Why is it that I'm so hard on some people I disagree with here and so gentle with others? Because I have a hard time taking people seriously when they aren't serious people.
Certain positions in the current debates indicate clearly how serious a person is. I don't support the idea of national education standards; I think it's a bad idea, doomed to failure, that will not yield any of the benefits its supporters believe in. But I recognize that serious, well-intentioned, intelligent people can support the idea. Pitch national standards to me and I will disagree with you, but I won't automatically think less of you.
On the other hand, no serious person could ever say, "Only Common Core has made it possible for me to teach critical thinking in my classroom." Say that, and you have announced that you are a silly person, and I will treat you like a silly person who insists on saying silly things.
Serious people are not necessarily serious (I think of myself as a serious person), but you can usually spot them by their language:
1) Serious people recognize that words have both meaning and consequences. They don't just say whatever bullshit they feel like making up just because. They do not view communication as a game to win. They consider how words and actions really affect the things they claim to be serious about.
2) Serious people seek congruity between reality, their values, and their goals. Serious people don't focus on one at the cost of the other two. They do not ignore reality and sacrifice their values in order to achieve goals. They do not allow their values to blind them to reality. They do not look at reality and give up everything else. They don't ignore reality because it might be inconvenient.
3) Serious people do not lie. Most particularly, they do not lie about their goals and objectives. They are not bullshit artists. It's the silly people who will pee on your leg, tell you it's raining, and expect you to believe them because they used words and a faux serious expression.
One of the most striking things about the battle for public education is what a large percentage of the people fighting in the resistance are serious people, and what a large percentage of the people battling for the CCSS-anchored, high stakes test-driven, corporate backed status quo are NOT serious people.
Arne Duncan is not a serious person. Earlier in his career he made noises that sounded good, but which were unrelated to the actual policies he pursued. More often lately he sounds like that kid who hasn't done the homework but is hoping he can bullshit his way past you. There are no signs that he has ever made a serious attempt to see what is happening on the ground when it comes to the current test-driven status quo.
She Who Must Not Be Named is not a serious person. She does not appear to grasp the connection between rhetoric and reality, that somehow if you declare, "I must take action to show my deep and abiding love for you," and then punch your partner is the face, that's perfectly okay. Especially if you then announce, "He was totally pulling a gun on me." Even if there's no gun to be found.
David Coleman and his ilk are not serious people. Coleman has no more interest in what actually happens in classrooms than he has in the traffic patterns in ant colonies. When you are so deeply wise, you don't need to understand lesser realities-- you just make them bend to your will.
The Hedgemasters backing the charter movement are not serious people. Charters are investment opportunities and educational rhetoric is just ad copy. They are no more serious about finding real educational solutions than General Mills is serious about researching what the most healthy breakfast would really include.
The Data Overlords are not serious people. Or rather, they're not serious about education. They are serious about data collection, but it really makes no difference to them whether the education delivered is good or not, just as long as it's all tagged and bagged.
The Systems and Government pushers are not serious people. They are sure that if they can get total control of the whole system, it will work the way they imagine it will, and they do not want to be distracted by any evidence to the contrary. The pursuit of excellence should never be derailed by facts, or by the puny lesser humans who get in the way.
The corporate profiteers are not serious people. When Pearson believes their main problem is bad PR, they show such a disconnect from life on this planet that they cannot be taken as serious people.
People who are serious about education recognize that education is hard, teaching is hard, learning is hard, and that it takes a lifetime of looking and listening and paying attention to get a handle on how all the moving pieces of a public education are working. They seek to live out their respect and devotion to education, and they seek to live out their respect for the students that we serve. They align their words and actions and values. They are not worried about making education a lesser priority than profits and power.
If you are serious about education, your focus is on education. Not on finding facts to match your pre-conceived notions. Not on figuring out ways to "message" people so that they will believe you (and not, say, their eyes). Not on how you can use education to further your own ends (and it's someone else's problem if education gets busted up while being used as a tool). And certainly not on arranging for the biggest payout.
I have not yet mentioned the biggest tell of all-- serious people are still, always looking for answers. Do serious people sometimes fall for the reformy rubbish? Yes, they do. But I can tell they're serious because they are still trying to figure out how all this can fit together (and ultimately, like the entirely-serious Diane Ravitch, figuring out that it doesn't). Beware people who believe they have all the answers (personally, I have about 2% of the answers).
The supporters of the high-stakes test-driven corporate-backed status quo are, for the most part, silly people. Dangerous, powerful silly people, but still, while I have to take the danger they pose to public education seriously, I find it impossible to take them seriously at all.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Saturday, May 17, 2014
PA Charters Don't Want To Die By Sword
In Philadelphia, Irony has collided with Karma, casing an explosion of hilariously tragic tears.
First, some history. Philadelphia schools have suffered from financial and political issues (PA's school funding system is messed up, but we'll save that for another day), as well as questions about how well it was actually teaching children. In the late 1990s this resulted in some lawsuits against the state and a school superintendent (David Hornbeck) who decided to play chicken with the legislature.
"Give me more money, or I won't open the schools," he said.
