It's that time of year again. It's our annual custom to respond to the President's annual State of the Union Address. It looks like this year there's going to be three official responses. Not just the Republican response, but the Tea Party response and a response from Rand Paul. This rebuttal business is getting pretty competitive.
So he starts with this:
"Today in America, a teacher spent extra time with a student who needed it, and did her part to lift America’s graduation rate to its highest level in more than three decades."
Well, not this teacher, but I did spend extra time with another teacher. A first year teacher, 23 years old, part-time, splitting his days every morning teaching high school then driving down the street to the local middle school to teach two seventh grade classes. He'd prefer working full time at one school, but this is the best we can do for him. It's about what's best for the kids though, right?
Is that really all he's going to say about education?
Oh, wait, here it is:
Five years ago, we set out to change the odds for all our kids. We worked with lenders to reform student loans, and today, more young people are earning college degrees than ever before. Race to the Top, with the help of governors from both parties, has helped states raise expectations and performance. Teachers and principals in schools from Tennessee to Washington, D.C. are making big strides in preparing students with skills for the new economy – problem solving, critical thinking, science, technology, engineering, and math. Some of this change is hard. It requires everything from more challenging curriculums and more demanding parents to better support for teachers and new ways to measure how well our kids think, not how well they can fill in a bubble on a test.
Race to the Top? Too often, raising expectations looks more like making the tests more "difficult." Not rigorous or particularly valid, just harder. And along with raising the expectations, where is the support to raise the quality of instruction? That last sentence is dead on though. If only we could find the legs to make that idea actually move.
I’m going to pull together a coalition of elected officials, business leaders, and philanthropists willing to help more kids access the high-quality pre-K they need.
That's comforting. Our elected officials, business leaders, and philanthropists have done a stand-up job so far in reforming education.
Last year, I also pledged to connect 99 percent of our students to high-speed broadband over the next four years. Tonight, I can announce that with the support of the FCC and companies like Apple, Microsoft, Sprint, and Verizon, we’ve got a down payment to start connecting more than 15,000 schools and twenty million students over the next two years, without adding a dime to the deficit.
I don't care what you think about technology, it's advancing. Quickly. The better and faster we take care of closing the gaps of access, the better off our kids will be. I think our nation will suffer if this is a gap that we allow to grow.
We’re working to redesign high schools and partner them with colleges and employers that offer the real-world education and hands-on training that can lead directly to a job and career.
Vocational education has suffered in the last twenty years. The vocational ed of the 20th century doesn't do much for 21st century students, but we need to acknowledge the reality that not everyone will go to college and give them the tools to succeed right out of high school.
That's all for k-12 education. But he did end this section of the speech with this: But we know our opportunity agenda won’t be complete – and too many young people entering the workforce today will see the American Dream as an empty promise – unless we do more to make sure our economy honors the dignity of work, and hard work pays off for every single American.
I like that. It seems to acknowledge that the struggles of the American economy is not the fault of our public education system and that we can't look solely to the public education system as the solution to our economic woes. If more people would realize this and see education for what it is-- an integral and vital piece of American society, but just that, a piece, not the single driving factor-- we'd start looking for more holistic solutions instead of scapegoating.
And that's the State of the Union, at least as far as the Teaching Underground is concerned.
Showing posts with label President. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
The TU Rebuttal to the POTUS SOTU
Yes, we're teachers, and teachers love acronyms- well, maybe not, but we sure do learn to live with them. So welcome the the 2013 Teaching Underground rebuttal to the President of the United States' State of the Union Address.
I'm admittedly cold toward the President's education agenda this year. With our own state governor, Bob McDonnell appearing side by side with Louisiana's own Bobby Jindal, I think that Virginia has enough to worry about with state education policy without trying to smell what the Feds are cooking. If you haven't formally done so already, be sure to roll out the carpet and welcome the corporate reform agenda to Virginia education politics.
Despite the state of our State, we've made an annual tradition out of rebutting the President's education comments during the State of the Union Address. I think the Tea Party has already offered their rebuttal before the speech is even delivered. We've kept a little more decorum on this platform and waited until the words were uttered from Mr. President's mouth. So without anymore hesitation, our fellow Americans, here's our thoughts: (Words of the President in italics)
It is our unfinished task to make sure that this government works on behalf of the many, and not just the few; that it encourages free enterprise, rewards individual initiative, and opens the doors of opportunity to every child across this great nation.
Good start Mr. President.
Study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road. But today, fewer than 3 in 10 four year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program... lack of access to preschool education can shadow them for the rest of their lives. I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America... So let’s do what works, and make sure none of our children start the race of life already behind.
More praise from the TU on your remarks here Mr. President. The path to equal opportunity begins early. It is not enough to simply open the door for our children unless we've prepared them to walk through it.
Let’s also make sure that a high school diploma puts our kids on a path to a good job. Right now, countries like Germany focus on graduating their high school students with the equivalent of a technical degree from one of our community colleges, so that they’re ready for a job. At schools like P-Tech in Brooklyn, a collaboration between New York Public Schools, the City University of New York, and IBM, students will graduate with a high school diploma and an associate degree in computers or engineering. We need to give every American student opportunities like this.
