Climate Change: Fact or Fiction?

"a state of dynamic equilibrium within a community of organisms in which genetic, species and ecosystem diversity remain relatively stable, subject to gradual changes through natural succession"

That is the definition of "ecological balance".  Words like stability, gradual change and natural seem to carry the most weight in that sentence for me.  Metaphorically maybe that is what I loved about teaching when I first started.  Survival, just like in the nature, was no easy task.  But if nothing else my environment was stable and predictable(Though I must admit that the opposite was sometimes true of my students).  I gradually got better based on what worked and what didn't. So in reflecting on the past few years, my toughest years teaching, something seems different.  There was no radical shift or change.  But what I am now acutely aware of is the change in culture and climate in schools.  To me, climate change is very real. 

I am of course talking about the climate of reform in our schools.  The National School Climate Center explains the following:

A sustainable, positive school climate fosters youth development and learning necessary for a productive, contributing and satisfying life in a democratic society. This climate includes:

• Norms, values and expectations that support people feeling socially, emotionally and physically safe.
• People are engaged and respected.
• Students, families and educators work together to develop, live and contribute to a shared school vision.
• Educators model and nurture attitudes that emphasize the benefits and satisfaction gained from learning.
• Each person contributes to the operations of the school and the care of the physical environment.

Go back and read those again.  Now a third time.  It seems balanced to me.  Change is a natural part of any environment.   But as an inhabitant of a school, it seems evident to me that some efforts to improve schools for those who learn in them might be coming at the expense of those who work in them and thus to the school itself.   I would assert that any change in order to succeed, must be mutually beneficial.  

In our case as teachers, there must be buy-in and the belief that this can and will work.  As an experienced teacher the "what's best for students"  is a truism that ignores the interplay between the two primary inhabitants of schools, students and teachers.  When I am in a meeting and I hear that phrase to justify a change, I roll my eyes and sometimes it even makes my skin crawl and implies somehow that beneficial actions for students and teachers are mutually exclusive.  It seems to discount the views and insights of all the trained, highly experienced, caring professionals who work directly with students. 

I try my best to do every single day what is best for students. To imply that my actions are otherwise, perhaps motivated by self interest or apathy, is a slap in the face.  Am I perfect ?  No.  But I teach because I am a teacher, not because I need a job.(let that sink in)  Unlike the natural world where everything exists in concert, schools exist for the sole purpose of benefiting students.  But the metaphor is one which I hope remains a powerful one.  You can't have an action that benefits one group without affecting the other. 

Whether it is a conversation about technology, homework load, teacher professional development, multi-age learning spaces, grades, standardized testing or any of the thousands of things we consider as teachers, the quality educators I work with try to do what is best for the student.  Sure there are some that don't live up to that standard.  This would be true of any workplace.  But increasingly there seems to be a movement of a small group of professionals directing things that seem to be disregarding the evidence and not paying much attention to the less overt impacts of change.  The system seems set up to exclude the ground level experts in the field who see every day what is actually going on.  While that could describe the current state of affairs regarding the EPA or our federal approach to climate change, it is a reference to decision makers who don't work directly with students.  The results in both scenarios could negatively affect everyone for a very long time to come.  Climates across the globe vary dramatically and the same is true of the climates within schools across our nation.  Some are farther ahead in the change and others remain unaffected and look much as they did 20 years ago.

Peter DeWitt and Sean Slade suggest leaders reflect on the following when trying to affect positive change in a school climate.

• -How to engage students and school stakeholders.
• -How to empower staff and students and foster autonomy so people take ownership of their ideas and the learning process.
• -How to promote inclusivity and equity throughout the school.
• -How to create a welcoming, cooperative, and safe school environment that nurtures students’ social-emotional needs.

CHANGE

Change is necessary and inevitable.  Any teacher that doesn't change should retire.  But the fact is that it is impossible to be a teacher and not change.  Some change is be expected but ill-informed abrupt and harmful shifts in the way we go about things can be disruptive just as they would be in the natural world.  They throw a delicate system out of balance.  Some suggest that such disruption is a good thing, needed to bring about meaningful improvement and fix a broken system. Perhaps this is the case in some places and aggressive action is needed.  But be wary of those that ignore the very nature of a school and are instead simply applying catchy idioms to fit their well meaning ideas.  I've heard it said that change is a process and not an event.  Those affecting change would be wise to remember that mantra since even things they see as small shifts could have enormous and unforeseen consequences. Any school that doesn't change will become obsolete.  But those schools that focus on positive change and not sustainability might achieve neither.  