"Fine," said the legislature. "We'll give you money, and we'll take over your district." (The Dem chair of the appropriations committee characterized Hornbeck's move as "bold but not very wise")
Since about 2001, Philly schools have been run by the School Reform Commission, a board with three state appointees and two city appointees. That board has struggled with the task of keeping the schools functioning while still reflecting the governor's desire for all public education to go crawl in a hole somewhere and die.The SRC chugs along mostly quietly, emerging into the news every time they ask for another set of school laws to be suspended (End tenure and FILO please? Can we make teachers pay us to work here and then also work in the lunchroom?) The public school system of Philadelphia has been weakened, operated by a panel that doesn't even particularly believe in public education, operating under a law that gives them the power to ignore school law because they're poor. Remember that.
This of course has meant glorious good time for charters in Philly. The SRC has been able to follow Governor Corbett's charter philosophy (roughly, "Charters are super-swell, whether they're run by crooks or not").
That leaves them in a bind, because PA charters are the bloodsucking leeches of the education world. PA law says that when a child leaves your public school system, you must hand a pile of money over to the charter, and you are never, ever allowed to ask what the hell they did with it. Seriously-- when charter operators get caught defrauding in PA, it's usually only because the feds got involved. In PA, charter students get to take their ball, the bases and the grass off the field when they go home. Public school students are still free to play with rocks and dirt.
It seems that the SRC has started to notice that charter operators are, in fact, part of their financial woes. And so they have taken the unprecedented step of refusing to re-certify a charter, specifically the Walter D. Palmer Leadership Learning Partners Charter School. They are accused of not being academically superior to public schools, but mostly for hosing the school district financially.
The hosing seems to have taken two forms. One is billing for students they don't actually have enrolled. This is the oldest charter trick in the book-- enroll a student long enough to bring in money, then force him out before he can actually cost you money. This is why on certain days of the year you will find cyber-school operators and public school guidance counselors perched at their computers, like crazed bidders at some reverse ebay auction, passing students back and forth like cyber-hot-potatoes before the timer chimes.
Palmer's other infraction was to exceed their cap. Charter certifiers sometimes cap enrollment at the charter. Palmer exceeded theirs. Golly, you say, with all this coming and going I'm sure an accounting error could easily creep in. I'm thinking not. Palmer was authorized to enroll 675 students; they had 1289. That amounts to over $12 million traveling out of Philly schools into Palmer's coffers.
So now the PA rules that allow the SRC to carve up Philly schools are being turned on Palmer, and Palmer, who benefited from the public school buffet, now thinks the no-rules rules are bogus and must be fought.
SRC says under the financially-strapped-school-martial-law laws, they can totally do this. Palmer says, "You have no right to mess with our schools." If Philly schools were not such a sad mess, it would be entertaining to watch two large opponents of public education battle to the death.
I have no idea whether Walter D. Palmer (yes, the school is named after the real 80-year-old guy running it) thinks he's found a great retirement slush fund or truly believes he's operating a lifeboat for Philly's children, but he and his folks are fighting back. They have a moveon.org petition, some lawsuits going against the state, and a request for an injunction on the grounds that the SRC is overstepping their bounds.
Meanwhile, another charter is pushing back against oversight. The SRC was in front of the state supreme court arguing to be allowed to cap enrollment at West Philadelphia Achievement at all. The charter has said the SRC cannot do any such thing, and they refuse to agree to a cap, which the SRC says means they won't be allowed to open. The SRC says that the financial hardship no law law allows them to set caps, that the gushing of money from charters is in fact part of their financial problems.
The court has agreed to hear the case in the fall. This is huge in PA. It was the assertion that school districts need assistance and relief that opened the door to let charters dance into a happy land of do-as-they-please. If that same argument can be turned against the charters, then the business model of PA charters being able to make money more easily than a mint-- that could be in trouble, which would be great news for public education. Cross your fingers, but don't throw away your leech repellant.
First, some history. Philadelphia schools have suffered from financial and political issues (PA's school funding system is messed up, but we'll save that for another day), as well as questions about how well it was actually teaching children. In the late 1990s this resulted in some lawsuits against the state and a school superintendent (David Hornbeck) who decided to play chicken with the legislature.
"Give me more money, or I won't open the schools," he said.
"Fine," said the legislature. "We'll give you money, and we'll take over your district." (The Dem chair of the appropriations committee characterized Hornbeck's move as "bold but not very wise")
Since about 2001, Philly schools have been run by the School Reform Commission, a board with three state appointees and two city appointees. That board has struggled with the task of keeping the schools functioning while still reflecting the governor's desire for all public education to go crawl in a hole somewhere and die.The SRC chugs along mostly quietly, emerging into the news every time they ask for another set of school laws to be suspended (End tenure and FILO please? Can we make teachers pay us to work here and then also work in the lunchroom?) The public school system of Philadelphia has been weakened, operated by a panel that doesn't even particularly believe in public education, operating under a law that gives them the power to ignore school law because they're poor. Remember that.
This of course has meant glorious good time for charters in Philly. The SRC has been able to follow Governor Corbett's charter philosophy (roughly, "Charters are super-swell, whether they're run by crooks or not").