I don't think that high school is an "employment agency" but neither is it a stepping stone to academia. High school is the place where emerging adults grow into themselves and launch into the world of adulthood. I like the language of putting our kids on a path to a good job, whether that is through employment immediately after graduation, post high school training programs, or further education in college. But in order to fulfill the President's words in this statement, we must begin to take career and technical education as serious as college preparatory education in America. Neither should gain at the expense of the other.
Four years ago, we started Race to the Top – a competition that convinced almost every state to develop smarter curricula and higher standards, for about 1 percent of what we spend on education each year. Tonight, I’m announcing a new challenge to redesign America’s high schools so they better equip graduates for the demands of a high-tech economy. We’ll reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes that focus on science, technology, engineering, and math – the skills today’s employers are looking for to fill jobs right now and in the future.
Please don't pass off Race to the Top as a success. And as for convincing almost every state, it was more like coercion. You abused executive power to bypass legislative inefficiency to get your way. Not one of your better moments. I'm wary of the use of rewards from your administration because it doesn't fall far from manipulation and usurpation of local control of education. But, I appreciate seeing the reward focused on input more than output. Partnerships as you speak of might be a positive movement into the 21st century.
Now, even with better high schools, most young people will need some higher education. It’s a simple fact: the more education you have, the more likely you are to have a job and work your way into the middle class. But today, skyrocketing costs price way too many young people out of a higher education, or saddle them with unsustainable debt. Through tax credits, grants, and better loans, we have made college more affordable for millions of students and families over the last few years. But taxpayers cannot continue to subsidize the soaring cost of higher education. Colleges must do their part to keep costs down, and it’s our job to make sure they do. Tonight, I ask Congress to change the Higher Education Act, so that affordability and value are included in determining which colleges receive certain types of federal aid. And tomorrow, my Administration will release a new “College Scorecard” that parents and students can use to compare schools based on a simple criteria: where you can get the most bang for your educational buck.
I would have normally omitted this part of the speech as it focuses more on college policy, but the last sentence struck me after reading Ken Bernstein's piece on the Washington Post Answer Sheet earlier this week. He warns college professors that they're beginning to receive the products of the "No Child Left Behind Generation." I would add to the warning that what has become of k-12 education in regards to test-based accountability and corporate driven reform is creeping into the arena of higher education as well. The "scorecard" idea sounds appealing, but I'm apprehensive that attempts to "measure" or "grade" quality in these institutions may drive higher education to value what is measurable more than continuing to pursue immeasurable goals of true value.
My personal "SOTU Scorecard", I'd give the President a B on tonight's address. In the field of education, C+. The rhetoric is not so bad, but I'd like to see the action behind it for a real evaluation. The President has expressed concern over the role of excessive testing in k-12 education and nothing in this address appears to increase or reduce the burden of testing. His comments do veer toward the positives in our system and ways to build upon success more than looking toward the negative.
In light of the political movement in Virginia education policy during the last two legislative sessions, most anything the President says would be an improvement. That's a wrap for this years analysis. I'd love to comment on the economy, gun control, world poverty, and many other notable items discussed by the President, but that's a topic for lunch tomorrow. Education is all you get from the Underground.
Despite the state of our State, we've made an annual tradition out of rebutting the President's education comments during the State of the Union Address. I think the Tea Party has already offered their rebuttal before the speech is even delivered. We've kept a little more decorum on this platform and waited until the words were uttered from Mr. President's mouth. So without anymore hesitation, our fellow Americans, here's our thoughts: (Words of the President in italics)
It is our unfinished task to make sure that this government works on behalf of the many, and not just the few; that it encourages free enterprise, rewards individual initiative, and opens the doors of opportunity to every child across this great nation.
Good start Mr. President.
Study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road. But today, fewer than 3 in 10 four year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program... lack of access to preschool education can shadow them for the rest of their lives. I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America... So let’s do what works, and make sure none of our children start the race of life already behind.
More praise from the TU on your remarks here Mr. President. The path to equal opportunity begins early. It is not enough to simply open the door for our children unless we've prepared them to walk through it.
Let’s also make sure that a high school diploma puts our kids on a path to a good job. Right now, countries like Germany focus on graduating their high school students with the equivalent of a technical degree from one of our community colleges, so that they’re ready for a job. At schools like P-Tech in Brooklyn, a collaboration between New York Public Schools, the City University of New York, and IBM, students will graduate with a high school diploma and an associate degree in computers or engineering. We need to give every American student opportunities like this.
I don't think that high school is an "employment agency" but neither is it a stepping stone to academia. High school is the place where emerging adults grow into themselves and launch into the world of adulthood. I like the language of putting our kids on a path to a good job, whether that is through employment immediately after graduation, post high school training programs, or further education in college. But in order to fulfill the President's words in this statement, we must begin to take career and technical education as serious as college preparatory education in America. Neither should gain at the expense of the other.