Certain species are often bellwethers of the health of an ecosystem.

USGS- the actual "experts" say the Pika is disappearing

 Birds and amphibians reveal the danger in an environment first.  In schools I believe that has always been the experienced teacher.  In the turbulent era of change today it would seem to me that signs and feedback from those individuals is not only too often being ignored but seems unwelcome.  Instead of valuing those insights as an asset and working together, their understanding is seen as an obstacle for change.     Changes that are increasingly driven by factors and elements outside of schools or by what seems fashionable or innovative...not necessarily effective, threaten the very existence of the effective school.  Teachers know this to be true.  Some might say that is not a big deal.  They are wrong.
  
Experienced teachers are one thing but expert teachers are another.  They are what I would liken to keystone species. They are best represented by the stone at the top of an arch that supports the other stones and keeps the whole arch from falling, a species(expert teachers) on which the presence of a large number of other species(schools and students) in an ecosystem depend.  If they are removed then those dependent on it will disappear(bye bye good school).

While it demands a whole series of posts to itself, the rapid shifts in technology is I think doing real damage to our students.  No, strike that, doing damage to our society.To be in any way complicit in this is painful.  But before you dismiss my or any other teacher's concerns ask yourself this: "Why is everyone bemoaning the damaging aspects of technology addiction and yet not changing their own behaviors?"  About the only place where we can control this, is in the schools and doing what is best for students, if you ask a teacher, would often involve less technology, not more.    

Many other shifts I've witnessed I think are actually disruptive and harmful to students.  Real long term damage is done to them and the school where they learn. Potentially permanent damage.  As an example I think one thing young people have lost is the ability to sit quietly.   I asked my students in class the other day, "Where would you go if you wanted somewhere quiet where you could focus?"    They sat...no one answered.  That should be alarming.    In an effort to make things more "engaging" or accommodate those who really do have trouble being still and quiet and need different supports have we neglected things that are needed by all, like quiet?  Things pushed to favor one particular group will result in an unhealthy balance. So these shifts are often driven by groups, individuals or philosophies to help students might actually hurt them.   Developed too far from the actual places being affected to see the gradual effect, not unlike decisions in Washington that affect our nation's environmental future, these climate changes should give us pause as we wonder what their long term impact will be.  

Teachers, just like wild species,  must adapt to survive.   But they also are asked to mitigate the changes when things aren't thought out very well or don't go exactly as planned.  Just think of the impact of many invasive plant and animal species that were introduced with good intent.  That is diifficult to undo.  Teachers can only help so much on ground level and instead we have to address the source before these things are in the environment

The greenhouse gases of education.  

Nature, like a school, if left alone has a unique ability to self regulate.  Change is a constant and a norm.  The problem is that most schools are seeing a gradual but undeniable loss of control.  Whether that is something as simple as what furniture will be purchased, how much work will be assigned or what classes will and will not be taught. Loss of autonomy is a bad thing and a sign of a climate out of balance.  For certain students today enter our climate affected by factors and forces that neither we nor they fully control.  We can try to help with this, but that help has limits and we must confront that sad reality.  We should focus on what we can in fact control.

The conditions that favor one species and may be harmful for another are inextricably linked.  Students, teachers, administrators, parents, even politicians and the public inhabit schools in one form or another.  They all play a role and have an impact on the school climate.  In our efforts to help and sustain one group we must avoid tipping the balance in favor of any of them. 

Schools, like climate change can indeed be understood by scientific processes using data, surveys and other methods.  But if that information is ignored it does no good.  In both education and our environment, we should trust more in  the observations of those "in the field".  Having an honest conversation with someone who has lived on a piece of land their entire lives might reveal more about what is happening in nature than a mountain of research.  An honest two-way conversation with a teacher might indeed be more valuable than all the hand picked research in the world.  Great teaching is an art and great schools are a rarity.  And I feel these are more and more threatened both by unwise action and inaction, with each passing day.   

APWATW (A picture is worth a thousand words)

The Public Good

The narrowing conduit of online information rarely offers much more than amusement or duplicitous thought but on occasion it surprises me with a carefully articulated statement that gives me pause.  Such was the case with something I read back in December.  It contains echoes of what any decent well informed teacher might say.   

While I stumbled across it back in December, I must have at some point thought it useful, as while cleaning out my E-mail drafts this week, there it was.  I had apparently pasted the text there in an effort to reference it later.  It was dated December 17th, three days after the events in Newtown.

