I pray all the time in school.
I pray little Johnny won’t show up so I can teach.
I pray little Suzie makes even the slightest bit of effort.
I pray my administration will back me up if there is a problem.
I pray the crazy parent doesn’t blame me for failing their child. I pray they understand that rarely coming, doing no work and disrupting class is grounds for failure. I pray my administration understands that too.
I pray that when my vice principal walks in she is more concerned with my teaching than my standards based bulletin board.
I pray my family understands that I have more work than I can possibly do in the day and I will make up the time I am missing with them when I can.
I pray downtown realizes that teaching kids things like discipline and a work ethic is more important than just passing them through to keep up the districts numbers.
I pray Tallahassee leaves education alone. They have done enough damage.
I pray President Obama grows a pair and gets rid of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top and other programs that do more harm than good.
I pray society understands that closing schools and privatizing education is not the answer and investing in education is.
I pray wall street types and hedge fund managers, you know those behind the wave of charter schools, virtual schools and voucher legislation grow a conscience and realize our children are more important than filling their wallets.
Yeah, I pray in school all the time. There is no way I could get through the day without doing so.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
School Cafeteria naming rights up for sale, only in Florida folks, only in Florida
From the Tampa Bay Times
by Ron Mattus
Florida school districts will be able to sell the naming rights for public school cafeterias under a bill filed this week.
Irv Slosberg, D-Boca Raton - who has also filed a bill that would allow advertising on the sides of school buses - filed the "Student Nutrition Enhancement Act" on Tuesday.
It would allow school boards to decide the details on naming rights, including where the name is displayed. It says revenue generated shall be used "to enhance the school district's school food service budget and to meet the nutritional needs of students."
In the midst of historically deep budget cuts for Florida schools, "this is a way to get private businesses to partner up with governments," Slosberg said Wednesday.
He threw out the possibility of cafeterias named after Publix or Whole Foods Market. "In that situation, we'd have to be selective," he said.
Slosberg has filed other bills that would allow advertising on government property.
One would allow the state to sell naming rights to state greenways, trails and parks. Another would allow it to do likewise for state-owned roads, rest areas or other transportation-related properties. He mentioned "Geico State Park" and the "Disney Turnpike" as examples.
Slosberg said he hopes his bills inspire local governments to look at similar means of raising money.
"You know what? We can name our ballparks Allstate Stadium or whatever ... to maximize the dollars," he said. "We should be looking around for every last penny."
Ron Matus can be reached at matus@tampabay.com or (727) 893-8873.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/next-up-for-sale-in-florida-the-naming-rights-to-public-school-cafeterias/1208108
by Ron Mattus
Florida school districts will be able to sell the naming rights for public school cafeterias under a bill filed this week.
Irv Slosberg, D-Boca Raton - who has also filed a bill that would allow advertising on the sides of school buses - filed the "Student Nutrition Enhancement Act" on Tuesday.
It would allow school boards to decide the details on naming rights, including where the name is displayed. It says revenue generated shall be used "to enhance the school district's school food service budget and to meet the nutritional needs of students."
In the midst of historically deep budget cuts for Florida schools, "this is a way to get private businesses to partner up with governments," Slosberg said Wednesday.
He threw out the possibility of cafeterias named after Publix or Whole Foods Market. "In that situation, we'd have to be selective," he said.
Slosberg has filed other bills that would allow advertising on government property.
One would allow the state to sell naming rights to state greenways, trails and parks. Another would allow it to do likewise for state-owned roads, rest areas or other transportation-related properties. He mentioned "Geico State Park" and the "Disney Turnpike" as examples.
Slosberg said he hopes his bills inspire local governments to look at similar means of raising money.
"You know what? We can name our ballparks Allstate Stadium or whatever ... to maximize the dollars," he said. "We should be looking around for every last penny."
Ron Matus can be reached at matus@tampabay.com or (727) 893-8873.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/next-up-for-sale-in-florida-the-naming-rights-to-public-school-cafeterias/1208108
The unaddressed problem of Poverty in the education reform debate
From the New York Times
Class Matters. Why Won’t We Admit It?
By HELEN F. LADD and EDWARD B. FISKE
NO one seriously disputes the fact that students from disadvantaged households perform less well in school, on average, than their peers from more advantaged backgrounds. But rather than confront this fact of life head-on, our policy makers mistakenly continue to reason that, since they cannot change the backgrounds of students, they should focus on things they can control.
No Child Left Behind, President George W. Bush’s signature education law, did this by setting unrealistically high — and ultimately self-defeating — expectations for all schools. President Obama’s policies have concentrated on trying to make schools more “efficient” through means like judging teachers by their students’ test scores or encouraging competition by promoting the creation of charter schools. The proverbial story of the drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost comes to mind.
The Occupy movement has catalyzed rising anxiety over income inequality; we desperately need a similar reminder of the relationship between economic advantage and student performance.
The correlation has been abundantly documented, notably by the famous Coleman Report in 1966. New research by Sean F. Reardon of Stanford University traces the achievement gap between children from high- and low-income families over the last 50 years and finds that it now far exceeds the gap between white and black students.
Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that more than 40 percent of the variation in average reading scores and 46 percent of the variation in average math scores across states is associated with variation in child poverty rates.
International research tells the same story. Results of the 2009 reading tests conducted by the Program for International Student Assessment show that, among 15-year-olds in the United States and the 13 countries whose students outperformed ours, students with lower economic and social status had far lower test scores than their more advantaged counterparts within every country. Can anyone credibly believe that the mediocre overall performance of American students on international tests is unrelated to the fact that one-fifth of American children live in poverty?
Yet federal education policy seems blind to all this. No Child Left Behind required all schools to bring all students to high levels of achievement but took no note of the challenges that disadvantaged students face. The legislation did, to be sure, specify that subgroups — defined by income, minority status and proficiency in English — must meet the same achievement standard. But it did so only to make sure that schools did not ignore their disadvantaged students — not to help them address the challenges they carry with them into the classroom.
So why do presumably well-intentioned policy makers ignore, or deny, the correlations of family background and student achievement?
Some honestly believe that schools are capable of offsetting the effects of poverty. Others want to avoid the impression that they set lower expectations for some groups of students for fear that those expectations will be self-fulfilling. In both cases, simply wanting something to be true does not make it so.
Another rationale for denial is to note that some schools, like the Knowledge Is Power Program charter schools, have managed to “beat the odds.” If some schools can succeed, the argument goes, then it is reasonable to expect all schools to. But close scrutiny of charter school performance has shown that many of the success stories have been limited to particular grades or subjects and may be attributable to substantial outside financing or extraordinarily long working hours on the part of teachers. The evidence does not support the view that the few success stories can be scaled up to address the needs of large populations of disadvantaged students.
A final rationale for denying the correlation is more nefarious. As we are now seeing, requiring all schools to meet the same high standards for all students, regardless of family background, will inevitably lead either to large numbers of failing schools or to a dramatic lowering of state standards. Both serve to discredit the public education system and lend support to arguments that the system is failing and needs fundamental change, like privatization.
Given the budget crises at the national and state levels, and the strong political power of conservative groups, a significant effort to reduce poverty or deal with the closely related issue of racial segregation is not in the political cards, at least for now.
So what can be done?
Large bodies of research have shown how poor health and nutrition inhibit child development and learning and, conversely, how high-quality early childhood and preschool education programs can enhance them. We understand the importance of early exposure to rich language on future cognitive development. We know that low-income students experience greater learning loss during the summer when their more privileged peers are enjoying travel and other enriching activities.
Since they can’t take on poverty itself, education policy makers should try to provide poor students with the social support and experiences that middle-class students enjoy as a matter of course.
It can be done. In North Carolina, the two-year-old East Durham Children’s Initiative is one of many efforts around the country to replicate Geoffrey Canada’s well-known successes with the Harlem Children’s Zone.
Say Yes to Education in Syracuse, N.Y., supports access to afterschool programs and summer camps and places social workers in schools. In Omaha, Building Bright Futures sponsors school-based health centers and offers mentoring and enrichment services. Citizen Schools, based in Boston, recruits volunteers in seven states to share their interests and skills with middle-school students.
Promise Neighborhoods, an Obama administration effort that gives grants to programs like these, is a welcome first step, but it has been under-financed.
