As much as I support unions and believe in public schools for all, it hit me today that without (1) charter schools and (2) another non-profit that provides financial support and professional development, I might have quit teaching two years ago. Depending on how you view my quality as a teacher, this is either a good or a bad thing.
But if high quality teaching is critical to great schools we will continue to depend on the non-profit sector to invent means for recruiting and maintaining high quality teachers. I think there is a lot of room for non-profits in the areas of teacher evaluation and improvement. In districts where unions and school boards/mayors are constantly locked in battle, there is room for "third-party" solutions.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Fix 'Em
Via Aaron Schutz at Education Policy Blog:
"In a sense, focusing on education as the 'solution' to anything at least partly entails 'blaming the victim.' If education is the solution, then there must be something about someone that is inadequate and needs to be "fixed." A focus on education inherently implies that the 'problem' is with those who are being educated (and can't seem to learn)."
Primarily, I agree with this, in terms of policy. I hear echoes of this in today's calls for more testing, the belittling of urban students and their teachers, and the pervasive belief that academic and economic success are simply choices avoided by the lazy poor.
For many that work at high-poverty schools, however, this is an oversimplification bordering on utter distortion.
Public schools are safe places in high-poverty neighborhoods where many kids love spending their time. We know this because of the many children that show up hours ahead of time and linger in the hallways for hours after the end of the day. We know this because of the joy and success lots of kids feel in our schools, academically and in extracurricular activities. Adults often work in these schools not because they want to "fix" inadequacies but because they want to be a part of a positive force in a high-poverty neighborhood. Maybe schools aren't the only positive force, but they carry strength nonetheless. If we acknowledge stresses and negative factors pervasive in such neighborhoods, it is, I think, natural to want to be a part of a school. Not the desire to "fix" children, but a desire to make schools great places for kids that want love and validation just like all kids do. If that's imperialism then I'm confused.
A second thought: in a country not long on institutions of social welfare, is there another force for fighting poverty from which we can expect much? I'm asking seriously. As unions fade and politicians succumb further to moneyed interests, schools remain open to all and have an opportunity to be major players in their communities. Certainly over-testing and the sort of "tough" accountability being tossed around by Secretary Duncan and others likely will only ingrain poverty by decontextualizing and oversimplifying learning, but can we imagine a version of schooling that would be a force against poverty? I think we ought at least to try.
Perhaps we need to consider a model that seeks to change neighborhoods through schools, such as the Harlem Children's Zone, which, though anchored around schools, provides many auxiliary services to combat the stresses and problems of being poor. Perhaps we need to consider a curriculum that empowers students to organize and build political capital in their communities, in order to engender beneficial economic and social policies. Perhaps we need to consider schools that would truly be the hearts of their communities, offering free medical, legal, and other services beyond the traditional school day.
I guess I have trouble with the dismissal of those who choose to work in urban schools as part of an "imperialist" ideology. It's hard to fathom a more insulting word for what I do.
"In a sense, focusing on education as the 'solution' to anything at least partly entails 'blaming the victim.' If education is the solution, then there must be something about someone that is inadequate and needs to be "fixed." A focus on education inherently implies that the 'problem' is with those who are being educated (and can't seem to learn)."
Primarily, I agree with this, in terms of policy. I hear echoes of this in today's calls for more testing, the belittling of urban students and their teachers, and the pervasive belief that academic and economic success are simply choices avoided by the lazy poor.
For many that work at high-poverty schools, however, this is an oversimplification bordering on utter distortion.
Public schools are safe places in high-poverty neighborhoods where many kids love spending their time. We know this because of the many children that show up hours ahead of time and linger in the hallways for hours after the end of the day. We know this because of the joy and success lots of kids feel in our schools, academically and in extracurricular activities. Adults often work in these schools not because they want to "fix" inadequacies but because they want to be a part of a positive force in a high-poverty neighborhood. Maybe schools aren't the only positive force, but they carry strength nonetheless. If we acknowledge stresses and negative factors pervasive in such neighborhoods, it is, I think, natural to want to be a part of a school. Not the desire to "fix" children, but a desire to make schools great places for kids that want love and validation just like all kids do. If that's imperialism then I'm confused.
A second thought: in a country not long on institutions of social welfare, is there another force for fighting poverty from which we can expect much? I'm asking seriously. As unions fade and politicians succumb further to moneyed interests, schools remain open to all and have an opportunity to be major players in their communities. Certainly over-testing and the sort of "tough" accountability being tossed around by Secretary Duncan and others likely will only ingrain poverty by decontextualizing and oversimplifying learning, but can we imagine a version of schooling that would be a force against poverty? I think we ought at least to try.
Perhaps we need to consider a model that seeks to change neighborhoods through schools, such as the Harlem Children's Zone, which, though anchored around schools, provides many auxiliary services to combat the stresses and problems of being poor. Perhaps we need to consider a curriculum that empowers students to organize and build political capital in their communities, in order to engender beneficial economic and social policies. Perhaps we need to consider schools that would truly be the hearts of their communities, offering free medical, legal, and other services beyond the traditional school day.
I guess I have trouble with the dismissal of those who choose to work in urban schools as part of an "imperialist" ideology. It's hard to fathom a more insulting word for what I do.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
What do we want from schools?
More and more, it seems, the public sees our public K-12 system as a means to entering college, the gateway to a higher income. All students must be "college ready". The conventional wisdom seems to hold that sending more poor students to college is the solution to poverty.
The ever-controversial Richard Rothstein writes recently in The American Prospect:
"If more youth from disadvantaged backgrounds got the education and training to compete for skilled jobs, would the number of good jobs expand to soak up these newly qualified beneficiaries of better schooling and active labor-market policies? Or would these youth displace competitors from middle-class backgrounds?"
It seems obvious to me that simply sending more students to college will not, in fact, help our economy in a meaningful way. Nor is it the magic bullet that is the solution to ending poverty. Nor will it serve to make our society more equal.
Schools certainly play a role. But so does economic policy that doesn't blindly serve the rich. So do strong unions and politicians that are elected with working people in mind. We need to stop buying into the idea that the wealthy and middle classes earned their salaries and homes simply by having good teachers and working hard in school. There were fortuitous circumstances that helped out. A major question for the future: will similar fortuitous circumstances return?
The ever-controversial Richard Rothstein writes recently in The American Prospect:
"If more youth from disadvantaged backgrounds got the education and training to compete for skilled jobs, would the number of good jobs expand to soak up these newly qualified beneficiaries of better schooling and active labor-market policies? Or would these youth displace competitors from middle-class backgrounds?"
It seems obvious to me that simply sending more students to college will not, in fact, help our economy in a meaningful way. Nor is it the magic bullet that is the solution to ending poverty. Nor will it serve to make our society more equal.
Schools certainly play a role. But so does economic policy that doesn't blindly serve the rich. So do strong unions and politicians that are elected with working people in mind. We need to stop buying into the idea that the wealthy and middle classes earned their salaries and homes simply by having good teachers and working hard in school. There were fortuitous circumstances that helped out. A major question for the future: will similar fortuitous circumstances return?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