The full post was title "The Everyday Heroism of Our Nation's teachers" by Jessie B. Ramey.   I recall thinking differently about the post at the time but the part that gave me pause more than a month later was this exerpt:

"When I look at our public schools, I do not see a security crisis (though surely schools ought to have a security plan and follow it). I do not see a crisis of bad teaching (though we surely ought to be offering “bad” teachers some assistance, and helping others to exit the profession when teaching is not their right life choice). I do not see a crisis of radical teachers or greedy teachers unions.

We surely have a crisis of gun control and mental health services in this country. But the real crisis in public education is about a lost belief in the public good. It’s a crisis of faith in the common good served by our schools. The forces of privatization feed on that lost faith, insisting that we close more neighborhood schools and hand others over to charter management companies, that we introduce more competition and choice, that we hold teachers and schools “accountable” for low student test scores by punishing them. It’s that lost faith that allows legislators to slash education budgets and forces school districts to eliminate music and library programs for our kids. When we stop believing in public education as a public good, we allow our public tax dollars to flow to private schools and giant international corporations while we demand more and more tests without asking if our students are really learning anything.

When I look at our schools, I see teachers heroically trying to teach our students – without the resources they need, with mind-numbing canned curricula and prepping for high-stakes testing forced upon them, in classrooms with ever larger numbers of kids." 

Well said Jessie. 

On my later reading I took her comments a bit out of context.   It affects the message of what the author intended.  But that phrase public good called out to me both times.  The concept of public good seems lost in the debate about education reform(and arguably much else).  Private interests seem to be pushing us to look right past one of the main aspects of our entire education system.  The fact that it is public.  That ought to mean something.

Public schools have grown into one of most important public institutions.  They are a reflection of our local communities and enrich them in countless ways.  The same is true of private and religious schools.  This Public Good is a pillar of democracy.  Public schools, public parks, public libraries, public museums, public hospitals, public colleges, are all struggling to maintain quality as government finances are strained.  

George Mead once said

"To be interested in the public good we must be disinterested, that is, not interested in goods in which our personal selves are wrapped up."  

Adam Smith would disagree.  But surely they'd find common ground on the concept of the mutual benefit to society of certain public institutions.  I don't know that I'd go farther than Mead and say something like teachers don't care about money, but I would strongly suggest that many of the forces driving the dialogue affecting the public good, our schools are motivated by something far from a common good.  Headed by selfish groups, not moral individuals, they see schools as an untapped source of revenue and money.   Even in public/private partnerships they seek to cash in on the declining of support for public goods and substitute their interests for our own.  The growing tide where people seek private alternatives for schools, hospitals and the like is a bad sign.  But our civic institutions should not be for sale.  

Our schools and the public good should not be proprietary.  They are OUR schools after all and no one should own them.  Public monies intended to serve the public good should not be diverted to private entities seeking to benefit from this deterioration.    It is often  appropriate to pay a private company to perform work or provide services that benefit the public.  But privatizing public schools strays far from that.  The practice threatens to degrade one of our most important social institutions in the name of profit.   The social fabrics woven together in a local school are essential for a functioning democracy.    Jumping ship and abandoning the schools in favor of digital substitutes, networked classrooms or corporate managed testing plants is an abrupt and seismic change.  

The combined effort of private profit driven groups and ill-informed reformers are re-shaping the way we prepare our children for the future.  They advocate teaching in a manner that does little for the public and much for themselves.   The Common Core illustrates this point.  Not because the standards are necessarily bad.  But ask where the push is coming from.  Is it the public?  Or groups that would benefit from having one set of standards across the nation?   That could be measured with one test.  Taught with one set of curriculum materials.  They insert themselves and remove society as a whole from directing our public schools.  Marketing this cause undermines public support for schools, and potentially,  a school's ability to function and serve, you guessed it, the public good. 

 Any school that doesn't adapt and change amidst the revolutionary changes of the 21st century is indeed ill performing.  But that is a far cry from justifying the school closing, online course laden,  charter pushing, part time teacher exclusionary educational world being crafted in the wake of such change.  If we indeed are indeed to succeed together in the future we need leaders who have not forgotten the value of the public good.  We further need those that willing to 

How Teachers are like Coal

The future and direction of our nation's environmental policy had been buried behind other conversations about more dynamic issues during the 2012 Presidential Campaign. The ongoing political and academic debate over whether climate change is really happening has ultimately paralyzed us from taking any effective action.  No matter where you fall on the issue you likely agree big issues often see this sort of entrenchment and it takes something equally big to move us forward.  Enter disaster politics. 

