Wolf in “Status Quo” Clothing [Reading Response]

Flexibility and accountability. Laboratories for innovation. Starting Over. Having More Options in the Market. I think the point has been clearly made that the system as exists isn’t serving us well for student outcomes (nevermind test scores or performance). It has also been underscored that it takes lots and lots of effort from the people on the ground and lots and lots of vision, guts, and a refreshing stubbornness from those that are to lead. But how do we get the stability from authorizing political environments (and I mean the voters and taxpayers, not necessarily those making the direct appointments) that is needed to prove a reform is working? To allow a reform to work? That will hold the cord, but won’t yet pull the plug. This is what I want to know. Because as much as I would vote for the bull-in-a-china-shop candidate if it meant grade levels of students would be saved, I dunno how many others would…

I posit that it takes someone that knows both sides of the issues and is party to both worlds. Someone who is legitimate enough to stay, or stay for now. The person who is hungry as a wolf to do the things mounds and mounds of education reform readings tell us work, but who has enough political cover that the status quo posse likes her too (or at least is not calling for her hide). We either find such people (begin to create them) or continue to feed the mob.

Two Thoughts Emerge In My Mind—On “Bad” Schools & “Race” [Reading Response]

Thought #1: What makes a “bad” school? The general answer might include schools with poor student test scores, school violence, dilapidated buildings and grounds, old textbooks, and unhealthy lunch programs. The unsaid, less politically correct answer is schools with lots of black and brown faces (obviously not because they are black and brown faces—though some of the theorists from last week might propose that it is because of those identities--but because, as this week’s readings amplify, segregated schools (bad) and high concentrations of students on free lunch (bad) are more likely to be the experiences of black and brown faces than white faces). Traits of “good schools” consist of the opposite features (perhaps explaining the teacher transfer trend in Georgia from Orfield and Lee, p. 17). And for the most part, our general solution has been to use money to transform the former into the latter. Yet, I find myself asking the same question asked by others: does one overcome the bad schools of the impoverished simply by having more money? I cautiously assert that the answer is “no” (though I make a sharp distinction between poverty being an aggregate condition that needs a large-scale remedy and “poor” as an individual status that might in fact benefit from a wealth transfer). So, I am left to choose amongst other model solutions to meet the challenge… but I am just not sure the importation of one particular model is the way to go.

Thought #2: In this week’s Washington Post, the conversation arose again about the inability of using race as a factor for diversifying schools as a result of Parents Involved v. Seattle School District (2007) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/19/AR2010091904973.html?sub=AR). It seems this article and this week’s readings illustrate the core connections between the identities of the education have-nots and the resources of the education haves, and how our decentralized system needs but struggles to disperse identities and resources within its populations. But this effort at social engineering is a huge undertaking. Perhaps I am simplistic—but I drink of the water that says the teacher-leader and student-parent relationships are the key levers for change. Systems have an obligation to diversify student experiences, but if we are to advance student outcomes, the solution requires far more teacher and administrator self-awareness and vulnerability that I think most are ready for. 

Be Extreme [Reading Response]

Before I approached the readings, I jotted down my preliminary reaction to the Week 2 Student Questions prompt: “What’s your view of the purpose of education?” I suppose now, and assumed then, that I am similar to other classmates in that I have an engrained view on this topic before consulting the readings. My purposes of education? To teach/acquire concrete skills (the three R’s at minimum and occupational expertise through apprenticeship at the other extreme), to socialize maturity and self-awareness as individuals and identity groups, to create civic awareness and promote engagement, to facilitate the competency formations about what we think of one another within and across cultural groups, and to inform our personal and systemic methods of preserving mankind and the environment. I acknowledged that these areas may overlap, and I referred to education as an institution with desired outcomes—rather than as aggregated learning (perhaps with less defined outcomes but more qualitative aims).

The readings reminded me not only of a substantive conflict about “who wins” in the persuasiveness of their viewpoint (like the First Face of Power, “which do I believe in most?”), but also of a battle of relativity (“how much of each viewpoint am I willing to accept?”). Views such as Count’s criticism of Progressive Education may seem harsh or extreme, but the slight adoption of even some of his premises (like accepting that education should teach curiosity—an aspect missing from my purposes list) signals a relative victory for the author. Ultimately, I believe educators and education-interested people need to deeply grapple with such conflicts—without being forced to reconcile different viewpoints. I appreciated them “being laid out on the table,” but perhaps it’s because I started from a pluralistic assumption about education’s purpose. For me, when every side has at least someone who thinks her view is the only view (or that the accepted view should be taken to a more extreme position), I become more engaged—hoping for robust conversation. And, I admit, that’s where I think the real purpose of education lies—somewhere between the extremes.

Why Education Needs Teachers More Than Ever

This is not about hiring more effective teachers nor is it about pay-for-performance.


This is not about the achievement gap.


This is not about ensuring that we can "staff" our schools and that each child has someone to teach him or her.


It's not even about the instrinsic value a teacher brings to the classroom.


This is about why, more than ever, policy makers NEED teachers and why teachers NEED to critically analyze (and embrace) significant education research.


I will do my best to make this as generalizable as possible. But, in an effort to be as transparent as possible, it must be understood that my plea cries from not only the academic background I've been exposed to, the professionals I've dialogued with, the policy reports and findings I've read, or the environments I've worked in or have knowledge of. Combined in my statements are deductions from what I've felt around me, from what I've seen, and from what I know-- very concretely-- to be true.


