The purpose of this blog is to know and understand the teacher's perspective concerning current issues on education reform and the teaching profession. Inputs from the ones who probably knows what is best for students academically -- the teachers -- are rarely considered in decision making of policies. Yet, these so-called education experts and lawmakers dictate how we do our jobs and what we should teach. That's not right!
As a part of my daily morning routine to skim various online newspapers, magazines, and blogs, on the front page of Huffington Post's Education page was this headline:
Union leader to Michelle Rhee: "We invite you to work with us"
My immediate reactions were WHY, RANDI WHY? OMG! UGH!
While I shouldn't be surprised by this, AFT President Randi Weingarten rather offered an olive branch to Rhee than mobilized her base for an inevitable fight against her and the other ed deformers. On too many occasions, Rhee has consistently made it known she has no interest in working with teachers unions like AFT in reforming education. The kind gesture wasn't necessary, Randi! Trying to play "the good guy" here isn't working for you, Randi! In fact, it makes us more vulnerable to scapegoating and look weaker. This appeasing efforts of yours, Randi, can be easily equated with President Obama as he is currently seeking to "make-a-deal" on extending tax cuts for the rich with GOP Congressional leaders, all of whom made it known they are seeking to end his presidency in 2012. I can't tell how much you and Obama continue to disappoint me!
Thank God for a silver lining!
On a local level in three cities, union leaders are winning battles as each of these locals are "cleaning house" by ushering in new leadership:
Over a week ago, in a highly-prolific election, educators Nathan Saunders and Candi Peterson, of the Saunders slate, won the president and vice-president slots, respectively, of the Washington [DC] Teachers Union, ousting the "holdover" incumbent who compromised with former school chancellor Rhee for a new, yet controversial teacher evaluation system which resulted in the senseless firing of nearly 250 DC teachers.
Late last night, Schools Matter reported an interesting turn of events unfolding in Detroit, which may have a great impact on the outcome of an upcoming runoff election in its local teacher union. Candidate Steve Conn is running for DFT (Detroit Federation of Teachers) President against long-term "sellout" incumbent, who has embraced and supported the ed deformers' tactics of reform in Detroit public schools. More to follow...
Therefore, the moral of the story is CHANGE MUST BEGIN FROM THE BOTTOM UP! Even within our teacher unions, there is a need for change as our leaders, especially at the national level, are compromising our interests for the sake of getting along with the powerful and wealthy ed deformers. They are not willing to keep the peace; so why should we? Our unions need leadership which reflects that. As eloquently, yet concisely stated by education blogger William Ferriter in his HuffPost-Education blog entry last week:
Teacher working conditions are students learning conditions.
Despite what the ed deformers say, most teachers are not seeking a lucrative career in which they will have for life. Instead, we are looking for ways
To protect teachers from arbitrary termination via due process rights;
To improve school culture and physical conditions that foster learning in a safe environment; and
To enhance the professional image of teaching by meaningful professional development, attractive salaries and benefits, teacher leadership opportunities, and collegiality among teachers
These are the fundamental precepts that teachers unions should always fight for in ensuring that every child receives a quality education in an adequate school setting. If union leaders fail to adhere to the fundamentals, then they needed to be booted out!
As expected, Michelle Rhee, the former DC School Chancellor, has been a very quiet, yet busy bee since resigning from her post nearly two months ago. However, her discreet efforts have come to fruition today as she revealed her new political endeavor: Studentfirst.org, a newly-launched website devoted to initiate a grass root movement for her brand of education reform. Of course, she was praised by her ed deformer friends, like Oprah (who allowed Rhee to formally announced her new initiative on today's episode, which I missed by the way) and side-eyed by her critics. Nevertheless, Rhee is exceptional in taking advantage of the spotlight to advance her philosophy and her agenda. On the Take Action page of her website, there is one statement that perhaps I agree with her the most:
Parents, teachers, students, and citizens: The movement begins with you.
I could spend some time bashing Rhee, but, at the end of the day, it will be pointless. Whether we like it or not, her message resonates with many people. As polarizing as she is, she is continuing to press forward in her quest to reform public education that consistent with privatization. Plus, her allies of powerful, wealthy individuals and entities are growing. In a Newsweek cover story released today, Rhee made it clear not only she is in the fight for the long haul, but also she will fight against anyone who obstruct her efforts to "transform education" i.e., allow a corporate takeover of public schools. Just as in her condescending "manifesto" with her former boss, ousted DC mayor Adrian Fenty, she blamed teachers unions, school boards, and others for being obstacles to her brand of change; even though she acknowledged, in the Newsweek piece, she failed to involve teachers, parents and the community more during her tenure in DC. Essentially, Studentfirst.org will become a propagation instrument to further polarize the public in the education reform debate.
What I find most amusing, yet hypocritical of Rhee's new initiative is her rationale for conflict, as described in the final paragraph of the Newsweek article:
Lastly, we can’t shy away from conflict. I was at Harvard the other day, and someone asked about a statement that Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and others have made that public-school reform is the civil-rights issue of our generation. Well, during the civil-rights movement they didn’t work everything out by sitting down collaboratively and compromising. Conflict was necessary in order to move the agenda forward. There are some fundamental disagreements that exist right now about what kind of progress is possible and what strategies will be most effective. Right now, what we need to do is fight. We can be respectful about it. But this is the time to stand up and say what you believe,not sweep the issues under the rug so that we can feel good about getting along. There’s nothing more worthwhile than fighting for children. And I’m not done fighting.