Hurricane Sandy may be that things as it blew the issue to the forefront.    No doubt the most awful thing to occur in a long time lives and livelihoods are ruined and disrupted.   The TU certainly sends it heartfelt best wishes to those affected by devastating storm.   In the aftermath Northeastern politicians like Governors Christie and Cuomo and others like Bloomberg and Schumer are being forced to address the issue as they move forward.  

Sometimes such events are seized upon by opportunistic individuals as a bellwether  for change.  This Superstorm and all the misery it brought may actually bring about some decisive action on our environment though I am not holding my breath such change will be all good.  Nor do I think speaking freely on the topic is simply an overt effort to access future federal funds for major Depression like reconstruction.    If  it seems possible the issue of the environment and our effect on it has become too political.   Some might say that money directs our path.  That is usually not a good thing.

As the coastal regions proceed with their efforts first recover, but later both better prepare and prevent such calamity it is incumbent upon us to use wisdom and sound evidence, not politics to guide out path.  It will require the best our leaders from both sides of the aisle have and even then the cooperation of other nations.  We must listen to informed and educated people who have the necessary understanding gained from years of experience.  Energy companies, environmental groups, big business, scientific organizations, international posturing and of course the two major parties all have formed their position and agenda before the conversation even begins preventing effective dialogue.  Common sense succumbs to the storm surge.  We cannot control nature but we do control how we choose to proceed.  One thing that is certain is that the issue is far too important for politics and money to affect the conversation.  It affects all of us.  If we do nothing, maybe nothing will happen.  But can we afford to just do nothing?

The same could be said of education.   It may seem a callous comparison at this sensitive time  but education  has problems and we are in a seemingly constant state of crisis since the 1980s.  This crisis breeds a degree of urgency which polarizes the issues.  Camps are quickly formed by anyone discussing education and reduced to an "us vs. them" where people are characterized and forced onto sides with clear positions, whether they hold them or not.  Lost is the "common ground" that is the foundation of all meaningful progress.   The gravity of what is at stake in both cases presented here should be a mandate for success, not just change.  Most heavy lifting falls to the classroom teacher and when added to their everyday duties the weight is more than many of them can stand to bare. 

Education is unlikely to have some momentous event that is a catalyst for movement and whether Sandy will materialize into that for the environment remains to be seen.  The exhaustion of natural resources would be a far greater cataclysmic event to even Sandy.  But it also will take much longer.  Few can argue with legitimacy that reliance of fossil fuels alone is preferable to a policy which shifts our reliance toward more renewable sources.  Whether it is one decade or one hundred the supply will eventually run out. The side effect of such intensive use are also problematic. 

Shifting back to education one resource it appears we are content as a nation to "burn through" is our teachers.  Unlike coal or oil one big difference is that no group seems to lobby as successfully for their value as teachers.  Lately as one I have confronted the reality that many view me and others like me in our profession  as a resource to be used and cast aside.  Evidence of this everywhere.  Teachers are at least as unhappy with how they are treated with how they are compensated.  Many are quitting.  The pedestrian nature of our national response to this trend should be alarming.  But it has caused no substantive progress to be made and instead has simply brought about rationalizations from many in a position to do something about it.  To think that we can "replace" the teachers that are retiring, leaving or burning out is ill informed and maybe even dooms the fate of of the entire system.  Schools are not places or things, they are the people within their walls.  What will be the effect of our delay and no action?  Will there  still be a sufficient pool of quality teachers to draw upon willing to teach our young people?If we wait until the void begins to have real results on our graduates  it will be too late.

Reasons why one areas teachers quit.

I take solace in the fact that the issues concerns raised by teachers seem to be finally gaining some attention.  We also have control over the reasons teachers say they are leaving the job.  People are starting to see that a decade or more of failed policy or self interested involvement from outside groups is not necessarily a  good thing for kids.  But the appearance of movement is more valuable and carries far less political liability than actual movement. So nothing gets done.

In the meantime we continue to bleed talent causing untold harm to our schools.   I feel obliged to note that every teacher thinks about quitting, some quite a lot.  Those who  stay do so because we love our students.   But each time we are told by the unknowing to do the impossible for the unwilling with next to nothing, more damage is done. Teachers are being exhausted and that is having a dire consequence on our the educational environment.  As a beginning, I strongly encourage those with influence to appreciate the value of the teaching force in this nation and yolk its strength in a less consumptive way. 

