on reality. As stories have trickled out and responses have trickled in this morning, it becomes clear there is another troubling aspect here. We should not trust the photos or the news accounts or, well, anything-- we should simply trust the words of our Beloved Leader and forsake all other methods of perceiving reality. Everything is, at a minimum, open to debate and discussion and there is no objective reality except that presented to us by the Beloved Leader.]
As a teacher, I am left wondering exactly how I handle this with students. In a journalism class, how do we interpret the new role of journalists, who must now be attacked and criticized by the President of the United States for daring to print facts. Do we have to re-write the old rules of research, which generally told students that a .gov domain name was trustworthy and fair game for a research source.
What are we to make of a President who tells pointless bald-faced lies and uses the federal government to spread them, and then to attack and further damage the conduit of free press through which we are supposed to get our information? How do we navigate a world like this, and how do we teach our students to do so?
It's so transparent. It's not like you can look at the photos, squint, and say, yeah, I can see how if you're really a fan of Trump, you would interpret his crowd as larger. This lie is literally "Who are you going to believe. Me, or your own eyes?" The "they were slowed down by the security" lasted five minutes until the Secret Service said, "No, we weren't doing that."
It's unnecessary. Trump's crew could have spun this any number of ways. They could have said that of course, 2009 was a large crowd, because it was an historic occasion with the installation of the first black President ever. They could have plead weather-- on Friday, it sucked. They could have used any number of spins to explain away the difference in crowd sizes-- but, no. They could have just pulled out a picture from Obama's second inauguration, or either Bush. But no-- they had to just deny reality.
It's pointless. Sure, our leaders often lie to us, but generally it's in the service of some policy goal, because politicians often succumb to "the end justifies the means" logic. So they do things like tell us lies to get us to go to war. It sucks, it's reprehensible, and it's indefensible-- but it's at least comprehensible from the standpoint of politicians trying to achieve their policy goals. This lie accomplishes absolutely nothing. It doesn't sell us a policy idea. It doesn't achieve a larger goal. It just preserves the delicate ego of our new president. Well, a takes a blunt swing at press credibility.
It enlisted the powers of the federal government. It wasn't enough for Trump to just, say, tweet his claim at 3 am. The White House Press Secretary, in his official capacity at an official press conference, was sent out to tell this lie to the press. The National Parks Service had their twitter accounts taken away for contradicting the lie.
[Update: It's an assault on reality. As stories have trickled out and responses have trickled in this morning, it becomes clear there is another troubling aspect here. We should not trust the photos or the news accounts or, well, anything-- we should simply trust the words of our Beloved Leader and forsake all other methods of perceiving reality. Everything is, at a minimum, open to debate and discussion and there is no objective reality except that presented to us by the Beloved Leader.]
As a teacher, I am left wondering exactly how I handle this with students. In a journalism class, how do we interpret the new role of journalists, who must now be attacked and criticized by the President of the United States for daring to print facts. Do we have to re-write the old rules of research, which generally told students that a .gov domain name was trustworthy and fair game for a research source.
What are we to make of a President who tells pointless bald-faced lies and uses the federal government to spread them, and then to attack and further damage the conduit of free press through which we are supposed to get our information? How do we navigate a world like this, and how do we teach our students to do so?
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Meanwhile In Switzerland...
While we've been staring into the dark, distorted mirror that is our new American administration, the uber-rich and super-powerful have been gathering for the annual summit in Davos, Switzzerland. And they think the see a world a-comin' that looks very different from the one we're in.
The event's official name is the World Economic Forum, and it's a reliable source for pieces about how the uber-rich have mostly lost contact with reality as the rest of us experience it (oh, look! I wrote one of those myself). It's also a place where the Global Agenda to Monetize Education pokes its head out.
This year, however, arguably the largest education story out of Davos was Shakira speaking to advocate for more early childhood education. Really.
Instead, Davos participants were busy noticing that there are a lot of cranky not-wealthy people in the world, and that this crankiness has led to some sub-optimal election outcomes. That strikes them as a problem, though they aren't sure what to do. Or, as New York Times coverage frames the problem:
Finding a way to make the people who are driving populist movements feel like they are part of the global economic pie that Davos participants have created and largely own.
