Zero For The Day

Not that simple

2011-05-31T03:43:00.001-07:00

Not as simple as more charter schools, but not as simple as leave teachers alone and solve poverty first. What is the purpose of schools? Could a nation agree? Maybe a small one. Maybe a state could, or a city, a district. Certainly a community could?

But never entirely. People will hate your school. People will love it too.

The Problem With Opposition

2011-04-20T13:11:00.001-07:00

So we have two camps. On the one hand is the anti-union, pro-charter, pro-testing group called reformers by the MSM (chidingly, "the deformers", by its opposition) and embodied by Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, and others. The other side is pro-union, anti-charter, anti-testing, without a meaningful name (chidingly, "the status quo", by its opposition) embodied by Diane Ravitch, Deborah Meier, and others.

The reformers gain a lot of ground by consistently trying to come up with evidence for "what works". Whatever effort they endorse, be it merit-pay, charter schools, vouchers, et al, the true test is always, "did the scores go up?". Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. But the reformers' job is to try something new and see if the scores go up.

Ravitch et al have a mightier task. The problem with opposing the reformers is that you must constantly prove that nothing works. Schools are not the answer; out of school factors mean much more to student success than anything in school. Test scores are either reflective of a narrowing of curriculum, creamed students, or outright cheating. These are troublesome because (1) you are consistently labeled contrarian and working against the children (2) ultimately your suggestions are political and have more to do with tax policy or our social safety net than schools themselves and (3) you have to spend much time writing "take downs" of what the Rhees of this world are doing, rather than focusing on your own agenda.

Can those that oppose "the reformers" come up with a coherent agenda that will help students and win broad public support?

Can we end the dichotomy?

2011-04-18T12:48:00.001-07:00

Heather Harding writes with a unique and untold perspective. If you're TFA are you a tool of corporate deformers? Do you seek radical deconstruction of the public school system?

In many cases, no. Unfortunately the dichotomous nature of our debate leaves no room for perspectives that are "in between" established ideologies.

OK World, What Do I Do?

2011-02-24T17:31:00.001-08:00

I want to do something. I want to be involved in improving education in the United States. I want to, specifically, improve education in impoverished urban areas. Why? Because my ability to think is what I cherish the most. I want everyone to have this. Without people that can think for themselves, we're fucking donezo. Climate change, economic meltdowns, you name it, we need need thinkers. To get us to the 22nd century in one piece.

I'll work a twelve hour day and all I want to do is go home and read education blogs.

So call me names. I'm white. OK. I went to college. Yes. It was Ivy League. My parents went to college too. I grew up in the suburbs. Call me what you want. Overpriviliged asshole. Fine. Maybe I don't belong here. What are the options?

1. "Just teach" Work in a traditional public school. Develop an ulcer. Be a grain of sand in a whirling storm. Stand tall with the union. Fight for seniority rights. Know, in my heart of hearts, that I'm "doing right by the kids" and that I have a pension and I've sided with labor, the good guys. Always feel powerless. Never feel respected. Never make enough money. Sit in union meetings and hate myself because all anyone wants to talk about is minutes in the day, not failing students. Feel successful every now and again. Maybe become a principal. Spend my time forcing out senior teachers to fix my budget. Make more money. Fudging numbers. Causing teachers to hate me.

2. "Go 100% charter" I've done it for a few years. Whole-heartedly renounce collective bargaining. Stay in the charter world. Feel respected, feel powerful. Make more money. Be a media darling. Feel successful every day. Feel like shit because I'm on the wrong team, I'm privatizing what should be a public entity. Feel like shit because lots of kids don't make it through our schools. Feel like shit because despite all of our extra money, numbers-fudging, and autonomy, public schools are still compared to us in the media and demonized, unfairly. Maybe become a principal. Create a school some kids and the media will love, but in my heart of hearts, I know is a sham.

3. "Fucking leave" Do something else! I don't belong here and I never did. I have the wrong mentality. The wrong background. The wrong everything. If you can't stand wholeheartedly in one of these camps, there's no place for you. Get out!

4. "Policy wonk" Go to ed school. Get a PhD. Spend the rest of my life writing about what's wrong with charter schools, what's wrong with district schools, and die happy knowing my conscience is clear. At least I didn't fuck anything up. I didn't do anything real. I didn't walk the walk.

Not expecting an answer. I just don't feel optimistic about any of them.

TFA20 - Opening Plenary

2011-02-13T16:10:00.001-08:00

Finally found the time to collect my thoughts from the TFA 20th Anniversary Summit, and I must say, if nothing else it was inspiring. It feels good to be reminded that it's OK to "still be a teacher" and to know that, as annoying as TFA may seem at times, its alumni are frequently dedicated, caring people who think about the issues that matter. Well, maybe not every issue that matters.

It was also interesting to get a sense of the current TFA philosophy and I must report that an organization that once (six years ago) felt pro-teacher and that at least tried to stay out of political issues is now pro-"leadership" and has a distinct ideological (pro-charter) slant.

Saturday began with an opening plenary that felt like a high school pep rally in an airplane hangar, complete with rock music and a raucous crowd.

Kaya Henderson, a TFA alumna who has taken over the reins of DCPS, introduced the summit (following a performance by the Ballou High School marching band). She also hinted at the tenor of the day, stating in no uncertain terms, "This is the revolution that we all dreamed about." From there the alarmist histrionics would only increase in urgency.

Wendy Kopp was next. In describing the nature of the alumni force, she dropped an interesting fact bomb: "1500 of you alumni are teachers". Well let's think about that. The total number of alumni was repeatedly stated to be 20,000. 1,500/20,000 = 7.5%. So 7.5% are still teaching. Not the number that gets tossed around in the media.

