Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Conspiracy Theory or Reality?

Most Americans would claim that the existance of a big money/corporate-backed movement to strip union's of their power is just a paranoid conspiracy theory.  Well, if it is not already obvious to you that the union bashing in Wisconsin has nothing to do with balancing the budget, perhaps this phone call from a prankster posing to be one of the Koch brothers (the billionaire duo that funds Tea Party events, supports union-bashing legislation, and will possibly benefit if the Wisconsin energy bill is passed) will pull your head out from under that rock.





Listening to the idiocy of a politician like Scott Walker is one reason why I shouldn't come within 500 yards of a peaceful protest - I don't know if I trust myself to remain peaceful!  How any voting populace could think that these new Republicans would actually help the average guy on main street boggles my mind.

So now, thanks to these corporate puppets, unions are endangered across the nation.  How does this affect education reform?  Rather than looking to work with teachers (and their professional unions are one way to do this) lawmakers are looking to squelch the voices of educators.  Are lawmakers really more willing to spend 20 minutes talking with their billionaire donors than with those they govern?  It is a sorry state.

Collective bargaining is one thing, but discounting the collective voice of a profession is another.  Reclaim public education!

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Thought for the day...

If a foreign power conspired to inflict this much damage on America's first responders and essential infrastructure, we would see it as an act of war.  And if a foreign dictator unilaterally announced that his nation's workers no longer had a seat at the bargaining table in their own country, the U.S. establishment would rightfully go bananas.

- Van Jones

Monday, February 21, 2011

It Doesn't Take a Nobel Laureate to See What's Goin' on Here! (but it helps...)

In his op-ed piece for the New York Times, economist Paul Krugman hits the nail on the head about the importance of what is happening in Wisconsin.  He highlights the importance of the institution of unions to counteract the political power of big money and how what is playing out in Wisconsin is more of a power grab, hence the unwillingness to compromise, than a balancing of a budget.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Thousands Host 'Waiting For Superman' House Parties

When "Waiting for Superman" first came out, it was possible to pledge to see it on the movie's website. I pledged not see it in the theater and I renew my pledge by not renting it either. These house parties are just another marketing scam for the film and its corporate backers. Vote with your dollars, don't see the film.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Shooting for the Luna

I can’t say I know much about Idaho State Superintendent Tom Luna or his plan for education reform.  But what I do know worries me.  Here is another education administrator whose closest experience to K-12 education is far from the classroom, a 7-year stint on the Nampa School Board, according to his Wikipedia page.

I guess that is why the main points of his reform seem completely devoid of genuine measures to support teachers in improving instruction and learning.  The plan appears to me to be largely based on gimmicks.   Here are the main points of Student’s Come First, Luna's reform legislation:

1.       Distribute laptops to students
2.        Have all students take online classes
3.       Increase minimum pay for teachers
4.       Institute a performance-pay model
5.       Phase out tenure by implementing 2 year rolling contracts

Let’s look at these point-by-point…

1.       Laptops.  Technology is a love-hate thing in schools.  As soon as you equip that beautiful new computer lab it is time to upgrade again and even if the machines can handle the increasing demands of software, the Tech Guy or Gal probably doesn’t have time to service them and the machines function slow if at all.  It is a huge commitment of money, and what for?  Does a laptop make a student a better learner?  No.  Do laptops make teachers better instructors?  No.  Show me a study that says otherwise.  All technology allows you to do is present things in different ways.  Laptops do not a priori create active engagement, that still requires trained and experienced professionals.  I can tell you from 15 years in the classroom, including cutting edge education back in the 1990’s when the internet was brand-spankin’ new (I did a presentation once on integrating the internet into curriculum for Autodesk), that computers are useful tools and having them in the classroom is super-convenient, but they are not always the most effective and engaging instructional method.

2.       Online Classes.  I did a Masters Degree online and I loved it because I could cut through all the excess and right to the meat of what I needed to know.  I had a similar experience doing correspondence school when I was in 7th grade.  I could do a week of school in a few hours.  But, I am a pretty good student.  When I watch my students take online courses I see varied results.  Those who are like me, a quick study and good test-taker, do just fine, but those who operate in a less linear manner often do not have a positive learning experience.  Nothing can replace the face to face interaction with the teacher for these students.  Seeing the examples done before their eyes and the immediate feedback the classroom provides is irreplaceable.  Not even the best online classroom software is effective at this.  Online courses may be good for some students who have exhausted local offerings, beyond that it runs a real danger of alienating students.

3.       I don’t know what the current minimum pay for teachers is in Idaho, but considering the salary schedule was frozen for several years and the minimum is being raised to $30,000 a year, this doesn’t seem like much of a bone to throw.  Furthermore, it won’t help to recruit skilled teachers, largely because other parts of the reform do not support longevity (see number 5).

