I'm not sure when you'll get to see this. My internet service provider is having one of its regular hissy fits, and my access to the internet cuts out about every five minutes or so, staying out from anywhere from a couple of minutes to as along as fifteen. So I get to access the internet in little brief windows, snatches of connectivity.
My internet provider (rhymes with "shmerizon") occasionally offers their version of help (turns out that if you bitch about them on twitter, you will usually get a response-- if, of course, you can get on twitter). Help can involve on-line chats and on-line twitter conversations, which-- surprise-- are not very helpful when the problem is low-function internet connection. We also try the occasional phone conversation, which is when they give me a call and all I have to do is be at home during the five-hour windows in which they might call (though that window seems to be a give-or-take-ten-hours thing).
I don't know how things are in your part of the world, but here in my town, my experience is not abnormal. We have a choice of basically two providers (choice #2 rhymes with "shmime-flarner") and nobody is raving happily about either of them.
I get that this is a classic First World Problem, that I live in an age of technological miracles and here I am bitching that the miracles don't happen fast enough or just the way I want them.
But here's my point-- my provider is also the provider for my school district. If I were trying to use internet resources to teach a class, I'd be SOL.
I am one of the more tech-forward teachers in my building, but I am also tech-skeptical, because tech in general and ed tech in particular consistently makes promises it can't keep. "The system will handle that many students logged on at once with no problems" belongs in the Overly Optimistic Hall of Fame right next to "The contractors promise we'll be able to move into the house in two weeks."
Every time I plan to use technology in my classroom, even for something as simple as a fifteen slide student presentation, I know I will have to waste time. It may just take ten or fifteen minutes to get properly linked up to the server, but I have a forty minute period-- ten or fifteen minutes is not an insignificant chunk of time.
My school is a one-to-one school and has been for several years. My digital natives are unimpressed, and often hugely frustrated by what their netbooks won't do or what their connections won't allow them access to. And when my digital natives have on-line materials that they are assigned to read, many of them will print that material out. On paper.
And sometimes the tech makes promises that aren't worth keeping. We still have the same old problem-- instead of tech and software that will help us do the work, we get tech and software that come with the pitch, "This will be very useful if you just change what you do to match the tech." Let us tell you and your students what you need to do to keep the edtech happy. Relax and be assimilated.
This piece over a EdSurge makes the same point, though author George Siemens seems to think he's spotting a new trend instead of an old problem. But he's correct that "personalized learning" has made it worse.
Both Udacity and Knewton require the human, the learner, to become a
technology, to become a component within their well-architected software
system. Sit and click. Sit and click. So much of learning involves
decision making, developing meta-cognitive skills, exploring, finding
passion, taking peripheral paths. Automation treats the person as an
object to which things are done. There is no reason to think, no reason
to go through the valuable
confusion process of learning, no need to be a human. Simply consume. Simply consume. Click and be knowledgeable.
On its bad days, this has always been the message of education technology-- change your mission, your purpose and your methods to fit in with us, broaden your definition of "dependable" to include "craps out unexpectedly at any time," and we'll be glad to help. Edtech has been the guy who picks up a hitchiker who's trying to get to Cleveland and says, "Look, if you can adjust to riding on the hood of this car, I can get you to Chicago." And then fifty miles later, he runs out of gas.
I've found myself in more than a few conversations bemoaning the ways in which technology has failed to transform schools, and the discussion often lapses into deep consideration of the thinky underpinnings of education, technology, the universe, and everything. I'm pretty sure it's not that deep. Just help us fulfill our mission with tools that work well and reliably, and the tech transformation will keep moving. In the meantime, I'll watch for one of my internet access windows to post this.
Sunday, September 20, 2015
ICYMI: Selected Goodies for the Week
Here's some recommended reading to while away your Sunday.
What Happened to New Orleans Black Teachers?
A long-form look at this issue-- again. Prepare yourself to read some uncritical repetition of the same old bogus stats. Also prepare yourself to find a TFA official on the right side of a conversation. Part of EdWeek's look at New Orleans 10 year anniversary, which is often too considerate of reformsters' tender feelings, but still includes some thorough research and interviewing. It's all worth a look-- just keep your critical eye open.
What the Privileged Poor Can Teach Us
Poor kids who get moved into schools that primarily serve well-to-do students may show us some interesting things about the effects of poverty.
The Common Core's Scalia-esque Originalism
Blogger Sarah Blaine brings a unique perspective as a teacher, lawyer and parent. Here she looks at two major flaws in the ELA standards.
3 Huge Problems with the Charter School Movement
In response to the latest discoveries of charter shenanigans in Philly, writer Patrick Kerkstra looks at three major issues with the charter industry.
The Moral Qualities of Teaching
This is some smart writing, that manages in a relatively short space to move from considering some large philosophical ideas all the way to helping one child.
Charter Schools' Ugly Separate But Unequal Reality
Real journalist David Sirota takes a look at a new lawsuit in Delaware, where charters are being used to resegregate students.