That leaves them in a bind, because PA charters are the bloodsucking leeches of the education world. PA law says that when a child leaves your public school system, you must hand a pile of money over to the charter, and you are never, ever allowed to ask what the hell they did with it. Seriously-- when charter operators get caught defrauding in PA, it's usually only because the feds got involved. In PA, charter students get to take their ball, the bases and the grass off the field when they go home. Public school students are still free to play with rocks and dirt.
It seems that the SRC has started to notice that charter operators are, in fact, part of their financial woes. And so they have taken the unprecedented step of refusing to re-certify a charter, specifically the Walter D. Palmer Leadership Learning Partners Charter School. They are accused of not being academically superior to public schools, but mostly for hosing the school district financially.
The hosing seems to have taken two forms. One is billing for students they don't actually have enrolled. This is the oldest charter trick in the book-- enroll a student long enough to bring in money, then force him out before he can actually cost you money. This is why on certain days of the year you will find cyber-school operators and public school guidance counselors perched at their computers, like crazed bidders at some reverse ebay auction, passing students back and forth like cyber-hot-potatoes before the timer chimes.
Palmer's other infraction was to exceed their cap. Charter certifiers sometimes cap enrollment at the charter. Palmer exceeded theirs. Golly, you say, with all this coming and going I'm sure an accounting error could easily creep in. I'm thinking not. Palmer was authorized to enroll 675 students; they had 1289. That amounts to over $12 million traveling out of Philly schools into Palmer's coffers.
So now the PA rules that allow the SRC to carve up Philly schools are being turned on Palmer, and Palmer, who benefited from the public school buffet, now thinks the no-rules rules are bogus and must be fought.
SRC says under the financially-strapped-school-martial-law laws, they can totally do this. Palmer says, "You have no right to mess with our schools." If Philly schools were not such a sad mess, it would be entertaining to watch two large opponents of public education battle to the death.
I have no idea whether Walter D. Palmer (yes, the school is named after the real 80-year-old guy running it) thinks he's found a great retirement slush fund or truly believes he's operating a lifeboat for Philly's children, but he and his folks are fighting back. They have a moveon.org petition, some lawsuits going against the state, and a request for an injunction on the grounds that the SRC is overstepping their bounds.
Meanwhile, another charter is pushing back against oversight. The SRC was in front of the state supreme court arguing to be allowed to cap enrollment at West Philadelphia Achievement at all. The charter has said the SRC cannot do any such thing, and they refuse to agree to a cap, which the SRC says means they won't be allowed to open. The SRC says that the financial hardship no law law allows them to set caps, that the gushing of money from charters is in fact part of their financial problems.
The court has agreed to hear the case in the fall. This is huge in PA. It was the assertion that school districts need assistance and relief that opened the door to let charters dance into a happy land of do-as-they-please. If that same argument can be turned against the charters, then the business model of PA charters being able to make money more easily than a mint-- that could be in trouble, which would be great news for public education. Cross your fingers, but don't throw away your leech repellant.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Computer Shmomputer
You do know, don't you, that today' students have been around computers their lives, right?
So why do some folks still think that a boring worksheet will suddenly be cool if it's on a computer? Or that a lecture from a teacher who can't be questioned is more interesting if it's on a computer?
I tell you what. For every fifteen year old you find me who says, "Wow! This instruction is on a computer!" I will find you a sixty year old who says, "Wow! They make pens where you can just click the point in and out of the end."
I get that there are folks who don't have a computer in every (or any) room at home. The same is true of books, which are just as novel and wow-worthy as computers for today's students. So any program that sells itself by declaring "And it's on a comPUter!" is a con job.
But when we try to implement a wow program on a computer-- whatever it is you wan to do, you are already too late.
Do you remember "Flappy Bird"? It was a hugely popular game with m students a few months ago. For about a week. Did you get to play 2048? A month ago my students didn't play anything else. For about a week. Right now, I think they're still playing "Make It Rain," but it feels like it's been about a week since that popped up on my radar, so by Monday I expect it will have been replaced.
So the idea that I can sit down right now and pick out a program that next year will make my students say, "Wowee! I can't wait to get on my computer and play Mindless Drill Festival until my fingertips bleed." Anybody who can pull off that trick gets to skip retirement and go straight to Indolent Gabillionaire. Everyone else will be too late to the marketplace with a software product that will be no more exciting than a re-issue of Heart of Darkness with a brand new Dover Mystery Graphic Art Cover.
The other reason you'll be too late? Those games I mentioned? None of my students played them on computer. The majority of my students are completely plugged in, but only on their phones. A handful use computers to handle certain kinds of productivity, but I can find more students carrying around some damn John Green novel. But virtually all of my students, regardless of background, are packing smartphones.
People in the computer biz have to know this. Their market research has to tell them this. So why are folks from computerized charters to standardized test mandaters insisting on computer-based instruction? I can think of two reasons.
For the first, I have to tell you a story. from around 1880 to 1920, there were tens of thousands of community bands in this country. Every town, no matter how tiny, had a band. Instrument manufacturers were surfing on a robust income stream. But post-Great European War, town bands evaporated. The bottom dropped out of the market. Instrument manufacturers were looking at ruin. So they invented school music programs. They convinced school districts all across America that what they needed was a school band.