Reporter Alexandra Stevenson talked to a lot of attendees. None came up with the thought that actually letting people have a piece of the pie. In other words, an alternative way to frame the problem is "How do we hold all these non-wealthy people down, keep them non-wealthy, and get them to be happy about it?"
But the America and post-Brexit Europe's full-on retreat from globalization and free trade is not bad news for everyone, and this is the other part of the picture in Davos this year. Because this year's summit featured a full-on appearance by the Chinese.
Chinese President Xi Jinping appeared and delivered a speech with a clear and simple message-- if Trump's America doesn't want to be the world's leading economic power, China will be more than happy to step into the gap.
We've been seeing this in many smallish ways, from the increasing visibility of Chinese settings and actors in Hollywood film to outright Chinese investment in our entertainment industry (just this week we read of a billion-dollar investment of Chinese money in Paramount). But at the very moment we are telling the neighbors that we are going to stick to our own home and our own yard, the Chinese are getting ready to throw a block party. It should be noted that China has not yet proven that it can shift gears on its highly managed, highly protectionist economy. But something has clearly changed.
I mention all of this, in part, to note that it has nothing to do with education. China is not moving to the center of the world stage because of something to do with their students and standardized tests. America is not retreating from the world stage because of anything having to do with our schools. Other than, perhaps, an American electorate that doesn't know enough about economics, the world, and how to tell the truth from lies.
The implications for education, however, will take time to really absorb. Do we teach students any differently if we're preparing them to take their place in a world in which America is not the leader? Do we start teaching Chinese history so that we can better understand the dominant world power? Do we, at a minimum, teach them about how major decisions that affect the fate of us all are made by people we never see for reasons we never hear about in places we don't go?
The event's official name is the World Economic Forum, and it's a reliable source for pieces about how the uber-rich have mostly lost contact with reality as the rest of us experience it (oh, look! I wrote one of those myself). It's also a place where the Global Agenda to Monetize Education pokes its head out.
This year, however, arguably the largest education story out of Davos was Shakira speaking to advocate for more early childhood education. Really.
Instead, Davos participants were busy noticing that there are a lot of cranky not-wealthy people in the world, and that this crankiness has led to some sub-optimal election outcomes. That strikes them as a problem, though they aren't sure what to do. Or, as New York Times coverage frames the problem:
Finding a way to make the people who are driving populist movements feel like they are part of the global economic pie that Davos participants have created and largely own.
Reporter Alexandra Stevenson talked to a lot of attendees. None came up with the thought that actually letting people have a piece of the pie. In other words, an alternative way to frame the problem is "How do we hold all these non-wealthy people down, keep them non-wealthy, and get them to be happy about it?"
But the America and post-Brexit Europe's full-on retreat from globalization and free trade is not bad news for everyone, and this is the other part of the picture in Davos this year. Because this year's summit featured a full-on appearance by the Chinese.
Chinese President Xi Jinping appeared and delivered a speech with a clear and simple message-- if Trump's America doesn't want to be the world's leading economic power, China will be more than happy to step into the gap.
We've been seeing this in many smallish ways, from the increasing visibility of Chinese settings and actors in Hollywood film to outright Chinese investment in our entertainment industry (just this week we read of a billion-dollar investment of Chinese money in Paramount). But at the very moment we are telling the neighbors that we are going to stick to our own home and our own yard, the Chinese are getting ready to throw a block party. It should be noted that China has not yet proven that it can shift gears on its highly managed, highly protectionist economy. But something has clearly changed.
I mention all of this, in part, to note that it has nothing to do with education. China is not moving to the center of the world stage because of something to do with their students and standardized tests. America is not retreating from the world stage because of anything having to do with our schools. Other than, perhaps, an American electorate that doesn't know enough about economics, the world, and how to tell the truth from lies.
The implications for education, however, will take time to really absorb. Do we teach students any differently if we're preparing them to take their place in a world in which America is not the leader? Do we start teaching Chinese history so that we can better understand the dominant world power? Do we, at a minimum, teach them about how major decisions that affect the fate of us all are made by people we never see for reasons we never hear about in places we don't go?
Friday, January 20, 2017
Confessions of a Trumpistan Teacher
Look, give me just a few minutes. I need to tell someone.