I think in both cases it will take a leader with enough courage and insight to finally bring about reform of consequence.  We must all come to the table and agree on decisions that affect and will hopefully better our shared future.  Failure to do so will have dire consequences indeed. 

Did Mr. Loweyt quit?

Teacher Job Satisfaction Low- So What?

Teacher friendly bloggers and websites are all writing this week about the MetLife Survey of the American Teacher.  (See Ed Week , Huffington Post , The Answer Sheet , Larry Ferlazzo for more)  The take away headline is this "Teacher Job Satisfaction At A Low Point."  Interesting headlines usually provide some bit of surprising information.  Not this one.

Look at what is happening across the country: reduced funding, larger class sizes, more initiatives and mandates with less support, legislation to weaken the status of teachers, accountability movements that are detrimental to student learning, the list could go on.

While the headline about teacher satisfaction may fall on a few sympathetic ears, teachers in public education should realize that for many this finding will fall under the category of "who cares?"  Our salaries are paid by the public.  A public which has largely dealt with economic problems for nearly half a decade.  This same public cringes at the gas pump, worries about mortgages going under water, faces uncertainty with employment, and otherwise lives in doubt about the economic future of their household and nation.

To this public, a likely response to the headline may be "Welcome to the club!"  Our current economic situation is not an excuse for teachers to roll over and watch the systematic dismantling of public education, but general surveys of the working public show the same trend.

What is the appropriate reaction to this survey?  Should teachers shout out for change and demand better conditions or is it time we realized that times are hard all around?

Cal and Texas Not the Only Schools in 2011 Holiday Bowl

As the football teams from Texas and Cal(both non-profit schools) square off on the field tonight they are part of perhaps the most visible contradiction within public education in this country, college athletics.   There is a lot of money made.  That much is clear.  But the title sponsor of the Holiday Bowl, Bridgepoint Education(BPI) is part of a much less clear segment of education, much farther from the public awareness. BPI has proven to be one of the most successful for-profit higher education companies and as a result has become the focus of greater government scrutiny.  Unlike schools involved in NCAA athletics, some of this attention is unwelcome.

Tom Harkin

Andrew Clark

In March of 2011 the United States Senate held a series of hearings on for for-profit higher education.  Senator Tom Harkin(D-Iowa) took the gloves off a bit and used Bridgepoint Education as the poster child for all that is wrong with the industry.  His lengthy opening statement in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions(HELP) Committee pretty much said it all and called into the question the ability of these institutions to balance profit with the purpose of education.   Many claim that for-profit colleges abuse the system at the expense of the student and public taxpayer.

The CEO of Bridgepoint, Andrew Clark, chose not appear at the hearings as did all other company officials who declined the commission's requests to appear, citing an ongoing audit by the Office of Federal Student Aid.  Clark, who earned $20.5 million(salary + stock options) has remade what was a small school in Iowa into a major player in the industry, one that has maximized its return.  Much of that success has come with efforts in recruitment and marketing.  As a business, BPI's Ashford University is an unquestionable success story.  As a school, the outcomes are less apparent.  So all this profit, where has it come from and at what cost?  Furthermore, who pays it?  Not everyone on the committee shares Harkin's views. 

Link to Senate Charts

Senator Michael Enzi(R-Wyoming) spoke out against the hearings indicating that they singled out career colleges despite similar issues existing elsewhere in education.  He commented “Unfortunately, by only focusing these hearings on individual examples of a problem in one sector of higher education, we have no understanding of the true extent of the problem, nor have we heard any constructive solutions for solving that problem.”  he then walked out of the hearings. 

On the full Senate floor Harkin said the following in advance of the hearings:   “In the first year, 84.4% of students from Bridgepoint who signed up dropped out, what do you think happened to their [federal] loans? What do you think happened to their Pell grants? Students get those back? Not on your life. Bridgepoint kept them, the money went to their shareholders.”

Link to Senate Charts

Harkin added that 63% of those seeking a bachelor’s degree at Ashford drop out within a year.  The basic criticism is that such schools work hard to bring in students and help them secure funding and loans knowing full well that they will not remain enrolled.  Then once the funding is secured they have shown little concern if the student is successful or if they are saddled with enormous amounts of debt after enrolling since they have made their profit.  True margin lies with enrolling more new students. 

About a year ago on a whim I filled out an online questionnaire for information about an online degree program at such a university.  By the time I got home I had sixteen messages, that's right sixteen, on my cell phone.   They continue to arrive on occasion to this day more than a year later.  The recruiters are persistent to say the least.  The good news is I do not actually use my cell phone much and to date haven't spoken to any real people on the matter.  If you ever want to get back at someone...fill out one of these forms with their info...on second thought, don't.