This is not to suggest that school music programs are a snare and a delusion. School music programs made me what I am today (I know I occasionally hyperbolize for effect, but that's not what I'm doing here). What I am suggesting is that sometimes, when the bottom drops out, companies need to find huge new markets, and one of the hugest self-renewing markets is the one made out of millions of public school children.
What other reason to try to computerize worksheets, instruction, and testing, even though we already know that it won't improve the experience one whit for the students?
Because we aren't doing it for the students at all. It's not that computerization makes it easier for them to do their work; it's that computerization makes it easier to collect the results of their work. We already know that Data Collection is one of the driving forces of reformy stuff. Computerization allows our Data Overlords to hoover up data like hungry hungry hippos.
I am not a luddite. I love my technology. But tech is a tool, and it has to be judged by whether or not is does something useful. It's dumb to use a hammer for a screwdriver job just because you think the hammer is shinier. There's no reason to use a computer just because it's a computer. The kids are not impressed, gramps.
So why do some folks still think that a boring worksheet will suddenly be cool if it's on a computer? Or that a lecture from a teacher who can't be questioned is more interesting if it's on a computer?
I tell you what. For every fifteen year old you find me who says, "Wow! This instruction is on a computer!" I will find you a sixty year old who says, "Wow! They make pens where you can just click the point in and out of the end."
I get that there are folks who don't have a computer in every (or any) room at home. The same is true of books, which are just as novel and wow-worthy as computers for today's students. So any program that sells itself by declaring "And it's on a comPUter!" is a con job.
But when we try to implement a wow program on a computer-- whatever it is you wan to do, you are already too late.
Do you remember "Flappy Bird"? It was a hugely popular game with m students a few months ago. For about a week. Did you get to play 2048? A month ago my students didn't play anything else. For about a week. Right now, I think they're still playing "Make It Rain," but it feels like it's been about a week since that popped up on my radar, so by Monday I expect it will have been replaced.
So the idea that I can sit down right now and pick out a program that next year will make my students say, "Wowee! I can't wait to get on my computer and play Mindless Drill Festival until my fingertips bleed." Anybody who can pull off that trick gets to skip retirement and go straight to Indolent Gabillionaire. Everyone else will be too late to the marketplace with a software product that will be no more exciting than a re-issue of Heart of Darkness with a brand new Dover Mystery Graphic Art Cover.
The other reason you'll be too late? Those games I mentioned? None of my students played them on computer. The majority of my students are completely plugged in, but only on their phones. A handful use computers to handle certain kinds of productivity, but I can find more students carrying around some damn John Green novel. But virtually all of my students, regardless of background, are packing smartphones.
People in the computer biz have to know this. Their market research has to tell them this. So why are folks from computerized charters to standardized test mandaters insisting on computer-based instruction? I can think of two reasons.
For the first, I have to tell you a story. from around 1880 to 1920, there were tens of thousands of community bands in this country. Every town, no matter how tiny, had a band. Instrument manufacturers were surfing on a robust income stream. But post-Great European War, town bands evaporated. The bottom dropped out of the market. Instrument manufacturers were looking at ruin. So they invented school music programs. They convinced school districts all across America that what they needed was a school band.
This is not to suggest that school music programs are a snare and a delusion. School music programs made me what I am today (I know I occasionally hyperbolize for effect, but that's not what I'm doing here). What I am suggesting is that sometimes, when the bottom drops out, companies need to find huge new markets, and one of the hugest self-renewing markets is the one made out of millions of public school children.
What other reason to try to computerize worksheets, instruction, and testing, even though we already know that it won't improve the experience one whit for the students?
Because we aren't doing it for the students at all. It's not that computerization makes it easier for them to do their work; it's that computerization makes it easier to collect the results of their work. We already know that Data Collection is one of the driving forces of reformy stuff. Computerization allows our Data Overlords to hoover up data like hungry hungry hippos.
I am not a luddite. I love my technology. But tech is a tool, and it has to be judged by whether or not is does something useful. It's dumb to use a hammer for a screwdriver job just because you think the hammer is shinier. There's no reason to use a computer just because it's a computer. The kids are not impressed, gramps.
Jack Schneider & That Woman
Jack Schneider is my hero.
Over at EdWeek, he has spent the last month co-authoring, "Beyond the Rhetoric." The other co-author of the blog is She Who Will Not Be Named. In the opening piece, Schneider talks about the considerable tension created by the forces surrounding the fight for public education:
Sometimes this tension has been fruitful—leading to the adoption of policies for which there is diverse and well-founded support. More often, however, it has provoked animosity and mistrust, accompanied by increasingly alarmist rhetoric. Arguments have devolved into attacks. Fact has been blended with fiction. And ideology has undermined respect for evidence. In this war of words, reasoned debate is being driven to the margins. And neither side is blameless.
And so he and That Woman have embarked on an attempt to dialogue, addressing an issue each week with three pieces in the week.
Schneider, for his part, has been impressive. He has managed to continue having a serious conversation with a woman who many of us have long since stopped taking seriously. I think it's even working, a little. The first week in particular showed That Woman apparently thinking she would just state her talking points repeatedly and he would intersperse them with comments of his own, but I swear she's actually starting to converse. Sure, he could have torn into her the way many of us would like to (or have), but her unwillingness to stick around for hard talk is well-known. After a month, she is still in the room with Schneider, keeping the conversation going. That's no small achievement.