As passionate as she sounds, this is a woman who has NEVER -- to the best of my knowledge -- made a concerted effort to collaborate with others in reforming education, particularly with those who dissented her stance. Successful civil rights activists always sought consensus first! All of this hoopla are nothing more than Rhee using her public relations prowess to bulldozer her soundbites in the public psyche...and they are eating it up, begging for more.
There is a lesson to be learned here. We educators and public school advocates have to do a better job in getting the truth out. We all agree our public schools are broken and desperately need to be fixed; we diverge in how to do it, maybe with the exception of "cleaning house" at top-heavy central/district office. It is a sad case that ed deformers and teachers are fighting with one another over what is academically best for the children. But are children the REAL focus here? Both sides claimed so. However, the actions of both sides are contrary and questionable. Nevertheless, I will never side with anyone who oppose public schools and the professionalism of teachers. It will be ideal if both parties can actually put their differences aside and make reasonable compromises for the sake of the children. Unfortunately, that is a mere fantasy as the "righteous" ed deformers drew blood first, long before Studentsfirst.org. According to public opinion, Rhee and her ed deformer cohorts are winning, but it's not over yet.
UPDATE: In case you missed the Oprah episode when Rhee first announced Studentsfirst.org, you can see it below...
I worked hard at memorizing lists of facts and figures, and carried with me a book of facts ~ Charles Van Doren
For the past two days, there has been a couple of interesting "lists" based on common-sense logic, experiences, and "white lies", from likely and unlikely sources. I would like to share and compile some of those lists below:
Yesterday, accomplished teacher/instructional coach-turned-activist/writer, Anthony Cody, created a list of nonsense ideas being touted by ed deformers and complementing each item with a common sense approach he and other educators (including myself) believe is necessary for meaningful school reform (in colored bold and larger font) -- see here for article:
Poverty is just an exuse; poverty matters.
Class size doesn't matter; class sizes matters in many ways
Test scores are the way we measure student learning; when we focus all of our energy on only one set of measurements, we miss so many other crucial aspects of learning
Reform MUST be driven by external measures such as high stakes tests; assessments are most useful and reliable when they are closely connected to classroom instruction
[Classroom] experience does not matter; experience matters very much
Tenure provides teachers with lifetime jobs... Teachers do not have "jobs for life"; we have due process.
Charter schools are deserving of public funds and support; actually, charters have not even been shown to have better test scores, on average, than regular public schools
The heart and soul of a school is in our passion for data; the heart and soul of a school is in our passion for children
Today, from of all places -- the Wall Street Journal's SmartMoney magazine, author Sarah Morgan included in her compilations of "10 THINGS" a list of truths charter schools would like to keep out of public domain:
We're no better than public schools
Our teachers aren't certified
Plus, they keep quitting
Students with disabilities need not apply
Separation of church and state? We found a loophole
We don't have to tell you where your tax dollars are going
We'll do anything to recruit more kids...
...but we'll push them out if they don't perform
Success can be brought
Even great teachers can only do so much
As a supplement, SmartMoney has a similar "10 THINGS" list for public school districts as well; you can view that list at your perusal.
Finally, in a call for more activism from educators and public education advocates, Failing Schools' blogger Sabrina Stevens Shupe included in her plead an accurate list of characteristics that makes schools "sick environments":
The mandated curriculum and teaching practices are often drastically out of step with what is known about how people learn
Children are so anxious about work and tests that they cry and vomit in class. (There’s also something pathological about a paper that reports on such occurrences as if they’re positive developments…)
Parents are pressured to medicate their young children, while older students illegally procure the same drugs in order to survive the schooling experience
Teachers who routinely work 10 to 12 hours a day have trouble keeping up with all of the demands on their time and energy, and develop severe health problems like exhaustion, high blood pressure, insomnia, depression, and anxiety as a result
Children who routinely work 10 to 12 hours a day have trouble keeping up with all of the demands on their time and energy, and develop severe health problems…
Lying is all but required in order to keep your job, and competitive/punitive assessment practices for students and teachers create such desperation that cheating is increasingly common.
The most “accountable” people in the system are the least powerful, being told everything from what to teach and how and when to teach it to the specific manner in which the information on their whiteboards should be arranged (and if you dare to question such things, well…)
Veteran teachers who found joy in teaching for decades are now itching to retire because their working conditions have deteriorated so badly, while younger teachers leave much sooner, feeling undervalued, burned out and unable to imagine how we might balance such work with families or lives of our own.
Right now, in Raleigh, NC, the NAACP is holding its Education Summit to primarily address the current trend of re-segregation in American public schools. In addition, the oldest civil rights organization will also be tackling the following areas as well during its 3-day conference:
...stopping re-segregation and promoting diversity, equity in funding, high quality facilities and leadership, high quality teachers and smaller classrooms, parental and community involvement; a focus on math, science, history and reading, and addressing the disparities with minorities in graduation, suspension and drop-out rates.
While racism is an issue that still plague every aspect of American way of life, including its public schools, in my honest opinion, it doesn't compare to the adverse effects of classism. Even in the current education reform movement, classism is so overt as the wealthy strives to dictate education reform policies and run our public school systems. Yet, the children of the wealthy still attend private schools. The wealthy is funding and promoting education reform tactics that their children will never be exposed to. If charter schools, for example, are supposed to be "the saving grace" of public education, then why aren't the wealthy children attending them? Most Teach for America recruits, who are typically from a privileged family background and graduates of Ivy-league schools, leave the classroom after fulfilling their two-year commitment for greener pastures. Yet, these are the type of teachers the wealthy wants in our public and charter schools.