What Happened to New Orleans Black Teachers?
A long-form look at this issue-- again. Prepare yourself to read some uncritical repetition of the same old bogus stats. Also prepare yourself to find a TFA official on the right side of a conversation. Part of EdWeek's look at New Orleans 10 year anniversary, which is often too considerate of reformsters' tender feelings, but still includes some thorough research and interviewing. It's all worth a look-- just keep your critical eye open.
What the Privileged Poor Can Teach Us
Poor kids who get moved into schools that primarily serve well-to-do students may show us some interesting things about the effects of poverty.
The Common Core's Scalia-esque Originalism
Blogger Sarah Blaine brings a unique perspective as a teacher, lawyer and parent. Here she looks at two major flaws in the ELA standards.
3 Huge Problems with the Charter School Movement
In response to the latest discoveries of charter shenanigans in Philly, writer Patrick Kerkstra looks at three major issues with the charter industry.
The Moral Qualities of Teaching
This is some smart writing, that manages in a relatively short space to move from considering some large philosophical ideas all the way to helping one child.
Charter Schools' Ugly Separate But Unequal Reality
Real journalist David Sirota takes a look at a new lawsuit in Delaware, where charters are being used to resegregate students.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Rubin: We Need Fewer Teachers?
Jennifer Rubin tried to offer her two cents on teaching this week, but as it turns out, all she had was a plugged nickel.
Rubin's brilliant insight in the Washington Post is that we just need fewer teachers, and then schools will get better.
For the time being, we'll skip past her assumption that schools are in desperate need of fixing. That's its own argument. Instead, let's just focus on her unsupported dumb thesis.
Calling small class sizes a "fad," Rubin cites PISA honcho Andreas Schleicher who cites PISA research that found no correlation between class size and score. This is a fun factoid, but it proves nothing about the effect of class size. Look-- if I give a bunch of three foot tall people three foot tall stools to stand on and let six foot tall people stand on the ground, I will find no correlation between stool size and the ability to see over a five foot test.
If Rubin wants real research about the impact of class size, she can take her pick from this website. If she just wants to dismiss small class sizes because she doesn't want to pay for them, she should stick with the non-research she just cited.
From there, she pivots to the old Atlantic article that asks the dumb question "Is it better to have a great teacher or a small class," which is right up there with, "Would you rather marry a hideous evil person who loves you, or a beautiful person who doesn't care about you at all?" In both cases, other, better choices are readily available. The question as asked tells us nothing.
But Rubin argues that everybody wants more teachers. And by "everybody" she means "everybody who sucks." Colleges want more paying customers, and unions want to collect union dues so they can lobby.
It is not easy to reverse that pattern or convince parents that their child will do better in a class of 35 taught by a great teacher than in a class of 20 taught by an ineffective one.
Well, no. Because all parents with functional brains would rather have their child in a class of 20 taught by a great teacher.
And then she goes to the NCTQ well, citing several different iterations of the National Council on Teacher Quality research about how very, very easy teacher programs are. As we have noted here in the past, the NCTQ's research on the quality of teacher programs is based on looking at colege commencement programs. In a field crowded with lazy bogus research and coming from people who specialize in lazy bogus research (they once evaluated a local college program that does not exist), NCTQ's "research" on the easiness of teacher ed programs is the laziest bogusest research ever.
But Rubin will bring it up repeatedly, including Kate Walsh's recent statements in a WaPo roundtable. Because if you keep repeating something, it eventually becomes true, I guess?
Rubin, of course, also argues for evaluation and the ability to fire at will. And she applauds charters that are experimenting with new any-warm-body-off-the-street programs, "so as to capture professionals from other fields who may want to enter the teaching field." I would love to see what sorts of nets and snares they use to capture these free-range professionals, and wish Rubin had said more about the bait used.
Rubin declares the problem (and it's no longer clear exactly what problem she means-- teachers suck, maybe?) is "far from insoluble." She wants students in teacher ed programs to have high GPA's and take tough tests, because one of the most important skills a teacher needs is the ability to take a test. Also, she wants every teacher to know phonetics.
As for the federal government, if it remains a source of funding, taxpayers have a right to demand their dollars are not going to hire a fleet of incompetent teachers, but those who are rigorously trained. If the feds are going to get out of the business of funding schools and instead, for example, give vouchers to parents, they should make every effort to inform parents about the myth of small class size and the necessity of qualified teachers.
Yes, those fleets of incompetent teachers, cruising the nation's byways. I myself was unaware that bad teachers traveled in fleets. I'd sort of assumed they skulked around, maybe wearing capes and top hats, Snidely Whiplash style.
Oh, but Rubin bemoans the way in which the important issue of getting rid of teachers gets lost in politics and common core and federalism.
If politicians really want to do something about the state of K-12 education, they’ll commit to putting a quality teacher in every classroom and supporting state and local efforts to whittle down the legions of teachers to lean ranks of excellent teachers.
