The Excellence Myth & Poverty in America

Over at transformED, Dan Brown discusses the impact of poverty on over 46 million Americans.  Part of the problem is that it's hard to be poor in America.  And when poor people go to school, it's often hard for them to learn well.  And when students don't learn well, teachers get blamed.  Dan argues that the "No excuses" mantra about teachers doesn't really address the debilitating violence of poverty.

I think Dan has also picked up on the myth of excellence. It's the same ideology that produced "Waiting for Superman," as if teachers just worked hard enough, everything would change.

Although individual teacher excellence is important, we also should look at lateral relationships, or capacity, or what some call social capital. If our society can help cultivate each person's or community's social capital, then kids (and teachers) will show up at school well-rested, well-fed, feeling safe, curious and nurtured, and ready to learn.

Poverty diminishes social capital in that people have little influence over their environment/surroundings (i.e safe neighborhoods, stable networks, access to healthcare, libraries, food, etc). If you're a teacher, your social capital is diminished when policy decisions happen without you, when PD is done to you, and when your creativity and initiative are smothered by standardized testing or teacher-proof curricula.

It shouldn't be a crime to be poor in this country, but it is. And families and children (and teachers) are punished for their proximity to poverty.

Effective Teacher Evaluation: Stuck in the Middle

According to an article in EdWeek, New groups giving teachers alternative voice, "...52% of teachers now have 10 or fewer years in the profession...."  Many of these new teachers are interested in new models of compensation, teacher leadership and career choices.  Not all teachers, regardless of their experience, agree on what it means to be an effective teacher.

Some of the newer teachers are finding their voices in new teacher advocacy groups, some of which are aligned within unions (see NEWTLA in Los Angeles) or outside of the local (see Educators 4 Excellence in NYC). Some of these groups receive funding from the Gates Foundation, while others do not.  It is arguable that E4E could be characterized as neo-liberal in its call for 1) teacher evaluation to be based on student growth and 2) the elimination of seniority.  Other groups, such as Teachers Union Reform Network, seek to integrate labor, professional and social justice models of unionism.  And as a member of Teacher Leaders Network, I've seen my own positions on educational policy be characterized as either too conservative or too liberal.

Some of our own colleagues may agree with some or all of these new teacher groups' platforms.

There is no clear political designation for these emergent groups, yet I would argue that our unions could be more communicative, both horizontally among members, and vertically between members and the union officers. For example, with Philadelphia's upcoming negotiations about the teacher contract (which expires in 2012), effective communication is a concern.  Where and when do teachers get to influence the direction of contract negotiations?

The issue of "teacher evaluation" is moving towards Philly, and it would be wonderful for teachers to have more of a say in what it could look like. In order to do that, we'll all have to do a lot more research on effective teacher evaluation policy.  If we're going to influence our union to cultivate teacher voice more often, then we're going to have to have concrete ideas that we can get out in the public discourse.

I'm delighted that some site-based unions will be taking a closer look at teacher evaluation. I wonder where Philly's Teacher Action group is.

What do you think is effective teacher evaluation?  What does it look like?  How can it be designed to foster student engagement, teacher voice, and professional growth?

18 year-old Advocates for Worthwhile Teaching

Check out Sinnea Douglas, a 2011 grad of Philadelphia's Science Leadership Academy (SLA), share her take on worthwhile teaching in the poem "When I become a teacher."

Sinnea started working with poetry in Matthew Kay's lunch-time poetry club at SLA in 2009.  By 2001, Sinnea and her buddies from Philadelphia's Youth Poetry Movement won the Brave New Voices International Youth Poetry Festival.

Rock-on Sinnea, you're beautiful.  And thank you!

(Thanks to Laurie Calvert from the US Department of Education for finding an opportunity toi share Sinnea's words on the teacher landing page at the ED.gov website.)

U.S. annualized corporate profits: $1.68 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2010.

This past Wednesday, May 31, 2011, Philadelphia's School Reform Commission passed the District's budget.  The SRC also passed a resolution to cancel previously approved  collective bargaining agreements if they are not re-negotiated by Jun 30, as if unions were somehow responsible for the District's budget deficit.

When it comes to laying off teachers, eliminating programs, or dishonoring the legacy of teachers unions, where is the focus on the incredible wealth being amassed in the private sector?  If there's a shortage in funds for public education, then raise taxes.  This is an argument that the SRC can stand behind.

Although it may not be the most well-received (at least nationally), I wish the SRC had said something like "We call on local, state and federal governments to structure taxes to support public education as a foundation for a civil democracy."  After all, the New York Times reported that as of "...Jun, 2009, U.S. annualized corporate profits rose 42 percent, to a record $1.68 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2010."

Stumbling towards democracy

Over at CTQ, we're wrapping up our Teaching2030 bookclub.  One thing I've learned is that good people don't always agree on educational reform.  And that disagreement is a source for learning; check out what a Susan Graham, a CTQ colleague, had to say about educational reform funding cycles:

• And since the funding cycle for grant money isn't all that long, I can't wait years for evidence of success, so long term results like the 30 year Tennessee kindergarten study aren't feasible measures. Besides, end of year test scores are funded by someone else and don't eat into my grant budget.