4.        Performance pay.  We’ve been here before.  The science says it does not increase student learning (see my posting “Pay Me More… but I won’t perform better”).   Luna’s plan for performance pay appears to be awarded on a group or school basis.  If the school does well, everyone benefits.  This at least does not squelch collaboration within a school.  There also appears to be some stipulations for local control over the measures used to determine performance, which is a step in the right direction regarding testing and accountability.  In the end though, whatever measures are used and all questions of equity aside, performance pay just does not improve learning.

5.       Rolling contracts.  Luna’s nod to multiple measures is good (by requiring only a portion of performance be determined by test scores) but the reality of this process is bleak.  Teaching is an investment, it takes time to develop and build a repertoire of successful lessons and practices.  Being on the chopping block every two years will not promote the risk-taking that can lead to innovation and creativity in teaching.  I know what it is like to be pink slipped.  I was pink-slipped the first three years of my teaching career.  Every time you get that slip you feel unvalued and deflated.  It affects your desire to show up to work.  This system is like being pink-slipped every two years.  Evaluations are good and even useful if done properly, but only teachers who feel supported to improve and safe to innovate will increase student learning.

In all, very few of Luna’s reforms will improve student learning.  His package does have appeal to those romanced by the pseudo-reformer movement.  By tackling a full hand of tenure, unions, and performance pay, Luna is attempting to shoot the moon.  But let’s call a spade a spade.  Luna’s motivations are not entirely clear and his emphasis on privatization of education is as dubious as his ties to for-profit education companies are deep.

Eat a spade for the team to stop Luna’s lunacy!  Reclaim public education!

Shout-out to Wisconsin

My dear Tea Party extremists and fellow citizens: 

You have sent many candidates to political positions of power this past November and told these puppets that if they do not make good on their promises you will gleefully cut their strings and let them fall into lifeless lumps of political anonymity.

My dear friends, let me break the news to you softly.  Politics is about compromise.  The new House will learn this lesson soon when they can’t make good on their promises because they are unwilling to compromise.  The Governor of Wisconsin is learning this lesson right now.  When you try to stick it to people, you can get stuck back.  It isn’t very good politics, and it doesn’t lead to change or a positive environment for change.

Here is my suggestion:  don’t legislate change, foster change through collaboration and back it up and support it with legislation.  Common ground is a powerful foundation for effective change.

Sorry to be the one to tell you,

Your friend.

P.S. Regulate Wall Street not collective bargaining, and reclaim public education!

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Test-Driven Education Reform Could Set Up Kids To Fail

This article clearly states the motivation behind and the unfortunat­e consequenc­es of the pseudo-ref­orm movement. Hopefully more and more people will hear this message and reform can become a productive and collaborat­ive community process, with the voices of those most important, the teachers, students and parents, heard loudest.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Institutions, Inertia, and Inequity

As the revolution in Egypt unfolds, it has been interesting to watch the role of unions in the uprising.  Egypt had unions all along, but they were sponsored by the state and, as such, were ineffective.   The movement appears largely centered around workers, with professionals taking to the streets in a unified manner, including doctors in white coats and lawyers in robes. Granted Egyptians were marching for fundamental freedom from oppression, but the solidarity of professionals in the revolution has been telling.  The spirit and strength of “union” has been heard.

It was in this nexus of increased union organizing in the Middle East and the union-bashing antics of the education pseudo-reformers in America that a particular book caught my attention.  The book is titled Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide, by Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever. 

The website for the book sets the stage, stating, “It turns out that whether they want higher salaries or more help at home, women often find it hard to ask. Sometimes they don't know that change is possible--they don't know that they can ask. Sometimes they fear that asking may damage a relationship. And sometimes they don't ask because they've learned that society can react badly to women asserting their own needs and desires.”

All societies are built around institutions.  Institutions of government and military, social institutions such as the media, and the institution of education.  The thing with institutions is that they have inertia.  They tend to continue in the same direction no matter who is at the helm.  This is why candidate Obama’s message of hope was, well, a little hopeful.  Not only are institutions harder to steer than a large oil tanker, they also perpetuate the ills of society, including racism and sexism. 

The book caught my eye for two reasons.  First, unions are powerful negotiating institutions.  Unions provide a buffer between the inertia of the institution and the worker.  Yes, I did say that the unions themselves are institutions and yes this can be problematic, but in general the members of a union value the collective strength of negotiation over the nimbleness of individuality.  That is why in times of revolt, such as in Egypt, organization plays a key role.

Secondly, the hypothesis put forth in the book that females do not enjoy negotiating is an example of institutional inertia perpetuating an inequity.  The system discriminates against the success of women.  No one is at fault, the system is just set up for failure. 