It's not odd that the ed deformers -- all of them, by the way, are wealthy and/or come from privileged backgrounds -- fail to address the heart of the problem with our public schools -- poverty. Since public schools are mainly funded via property taxes, many urban and rural school districts suffer due to the lack of funding and resources. In addition, many of the items expected to be covered in the Education Summit, which I colored bold for emphasis, are largely due to low socioeconomic status of most families in the community. While school improvement is still needed, research studies have shown non-school factors affect student performance more than in-school factors. To the wealthy, poverty is an excuse to hinder reform in our schools. Yet again, their kids don't attend our schools. In fact, in the beginning of the celebrated, yet controversial film Waiting for Superman, privileged director Davis Guggenheim narrates his perspective on how frustrating it is for him as he drive pass four "failing" public schools in DC each morning to bring his children to their private school. Let's be real here: Guggenheim himself attend private schools. Even if those public school he passes every morning were "blue-ribbon", successful schools, would he have enrolled his kids in one of those schools? I seriously doubt it!
Recently, via research for a graduate school assignment, I came across an interesting, yet thought-provoking article entitled "The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching" by education professor Martin Haberman. Essentially, it touches on two points: (a) the "pedagogy of poverty" -- fourteen typical acts of urban school teachers that focus more on maintaining order than meaningful teaching and (b) promoting the use of "good teaching" strategies to reverse "the pedagogy of poverty" in urban classrooms. While Haberman emphasized the importance of a school-wide initiative to foster good teaching and high expectations, he failed to discuss the lack of resources and funding plaguing many of these schools, which can affect teacher performance as well as student performance. Nevertheless, for the most part, I agree with his assessment on the "pedagogy of poverty"; for every child -- rich or poor -- can learn and poor children deserve a quality education like the rich. Perhaps one of the most striking assertions Haberman makes is concerning those individuals who wants to continue perpetuating the "pedagogy of poverty":
The pedagogy of poverty appeals to several constituencies:
1. It appeals to those who themselves did not do well in schools. People who have been
brutalized are usually not rich sources of compassion. And those who have failed or done
poorly in school do not typically take personal responsibility for that failure. They
generally find it easier to believe that they would have succeeded if only somebody had
forced them to learn.
2. It appeals to those who rely on common sense rather than on thoughtful analysis. It is
easy to criticize humane and developmental teaching aimed at educating a free people as
mere "permissiveness," and it is well known that "permissiveness" is the root cause of our
nation's educational problems. 3. It appeals to those who fear minorities and the poor. Bigots typically become obsessed
with the need for control.
4. It appeals to those who have low expectations for minorities and the poor. People with
limited vision frequently see value in limited and limiting forms of pedagogy. They
believe that at-risk students are served best by a directive, controlling pedagogy.
5. It appeals to those who do not know the full range of pedagogical options available. This
group includes most school administrators, most business and political reformers, and
many teachers.
But why the wealthy still wants to perpetuate "the pedagogy of poverty", yet they claimed they're not? Aren't giving and reviewing for tests, particularly in reading and math, two of the acts of the"pedagogy of poverty"? The overemphasis of standardized testing that is being pushed by wealthy ed deformers and NCLB exacerbates the fight against such pedagogical practices for our neediest students. Thanks to school accountability measures, public and charter school teachers are coerced to "teach the test" and used test data to "drive instruction" so not only their students pass these tests, but also to save their careers and livelihoods. These teachers have to overcome obstacles beyond their control to ensure student success due to the risk of losing their jobs; how are they supposed to enjoy what they do under this type of extreme pressure? Private school teachers don't have those types of concerns to contend with.
Due to the current economic decline, some of the ed deformers, like the privileged Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and the wealthy Bill Gates, are now calling for school districts to "do more with less" by anticipating and making additional cuts, increasing class sizes, and dismissing teachers' advanced credentials for compensation purposes. Gentlemen, do you suggest the same for the private schools your children attend? Would you want your children to attend a school that lack resources, have overcrowded classrooms, and hires inexperienced teachers? So what gives? Are your children entitled to a different kind of educational experiences than other children? During yesterday's protest against Cathie Black's appointment as the next NYC School Chancellor, NYC Board of Education member, Patrick Sullivan, believes so.
What ever happen to the golden rule: Treat others like you want to be treated? I guess it doesn't apply to the wealthy and the privileged.
Since its inception in 1990, there has been intense debate on the effectiveness of Teach for America [TFA], an non-profit organization that recruit recent graduates from selective colleges and universities to commit two years into teaching in low-performing schools, urban or rural. It is like the Peace Corps for education. It is great to see young people who are willing to sacrifice jump-starting their careers in their respective fields to work in hard-to-staff schools with low pay and under challenging conditions. However educating children should be a life-long investment of personal time, money, and effort, not a temporal charity gig to make your resume look good. While its intentions are good and it does supplement additions to an already-struggling teaching workforce, TFA is deeply tied to the current education reform movement as a cost-effective, simple means to train and hired future teachers.
How effective are TFA recruits in the classrooms? Several research studies over the years showed mixed results. However, it doesn't matter to me. TFA recruits are required to teach for ONLY two years. For most teachers, they are still going through the blues of surviving the kids, while learning and improving in their craft. In addition, most TFA recruits leave the classroom after their two-year commitment expires. So whatever impact they did make in the classroom will be short-lived. Ironically, several TFA alumni, such as the darling of education reform, former DC School Chancellor Michelle Rhee; her replacement, Kaya Henderson; and Mike Feinberg and David Levin, founders of the famous KIPP network of charter schools; have stayed in the education arena by moving up the ladder after fulfilling their two-year commitment. With its TFA connections, New Leaders for New Schools [NLNS], a non-profit organization that trains educators and non-educators to become principals. Although NLNS residents are required to make a six-year commitment to the program, the bulk of their training begins with a four-week intense sessions of coursework over the summer before they start their on-the-job training residency in an assigned school, which includes two week-long seminars on leadership skills throughout the school year; the remaining years of their residency consist of continual on-the-job training and seminars, as well as completion of portfolio-like projects and leadership assessment. Plus, many NLNS alumni become principals of charter schools.