In her opening address, Wendy established what would be the refrain of the day: (1) we have solved the achievement gap, the recipe has been found, and (2) there is a moral imperative for drastic action, rather than slow, careful change. "We have created 'transformational schools' that make this work sustainable. We know what these schools are doing, and it is not elusive," she said. Later she added, "Incremental change is not enough, we need transformational change."

Immediately questions popped into my head: What is the evidence that any school works? Unsaid all weekend: the evidence is always proficiency rates on state-written assessments. Bunk. It's too easy to test-prep, it's not college readiness, it's not critical thinking. Also, so much evidence shows that real school change is gradual. It has to be gradual. I felt like throwing a copy of The Teaching Gap at the stage. But Kopp would not be the last to demand sudden, explosive change.

Walter Isaacson of the Aspen Institute (what?) then introduced a celebrity "yes!"-panel of edustars that quickly started sounding like Gucci-wearing versions of Karl Marx. First up, Joel Klein had the audacity to channel the Cairo protestors, asking, "Is this our Egypt moment?" He made the pertinent claim, "Each one of you out there, insist that every school is one you would send your own kids to." Fair enough. But couldn't end without echoing Kopp: "We need radical change."

Klein was followed by Dave Levin. The original KIPPster intoned, "We know it's possible. Revolutionary schools exist." He would close: "What will you do to serve the revolution?"

No edreform panel in 2011 would be complete without Michelle Rhee. She began with a proclamation, "We know what works," referencing quickly KIPP and the Harlem Children's Zone, before warning, "Not everyone is going to like us. We need to be aggressive." Oh shit!

HCZ's own Geoffery Canada would be next, stating breathlessly, "I never thought this moment would come." I have a ton of respect for Mr. Canada, and his presence on this panel, for me, legitimized a lot of the summit. I started to think if Geoff's here and Geoff's behind this, then I am too.

Probably least well-known was the last to speak, John Deasy, new leader of LAUSD. Apparently his resume includes work for Prince George's County and the Gates Foundation. "This is a courage issue," he said. "We will not allow rules or regulations to put great teaching in peril."

I kept waiting for one of them to bang his or her shoe on the table.

A lot of the rhetoric I agreed with: "We must professionalize teaching," (Klein); "This is the hardest work on the planet. It's also the most important," (Levin).

But I am ready to deepen the conversation. In addition to the unspoken assumption above (increased test scores = increased everything good), another big assumption is always that "transformational schools" teach kids that are "the same" as their counterparts in the same districts. Are they? Is a poor kid is a poor kid is a poor kid? When Klein says, "Give those same kids a great education, and the outcome is different," what does he really mean? In what sense are the kids "the same"? What "outcome" is he referring to?

When John Deasy says, "Look, we happen to be people of privilege, so what? Our students are not. We are violating our students' rights," what rights is he referring to? What is the purpose of schooling? What rights are guaranteed to in our public school system? Could we ever agree? This is still the question that matters.

"What learning can the state properly demand of its students?"

2010-02-10T07:17:00.000-08:00

-Horace's Compromise, p. 85, written in 1984

Today I don't think this question gets the time and thought it deserves. Again, the central term of this question, "learning", is left largely undiscussed. Learning is what the teachers are in charge of; the debate on the other hand, discussed by all of those important people that don't teach, revolves around the machinations of merit pay, school governance models, and union politics. Yes, you want charters schools. Yes, you want vouchers. Yes, you want to recruit better teachers. Yes, you want more accountability. But to what end? What will happen in these schools? Does this deserve your time and attention?

Ted Sizer lists three areas that should be required learning for everyone: (1) literacy, "the ability to...read easily and sensitively enough to comprehend at least the basic arguments presented by contemporary political and social life," (2) numeracy, "the ability to use numbers, arithmetically and algebraically, and to understand the concepts, relationships, and logic embedded in mathematical thought," (3) civic understanding, "a grasp of the basis for consensual democratic government, a respect for its processes, and acceptance of the restraints and obligations incumbent on a citizen," (p.86).

I don't think there would be too much argument with this as a basis for schools today. But then he goes on to say:

However, beyond these three elements, the claims of the state have far less merit. The state has no right to insist that I be "employable" on its terms of what a "career" may be. This is my private matter, and I take the risk that no one will purchase the services that I prepare myself to offer. The state has no right or obligation to tell me how to spend my leisure time. I can enrich myself and the state if I am cultured, but it is unreasonable of the state to impose on me its own definition of culture. As long as my style of life and values do not impinge on those of others, I should have the sovereign right to be what I want to be, including a slob. (p. 86-87, my bold)

Sizer goes on to write that "encouraging" particular careers or definitions of culture should be acceptable, to contrast with mandating these things. He rounds out his thoughts with the claim that, "Americans must come to terms with the limits on compulsion, on the minimal reasonable claims of the state on the time and minds of young citizens," (p. 87).

Today, this would fall into the category of "soft bigotry". The reform climate pushes college on everyone. Paternalistic charter schools do push a particular, middle-class culture on students. The goal of high-paying careers for as many people as possible seems to be the unspoken goal of our system. (And with good reason! Widening inequality has put those without a college degree in a very difficult position.)

Moreover, so much of today's educational discussion seems to be tied to our national economic interests (this is a particularly egregious example). Presumably, if we send everyone to college and prepare people for careers in science and technology, our GDP will rise and America will maintain its superpower status. Should this be the goal of our schools? Are there practical implications for making this the goal of our schools? If we are society that has become obsessed with our own gross domestic product and little else, we will likely create students that are obsessed with our GDP, or their own personal wealth, and little else.

We need to bring learning and the purpose of schools back to the table. I think Sizer's three criteria are a good starting place.

Rambling, incoherent

2010-01-23T09:51:00.000-08:00

Ted Sizer wrote: "We rarely underestimate the difficulties of learning. Having had to learn, we know that it is a complicated and unpredictable business," (Horace's Compromise, p. 2).