Susan, thank you for the frank description of educational reform cycles.  There's a lot here to help us be more effective with our efforts.  For example, if funding cycles are driving reform schedules, then we'll have to work on that -- as long as the cycles are stultifying.

I'd like to offer another perspective of educational reform.  The funding of public education, and reform, represents a revenue stream.  That stream can be directed towards 1) the cultivation of democratic education or 2) the accumulation of private wealth.

I know that educational reform is not as black and white as democracy v. privatisation, and that there is some overlap.  For example, non-profits participate in educational reform, whether they are the "good guys" or the "bad guys."

However, I'd rather stumble towards democratic education than disrupt valuable learning by:

1. demonizing teachers
2. entrapping students in endless standardized test-prep
3. marginalizing families
4. ignoring the fundamental social issues that create educational inequities in the first place.

We are all teacher leaders.  Some of us may dabble in, or even embrace, teacherpreneurism.  But no matter how we identify ourselves, I think we should closely examine what it is we think is the purpose of public education.  If we want to make some extra money as we lead, or teach adjunct, or administer grants, or facilitate PD, then fine.  If teacher leadership is a means for us to be more effective and to exercise our voice and to influence reform efforts, then terrific.

Whatever we do, we should be intentional.  For me it's about democratic education.  So invite me to your next PD and we can tear into some good readings, map curriculum, or develop professional development plans.  And we can work out the remuneration at a later date ;).

If I were Secretary of Education...

Education Week blogger and school teacher Nancy Flanagan tells us about her plan for national education reform -- especially if she had the resources of the Department of Education at her fingertips.

If I were Secretary of Education, I'd revise Race To The Top so that --

• "civil democracy" was promoted as a central aim of education;
• college and career readiness were framed as natural outgrowths of a civil democracy;
• teachers had the time and resources to develop meaningful assessments that tell us about students' critical and creative thinking strategies;
• teachers were invited to participate in policy discussions, teacher education, research and program administration (perhaps with modified, i.e. reduced, classroom assignments);
• resources were leveraged for systemic reform that supported safe communities, stable families, national healthcare, and meaningful employment.

What would YOU do, if you were the Secretary of Education?

Mind the gap -- on education for democracy.

Is there is a gap between the power of the Gates Foundation, what teachers do everyday in the classroom, and what Teaching 2030 (T2030) proposes?  How closely are these three aligned?

The Center for Teaching Quality (CTQ) has emphasized the importance of cultivating and sustaining teacher involvement in local and national education policy.  What infrastructure has to be in place so that this happens more effectively and more frequently?  And how can we financially sustain such initiatives?  Supporting smart professional learning communities, and then publishing books like T2030, are no easy tasks.

Where, when and how do we look at the bigger picture?  Are we just fish, swimming is a school, hoping to influence the sway and swirl of our fellow educators, policy-makers, legislators and advocates?  Diplomacy is an anchor with CTQ, and sustained collaboration with the Gates Foundation would be nice.

Yet where, when and how do we draw the line?  Do the authors of Waiting for Superman merely have an accurate, however incomplete, picture of public education?  Or is there a coordinated effort to redirect the public education funding stream towards privatisation?  If so, what do we lose in the process?

In an article in today's New York Times (Behind Grass-Roots School Advocacy, Bill Gates), we are reminded of the Foundation's leveraged interest ($373 million since 2009; $3.5 billion projected 2011-2016) on education reform:

• Gates Foundation funding:
• Teach Plus - Indianapolis: "...outspoken teachers helped persuade state lawmakers...to eliminate seniority-based layoff policies."  (partial).
• American Enterprise Institute - DC: "...to influence the national education debates." $500,000 (2009).
• [P]hilanthropic advisory firm, - NYC: "...to mount and support public education and advocacy campaigns." $3.5 million.
• Harvard University: "...to place 'strategic data fellows' who could act as 'entrepreneurial change agents' in school districts...." $3.5 million [emphasis added].
• campaign lobbying of presidential candidates: $16 million (2008).
• Alliance for Excellence in Education (Jeb Bush), DC: "...to grow support for the common core standards initiatives...."  $550,000 (2009).
• Fordham Institute (Chester Finn), DC/OH: "...review common core materials and develop supporting materials...."  $959,000.
• Center for Education Policy, DC: "...to track which states adopted the standards." $1 million (2009-2011 est.).
• AFT & NEA, DC: $6.3 million (2008-2011).
• social action campaign focused on the film Waiting for Superman.  $2 million (2010).

To what end?  What is the Gates Foundation (and others) trying to accomplish?  The educational mission statement from the Gates Foundation websites prioritizes college readiness: The foundation has set an ambitious goal in K-12 education: to graduate all students college-ready. Currently, only a third of students graduate on-time with the skills and knowledge they need to succeed beyond high school. Together with our partners, we are working to provide all students—especially low-income and minority students—with the opportunity to realize their full potential.

Is college readiness an adequate platform for meaningful educational reform?  How does eliminating teacher seniority for layoffs increase college readiness?  How can the change levers within T2030 be leveraged to find common ground?

What if public education was about the cultivation of a civic democracy?