If TFA alumni who leave the classroom do not pursue educational leadership positions, they go back to pursue a career they graduated in, particularly in corporate America. More than ever, I believe this to be evident in light of the recent recruitment notification explicitly for recent TFA recruits to work for famed investment banking firm, Goldman-Sachs. With an offer to work for a prestigious employer for a very lucrative salary, why would a TFA alumnus stay in the teaching profession long-term? Wait! I thought TFA was supposed to ease the current teacher shortages. Yet, I digress!
So why joined TFA to begin with? To give back to the community by educating our most challenging students? Or to use the TFA experience as a stepping stone to a better career? So has the teaching profession become a charity case? Did I and many other educators who underwent years of formal training and dedicated our lives to educating children do so in vain? And while it is common knowledge that nearly half of traditionally- or alternative-certified teachers leave the profession within their first five years, why complicate the problem by creating another revolving door via TFA? Even within the current education reform debate, there is little to no talk of ways of retaining existing teachers. While it is cheaper to keep her (or him) in the classroom, compensation for years of experiences and credential for that teacher is still more expensive than compensation for an uncertified TFA recruit. Therefore, all of this goes back to cutting cost and making money, at the expense of our children's future.
One final note: Last week, education historian and critic of the current education reform movement, Diane Ravitch, gave a "tough love" speech on education reform to a large audience on onlookers, including KIPP and TFA officials. Below is the video clip of her entire speech.
In addition, TFA alumnus, Jesse Hagopian, wrote an candid op-ed , which is also featured in a recent SocialistWorker.org article, on his "not-so-prepared" experiences in TFA and made a case for why the Seattle School Board should not bring the TFA program there in its city and schools. Unfortunately, the school board voted for it.
UPDATE: Another TFAer, Eric Maroney, speaks out; click here on what he has to say about a TFA fundraising dinner he recently attend. It gets no plainer than this...
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
From 9 pm EST last night until a few hours ago, I was not surprised by what happened; yet I was bitter. Yesterday was Election Day 2010 which was projected months before a day of reckoning for the Democratic Party. While the Democrats barely retain control of the US Senate, they lost control of the House in great numbers. In addition, many GOP candidates in state elections won in a convincing fashion. There is so much more I can say, but it is pretty much summed up here. Nevertheless, it is a wake up call for President Obama and other Democrats as they heal from the "shellacking" they got last night from the Republicans.
As a life-long Democrat, I still believe in its principles. I just don't think the Democratic politicians or the general public do anymore. As a party, somewhere along the way, the Democrats lost sight of their principles. Or at least, there is a lack of consensus within the party itself. That was evident when they were in power in Congress. Look at the education policies, for example; there are some Democrats who favors the current education reform tactics for a corporate takeover of public education. While the current economy is the most important issue among voters, education reform issues aren't far behind.
Via Facebook, political analyst and TV commentator Roland Martin shared some interesting insights about the elections outcomes:
I have said this since last year. I said it on November 2009. You have to move your supporters to action outside the election...You have to put your troops in the game. You must tell them who to call. Who to write. Where to mobilize. You MUST engage!
...but Pres Obama MUST return to his roots as a community organizer in the next 2 years. That means galvanizing the people in order to rise up and support his agenda. It will be a tough road with the GOP controlling the House.
To [Obama's] supporters, you must stop with meet, talk, disperse. It must be meet, mobilize, act. Stop whining about the Tea Party. They did their duty. The folks who mobilized in 2009 and 2010 won last night. Those who complained about those who mobilized lost last night.
He is so right. As much as I don't care for the Tea Party, one have to credit them for mobilizing the conservative base and energizing their voters to go to the polls.
So, where do we go from here? Well, reflection is always a good thing. But something has to be done.
The next two years will be a test for both political parties and the President. If Obama wants a second term, he will have to appease his base, which will be harder to do now. While he inherited a "mess" in the beginning, he made more of a "mess" by not fighting hard enough for the concerns of his own base. But this goes back to the lack of consensus within the Democratic party. Traditionally, for example, most teachers and the teachers unions supported Democrats. How can we...and why should we...when some within the party support privatizing public education, a typical move of the GOP? The "lesser of two evils" excuse isn't cutting it anymore. At least with the GOP, we know what type of animal we're dealing with; we can't say the same for the Democrats.
Prior to the election, I have called for more activism among teachers. Now I have extended that call to the entire moderate and liberal bases. It has to start from the bottom up. That's how the Tea Party succeeded at best in gaining publicity and winning some political battles during yesterday's elections.
On a personal note, for weeks now, I have been internally fighting my passion. While I do have a passion for education, as expressed on this blog, I feel like I am not doing enough to fulfill it. I do miss being in the classroom, but I know in my heart, the timing for me to return is not good right now...at least that's how I feel. Being a doctoral student in grad school doesn't help either. Nevertheless, it just won't go away. What am I to do? My next passionate option is activism. When I was teaching, I was very active and vocal in my local teacher union association. This year alone, I have participated in four protest rallies. I have written several letters and e-mails to elected officials. But I don't feel that's enough. Although Georgia is a right-to-work state, there is a high level of complacency among teachers that is sickening to my stomach. So again, what am I to do? I guess more soul-searching, reflection, and prayer are in order for me. More to follow as I pressed on...