Other countries already pursue such strategies. In Finland, with its famously high-performing schools, schools provide food and free health care for students. Developmental needs are addressed early. Counseling services are abundant.
But in the United States over the past decade, it became fashionable among supporters of the “no excuses” approach to school improvement to accuse anyone raising the poverty issue of letting schools off the hook — or what Mr. Bush famously called “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”
Such accusations may afford the illusion of a moral high ground, but they stand in the way of serious efforts to improve education and, for that matter, go a long way toward explaining why No Child Left Behind has not worked.
Yes, we need to make sure that all children, and particularly disadvantaged children, have access to good schools, as defined by the quality of teachers and principals and of internal policies and practices.
But let’s not pretend that family background does not matter and can be overlooked. Let’s agree that we know a lot about how to address the ways in which poverty undermines student learning. Whether we choose to face up to that reality is ultimately a moral question.
Helen F. Ladd is a professor of public policy and economics at Duke. Edward B. Fiske, a former education editor of The New York Times, is the author of the “Fiske Guide to Colleges.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/the-unaddressed-link-between-poverty-and-education.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Class Matters. Why Won’t We Admit It?
By HELEN F. LADD and EDWARD B. FISKE
NO one seriously disputes the fact that students from disadvantaged households perform less well in school, on average, than their peers from more advantaged backgrounds. But rather than confront this fact of life head-on, our policy makers mistakenly continue to reason that, since they cannot change the backgrounds of students, they should focus on things they can control.
No Child Left Behind, President George W. Bush’s signature education law, did this by setting unrealistically high — and ultimately self-defeating — expectations for all schools. President Obama’s policies have concentrated on trying to make schools more “efficient” through means like judging teachers by their students’ test scores or encouraging competition by promoting the creation of charter schools. The proverbial story of the drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost comes to mind.
The Occupy movement has catalyzed rising anxiety over income inequality; we desperately need a similar reminder of the relationship between economic advantage and student performance.
The correlation has been abundantly documented, notably by the famous Coleman Report in 1966. New research by Sean F. Reardon of Stanford University traces the achievement gap between children from high- and low-income families over the last 50 years and finds that it now far exceeds the gap between white and black students.
Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that more than 40 percent of the variation in average reading scores and 46 percent of the variation in average math scores across states is associated with variation in child poverty rates.
International research tells the same story. Results of the 2009 reading tests conducted by the Program for International Student Assessment show that, among 15-year-olds in the United States and the 13 countries whose students outperformed ours, students with lower economic and social status had far lower test scores than their more advantaged counterparts within every country. Can anyone credibly believe that the mediocre overall performance of American students on international tests is unrelated to the fact that one-fifth of American children live in poverty?
Yet federal education policy seems blind to all this. No Child Left Behind required all schools to bring all students to high levels of achievement but took no note of the challenges that disadvantaged students face. The legislation did, to be sure, specify that subgroups — defined by income, minority status and proficiency in English — must meet the same achievement standard. But it did so only to make sure that schools did not ignore their disadvantaged students — not to help them address the challenges they carry with them into the classroom.
So why do presumably well-intentioned policy makers ignore, or deny, the correlations of family background and student achievement?
Some honestly believe that schools are capable of offsetting the effects of poverty. Others want to avoid the impression that they set lower expectations for some groups of students for fear that those expectations will be self-fulfilling. In both cases, simply wanting something to be true does not make it so.
Another rationale for denial is to note that some schools, like the Knowledge Is Power Program charter schools, have managed to “beat the odds.” If some schools can succeed, the argument goes, then it is reasonable to expect all schools to. But close scrutiny of charter school performance has shown that many of the success stories have been limited to particular grades or subjects and may be attributable to substantial outside financing or extraordinarily long working hours on the part of teachers. The evidence does not support the view that the few success stories can be scaled up to address the needs of large populations of disadvantaged students.
A final rationale for denying the correlation is more nefarious. As we are now seeing, requiring all schools to meet the same high standards for all students, regardless of family background, will inevitably lead either to large numbers of failing schools or to a dramatic lowering of state standards. Both serve to discredit the public education system and lend support to arguments that the system is failing and needs fundamental change, like privatization.
Given the budget crises at the national and state levels, and the strong political power of conservative groups, a significant effort to reduce poverty or deal with the closely related issue of racial segregation is not in the political cards, at least for now.
So what can be done?
Large bodies of research have shown how poor health and nutrition inhibit child development and learning and, conversely, how high-quality early childhood and preschool education programs can enhance them. We understand the importance of early exposure to rich language on future cognitive development. We know that low-income students experience greater learning loss during the summer when their more privileged peers are enjoying travel and other enriching activities.
Since they can’t take on poverty itself, education policy makers should try to provide poor students with the social support and experiences that middle-class students enjoy as a matter of course.
It can be done. In North Carolina, the two-year-old East Durham Children’s Initiative is one of many efforts around the country to replicate Geoffrey Canada’s well-known successes with the Harlem Children’s Zone.
Say Yes to Education in Syracuse, N.Y., supports access to afterschool programs and summer camps and places social workers in schools. In Omaha, Building Bright Futures sponsors school-based health centers and offers mentoring and enrichment services. Citizen Schools, based in Boston, recruits volunteers in seven states to share their interests and skills with middle-school students.
Promise Neighborhoods, an Obama administration effort that gives grants to programs like these, is a welcome first step, but it has been under-financed.
Other countries already pursue such strategies. In Finland, with its famously high-performing schools, schools provide food and free health care for students. Developmental needs are addressed early. Counseling services are abundant.
But in the United States over the past decade, it became fashionable among supporters of the “no excuses” approach to school improvement to accuse anyone raising the poverty issue of letting schools off the hook — or what Mr. Bush famously called “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”
Such accusations may afford the illusion of a moral high ground, but they stand in the way of serious efforts to improve education and, for that matter, go a long way toward explaining why No Child Left Behind has not worked.
Yes, we need to make sure that all children, and particularly disadvantaged children, have access to good schools, as defined by the quality of teachers and principals and of internal policies and practices.
But let’s not pretend that family background does not matter and can be overlooked. Let’s agree that we know a lot about how to address the ways in which poverty undermines student learning. Whether we choose to face up to that reality is ultimately a moral question.
Helen F. Ladd is a professor of public policy and economics at Duke. Edward B. Fiske, a former education editor of The New York Times, is the author of the “Fiske Guide to Colleges.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/the-unaddressed-link-between-poverty-and-education.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
How the Florida legislature uses religion to manipulate the public in the education debate
by Julie DeLegal
In the wake of a recent circuit court decision, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi has rewritten a legislatively-composed ballot initiative that would, critics say, allow state money to go directly to private, religious school vouchers.
Floridians may be surprised to learn that we already have private school vouchers, and that they are already redeemable at various religious schools. (See http://www.folioweekly.com/documents/folio0901main_000.pdf.) Lawmakers call these vouchers “tax credit scholarships.” Tragically, Florida’s religious voucher schools don’t produce favorable results for our children. The last apples-to-apples comparison showed that low-income voucher students performed only as well as their low-income public school peers—you know, the ones who, the choice-and-competition people would tell you, are “trapped” in failing schools.
The idea that private schools are better than public schools is a myth. A broad and comprehensive DOE-sponsored study, conducted under Pres. George W. Bush in 2006, revealed that when socio-economic status of students is taken into account, there’s virtually no difference between public and private school performance. It’s time for the Florida legislature to quit using “choice” as a pretext for de-funding our public schools.
All the sound and fury surrounding Amendment 7, (which, if passed, threatens to undo the First Amendment protections of Florida’s longstanding Blaine Amendment,) serve purposes that have nothing to do with vouchers. First, as Lee Fang of The Nation astutely reported in his December 5 article, the anti-Blaine Amendment serves as a decoy to “thin out” the choice-and-competition movement’s political enemy. That is, the ballot proposal was intended to keep the teachers’ unions busy so lawmakers can pass their real agenda, which Fang says is virtual charter schools. (See http://www.thenation.com/article/164651/how-online-learning-companies-bought-americas-schools for the article, or http://www.flogfolioweekly.com/?p=4542 for a local digest by this letter’s author.)