Four years ago, we started Race to the Top – a competition that convinced almost every state to develop smarter curricula and higher standards, for about 1 percent of what we spend on education each year. Tonight, I’m announcing a new challenge to redesign America’s high schools so they better equip graduates for the demands of a high-tech economy. We’ll reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes that focus on science, technology, engineering, and math – the skills today’s employers are looking for to fill jobs right now and in the future.
Please don't pass off Race to the Top as a success. And as for convincing almost every state, it was more like coercion. You abused executive power to bypass legislative inefficiency to get your way. Not one of your better moments. I'm wary of the use of rewards from your administration because it doesn't fall far from manipulation and usurpation of local control of education. But, I appreciate seeing the reward focused on input more than output. Partnerships as you speak of might be a positive movement into the 21st century.
Now, even with better high schools, most young people will need some higher education. It’s a simple fact: the more education you have, the more likely you are to have a job and work your way into the middle class. But today, skyrocketing costs price way too many young people out of a higher education, or saddle them with unsustainable debt. Through tax credits, grants, and better loans, we have made college more affordable for millions of students and families over the last few years. But taxpayers cannot continue to subsidize the soaring cost of higher education. Colleges must do their part to keep costs down, and it’s our job to make sure they do. Tonight, I ask Congress to change the Higher Education Act, so that affordability and value are included in determining which colleges receive certain types of federal aid. And tomorrow, my Administration will release a new “College Scorecard” that parents and students can use to compare schools based on a simple criteria: where you can get the most bang for your educational buck.
I would have normally omitted this part of the speech as it focuses more on college policy, but the last sentence struck me after reading Ken Bernstein's piece on the Washington Post Answer Sheet earlier this week. He warns college professors that they're beginning to receive the products of the "No Child Left Behind Generation." I would add to the warning that what has become of k-12 education in regards to test-based accountability and corporate driven reform is creeping into the arena of higher education as well. The "scorecard" idea sounds appealing, but I'm apprehensive that attempts to "measure" or "grade" quality in these institutions may drive higher education to value what is measurable more than continuing to pursue immeasurable goals of true value.
My personal "SOTU Scorecard", I'd give the President a B on tonight's address. In the field of education, C+. The rhetoric is not so bad, but I'd like to see the action behind it for a real evaluation. The President has expressed concern over the role of excessive testing in k-12 education and nothing in this address appears to increase or reduce the burden of testing. His comments do veer toward the positives in our system and ways to build upon success more than looking toward the negative.
In light of the political movement in Virginia education policy during the last two legislative sessions, most anything the President says would be an improvement. That's a wrap for this years analysis. I'd love to comment on the economy, gun control, world poverty, and many other notable items discussed by the President, but that's a topic for lunch tomorrow. Education is all you get from the Underground.
Friday, September 7, 2012
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:
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.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
The 2012 Teaching Underground State of the Union Response
While the rest of the world is watching a Republican rebuttal to President Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address, the Teaching Underground believes that a teacher response is appropriate. So as has become our annual custom, (since last year) here's our take on the President's remarks.
The President started off on the "good foot" with his choice of honored guests to join the first Lady in attendance tonight. Sara Ferguson from the infamous Chester School district in Pennsylvania will join Michelle Obama for tonight's oration. Ms. Ferguson teaches in a school district where teachers and their union decided to teach without pay. Yes, the evil union decided that serving children was more important than their own sustenance, by continuing to do their jobs even though state and local government did not have the funds to pay them. As with most teachers, we certainly will stand for fairness and appropriate working conditions, but the message to the public-- don't confuse our zeal for what's best for the students with self-interest and greed.
On to the speech. The President's remarks are in italics, my comments follow each section.
Near the beginning of the speech, Obama proclaims that we are "A country that leads the world in educating its children." We don't hear that rhetoric on a national stage very often, I for one appreciate the sentiment. Here's what followed in the President's speech regarding k-12 education:
At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced States to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies – just to make a difference.
1) Mr. Obama, most of us who follow the education news know of this $250,000 of which you speak, but haven't we done enough to discredit this study? This "fact" would do much greater good if its purpose was to increase the respect and professionalism of teachers, but instead, this study has prompted an attack on the teaching profession. Instead of promoting the importance of teachers, this study is being used to push for "getting rid of the bad ones."
2) A teacher can indeed offer an escape from poverty, but a good teacher will never be a guarantee of this escape. How many people can point to a coach, pastor, relative, or other concerned adult in their life who made the difference in motivating them toward greater things? We need to remember how influential we teachers can be, but our public needs to be aware that education alone is not the solution to poverty.
3) Most teachers do work tirelessly and today, instead of just a pat on the back, we would like "a place at the table." Our goals are not self-promotion, greed, or an easier job. We deal with children daily and believe that our expertise can lead American education policy in a positive direction.
Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.
So now we get to the real meat of the issue. What kind of deal do we offer schools? Give them resources to keep good teachers on the job... and replace the one's who aren't helping kids learn. How do we find these teachers, that's right, testing. Isn't that the metric used by the researchers to determine the "good" teachers that increase classroom lifetime income by $250,000? Rewards and threats of punishment, that's so 20th century Mr. Obama. How about we give teachers the flexibility to teach with creativity and passion, to stop teaching to the test, BECAUSE "most teachers work tirelessly--just to make a difference." Trying to make a difference is the opposite of "defending the status quo."