Harkin summed the business model up as follows: “While Bridgepoint employs 1,703 recruiters, they employ just one person to handle career planning…for the entire student body of 67,000 students.”
He wants to reform how these institutions are monitored.  For certain, the Department of Education is having a hard time keeping up.  But many Republican Senators(Enzi, McCain, Burr) have spoken out claiming the hearings were politically motivated and singled out for profit colleges unfairly. 

Whatever the case, the money trail is big and lengthy.  To date no one really seems to have a handle on who these students are, how they are affected and what all this is really costing.  With higher education costs skyrocketing and the demand for a better educated workforce this issue has a greater significance than even a few years ago.  The TU doesn't usually delve into higher education as it is beyond our normal daily experience in public schools, but the parallels present surrounding the for-profit education industry at both levels is clear. 

As to what all this means in the world of education, I think the TU has been pretty consistent expressing concern about what motivates these for-profit companies involved in education.  As they continue to play an increasing role in our public schools we might look to this debate about for-profit colleges as a cautionary tale.  Just something to think about as we move into the new year.  As we do we hope you enjoy the college football bowl season.  Usually these broadcasts are full of graphics.  So I'll throw a few in from the Senate Hearings to wrap things up.

Link to Senate Charts

Link to Senate Charts

Link to Senate Charts

Link to Senate Charts

Not from Senate Hearing

I just figured if you read this far you should be rewarded with a smile.

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.

Watching Chaos

I admit my attention span is short and I'm tired of hearing or using the word Occupy.  But I don't tire as easily when discussing or informing my views on education.  It is in this context that the following video becomes relevant.  Imagine if you will entering a classroom where the teacher is disengaged, irrelevant and unresponsive to student needs.  Then compare that to what occurred at a Panel for Educational Policy(PEP) meeting in New York recently.

Is what we are watching a response by a public that sees leaders as disengaged, irrelevant and unresponsive?   Has education reform become too reliant on Top Down decisions in pursuit of desired outcomes?  How are these top down decisions being perceived by stakeholders?     Are the few creating a process that ignores the voices of many that could affect lasting and positive change?    Will this closed process engender support or further alienate decision makers?   Is this approach consistent with the ideals of democracy?  Shouldn't we expect more from our leaders?  





Love to hear some comments after watching.

Who to Trust? Teachers or Rupert Murdoch

In reading a recent TU post one might presume that we support or encourage protests and similar anti-authoritarian behaviors. While free thinkers, the TU is rather conformist most of the time and color in between the lines more often than not, especially professionally. We do enjoy a good Youtube riot video as much as anyone and there's plenty of videos of the protest in NYC and elsewhere.   But that's about as close as we like to get. It took a while to arrive at my point but I am heading towards proving that the TU in some ways sees things from ground level(below ground actually) and perhaps more accurately.  We are closer to education than most folks who talk about it.  That is simply something you cannot dismiss in the conversation about education and its future.  We are deeply concerned for the future of our schools.  We are not alone.

Rupert Murdoch has had a lot to say recently on this subject of education and seems to want to move his company closer to it.    He is a smart fella but I think on the subject of education...I might be smarter(I'll pause while you soak in that statement).  His view is blurred by his business mindset and motives and the highlight reel experience he no doubt receives when he visits a school.  Think for a second about why he is starting to talk a lot about education all of a sudden.    My view is blurred by where I work.  You know, in a school with kids.  Its a pretty good school and despite its shortfalls it ends up turning out some pretty amazing young people.  So who has a better feel for what's going on?   One of the most powerful men in the world, or me?  He got shouted down at a recent speech by some folks perhaps as frustrated as we are with the current direction of many reforms.  I can only speculate on their motives.   I think because they resent a lot of current change and he makes a convenient target.  I've been shouted down too(most often by an irate teenager).  I guess that's where the comparisons end.

Did he deserve it?  Well I think he shouldn't expect people to ignore who he is.   Based on his record,  we should be at least suspicious of his motives.  Those people(if they were teachers) probably got all "protesty" because we in teaching are now hypersensitive to people telling us how it should be.  Especially people from the business or political world.   I like to think if Murdoch spent a day with the average American teacher he'd realize a few things.  Not the least among them is that teachers know how it really is better than anyone else.  This that idea classrooms and the teaching in them have not changed 50 years is more than a slight misrepresentation of fact.   Of course someone must guide kids through their education...they are kids after all.  The classroom dynamic has not been as fluid as in other sectors of society like our economy and that is not all bad.  I know TU''s resident thesis man(Steve) could more successfully counter his points but I will attempt to do so none the less. This is not because we feel threatened and want to attack or justify our point of view over others(though deep down that may be why).  It is in the hope that it will foster a greater understanding of what we see as part of the problem. 