Well, I screwed up.
Understand, I was on edge. Maria didn't get our cups of espresso out on the veranda until a full minute after she had served the toast, and the toast was already cold. Do you know how hard it is to spread the butter when the toast isn't quite warm enough to melt it? Do you? I mean, seriously, do you, because I don't. I have people for that. But it certainly looked like Maria was having a hard time buttering my toast, and she cut some little divots out when she tried. The toast was edible, but it was bothersome and firing Maria made us a full five minutes behind schedule.
Then, to top it off, Lawrence pulled the Lexus around when I had told him clearly that I wanted the BMW for this morning. I think it's a little more somber, more appropriate for the mood of the day.
Of course, they swore Trump in today as President, and that means the gravy train is over for all of us at East Egg Elementary School and all the other public schools around the country. It's frustrating, and upsetting. Even Wallace gave me a look when he was holding open the door to the teachers' lounge. He almost looked me straight in the eye. Can you imagine? But I guess even a public school teachers' doorman can tell that the winds of change are shifting against us.
You would think Trump would respect us, one wealthy individual to another, but for some reason my vast wealth doesn't get me the respect of the truly elite in this country. I suppose it's that we didn't inherit our vast wealth the way they did. No, we have depend on a vast national conspiracy.
Sure, the NEA and AFT have done a good job of creating this fictional chain of schools, where we pretend to teach children as a cover for receiving stacks of money that our bought-and-paid-for public officials extort from the taxpayers. You would think we'd win respect for the creativity of this scheme, which has involved conning generation after generation of Americans into thinking that education is a real thing and that our country has some sort of obligation to educate all of our children. I tell you, the whole scheme is genius story-telling. And now it looks doomed.
We'd talked about that very subject just last week when all the Democratic elected officials came to their weekly meeting with us. As usual, we were dictating their positions and actions for the coming week, making it clear that they weren't to make a move without consulting us and our union bosses-- but they looked worried. What if Trump came up with some sort of jamming device so that they couldn't get the union signal in their earpieces? How would they know to vote? We tried to reassure them, but it was a scary moment for all of us.
Even Principal Benson looked upset today. At lunchtime, the caviar was not even neatly arranged on the silver lunch platters, and my filet mignon was distinctly a shade too pink. But I didn't have the heart to send it back; I'm sure out in the kitchen they sense that we'll have to let some of the sous chefs go.
I just want you to understand that all of this was weighing on me when I walked into my afternoon fifth grade science class. Some of the students, perhaps sensing weakness on this day of all days, started to ask questions. Migratory patterns of barn swallows. Wingspans of bats. And one little girl-- I think her name is Susie somethingorother-- asked what happens to caterpillars after they spend time in their cocoons, and before I could stop myself, I was explaining to her that the caterpillars emerge from the cocoons as brand new butterflies. And then I saw the look of excitement on her face, and I realized my terrible mistake.
I had allowed a student to acquire some knowledge. And not just any student, but one of the beautiful ones.
It's the most fundamental oath we take when we join the vast union-run government school conspiracy-- whatever you do, make sure that you deprive students of all knowledge (especially the young and beautiful ones-- it's generally allowed to slip a few bits of knowledge to the older and ugly ones).
But I had done it. I had failed to deprive Susie of all knowledge, and now my union bosses will probably call me in for severe criticism, maybe even docking some of my conspirator's pay. Of course it's distressing-- we just put a down payment on another home in the Hamptons (this one has a nicer view). I suppose we can sell off some of the jewelry.
Am I upset? Of course-- I violated my most sacred teacher oath and accidentally taught someone, and we teachers take our oaths to interfere with education just as seriously as doctors take their oath to deny health care.
But now that we live in Trumpistan, under a leader who fully understands what we're up to--well, we fought off the people who tried to prove we are denying students all knowledge by catching us with their tricky and insightful tests. But how will we deal with someone who has such keen insight into how the whole government school scam works as just a front for funneling tax dollars to make union teachers a special rich wing of the Democratic party? Now that Trump and DeVos have found us out and want a piece of the action, can even extra sacrifices to the Dark Lord help?
Collapse? No, no, I'm okay. I look shaky? Maybe I should sit down, but I'm not sick-- I'm just flush with cash.