In today's climate, I disagree. I believe the wide majority, those that have never taught, regularly discount any challenge related to learning.

You're in sixth grade and you can't add fractions with unlike denominators with 80% accuracy? There's something wrong with your teacher. Or maybe you. You're lazy, kid. Get with it.

As every punishment must fit its crime, so too must every reform correspond to a particular failing of the system. Witness the rise of the "no excuses" mantra. Want to outlaw excuses? Someone must have been making a whole damn lot of them.

Can anyone who has never taught fractions really have an opinion? Should we really be listening to them at all? I'm not trying to be divisive, I really want to know. Should Bill Gates really be a powerful voice on education? Something tells me learning fractions was never that hard for him.

Is learning hard? Teaching? What does it even mean to learn? Have you ever learned? How do you know? How could you prove it to someone? Is there more than one way to prove it? Who or what caused your learning? How do you know? Do any of these questions even matter? To whom?

Until we, and I mean everyone, really wrestle with these ideas I see little hope for progress. Hold up a great school. Let's take a look. What's that, you say? The students have learned a lot? According to whom or what source? What did they learn? Did your school teach it to them? How do you know?

Popular assumptions undergird the debate. We are quick to applaud a school with high test scores. This is unquestionably a place where much learning has taken place; thus it deserves our attention. Left unwondered: are high scores really evidence of learning? What in fact, causes high scores on this particular exam? Do we know that the school played a role in causing the high scores?

Those few that ask these questions find a small audience and risk the label of contrarian.

Teaching Is What Matters

2010-01-16T20:39:00.000-08:00

I've recently picked up Horace's Compromise by the late Ted Sizer. I'll try to post as I go through it. So much of this book rings true to me (though some parts need updating for the 21st century) I have a feeling there will be more to write, but the first thought is with respect to teaching.

From the introduction: "Curiously most of us, lay people and educators alike, tend to underrate teaching...We can play at learning, without retaining much save the temporary pleasure of the play, and we can act the teacher, strutting expectable stuff in front of blackboards. Real learning and real teaching require more." This is obviously still true. Few of those with a mainstream voice on education policy are willing to examine the details of what great teaching entails. Certainly for the policy wonks, actual teaching is a radioactive substance best left to those slovenly masses who actually have to handle it on a daily basis. They would much rather focus on the important stuff: parsing the intricacies of school governance models or arguing endlessly about national standards.

Last April, the New York Times ran a piece about out-of-work professionals turning to teaching amid the recession. Pam Grossman, ed professor at Stanford, made some insightful statements. She wrote (bold is mine):

Because all of us have spent thousands of hours in classroom observing teachers, we may underestimate the skill required to engage a group of children or adolescents and ensure that they are learning. Much of the teaching we do in everyday life, as parents or employers, involves telling or tutoring. As parents, we help children with math homework, test them on their vocabulary words, answer their questions. But teaching is much more than telling, and teachers have to know more than right answers.

My impression is that most reformers working from without, who have little or no experience teaching, likely misunderstand fully any and all problems with our educational system, since they likely misunderstand fully any and all aspects of teaching. If teaching is a sort of knowledge transfer then logically any problem must lie with its agents; the teller or the telling is flawed.

Let me ask: Bill Gates, when you consider a high school with low math scores, do you shake your head and and wonder how teachers could not give accurate lectures on the quadratic formula? Do you wish that teachers would write equations more clearly on the blackboard? That they had more mathematical knowledge? That there were more and neater examples on paper?

Anyone with classroom experience will know that in many cases, it doesn't matter how clear your message is to the kids; it takes more and varied approaches. It takes student action and engagement with the content; it takes relevance to student lives (and I'm not talking about putting homework on an iPhone). It takes myriad other techniques, tasks, and ideas.

If teachers are going to shape the future of education, then we need to do a better job of convincing the public of what it really means to be a good teacher. Which means teachers' unions doing a better job of highlighting their star teachers and what they do. Which means media coverage that is more than a feeble-minded dichotomy between syrupy sweet Hollywood martyr-pics and "serious" articles and op-eds decrying the corruption and entitlement among teachers.

Maybe we need David Simon to make an HBO series about real schools.

Non-governmental org's have kept me here

2009-11-15T17:31:00.000-08:00

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.

Fix 'Em

2009-11-09T08:32:00.000-08:00

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.

What do we want from schools?

2009-11-08T19:53:00.000-08:00

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?

Because I'm on a pro-teacher kick

2009-09-12T16:01:00.000-07:00

Or, maybe, I'm just very pro-teacher. Timothy Egan, in the New York Times, recently presented a "back to school" blog post. This, another, in the spirit of Brill's New Yorker article, is filled with the usual loose language that belittles teachers and teaching. I guess it's a little better because Egan was at least trying to be funny.

Far more interesting are the comments. Check this out:

I’m writing this at 5:45 am as I ready myself to go to school where I teach high school English. I accepted a $3000 pay cut: I have a masters plus an additional 21 credits of post graduate study, I’m 46 and a single mom, I work about 55 hours a week and I earn $50K. What does Timothy Egan earn? Does his career as a reporter have oddities and weird examples - corruption, entitlement - if I comb the entire country for ‘proof’? I’m sure it does. But why would I do that? Why? Unless I was filled with bile and contempt for a career, and was blessed with a platform, and above all, wanted to help destroy journalism.

