Wednesday, Thursday, Friday!

I learned that from my colleague here at the Teaching Underground.  I think people use the initials of those three words as an exclamation to express surprise, confusion, or perplexity... is that a word, if not, I want credit if you use it from now on.  So what are my Wednesday, Thursday, Friday moments from this week?

First, it's Mitt Romney.  Here's what he told Brian Williams at NBC's Education Nation:

I believe that we simply -- we simply can't have a setting where the teachers' unions are able to contribute tens of millions of dollars to the campaigns of politicians and then those politicians, when elected, stand across from them at the bargaining table, supposedly to represent the interest of the kids. I think it's a mistake.

I think we've got to get the money out of the teachers' unions going into campaigns. It's the wrong way for us to go. We have got to separate that.

Get the money out of the teachers' unions going into campaigns?  Never mind the money coming from Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Phillip Morris, or even PEARSON!  They don't use their money to exercise influence over the decisions of politicians.  And they count as people anyway since they're incorporated.  It's the money pouring in from the overpaid teachers that flooding our political system with graft.

Seriously, I hate to be immature, but this is stupid.  You're going to call out the teachers' unions for having too much influence and suggest their ability to contribute to campaigns be limited.  Maybe there's a better place to start if you want to remove the influence of money from education.

Romney also said:


So I reject the idea that everybody has to have a, if you will, a Harvard expense level degree in order to be successful. I find a lot of people have degrees from a lot of different places, public and private, that are highly successful.

He referenced Geoffrey Canada frequently in his speech and q&a session.  I attended a talk by Canada last year in D.C. where he said as a general rule of thumb, when you don't know what to do in education, "do what the rich people do?"  Romney was referring to the $38,000/year tuition at his former high school.  So, if money doesn't matter, why do rich people spend so much on education?  They're not rich because they waste money, apparently they understand it's value more than most.  So why do they insist on spending a high dollar amount to educate their own children?    Why doesn't the market bring this cost down, or do they just send their kids to keep them away from the riff raff one finds in public education.

Speaking of money, I've addressed my W,T, so here's my F.  One of our local teachers, Michael Farabaugh qualified for Jeopardy.  I'm a little bitter, because I made it to round two with him several years ago when the "Clue Crew" came to Charlottesville.  Neither of us made it to round three, but apparently he persisted while I gave up and helped start this little blog.  He'll be flying to California soon for taping.  Pretty cool achievement wouldn't you say?  Apparently not everyone thinks so.  Here's a link to the news story, but the comments are priceless.  Here's a sampling if you're not motivated to click the link provided to read them for yourself:

-What a shocker! Instead of actually doing what he is paid to do and that is teach, he is going off to try to get even more money, probably during school hours that he is being paid for! Greed! Greed! Greed! That is all we get from teachers! Certainly not results! 

-Are the taxpayers paying for substitute teachers so that these freeloaders can go win money on gameshows instead of doing their jobs?!?!?!?!?

No wonder the kids are as stupid as dead roaches! 

-They should dock his pay an amount equal to his winnings if he is getting paid to teach but is not doing it. 

-It is hard to have a positive impact on students when you cannot even be bothered to show up for your classes you are being paid to teach! I am paying his salary and I say fine him or fire him! 

For what it's worth, congratulations Mr. Farabaugh.  We know you've served your students and this community well and wish you the best on Jeopardy.

As for the comments, all I can say is Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.

And to preempt any inevitable conservative backlash, be patient, we'll take a few jabs at President Obama and Arne Duncan in the near future.

Was Obama Right?

I can't speak for the other half of the Teaching Underground (but I'm guessing he agrees), but I am not a fan of the Presidents education policy. The democratic platform's comments on education in general are not very appealing either. Without a Republican plan for education that looks any better, it looks like education may be in for another tough four years regardless of the election.

I used to think that the President didn't matter to public education in America. After all, state and local governments oversee the education of children. But, unless I didn't know any better before the mid-90's it looks like that balance began to shift under the Clinton administration and certainly tipped during the Bush years to the point where today, what the President says (or perhaps more importantly, who he appoints) makes a significant difference in the way we do public education in the fifty states. We've gotten used to the rhetoric.

Obama says repeatedly that we shouldn't over test our children, yet still creates and enforces policy that drives the testing craze. The Administration's words speak highly of public education and educators, but actions increasingly follow the path of corporate reform instead of educator initiated improvements. I know that the words don't always reflect the reality, but one single sentence uttered last night by the President made me think that on some level he gets it:  

Government has a role in this. But teachers must inspire; principals must lead; parents must instill a thirst for learning, and students, you’ve got to do the work.