The other purpose, on the eve of a Presidential election year, is to rile up the ultra-conservative religious base—one that has been conditioned to respond, like Pavlov’s dog, when so-called “market-based solutions” are paired with anything remotely connectable with Jesus. As a person of faith, I’m offended, and it’s not just because conservatives are still trying to prostitute my religion for business purposes. I’m offended because I know that any discussion I have with my lawmakers about reliable funding, local control, and research-based solutions for Florida's students will be conveniently erased by political “leadership” that takes its orders from industry lobbyists. Our kids don’t have a prayer.
In the wake of a recent circuit court decision, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi has rewritten a legislatively-composed ballot initiative that would, critics say, allow state money to go directly to private, religious school vouchers.
Floridians may be surprised to learn that we already have private school vouchers, and that they are already redeemable at various religious schools. (See http://www.folioweekly.com/documents/folio0901main_000.pdf.) Lawmakers call these vouchers “tax credit scholarships.” Tragically, Florida’s religious voucher schools don’t produce favorable results for our children. The last apples-to-apples comparison showed that low-income voucher students performed only as well as their low-income public school peers—you know, the ones who, the choice-and-competition people would tell you, are “trapped” in failing schools.
The idea that private schools are better than public schools is a myth. A broad and comprehensive DOE-sponsored study, conducted under Pres. George W. Bush in 2006, revealed that when socio-economic status of students is taken into account, there’s virtually no difference between public and private school performance. It’s time for the Florida legislature to quit using “choice” as a pretext for de-funding our public schools.
All the sound and fury surrounding Amendment 7, (which, if passed, threatens to undo the First Amendment protections of Florida’s longstanding Blaine Amendment,) serve purposes that have nothing to do with vouchers. First, as Lee Fang of The Nation astutely reported in his December 5 article, the anti-Blaine Amendment serves as a decoy to “thin out” the choice-and-competition movement’s political enemy. That is, the ballot proposal was intended to keep the teachers’ unions busy so lawmakers can pass their real agenda, which Fang says is virtual charter schools. (See http://www.thenation.com/article/164651/how-online-learning-companies-bought-americas-schools for the article, or http://www.flogfolioweekly.com/?p=4542 for a local digest by this letter’s author.)
The other purpose, on the eve of a Presidential election year, is to rile up the ultra-conservative religious base—one that has been conditioned to respond, like Pavlov’s dog, when so-called “market-based solutions” are paired with anything remotely connectable with Jesus. As a person of faith, I’m offended, and it’s not just because conservatives are still trying to prostitute my religion for business purposes. I’m offended because I know that any discussion I have with my lawmakers about reliable funding, local control, and research-based solutions for Florida's students will be conveniently erased by political “leadership” that takes its orders from industry lobbyists. Our kids don’t have a prayer.
13 Things Every Teacher Wishes Their Principal Knew
From I heart edtech
by Grace
Principals, pull up a chair: Here's what your teachers may or may not be telling you. Teachers, get ready to comment and add to the following list: This is your chance to let your voice be heard.
Using feedback and ideas from teacher friends, family members, and my Personal Learning Network (PLN), I've compiled the following list:
Teachers wish their Principals knew...
1.How much time, effort, and 'free' extra work we do for the school.
2.That school scores and standardized testing are not the only measure of a school's quality.
3.How to provide fun, up-to-date training and professional development learning opportunities for everyone on the staff.
4.That observations with formative feedback go a long way in helping us meet your expectations.
5.How important it is to a school's success to help parents feel welcome and comfortable.
6.The value of social media in education...especially all of the 21st century learning opportunities it presents for our students.
7.That we NEED to always feel appreciated.
8.The difference in appropriate teaching styles for each age group...early childhood, middle school, and high school teachers each have to approach their students uniquely.
9.How valuable global connections are... which is exactly why all Principals should encourage us to build Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) to continue sharing, learning and collaborating with other educators around the world.
10.The unbelievable amount of FREE resources and tools that are available online... but we're not able to access them in class due to blockage or some other restriction.
11.Classroom management is our job, not yours. When you come into our classroom and see a child not following directions, please do not intervene. It undermines our authority.
12.Students behave way better when you're around. Please remember this when we come to you with a discipline problem. We're with the kids day in and day out, so we've got a better idea of how they really behave.
13.They should not to make a habit of calling all-faculty meetings to communicate information that could have been shared via email.
I could keep adding on and on to my list... but where's the fun in that? I'd rather hear what YOU think.
So tell me ...
http://blog.simplek12.com/education/13-things-every-teacher-wishes-their-principal-knew/
by Grace
Principals, pull up a chair: Here's what your teachers may or may not be telling you. Teachers, get ready to comment and add to the following list: This is your chance to let your voice be heard.
Using feedback and ideas from teacher friends, family members, and my Personal Learning Network (PLN), I've compiled the following list:
Teachers wish their Principals knew...
1.How much time, effort, and 'free' extra work we do for the school.
2.That school scores and standardized testing are not the only measure of a school's quality.
3.How to provide fun, up-to-date training and professional development learning opportunities for everyone on the staff.
4.That observations with formative feedback go a long way in helping us meet your expectations.
5.How important it is to a school's success to help parents feel welcome and comfortable.
6.The value of social media in education...especially all of the 21st century learning opportunities it presents for our students.
7.That we NEED to always feel appreciated.
8.The difference in appropriate teaching styles for each age group...early childhood, middle school, and high school teachers each have to approach their students uniquely.
9.How valuable global connections are... which is exactly why all Principals should encourage us to build Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) to continue sharing, learning and collaborating with other educators around the world.
10.The unbelievable amount of FREE resources and tools that are available online... but we're not able to access them in class due to blockage or some other restriction.
11.Classroom management is our job, not yours. When you come into our classroom and see a child not following directions, please do not intervene. It undermines our authority.
12.Students behave way better when you're around. Please remember this when we come to you with a discipline problem. We're with the kids day in and day out, so we've got a better idea of how they really behave.
13.They should not to make a habit of calling all-faculty meetings to communicate information that could have been shared via email.
I could keep adding on and on to my list... but where's the fun in that? I'd rather hear what YOU think.
So tell me ...
http://blog.simplek12.com/education/13-things-every-teacher-wishes-their-principal-knew/
Teaching as a Service Industry
From the Guardian.co.uk with a Nod to Mike Klonskys Small Talk Blog
by Paul Thomas
Management and labour are hurtling towards an impasse, and a work stoppage looms. Workers are seeking public support by emphasising the importance of benefits for workers, specifically longterm healthcare for conditions caused by the profession that do not appear until later in life.
This may sound for many like the possible scenario for a teachers' strike, backed by a powerful teachers' union. But if this were a teachers' strike, in 2011, we could anticipate little support for those teachers – not least because of the propaganda created by Davis Guggenheim's documentary Waiting for "Superman" and the rise of false prophets of education reform (Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Bill Gates and Michelle Rhee).
However, above, I am speaking about the possible NFL strike that hangs over this coming Super Bowl weekend: a struggle between billionaires and millionaires, which, indirectly, shines an important light on the rise of teacher and teacher union-bashing in the US. Adam Bessie, on Truthout, identifies how the myth of the bad teacher has evolved:
"In this political season of faux anti-establishment anger born of very real economic desperation, public educators have become the villain du jour, their reputations collateral damage in the war against 'big government'. In a remarkable sleight of hand, the super rich who imploded the economy, manufacturing the recession which now enrages the public, have successfully misdirected the public's justifiable anger away from them and toward teachers."
While few people have begun to demonise and criticise either the billionaire owners or the millionaire players (represented by a union) in the NFL, the education reform landscape is built on a false premise – blaming teachers and unions for school failures – that lacks credibility and masks the overwhelming source of education failures: namely, poverty.
Ironically, the new push against teachers' unions, cloaked in discourse about the damage done by "bad" teachers, comes from Democrats. For example, Arne Duncan, speaking on behalf of the Obama administration in Little Rock, Arkansas on 25 August 2010, focused on teacher quality:
"The big game-changer for us, however, in terms of both formula and competitive programmes, revolves around the issue of teacher quality … Nothing is more important and nothing has a greater impact on the quality of education than the quality and skill of the person standing in the front of the class – and there is so much that needs to change in the way that America recruits, trains, supports and manages our teachers."