In this time, when teaching is at a crucial juncture, it is extraordinarily irresponsible for Mr Egan to twist a handful of incidences into an article about ‘bad’ teaching. THere are SO many good teachers out there. So many of us give hours and hours to try to help our children learn, and yet here is the contempt and misinformation yet again. It’s very dispiriting and it’s no wonder that so many people leave the teaching profession.
— Diana

Bouncing Around The Room, Part II

2009-09-06T10:30:00.000-07:00

"Critics are so intent on exposing the racism and obtuseness of the teacher that it is difficult to understand her view of the world. Like welfare workers and police, teachers in the urban colonies of the poor are part of a social system that shapes their behavior, too. It is more important to expose and correct the injustice of the social system than to scold its agents. Indeed, one of the chief reasons for the failures of educational reforms of the past has been precisely that they called for a change of philosophy or tactics on the part of the individual school employee rather than systemic change-and concurrent transformations in the distribution of power and wealth in the society as a whole."

-David B. Tyack, The One Best System, 1974

Spot on, 35 years later (charges of whole-scale racism, I think, notwithstanding). Blaming teachers simultaneously absolves the non-teaching public of all responsibility for educating poor people and also strokes its ego. Yes, schools can be fixed, if only we could fire the bad teachers! No further public obligation required! And yes, while I may occasionally face problems in my own life, at least I'm not a stupid teacher!

I believe that we're better off doing everything we can to improve the teachers we've got and at the very least, offering them incentive to stay where they are. Teaching poor students is, I will maintain, the hardest job in America, but also one of the most widely misunderstood. Given the hours required outside of the classroom for student feedback, parent contact, careful planning and assessment, why don't we lighten teaching loads to two periods a day for teachers in Title I schools? Why don't we change school funding rules so that NYC principals aren't forced to hire an uncertified rookie instead of a veteran in order to cut costs?

And when will we see that the biggest obstacle to poor children's success in school isn't incompetent teachers, the student-laptop ratio, lack of school choice, or governance issues, but rather deeply ingrained hopelessness quite rationally wrought by economic realities?

Bouncing Around The Room

2009-08-29T09:50:00.000-07:00

This week The New Yorker weighs in on school "reform" with Steven Brill's piece, "The Rubber Room". Inflammatorily subtitled, "The battle over New York City's worst teachers," the article treats its audience to a slice of the much-decried bureaucracy of teaching in the city, while more acutely making residents of the Temporary Reassignment Center (TRC) (a.k.a., the Rubber Room) look dumb. Like, really dumb.

“Before Bloomberg and Klein, everyone knew that an incompetent teacher would realize it and leave on their own,” pronounces Brandi Scheiner, the first individual Brill permits to wholly embarrass herself before a national readership of hundreds of thousands. It is hard to imagine how silly this must sound to anyone that has never met a dyed-in-the-wool union stalwart. Later, from an unnamed TRC denizen: “We can tell if we’re doing our jobs. We love these children.” I'm sure this comment resonates strongly with the lawyers, doctors, and private sector employees that have contracts relying heavily on their ability to self-evaluate. Brill's pièce de résistance, however, is his recounting of the story of "Patricia Adams", a pseudonym for a Rubber Room defendant who eventually returned to the job and was lionized by the UFT. “Bravo!,” reads the union website where she is described returning to work, and the reader is allowed perhaps a twinge of sympathy, until the truth is revealed: Ms. Adams was an alcoholic who was sent to the TRC for being found “'in an unconscious state' in her classroom," leaving 34 students unsupervised. Yes, drunk and asleep on the job. With tenure, one can only assume.

The Rubber Room was introduced to most non-teachers through an engaging and well-produced piece on Ira Glass's "This American Life". While Glass's treatment presented sob stories of teachers, lives thrown into turmoil through seemingly harsh accusations and the inhumane conditions of the TRC, Brill doesn't concern himself with such trivialities. The Rubber Room is an unquestionably necessary, if unfortunate, reality, as he posits, "The stated rationale for the reassignment centers is unassailable: Get these people away from children, even if tenure rules require that they continue to be paid." This is not all Brill presents as unassailable; at various points he deems due process as overly expensive and gratuitous, Obama's "Race To The Top" money as a necessary, coveted prize, and ATR teachers as lazy and unemployable.

Detailed presentations of teaching, particularly teaching in urban, low-income settings, are rare in high-profile publications like The New Yorker. As infrequent as they are, they are astoundingly important to the national discussion about education in America. The New Yorker's wealthy, liberal audience is a powerful force when it comes time to vote, donate money to non-profits and candidates, and generally weigh in on domestic policy. To present a view of New York City's teachers by focusing on the less than 1% that are so grossly incompetent as to be drunk on the job,to nickname a student "the enforcer" and put him in charge of discipline, and to make sweeping, nonsensical generalizations about teaching as a job that only requires loving children, is irresponsible.

In order to advance the cause of education for all in this country, we need high-circulation publications to present the real "battles" that confront high-poverty teachers: teaching deep concepts vs. teaching what's on the test, devoting 80 hours per week to give impoverished students the support they require vs. having a family and life outside of the workplace, charter schools vs. public schools, staying in an inner-city classroom for low pay vs. teaching in the suburbs for more, and the list goes on. So few in the non-teaching public have a true understanding of these issues, and yet they represent the truly important debates that need to be had.

Steven Brill presents a cogent, strong article that does let the public know about a process that is overly expensive and wasteful. Additionally, the UFT is rightly chastised for standing up for teachers that have no business being in the classroom. Unfortunately, too many people already believe that the majority, rather than the minority, of teachers have no business in the classroom, and this piece is only fueling that fire. Let's hope in the future The New Yorker and other publications will feature battles being fought by the best, rather than the worst, teachers in New York City.

Can I deal with this confluence of facts?

2009-05-13T07:29:00.000-07:00

Five years ago I decided I wanted to be a teacher. There were, I felt, lots of reasons. I liked math. I liked kids. I had enjoyed the time I spent volunteering in some urban elementary schools. I wanted a job. Teach For America gave me the hard sell. I enjoyed tutoring college kids. But, mainly, I wanted to do something about poverty. I wanted to do something about widening inequality, and it seemed schools were the obvious answer.