Topics so far have included standardized testing, teacher evaluation, and teacher training. Some recurring themes have emerged already.
One is an exchange that the two keep having, which goes something like this:
That Woman: Let me make a sweeping, cool-sounding restatement of one of my talking points.
Schneider: I'm going to respond with actual facts from the actual world.
Another recurring theme is that She Who Will Not Etc doesn't seem to really grasp the connection between rhetoric and reality. The most recent editions in particular find her asserting that since TFA and TNTP are pursuing some internal fixes, that should be good, and there's no accountability or consequences of their continued public bashing of traditional teachers. Words have meaning, and words create consequences. I'm not sure She gets that. I'm quite certain she doesn't get any of the complicated nuances of some of the issues at which she goes swinging her rhetorical hatchet.
So is this blog worthwhile? I responded to the first one by noting I was sad to see She get a platform to air her noises, and I still have mixed feelings about that. But I cannot with an even remotely straight face claim that writers like me accomplish anything by calling She names (we just feel better), so why not let Schneider try it his way for a while. At the very least, the blog is providing an interesting window on what is going on in She's brain, and a masters's class in how to respond patiently, firmly and effectively to some of what comes out of She's mouth. It's not the She vs. Ravitch debate, or any of the potentially Palinesque matchups that She has so carefully avoided, but it's a sort of dialogue, and a little dialogue never hurt anybody.
It would be fun, probably, to wade through the pieces and extract the various silly things She says, or play Daily Show and hold them up against things She has said and done in the past, and I certainly thought about doing that. But it feels mean to rain on Schneider's attempted picnic when he is so diligently standing up for Things That Are Right. And beyond that, what do we want.
At some point, we'll have to decide what winning looks like and whether we want to drive towards a day when public education is put right, or a day when people like She break down in sobs and beg forgiveness for all the nasty, evil, wrongheaded educational malpractice they tried to force down a nation's throat. The first is what we really need, and we probably can't have it AND the second at the same time. In fact, we probably can't have the second at all. So hats off to you, Jack Schneider.
Over at EdWeek, he has spent the last month co-authoring, "Beyond the Rhetoric." The other co-author of the blog is She Who Will Not Be Named. In the opening piece, Schneider talks about the considerable tension created by the forces surrounding the fight for public education:
Sometimes this tension has been fruitful—leading to the adoption of policies for which there is diverse and well-founded support. More often, however, it has provoked animosity and mistrust, accompanied by increasingly alarmist rhetoric. Arguments have devolved into attacks. Fact has been blended with fiction. And ideology has undermined respect for evidence. In this war of words, reasoned debate is being driven to the margins. And neither side is blameless.
And so he and That Woman have embarked on an attempt to dialogue, addressing an issue each week with three pieces in the week.
Schneider, for his part, has been impressive. He has managed to continue having a serious conversation with a woman who many of us have long since stopped taking seriously. I think it's even working, a little. The first week in particular showed That Woman apparently thinking she would just state her talking points repeatedly and he would intersperse them with comments of his own, but I swear she's actually starting to converse. Sure, he could have torn into her the way many of us would like to (or have), but her unwillingness to stick around for hard talk is well-known. After a month, she is still in the room with Schneider, keeping the conversation going. That's no small achievement.
Topics so far have included standardized testing, teacher evaluation, and teacher training. Some recurring themes have emerged already.
One is an exchange that the two keep having, which goes something like this:
That Woman: Let me make a sweeping, cool-sounding restatement of one of my talking points.
Schneider: I'm going to respond with actual facts from the actual world.
Another recurring theme is that She Who Will Not Etc doesn't seem to really grasp the connection between rhetoric and reality. The most recent editions in particular find her asserting that since TFA and TNTP are pursuing some internal fixes, that should be good, and there's no accountability or consequences of their continued public bashing of traditional teachers. Words have meaning, and words create consequences. I'm not sure She gets that. I'm quite certain she doesn't get any of the complicated nuances of some of the issues at which she goes swinging her rhetorical hatchet.
So is this blog worthwhile? I responded to the first one by noting I was sad to see She get a platform to air her noises, and I still have mixed feelings about that. But I cannot with an even remotely straight face claim that writers like me accomplish anything by calling She names (we just feel better), so why not let Schneider try it his way for a while. At the very least, the blog is providing an interesting window on what is going on in She's brain, and a masters's class in how to respond patiently, firmly and effectively to some of what comes out of She's mouth. It's not the She vs. Ravitch debate, or any of the potentially Palinesque matchups that She has so carefully avoided, but it's a sort of dialogue, and a little dialogue never hurt anybody.
It would be fun, probably, to wade through the pieces and extract the various silly things She says, or play Daily Show and hold them up against things She has said and done in the past, and I certainly thought about doing that. But it feels mean to rain on Schneider's attempted picnic when he is so diligently standing up for Things That Are Right. And beyond that, what do we want.
At some point, we'll have to decide what winning looks like and whether we want to drive towards a day when public education is put right, or a day when people like She break down in sobs and beg forgiveness for all the nasty, evil, wrongheaded educational malpractice they tried to force down a nation's throat. The first is what we really need, and we probably can't have it AND the second at the same time. In fact, we probably can't have the second at all. So hats off to you, Jack Schneider.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
What is "Failing"?