Rubin has somehow completely missed the news that in many states and regions, the efforts to whittle down the teaching force have been very effective-- so effective that many jobs go unfilled. Honestly, did we not just all spend a month talking about the teacher "shortage"? Folks are already way ahead of Rubin, having figured out that you can get people out of teaching by offering lower pay, worse working conditions, and a general drumbeat of dopey abuse. At the very least, it makes it hard to recruit and retain.
Rubin could also have picked some tips up from reading the entire article that she pulled Kate Walsh quotes from. Jose Luis Vilson in that same piece said
This idea of “teacher quality” would be better served if we opened the doors for teachers to have more voice in advancing our profession.
Yup. Let us take charge of overseeing teacher education and certification. Let us have a strong voice in how to advance and improve the profession.
Also, stop basing your entire argument on things that just aren't true. That would be a help as well.
Rubin's brilliant insight in the Washington Post is that we just need fewer teachers, and then schools will get better.
For the time being, we'll skip past her assumption that schools are in desperate need of fixing. That's its own argument. Instead, let's just focus on her unsupported dumb thesis.
Calling small class sizes a "fad," Rubin cites PISA honcho Andreas Schleicher who cites PISA research that found no correlation between class size and score. This is a fun factoid, but it proves nothing about the effect of class size. Look-- if I give a bunch of three foot tall people three foot tall stools to stand on and let six foot tall people stand on the ground, I will find no correlation between stool size and the ability to see over a five foot test.
If Rubin wants real research about the impact of class size, she can take her pick from this website. If she just wants to dismiss small class sizes because she doesn't want to pay for them, she should stick with the non-research she just cited.
From there, she pivots to the old Atlantic article that asks the dumb question "Is it better to have a great teacher or a small class," which is right up there with, "Would you rather marry a hideous evil person who loves you, or a beautiful person who doesn't care about you at all?" In both cases, other, better choices are readily available. The question as asked tells us nothing.
But Rubin argues that everybody wants more teachers. And by "everybody" she means "everybody who sucks." Colleges want more paying customers, and unions want to collect union dues so they can lobby.
It is not easy to reverse that pattern or convince parents that their child will do better in a class of 35 taught by a great teacher than in a class of 20 taught by an ineffective one.
Well, no. Because all parents with functional brains would rather have their child in a class of 20 taught by a great teacher.
And then she goes to the NCTQ well, citing several different iterations of the National Council on Teacher Quality research about how very, very easy teacher programs are. As we have noted here in the past, the NCTQ's research on the quality of teacher programs is based on looking at colege commencement programs. In a field crowded with lazy bogus research and coming from people who specialize in lazy bogus research (they once evaluated a local college program that does not exist), NCTQ's "research" on the easiness of teacher ed programs is the laziest bogusest research ever.
But Rubin will bring it up repeatedly, including Kate Walsh's recent statements in a WaPo roundtable. Because if you keep repeating something, it eventually becomes true, I guess?
Rubin, of course, also argues for evaluation and the ability to fire at will. And she applauds charters that are experimenting with new any-warm-body-off-the-street programs, "so as to capture professionals from other fields who may want to enter the teaching field." I would love to see what sorts of nets and snares they use to capture these free-range professionals, and wish Rubin had said more about the bait used.
Rubin declares the problem (and it's no longer clear exactly what problem she means-- teachers suck, maybe?) is "far from insoluble." She wants students in teacher ed programs to have high GPA's and take tough tests, because one of the most important skills a teacher needs is the ability to take a test. Also, she wants every teacher to know phonetics.
As for the federal government, if it remains a source of funding, taxpayers have a right to demand their dollars are not going to hire a fleet of incompetent teachers, but those who are rigorously trained. If the feds are going to get out of the business of funding schools and instead, for example, give vouchers to parents, they should make every effort to inform parents about the myth of small class size and the necessity of qualified teachers.
Yes, those fleets of incompetent teachers, cruising the nation's byways. I myself was unaware that bad teachers traveled in fleets. I'd sort of assumed they skulked around, maybe wearing capes and top hats, Snidely Whiplash style.
Oh, but Rubin bemoans the way in which the important issue of getting rid of teachers gets lost in politics and common core and federalism.
If politicians really want to do something about the state of K-12 education, they’ll commit to putting a quality teacher in every classroom and supporting state and local efforts to whittle down the legions of teachers to lean ranks of excellent teachers.
Rubin has somehow completely missed the news that in many states and regions, the efforts to whittle down the teaching force have been very effective-- so effective that many jobs go unfilled. Honestly, did we not just all spend a month talking about the teacher "shortage"? Folks are already way ahead of Rubin, having figured out that you can get people out of teaching by offering lower pay, worse working conditions, and a general drumbeat of dopey abuse. At the very least, it makes it hard to recruit and retain.
Rubin could also have picked some tips up from reading the entire article that she pulled Kate Walsh quotes from. Jose Luis Vilson in that same piece said
This idea of “teacher quality” would be better served if we opened the doors for teachers to have more voice in advancing our profession.