I was beyond naive. "Sure, I thought, teach the kids, they pass the test, do well on their SATs, "stay of the street," they can go to college, get a good job, get rich, problem solved. Inequality is a problem that is to be solved by our schools."

I've come to see this as a distinctly American, if factually inaccurate, view. Only in America would we have such a thin belief in public institutions. Only in America would we leave the impoverished to fend for themselves, and lean so heavily on under-resourced schools to overcome generations and cultures of poverty through 8 hours of daily instruction (and yes, Arne, you could change that to 10 or 12 and I'm not convinced it would make a difference).

So now, four years later, I'm trying to come to terms with three major realizations.

1) Schools are not the solution to poverty.

2) Poverty is the result of the machinations of our political and economic systems.

3) The job of a teacher is extraordinarily difficult: it is to develop meaningful lessons that cause students to learn to think for themselves.

Not sure where it all leaves me...

Do you have one of these in your neighborhood?

2009-03-27T17:41:00.000-07:00

Because my school does. So please, before you say that you understand growing up in an impoverished community, agree that we just need to fire the bad teachers, and mail your check to the Manhattan Institute, try to consider growing up with a gigantic police watchtower keeping your neighborhood under surveillance.

In the latest TAP: Widening Inequality + Locally Funded Schools = Credit Crunch

2009-03-27T16:17:00.000-07:00

The American Prospect is growing on me. Founder Robert Reich is one of my intellectual heroes and TAP is an intelligent, unapologetic source of progressive ideas.

The latest has a good summary piece on the national education debate, although for my tastes it is too willing to paint Rhee, Klein, et al. as "reformers". This is the sort of David Brooksian nonsense that too much of the public, and even our President, has bought into. Painting the debate as one that pits these "reformers" against Randi and the union is a gross oversimplification.

It also, unsurprisingly, has a lot concerning the stimulus package and current economics. The cover story by Cornell economist Robert H. Frank, explains how widening inequality and property tax-funded schools contribute to overspending by the middle class:

Additional spending by the rich shifts the frame of reference for those just below the near rich, and so on, all the way down the income ladder. Such expenditure cascades help explain why the median new house build in the U.S. is now about 50% larger than its counterpart from 30 years ago, even though the median real wage has risen little since then. Higher spending by middle-income families is driven less by a desire to keep up with the Joneses than by the simple fact that the ability to achieve important goals often depends on relative spending. Because of the link between housing prices and neighborhood school quality, for example, the median family would have to send its children to below-average schools if it failed to match the spending of its peers on housing. Instead, middle-income families have opted to save less, borrow more, work longer hours, and commute longer distances than ever before, all in an effort to keep pace with escalating consumption standards. (Bold added)

The connection between property values and local school quality has been a long-standing and well-recognized obstacle to true equity. Frank's point stretches beyond the traditional egalitarian argument and shows how the connection between property values and school quality has actually fueled our crazed consumption, thirst for credit, and massive mortgages that are beyond our means.

All of this, of course, makes me want to become an economist.

So does reading this. Seriously, a must-read.

John Dewey

2009-03-02T11:19:00.000-08:00

Had a lot of awesome things to say. And much of it rings true today, 100 years later. Most important, I think we're at place today where so many people that talk, write, and make decisions about education are not educators. Dewey was an educator, and it comes through in everything he writes. While the non-educator crowd will continue to push for pencil-and-paper tests that ask for regurgitation of simple facts and not understand how anything else could be important to learning, Dewey speaks the language of educators in his push for more thought and thinking in education:

"[A]ny habit of teaching which encourages the pupil for the sake of a successful recitation or of a display of memorized information glide over the thin ice of genuine problems reverses the true method of mind training."

-from How We Think, 1910

I agree, and at this point wonder what this looks like in 2009. Who are the teachers and schools that are doing this? What does it look like, especially in low-income communities? Can this kind of teaching and learning be reconciled with pencil-and-paper tests? Can it be made politically popular enough to be put into practice anywhere?

race and the election

2008-10-09T10:13:00.000-07:00

Via Edwize, a cool video that shows that there is something special going on this time around.

Things Charters Get Right #1: More Time For Staff

2008-09-08T09:18:00.000-07:00

Well, it's been a while. I have a new school, a new home, and new thoughts. Well maybe some of the same thoughts, too. I'm going to try to post some ideas I've had about my new setting, as well as some bigger picture stuff related to the presidential campaigns and the recent conventions.

Here's a first thought on an obvious way charter schools get it right (compared with traditional public schools): more required work time before the schoolyear begins. This year I reported for work on the last day of July. That is a full 34 days before I found myself, clipboard in hand, in a classroom with live eighth graders. Contrast this with the day I would have been required to report (August 28, a mere five days before students) had I remained in a traditional public school.

There is little room for argument here. Five days? Two of which the school will actually be open for your use? Two days in the building to set up your classroom, hold P.D. (this is one of the few opportunities all year to actually learn something new about teaching), learn the discipline code, establish grade-level routines, meet as a department, not to mention all of the other administrative duties that fall through the cracks?

Working with children, especially high-need, years-behind, institutionally-excluded children, requires consistency, confidence, and competence among the staff. To me this is impossible to build in two days. Consider that during August, my staff had a two hour meeting to discuss the minute-by-minute proceedings of the first hour of the first day of school. Try penciling that in as part of your two days among everything else that needs to happen.

And the pay-off is obvious. In order for children to do the right thing, they need to, first and foremost, know what that thing is; this can't happen unless all adults are on the same page.

Add to all of this that in August I also hammered out a year-long curriculum, my first major exam, and three weeks worth of lesson plans. True, this was always part of my August plan when I was with the Board of Ed, but to work in a collegial, professional environment in which I can collaborate and get feedback is a major improvement. Not to mention, being compensated for this time helps, as well.

thoughtful

2008-07-20T20:08:00.000-07:00

College Friend: So, tell me about the new school you are going to work at next year.
Me: Well, for starters, it's a middle school and it's farther uptown-
College Friend: Oh, so does that mean it's going to be more dangerous?
Me: [rolling my eyes]
College Friend: What? I'm just concerned for your safety!
Me: Yes, most racist people are.