(This started out as part of this previous column, but it got away from me)
We've been hearing a ton of verbage spewed out over the past umpteen years about failing schools. We need Common Core because our schools are failing. We can't go back to the failing schools of yesteryear. Failing failing failing. Well, the next time somebody tells you that schools are failing, please ask them this for me--
Failing at what?
Is there, for instance, new research to suggest that Americans are largely more unhappy and discontented than in the past, and it's all because of their education? Are we failing to help our children grow up mentally healthy?
Is there a research-based link between high school education quality and the divorce rate? Are we failing to teach our children how to be good marriage partners?
Are we failing to teach children how to properly appreciate and even make music?
Are we failing to raise children who are physically fit and active in sports?
Are we failing to raise children with a clear and well-developed sense of personal responsibility infused with a strong moral compass?
Are we failing to raise young people with a well-developed sense of empathy?
Are we failing to teach children how to self-direct, self-educate, and self-assess as they dive into the vast sea of information and ideas in front of them?
No. I mean, it's clear that we are not 100% on any of those measures, but that's not what the "failing" in "failing schools" means. You know what the "failing" in "failing schools" invariably means?
We are failing to teach students to get really good tests on standardized tests.
We are failing to provide corporations with workers who can be easily absorbed and shed.
And-- well, I've got nothing else. That's it. Scratch the failing schools rhetoric, and it comes down to those two things. That's it. That's the massive failure of American public education.
Our definition of success has become so meager, so narrow, so sad and small. And yet, because it is so narrow, we easily fail. CCSS gives us a system in which a student who walks on water will be marked as failing his swimming test. No, our big failure is to recognize the richness and variety, the beauty and awesomeness that is the full range of human expression and ability and experience.
We've been hearing a ton of verbage spewed out over the past umpteen years about failing schools. We need Common Core because our schools are failing. We can't go back to the failing schools of yesteryear. Failing failing failing. Well, the next time somebody tells you that schools are failing, please ask them this for me--
Failing at what?
Is there, for instance, new research to suggest that Americans are largely more unhappy and discontented than in the past, and it's all because of their education? Are we failing to help our children grow up mentally healthy?
Is there a research-based link between high school education quality and the divorce rate? Are we failing to teach our children how to be good marriage partners?
Are we failing to teach children how to properly appreciate and even make music?
Are we failing to raise children who are physically fit and active in sports?
Are we failing to raise children with a clear and well-developed sense of personal responsibility infused with a strong moral compass?
Are we failing to raise young people with a well-developed sense of empathy?
Are we failing to teach children how to self-direct, self-educate, and self-assess as they dive into the vast sea of information and ideas in front of them?
No. I mean, it's clear that we are not 100% on any of those measures, but that's not what the "failing" in "failing schools" means. You know what the "failing" in "failing schools" invariably means?
We are failing to teach students to get really good tests on standardized tests.
We are failing to provide corporations with workers who can be easily absorbed and shed.
And-- well, I've got nothing else. That's it. Scratch the failing schools rhetoric, and it comes down to those two things. That's it. That's the massive failure of American public education.
Our definition of success has become so meager, so narrow, so sad and small. And yet, because it is so narrow, we easily fail. CCSS gives us a system in which a student who walks on water will be marked as failing his swimming test. No, our big failure is to recognize the richness and variety, the beauty and awesomeness that is the full range of human expression and ability and experience.
What Is "Working"?
At first this post started with a long embedded twitter conversation between @TeacherSabrina and @MichaelPetrilli, spinning off from a discussion of how charters and closings lead to re-segregation, but I've narrowed it down to a most revealing exchange:
@TeacherSabrina "Who should get to decide what works and what doesn't?"
@Michael Petrilli "What works and what doesn't work is a matter of good research."
And there is one of the big disconnects on the side of the Reformsters. Because what works and what doesn't work is not a matter of good research at all. Or rather, the research doesn't matter.
Only one thing matters-- the definition of "works."
Does this raggedy philips head screwdriver work? That depends on whether I want to use it to unscrew screws or punch holes in a soup can. Does telling my wife she's fat work? That depends on whether I want to make her happy or angry.
If I get to define what "working" looks like, all the measuring, testing, researching, test tubial navalgazing introexamination that follows is secondary. Part of what gets folks' backs up about the Reformsters is that they start with, "You do not understand how a school is supposed to work. You are doing school wrong."
The most fundamental part of local control is the community definition of what a working school looks like. The districts under the thumb of colonizers, districts like Newark and Philadelphia, are districts where the community definition has been thrown out.
Imagine a group of parents get together to define what a working school looks like. "It's in the community, so people can walk there. And students are at home in the evenings, learning the responsibilities of being part of a family (however messed up it may be). Student groups do community service in their own community, and students are able to be active in community groups based in the same neighborhood where they live."
Now let's do some scientific research to measure in sciency way how well schools stack up, and lookee here-- Philips Exeter Academy and other elite boarding schools all fail. They are all schools that don't work.
Research doesn't mean jack.
Or rather, by the time the research starts, the people who commissioned it have already picked the winners and losers. Common Core stacks the deck before it even gets to the actual standards, because it defines up front that a working education is only one that prepares the student for a job-- period (yes, yes, or for college-- defined down as the gateway to a higher class of job).