We also know that when students aren’t allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.
That’s why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and States.
Just a few words, but that's what President Obama says to the nation about American k-12 education in 2012. He received a warm response from the crowd for these remarks. On the whole, they appear rather benign, but in today's political climate, government education policy seems to be driven by one major idea-- identify good teachers and reward them, remove obstacles for getting rid of bad teachers. Identify those teachers by test scores that provide absolute measures of success regardless of outside factors.
If you think there's more to it than that, I'd love to hear your thoughts, these are just some intial thoughts on the President's comments.
Thanks for reading, that's the 2012 Teaching Underground teacher's response to the annual State of the Union Address.
The President started off on the "good foot" with his choice of honored guests to join the first Lady in attendance tonight. Sara Ferguson from the infamous Chester School district in Pennsylvania will join Michelle Obama for tonight's oration. Ms. Ferguson teaches in a school district where teachers and their union decided to teach without pay. Yes, the evil union decided that serving children was more important than their own sustenance, by continuing to do their jobs even though state and local government did not have the funds to pay them. As with most teachers, we certainly will stand for fairness and appropriate working conditions, but the message to the public-- don't confuse our zeal for what's best for the students with self-interest and greed.
Near the beginning of the speech, Obama proclaims that we are "A country that leads the world in educating its children." We don't hear that rhetoric on a national stage very often, I for one appreciate the sentiment. Here's what followed in the President's speech regarding k-12 education:
At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced States to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies – just to make a difference.
1) Mr. Obama, most of us who follow the education news know of this $250,000 of which you speak, but haven't we done enough to discredit this study? This "fact" would do much greater good if its purpose was to increase the respect and professionalism of teachers, but instead, this study has prompted an attack on the teaching profession. Instead of promoting the importance of teachers, this study is being used to push for "getting rid of the bad ones."
2) A teacher can indeed offer an escape from poverty, but a good teacher will never be a guarantee of this escape. How many people can point to a coach, pastor, relative, or other concerned adult in their life who made the difference in motivating them toward greater things? We need to remember how influential we teachers can be, but our public needs to be aware that education alone is not the solution to poverty.
3) Most teachers do work tirelessly and today, instead of just a pat on the back, we would like "a place at the table." Our goals are not self-promotion, greed, or an easier job. We deal with children daily and believe that our expertise can lead American education policy in a positive direction.
Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.
So now we get to the real meat of the issue. What kind of deal do we offer schools? Give them resources to keep good teachers on the job... and replace the one's who aren't helping kids learn. How do we find these teachers, that's right, testing. Isn't that the metric used by the researchers to determine the "good" teachers that increase classroom lifetime income by $250,000? Rewards and threats of punishment, that's so 20th century Mr. Obama. How about we give teachers the flexibility to teach with creativity and passion, to stop teaching to the test, BECAUSE "most teachers work tirelessly--just to make a difference." Trying to make a difference is the opposite of "defending the status quo."
We also know that when students aren’t allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.
That’s why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and States.
Just a few words, but that's what President Obama says to the nation about American k-12 education in 2012. He received a warm response from the crowd for these remarks. On the whole, they appear rather benign, but in today's political climate, government education policy seems to be driven by one major idea-- identify good teachers and reward them, remove obstacles for getting rid of bad teachers. Identify those teachers by test scores that provide absolute measures of success regardless of outside factors.
If you think there's more to it than that, I'd love to hear your thoughts, these are just some intial thoughts on the President's comments.
Thanks for reading, that's the 2012 Teaching Underground teacher's response to the annual State of the Union Address.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
1989-2011: School Reform Going in Circles, Going Anywhere?
Twenty two years later it is clear that policies that grew out of that summit caused a massive shift in educational power from localities and states to the federal government. The climate of schools then and now and who they worry about satisfying differs a great deal. The economic turmoil of the 1970s and 1980s became linked to an educational crisis. Whether that link actually existed or not. The same is true today. This belief brought about major changes. Those changes now permeate daily life inside that same building I returned to that September day. The federal mandates have rained down onto localities, often without the needed funds. Among the biggest things that that summit produced was reliance and faith in testing as a means to remedy the now accepted belief that public schools were in big trouble. A direction begun and driven home under Bush then Clinton and again under Bush and now under Obama. Change is good when things get better. But the opposite is equally true. Change can be bad. The summit produced six goals(later expanded to 8) all of which have merit.
- Annually increasing the number of children served by preschool programs with the goal of serving all “at-risk” 4-year-olds by 1995.
- Raising the basic-skills achievement of all students to at least their grade level, and reducing the gap between the test scores of minority and white children by 1993.
- Improving the high school graduation rate every year and reducing the number of illiterate Americans.
- Improving the performance of American students in mathematics, science, and foreign languages until it exceeds that of students from “other industrialized nations.”
- Increasing college participation, particularly by minorities, and specifically by reducing the current “imbalance” between grants and loans.