Yup. Let us take charge of overseeing teacher education and certification. Let us have a strong voice in how to advance and improve the profession.
Also, stop basing your entire argument on things that just aren't true. That would be a help as well.
Leadership Is Overrated
Boy, I hadn't thought about this in a while, but then Mark Zuckerberg personally recommended the clip to me (well, the facebook link algorithm tossed it up on my feed) .
Go ahead and watch it. It's quick and simple and powerful.
The main point here is that leaders, while celebrated and honored, are not nearly as important to a movement as first and second followers, who make the difference between a single nut and a growing movement. Seeing that point made again sparked two separate thoughts.
Teacher Leaders
The vast majority of "teacher leader" programs are not about leadership at all-- they're about conning teachers into being first and second followers. Caspar McGrubmoney provides whatever program is being promoted (the leader) and now, so that the program doesn't look like a lonely nut dancing alne in a field, the hunt is on to recruit teacher leaders who are really meant to be the first and second followers who make the lonely nut look like a burgeoning trend.
When you are asked to take point and be the teacher leader on an implementation of some program, you are not being asked to be a leader-- you are being asked to give the program your first follower stamp of approval. They don't really want you to be a leader-- they want you to be a first follower to make the actual designated leader look less like a lone nut.
The vast majority of attempts to raise up teacher leaders aren't looking for leaders at all.
Of course, much of the reformster agenda has been a search for first followers. To see why it doesn't work, imagine if Dancing Guy had started offering other people fifty bucks to be his first follower, and they took the money and proceeded to dance, not with joy and commitment, but with mechanical half-heartedness. The innumerable "How the Common Core Showed Me How To Teach" essays we've been subjected to have been failed attempts to generate first followers.
Ditto the occasional slanted poll that attempts to create the illusion that the first followers have arrived and a crowd has already gathered.
The biggest challenge in the video-- the idea that the leader must embrace the first follower as an equal.
Nobody ever took a video of the guy who gets up in a field and does some horrible bad imitation of dancing, twitching without joy, rhythm or a sense of the music, but gesturing wildly for people to come join him and give him money when they do. Then he just gives up and hires some guys to force everybody to get up and dance with him, and punch them if they don't dance "right." That guy is dancing to some Common Core reformy tune. He's probably trying to dance in a three piece suit. It's hard to get first followers when your dance sucks.
Students
We give a lot of attention to fostering leadership among students. I've never encountered anything about fostering first followers.
Yet there have to be valuable abilities there. Spotting just which leader to throw your lot in with. How to recognize whether you've made a mistake or not. How to welcome others to the movement. How to follow.
This works so much against our culture of Looking Out For Number One-- the dynamics of how to get in on and foster a movement by being an effective early follower are so powerful, but so alien to how we tend to think. It may really rankle to talk about being a good follower, but of such things are important movements made. Now I am really, really curious about how to make such a thing part of my classroom world. If you've got any helpful materials or insights, I would love to hear about them.
Go ahead and watch it. It's quick and simple and powerful.
The main point here is that leaders, while celebrated and honored, are not nearly as important to a movement as first and second followers, who make the difference between a single nut and a growing movement. Seeing that point made again sparked two separate thoughts.
Teacher Leaders
The vast majority of "teacher leader" programs are not about leadership at all-- they're about conning teachers into being first and second followers. Caspar McGrubmoney provides whatever program is being promoted (the leader) and now, so that the program doesn't look like a lonely nut dancing alne in a field, the hunt is on to recruit teacher leaders who are really meant to be the first and second followers who make the lonely nut look like a burgeoning trend.
When you are asked to take point and be the teacher leader on an implementation of some program, you are not being asked to be a leader-- you are being asked to give the program your first follower stamp of approval. They don't really want you to be a leader-- they want you to be a first follower to make the actual designated leader look less like a lone nut.
The vast majority of attempts to raise up teacher leaders aren't looking for leaders at all.
Of course, much of the reformster agenda has been a search for first followers. To see why it doesn't work, imagine if Dancing Guy had started offering other people fifty bucks to be his first follower, and they took the money and proceeded to dance, not with joy and commitment, but with mechanical half-heartedness. The innumerable "How the Common Core Showed Me How To Teach" essays we've been subjected to have been failed attempts to generate first followers.
Ditto the occasional slanted poll that attempts to create the illusion that the first followers have arrived and a crowd has already gathered.
The biggest challenge in the video-- the idea that the leader must embrace the first follower as an equal.
Nobody ever took a video of the guy who gets up in a field and does some horrible bad imitation of dancing, twitching without joy, rhythm or a sense of the music, but gesturing wildly for people to come join him and give him money when they do. Then he just gives up and hires some guys to force everybody to get up and dance with him, and punch them if they don't dance "right." That guy is dancing to some Common Core reformy tune. He's probably trying to dance in a three piece suit. It's hard to get first followers when your dance sucks.
Students
We give a lot of attention to fostering leadership among students. I've never encountered anything about fostering first followers.