But the political attacks on teachers and unions, which come from both the left and the right, would likely not resonate as much as they have done, if it were not for the celebrity tour on the back of the documentary Waiting for "Superman", whose message has been perpetuated by celebrity reformers. Two of those, Bill Gates and Geoffrey Canada, share an entrepreneur status that suggests expertise on everything simply because they are wealthy. (Possibly, also, this is what protects NFL owners and players from social ridicule in their fight.)
Both Gates and Canada also use compliant media adroitly to promote their unsupported claims. Canada appeared on the Colbert Report as part of his tour, specifically reinforcing the idea that teacher accountability is central to school reform. "We've got to hold the adults responsible … We've allowed our schools to fail these kids with no consequences," Canada told Colbert's audience.
Gates, again due to his incredible wealth and corporate success, commands media attention – media that rarely question his claims. Take, for example, the Newsweek interview by Daniel Lyons with Gates and Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. While the entire interview perpetuates misunderstanding about education reform, the focus on teacher quality and the role of unions exemplifies the claims of the new reformers – even as it exposes those claims' lack of credibility.
In August of 2010, the attack on teacher professionalism was intensified when the Los Angeles Times published teacher quality analyses based on value-added methods (VAM). The charges against teacher quality and teachers' unions elicited several stringent rejections (here, here, and here), but most challenges came from educators themselves – and, of course, received little media coverage when compared to the attention lavished on Gates, Rhee and Canada.
The message has solidified: US public schools are failures because we have too many bad teachers, and we have too many bad teachers because teachers' unions use their excessive power to keep bad teachers in jobs. But it doesn't end there.
By October 2010, the narrative developed further, to take in that our teaching core is weak because "[c]ountries with the best-performing school systems largely recruit teachers from the top third of high school and college graduates, while the United States has difficulty attracting its top students to the profession, a new report finds." The formula was growing complex, but there was a pattern to the proposed solutions: usurp teachers' union control and fire bad teachers; then restock the depleted teacher core with recruits from among top US students.
Ultimately, this PR campaign by corporate and political leaders has been effective, even if it remains inaccurate. Teacher quality represents only a small percentage of achievement, and there is little evidence that teacher quality is the greatest issue, or even one of the main problems, facing student achievement in public schools.
A provable problem with teacher quality, however, is teacher assignment. Peske and Haycock show that students in poverty, students of colour and ELL students are in classrooms with the least experienced teachers, who are often uncertified or underqualified. Of course, teacher quality does matter in terms of what happens once students are within the walls of schools, but we seem blind to the longstanding tradition of assigning the most experienced and best-qualified teachers to the elite students, who already experience major advantages in their lives outside of school.
That the evidence-based inequity of teacher assignment is ignored, while the myth of the bad teacher is perpetuated, is evidence of the motivation behind the new reformers – an unspoken commitment to the status quo of this social inequity that benefits the very people so keen to lay charges against teachers and unions. And the rants against unions are just as suspect as the claims that bad teachers are crippling schools. Two examples expose the flaws in union-bashing.
First, the new reformers hold up Finland as the model for education reform – while failing to identify two crucial facts: that Finland has low childhood poverty (about 3-4%, compared to over 20% in the US) and that Finland's teachers are nearly 100% unionised. Consider, also, South Carolina, a high-poverty state with a reputation for having a weak education system. South Carolina joined the accountability era at the beginning, taking "A Nation at Risk" seriously and creating standards, testing and accountability in 1984. Despite nearly three decades of precisely the process supported by the new reformers, South Carolina finds itself still ranking at the bottom of education in the US. The real dynamic here is that South Carolina remains a high-poverty state – the true cause of low test scores – and also that South Carolina is a non-union state, with no union contracts for teachers and no tenure.
Now, let's step back from all the separate but overlapping claims about teachers, teacher quality and teachers unions. If we look at them together, we discover that two powerful yet contradictory messages exist in the larger public discourse promoted by the new reformers: contradictory messages that allow one message to mask the other. Political and corporate leaders seek to speak about teaching as if it is a profession, while expecting those professionals to function as a service industry. The narratives offered by Obama and Duncan, Waiting for "Superman" and organisations such as Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) and Teach for America argue for the best and the brightest to implement mandated, common core standards, so that their students can take national tests for which those teachers will be held accountable. And all that while teachers are required to waive their first amendment rights, right to due process, and work for salaries that are less than a regular NFL fine.
Beneath the political and corporate veneer espousing teaching as a profession lurks a simple fact: the corporate and political elite wants teaching to be a service industry. Worse yet, they have their wish, because teaching is now a service industry, ultimately devoted to perpetuating an economic system based on social inequity and a venal consumer culture.
So, let's return to the NFL dispute. Corporate, political and public sentiment is against teachers' unions, framing unions as the source of all that ails public education; this narrative now holds firm. But virtually no one has cried foul when it comes to the unionised labour struggle of millionaire NFL players pitted against billionaire team owners. This may seem contradictory, but I believe it is not.
Corporate America benefits from the NFL thriving and from the de-professionalising of teaching – regardless of the union element. Outcries about bad teachers and corrupt teachers' unions are not about educational reform, but about guaranteeing that teaching will become permanently a service industry in which schools are reduced to the sole purpose of producing compliant workers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/04/usdomesticpolicy-schools
by Paul Thomas
Management and labour are hurtling towards an impasse, and a work stoppage looms. Workers are seeking public support by emphasising the importance of benefits for workers, specifically longterm healthcare for conditions caused by the profession that do not appear until later in life.
This may sound for many like the possible scenario for a teachers' strike, backed by a powerful teachers' union. But if this were a teachers' strike, in 2011, we could anticipate little support for those teachers – not least because of the propaganda created by Davis Guggenheim's documentary Waiting for "Superman" and the rise of false prophets of education reform (Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Bill Gates and Michelle Rhee).
However, above, I am speaking about the possible NFL strike that hangs over this coming Super Bowl weekend: a struggle between billionaires and millionaires, which, indirectly, shines an important light on the rise of teacher and teacher union-bashing in the US. Adam Bessie, on Truthout, identifies how the myth of the bad teacher has evolved:
"In this political season of faux anti-establishment anger born of very real economic desperation, public educators have become the villain du jour, their reputations collateral damage in the war against 'big government'. In a remarkable sleight of hand, the super rich who imploded the economy, manufacturing the recession which now enrages the public, have successfully misdirected the public's justifiable anger away from them and toward teachers."
While few people have begun to demonise and criticise either the billionaire owners or the millionaire players (represented by a union) in the NFL, the education reform landscape is built on a false premise – blaming teachers and unions for school failures – that lacks credibility and masks the overwhelming source of education failures: namely, poverty.
Ironically, the new push against teachers' unions, cloaked in discourse about the damage done by "bad" teachers, comes from Democrats. For example, Arne Duncan, speaking on behalf of the Obama administration in Little Rock, Arkansas on 25 August 2010, focused on teacher quality:
"The big game-changer for us, however, in terms of both formula and competitive programmes, revolves around the issue of teacher quality … Nothing is more important and nothing has a greater impact on the quality of education than the quality and skill of the person standing in the front of the class – and there is so much that needs to change in the way that America recruits, trains, supports and manages our teachers."
But the political attacks on teachers and unions, which come from both the left and the right, would likely not resonate as much as they have done, if it were not for the celebrity tour on the back of the documentary Waiting for "Superman", whose message has been perpetuated by celebrity reformers. Two of those, Bill Gates and Geoffrey Canada, share an entrepreneur status that suggests expertise on everything simply because they are wealthy. (Possibly, also, this is what protects NFL owners and players from social ridicule in their fight.)
Both Gates and Canada also use compliant media adroitly to promote their unsupported claims. Canada appeared on the Colbert Report as part of his tour, specifically reinforcing the idea that teacher accountability is central to school reform. "We've got to hold the adults responsible … We've allowed our schools to fail these kids with no consequences," Canada told Colbert's audience.
Gates, again due to his incredible wealth and corporate success, commands media attention – media that rarely question his claims. Take, for example, the Newsweek interview by Daniel Lyons with Gates and Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. While the entire interview perpetuates misunderstanding about education reform, the focus on teacher quality and the role of unions exemplifies the claims of the new reformers – even as it exposes those claims' lack of credibility.