1) Government has a role- we can't continue to short-change education under the guise that we're throwing money at a failing system.  We can't deny the responsibility, the "rightness" of government to provide for the education of our children and the long term benefits of this investment for our nation.  But Government has a role, and especially the federal government should take care to ensure that states and districts are adequately providing education without encumbering them with excessive regulations that may not apply across the board.

2) Teachers- to inspire must be inspired.  We've heard enough empty thanks and platitudes of how important we are.  It's not just about money, but we are more than a pool of workers.  Evaluation methods should be fair, we need to stop inflating the idea of "bad teachers" ruining education, and teachers need more influence and input in policy and decision-making.

3) Parents- this thirst for learning will look different for different families.  This is the part where government may play a larger role.  I do a good job of working with kids, but add responsibilities with parents and my job gets tougher.  I can't do the job of a parent and I can't make parents do their job.  I'm not talking about laws and punishments.  Most parents are doing exactly what they need to.  Opening schools and creating access often just makes active parents more active.  We need to figure out the best ways to engage the unengaged and that solution might not be found within the wall of the school.

4) Students- do the work.  We need to hear this more often from our leaders.  I take responsibility for the job I do, but I can't take 100% responsibility for the performance of others.  I teach students, I don't "learn" them.  Learning is what you do yourself and what I learn is my responsibility.  Until student responsibility re-enters the national narrative on how to improve schools, schools will not improve. 

Last night Obama set forth a pretty decent rhetorical formula with these words.  I only wish it could translate into effective and reasonable policy.  Unfortunately, based on the record of the last four years, I don't have much hope in that.

Reform: For Our Kids...right?

Can anyone oppose what's "good for kids?"

While perusing the Interweb the other day, wading past the funny cat videos, I stumbled onto an interesting article dealing with the word "reform".


 Reform Is Not a Dirty Word:  The real meaning of school reform by Kayla McGannon.  This commentary posted by the Interim Executive Director of Stand for Children Colorado, dealt with the the recent election of the Denver school board and its larger implications.  A year ago I'd have commended this organization for their efforts to make things better but now I am more reserved about whether what they are advocating actually makes things better.  I am also more than a little confused about the title of the article and what this organization really does or who they are. 


As a product of the pre-reform failing public schools, I dug deeper.  Constantly frustrated by special interest veils and networks of vagueness it can be tough to tell what people or groups support.   A brief peek at their Board of Directors and I started to get a more complete picture.   I digress as this post is not about that group, corporate involvement in education or seemingly anything at this point. Back to the article. 


The title seems to lead one to conclude that there are only 2 groups of people out there. "Those who support positive change or "reform" in our schools, and those who oppose such measures in favor of the status quo.  The staus quo is unacceptable by the way.  This group endorsed 3 candidates and I question what that term reformer actually means. 


Later we are introduced to the idea that there is a third group emerging.  The "posers" who claim to be reformers and use phrases like "real reform".  Huh?  In the end 2 of the 3 candidates the group supported won election.  The campaign message seemed to be "for our kids"  or "what's best for kids."   Lacking an enumerated list of what reforms this might involve it is hard to disagree.  Any effort proposed to "fix" the problems linked to the idea of what's best for kids gains traction quickly.  Maybe too quickly.  


The article later sought to bring us all together "After all, if we are all reformers, we are all accountable for the quality of our public schools." A laudable goal but one that is rarely achieved in the divisive environment of reform.  I was more than a bit disappointed in that I only found common buzz words in the campaign messages.  Likely the outgrowth of a focus group meeting to identify phrases that garner support.   I am coming to feel this approach is reshaping our educational landscape in a way that is not beneficial.   That is not rhetoric without forethought.  You can read the article for yourself but I am increasingly wary of who and what is really driving change. 

So where is momentum driving reform originating?  From the people close to the schools affected by them every day who don't use these buzz words.  It would be tough to support the idea these people in schools are not for kids.  Or is the push from someone else working for foundations that have an agenda?   Normally it is the diversity of opinion on these complex issues that eventually bear real fruit.  It is difficult to hear much diverse opinion from many powerful reformers. In fact it is alarmingly uniform.  Any concern expressed about change overshadowed by well crafted "for the kids" language.