Yet there have to be valuable abilities there. Spotting just which leader to throw your lot in with. How to recognize whether you've made a mistake or not. How to welcome others to the movement. How to follow.
This works so much against our culture of Looking Out For Number One-- the dynamics of how to get in on and foster a movement by being an effective early follower are so powerful, but so alien to how we tend to think. It may really rankle to talk about being a good follower, but of such things are important movements made. Now I am really, really curious about how to make such a thing part of my classroom world. If you've got any helpful materials or insights, I would love to hear about them.
Dyett: How the Hell Can This Still Be Happening
UPDATE: As of today, this is NOT happening any more. The fight for Dyett has entered another phase. The school is going to open; the fight ahead is for the form it will take. In the meantime, I wish good health to each of the courageous hunger strikers. 34 days is a hell of a lot longer than I could have lasted.
You know, I don't really have anything new to add to a discussion of the Dyett High School hunger strike, because after thirty four days, very little has changed.
It has been almost two weeks since CPS tried to shut the strikers up by announcing a bogus "compromise" in which the city got everything that it wanted and the activitists got to sit outside the press conference, carefully locked away from any possible voice in the future of Dyett High. That was not a compromise or a capitulation-- it was officials' attempt to put out a brushfire by depriving it of oxygen.
It has been a month. A month without solid food. A month of getting the word out, of standing up to the city as it tries to deprive one more not-white not-wealthy neighborhood of the stabilizing influence of a democratically, locally controlled school.
Dyett is the worst of the reformster movement in a microcosm-- residents will be stripped of their local school, given no voice in what will replace it, because their Betters have decided what they need, what they deserve. And because small politicos want to make sure that local voices are shut out, that power is not allowed into the hands of ordinary citizens.
Dyett is all of us, sooner or later (and in some places, already)-- privatizers and profiteers shutting down democracy so that they can get their hands on those sweet sweet piles of tax money and keep their hands on the wheels of power.
I say it every time-- people who want to concern troll and tone police need to notice that the community members of Bronzeville have done every by the book. They developed their own plan, in conjunction with local institutions and educational experts. They worked the system. They filed the forms. They attended the meetings and waited patiently. And when they finally decided to take action, even then, they threatened no damage to anything but their own bodies. There is not a single action that anyone can point to and say, "Well, of course nobody will listen to them if they act like that. They should have done X instead."
And still the system has made no attempt to hear them, to work with them, to acknowledge that they should have a say in the future of their own community.
Reformsters who repeatedly argue that poor families should have a voice in their children's education should be outraged. Instead, they are silent.
Again, I have nothing to say about the situation in Dyett that I have not said before-- except, how the hell, in this country, can this still be happening? How can the leaders of Chicago not head over to Bronzeville and meet with these folks? How can leaders not take the measure of the commitment behind this hunger strike and not say, "Well, we should at least hear them out."
That's the bare minimum needed to convince anyone that Chicago's leaders are human beings able to recognize the humanity of the hunger strikers.
What they should be doing is simple-- they should give the citizens of Bronzeville back the control of their own community school. The Dyett plan-- the only fully developed and solid plan for the school that exists-- should be implemented.
I have nothing new to say, but I have to say something, because this shit is still going on. Follow the progress and news here. Pass the word. The hope among Chicago's political class is that the Dyett strikers will be forgotten, that people will stop talking about them, that the famously short American attention span will lapse, that the pressure will stop. Don't let that happen.
People should not have to starve themselves just to have a voice in their own community schools. People should not have to starve themselves just to hold onto their basic democratic rights. This is wrong, and it is unfathomable that it has now gone on for thirty-four days.
You know, I don't really have anything new to add to a discussion of the Dyett High School hunger strike, because after thirty four days, very little has changed.
It has been almost two weeks since CPS tried to shut the strikers up by announcing a bogus "compromise" in which the city got everything that it wanted and the activitists got to sit outside the press conference, carefully locked away from any possible voice in the future of Dyett High. That was not a compromise or a capitulation-- it was officials' attempt to put out a brushfire by depriving it of oxygen.
It has been a month. A month without solid food. A month of getting the word out, of standing up to the city as it tries to deprive one more not-white not-wealthy neighborhood of the stabilizing influence of a democratically, locally controlled school.
Dyett is the worst of the reformster movement in a microcosm-- residents will be stripped of their local school, given no voice in what will replace it, because their Betters have decided what they need, what they deserve. And because small politicos want to make sure that local voices are shut out, that power is not allowed into the hands of ordinary citizens.
Dyett is all of us, sooner or later (and in some places, already)-- privatizers and profiteers shutting down democracy so that they can get their hands on those sweet sweet piles of tax money and keep their hands on the wheels of power.
I say it every time-- people who want to concern troll and tone police need to notice that the community members of Bronzeville have done every by the book. They developed their own plan, in conjunction with local institutions and educational experts. They worked the system. They filed the forms. They attended the meetings and waited patiently. And when they finally decided to take action, even then, they threatened no damage to anything but their own bodies. There is not a single action that anyone can point to and say, "Well, of course nobody will listen to them if they act like that. They should have done X instead."
