See you on the dance floor

The title of a recent article by Steven Rosenfeld caught my attention: "If We Don’t Act Now, Fascism Will Be on Our Doorstep, Says Yale Historian," (March 15, 2017).

I'm not happy about the fear meme embedded and critiqued in the article, i.e. prepare for the worst. It's as if we're coaxing it into existence.

This sentence from Rosenfeld's article also struck me: "Fascism says, disregard the evidence of your senses, disregard observation, embolden deeds that can’t be proven, don’t have faith in God but have faith in leaders, take part in collective myth of an organic national unity and so forth." Manuela Cadelli writes about this phenomenon in her article "Neoliberalism is a Species of Fascism."

I think the tilt towards fascism started before Drumph, but I really don't want to be right about that. In any case, language, and how we choose to create and experience the world, matters. 

I remember when Walter Mondale closed the 1984 (!) Democratic National Convention by repeatedly calling out for Ronald Reagan. He was supposedly pulling together a fractured party by railing against a common Republican enemy (i.e. President Ronald Reagan), and all that we heard on TV and radio, and read in newspapers, and felt in the universe, was a loud and clear invocation of Ronald Reagan's name. We lost before we started, and I wonder if HRC et al. did the same thing in 2016.

Should we focus on what we want, rather than what we don't want? Do we amplify democracy or echo dark foreboding? What's the implication for the world that we want to live in?

See you on the march, at the grille, or on the dance floor.

re: Teacher observations have been a waste of time and money

The US is the wealthiest country on the planet, and Mark Dynarski wants to implicate teachers for low test scores.

Mark Dynarski gets it wrong with teacher evaluation (Brookings, Dec. 8, 2016).

1. Mark Dynarski does not understand assessment: "The crucial question is whether students are learning. To answer that, we need some measure of learning: a test."
   
   Tests do not measure student learning. Tests measure a student's ability, or choice, to achieve high test scores.
   
   Alternatively, students benefit from assessments that are designed to help them show what they have learned, from their own perspective. Crafty educators can use data, both qualitative and quantitative, from student-driven assessments to adjust instructional strategies to meet students' needs.
   
   
2. The author does not understand science: "Teacher evaluation systems need a stronger scientific basis."
   
   Quantitative data from high stakes standardized tests does not constitute "science." Science would consider a systemic, holistic approach, and then isolate variables. And there are at least as many variables in a classroom as there are students.
   
   Individual students are too varied to prove (or disprove) a teacher's effectiveness. Trends or patterns within one classroom with 25 students -- or across several classrooms with 150 students -- in the same year, or over several years, SHOULD vary based on students' interests and needs, and the extent to which a teacher is supported by her/his school.
   
   There are also too many variables before, during, and after school to link teacher effectiveness with "objective" test scores.
   
   
3.  Perhaps the author does not understand inequity: "We need a more solid research and measurement foundation about what aspects of teaching improve learning."
   
   When children arrive at school well-rested, well-fed, and feeling safe and curious, well-supported teachers can do wonders. Teachers are life-long learners, and we can always enrich our curricular, instructional, and assessment strategies. Fair-enough.
   
   However, students who are proximate to the violence of poverty exhibit enormous amounts of stress that they bring to schools. These students need equity, i.e. unique in-school services that can help them want to do well in school. And it would be really helpful if our society acted to address the upstream source of poverty, i.e. income inequality.
   Data from The Spirit Level shows that even wealthy American children also suffer from the fallout of an unhealthy society.
   
   Among the wealthiest 23 countries on the planet, those with the biggest income inequality (i.e. the U.S.) have the highest rates of depression, mental illness, teen pregnancy, incarceration rates, drug abuse, obesity, and violence, and low educational "achievement" rates (see Fig. 1 below).
   
   Fig. 1: Educational scores are higher in more equal rich countries. - The Spirit Level
   
   
4. The author does not understand pedagogy: "We are spending billions to little effect because we do not know enough about what we are looking for."
   
   I know what I am looking for; I'm sure it varies among colleagues -- and I'm OK with that. I think that effective teachers:
   a. cultivate a love of life-long learning
   b. promote critical and creative literacy
   c. foster democratic civic engagement
   
   If these outcomes come close to what we are looking for within the profession, then we should ask teachers to design their own professional learning plans so that they become more effective at realizing such aims.
   If students come to school and aren't ready to learn, then we need to support students and educators by creating and sustaining equitable in-school conditions.
   Focusing on education as a means to redress poverty will help to a point: but it will not address the source of inequities, i.e. income inequality. Therefore, we need to support students and educators by creating and sustaining equitable out-of-school conditions.
   
5. The author has a point: "We need a more solid research and measurement foundation about what aspects of teaching improve learning."
   
   We need hybrid teaching roles so that more teachers can conduct meaningful research and advocate for effective systemic strategies that promote student engagement.

 

 

Here's the Deal: We already know what needs improving.

Education Post's sensational headline reads, "Here’s the Deal: We Can’t Help Teachers Improve If We Don’t Know What Needs Improving (11/29/16)." Author Thomas Toch argues that better teacher accountability metrics will lead to—what? Higher test scores? A stronger workforce?

How about we improve teaching with the aim of a more green, healthy, and sustainable America?