- Recruiting more new teachers, particularly minority teachers, to ease “the impending teacher shortage,” and taking other steps to upgrade the status of the profession.
 |
| President Bush(center) with Governor Clinton(far right) |
1983's A Nation at Risk report was the spark that lit the failing schools need fixing fire. Funny thing about that report and its' recommendations. It appears the Feds only read the cliffs notes versions and skipped some other important parts. It certainly is something we'll have to revisit down the road and warrants more than a cursory review from everyone in involved with education. There were more than a few phrases that caught my eye:
-the urgent need for improvement, both immediate and long term-how's that going almost 30 years later?
-we refer to public, private, and parochial schools and colleges alike- and what is actually getting "reformed"
-The tests should be administered as part of a nationwide (but not Federal) system of State and local standardized tests. Very interesting
-assistance of the Federal Government should be provided with a minimum of administrative burden and intrusiveness. I think some important people missed that point?
The 1990s saw this testing approach gain traction and support in both the statehouse and inside the beltway. It soon became clear there was money to be made. All of a sudden politicians, urged on by large companies now with a vested interest in promoting this direction started to take notice. Cynics would say lawmakers did so for either political or financial reasons. Others might say the rhetoric was just too irresistible. What began as basic skills testing is states like Texas blossomed into testing in competencies in periodic grades all along the path to graduation.
This reached its zenith under the heavily publicized but little understood Elementary and Secondary Education Act(NCLB). In the wake of the September 11th attacks most domestic policy remained 2nd tier at best. This law was a notable exception. No one gave the long term consequences much thought. When passed the Feds generally left it up to states to set marks and measure these standards. When asked if this approach compromised the law then Secretary of Education Rod Paige said the following:
"No. In our country we made that decision when the Constitution was drawn up. This is a state responsibility. This isn't a federal responsibility to set standards for states. So that argument's already been settled."
At the same time in 2002 noted testing expert from UCLA James Popham said of testing:
"Most educational policymakers, state board members, members of legislatures, are well intentioned, and install accountability measures involving these kinds of tests in the belief that good things will happen to children. But most of these policymakers are dirt-ignorant regarding what these tests should and should not be used for. And the tragedy is that they set up a system in which the primary indicator of educational quality is simply wrong. .... We have to create tests that really do reflect how well teachers have been teaching. Those kinds of tests will allow, I think, public education to survive. The kind of tests that we're using now is setting up public educators for absolute failure"
Rod Paige and Arne Duncan both led large urban school systems and it would be fair to say the issues they faced there might not have been exactly the same as most districts in the nation. For certain there were and are kids in every school in our nation that are historically underserved. But testing has proven far from an ideal solution. Many educators contend the unintended consequences have damaged our schools and hurt kids. Resistance to such test heavy approached was and is dismissed as defense of the status quo. This works given the accepted assumption that schools are and have been failing our nation for some time.So where are we now and where are we headed. It was a comment by Geoffrey Canada which got my attention. His close contact with influential national leaders led him to observe "There is no plan". The comment referenced whether or not the feds or states had a solution to fix this perceived problem. Canada has done much to help kids and no doubt saved many. He's a common sense leader who was connected to teachers, school and what was really happening. A rare combination. In another address “You want to save your kids? You’re going to have to do it yourself,” he said. “Nobody’s coming.” Yet the Feds came. And so did the states. It started way back when and now appears the new paradigm in education is top down, test heavy and completely reliant on measurable results. The public seems to demand such outcomes if efforts and funding of public education is to be justified and seen as worthwhile.
The quest to remedy what we are and were doing wrong has led to the neglect and in some cases abandonment of what we were doing right. No doubt some things are better. I agree with much of what Mr. Bush called for 22 years ago. But some things are worse. The narrowing of goals, curriculum and focus on misguided measures of quality are not good things. In my state of Virginia 3% if school division made AYP in 2010-2011. If they really believed that meant something they'd fire everyone wouldn't they?
We can now tell whether a student has acquired needed information. But we might be losing sight of what makes a good school, a good teacher or a good education in our one size fits all approach. The lofty well intentioned individuals who affect school governance have increased control over what we do and how we do it. My only hope is that as we move forward I and all the other teachers will not be shut out of the conversation like I was shut out of U-Hall in 1989. I wonder if our state leaders were once again called to Charlottesville if the rhetoric would appear any different. Or would the call for reform simply reflect a consensus that our schools are in trouble and for the good of the nation something must be done.
Friday, September 23, 2011
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)
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)
Friday, April 8, 2011
2012 or 2014?
As the Underground wraps up Spring Break I find my mind wandering and relax watching ALL of the Masters so pardon my lack of focus with this post. But I am reminded the "end" is near.
I recall just last week my classes sped through our unit on Mesoamerica before one of many looming deadlines. We watched one of my favorite videos on the Maya and it included a segment on how the cycle of creation comes to an end and the Mayan Long Count expires on December 21st, 2012. The end of days. It sparked some interesting discussion and we chose to ignore the potential Federal Government Shutdown and its impact. Most people are now familiar with the doomsday predictions for when the Mayan Calendar ends. I found it funny how both political parties are spinning out similar predictions about the effects of a shutdown. What's the connection? Great question(sorry not on the test though).