To begin, WTF?  My favorite acronym as an expression of disbelief.  (To maintain our PG rating I'll explain it as What's That For?)  Hey Rupert Murdock...WTF?  Are you living in a bubble?  How dare you try to simplify everything and reduce the mission of our schools solely to an academic pipeline of global employees.  Schools aren't companies.  The goal is not profit.  The goal is people.  That alone pokes some big hole in Murdoch's bucket.  Harlem Success is great.  Many charter schools are great.  No doubt so are the schools you mention in your speeches.  But before we go dismantling one of the most significant social and cultural institutions anywhere in the world let's give some forethought to the potential consequences.   Let's also not do so because people like Murdoch have convinced us they are all "failing." Instead consider how current top down changes are hampering efforts to do quality work in our schools. Many reform attempts have led to regulation  and "improvements" that have buckled some pretty great things schools did. Many of my colleagues will admit we do not feel the quality education we are providing today is not exactly what it was even 5 years ago. 

I will admit some of my objections to his and similarly framed ideas were originally based on their potential impact on my profession.  But with careful consideration I object on a far deeper level.  The idea that learning can be so easily manipulated and controlled is a dangerous one.  If I learned anything as a teacher its that things are usually more complex than they appear.    Demanding more from everyone does not equal an increase in quality output.   Programs and results may at first appear valuable and look good on paper, only to yield under closer examination or when implemented.   I have seen this firsthand with numerous online learning programs. 

The intent to profit should never be a consideration in our decisions on education.  But it has crept in slowly and as such we should place more scrutiny on reform ideas that involve public funds to private enterprise.  One approach being pushed from the Murdoch camp is to use technology to remedy our ills and make things better.   Education is far too complex a process to digitize and then plug a child in to some software.  That is information, not education.  Standardized test may show acquisition of knowledge but what has been lost?  Hard to tell as most modern measures of learning are subjective.  What's being measured?  How? Under what conditions?  Using a test?  Are the measures fair and equitable?  What's the wisdom in that?   Bottom line is this:  What motivates Murdoch and Newscorp is clearly making money.  What motivates teachers is what is good for kids. 

At 6:20 he starts to lay out main ideas.


Specifically Murdoch contentions are that "The Key is Software" and we can do better by creating a "More Personalized Education."     I wasn't as sure about his 3rd point since he is boring but it seemed to be simply using analytics to give kids access to limitless resources catered to best suit them. Thus they wouldn't be stuck learning at the same pace. I suspect it was something about how asynchronous education is the key.   Sounds great.  Who could argue with those ideas?  Me.

Distance Learning, Virtual Classrooms or whatever they go by have obvious advantages.  I sat so far back in one survey class in college it could have been considered distance learning.  I've also taken a few real ones and they served their purpose.  Can't say I learned a great deal that stuck with me though.  Their growth in recent years has been exponential.  Driven in part by the spiraling costs of higher education. While quite different in business approach and market, for profit higher education like the University of Phoenix illustrates how such an concept has supporters and detractors.  I remember a piece PBS did on Michael Clifford a while back that I found very informative.

But do not mistake access to information for a learning community.  There are problems with the any technology. On the front end there are always going to be kinks and bugs or issues with the transition.  Is the infrastructure in place in many of these locations to support the volume of traffic?   There are issues with the access, maintenance and reliability.  These will be less significant as schools integrate more and more digital resources over time.  The trend is for high ranking administrators and those at the top to view technology as the perfect solution.  It becomes a symbol for a "quality" education.  Teachers and learners more often think that while useful, these experiences are no substitute for face to face interaction.    In business terms a shift in this direction would be akin to expecting online shopping to replace brick and mortar schools.    Over reliance of technology can be problematic.  Forgive me for not trusting a billionaire but is it truly cost effective in the long term for our society?  This Education Marketplace mentioned by my colleague what's being sold here?  I fear it is our future. 