Until then, the late great Mahatma Gandhi charged all mankind "to be the change we want to see in the world". In doing so, individually, we must reflect on the change we desire, look within oneself, and make something happen. Then collectively, we come together, build a consensus around a shared vision, and move forward as one unit. Time isn't on our side anymore. While this too shall pass, something have to happen soon. If we want change, we have to demand it.
Today, The HuffPost Education posted a response by Waiting for Superman filmmaker, Davis Guggenheim, on the reaction of this film. All I have to say is this: WHATEVER!
In his response, he promoted his film, (duh!) and challenged moviegoers, especially his critics, to not be a "dither", i.e., a person who talks loud and does nothing, but be a doer. I agree...and that's the only thing I agree with.
However, I was completely taken back with these portions of his response:
...The state of our public schools is also a serious threat and we too have a talented corp of ditherers. Just read the editorial pages of many newspapers and blogs and listen to those on the air. There are many experts who would rather make the issue more complicated, tangled and inspire the rest of us to inaction.
What "inaction" do you speak of? To not see YOUR movie? Also, these "experts", who presumably complained about your film, most likely used RESEARCH STUDIES to back their criticisms.
When I hear thoughtful criticism of Waiting For 'Superman' I am energized because I am seeing the movie work -- I realize it's only 90 minutes and it can't answer every question -- but I know that these kinds of questions and conversations are exactly what we need. More of us at the table determined to fix our schools.
How could that be the case when you can't accept criticism? If there weren't intensive criticisms of your film, would you have written this response? The people who NEED and SHOULD be at the table are the teachers. But how will that happen by watching your film when its tone is obviously anti-teachers and anti-unions?
But those conversations must lead to action. Not more voices that defend a broken system just to stick to the status quo.
So it's time to "do" -- go see the movie if you haven't. If you have, go on WaitingForSuperman.com and learn about your local school, find opportunities to get involved on the ground and contact your governor and local school board to demand real reform.
I am down for the bold portions. Unfortunately for you, Mr. Guggenheim, I would be advocating FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS UNIONS!
Mr. Guggenheim,
Your response will sit on deaf ears among your critics. Your film is a part of the propaganda being pushed by those who are for a corporate takeover of education. You tried to be subtle in dismissing your critics. But we know better. Fixing our schools is first acknowledging the complexity of the problems, second reaching a consensus among ALL stakeholders, and finally working together as a village to save our public schools. You and the other ed deformers think it is a simple, quick fix; perpetuate the blame game; and prefer only corporations charter schools to provide the education our children need. Yet, you have the AUDACITY to call us, your critics, as "dithers", because we don't (and many won't) support your movie. Man, please! Stop whining and be willing to listen to the other side. Our views were excluded from your film; Randi Weingarten doesn't count. Yet, our views are not expendable because we are the ones who work directly with the children in the schools. But "whatever" to us, right? So "whatever" to you. Don't get mad, get glad...that your film started the conversations that you were seeking in the first place. Yet, don't insult your intelligence in thinking that you wouldn't receive any criticisms from REAL educational experts, teachers, union leaders, and supporters of public education.
It is amazing how awesome the Internet can be... I stumbled across another jewel!
On many occasions on my blog, despite its anti-teacher, anti-union rhetoric, I advocated for educators to go see the controversial education documentary, Waiting for Superman, in hope that the film will motivate them to become more vocal. Maybe I need to reconsider my stance since there are now a plethora of reports/articles/op-eds praising and especially criticizing the film that are accessible online; just Google for it. In addition, in seeing the movie, who are we really supporting?
The judgment is out there. Now the public is choosing sides. Nevertheless, while many teachers, like myself, have been writing and blogging about the film, our efforts failed to make a huge impact on the public perception. So, I was delighted and well-pleased in stumbling across this video of a group of Bay Area teachers protesting this movie and expressing their personal feelings on how this film has affected our profession:
Although they were small in numbers, to me, it was a first of teachers activism against this movie. This is a precedent for something that is sorely needed to bring about REAL reform in education. We cannot afford to be complacent and entertain derision. We cannot just wait until election time. We cannot always depend on union leadership. We cannot just write only when it likely fall on deaf ears. We need to act now. Go to the school board meetings. Participate in organized, yet peaceful protests. Become members of your professional organizations -- unions. Solicit support from and create alliances with others who support public schools. Stay abreast on the current debate in education reform. Get the word out. Vote.
Also, if you are involved in the teachers unions, hold your union leaders accountable. And if they are not doing their jobs YOU paid for them to do, then remove them from office. Consider what happened in the recent election of officials in the Chicago Teachers Union when a group of rank-and-file members overcame a huge political wall to take over the leadership of the 3rd largest local teacher union in America. These members refused to compromise their principles, as educators and due-paying members, to be a part of the "business-as-usual" get along gang within their union. Quite frankly, it is a shame this had to happen in the first place. But that's what happen when cronyism and other forms of political enticements infiltrate into the union leadership, which cause those in charge to forget who they are SUPPOSED to be representing...it's time to get off my soapbox now.
I know there are stories of teachers being vocal and active in protest that go unnoticed. I have participated in many of these before during my teaching career. Yet, personally, I prefer to "show" than "tell". Right now, it is surely getting to the point for us teachers to "show" the ed deformers and politicians to take us seriously. Last week, SocialistWorker.org posted an article advocating for more activism from the labor workers by highlighting the current French working-class protest against changes in their pension plans imposed by the government. Perhaps, there are lessons to be learned from the "little people" in France.