Don't tell me what the research says. Tell me what yardstick you set up for the research.
The generally drift of Petrilli's argument was that bringing in outsiders to replace non-working schools with working schools is a win. But that process doesn't replace a non-working school with a working school-- it replaces the community's definition of "working" with the outsider's definition. It's invasive and extraordinarily patronizing (how do you imagine Philips Exeter's parents would greet an outside that stopped by to tell them their school was failing)?
Are there schools that are failing? Sure. Spectacularly in some cases. You know what those schools have in common? A community that knows it. They don't need Reformsters to come in and tell them to sit down and shut up because they don't run the [your district's name] schools. They don't need someone to come shove them out of the way so that their judgment can be replaced with the judgment of someone superior. They already have all the overly politicized bloated self-important bureaucratic monstrosities they need.
That's why parents in some urban districts initially welcomed reformsters with open arms-- they thought the reformsters were going to help them make schools work. Instead, reformsters have steadily told them that they don't know how a school is supposed to work, and they should all shut up and accept the substitution of other standards for their own. After all, it's supported by research.
@TeacherSabrina "Who should get to decide what works and what doesn't?"
@Michael Petrilli "What works and what doesn't work is a matter of good research."
And there is one of the big disconnects on the side of the Reformsters. Because what works and what doesn't work is not a matter of good research at all. Or rather, the research doesn't matter.
Only one thing matters-- the definition of "works."
Does this raggedy philips head screwdriver work? That depends on whether I want to use it to unscrew screws or punch holes in a soup can. Does telling my wife she's fat work? That depends on whether I want to make her happy or angry.
If I get to define what "working" looks like, all the measuring, testing, researching, test tubial navalgazing introexamination that follows is secondary. Part of what gets folks' backs up about the Reformsters is that they start with, "You do not understand how a school is supposed to work. You are doing school wrong."
The most fundamental part of local control is the community definition of what a working school looks like. The districts under the thumb of colonizers, districts like Newark and Philadelphia, are districts where the community definition has been thrown out.
Imagine a group of parents get together to define what a working school looks like. "It's in the community, so people can walk there. And students are at home in the evenings, learning the responsibilities of being part of a family (however messed up it may be). Student groups do community service in their own community, and students are able to be active in community groups based in the same neighborhood where they live."
Now let's do some scientific research to measure in sciency way how well schools stack up, and lookee here-- Philips Exeter Academy and other elite boarding schools all fail. They are all schools that don't work.
Research doesn't mean jack.
Or rather, by the time the research starts, the people who commissioned it have already picked the winners and losers. Common Core stacks the deck before it even gets to the actual standards, because it defines up front that a working education is only one that prepares the student for a job-- period (yes, yes, or for college-- defined down as the gateway to a higher class of job).
Don't tell me what the research says. Tell me what yardstick you set up for the research.
The generally drift of Petrilli's argument was that bringing in outsiders to replace non-working schools with working schools is a win. But that process doesn't replace a non-working school with a working school-- it replaces the community's definition of "working" with the outsider's definition. It's invasive and extraordinarily patronizing (how do you imagine Philips Exeter's parents would greet an outside that stopped by to tell them their school was failing)?
Are there schools that are failing? Sure. Spectacularly in some cases. You know what those schools have in common? A community that knows it. They don't need Reformsters to come in and tell them to sit down and shut up because they don't run the [your district's name] schools. They don't need someone to come shove them out of the way so that their judgment can be replaced with the judgment of someone superior. They already have all the overly politicized bloated self-important bureaucratic monstrosities they need.
That's why parents in some urban districts initially welcomed reformsters with open arms-- they thought the reformsters were going to help them make schools work. Instead, reformsters have steadily told them that they don't know how a school is supposed to work, and they should all shut up and accept the substitution of other standards for their own. After all, it's supported by research.
US DOE Ambassadors!
US Department of Edumacation press release
There has been much discussion lately of our Principal Ambassador program, a program in which US DOE-indoctrinated principals are inserted into school settings where they can sort of work for the school district while spreading the good word of Common Core Etc. This was spun off of our successful Teacher Ambassador program which replaced classroom teachers with special US DOE agents. Both programs were conjured up as a way tokeep local districts in line provide federal guidance.
Some have said that these programs are classic Duncan Vaporware-- programs that are announced with some fanfare and then ignored, almost as if few people in the real world were actually interested in Arne's great ideas, or as if the department is more interested in announcing things than actually accomplishing things. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we are pleased to announce several more Ambassador programs!
Ambassador Librarians
Ambassador librarians will be embedded in school libraries, where they will make sure that students are following federal guidelines for reading selections. Should a student attempt to check out a book below his grade level for some lame reason like "he enjoys it," the ambassador librarian will apply a federal ruler rigorously to the child's hand.
Ambassador Lunch Ladies
Ambassador lunch ladies will be place in cafeteria lunch lines, where they will make sure that every student takes some federal cheese (motto: still smelly after thirty years). Ambassador lunch ladies will also circle through the dining area to scold all students who have not eaten all their vegetables. They will also be responsible for monitoring the federal grumpiness guidelines, and report to the department any other lunch ladies who are too often cheerful.