Right there I've lost half of the readers. My appeal to authority has been undermined because I introduced conditions that are outside of objective, data based, or quantitative conclusions. I violated the Harvard-iron-clad law of "substantive argument." That I use my gut isn't good enough. At the least, I would be asked for my antecodotal notes. I need a central thesis, literature review, findings, results and analysis before I make my ultimate judgement. Sorry readers, I don't have any of those. Again, I've lost some.


But those whom I've lost probably wouldn't have accepted my plea anyway.


Actually, it's exactly "those people" who create the environment I'm suggesting we abolish. It's those people that (no matter how politically vulnerable it will make them if they were forthcoming) cringe everytime someone identifies herself as a "teacher." Those people-- these macro-level, policy analyst, think-tank professionals, education-reform stamped experts-- "know better" and "know more" than any teacher would, even though teachers, of course think that they have all the answers. I'm harsh. But I'm precise.


I understand that each education program or social innovation geared toward making improvements in education falls short of its gains. I even get the fact that identifying oneself as a Teach For America alumna builds a barrcade that's extremely difficult to overcome successfully. I even agree, in some cases, why these programs, entrepreunerial endeavors and movements should be challenged. What I don't get is why one's experience in the classroom isn't relevant to policy. Why interfacing with the same children that others count in a sample isn't as significant as the data trend that child produces. I don't understand why there is teacher-aversion.


It sickens me, as it would presumeably sicken any onlooker who's been at the dinner table in both houses, to be a part of a conversation where both policy maker and practioner sit together and dismiss the other.


To be skeptical, yes. To be synical, no. Big no. Brash disjointment is unacceptable when we have children not learning. They don't have time for adults to make themselves play nice or respect one another. They don't really have time for much.


Education policy makers NEED teachers now more than ever.


Perhaps I will develop this argument out further, and the implications of what I am saying, and most importantly, for what I am proposing and what it means for each party. I will list why I think teachers need to be given education policy professional development through university-leave opportunities after the first five years of teaching. And why I think education policy makers need to be recruiting, in high volume, teachers to fill in the seats around their idea tables and to be part of their research evaluation process. And, to get to my purpose in all of this, why every education policy maker or reformer needs to step into a classroom.


Best case scenario? If you wanna make decisions regarding education policy, you need to have taught for at least two-years. Because (and don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise), you don't really know unless you were there.


So, maybe I'll accept comparable education experience. Perhaps you were not a teacher in a classroom, but you have acquired comparable insight which includes being responsibile for implementing the policies you proscribe or support. Not through research or volunteerism, but something that has punitive and biting consequences. Again, still have to flesh this one out. I'll accept coverletters and counter-arguments until then.

No Weapon

As incredibly excited as I am by the nearly 1/2 million phone calls posted for today (now yesterday), I urge the campaign to PRESS forward.


It seems the media is lulling the public into security: the electoral map, the "up in the polls" Barack leanings, the hype over a McCain "last ditch effort."


Tomorrow I am calling not only because I believe in what we are all doing and support the cause, but because I have a new fire in me. Let's not underestimate the Republican based to get the job done- anyhow, anyway.


I watched the infomercial today and looked over at my class photo of elementary 1st-grade students from the Atlanta school where I taught. I REALIZED THAT NOW IS THE TIME TO KICK IT INTO HIGH GEAR. They need this. We need this. America needs this.


PLEASE URGE EVERYONE TO NOT REST! Call, knock, donate, support and let's not take anything as granted.


I am not afraid-- quite the opposite-- I am faithful. Thank you everyone for making me believe. Thank you Barack for giving me hope.


Let's do it. :-)

Reflections of First-Year Teacher

He steals. At six-years-old, this boy can look me in the eye and tell me that this new-found pencil is his, and then proceed to tell me how he came to be associated with the utensil. I suppose at that age I thought that I, too, was witty. It began with stickers: motivational, encouraging stickers that I used as a behavioral system. I would endow them to the rightful recipient, and—sometimes even in a day’s time—they would disappear from the chart mounted on the student’s desk, never to be seen again.

I’ve caught him. Twice, thrice… several times over; each time using varying tactics: the guilt-trip, the disappointment, the anger, the frustration, the empathetic, the questioning, the serious. Over a cautious gradient of time, he graduated from stickers to pencils. My pencils, ironically. Attempting to convince even me that he found them—three of them—on the floor.

He advanced to quarters today, and, in the same fail swoop, I advanced to intolerance. The write-up came swiftly, but it was not unforeseen. Somehow it comforted me to learn that he had stolen elsewhere. Sadly, I should be all the more concerned, but in my newness of teaching, I somehow thought his deficiency of self-control could be related to my neglectful eye—or worse, my ignorance. Alas! His mother notified me of their continuous concern for his behavior: that he’s taken money from a student at the afternoon recreation hall weeks before.

Perhaps my insecurities kept me from the write-up sooner. Or maybe it was learning that he has 5 other siblings at home, mostly sisters. Or maybe it was his brilliance in his writing or his perceptive ability to answer aloud correctly. Or maybe, because in a sick way, I wanted the challenge of out-smarting him. I wanted to beat him in his own game and catch him in the act. But when it rains, it pours and he had overstepped the proverbial line in the sand. As fate would have it, he also confessed on my second round of questioning. In an uneasy contortion of truth, I think I love this little boy… even if he’s the stark opposite of why I wanted to teach in the first place.