Whatever the case may be, something DEFINITELY must be done. It has to start with us...but when? When enough is enough? I pray it won't be until AFTER the damage has been done. By then, it will be too late.
PS: If you haven't done so already, I strongly recommend that every educator and supporter of public schools read this best-selling book by renowned education historian/pro-public education advocate, Diane Ravitch. While I am still reading the book, what I've encountered so far is so informative, yet remarkable.
While doing online research for an unrelated topic for my blog, I stumbled across an episode of the acclaimed daily news program, Democracy Now!. Entitled "Educators Push Back Against Obama's 'Business Model' for School Reforms", host journalist Juan Gonzalez spoke with Karen Lewis, president of the Chicago Teachers Union, and Lois Weiner, professor of education at New Jersey City University, to discuss various issues related to the current education reform movement in America. While there is the embedded HTML code for the episode video clip on the Democracy Now! website, I opted to use the episode video clips posted on You Tube, since they are divided into two segments. Although I will focus on selected parts of the interview, I strongly encourage everyone to view it in its entirety. In the first segment of the interview...
...this is what grab my attention the most:
JUAN GONZALEZ: But now, what’s wrong? The supporters of Arne Duncan, superintendents like Michelle Rhee in Washington, DC, Joel Klein in New York City, and others around the country, are saying, what’s wrong with having higher accountability standards for teachers? What’s wrong with encouraging experimentation and entrepreneurship, in terms of how you deliver public education to the millions of children who so far have not been served by the public education system? So what’s wrong with that?
KAREN LEWIS: Well, the problem is that the whole idea of the business model doesn’t work in education. In the business model, you can select how you want to do something. You have an opportunity to innovate in a way that discriminates. It’s very easy to do. Whereas in a public school system, where we do not select our children—we take whoever comes to the door—what we need is actually more resources and more support for the people that are there and the work that’s being done...
In the second segment of the interview...
...these are what struck me the most:
JUAN GONZALEZ: You’ve also taken a look at the impact of No Child Left Behind on teachers. Could you talk about that?
LOIS WEINER: Well, I think it’s important to understand that there are—No Child Left Behind is part of this global project to deprofessionalize teaching as an occupation. And the reason that it’s important in this project to deprofessionalize teaching is that the thinking is that the biggest expenditure in education is teacher salaries. And they want to cut costs. They want to diminish the amount of money that’s put into public education. And that means they have to lower teacher costs. And in order to do that, they have to deprofessionalize teaching. They have to make it a revolving door, in which we’re not going to pay teachers very much. They’re not going to stay very long. We’re going to credential them really fast. They’re going to go in. We’re going to burn them up. They’re going to leave in three, four, five years. And that’s the model that they want.
So who is the biggest impediment to that occurring? Teachers’ unions. And that is what explains this massive propaganda effort to say that teachers’ unions are an impediment to reform. And in fact, they are an impediment to the deprofessionalization of teaching, which I think is a disaster. It’s a disaster for public education.
...
LOIS WEINER: Well, that’s part of the—you know, that’s part of the thinking here, that teaching really is not—does not have to be a skilled profession, because we’re not going to teach—we’re not going to educate kids to do anything more than work in Wal-Mart or the equivalent. They only need a seventh or an eighth grade education, at most a ninth grade education, and so we don’t need teachers who are more than, as Grover Whitehurst, a former Undersecretary of Education, said, "good enough." That’s all we need is teachers who are "good enough" to follow scripted curriculum and to teach to these standardized tests. And if you only need teachers who are good enough, you don’t have to pay them very much. And that’s the project...
While Ms. Lewis emphasizes some key criticisms of the education reform rhetoric spewed by the ed deformers, it was the commentary by Professor Weiner that opened my eyes to this game the ed deformers are playing. To the ed deformers, all of this is a systemic ploy to dumb down the future workforce to become more docile and less high-skilled, as well as to deprofessionalize the teaching profession. I think Professor Weiner conveys this better than anyone else I have heard. And I believe she is absolutely correct.
How is teaching becoming more deprofessionalized?
In my Master's thesis, I examined how NCLB affect the teacher workforce. (Mind you that I completed my degree over a year before the current ed deformers' propaganda got into gear.) According to its HQT criteria, all public school teachers must be certified by the state, as well as attain an undergraduate degree and pass content assessment. However, that is not the case for charter school teachers; in fact, a large percentage of teachers in a charter school are not mandated in many states to be certified. Nevertheless, every public and charter school teacher must meet the HQT criteria. In retrospect, NCLB is more concerned with teachers who are more knowledgeable in their content area than in pedagogical skills.
Educator Julia Stein shared her experiences as a charter school English teacher and described how the administrators at this particular (and probably other) charter school as fast-tracking kids, as young as in the 10th grade, in these college-level courses which they are not prepared for. In addition, she expressed her unfavorable views of teaching English classes with more focus on grammar and less exposure to a variety of literature
According to the EPIC/EPRU, Miron/Applegate, and Vanderbilt studies, teacher attrition (moving to another school or leaving the profession) is as nearly twice as high in charter schools than in traditional public schools. In an article where I discovered the former study, one of the commentors, D. Jones, shared her expertise on the matter: I am a charter school survivor. I taught two and half years at two different charter schools and survived low pay, bounced paychecks, no pay, no running water when the school didn't pay the water bill, no personal leave time -- even to go to the doctor when sick, and many other things that public school teachers never (usually) have to contend with. Rather than leave the profession, I found a good public school district which I have now been at for 3 years. Charter schools are a training ground -- nothing more. Good teachers who love the profession should move along into the public schools and consider their charter school time a good learning experience in how NOT to do things.