In August of 2010, the attack on teacher professionalism was intensified when the Los Angeles Times published teacher quality analyses based on value-added methods (VAM). The charges against teacher quality and teachers' unions elicited several stringent rejections (here, here, and here), but most challenges came from educators themselves – and, of course, received little media coverage when compared to the attention lavished on Gates, Rhee and Canada.
The message has solidified: US public schools are failures because we have too many bad teachers, and we have too many bad teachers because teachers' unions use their excessive power to keep bad teachers in jobs. But it doesn't end there.
By October 2010, the narrative developed further, to take in that our teaching core is weak because "[c]ountries with the best-performing school systems largely recruit teachers from the top third of high school and college graduates, while the United States has difficulty attracting its top students to the profession, a new report finds." The formula was growing complex, but there was a pattern to the proposed solutions: usurp teachers' union control and fire bad teachers; then restock the depleted teacher core with recruits from among top US students.
Ultimately, this PR campaign by corporate and political leaders has been effective, even if it remains inaccurate. Teacher quality represents only a small percentage of achievement, and there is little evidence that teacher quality is the greatest issue, or even one of the main problems, facing student achievement in public schools.
A provable problem with teacher quality, however, is teacher assignment. Peske and Haycock show that students in poverty, students of colour and ELL students are in classrooms with the least experienced teachers, who are often uncertified or underqualified. Of course, teacher quality does matter in terms of what happens once students are within the walls of schools, but we seem blind to the longstanding tradition of assigning the most experienced and best-qualified teachers to the elite students, who already experience major advantages in their lives outside of school.
That the evidence-based inequity of teacher assignment is ignored, while the myth of the bad teacher is perpetuated, is evidence of the motivation behind the new reformers – an unspoken commitment to the status quo of this social inequity that benefits the very people so keen to lay charges against teachers and unions. And the rants against unions are just as suspect as the claims that bad teachers are crippling schools. Two examples expose the flaws in union-bashing.
First, the new reformers hold up Finland as the model for education reform – while failing to identify two crucial facts: that Finland has low childhood poverty (about 3-4%, compared to over 20% in the US) and that Finland's teachers are nearly 100% unionised. Consider, also, South Carolina, a high-poverty state with a reputation for having a weak education system. South Carolina joined the accountability era at the beginning, taking "A Nation at Risk" seriously and creating standards, testing and accountability in 1984. Despite nearly three decades of precisely the process supported by the new reformers, South Carolina finds itself still ranking at the bottom of education in the US. The real dynamic here is that South Carolina remains a high-poverty state – the true cause of low test scores – and also that South Carolina is a non-union state, with no union contracts for teachers and no tenure.
Now, let's step back from all the separate but overlapping claims about teachers, teacher quality and teachers unions. If we look at them together, we discover that two powerful yet contradictory messages exist in the larger public discourse promoted by the new reformers: contradictory messages that allow one message to mask the other. Political and corporate leaders seek to speak about teaching as if it is a profession, while expecting those professionals to function as a service industry. The narratives offered by Obama and Duncan, Waiting for "Superman" and organisations such as Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) and Teach for America argue for the best and the brightest to implement mandated, common core standards, so that their students can take national tests for which those teachers will be held accountable. And all that while teachers are required to waive their first amendment rights, right to due process, and work for salaries that are less than a regular NFL fine.
Beneath the political and corporate veneer espousing teaching as a profession lurks a simple fact: the corporate and political elite wants teaching to be a service industry. Worse yet, they have their wish, because teaching is now a service industry, ultimately devoted to perpetuating an economic system based on social inequity and a venal consumer culture.
So, let's return to the NFL dispute. Corporate, political and public sentiment is against teachers' unions, framing unions as the source of all that ails public education; this narrative now holds firm. But virtually no one has cried foul when it comes to the unionised labour struggle of millionaire NFL players pitted against billionaire team owners. This may seem contradictory, but I believe it is not.
Corporate America benefits from the NFL thriving and from the de-professionalising of teaching – regardless of the union element. Outcries about bad teachers and corrupt teachers' unions are not about educational reform, but about guaranteeing that teaching will become permanently a service industry in which schools are reduced to the sole purpose of producing compliant workers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/04/usdomesticpolicy-schools
Can Good Teaching Overcome Poverty
From Modern Schools
by Micheal Dunn
Can good teaching overcome the poverty? Of course not.
The notion that education is the great equalizer, that it is the poor kid’s ticket to the American Dream, is simply an extension of the American Dream mythology.
Statistics do show that those with a college degree earn far more on average than do high school drop outs and those who do not attend college and the overwhelming majority of today’s long term unemployed workers are those without college degrees. Furthermore, children who are successful in high school are more likely to attend and succeed in college. However, these are only correlations, not cause and effect relationships.
Consider that familial wealth is also correlated future career success, as it is with K-12 and college success. This does not mean that K-12 success causes college or career success, nor even that affluence does. Rather, the most logical interpretation of these statistics is that familial wealth provides numerous advantages to children that help them succeed at a higher rate in school, college and career.
The American Dream myth presumes that there is a level playing field and that everyone has the same opportunities if they only apply themselves and work hard. While we do all have the same right to an education, to sell our labor, run for office, or become an entrepreneur, there are numerous life circumstances that are not guaranteed or equally distributed that can facilitate or hinder our academic and career success.
Affluent children tend to have better diets, perinatal care and overall health, and less exposure to environmental toxins, each of which decreases the chances of being born premature, with low birth weight and brain size or having developmental or cognitive impairments. They have increased access to enriching extracurricular activities like travel, summer camp, sports, art classes, museums, and educational games. They tend to have greater early exposure to reading and complex vocabulary which results in an achievement gap before they have even started preschool or kindergarten (see Burkam and Lee and Hart and Risely). They have far less danger at home and in their communities and tend to have much less stress in their lives, thus reducing exposure to cortisol, the stress hormone, which can impair memory and learning. While it is true that affluent kids, particularly teens, are under increased pressure to take more AP and other advanced classes, the stress associated with this is not the same as the stress of regularly going hungry, suffering with untreated injuries and illness, and constantly seeing parents worried or complaining about their finances.
Their material security and their parents’ assurances that they will always come out on top confers greater self-confidence and self-efficacy in affluent children. They grow up observing parents and family members who are comfortable with and effective at negotiating bureaucracies and getting their needs met at stores and businesses. Middle class language, norms and mores (which are essentially the same as the language, norms and mores of school) become internalized and second nature to them by the time they are ready for school. All of this gives them a huge advantage over their lower income peers. They are more likely to take risks at school, like asking questions, asking for help, or persevering with something that is difficult. They are more likely to “get” what the teacher is asking or suggesting and to already know how and be able to behave according to the teacher’s expectations.
Can good teaching help some poor students succeed in school? Of course!
There are obviously poor kids who transcend their class backgrounds and move up into the middle class and occasionally even become members of the ruling elite. This does not mean that all of them. It also is absurd and condescending to them and their families to attribute their success entirely or even mostly to their teachers. Many poor kids come to school with self-confidence, motivation, perseverance and a strong work ethic—attributes that are necessary to succeed in school and that stem mostly from their upbringings and home lives, not from school. Having good teachers most likely helps them to reach their potentials, as it does for affluent children, but it is not the only, nor even the main, reason they succeed.
Nevertheless, the Ed Deformers love to assert that poverty isn’t the problem and that it shouldn’t even be on the table. (Of course, many of the most well-known Ed Deformers are billionaires who want to crush the public sector unions and open up public education to private entrepreneurs).
All the poor kids need, they insist, is better teachers, super men and women who are willing to work 16 hours per day, and do more during each hour than do those other shirkers we politely call teachers. They continue to misrepresent the data on the teacher’s influence on educational outcomes, suggesting that teachers are the largest influence, when even the most conservative researchers say teachers are only responsible for 7-20% of students’ academic success.
Dana Goldstein recently posted links on her blog to some of this research in a rebuttal to RiShawn Biddle’s criticism of her essay on Steven Brill’s Class Warfare.
This 1998 paper by Eric Hanushek, John Kain, and Steven Rivkin--economists who support free-market education reforms--concludes that teacher quality accounts for "at least 7.5 percent" of student achievement outcomes.
This 2004 review of a number of studies on teacher effectiveness estimates that between 7 and 21 percent of student achievement differences can be attributed to teachers. See pg. 240. The authors are education researchers at Northwestern, the University of Chicago, and Tennessee State.