Well, I screwed up.
Understand, I was on edge. Maria didn't get our cups of espresso out on the veranda until a full minute after she had served the toast, and the toast was already cold. Do you know how hard it is to spread the butter when the toast isn't quite warm enough to melt it? Do you? I mean, seriously, do you, because I don't. I have people for that. But it certainly looked like Maria was having a hard time buttering my toast, and she cut some little divots out when she tried. The toast was edible, but it was bothersome and firing Maria made us a full five minutes behind schedule.
Then, to top it off, Lawrence pulled the Lexus around when I had told him clearly that I wanted the BMW for this morning. I think it's a little more somber, more appropriate for the mood of the day.
Of course, they swore Trump in today as President, and that means the gravy train is over for all of us at East Egg Elementary School and all the other public schools around the country. It's frustrating, and upsetting. Even Wallace gave me a look when he was holding open the door to the teachers' lounge. He almost looked me straight in the eye. Can you imagine? But I guess even a public school teachers' doorman can tell that the winds of change are shifting against us.
You would think Trump would respect us, one wealthy individual to another, but for some reason my vast wealth doesn't get me the respect of the truly elite in this country. I suppose it's that we didn't inherit our vast wealth the way they did. No, we have depend on a vast national conspiracy.
Sure, the NEA and AFT have done a good job of creating this fictional chain of schools, where we pretend to teach children as a cover for receiving stacks of money that our bought-and-paid-for public officials extort from the taxpayers. You would think we'd win respect for the creativity of this scheme, which has involved conning generation after generation of Americans into thinking that education is a real thing and that our country has some sort of obligation to educate all of our children. I tell you, the whole scheme is genius story-telling. And now it looks doomed.
We'd talked about that very subject just last week when all the Democratic elected officials came to their weekly meeting with us. As usual, we were dictating their positions and actions for the coming week, making it clear that they weren't to make a move without consulting us and our union bosses-- but they looked worried. What if Trump came up with some sort of jamming device so that they couldn't get the union signal in their earpieces? How would they know to vote? We tried to reassure them, but it was a scary moment for all of us.
Even Principal Benson looked upset today. At lunchtime, the caviar was not even neatly arranged on the silver lunch platters, and my filet mignon was distinctly a shade too pink. But I didn't have the heart to send it back; I'm sure out in the kitchen they sense that we'll have to let some of the sous chefs go.
I just want you to understand that all of this was weighing on me when I walked into my afternoon fifth grade science class. Some of the students, perhaps sensing weakness on this day of all days, started to ask questions. Migratory patterns of barn swallows. Wingspans of bats. And one little girl-- I think her name is Susie somethingorother-- asked what happens to caterpillars after they spend time in their cocoons, and before I could stop myself, I was explaining to her that the caterpillars emerge from the cocoons as brand new butterflies. And then I saw the look of excitement on her face, and I realized my terrible mistake.
I had allowed a student to acquire some knowledge. And not just any student, but one of the beautiful ones.
It's the most fundamental oath we take when we join the vast union-run government school conspiracy-- whatever you do, make sure that you deprive students of all knowledge (especially the young and beautiful ones-- it's generally allowed to slip a few bits of knowledge to the older and ugly ones).
But I had done it. I had failed to deprive Susie of all knowledge, and now my union bosses will probably call me in for severe criticism, maybe even docking some of my conspirator's pay. Of course it's distressing-- we just put a down payment on another home in the Hamptons (this one has a nicer view). I suppose we can sell off some of the jewelry.
Am I upset? Of course-- I violated my most sacred teacher oath and accidentally taught someone, and we teachers take our oaths to interfere with education just as seriously as doctors take their oath to deny health care.
But now that we live in Trumpistan, under a leader who fully understands what we're up to--well, we fought off the people who tried to prove we are denying students all knowledge by catching us with their tricky and insightful tests. But how will we deal with someone who has such keen insight into how the whole government school scam works as just a front for funneling tax dollars to make union teachers a special rich wing of the Democratic party? Now that Trump and DeVos have found us out and want a piece of the action, can even extra sacrifices to the Dark Lord help?
Collapse? No, no, I'm okay. I look shaky? Maybe I should sit down, but I'm not sick-- I'm just flush with cash.