In a more recent study on teacher attrition by Vanderbilt University, dissatisfaction with working conditions was cited as the primary reason for teacher attrition among charter school teachers. plus, the rate of involuntary attrition (termination) was significantly higher among charter school teachers than their traditional counterparts. Another study on teacher attrition conducted in Wisconsin's schools, which is more biased toward ed deformers, cited lack of job security and demanding workload as the primary reasons for higher attrition rates among charter school teachers.
Due to the current economic woes around the country, state budget cuts in education has not only affected public school teachers, but also charter school teachers as well. For example, see what happened to the teachers in Oklahoma:
Not even the current stimulus package from the feds can rescue charter school teachers.
One of the perks of charter schools is having a non-unionized personnel. However, there is an increasing number of charter schools nationwide where their teachers have unionized, including in areas like NYC and Chicago.
Throughout the country there are widespread cases of charter school executives and managers committing corruption, fraud, and profiteering of school funding, which some of it comes from taxpayers. It is also worthy to note many of these executives and managers are paid salaries much higher than superintendents and principals in public school systems.
There is no instructional leadership or real, holistic learning taken place in many of these charter schools. Instead, there is this "supervisor-subordinate" dynamic among a college-educated workforce; streamlined process of student learning that many students may not be prepared to handle; and an organizational culture where the "bosses" sit on top and are being paid nicely while the "peasants" work harder and are paid less. Of course, the ed deformers wants to portray teachers and teachers unions as being "greedy", "selfish", and "irresponsible"; they wish not to share their dirty little secret that who they are ACTUALLY describing are themselves. Oh the irony!
No professional, including many of these same ed deformers, wouldn't be who they are if it weren't for another set of professionals -- teachers. Educating children is not contingent on content mastery alone, but also pedagogical skills in understanding how children learn. That's the art of teaching. Learning is too complex for standardization. Yet, those who embrace the "business model" of schooling don't have a clue; for the people they claimed to fight for a good education will be hurt by this movement the most...our children.
UPDATE: Directly from Shanker Blog this morning comes a simple concern addressed to ed deformers: Do you REALLY think the teacher supply in the future is "deep" enough to withstand voluntary or involuntary attrition in schools, especially charter schools? I DON'T THINK SO!
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. ~ Adolf Hitler
Recently, I stumbled across and started following several education blogs, including Failing Schools. In one of its recent blog entries, one of Failing Schools' bloggers discussed the real disparities in school choice for NYC's disadvantaged families i.e., poverty-stricken and/or predominately-minority communities. For many of these families, they either have to settle for mediocre school options or send their children back to public schools. In addition, as in the case in NYC, many communities are shunned out of the school choice process; the choice is made for them, not the other way around! I always thought a choice was a voluntary act! The video clip below sheds some light on the dilemma with charter schools in NYC:
Also, education historian Diane Ravitch exposed a noteworthy flaw in one of the charter schools profiled in the film, Waiting for Superman. SEED Charter School in DC is praised and celebrated in the movie for its high graduation rates. However, there lies a serious attrition problem there as a beginning cohort of 7th graders dwindled in number upon their senior year at the school. So what happen to the others in the cohort who couldn't make it at SEED? Need I say more?
Back in NYC, one of its well-known charter schools, Success Academy/Success Charter Network, is looking to expand into the Upper West Side. With most of its charter schools located in Harlem, Success Academy founder Eva Moskowitz wants to offer "school choice" options to affluent families as well. Despite the resistance Moskowitz is facing from parents and community leaders, she is planning to move ahead as scheduled, although the charter hasn't been approved yet. Overconfident? Indeed! The former city councilwoman has enhanced her political clout since the founding of her successful charter schools and due to her political and financial connections within the Success Academy's board of trustees, as noted in this scathing article detailing the politics and big business implications of charter school operations.
As emotionally moving the lottery scenes were in Waiting for Superman, I was irked by them. Not only were the families treated as potential charity cases, but also these families are really not given a choice. Their hope for a better education depends on luck, not choice; the only thing they choose is whether or not to enter their children into these lotteries for admission into these charter schools. Plus with the greater latitude charter school organizations have for expansion and deregulation due to its powerful bipartisan support base and growing popularity, families trying to "get in where they fit in" will have to endure more disappointments ahead. They shouldn't have to try to get a better education for their children; the options should be available for their choosing. Unfortunately, charter schools are becoming like a big tease to these families; they look good, sound good, but the road to get in and stay in is far from good. Yet, it doesn't matter to those in charge; one way or another, they will maintain the support and get the money, at the expense of the misguided hope of the disenfranchised.
Disclaimer: Due to some technical problems causing the sudden erasure of half my initial blog entry on this topic, while editing it this morning, here is the new and revised blog entry below. Enjoy...
A few days ago, via Facebook, I came across this article written by renowned education historian, Diane Ravitch. In an eloquent, yet detailed manner, she gave a critical analysis of the movie, Waiting For Superman, challenging misconceptions about public and charter schools, as well as false information being dubbed as factual. Perhaps what grabbed my attention the most is what she stated about origins of charter schools:
The film never acknowledges that charter schools were created mainly at the instigation of Albert Shanker, the president of the American Federation of Teachers from 1974 to 1997. Shanker had the idea in 1988 that a group of public school teachers would ask their colleagues for permission to create a small school that would focus on the neediest students, those who had dropped out and those who were disengaged from school and likely to drop out. He sold the idea as a way to open schools that would collaborate with public schools and help motivate disengaged students. In 1993, Shanker turned against the charter school idea when he realized that for-profit organizations saw it as a business opportunity and were advancing an agenda of school privatization. Michelle Rhee gained her teaching experience in Baltimore as an employee of Education Alternatives, Inc., one of the first of the for-profit operations.