On pages 3 to 4 of this 2002 University of Pennsylvania study, the researchers conclude that depending on the valued-added method used, between 4 and 28 percent of student achievement gaps can be attributed to differences between classrooms within a school, of which the teacher would be the most significant.
The wealthy do not want to acknowledge the role of poverty out of fear that they might be asked to give up a tiny modicum of their wealth. Politicians don’t want to acknowledge it for fear of losing the support of their funders. School administrators don’t want to talk about it because they “don’t have any control over it,” and they want to focus on what their teachers can “control” through reforms (even if the reforms do not actually do much or anything to help poor children). Teachers do not want to talk about it because they’re too busy trying not to drown under the weight of all the new reforms. The Occupiers do want to talk about it, but ineffectually and delusionally, presuming that their mere presence in public spaces will be sufficient to get the rich to part with a bit of their wealth and that a few extra bucks going into education and public services will somehow end poverty.
http://modeducation.blogspot.com/2011/11/can-good-teaching-overcome-poverty.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ModernSchool+%28Modern+School%29
by Micheal Dunn
Can good teaching overcome the poverty? Of course not.
The notion that education is the great equalizer, that it is the poor kid’s ticket to the American Dream, is simply an extension of the American Dream mythology.
Statistics do show that those with a college degree earn far more on average than do high school drop outs and those who do not attend college and the overwhelming majority of today’s long term unemployed workers are those without college degrees. Furthermore, children who are successful in high school are more likely to attend and succeed in college. However, these are only correlations, not cause and effect relationships.
Consider that familial wealth is also correlated future career success, as it is with K-12 and college success. This does not mean that K-12 success causes college or career success, nor even that affluence does. Rather, the most logical interpretation of these statistics is that familial wealth provides numerous advantages to children that help them succeed at a higher rate in school, college and career.
The American Dream myth presumes that there is a level playing field and that everyone has the same opportunities if they only apply themselves and work hard. While we do all have the same right to an education, to sell our labor, run for office, or become an entrepreneur, there are numerous life circumstances that are not guaranteed or equally distributed that can facilitate or hinder our academic and career success.
Affluent children tend to have better diets, perinatal care and overall health, and less exposure to environmental toxins, each of which decreases the chances of being born premature, with low birth weight and brain size or having developmental or cognitive impairments. They have increased access to enriching extracurricular activities like travel, summer camp, sports, art classes, museums, and educational games. They tend to have greater early exposure to reading and complex vocabulary which results in an achievement gap before they have even started preschool or kindergarten (see Burkam and Lee and Hart and Risely). They have far less danger at home and in their communities and tend to have much less stress in their lives, thus reducing exposure to cortisol, the stress hormone, which can impair memory and learning. While it is true that affluent kids, particularly teens, are under increased pressure to take more AP and other advanced classes, the stress associated with this is not the same as the stress of regularly going hungry, suffering with untreated injuries and illness, and constantly seeing parents worried or complaining about their finances.
Their material security and their parents’ assurances that they will always come out on top confers greater self-confidence and self-efficacy in affluent children. They grow up observing parents and family members who are comfortable with and effective at negotiating bureaucracies and getting their needs met at stores and businesses. Middle class language, norms and mores (which are essentially the same as the language, norms and mores of school) become internalized and second nature to them by the time they are ready for school. All of this gives them a huge advantage over their lower income peers. They are more likely to take risks at school, like asking questions, asking for help, or persevering with something that is difficult. They are more likely to “get” what the teacher is asking or suggesting and to already know how and be able to behave according to the teacher’s expectations.
Can good teaching help some poor students succeed in school? Of course!
There are obviously poor kids who transcend their class backgrounds and move up into the middle class and occasionally even become members of the ruling elite. This does not mean that all of them. It also is absurd and condescending to them and their families to attribute their success entirely or even mostly to their teachers. Many poor kids come to school with self-confidence, motivation, perseverance and a strong work ethic—attributes that are necessary to succeed in school and that stem mostly from their upbringings and home lives, not from school. Having good teachers most likely helps them to reach their potentials, as it does for affluent children, but it is not the only, nor even the main, reason they succeed.
Nevertheless, the Ed Deformers love to assert that poverty isn’t the problem and that it shouldn’t even be on the table. (Of course, many of the most well-known Ed Deformers are billionaires who want to crush the public sector unions and open up public education to private entrepreneurs).
All the poor kids need, they insist, is better teachers, super men and women who are willing to work 16 hours per day, and do more during each hour than do those other shirkers we politely call teachers. They continue to misrepresent the data on the teacher’s influence on educational outcomes, suggesting that teachers are the largest influence, when even the most conservative researchers say teachers are only responsible for 7-20% of students’ academic success.
Dana Goldstein recently posted links on her blog to some of this research in a rebuttal to RiShawn Biddle’s criticism of her essay on Steven Brill’s Class Warfare.
This 1998 paper by Eric Hanushek, John Kain, and Steven Rivkin--economists who support free-market education reforms--concludes that teacher quality accounts for "at least 7.5 percent" of student achievement outcomes.
This 2004 review of a number of studies on teacher effectiveness estimates that between 7 and 21 percent of student achievement differences can be attributed to teachers. See pg. 240. The authors are education researchers at Northwestern, the University of Chicago, and Tennessee State.
On pages 3 to 4 of this 2002 University of Pennsylvania study, the researchers conclude that depending on the valued-added method used, between 4 and 28 percent of student achievement gaps can be attributed to differences between classrooms within a school, of which the teacher would be the most significant.
The wealthy do not want to acknowledge the role of poverty out of fear that they might be asked to give up a tiny modicum of their wealth. Politicians don’t want to acknowledge it for fear of losing the support of their funders. School administrators don’t want to talk about it because they “don’t have any control over it,” and they want to focus on what their teachers can “control” through reforms (even if the reforms do not actually do much or anything to help poor children). Teachers do not want to talk about it because they’re too busy trying not to drown under the weight of all the new reforms. The Occupiers do want to talk about it, but ineffectually and delusionally, presuming that their mere presence in public spaces will be sufficient to get the rich to part with a bit of their wealth and that a few extra bucks going into education and public services will somehow end poverty.
http://modeducation.blogspot.com/2011/11/can-good-teaching-overcome-poverty.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ModernSchool+%28Modern+School%29
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Debunking the myths education deformers would have you beleive
By Larry Cuban
Even with the shift to the political right across the nation in last week’s election, both Republicans and Democrats, continue to tell a familiar story about American schools. That well-worn story often repeated by self-confident reformers (or “reform types”) can be reduced to three statements.
1.U.S. children and youth have done poorly on international tests in reading, math, and science.
2. Students in other nations not only score better than U.S. students but also, upon graduation, possess competence and skills that surpass American workers thereby threatening America’s global competitiveness.
3. U.S. students do poorly on these international tests and in competition with workers elsewhere because the nation’s schools are broken. They can be fixed by holding practitioners accountable for student performance on tests, getting effective teachers through better recruitment and evaluation, having leaders who accept no excuses from practitioners, paying for performance based upon student test scores, and creating more charter schools
End of story.
Of the three statements in this story, only the first is a fact. The rest are myths, ones that are serviceable to policy elites but damaging to public confidence in America’s schools.
1. U.S. students have scored in the middle to lower ranges of international tests in reading, math, and science. See here, here and here. Vigorous and critical analyses of these various tests and their consequences for policy making have rebutted “schools-are-broken” critics. Nonetheless, I do not dispute the fact of U.S. students scoring where they do on these tests.
Statements 2 and 3, however, are myths, lacking substantial evidence, that have been largely accepted through repetition.
2. The U.S.’s position in the global economy, again and again, has been attributed to weak human capital created by the schools–the historical “educationalizing” of problems that has become a national tic–since the Nation at Risk report in 1983. A steady diet of pundit Thomas Friedman, publisher Rupert Murdoch, and press releases from the Bussiness Roundtable would convince most readers that CEO decisions in managing their businesses, technological choices, swings in financial markets, and global boom-and-bust cycles had little to do with the U.S. economy. While putting onto public schools the solution for economic downturns, rather than business executives, is a loony non-sequitur, it is a victory in shifting blame from corporate leaders’ flawed decisions to the shoulders of educators. Statement 2, then, is a serviceable myth.