Flashback 50 years ..."First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind..." these words came from President John F. Kennedy in May of 1961. Powerful rhetoric that put the heat on everyone involved to achieve this goal. I spoke recently to man man(who asked to remain anonymous) who after staging moon landings and covering up the JFK assassination said that if we make it to 2013, we might not make it much past 2014. That's the year when the much maligned No Child Left Behind legislation demands that all children be proficient in reading in Math. "Who's the we" I asked. Did he mean schools? He mumbled something about President Obama's proposed revisions to the law and how he and Congress weren't likely to do much better and then pressed a flashy red thing on his pen(did I mention he was dressed in black?).
The 2001 NCLB Act was President George W. Bush's(erroneously referred to in all failing public schools as Bush Jr.) call to action to make our schools better. NO child would be left behind in an ambitious plan reminiscent of the days of the Space Race. Among the authors of this bill were current House Speaker John Boehner and President Kennedy's late brother Ted. The bill did something pretty amazing, it took a well intentioned effort at reform and created a federal act that messed everything up. In fact it makes many of us teachers feel analogous to the Russians during the Space Race. I'll borrow heavily here from Gerald Bracey and his "THE SEVEN DEADLY ABSURDITIES OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND"
critique but it went about things the wrong way. Actually many wrong ways...a mistake that continues today. So states and schools have chimed in with their own ominous prediction when most of their schools are deemed "failing" and kids allowed to transfer. While Bracey rants a bit at the end( something I do well myself), pardon him as he illustrates much of what went wrong. Imagine if Kennedy(had he not been killed by the Oswald, the mafia, CIA, Castro, Russians, man on the grassy knoll or all of the above) had punished an entire agency or dept at NASA when one engineer miscalculated something? Somehow we made it to the moon but where is NCLB and now Race to the Top taking us? Another great questions...ask again at the end of class.
As a young teacher in 2001 I paid no attention to the law. Did anyone in schools really? That changed when scores started to matter. Admitting some good has come from the law it is the unintended effects that are frightening. Will it bring the end or at least contribute to the undoing of our public schools as some predict? I am uncertain but I have grave concerns about where we continue to be driven by Federal legislation intended to improve our schools. In my view new reform ideas are even less likely to realize improvement than the old. Where they succeed is making schools focus too much on testing, demoralizing our educators and potentially undoing much of the good we have done educationally the last century. When others ask why I oppose a lot reform they overlook the reality that there are just some things teachers know and understand that others cannot.
Bracey gets this and also talked in a separate post about the "schools suck bloc" and in some small way connects the title of this post, my unfocused rantings and actual events. Schools can only do so much and in that sense they are just like my unit on Mesoamerica. Set some realistic goals, make a plan, and get going. Just don't forget about the people involved. A rocket and a kid are different...though both can go off course without warning sometimes.
I have not fared well in predicting the future but I will say one thing for certain. Kids, schools, teachers, even our federal budget all face an uphill climb at times and we don't need any scary partisan rhetoric or cumbersome legislation making the hill steeper. Is 2012, 2014 or tomorrow the end? Another great question. I have to go back to the last government shutdown and I guess that also depends on what your meaning of is, is.That's for a later post
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The Teaching Underground Grassroots Teacher Response to the State of the Union Address
So tonight we get both a Republican and a Tea-Party response to the President's State of the Union Address, so we here at the Teaching Underground have decided to throw our hats into the ring and offer the official "Teaching Underground Grassroots Teacher Response" to the State of the Union Address. We've included relevant text from the President's speech tonight below in italics with our comments embedded. So here we go...
Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science.
History has shown us that America is at its greatest when we forge ahead and live up to our unique ideals of democracy and progress. We have seen some our worst moments in times of fear spent chasing after a dream just because a perceived opponent might reach it first. Innovation is the buzzword of today, but true American innovation is original and "organic." The sheer size of China and India alone must lead us to conclude that in the future we will relate to them as partners on the world stage. Perhaps it is time that we learn what our unique role in this partnership will be instead of chasing their dream and pretending that all we need to do is educate our children the same way they educate theirs.
What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea – the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That is why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?”
Agreed. That first line may sum up the reason why most of us entered the teaching profession in the first place. But in the current environment of accountability through testing, how do we standardize "what would you change about the world." Our education systems must not lose sight of the value of teaching our students to do more than memorizing equations in it's desire to measure.
Maintaining our leadership in research and technology is crucial to America’s success. But if we want to win the future – if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas – then we also have to win the race to educate our kids.
We spent much of the twentieth century producing a quality workforce for America. When the corporate world found a better deal they took it. If we want to produce jobs in America, we need to also consider that education is not a race. A race is something you finish and either win or lose. When I attended the University of Virginia, students referred to themselves as first, second, third, or fourth years because in the eyes of its founder, "one cannot reach seniority in learning." We need to understand that education is about Human development, not Human resource development.
Think about it. Over the next ten years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school degree. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren’t even finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations. America has fallen to 9th in the proportion of young people with a college degree. And so the question is whether all of us – as citizens, and as parents – are willing to do what’s necessary to give every child a chance to succeed.