Before you bite an Apple, know where it comes from

After searching for more information on the Stand group I came across their publications page.  Even a cursory review led me to some conclusions that seem common when finding things about education online.   There is an agenda out there and a great deal of effort to bring more and more people on board with that agenda.  Nothing wrong with that I suppose.  But there is if you disagree with that agenda and don't feel it is actually best for all kids, schools, parents, teachers, our economy, education or America as a whole.  Further if that agenda includes an effort to suppress dissent.  The online comments following the article were polemical but also very also interesting.  Here are a few samples: 


Isn't Stand for Children a front for corporate "education reform" which is in the process of destroying America's public education system?........ Colorado "reform" is a great example of the damage Eli Broad and Bill Gates are doing and Stand for Children is an example of how their billions are being employed to take away local control.
 --------------
You're article reads like an extended propaganda piece with a transparent agenda that in no way actually benefits children. In fact, after reading your blog, I was amazed and appalled at how blithely you could recount as reforms the measures that are clearly contra most of the research. I pity the children and their teachers who work in your state.
 ------------
I agree that the word "reform" has been tainted. A word which once meant bettering education for children has now been warped into attacking teachers through faulty evaluations and then punishing and firing them in a blatant attempt to weaken their unions. It has become the worship of meaningless test scores. It is now the cold pursuit of failure in order to close neighborhood schools thus privatizing education and allowing the takeover of public institutions by corporate interests.REAL reform has to do with equity in funding and services, a well-trained and experienced teaching force, the autonomy and freedom for teachers to use progressive non test-prep practices, and the desire to address the gross inequalities and devastating effects of poverty we allow children to grow up in. Real reform addresses children and the people who work with them in humane, supportive ways.
I am sick of having to write the word "reform" in quotes. I want my language back.
Your organization stands for greed, not children. So please sit down.
-------------
As a parent with a child in a public school, and a former member and local leader of a Stand for Children chapter, I never imagined that "ed reform" would be a dirty word.
Later, when Stand for Children had begun receiving huge donations from corporate funders and foundations, and had turned away from grass roots work, reform had less and less to do with the problems I wanted to see addressed in my daughter's school (primarily lack of resources).
Now, when I hear groups like Stand for Children speak of "reform", I hear an ideologically coded message promoting privitization of public education. Here reform has little to do with evidence or feasibility, and nothing to do with my own schools' needs--Stand's reform exploits and cultivates the prevailing loss of confidence in and cynicism towards public institutions, and self-governance.
Stand's "reform" is a dirty word indeed. 
------------ 


So is all this what's best for kids?  It would be nice to be included in that conversation.  I'll close with is quote from the article:"Long into the future, no one will remember who supported which policy. What they will remember is whether those policies actually made a difference. "   I would simply point out that there are a frighteningly small number of actual educators who support these reforms.  That ought to mean something and maybe provide some insight into what is best for kids.


 Sometimes it takes someone more articulate than yourself to make a point. 
In the current national discussion about education reform, the loudest voices are not necessarily those of the people who are directly affected by what happens in our schools – the students, parents, teachers and school communities themselves.

What Republicans Think About Education

Thursday night's Republican Presidential Debate included a question about education.  Candidates were given thirty seconds each to respond. (Does that say something about the value of education?)  We've included the question below, candidate responses, and a brief commentary from the Teaching Underground for each.  Enjoy.

QUESTION: I've taught in both public and private schools, and now as a substitute teacher I see administrators more focused on satisfying federal mandates, retaining funding, trying not to get sued, while the teachers are jumping through hoops trying to serve up a one-size-fits-all education for their students. What as president would you seriously do about what I consider a massive overreach of big government into the classroom? Thank you.



FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON, R-N.M.: I'm promising to submit a balanced budget to Congress in the year 2013. That's a 43 percent reduction in federal spending.

I am going to promise to advocate the abolishment of the federal Department of Education.

The federal Department of Education gives each state 11 cents out of every dollar that every state spends, but it comes with 16 cents worth of strings attached. So what America does not understand is that it's a negative to take federal money. Give it to 50 laboratories of innovation, the states, to improve on, and that's what we'll see:

dramatic improvement.

Abolish the Federal Department of Education?  That sounds pretty Anti-Education to many folks, but maybe not.  If Johnson is right, it's costing more than it's worth.

FORMER SEN. RICK SANTORUM, R-PA.: Yeah, 20 years ago, the federal contribution to education was 3 percent. It's now at 11 percent, and our schools are doing worse, and it's exactly what Gary Johnson just said. It's because the federal government's meddling.

The bottom-line problem with education is that the education system doesn't serve the customer of the education system. And who's the customer? The parents, because it's the parents' responsibility to educate the children.

It's been that responsibility -- from the moment they were born, they began the education of their children. And at some point, we have-- the government has convinced parents that at some point it's no longer their responsibility. And in fact, they force them, in many respects, to turn their children over to the public education system and wrest control from them and block them out of participation of that.

That has to change or education will not improve in this country.

I can't say that I totally disagree, but we have a public trust.  Sometimes parents will not live up to their responsibility and with this attitude I fear the children suffer.  How do we adjust education to make sure we're responsive to parents?  I must say, I don't think the feds can do much for us there.

FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, NEWT GINGRICH: I think you need very profound reform of education at the state level. You need to dramatically shrink the federal Department of Education, get rid of virtually all of its regulations.