Geoffrey Canada

2008-07-03T14:57:00.000-07:00

About to go on vacation for a week. As I leave, here is a video from one of my personal heroes: Geoffrey Canada (founder of the Harlem Children's Zone, awesome non-profit).

(Skip the first 23 or so minutes to get to Geoff.)

His thoughts on teaching, the UFT, teacher pay, school year/school day, testing, etc. I think are all spot-on. He raises some issues that are complicated (How will the union evolve to push student achievement forward? How do we reward "good" teachers? Never mind of course, how do we decide who "good" teachers are?) I feel he is articulating the anger and feelings of the public with regard to education, particularly in New York. His sense of urgency is admirable.

I think he misses the boat a bit on vouchers. The main problem, as I see it, with vouchers, is that there is no evidence that says that a private school is going to be effective in educating a 16-year-old that reads/does math on a fourth grade level, which is what many urban public high schools must deal with. Teaching that 16-year-old takes a lot of work, including instructional expertise, specialized resources, and likely, extra time, that most private schools lack.

I agree mainly with this point: whatever it ends up looking like, education will be what it is until there is an incentive structure in place that will pull talented people into the profession and keep them there.

biased test questions - integrated algebra

2008-06-25T09:56:00.001-07:00

A lot of people have been talking, and will be talking for a while, about the Integrated Algebra curriculum/exam in New York this year. For now, consider the following question (#31) from this brand-spanking-new exam:

"Tom drove 290 miles from his college to home and used 23.2 gallons of gasoline. His sister, Ann, drove 225 miles from her college to home and used 15 gallons of gasoline. Whose vehicle had better gas mileage? Justify your answer."

Two questions:
(1) Do you think this question is harder for students whose parents do not own cars? Or perhaps, have not spent considerable time in cars?

(2) If yes, does this make the test "unfair"?

Upon seeing the question, the eyebrows went up, the blood boiled as I thought about my kids from upper Manhattan who, in general, do not spend time in cars. Buses, subways, yes; cars, not nearly as much. They don't gas them up, don't drive them around, don't have a sense of what gas mileage really is. I don't think this is even about being economically disadvantaged; people in the five boroughs do not drive as much as people outside of the five boroughs. I don't own a car. Most people I know don't either, even if they could afford one.

My kids know ratios and rates. Miles per hour; feet per minute; words per minute, etc., etc. "Gas mileage"? Can't say I used that phrase, ever, in class.

In the end it's yes and yes. The question is far harder if you've never filled a car with gas and driven it around. Let alone if you don't even know what the phrase "gas mileage" means. My best students struggled with this question. Put the phrase in the performance indicators or write a fairer question, New York.

I've always thought it would be interesting to write an exam that had a bias the other way, where my kids would "get" all the questions and everyone else would struggle with vocabulary, context, meaning. Is there a way to "invert" this question?

when do children follow rules?

2008-06-24T21:48:00.000-07:00

A lot has been made recently of complex/"strict" rule systems and other infrastructure at charter schools and B.O.E. schools around the country. My own two cents? Children meet teacher/school expectations when...

(1) they can "do it" (that is, they possess mental/physical/social/emotional capabilities for meeting expectations)

(2) they know/understand how to "do it" (that is, they know exactly what the expectations are)

(3) they want to/have to "do it" (that is, they feel compelled extrinsically, intrinsically, or morally)

More about these underlying philosophies to come. They will show up everywhere. I don't think they're really any different from the reasons why adults do the things they do. But effective strategies have to involve a mix of these elements.

i'm going to miss this place

2008-06-12T20:28:00.000-07:00

Just a couple snapshots near school.

it's just that simple

2008-06-10T16:13:00.000-07:00

Ad for NYC Teaching Fellows near school:

In case you can't read the fine print: "I show kids that I'm willing to do whatever it takes for them to succeed."

Oh man. Wish I had thought of that! It's that simple. Just show 'em you care. The rest will take care of itself. Trust me.

real life math

2008-06-09T12:31:00.000-07:00

Friend and I stop for a beer in the afternoon, drawn in by the following deal on a chalkboard:

"Cana Two For One".

It turns out that a cana is priced at $2.50 and a regular old pint is $5.00. The special deal puts the Cana at a quarter of the price of a pint, provided you drink at least two. In fact, you can get no less than four canas for the price of one pint. Excellent? Certainly seems that way, until you consider the size of the cana versus the pint. It gets a little dicier. The cana is freaking tiny. Exhibit A:

(That would be pint on the left, cana on the right.)

So what is the better deal? Four canas or one pint?

Comparing volumes is usually an estimation killer, since, in my experience, the brain is usually pretty bad at estimating volume. This is probably because quadratic relationships are somewhat "unnatural", at least when compared with linear ones.

But we push through. We call each glass a cylinder (imperfect, but it'll have to do). The pint's diameter registers at one of my pointer fingers, almost exactly. Conveniently, my finger is divided neatly (intelligently designed?) into three pretty equal sections; the cana's diameter is almost exactly two-thirds of the same finger. So we can call the radius of the cana two-thirds of the radius of the pint. Similarly, the height of the cana works out to be about two-thirds the height of the pint.

We're good to go. Let's call the pint volume V, the pint radius R, and the pint height H. Similarly, the cana volume will be v, the cana radius r, and the cana height h.

The pint volume is given by:
The cana volume is given by:
We've established relationships between R and r and H and h:

Now we can substitute into the equation for v:

Simplifying the squared business:
Finally multiplying all fractions:
Which leads to final comparison of v and V:
This works out nicely; eight-twenty sevenths is pretty darn close to one-third (nine-twenty sevenths). So we are getting a deal (well, friend is, since I opted out), since four canas equate with the price of one pint, but three canas has already equated the volume in one pint.