And still the system has made no attempt to hear them, to work with them, to acknowledge that they should have a say in the future of their own community.
Reformsters who repeatedly argue that poor families should have a voice in their children's education should be outraged. Instead, they are silent.
Again, I have nothing to say about the situation in Dyett that I have not said before-- except, how the hell, in this country, can this still be happening? How can the leaders of Chicago not head over to Bronzeville and meet with these folks? How can leaders not take the measure of the commitment behind this hunger strike and not say, "Well, we should at least hear them out."
That's the bare minimum needed to convince anyone that Chicago's leaders are human beings able to recognize the humanity of the hunger strikers.
What they should be doing is simple-- they should give the citizens of Bronzeville back the control of their own community school. The Dyett plan-- the only fully developed and solid plan for the school that exists-- should be implemented.
I have nothing new to say, but I have to say something, because this shit is still going on. Follow the progress and news here. Pass the word. The hope among Chicago's political class is that the Dyett strikers will be forgotten, that people will stop talking about them, that the famously short American attention span will lapse, that the pressure will stop. Don't let that happen.
People should not have to starve themselves just to have a voice in their own community schools. People should not have to starve themselves just to hold onto their basic democratic rights. This is wrong, and it is unfathomable that it has now gone on for thirty-four days.
Two Million
At some point this week, the hit count on this blog passed two million.
It's very gratifying, and I'd be lying if I didn't say that, as a hack writer, it's cool to have an audience.
But I don't for a moment imagine that those two million hits are about me, about two million times that people said, "That Pete Greene's a helluva guy-- let's just click on over and see what he's saying." It's about something else entirely.
That's two million times that somebody said, "This stupid thing that's happening in public education pisses me off."
That's two million times that somebody said, "Public education is foundational to our country, our democracy, our way of life, and for some reason, it seems to be under attack."
That's two million times that somebody said, "Public education matters to me, and we have got to do something about the attacks on it, even if it's only to share information, understanding and awareness."
That's two million times that somebody said, "Public education is one of the most important issues in America today, and we need to talk about it."
All right, yes. Rhetorical flourish. It's probably some combination of less than two million times for each of those, plus a few times that somebody said, "What's this? I thought I was clicking through to an article about Nigerian prince's penis enlargement treatment." Hooray for the internet.
But my point is this-- two million hits don't mean that I'm an important guy. They mean I'm writing about important issues. And when I think back two years to when I got started, feeling as if there were just a handful of us, isolated and ignored and trying to build a grasp of what was going on, two million hits for this little blog feel like a piece of a victory, a small part of the work of building a network and spreading awareness.
This is post 1355. The blog started back in August of 2013, and I'd be grateful if you never went back and looked at that stuff, because it took me several months to figure out what I was doing. There is a book-- a kind of "best of" collection-- that you can buy here or on amazon. And because I love personalized stuff for Christmas presents, there's a cafepress store for me to shop for my family. All of this goes back to my original intent here-- to give myself a way to blow off steam about the ongoing attacks against public education and occasionally entertain myself in the process.
But beyond that original purpose, I've found the need to try to spread the word and awareness and understanding and, somehow, simultaneously fight back and build bridges. I have been fortunate to meet (both in the meatworld and in cyberia) many intelligent, gifted, passionate people who have influenced and inspired me a thousand different ways. And I hope that I've been able to shed some light and provide some language for the discussion.
This is an important conversation we've been having, and I'm privileged to be even a small part of it. We have lots of work to do, lots of people to wake up, and lots of progress to make for public education. Keep talking. Keep reading. Keep passing along the work of writers that speak to you (the right hand blogroll on this page is a great place to begin).
American public education is too important for us to keep silent.
It's very gratifying, and I'd be lying if I didn't say that, as a hack writer, it's cool to have an audience.
But I don't for a moment imagine that those two million hits are about me, about two million times that people said, "That Pete Greene's a helluva guy-- let's just click on over and see what he's saying." It's about something else entirely.
That's two million times that somebody said, "This stupid thing that's happening in public education pisses me off."
That's two million times that somebody said, "Public education is foundational to our country, our democracy, our way of life, and for some reason, it seems to be under attack."
That's two million times that somebody said, "Public education matters to me, and we have got to do something about the attacks on it, even if it's only to share information, understanding and awareness."
That's two million times that somebody said, "Public education is one of the most important issues in America today, and we need to talk about it."
All right, yes. Rhetorical flourish. It's probably some combination of less than two million times for each of those, plus a few times that somebody said, "What's this? I thought I was clicking through to an article about Nigerian prince's penis enlargement treatment." Hooray for the internet.
But my point is this-- two million hits don't mean that I'm an important guy. They mean I'm writing about important issues. And when I think back two years to when I got started, feeling as if there were just a handful of us, isolated and ignored and trying to build a grasp of what was going on, two million hits for this little blog feel like a piece of a victory, a small part of the work of building a network and spreading awareness.