And the truth is, I believe we'd be far better off if most states adopted a program of the equivalent of Pell Grants for K-through-12, so that parents could choose where their child went to school, whether it was public, or private, or home-schooling, and parents could be involved. Florida has a virtual school program that is worth the entire country studying as an example.

I'm always a little leery of the baggage associated with vouchers and choice talk.  And technology should facilitate education, but this virtual school example sounds too much like technology as a solution to education problems.

REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: If you care about your children, you'll get the federal government out of the business of educating our kids.

In 1980, when the Republican Party ran, part of the platform was to get rid of the Department of Education. By the year 2000, it was eliminated, and we fed on to it. Then (inaudible) Republicans added No Child Left Behind.

So the first thing a president should do is -- the goal should be set to get the government out completely, but don't enforce this law of No Child Left Behind. It's not going to do any good, and nobody likes it. And there's no value to it. The teachers don't like it, and the students don't like it.

But there are other things that the federal government can do, and that is give tax credits for the people who will opt out. We ought to have a right to opt out of the public system if you want.

O.k. Ron, I'm with you on decreasing federal involvement, but you lost me at "business of education."  It's not a business, and we need some form of government guarantee of access to education.

GOV. RICK PERRY, R-TEXAS: There are a lot of good ideas here on the side and whether it is cutting back on the Department of Education, making those types of reductions.

I happen to believe we ought to be promoting school choice all across this country. I think school -- the voucher system, charter schools all across this country. But there is one person on this stage that is for Obama's Race to the Top and that is Governor Romney. He said so just this last week. And I think that is an important difference between the rest of the people on this stage and one person that wants to run for the presidency.

Being in favor of the Obama Race to the Top and that is not conservative.

Tell us what you think about education Mr. Perry, not your opponents.  I'll slam Race to the Top right along with you, but you need to tell us more about what you're for than what you're against.  Once again, the voucher and choice talk can mean many things, and too often on this side of the isle it means harm to public education.

FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY, R-MASS.: Nice try.

Let me tell you what I think I would do.

One, education has to be held at the local and state level, not at the federal level. We need get the federal government out of education. And secondly, all the talk about we need smaller classroom size, look that's promoted by the teachers unions to hire more teachers. We looked at what drives good education in our state, what we found is the best thing for education is great teachers, hire the very best and brightest to be teachers, pay them properly, make sure that you have school choice, test your kids to see if they are meeting the standards that need to be met, and make sure that you put the parents in charge.

And as president I will stand up to the National Teachers Unions.

You're dead on about state and local control Mitt, but you've fallen for the teacher union myth.  Do you really think that a group of average income teachers paying dues to a union has more clout than the multi-million dollar multi-national corporations like Pearson and Rupert Murdoch's educational ventures.  I want a president who will encourage governors to work with Teacher's Unions (who represent the folks who deal with students day in and day out) and stand up to the corporate interests who are driving school reform today.

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, R-MINN.: We need that to do with education what has always worked historically, and that's local control with parents. What doesn't work is what we see happen right now.

I'm a mom five biological kids. We've raised 23 foster children in our home. The reason why I got involved in politics was because of the concern I had about our foster children and the education they were getting. What I would do as president of the United States is pass the mother of all repeal bills on education. I would take the entire federal education law, repeal it. Then I would go over to the Department of Education, I'd turn off the lights, I would lock the door and I would send all the money back to the states and localities.

Maybe not a bad idea, but again, we do need a government to at least guarantee that localities and states are living up to their responsibility to educate the children of America.

HERMAN CAIN, BUSINESSMAN: A lot of good ideas, I won't repeat them.

All of the programs at the federal level where there's strings attached, cut all the strings. We have got to encourage parents to take advantage of choices, but provide those choices and we must find ways to empower the students. This is how we are going to improve education, but primarily get the federal government out of trying to educate our kids at the local level.

Sounds great to me.  I'd like to know more specifics.

FORMER GOVERNOR JON HUNTSMAN, R-UTAH : This is a key question, because it has so much to do with our nation's competitiveness. I feel like I've run my own clinical trial in my home, raising seven kids. We've seen every option. We've experienced everything out there. But as governor I learned some important things. I signed the first -- or the second voucher bill in the United States, Carson-Smith. I've actually done something about this.

We actually worked on early childhood literacy. If you can lock in the pillars of cognitive development around reading and math before age six, you are giving those kids the best gift possible as they then proceed through education.

Finally, you've got to say no to unfunded mandates coming out of Washington. They are totally unacceptable. No one loves their schools more than parents and local school boards, and local elected officials.

Again, not sure about vouchers, but kill the unfunded mandate.

There you have it folks.  The republican take on education in thirty seconds or less (per candidate).  Here's to informed decision-making and an educated electorate.

(thanks to Fox News for transcript details from the debate)