How Not To Improve Schools
The report is in from the US Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences-- "School Improvement Grants: Implementation and Effectiveness." It is our last lesson in school reform from the Obama-Duncan-King education department, and although that version of the department is being bulldozed under even as I type, there are still important lessons to be learned here.
The full report is over 400 pages long, and if you want to read the whole thing, be my guest. But I don't think there are any devils lurking in these details. Because the fourth-of-five findings pretty much tells the story:
Overall, across all grades, we found that implementing any SIG -funded model had no significant impacts on math or reading test scores, high school graduation, or college enrollment.
The Obama administration spent $3 billion dollars on school improvement grants (actually $7 billion by the time you factor it all in), and it did not produce any measurable improvements, at all.
Some folks are going to jump straight from there to their favorite conclusion-- throwing more money at schools doesn't do any good. But that's the wrong conclusion, for two reasons.
First, this results of the study are inconclusive because they checked only for Big Standardized Test scores, graduation rate, and college enrollment. For the sixty gazzilionth time, let me point out that these are narrow, twisted, not-very-good measures of education. I would argue, for instance, that if the three billion had been used to add music and art teachers to every single school in America, education would have been vastly improved-- but that improvement would not show up in a study like this. Likewise more guidance counselors, more welding instructors or field trips would improve education, but not in ways that would show up in these metrics.
Second-- and this is probably the more important lesson-- is the question of how SIG money was spent. Because the feds did not at any point say, "You know, you are the experts there on the ground who best know what your school needs to be better, so we are going to trust your judgment." No, as the report aptly sums up, the money was not just tied to strings, but wrapped up in strings, bound in strings, woven into a menacing macrame of strings:
SIG allowed grantees to implement one of four school intervention models (transformation, turnaround, restart, or closure). These models promoted the use of many improvement practices in four main areas: (1) adopting comprehensive instructional reform strategies, (2) developing and increasing teacher and principal effectiveness, (3) increasing learning time and creating community-oriented schools, and (4) having operational flexibility and receiving support.
SIG was like food stamps that could only be spent on baby formula, ostrich eggs, and venison, and it didn't matter if the families receiving the stamps lived on a farm with fresh milk and chicken eggs, or if they were vegetarians, or if they lived where no store sells ostrich eggs, or if there are no babies in the family. USED used SIG to dictate strategy and buy compliance with their micro-managing notions about how schools had to be fixed.
The moral of the story is not that money doesn't make a difference. The moral of the story is that when bureaucrats in DC dictate exactly how money must be spent-- and they are wrong about their theory of action and wrong about the strategies that should be used by each school and wrong about how to measure the effectiveness of those strategies-- then the money is probably wasted. We'll see soon enough if anyone left at the Department of Education can identify that lesson.
The full report is over 400 pages long, and if you want to read the whole thing, be my guest. But I don't think there are any devils lurking in these details. Because the fourth-of-five findings pretty much tells the story:
Overall, across all grades, we found that implementing any SIG -funded model had no significant impacts on math or reading test scores, high school graduation, or college enrollment.
The Obama administration spent $3 billion dollars on school improvement grants (actually $7 billion by the time you factor it all in), and it did not produce any measurable improvements, at all.
First, this results of the study are inconclusive because they checked only for Big Standardized Test scores, graduation rate, and college enrollment. For the sixty gazzilionth time, let me point out that these are narrow, twisted, not-very-good measures of education. I would argue, for instance, that if the three billion had been used to add music and art teachers to every single school in America, education would have been vastly improved-- but that improvement would not show up in a study like this. Likewise more guidance counselors, more welding instructors or field trips would improve education, but not in ways that would show up in these metrics.
Second-- and this is probably the more important lesson-- is the question of how SIG money was spent. Because the feds did not at any point say, "You know, you are the experts there on the ground who best know what your school needs to be better, so we are going to trust your judgment." No, as the report aptly sums up, the money was not just tied to strings, but wrapped up in strings, bound in strings, woven into a menacing macrame of strings:
SIG allowed grantees to implement one of four school intervention models (transformation, turnaround, restart, or closure). These models promoted the use of many improvement practices in four main areas: (1) adopting comprehensive instructional reform strategies, (2) developing and increasing teacher and principal effectiveness, (3) increasing learning time and creating community-oriented schools, and (4) having operational flexibility and receiving support.