Once we are reliant on these technologies and systems, who controls the curriculum and any needed shift?  Who is held accountable for the quality?  A test might tell you whether a kid "learned" but what if they didn't?   Experience tells me that the under-performing kid in a traditional classroom might encounter even more issues in a virtual one.  Not all kids are motivated or mature enough to go this route.  One of the biggest hang-ups with our neighboring district's BLAST initiative has been parental approval and sign-off.   These issues were unforeseen by planners.  Not so for those with daily interactions with the learners and their parents.  We see things.  One advantage to synchronous learning is that it allows students to collaborate and support each other. This builds a sense of community with their peers, teachers and school.  Skilled individuals can yoke this and use these communities as a source of motivation and pride(just read the last post if you don't understand).  One can create online communities.  Its just that they not the same.  Part of the equation maybe but not the answer.  They should not be elevated to anything more than just a tool to help improve education.
 

Should computers replace people in learning?  In a normal environment computers are usually powerful tools.  The one thing schools are not is normal.  In this landscape teachers and people are more reliable than technology.  When problems occur I trust people.  When kids act up you need people.  When a kid needs encouragement and support you need people.  Murdoch is wrong to think that companies or software can do better with all of our children.  Most young people are significantly more dependent on adults than what those who don't deal with them everyday think.  They need people they know to help guide them.  Children need adults to learn from and they need relationships with these people to apprehend their world.  I don't really want to send my kids to an Apple store for their education and that seems to be the promise being extended here. We should approach with caution the Walmart of Education mentality as the cost vs quality balance should be important but shouldn't tip too far towards reducing costs.   A "one stop select what you want digital world of learning" isn't that far off.  But it would be a sad shell of what we could do. 

Is our nation doing as well as it can?  Certainly not.  But I don't so much worry about that.  Parents don't worry about that.  We worry about our own kids in our own communities.  I worry about how ideas hatched by those who don't teach real people could affect what we are all trying to accomplish.  Comparisons to Asia or elsewhere are thus less relevant to most of us normal folks with our feet on the ground.  Murdoch and others explain away the difference in achievement as simply a product of the school and education.  All responsibility lies with the schools.  Well when no one else takes on the responsibility for kids schools I guess should.  But be careful about how then you judge the result.  

Murdoch's Motives
I am more than a bit curious about why Mr. Murdoch has turned his attention to the plight of poor schoolkids.  We are after all talking about the same guy, head of Newscorp responsible for the British phone hacking scandal. A ruthless corporate pirate with billions to show for his efforts.  But also a charismatic convincing guy and if I wasn't a teacher I think I'd listen to what he had to say.  That thought frightens me.    He lists examples of innovation and suggests and path to the future.      Enter "his company" as a medium to access this.  See the problem? 

I think Murdoch thinks of education as a cash cow.  I just have an ideological problem with the idea that knowledge is proprietary.  And make no mistake that is the backbone of this idea Murdoch is talking about.  Competition instead of collaboration.  For profit and education...those two concepts are irreconcilable.  When push comes to shove Return on Investment will be factored in above learning when decisions are made by businessmen and not educators. 

Even more disturbing is how people can misrepresent what is taking place.  It has become a cyclical blame game where the most influential carries the least blame for under-performance. I suspect no one is entirely correct in what they think is happening since most views are either too global or too local to know the reality.  I know that some kids just aren't learning.  I'd argue about why.   Here's more reasons to be wary of Murdoch.  What works in some places won't work or even be able to be replicated everywhere.  Education is only as important as any individual thinks it is. 

Where do we agree?
Schools have to adapt, change and improve.  Technology will and should be part of this.  Too many kids aren't getting what they need.  So we can and must do better.  But it doesn't start at 5 years old or end when they graduate or even end when the bell rings to dismiss for the day.  It doesn't simply entail giving them access to knowledge.  Technology will never replace a teacher.  It is a tool and in the right hands empowers individuals to do and become more.  Both student and teacher.  It can also alter things in unforeseen ways.  At my 4 year old's soccer game this weekend I watched at least 3 parents engage with their I-phones  more than their kids.  Sad.  Does Murdoch throw this little tidbit in his speech about "human capital" and teachers to disarm us or does he really mean it?   Who knows.  All I know is that if the choice is that every kid is indeed a valuable and unique individual.  To truly educate a kid you have to get to to know that kid.   All I can do is try to remember that on a daily basis and whenever and wherever I can try to inject some sanity into the conversation about how we ought to be teaching our kids.

In a future post maybe I'll attempt to knock Bill Gates off his educational pulpit.  Whatever the subject the one thing I think the TU prides itself on is the ability to conduct civil discourse.  Disagreements today seem so polemical that the ability to talk freely with someone who disagrees seems a lost art.  Especially when they stand to realize we are right.  :)