Our current education system is set up for failure in many ways as well.  The possibilities for institutionalized discrimination are great, and while the losses may not be directly measureable in salaries, students are losing out on opportunities to experience success.

If the inertia of an institution grows too large, its mass becoming too unwieldy, then it will and should be allowed to break apart.  “Too big to fail” is not a recipe for change and growth.  The education system is big and it is broken and it needs to be rebuilt.  Teacher unions are also big and powerful and have inertia, but they are not the institution that needs changing.  In fact, it is institutions like unions that help offset the inequities of society. 

Union-bashing is simply a distraction, enough so, darn it, that I keep finding myself writing in defense of unions when that isn’t really my interest in education at all!  The tactic is working I guess, at least on me. 

So to refocus on education, I suggest the following:  Education reform needs to focus on making the institution more nimble and more equitable to better serve the needs of all students.  Adding layer upon layer of testing and accountability does not achieve this.  Taking away teachers’ rights does not achieve this.  In fact, teachers need to be given more professional power to make informed and experienced decisions for the benefit of their students.  Teachers need to be accountable to each other and their communities, not to layers of government.   

While Republicans usually shy away from adding more layers of government and regulations, they, along with the Democrats, seem to have no problem in doing this when it comes to education.  Many of the current reforms are just adding to the institutional inertia of education and placing more and more inequities on teachers.

There is one area of deregulation that has the support of these factions - charter schools.  Charter schools are a favorite of the pseudo-reformers because they give schools more freedom to operate.  They can also be privatized, which is another story.  Freedom to operate means a resistance to inertia, the ability to be nimble.  This is great.  So why, I often wonder, aren’t these reformers freeing up the rest of public education in this manner?  Whose inertia is stopping that from happening?

Let’s start building inertia for positive change and reclaim public education!

Monday, February 7, 2011

It's all Apples and Oranges for Teachers

The current cast of education reformers , the billionaire pseudo-reformers and the disconnected political elite, love to compare the American education system with those of various foreign nations. That is fine, as there is much to be learned from this comparative study.

The problems arise when we attempt to take bits and pieces of one system and incorporate them into our own different system. A system, by definition, implies an entirety of parts working as a whole. Yet, the system does not function as a whole when the parts do not mesh. It becomes an apples and oranges thing.

A recent study released by Harvard suggests that our “college for all” model is hurting some of our students who would benefit from an alternate pathway (see the Sir Ken Robinson video in my prior posting). The study and its implications was well summarized by this article in the Christian Science Monitor.

The article states that 40-70% of students in some European nations opt for a career technical pathway. “In Finland, where income class is the least predictive of achievement among OECD countries, 43 percent of kids at age 16 opt for a three-year program that mixes work with learning and moves them to the labor market,” states the article.

This is of interest because many of the pseudo-reformers have highlighted Finland as an example of a successful system (see my article Fakes, Finance, and Finland). They mention a system of standards and accountability, but among the things they leave out, is that Finland offers valid and accepted alternate pathways for students to follow.  This is an integral part of providing an equitable education system and meeting the needs of all students.

Think of the student buy-in and affirmation (a la Sir Ken Robinson) a system like this can generate!

In my small California district, funding has all but dried up for career technical education. There are no alternative pathways. So while we are being pushed by the pseudo-reformer movement to be more like Finland in some ways, these reformers are stripping other programs that would complete the system. The reforms are myopic.

We are left with disparate parts that do not mesh. Apples and oranges. We are expected to educate students with differing needs in the same manner.  That is unfair to the students.

As a teacher, I appreciate receiving the occasional apple and even an orange, but I don’t appreciate when the two get confused. So, keep your apples and oranges straight and reclaim public education!

Thursday, February 3, 2011

From the Master of Creativity...

The wise words of creativity guru Sir Ken Robinson animated...

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

The Real Story

We have learned to take what our politicians say with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of skepticism.  From messages of WMD to messages of Hope, we know things never really are what they seem.  So, why should we believe our politicians when they claim to know what is best for America’s education system?  Where is the healthy dose of skepticism?

President Obama wants America to innovate to win the future and at the same time he wants to turn our schools into high-stakes test-taking machines and link everything from funding to teacher pay to the results of those tests.  In this blog, I have consistently argued against this naively simple model, asking, “Do we really want a nation of great test-takers?”

Now, the answer is clear, and it comes straight from China, the nation with the world’s top test-takers.  In an article by Kathy Chu for USAToday, Chu writes, “…critics believe this strength may mask the Chinese education system's shortfall in producing innovative and creative students.”

So, Mr. Obama, it is not just about the test, but also about culture and society.  We can create fundamentally strong students, but that does not mean they will be innovative and creative.  There may need to be a little give and take as education reform moves into the future.  After all, isn’t that what politics is all about?

Look beyond the sound bites and reclaim public education!