SIG was like food stamps that could only be spent on baby formula, ostrich eggs, and venison, and it didn't matter if the families receiving the stamps lived on a farm with fresh milk and chicken eggs, or if they were vegetarians, or if they lived where no store sells ostrich eggs, or if there are no babies in the family. USED used SIG to dictate strategy and buy compliance with their micro-managing notions about how schools had to be fixed.
The moral of the story is not that money doesn't make a difference. The moral of the story is that when bureaucrats in DC dictate exactly how money must be spent-- and they are wrong about their theory of action and wrong about the strategies that should be used by each school and wrong about how to measure the effectiveness of those strategies-- then the money is probably wasted. We'll see soon enough if anyone left at the Department of Education can identify that lesson.
What Do You Want?
In teacher school, we're taught that effective classroom management involves focusing on what you want the students to do, not what you don't want them to do.
In other words, "stop twiddling your thumbs" is less effective than "please read the story." I always think of Larry Shreckengost, my high school driver's ed teacher who told us to look at where we wanted to go, not at what we wanted to avoid hitting. It's true-- stare at that telephone pole you don't want to hit, and you will find yourself driving straight toward it.
It is easy to get sucked up in no. It is easy to give over head space and voice to all the things that you don't want to see happen. But that inevitably is too much of the wrong thing and not enough of the right thing. A classroom that is dominated by don't becomes a negative space, a room where everyone's attention is given to the Wrong Stuff and they walk out ignorant of the right stuff.
Writing instruction is a perfect example. If writing instruction is all about a huge list of things that your students are not supposed to do, your students will create consistently mediocre-to-bad writing. Good writing is not about avoiding doing what's wrong-- it's about embracing what works, what is right.
The GOP has painted themselves into this exact corner, most notably with the issue of Obamacare. They have been against many things; now they have to figure out what they are for, and it's turning out to be a bit of a stumper. Liberals and progressives would be wise not to spend the next four years stuck in that same swampy trap.
None of this is meant to suggest that if we just jump on our unicorns and dance off positively and hopefully into the rainbow sky, everything will be fluffy bunnies and ice cream cones. Sometimes moving toward a destination, a goal-- sometimes that means getting past a large dark mass of powerful obstacles. But it doesn't work to sit down and just whinge away about how those obstacles shouldn't be there. Worse, sit there too long and when the obstacles are swept away, you can't even remember where you were going.
In short, the obstacles aren't the thing. The goal is the thing.
What do you want?
Do you want a world with equity and justice, a wold where people are treated with respect and decency no matter who they are? Then work toward that.
Do you want a world where the arts, the vital expressions of what it means to be human, to be in the world-- do you want a world where those things are supported and valued? Then work toward that.
Do you want world where education is important, and institutions work to provide excellent and appropriate educations for every single student? Then work toward that.
Do you want a world where government, both elected and appointed, deals with citizens honestly, openly and responsibly? Then work toward that.
Do you want a world where we stand up for each other, have each other's backs, defends each other's rights relentlessly? Then work toward that.
Do you want a world where everyone gets to lead a decent life and find their best selves, regardles off background or circumstances? Then work toward that.
Do you want a world where we all strive to be our best selves and are guided by our highest values? Do you want a world where love and honor and decency and kindness are the values by which we live? Do you want a world where we elevate leaders who elevate us all?
Then work toward that. Lift up what-- and who-- you care about. Honor what you think is honorable.Talk and listen and read and write to strengthen and tune and grow your vision of the world you want to see, and then work toward that.
At times it may be hard to see, hard to even imagine. Keep working. Know what you want to say yes to, and say yes to that. Work toward that.
In other words, "stop twiddling your thumbs" is less effective than "please read the story." I always think of Larry Shreckengost, my high school driver's ed teacher who told us to look at where we wanted to go, not at what we wanted to avoid hitting. It's true-- stare at that telephone pole you don't want to hit, and you will find yourself driving straight toward it.