Ambassador Bus Drivers
Ambassador bus drivers will be responsible both for making sure the bus travels where it is supposed to and also for making sure that all the passengers are happy about it. Ambassador bus drivers will be trained in leading the new federally-produced cheerily-engineered songs "If You're Happy I Should Know It" and "It's For Your Own Good."
Ambassador Parent
Let's face it. One of the major factors in student learning is the home situation, and we have learned that many of you weak, lying, sad excuses for parental units would rather talk about "love" and "support" and your precious baby than give the child the rigorous ass-kicking he probably needs. So this federal program will put an additional federally-funded parent in your home to monitor your proper use of motivational techniques and to oversee homework production. Families will also be instructed in proper use of federal bed time standards as well as the federally-approved manner for tucking small children in without exceeding the federally-supported number of bedtime kisses.
The bottom line here is that we can't trust you yahoos to do anything right. We give you all these great programs and instructions and you insist on making your own choices about your own lives and acting as if the federal government doesn't know best. Time after time, we come up with awesome programs like Common Core-- dammit, I can never remember that third word-- what was it-well, never mind, because now that I think about it, we totally DID NOT come up with that one. But we provide these swell programs and people don't just adopt them.
So why shouldn't we send some of our people out there to nudge you along? Why shouldn't we send someone out to help you make the right choice (and to let us know that you're making it)?
These programs are going to be hugely popular. People want to do the right thing, and we know what the right thing to do is, so everybody can be happy!
Our only concern is that demand might be so high that we won't have enough ambassadors to go around. But we have a plan-- we could use distance learning techniques and if an actual ambassador isn't available for your location, we can set up web-cams and internet linkage. Ambassador-cam can be your friendly help and our friendly eyes.
With those types of resources, we can eventually launch the last of the ambassador program-- one that creates an ambassador sibling. Someone friendly and close to you, to help you through every tough situation while keeping you on the right path. It would probably be an older sibling. Probably a boy. Yeah, that's the ticket.
There has been much discussion lately of our Principal Ambassador program, a program in which US DOE-indoctrinated principals are inserted into school settings where they can sort of work for the school district while spreading the good word of Common Core Etc. This was spun off of our successful Teacher Ambassador program which replaced classroom teachers with special US DOE agents. Both programs were conjured up as a way to
Some have said that these programs are classic Duncan Vaporware-- programs that are announced with some fanfare and then ignored, almost as if few people in the real world were actually interested in Arne's great ideas, or as if the department is more interested in announcing things than actually accomplishing things. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we are pleased to announce several more Ambassador programs!
Ambassador Librarians
Ambassador librarians will be embedded in school libraries, where they will make sure that students are following federal guidelines for reading selections. Should a student attempt to check out a book below his grade level for some lame reason like "he enjoys it," the ambassador librarian will apply a federal ruler rigorously to the child's hand.
Ambassador Lunch Ladies
Ambassador lunch ladies will be place in cafeteria lunch lines, where they will make sure that every student takes some federal cheese (motto: still smelly after thirty years). Ambassador lunch ladies will also circle through the dining area to scold all students who have not eaten all their vegetables. They will also be responsible for monitoring the federal grumpiness guidelines, and report to the department any other lunch ladies who are too often cheerful.
Ambassador Bus Drivers
Ambassador bus drivers will be responsible both for making sure the bus travels where it is supposed to and also for making sure that all the passengers are happy about it. Ambassador bus drivers will be trained in leading the new federally-produced cheerily-engineered songs "If You're Happy I Should Know It" and "It's For Your Own Good."
Ambassador Parent
Let's face it. One of the major factors in student learning is the home situation, and we have learned that many of you weak, lying, sad excuses for parental units would rather talk about "love" and "support" and your precious baby than give the child the rigorous ass-kicking he probably needs. So this federal program will put an additional federally-funded parent in your home to monitor your proper use of motivational techniques and to oversee homework production. Families will also be instructed in proper use of federal bed time standards as well as the federally-approved manner for tucking small children in without exceeding the federally-supported number of bedtime kisses.
The bottom line here is that we can't trust you yahoos to do anything right. We give you all these great programs and instructions and you insist on making your own choices about your own lives and acting as if the federal government doesn't know best. Time after time, we come up with awesome programs like Common Core-- dammit, I can never remember that third word-- what was it-well, never mind, because now that I think about it, we totally DID NOT come up with that one. But we provide these swell programs and people don't just adopt them.
So why shouldn't we send some of our people out there to nudge you along? Why shouldn't we send someone out to help you make the right choice (and to let us know that you're making it)?
These programs are going to be hugely popular. People want to do the right thing, and we know what the right thing to do is, so everybody can be happy!
Our only concern is that demand might be so high that we won't have enough ambassadors to go around. But we have a plan-- we could use distance learning techniques and if an actual ambassador isn't available for your location, we can set up web-cams and internet linkage. Ambassador-cam can be your friendly help and our friendly eyes.
With those types of resources, we can eventually launch the last of the ambassador program-- one that creates an ambassador sibling. Someone friendly and close to you, to help you through every tough situation while keeping you on the right path. It would probably be an older sibling. Probably a boy. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)