Also agreed, but it is about more than just sending kids to college. A college degree does not guarantee success anymore. A lack of a college degree is not a death sentence. Our students need a vision of what they can become. Ask any number of unemployed or underemployed college graduates what they think about this comment. Rather than pushing all students into this vague notion of college, we should make sure that our students are thinking about their future and how they hope to give back to the world.
That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities. It’s family that first instills the love of learning in a child. Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done. We need to teach our kids that it’s not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair; that success is not a function of fame or PR, but of hard work and discipline.
I appreciate an acknowledgment that the responsibility for the education of our children is not squarely on the shoulders of our schools. We do need to instill a reality check that hard work and discipline are the keys to success, but also the truth that sometimes even this isn't enough. We need to learn from personal failure and understand how to positively respond to setbacks.
Our schools share this responsibility. When a child walks into a classroom, it should be a place of high expectations and high performance. But too many schools don’t meet this test. That’s why instead of just pouring money into a system that’s not working, we launched a competition called Race to the Top. To all fifty states, we said, “If you show us the most innovative plans to improve teacher quality and student achievement, we’ll show you the money.”
I'm writing this tonight with an eye for the weather, wondering whether we will have school tomorrow or not. Sometimes we risk our lives to get to school, and other times we sit home in the rain. If schools were smart, they'd hire a meteorologist to make this decision after all, they're the professionals. Why wouldn't we let the meteorologists make the call on school cancellations? It seems that we're becoming more and more willing to let the economists make the call on school reform.
Race to the Top is the most meaningful reform of our public schools in a generation. For less than one percent of what we spend on education each year, it has led over 40 states to raise their standards for teaching and learning. These standards were developed, not by Washington, but by Republican and Democratic governors throughout the country. And Race to the Top should be the approach we follow this year as we replace No Child Left Behind with a law that is more flexible and focused on what’s best for our kids. You see, we know what’s possible for our children when reform isn’t just a top-down mandate, but the work of local teachers and principals; school boards and communities.
Flexibility is key. This is why education is best left in the hands of local government. We spend so much time and resources on National and State mandates for chunks of money that usually doesn't even cover the cost of implementation. Federal and State governments are essential in setting minimum standards and ensuring equity in education, but their efforts to prescribe policy hurt our ability to effectively and (yes I'll say it) efficiently educate our students.
Take a school like Bruce Randolph in Denver. Three years ago, it was rated one of the worst schools in Colorado; located on turf between two rival gangs. But last May, 97% of the seniors received their diploma. Most will be the first in their family to go to college. And after the first year of the school’s transformation, the principal who made it possible wiped away tears when a student said “Thank you, Mrs. Waters, for showing… that we are smart and we can make it.”
OK, and this example tells us what? Not to be negative, this is a great story, but I'm not sure what it tells us about how to move forward in education.
Let’s also remember that after parents, the biggest impact on a child’s success comes from the man or woman at the front of the classroom. In South Korea, teachers are known as “nation builders.” Here in America, it’s time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect. We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones. And over the next ten years, with so many Baby Boomers retiring from our classrooms, we want to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math.
I do like to think of myself as a builder of people more than a nation, but thank you for the shout out. I can't help but think this is a little bit of a back-door comment however. We have a system too complex to simplify this good teacher/bad teacher dichotomy. Part of the reason I'm a good teacher is that I work for a good system, with adequate support and resources. Within that system I have some of the best students, some of whom would succeed despite my efforts if not because of them. How do you compare that to a teacher struggling to keep student attention daily because they lack necessary resources and administrative support, and the students they teach come into the class struggling. In ideal situations, almost anyone could be a good teacher, but on the contrary, in some systems only a few would have what it takes to be an excellent teacher.
In fact, to every young person listening tonight who’s contemplating their career choice: If you want to make a difference in the life of our nation; if you want to make a difference in the life of a child – become a teacher. Your country needs you.
Yes we do.
These are just a few of my initial reactions, don't judge too harshly. I used to think that national rhetoric about education was just that, harmless rhetoric. After all, the federal government doesn't control our schools. But in the last decade I believe the national rhetoric and the cascade of reforms that it has required greatly impacts the education systems of America.
So there you have the official "Teaching Underground Grassroots Teacher Response" to the State of the Union Address. What are your thoughts? Feel free to share using the comments link below.
Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science.
History has shown us that America is at its greatest when we forge ahead and live up to our unique ideals of democracy and progress. We have seen some our worst moments in times of fear spent chasing after a dream just because a perceived opponent might reach it first. Innovation is the buzzword of today, but true American innovation is original and "organic." The sheer size of China and India alone must lead us to conclude that in the future we will relate to them as partners on the world stage. Perhaps it is time that we learn what our unique role in this partnership will be instead of chasing their dream and pretending that all we need to do is educate our children the same way they educate theirs.
What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea – the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That is why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?”
Agreed. That first line may sum up the reason why most of us entered the teaching profession in the first place. But in the current environment of accountability through testing, how do we standardize "what would you change about the world." Our education systems must not lose sight of the value of teaching our students to do more than memorizing equations in it's desire to measure.