It is easy to get sucked up in no. It is easy to give over head space and voice to all the things that you don't want to see happen. But that inevitably is too much of the wrong thing and not enough of the right thing. A classroom that is dominated by don't becomes a negative space, a room where everyone's attention is given to the Wrong Stuff and they walk out ignorant of the right stuff.
Writing instruction is a perfect example. If writing instruction is all about a huge list of things that your students are not supposed to do, your students will create consistently mediocre-to-bad writing. Good writing is not about avoiding doing what's wrong-- it's about embracing what works, what is right.
The GOP has painted themselves into this exact corner, most notably with the issue of Obamacare. They have been against many things; now they have to figure out what they are for, and it's turning out to be a bit of a stumper. Liberals and progressives would be wise not to spend the next four years stuck in that same swampy trap.
None of this is meant to suggest that if we just jump on our unicorns and dance off positively and hopefully into the rainbow sky, everything will be fluffy bunnies and ice cream cones. Sometimes moving toward a destination, a goal-- sometimes that means getting past a large dark mass of powerful obstacles. But it doesn't work to sit down and just whinge away about how those obstacles shouldn't be there. Worse, sit there too long and when the obstacles are swept away, you can't even remember where you were going.
In short, the obstacles aren't the thing. The goal is the thing.
What do you want?
Do you want a world with equity and justice, a wold where people are treated with respect and decency no matter who they are? Then work toward that.
Do you want a world where the arts, the vital expressions of what it means to be human, to be in the world-- do you want a world where those things are supported and valued? Then work toward that.
Do you want world where education is important, and institutions work to provide excellent and appropriate educations for every single student? Then work toward that.
Do you want a world where government, both elected and appointed, deals with citizens honestly, openly and responsibly? Then work toward that.
Do you want a world where we stand up for each other, have each other's backs, defends each other's rights relentlessly? Then work toward that.
Do you want a world where everyone gets to lead a decent life and find their best selves, regardles off background or circumstances? Then work toward that.
Do you want a world where we all strive to be our best selves and are guided by our highest values? Do you want a world where love and honor and decency and kindness are the values by which we live? Do you want a world where we elevate leaders who elevate us all?
Then work toward that. Lift up what-- and who-- you care about. Honor what you think is honorable.Talk and listen and read and write to strengthen and tune and grow your vision of the world you want to see, and then work toward that.
At times it may be hard to see, hard to even imagine. Keep working. Know what you want to say yes to, and say yes to that. Work toward that.
Thursday, January 19, 2017
School Accountability Diet
One of the best things the feds ever created was the nutritional information panel for food.
When I go shopping, I can quickly and easily access information about the food I buy. There's how much fat in these power bars??!! Look-- twinkies have far fewer calories than I imagined!
The panels are a model of transparency, because the information is there for me to do with as I will. Years ago I didn't care at all about dietary fiber; nowadays, it's something I can stand to pay attention to. Protein was never a big deal, but since my wife is currently constructing a pair of twins, we pay attention to how much protein there is in the food we bring home. And we can shift our attention as new information becomes available-- different types of fat or cholesterol used to be non-issues, but now informed consumers know there are distinctions that matter.
Think of how much better this system works than one in which food was rated or ranked. If the feds slapped on labels that said "These bagels get a B+" or "These frozen waffles are the 215th-ranked food in this grocery store." I would have virtually no information on which to base my judgment, with the whole complex issue of the many characteristics of food and how it balances against what I need and want in my diet-- that would all be reduced to a piece of data so narrow and limited and opaque as to be meaningless, useless for me in making a decision.
This is how I know that many reformsters who advocate for school grades and rankings "so that parents can make an informed choice" are lying-- they are neither supporting parents nor choice.
To support a grade or ranking, rather than a simple transparent data system like the nutritional information labels, you would have to believe one of the following
1) Parents aren't capable of understanding and processing the information, so we'll have to process it and evaluate it for them.
2) Parents will make the "wrong" choice, so we must stack and sum up the data in a way that pushes parents toward the choices that we want them to choose. We must decide what decision they should make.
3) It has nothing to do with the parents. We want a basis on which to attack and close certain schools, and that's what the ranks and grades are for.
If the food system worked like this, government bureaucrats could rate Pop Tarts an A because they have bright colors and lots of sugar, or C because they don't have very much actual fruit or F because the bureaucratic system is operated by people who have stock in the Toaster Strudle corporation.