3. It is also a myth that all U.S. schools are broken. Surely,most urban schools are low-performing and in many cases have earned the label of “dropout factories.” Washington, D.C, for example, would be a poster child for such districts. Moreover, although islands of excellence in urban districts do exist (including D.C.), they are seldom stable over time. Where the myth-making enters is when urban schools are conflated with all U.S. schools. Not only I but many others have pointed out that the U.S. has a three-tiered system of schooling where the top two tiers have mostly “successful” schools by current standards. The bottom tier contains failing urban schools. Thus, all U.S. schools are not failures by any standard.
As for the inventory of current reforms that are deemed precious by venture capitalists, edu-preneurs, and political leaders from both parties, Diane Ravitch has laid out a compelling counter-story to the popular one on charters, accountability, and other reforms that is fully vetted with evidence drawn from many sources. Pay-4-performance schemes and the use of test scores to evaluate teachers also have been critiqued severely by experts who are far more familiar with the innards of these “reforms” than the champions who promote they ceaselessly.
And “no excuses?” The departure of Chancellor Michelle Rhee from Washington, D.C., may not yet signal the end of the simple-minded view that teachers and principals, by themselves, can erase the ill-effects of poverty, inattention to children at home, and neighborhood pathologies by setting high expectations and academic standards. But I sure hope that the “No excuses” ideology spouted by self-confident reformers and based upon ignorance, will give way to a more complex view of schools and families and community agencies working together.
In sum, then, the familiar myth-filled story justifying current school reform while inaccurate and even self-deceiving is, nonetheless, serviceable. The myths keep alive the ideology of contemporary policy-driven reformers that they are saving all American schools–when they are not; the myths provide activist urban reformers with useful work by letting them dispense advice to hard-working educators–even when so many teachers and principals ignore them; the myths help entrepreneurs and policymakers alike, from both sides of the political spectrum, dream of a better future for urban children and youth than the one they face now. Dreams, however, that deceive the dreamers hardly help those who are the objects of those dreams.
Taken from: http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/serviceable-myths-about-school-reform/
Even with the shift to the political right across the nation in last week’s election, both Republicans and Democrats, continue to tell a familiar story about American schools. That well-worn story often repeated by self-confident reformers (or “reform types”) can be reduced to three statements.
1.U.S. children and youth have done poorly on international tests in reading, math, and science.
2. Students in other nations not only score better than U.S. students but also, upon graduation, possess competence and skills that surpass American workers thereby threatening America’s global competitiveness.
3. U.S. students do poorly on these international tests and in competition with workers elsewhere because the nation’s schools are broken. They can be fixed by holding practitioners accountable for student performance on tests, getting effective teachers through better recruitment and evaluation, having leaders who accept no excuses from practitioners, paying for performance based upon student test scores, and creating more charter schools
End of story.
Of the three statements in this story, only the first is a fact. The rest are myths, ones that are serviceable to policy elites but damaging to public confidence in America’s schools.
1. U.S. students have scored in the middle to lower ranges of international tests in reading, math, and science. See here, here and here. Vigorous and critical analyses of these various tests and their consequences for policy making have rebutted “schools-are-broken” critics. Nonetheless, I do not dispute the fact of U.S. students scoring where they do on these tests.
Statements 2 and 3, however, are myths, lacking substantial evidence, that have been largely accepted through repetition.
2. The U.S.’s position in the global economy, again and again, has been attributed to weak human capital created by the schools–the historical “educationalizing” of problems that has become a national tic–since the Nation at Risk report in 1983. A steady diet of pundit Thomas Friedman, publisher Rupert Murdoch, and press releases from the Bussiness Roundtable would convince most readers that CEO decisions in managing their businesses, technological choices, swings in financial markets, and global boom-and-bust cycles had little to do with the U.S. economy. While putting onto public schools the solution for economic downturns, rather than business executives, is a loony non-sequitur, it is a victory in shifting blame from corporate leaders’ flawed decisions to the shoulders of educators. Statement 2, then, is a serviceable myth.
3. It is also a myth that all U.S. schools are broken. Surely,most urban schools are low-performing and in many cases have earned the label of “dropout factories.” Washington, D.C, for example, would be a poster child for such districts. Moreover, although islands of excellence in urban districts do exist (including D.C.), they are seldom stable over time. Where the myth-making enters is when urban schools are conflated with all U.S. schools. Not only I but many others have pointed out that the U.S. has a three-tiered system of schooling where the top two tiers have mostly “successful” schools by current standards. The bottom tier contains failing urban schools. Thus, all U.S. schools are not failures by any standard.
As for the inventory of current reforms that are deemed precious by venture capitalists, edu-preneurs, and political leaders from both parties, Diane Ravitch has laid out a compelling counter-story to the popular one on charters, accountability, and other reforms that is fully vetted with evidence drawn from many sources. Pay-4-performance schemes and the use of test scores to evaluate teachers also have been critiqued severely by experts who are far more familiar with the innards of these “reforms” than the champions who promote they ceaselessly.
And “no excuses?” The departure of Chancellor Michelle Rhee from Washington, D.C., may not yet signal the end of the simple-minded view that teachers and principals, by themselves, can erase the ill-effects of poverty, inattention to children at home, and neighborhood pathologies by setting high expectations and academic standards. But I sure hope that the “No excuses” ideology spouted by self-confident reformers and based upon ignorance, will give way to a more complex view of schools and families and community agencies working together.
In sum, then, the familiar myth-filled story justifying current school reform while inaccurate and even self-deceiving is, nonetheless, serviceable. The myths keep alive the ideology of contemporary policy-driven reformers that they are saving all American schools–when they are not; the myths provide activist urban reformers with useful work by letting them dispense advice to hard-working educators–even when so many teachers and principals ignore them; the myths help entrepreneurs and policymakers alike, from both sides of the political spectrum, dream of a better future for urban children and youth than the one they face now. Dreams, however, that deceive the dreamers hardly help those who are the objects of those dreams.
Taken from: http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/serviceable-myths-about-school-reform/
Debunking the myths associated with teaching
From the Washington Post's Answer Sheet
By Barnett Berry
There’s a lot of talk today about making our schools better and our teachers more effective. Researchers confirm that the right teachers can make a big difference in how much students learn, even in the most challenging schools. But scholars, educators, union leaders and policy wonks still disagree, sometimes vehemently, over what good teaching looks like. And it’s a high-stakes question. Political leaders at every level are demanding we evaluate and pay teachers based on student test scores and value-added statistical formulas. If that turns out to be a bad strategy, the long-term ramifications for the nation could be staggering.
Incredible as it seems, 11 years into the new millennium decision makers are still opting for a patchwork teaching policy that often lowers entry standards to keep salaries and preparation costs down.
We spend too much time debating 20th century arguments — e.g., whether or not Teach for America or university-based certification programs are the best ways to recruit and train teachers. What we need instead are millions of well-prepared, highly savvy teachers who know how to teach the iGeneration and work successfully in teams in order to serve diverse public school populations that include large numbers of English language learners and students from poverty.
Teaching in the 21st century is complex, challenging work, and the fiction that “anyone can be a teacher” threatens our future. We have entered an era of rapid and inexorable change, where the real “high stakes” must be measured at a global level. We don’t have time for myths. Here are five that often distract policymakers from creating the results-oriented teaching profession students deserve.
Myth #1: Teacher preparation matters little for student achievement.
Research Realities: Some research suggests that new recruits from Teach for America and other fast-entry programs perform about as well as those from traditional, university-based teacher training – leading many to assume that in-depth teacher preparation matters little for student achievement. But what if neither approach is giving us the teachers we need? The National Bureau of Economic Research found that beginning teachers with more extensive clinical training (including a full-year internship – like doctors get) actually produce higher student achievement gains than those from either traditional university programs or alternative pathways. Recent research also tells us that teacher who enter with too little preparation are likely to leave the profession much sooner than those who have a thorough grasp of the fundamentals – and they’re less likely to be effective over time.
Myth #2: Teaching experience matters little for student achievement.