Not bad for a Saturday afternoon. Facility with fractions and formulas. We hit quite a few Integrated Algebra performance indicators.

How hard is graphing y > 2x + 1?

2008-06-07T14:48:00.000-07:00

Coming up this week (for my Integrated Algebra students) is that algebraic mother lode: graphing linear inequalities (A.G.6: Graph linear inequalities, for the standards-aligned). This has been saved for the year's end since it is such a killer. The problem is, from the state's point of view, it should be easy for a ninth grade student. It should be, based on the state math performance indicators.

What do you have to do if you want to graph y > 2x + 1? (If you are a college-educated adult and have no idea what I'm talking about, this raises some other juicy questions about math education/retention/cultural significance.) Well, for starters, you have to recognize that you are going to need to graph the line y = 2x + 1. This sort of graphing is taught in seventh grade (7.A.7: Draw the graphic representation of a pattern from an equation or from a table of data) and again in eighth grade (8.G.17: Graph a line from an equation in slope-intercept form (y=mx+b)). This will no doubt call on you to plot points in the coordinate plane, something begun in fifth grade (5.G.12: Identify and plot points in the first quadrant).

You've also got to recognize also that since this is a strict inequality (>) you need to graph using a dashed line. (Why? Because the line does not include points in the solution set of the inequality.)

Finally, choose a point that is not on the line, plug in the numbers in the inequality (5.A.3: Substitute assigned values into variable expressions and evaluate using order of operations) and then evaluate the truth of the resulting inequality (4.A.3: Find the value or values that will make an open sentence true, if it contains <>) . If it is true, shade in that side of the line; if false, shade the other side.

And that's it. We'll let alone the case where y is not isolated (a further algebraic challenge) or the case of the system of linear inequalities (yup, two or more at once).

But for most students I teach, culling all of these skills at once is a lot to ask. If a student is weak in just one of these skills, and many are weak in several, the whole operation fails. Graphing a linear inequality becomes a labor that can last half a period, and most often contains at least one error. It can cause such frustration even though it is really just a combination of things my students already, supposedly, know.

So what's the problem? What happened to these students in fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth grade? Were their teachers checked out? Did they leave these standards out of their instructional plans? Were their lessons poorly planned? It's possible, but I doubt this is a leading reason.

I believe that there were days in 2006 when my students were expert graphers. I think there was a day or two in 2004 when students were evaluating expressions with the best of them. Their teachers led them along through all the proper steps and understandings, and the students could do it. But this is not good enough today, in ninth grade algebra.

Based on my limited experience, I'm tempted to say the problem is the kind of understanding my students come to high school bearing. While students may have, at one time, under the right circumstances, with the proper scaffolding, etc. etc. known how to graph, plot points, evaluate expressions, and determine the truth of inequalities, they never truly understood the meaning of these skills. If my students are reaching into a vat of collected, memorized skills, and pulling them out, one at a time to graph y > 2x + 1, then of course it's hard. They could pull the wrong one. They could pull out a skill that is dusty, rusty and incompletely memorized. They are constantly in fear of "doing the wrong thing" or doing it "the wrong way".

If, on the other hand, they see a coordinate plane and recognize it as a sea of points, each of which registers true or false in the inequality; if plotting points is "second nature"; if the coordinate plane is readily divided by linear equations with differing slopes; in short, if students have a thorough understanding of what these various elements represent, then graphing inequalities will happen quickly and easily, conforming to a body of knowledge already obtained. The prerequisites need to be understood deeply and richly.

How do we instill this in children? I don't know. I'd like to know. I'm working on it.

Have students learned if they forget later?

lunch scenes

2008-06-03T18:36:00.000-07:00

From today: Gunshots that dispersed all the normally happy kids at the park out my classroom window during period 5. Also, I ate lunch.

sold

2008-05-31T20:20:00.000-07:00

Well, as of yesterday, I am officially leaving my school, going to give it a shot at a charter school in Harlem (don't worry, not this one).

This was the worst choice I've ever had to make. I think I know what my kids need. And if I've done nothing else, I've tried like hell to give it to them. I've spent three years thinking of almost nothing else. And now I'm just another TFA guy who left. That's it.

I'm not sick of the kids. I love them. I want them to have a great math teacher more than anything else. When they do the "wrong thing", academic or otherwise, a little part of me (or, many times, all of me) cries because I know I did the wrong thing. And wrong thing upon wrong thing upon wrong thing has become too much for me to bear. I haven't given up on them. I have a ton of respect for all of my kids; so much that it breaks my heart to know they have an inadequate math teacher. In a way, I've given up on me. I don't have the answers, and I came to realize that I don't think I'm going to find them at my school, at least not at a pace I could be satisfied with. I've lost hope that I can be the teacher I see in my head here.

To make matters worse, my school is a bizarro world kind of place where I walk home every day wondering how I could ever be effective, but I am constantly put on a pedestal for being a model teacher. I receive a ton of praise from a ton of people. I get smiles, slaps on the back, thank yous, technology, and the freedom to do whatever I want. I'm not tooting my horn; this drives me nuts when I see and I know how much my kids aren't learning about math, self-respect, personal responsibility, pride, teamwork, justice and active citizenship. To name a few.

Why didn't they learn it? Because I didn't teach it to them. Because I don't know how to pull it all off.

So what do I want? I want to get better. I want to be more effective. I want to be that teacher. I became convinced where I'm going next year will help with that. Maybe I will get my ass kicked. Likely, I will. But if it makes me learn and get better, so be it. And then maybe I can take what I've learned and go somewhere, build something, do something. While dealing with my own inner charter turmoil somehow.