Choice advocates love to talk about letting parents vote with their feet, but in fact rating and ranking are all about making sure that the Powers That Be get to pick the winners and losers. It's about creating the illusion of choice without the real, complete, transparent information to make a real choice. It's no coincidence that A-F systems are particularly popular in states where policy leaders are intent on dismantling public ed and replacing it with a profitable charter system.
One of the biggest problems with school choice in this country is that choice fans are, for the most part, not really trying to create a choice system. If they were, we would be collecting all sorts of data about schools and putting it out there for parents to decide, based on whatever criteria they think is important, like a giant nutritional content label. But that's not what we're doing-- choice advocates are keeping the definition of "good" and "bad" schools gripped tightly and secretly in their own hands, making sure that they retain the right to pick winners and losers (and there is no free-floating information that might contradict charter/choice school marketing).
There are many reasons that a public school advocate would oppose charter and choice systems, but one of the reasons I oppose the particular system that we are seeing implemented from Michigan to Florida is that it's dishonest, it's a lie. It's not really a parental choice system at all, and we can tell that from the label, which is designed in a rating or ranking system, to keep all choice out of the hands of parents and in the hands of the people who run the system.
When I go shopping, I can quickly and easily access information about the food I buy. There's how much fat in these power bars??!! Look-- twinkies have far fewer calories than I imagined!
The panels are a model of transparency, because the information is there for me to do with as I will. Years ago I didn't care at all about dietary fiber; nowadays, it's something I can stand to pay attention to. Protein was never a big deal, but since my wife is currently constructing a pair of twins, we pay attention to how much protein there is in the food we bring home. And we can shift our attention as new information becomes available-- different types of fat or cholesterol used to be non-issues, but now informed consumers know there are distinctions that matter.
Think of how much better this system works than one in which food was rated or ranked. If the feds slapped on labels that said "These bagels get a B+" or "These frozen waffles are the 215th-ranked food in this grocery store." I would have virtually no information on which to base my judgment, with the whole complex issue of the many characteristics of food and how it balances against what I need and want in my diet-- that would all be reduced to a piece of data so narrow and limited and opaque as to be meaningless, useless for me in making a decision.
This is how I know that many reformsters who advocate for school grades and rankings "so that parents can make an informed choice" are lying-- they are neither supporting parents nor choice.
To support a grade or ranking, rather than a simple transparent data system like the nutritional information labels, you would have to believe one of the following
1) Parents aren't capable of understanding and processing the information, so we'll have to process it and evaluate it for them.
2) Parents will make the "wrong" choice, so we must stack and sum up the data in a way that pushes parents toward the choices that we want them to choose. We must decide what decision they should make.
3) It has nothing to do with the parents. We want a basis on which to attack and close certain schools, and that's what the ranks and grades are for.
If the food system worked like this, government bureaucrats could rate Pop Tarts an A because they have bright colors and lots of sugar, or C because they don't have very much actual fruit or F because the bureaucratic system is operated by people who have stock in the Toaster Strudle corporation.
Choice advocates love to talk about letting parents vote with their feet, but in fact rating and ranking are all about making sure that the Powers That Be get to pick the winners and losers. It's about creating the illusion of choice without the real, complete, transparent information to make a real choice. It's no coincidence that A-F systems are particularly popular in states where policy leaders are intent on dismantling public ed and replacing it with a profitable charter system.
One of the biggest problems with school choice in this country is that choice fans are, for the most part, not really trying to create a choice system. If they were, we would be collecting all sorts of data about schools and putting it out there for parents to decide, based on whatever criteria they think is important, like a giant nutritional content label. But that's not what we're doing-- choice advocates are keeping the definition of "good" and "bad" schools gripped tightly and secretly in their own hands, making sure that they retain the right to pick winners and losers (and there is no free-floating information that might contradict charter/choice school marketing).
There are many reasons that a public school advocate would oppose charter and choice systems, but one of the reasons I oppose the particular system that we are seeing implemented from Michigan to Florida is that it's dishonest, it's a lie. It's not really a parental choice system at all, and we can tell that from the label, which is designed in a rating or ranking system, to keep all choice out of the hands of parents and in the hands of the people who run the system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)