This is post 1355. The blog started back in August of 2013, and I'd be grateful if you never went back and looked at that stuff, because it took me several months to figure out what I was doing. There is a book-- a kind of "best of" collection-- that you can buy here or on amazon. And because I love personalized stuff for Christmas presents, there's a cafepress store for me to shop for my family. All of this goes back to my original intent here-- to give myself a way to blow off steam about the ongoing attacks against public education and occasionally entertain myself in the process.
But beyond that original purpose, I've found the need to try to spread the word and awareness and understanding and, somehow, simultaneously fight back and build bridges. I have been fortunate to meet (both in the meatworld and in cyberia) many intelligent, gifted, passionate people who have influenced and inspired me a thousand different ways. And I hope that I've been able to shed some light and provide some language for the discussion.
This is an important conversation we've been having, and I'm privileged to be even a small part of it. We have lots of work to do, lots of people to wake up, and lots of progress to make for public education. Keep talking. Keep reading. Keep passing along the work of writers that speak to you (the right hand blogroll on this page is a great place to begin).
American public education is too important for us to keep silent.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Duncan Still Oblivious
Riding along with Arne Duncan on the back-to-school bus tour, Alyson Klein had the opportunity to do a little Q & A with Arne Duncan. The discussion indicates that there are some things that Arne just doesn't get. I recommend reading the whole piece, but there are a few moments I'd like to zero in on.
Accountability
In the midst of discussing whether or not certain reporting categories may have masked or weakened accountability, Arne says this:
Accountability means different things to different folks. What we're asking for in the bill is not just data, which some would say is accountability, and not just transparency, which some would say is accountability, but actual action. And I think what we've been focused on the whole time with waivers is trying to transform low-performing schools.
So it's not real accountability until the big bosses tell you what you have to do next. It's a view of accountability that really tells us a lot about how Duncan sees the power dynamic. It's not just that the federal government is entitled to get whatever information they want to have, but that they are also entitled to tell the local entity what to do about any inadequacies that the feds diagnose.
Or to put it another way, in Duncan's vision of accountability, if a local district isn't getting results that the feds consider satisfactory, then that local district loses the right to local control.
This is one of the (many) ways in which the corporate management model doesn't fit democratic government. A CEO never rises to a height at which he says, "Okay, from up here I definitely don't have the right to tell people at that lower level what to do." The higher a Master of the Universe rises, the more people he is empowered to boss around. This is different from a federal system such as the one we allegedly have, where the highest levels of "management" are not supposed to be able to boss local elected officials around.
School Improvement Grant program
Duncan is sure this is working, despite the fact there's no reason to believe that the modest gains of some schools would not have been gained without any federal, string-encrusted largesse. Then we get to the large number of schools that went backwards. But Duncan is a believer because "everywhere I go I see firsthand the difference it's making." Can Duncan really believe that he sees schools that haven't been carefully selected and carefully prepared for his visit? Or that only his policies made teaching critical thinking possible?
ESEA
Duncan refused to speculate or predict or offer plans for how to deal with the imaginary bill that may or may not eventually pass. He really doesn't seem to see any responsibility in the huge degree of pushback against the department because of his own work, and refers Klein to this piece by Kevin Carey that argues that a strong department is required to keep an eye on those lazy, cheating states.
His One Big Regret?
Duncan has his list of policy goals that he "regrets" haven't happened yet (early childhood ed money, etc), but pressed on what mistakes he would actually do differently, he cites the almost two years spent trying to fix No Child Left Behind with Congress. In hindsight, they should have just blasted the waivers through sooner.
It's not that I don't get the frustration of trying to work with a Congress that exemplifies how miserably dysfunctional our form of government can be. But when Duncan lists this as a regret, he's basically saying, "I wish we had circumvented the foundational structure of our government sooner. I regret that the framers created three branches in our government. I regret that American Presidents can't just rule by fiat."
The Money Quote
Duncan can generally be counted on to say something that is just kind of amazeballs. Here's the quote you'll be reading from this interview in many places:
...I think [overall] waivers have gone pretty darn well. You guys don't cover it much. But we have 44 pretty happy customers across the political spectrum.
Maybe this isn't a clueless quote. Maybe he is not, as some folks assume, referring to 44 states. Maybe the 44 happy customers are actually just 44 individual citizens of the US who are happy with how the waivers worked out. I could believe that, even if Duncan didn't count himself. But if that's not what he meant, then he's smoking something.
But Don't Miss This
Klein asks if he's worry that all of the crappy numbers coming back on Big Standardized Tests might scare the natives and cause more pushback. Here's his response:
What we're getting finally for the first time in decades is the truth...
And how is it, exactly, that he knows these tests tell the truth?
This is classic Duncan, the backwards data-driving reasoning of many reformsters. Duncan already knows The Truth, which is that many, many students, teachers and schools are failing. A test will prove to be a good test and data will prove to be good data by matching the conclusion that reformsters have already reached. Duncan is absolutely convinced that US schools are filled with big lying liars who tell the lies, and he will work tirelessly to find anything that will help him prove what he has already concluded.