When I first joined TFA, before I ever even picked up the chalk, I had dinner with a guy who was leaving at the end of his two years. He told me, "I just can't be around all this failure." I see it now too, only the failure is all mine.

What Matters

2008-05-27T19:30:00.000-07:00

Great to run into a block from school walking to get lunch/trying to figure out how to let 'em know MATH MATTERS...

Where is everyone....

2008-05-27T11:55:00.000-07:00

Period 7 (right after lunch). Started at 1:31. No one there. Hallway full, hallway clears. 1:35. No one. We're eight minutes deep (that's right, 1:39) before I get one student. A total of three show up, out of what is a paltry 21 on the roster, the last one at about 2:00.

What do I think while I'm waiting? What did I do to make this happen. Why isn't my class the exciting, wonderful place that "brings math alive", that no one would ever cut, for fear of missing out on a miraculous moment of learning? Or, in another light, why isn't my class the place where students feel at all times the searing laser of accountability, fueled by high expectations, where cutting would seem like academic suicide? I know, because, despite all of the hours and tears I've poured in, somehow I've poured them the wrong way, and my classroom didn't end up, in May of my third year, the way I wanted it to for my students. And knowing (1) what my students need (2) that I have wanted nothing ever at all more than to give it to them (3) that I haven't given it to them is usually more than I can take.

Happy Memorial Day

2008-05-26T12:47:00.001-07:00

I hope you are having a sunny/fun long weekend. Mine's been nice and relaxing.

A quick plug for a book I just finished: The Teaching Gap, by Stigler and Hiebert. It offers a really interesting comparison between middle school math education here, in Japan, and in Germany. It also treats teaching as what I think it really is, what the authors describe as a "cultural" practice. That is to say, our society's view of what teaching and learning are is so deeply entrenched, change is difficult to bring about; in particular, change is impossible using traditional, university research-based, wonkish, top-down approaches. The authors argue for an approach, modeled on the Japanese lesson study program, that begins with individual classes and lessons and builds outward.

In the the end, the authors contend, change will only ever be slow and gradual, which presents its own set of problems with a public that is impatient and indicators that fail to register small changes. While I'm not sold that the Japanese have perfected teaching, the comparison of what happens here, as opposed to Japan, is pretty eye-opening, and the alternatives proposed by the authors are worth some thought. Plus, it's a quick read.

PS: The stock exchange trip was tremendous. The kids were amazing and really into it. Still hearing some backlash from those who couldn't go, but it's dying down...hopefully...

What Breeds Belief?

2008-05-21T16:00:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow, another math teacher and I are taking 20 kids to the American Stock Exchange. Due to some unfortunate incidents in the past, field trips at my school are limited to a maximum of 20 students, with at least two adult chaperones. So, I had the unfortunate task of choosing 10 (my half of the 20) out of the 45 ninth graders that I teach to attend the trip, based on no particular criteria.

By the time students realized, today, that some students had been chosen for this trip, and others had not, there was a very negative vibe in my period 4 class. One student continuously repeated "I can't go on the business trip because I'm not a business man." He went on to make statements such as, "It's 'cuz we're Black and Latino, that's why" and "It's 'cuz we're from the ghetto and you don't want to take us ghetto kids on a business trip".

This isn't the first time these issues have come up in class. I came right back with all the typical teacherspeak that I knew. I tried to "address" the issue of race. I tried to officially explain why I had to choose certain students. To a certain extent, this "worked".

While I know that his and other comments were meant to be less than serious, I know that there is a lot behind what he was saying. Many of my students may be 15, but they are all already aware of what you might call "society's perception" of students that look, act, and talk like they do. They will make statements about our school being a "ghetto school". Ask any one of them if they would ever want to be a teacher; the response, "No, I wouldn't want to teach kids like these." They know that the world outside of our school doesn't expect a ton from them; it doesn't really want to be near them, sees them in the subway and might be a little wary of them, too.

While I have reiterated time and time again how much I believe in my students and of all they are capable of, and many of my dedicated colleagues have done the same, incidents such as this one remind me of how powerful the opinions and expectations of "society" are. Expressed through varied and intricate channels, these expectations are a lot to combat, and can be quite defeating for educators who seek to inculcate in students a sense of hope and possibility.

All of which, believe it or not, reminds me of Barack Obama's semi-famous "race speech" from March 18. One fact only teachers will ever really know is that it's not good enough to stand in front of a segregated classroom in a segregated school and remind students to "help themselves". As Obama brilliantly noted, "embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change". While I may convince many of my students that they can do more and do better, what is the meaning of this if they do not believe that society will ever expect more of them? Or if they do not believe that society even has a place for them? Or that society wants them anywhere but the neighborhoods they now inhabit?

Perhaps the most pressing question: Do my students have any real reason to believe any of these things?

First Post

2008-05-20T18:04:00.000-07:00

After two previous failed attempts to begin a consistent blog, I'm giving it a shot again. This is mainly because I've recently found myself inspired by the educational blogging community. In particular, this post by TMAO really hit me in a big way. I would estimate that I read the last paragraph about twenty times, then probably reviewed it in my head about 100 more over the course of the last couple of days. The more I teach, the more I understand what the kids need and what it takes to be effective; yet the more I teach, the less I feel happy and capable of doing that work that needs to be done.

Over the course of the last few years, I've developed and come to relish a dream to one day open and run a school of my own. I've always wanted to be going there, building towards a model of schooling that I believe in that works. Now, I wonder if I'll ever get there, as I start to feel a little more tired and downtrodden each day.

As I hang on for another year (possibly in a different setting, more on that in the future) I hope to engage in some meaningful discussions and posts about the role of teachers in an effective educational system. If teachers are the answer, and I strongly believe they are, how do we get them to enter the profession and stay there? What is a sustainable model of excellent schooling?