And we already know what needs improving.

Our country needs to improve family access to safe neighborhoods, healthy housing, meaningful employment, and balanced nutrition. We need to improve parents' and guardians' access to time and resources so that they can make sure their children are curious, energetic, well-fed, well-rested, and learning ready.

We need to improve student and staff access to green, healthy, and sustainable schools; beautiful schools that conserve energy and water, foster wellness, and advance equity between people, planet, and prosperity are good for students. This will help teachers.

We need to improve the capacity of educators to collaborate on curriculum, instruction, assessment, and policy that enriches students' love of learning, critical and creative thinking, and democratic civic engagement. 

We need to improve supports for educators as they exercise their professional expertise.

We need to improve teachers' stewardship of the profession. 

We need to improve our civic commitment to American values such as democracy, liberty, and justice for all.

We need to improve our courage. 

This will help teachers.

Check out the organizations below.
Green Schools National Network U.S. Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools Green Schoolyards America Women Of Green Center for Green SchoolsEcoRise Youth Innovations Eco-Schools USA National Environmental Education Foundation Shelburne Farms Center for Ecoliteracy GreenFutures UN Sustainable Development Platform The Networked Teacher Smith Memorial Playground and Playhouse Caucus of Working Educators Badass Teachers Association Center for Teaching Quality Teacher Powered Schools Teach to Lead Network for Public Education Sustainable Happiness

Everything's amazing and nobody's happy

Over at Education Week, my buddy Patrick Ledesma posts an insightful article about the use of technology, a sense of immediacy, and the implications for [public] education.  The idea is that public access to privatized messages from teachers can increase an individual teachers' wealth.

The video, Everything's amazing and nobody's happy, is pretty funny, and Patrick infers that creative teachers can wrangle technology for personal gain.  Perhaps.

I appreciate Patrick's insightful perspective -- and I never really liked all those zeros (watch the video). But why is it that we sometimes align the maximization of individual liberty ('...a level of voice...") with economic prowess ("... financial security...")?

I like money, but I want democracy AND sustainable wealth. If we privatize, what mechanisms are left in place to sustain the public democracy AND sustain wealth?

Big Money In Education Reform

I know a lot of extraordinary teachers, so please consider applying for this award below :). 

A Major New Award for Extraordinary Teaching

Amazing teachers deserve more attention. That’s the idea behind the Fishman Prize for Superlative Classroom Practice, a new award that honors extraordinary teachers with $25,000 and the opportunity to share their expertise with educators nationwide.  Offered by TNTP, a nonprofit organization [led by Michelle Rhee for its first 10 years] led working to ensure that more students learn from excellent teachers, the prize will be given to up to five teachers each year.  Any full-time teacher working in a high-poverty public school, including charter schools, may apply. The deadline for applications is Friday, February 3, 2012. Learn more and apply online at www.tntp.org/fishmanprize.

[COMMENTARY]  There is some big money behind some types of education reform.  Not all of that money is designed to sustain democratic public education.  

When Michelle Rhee, or others, say that "...the single most important factor determining whether students succeed in school is not the color of their skin or their ZIP code or even their parents’ income — it is the quality of their teacher...," more questions are raised than answered.  On the surface, one might think that teacher quality would imply that teachers should somehow be involved in creating the schools (and policies) that influence their effectiveness.  Yet many reformers -- conservative, neo-liberal or heavy-handed Marxist -- often overlook teachers as the experts in the room.  Quite undemocratic.  

Some messy questions to consider:

• If students are not doing well (on standardized tests), does this imply that teachers are merely "ordinary" or just plain lousy at their jobs?
• If teachers are not as effective as they could be, are there other in-school variables that influence student learning?  What does it mean when we isolate the teachers as a single variable and ignore the other variables that could affect student learning?  What if smart teachers are saddled with stultifying working conditions, dangerous hallways or classrooms, or children arrive at school hungry, tired and/or stressed?
• If you take an effective teacher and move her/him from 5th grade to 3rd, and then to 4th, will her/his effectiveness be compromised year to year?
• Why is it that under-performing schools often have higher teacher turn-over and higher rates of newer teachers?  

[/COMMENTARY]

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 ;).

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? 

Democracy & Educational Leadership

What is it that makes an effective educational leader? Of course we need leaders who can help reform and enrich education --- but to what end? NYTimes columnist Bob Herbert may have some answers.

There's one major problem with Bob Herbert's perspective on educational leadership. He assumes that public eduction exists to advance our country's international economic prowess ("In Search of Education Leaders," Dec 5, 2009). Alternatively, public education exists to cultivate democracy.

A vibrant economy is certainly a worthy goal for any society, but it is democracy that helps individuals make smart choices that advance the common good---both locally and globally. This lesson can be learned at home and in our schools. Yet public education should represent our civil commitment to a democracy that fosters liberty and equality. Worthwhile educational reform requires leadership that is guided by such a democracy.

As Ariel Sacks writes, we should also be careful about programs for educational leadership that are not explicitly linked to classroom teaching. Teachers make hundreds of decisions that help students navigate the complexities of democracy, i.e. the aligment of personal liberties with social equality. Without this direct experience of teaching and learning, what kind of reform can educational leaders provide?