Maintaining our leadership in research and technology is crucial to America’s success. But if we want to win the future – if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas – then we also have to win the race to educate our kids.
We spent much of the twentieth century producing a quality workforce for America. When the corporate world found a better deal they took it. If we want to produce jobs in America, we need to also consider that education is not a race. A race is something you finish and either win or lose. When I attended the University of Virginia, students referred to themselves as first, second, third, or fourth years because in the eyes of its founder, "one cannot reach seniority in learning." We need to understand that education is about Human development, not Human resource development.
Think about it. Over the next ten years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school degree. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren’t even finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations. America has fallen to 9th in the proportion of young people with a college degree. And so the question is whether all of us – as citizens, and as parents – are willing to do what’s necessary to give every child a chance to succeed.
Also agreed, but it is about more than just sending kids to college. A college degree does not guarantee success anymore. A lack of a college degree is not a death sentence. Our students need a vision of what they can become. Ask any number of unemployed or underemployed college graduates what they think about this comment. Rather than pushing all students into this vague notion of college, we should make sure that our students are thinking about their future and how they hope to give back to the world.
That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities. It’s family that first instills the love of learning in a child. Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done. We need to teach our kids that it’s not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair; that success is not a function of fame or PR, but of hard work and discipline.
I appreciate an acknowledgment that the responsibility for the education of our children is not squarely on the shoulders of our schools. We do need to instill a reality check that hard work and discipline are the keys to success, but also the truth that sometimes even this isn't enough. We need to learn from personal failure and understand how to positively respond to setbacks.
Our schools share this responsibility. When a child walks into a classroom, it should be a place of high expectations and high performance. But too many schools don’t meet this test. That’s why instead of just pouring money into a system that’s not working, we launched a competition called Race to the Top. To all fifty states, we said, “If you show us the most innovative plans to improve teacher quality and student achievement, we’ll show you the money.”
I'm writing this tonight with an eye for the weather, wondering whether we will have school tomorrow or not. Sometimes we risk our lives to get to school, and other times we sit home in the rain. If schools were smart, they'd hire a meteorologist to make this decision after all, they're the professionals. Why wouldn't we let the meteorologists make the call on school cancellations? It seems that we're becoming more and more willing to let the economists make the call on school reform.
Race to the Top is the most meaningful reform of our public schools in a generation. For less than one percent of what we spend on education each year, it has led over 40 states to raise their standards for teaching and learning. These standards were developed, not by Washington, but by Republican and Democratic governors throughout the country. And Race to the Top should be the approach we follow this year as we replace No Child Left Behind with a law that is more flexible and focused on what’s best for our kids. You see, we know what’s possible for our children when reform isn’t just a top-down mandate, but the work of local teachers and principals; school boards and communities.
Flexibility is key. This is why education is best left in the hands of local government. We spend so much time and resources on National and State mandates for chunks of money that usually doesn't even cover the cost of implementation. Federal and State governments are essential in setting minimum standards and ensuring equity in education, but their efforts to prescribe policy hurt our ability to effectively and (yes I'll say it) efficiently educate our students.
Take a school like Bruce Randolph in Denver. Three years ago, it was rated one of the worst schools in Colorado; located on turf between two rival gangs. But last May, 97% of the seniors received their diploma. Most will be the first in their family to go to college. And after the first year of the school’s transformation, the principal who made it possible wiped away tears when a student said “Thank you, Mrs. Waters, for showing… that we are smart and we can make it.”
OK, and this example tells us what? Not to be negative, this is a great story, but I'm not sure what it tells us about how to move forward in education.
Let’s also remember that after parents, the biggest impact on a child’s success comes from the man or woman at the front of the classroom. In South Korea, teachers are known as “nation builders.” Here in America, it’s time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect. We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones. And over the next ten years, with so many Baby Boomers retiring from our classrooms, we want to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math.
I do like to think of myself as a builder of people more than a nation, but thank you for the shout out. I can't help but think this is a little bit of a back-door comment however. We have a system too complex to simplify this good teacher/bad teacher dichotomy. Part of the reason I'm a good teacher is that I work for a good system, with adequate support and resources. Within that system I have some of the best students, some of whom would succeed despite my efforts if not because of them. How do you compare that to a teacher struggling to keep student attention daily because they lack necessary resources and administrative support, and the students they teach come into the class struggling. In ideal situations, almost anyone could be a good teacher, but on the contrary, in some systems only a few would have what it takes to be an excellent teacher.
In fact, to every young person listening tonight who’s contemplating their career choice: If you want to make a difference in the life of our nation; if you want to make a difference in the life of a child – become a teacher. Your country needs you.
Yes we do.
These are just a few of my initial reactions, don't judge too harshly. I used to think that national rhetoric about education was just that, harmless rhetoric. After all, the federal government doesn't control our schools. But in the last decade I believe the national rhetoric and the cascade of reforms that it has required greatly impacts the education systems of America.
So there you have the official "Teaching Underground Grassroots Teacher Response" to the State of the Union Address. What are your thoughts? Feel free to share using the comments link below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)