Meanwhile, he's clueless. "No one is that focused on scores," he says, and I'm now thinking that he's not so much smoking something as shunting it directly into his brain. Because the kids who can't move on to Fourth Grade in some states because their scores were too low, or the schools that are being shut down or sucked dry by charters because their scores are too low, or the teachers whose professional evaluation is in some part set by BS Test scores-- I think all of those folks are pretty focused on scores. Plus, Duncan's comment sidesteps a big question-- why should anybody be focused on test scores at all?
I've come to believe that Arne means well. But he really needs to get off the bus, and do it some place in the real world.
Accountability
In the midst of discussing whether or not certain reporting categories may have masked or weakened accountability, Arne says this:
Accountability means different things to different folks. What we're asking for in the bill is not just data, which some would say is accountability, and not just transparency, which some would say is accountability, but actual action. And I think what we've been focused on the whole time with waivers is trying to transform low-performing schools.
So it's not real accountability until the big bosses tell you what you have to do next. It's a view of accountability that really tells us a lot about how Duncan sees the power dynamic. It's not just that the federal government is entitled to get whatever information they want to have, but that they are also entitled to tell the local entity what to do about any inadequacies that the feds diagnose.
Or to put it another way, in Duncan's vision of accountability, if a local district isn't getting results that the feds consider satisfactory, then that local district loses the right to local control.
This is one of the (many) ways in which the corporate management model doesn't fit democratic government. A CEO never rises to a height at which he says, "Okay, from up here I definitely don't have the right to tell people at that lower level what to do." The higher a Master of the Universe rises, the more people he is empowered to boss around. This is different from a federal system such as the one we allegedly have, where the highest levels of "management" are not supposed to be able to boss local elected officials around.
School Improvement Grant program
Duncan is sure this is working, despite the fact there's no reason to believe that the modest gains of some schools would not have been gained without any federal, string-encrusted largesse. Then we get to the large number of schools that went backwards. But Duncan is a believer because "everywhere I go I see firsthand the difference it's making." Can Duncan really believe that he sees schools that haven't been carefully selected and carefully prepared for his visit? Or that only his policies made teaching critical thinking possible?
ESEA
Duncan refused to speculate or predict or offer plans for how to deal with the imaginary bill that may or may not eventually pass. He really doesn't seem to see any responsibility in the huge degree of pushback against the department because of his own work, and refers Klein to this piece by Kevin Carey that argues that a strong department is required to keep an eye on those lazy, cheating states.
His One Big Regret?
Duncan has his list of policy goals that he "regrets" haven't happened yet (early childhood ed money, etc), but pressed on what mistakes he would actually do differently, he cites the almost two years spent trying to fix No Child Left Behind with Congress. In hindsight, they should have just blasted the waivers through sooner.
It's not that I don't get the frustration of trying to work with a Congress that exemplifies how miserably dysfunctional our form of government can be. But when Duncan lists this as a regret, he's basically saying, "I wish we had circumvented the foundational structure of our government sooner. I regret that the framers created three branches in our government. I regret that American Presidents can't just rule by fiat."
The Money Quote
Duncan can generally be counted on to say something that is just kind of amazeballs. Here's the quote you'll be reading from this interview in many places:
...I think [overall] waivers have gone pretty darn well. You guys don't cover it much. But we have 44 pretty happy customers across the political spectrum.
Maybe this isn't a clueless quote. Maybe he is not, as some folks assume, referring to 44 states. Maybe the 44 happy customers are actually just 44 individual citizens of the US who are happy with how the waivers worked out. I could believe that, even if Duncan didn't count himself. But if that's not what he meant, then he's smoking something.
But Don't Miss This
Klein asks if he's worry that all of the crappy numbers coming back on Big Standardized Tests might scare the natives and cause more pushback. Here's his response:
What we're getting finally for the first time in decades is the truth...
And how is it, exactly, that he knows these tests tell the truth?
This is classic Duncan, the backwards data-driving reasoning of many reformsters. Duncan already knows The Truth, which is that many, many students, teachers and schools are failing. A test will prove to be a good test and data will prove to be good data by matching the conclusion that reformsters have already reached. Duncan is absolutely convinced that US schools are filled with big lying liars who tell the lies, and he will work tirelessly to find anything that will help him prove what he has already concluded.
Meanwhile, he's clueless. "No one is that focused on scores," he says, and I'm now thinking that he's not so much smoking something as shunting it directly into his brain. Because the kids who can't move on to Fourth Grade in some states because their scores were too low, or the schools that are being shut down or sucked dry by charters because their scores are too low, or the teachers whose professional evaluation is in some part set by BS Test scores-- I think all of those folks are pretty focused on scores. Plus, Duncan's comment sidesteps a big question-- why should anybody be focused on test scores at all?
I've come to believe that Arne means well. But he really needs to get off the bus, and do it some place in the real world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)