WHAT? WAIT! I DIDN'T KNOW THAT!
Albert Shanker
Of course, I have heard of the late great Al Shanker (biography), the legendary president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the second largest teachers union in America. But I didn't know this. Wow! Elated, I was inspired to inquire more about Shanker's role in the formation of charter schools...and it was a personal lesson learned for me
Dr. Ray Budde
From my research, I discovered several things. First, Shanker didn't first come up with the idea of charter schools; it was originated by the late Dr. Ray Budde (biography), a former teacher, principal, and education professor in Massachusetts. As a teacher, Shanker had serious issues with school administration who were giving young teachers a difficult time; hence, these teachers' passions were being destroyed. After stumbling across Budde's idea of public schools being freed from state and local bureaucracies and basically run by unionized teachers, Shanker, as AFT President, began sharing Budde's idea publicly, first in the spring of 1988 at the National Press Club.
Shortly after, educator reformers in Minnesota sought Shanker in helping with the establishment and implementation of charter schools. In fact, Minnesota became the first state to pass a charter school law in 1991, paving the way for now 40 others states, including Puerto Rico and District of Columbia, to pass similar laws. However, these reformers altered the original intent of charter schools to foster competition with public schools, utilize a more business-like operational approach, and remove not only LEA control, but also collective bargaining ties by the teachers unions. It was then that Shanker began to change his position and advocate against every charter schools idea that didn't include collective bargaining initiatives. Even today, years after Shanker's death in 1997, teachers unions are vehemently against the current charter school movement.
Thus, the idea of charter schools evolved...
...from Budde's idea:
Ray Budde's proposal was actually for a restructuring of the district: for moving from "a four-level line and staff organization" to "a two-level form in which groups of teachers would receive educational charters directly from the school board" and would carry the responsibility for instruction. It dealt with existing schools. It was the concept that Paul Hill later called the 'contract district'; that the Education Commission of the States later termed the ‘all-charter district'.~ From Ray Budde and the origin of the "charter concept" by T. Kolderie
...and Shanker's input:
Shanker expanded on [Budde's] idea by proposing that teachers start schools new(though within existing school buildings). But like Budde, Shanker simply put his idea out there; did not move to implement it.
In his writing and speeches, Shanker outlined a system where educators would have greater autonomy to develop an innovative school proposal and receive a "charter" from an official government body to implement the plan. Regulations that stood in the way of the proposal would be waived, and the school would control its budget. It would be a publicly funded and non-discriminatory school of choice, where parents would choose to send their children and where teachers would choose to work. Periodic evaluations would ascertain if pre-determined goals were met and if the charter should be extended (Shanker, July 1988). This proposed "autonomy for accountability" arrangement was nothing less than the working definition of a charter school, some form of which now exists in 40 states. ~ From The Grinding Battle with Circumstance: Charter Schools and the Potential of School-Based Collective Bargaining by J. Gyruko ... to the current charter school movement:
But charters only took off because others radicalized the charter concept Budde had devised. Reading Shanker’s column, Joe Nathan and Ted Kolderie, at work on educational reform in Minnesota, saw potential in the charter idea. Delighted that the powerful Al Shanker had given it his blessing, they invited him to the Twin Cities to help peddle it to Governor Rudy Perpich and the state’s legislature. But as they worked on the legislation that was eventually passed in 1991, Nathan and Kolderie fundamentally altered the charter concept. According to the Budde model, charters were to be authorized by school districts and run by teachers. Central office administrators were to be pushed aside, but charter schools would still operate within collective bargaining arrangements negotiated between districts and unions. Nathan and Kolderie instead proposed that schools be authorized by statewide agencies that were separate and apart from local district control. That opened charter doors not only to teachers but also to outside entrepreneurs. Competition between charters and districts was to be encouraged. All of a sudden, charter schools were free of the constraints imposed by collective bargaining contracts districts negotiated with unions. At this point, Shanker signed off, calling charters a “gimmick,” and teacher unions ever since have done their best to slow the movement down, insisting that charters be authorized only if local districts agree, as well as burdening charters with numerous regulations, including a requirement that they be subject to collective bargaining. For Shanker and his heirs, the collective bargaining agreement always came first. ~ From No, Al Shanker Did Not Invent The Charter School by P. Peterson
While never abandoning collective bargaining, it is noteworthy to note that Shanker advocated for increased professionalism in the classroom by pushing for similar agendas that so-called experts are demanding for today, including
National board certification for teachers
High academic standards for all students
Accountability for results
Peer review among teachers
Minimum competency tests for new teachers
Team approach in school organization and management
Cooperative learning
Individualized and participatory instruction
Use of technology
Focus on other professional issues
Even today, years after Shanker's death in 1997, teachers unions are fighting for not only better working conditions and labor relations for its members, but also for better professional opportunities to improve in their craft.
One of the famous quotes by Shanker is this: When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children. This may sound condescending, but he was doing his job by representing the interests of those who paid his salary...the teachers and other school personnel. However, I am a firm believer that if school and district administrators would fully support and encourage their teachers the best way they can, then the teachers will give their best to their students. It would be a win-win situation. Unfortunately that is not the case. Therefore, while teacher unions are not perfect, we teachers need them to protect us and provide us with a professional voice.
UPDATE: I just came across an interesting blog entry by Queens Teacher detailing how well-known charter schools in NYC are funded. All the donors hail from, you guess it...WALL STREET! This is further proof that the education reform propaganda being pushed by, as the blogger described as "ed deformers", is about money and making more money and not about the kids.