We keep hearing that teaching experience beyond the initial three years or so does not necessarily produce higher student test scores. But recent studies say that more experience does matter (up to 20 years) for student achievement when the conditions are ripe – that is, when teachers teach the same subjects and grade levels consistently, especially during their first five years of teaching. Other researchers have shown that experienced, expert teachers know more than novices and organize their knowledge of content, teaching strategies, and students more effectively, retrieve it more readily, and can apply it in novel and creative ways. More seasoned experts are also better prepared to overcome some of the stressful working conditions found in many high-needs schools. Experience does not guarantee effective teaching, but when schools are organize to draw on its best teachers, it matters a lot.
Myth #3: Removing incompetent teachers will fix our schools.
Research Realities: In any professional workplace, dismissing ineffective employees makes common sense. But the best evidence indicates that the percentage of ineffective teachers in American public schools is far lower than media reports might suggest. For example, the Teacher Advancement Program, which includes many thousands of teachers across the United States, uses both student test results and observational methods to assess teaching effectiveness. Only a very small fraction of TAP teachers are rated ineffective. Over 85 percent have been deemed proficient (with a score of 3 or above) and almost one-third earn a score of 4 or above on a 5-point scale. There’s ample evidence that we are obsessing on a small problem while we give short shrift to professional development strategies that could move large numbers of teachers from satisfactory to excellent.
Myth #4: Teacher tenure rules make it impossible to get rid of poor teachers.
Research Realities: A recent study by The New Teacher Project clearly shows that the difficulty in removing ineffective teachers has much more to do with ill-trained and supported administrators than tenure rules. Another report from the Center for American Progress concluded that poor evaluation procedures – not tenure – are most likely to account for a school district’s inability to fire poor performers. Teacher tenure is prevalent in “high achievement” nations like Finland. In America, poor teacher evaluation is common (epidemic, in fact) in school districts with or without unions and tenure. Tenure reform is necessary, but the bigger issue is eliminating the widespread educational malpractice associated with broken evaluation systems, which not only stymie teacher development but student achievement.
Myth #5: Merit pay will motivate teachers to teach more effectively.
Research Realities: In the most rigorous study to date, scholars from Vanderbilt University and the RAND Corporation plainly conclude that “rewarding teachers with bonus pay, in the absence of any other support programs, does not raise student test scores.” Performance pay plans can make a difference for student achievement when they are designed to improve the school climate and encourage teacher collaboration. Studies of effective performance pay systems tell us that: (1) teachers must be involved in the design and implementation; (2) costs need to be known and made public prior to program launch; (3) the system cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach – districts and schools need to be able to adapt based on local contexts; and (4) one or two direct measures of student learning (like standardized test scores) cannot be the only basis for rewards.
These myths drive today’s teaching policies and continue to ground solutions in yesterday’s challenges. They distract us from the demands that teachers already face today and that will only intensify tomorrow. We need to identify our most effective teachers, using fair, rigorous and valid measures, and let them lead the way in removing ineffective colleagues. Most important, we need to invest far more in teacher education and school redesign policies reflective of 21st century demands on our public schools. More than anything else today’s policy focus must spread the expertise our best teachers, in and out of cyberspace.
In TEACHING 2030, a new book I’ve authored with 12 outstanding teachers, we build a compelling case that for teachers to be effective now and in the future, they must know how to:
(1) teach the Googled learner, who has grown up on smartphones and virtual reality games and can find information (if not understanding) with a few taps of the finger;
(2) work with a student body that’s increasingly diverse (by 2030, 40 percent or more will be second-language learners);
(3) prepare students to compete for jobs in a global marketplace where communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creative problem solving are the “new basics”;
(4) help students monitor their own learning – using sophisticated tools to assess whether students meet high academic standards and fine-tuning instruction when they don’t; and
(5) connect teaching to the needs of communities as economic churn creates family and societal instability, pushing schools to integrate health and social services with academic learning.
As described in TEACHING 2030, far too preparation programs, including both alternative and traditional ones, cultivate teachers with these skills. Even fewer schools are organized to create opportunities for our best teachers — or teacherpreneurs — to teach students regularly as well as lead pedagogical and policy reforms outside their classrooms. Now’s the time to transcend the usual debates over how to make our schools better and our teachers more effective – and break free of the myths that keep us fighting 20th century battles. Instead we need to look hard at the realities, framed by research evidence as well as the challenges teachers face everyday, in pointing the way toward a 21st century teaching profession demanded by our nation’s public schools.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/5_myths_about_teachers_that_are_distracting_policymakers/2011/03/24/ABNuyBMB_blog.html?wprss=answer-sheet
By Barnett Berry
There’s a lot of talk today about making our schools better and our teachers more effective. Researchers confirm that the right teachers can make a big difference in how much students learn, even in the most challenging schools. But scholars, educators, union leaders and policy wonks still disagree, sometimes vehemently, over what good teaching looks like. And it’s a high-stakes question. Political leaders at every level are demanding we evaluate and pay teachers based on student test scores and value-added statistical formulas. If that turns out to be a bad strategy, the long-term ramifications for the nation could be staggering.
Incredible as it seems, 11 years into the new millennium decision makers are still opting for a patchwork teaching policy that often lowers entry standards to keep salaries and preparation costs down.
We spend too much time debating 20th century arguments — e.g., whether or not Teach for America or university-based certification programs are the best ways to recruit and train teachers. What we need instead are millions of well-prepared, highly savvy teachers who know how to teach the iGeneration and work successfully in teams in order to serve diverse public school populations that include large numbers of English language learners and students from poverty.
Teaching in the 21st century is complex, challenging work, and the fiction that “anyone can be a teacher” threatens our future. We have entered an era of rapid and inexorable change, where the real “high stakes” must be measured at a global level. We don’t have time for myths. Here are five that often distract policymakers from creating the results-oriented teaching profession students deserve.
Myth #1: Teacher preparation matters little for student achievement.
Research Realities: Some research suggests that new recruits from Teach for America and other fast-entry programs perform about as well as those from traditional, university-based teacher training – leading many to assume that in-depth teacher preparation matters little for student achievement. But what if neither approach is giving us the teachers we need? The National Bureau of Economic Research found that beginning teachers with more extensive clinical training (including a full-year internship – like doctors get) actually produce higher student achievement gains than those from either traditional university programs or alternative pathways. Recent research also tells us that teacher who enter with too little preparation are likely to leave the profession much sooner than those who have a thorough grasp of the fundamentals – and they’re less likely to be effective over time.
Myth #2: Teaching experience matters little for student achievement.
We keep hearing that teaching experience beyond the initial three years or so does not necessarily produce higher student test scores. But recent studies say that more experience does matter (up to 20 years) for student achievement when the conditions are ripe – that is, when teachers teach the same subjects and grade levels consistently, especially during their first five years of teaching. Other researchers have shown that experienced, expert teachers know more than novices and organize their knowledge of content, teaching strategies, and students more effectively, retrieve it more readily, and can apply it in novel and creative ways. More seasoned experts are also better prepared to overcome some of the stressful working conditions found in many high-needs schools. Experience does not guarantee effective teaching, but when schools are organize to draw on its best teachers, it matters a lot.
Myth #3: Removing incompetent teachers will fix our schools.
Research Realities: In any professional workplace, dismissing ineffective employees makes common sense. But the best evidence indicates that the percentage of ineffective teachers in American public schools is far lower than media reports might suggest. For example, the Teacher Advancement Program, which includes many thousands of teachers across the United States, uses both student test results and observational methods to assess teaching effectiveness. Only a very small fraction of TAP teachers are rated ineffective. Over 85 percent have been deemed proficient (with a score of 3 or above) and almost one-third earn a score of 4 or above on a 5-point scale. There’s ample evidence that we are obsessing on a small problem while we give short shrift to professional development strategies that could move large numbers of teachers from satisfactory to excellent.
Myth #4: Teacher tenure rules make it impossible to get rid of poor teachers.
Research Realities: A recent study by The New Teacher Project clearly shows that the difficulty in removing ineffective teachers has much more to do with ill-trained and supported administrators than tenure rules. Another report from the Center for American Progress concluded that poor evaluation procedures – not tenure – are most likely to account for a school district’s inability to fire poor performers. Teacher tenure is prevalent in “high achievement” nations like Finland. In America, poor teacher evaluation is common (epidemic, in fact) in school districts with or without unions and tenure. Tenure reform is necessary, but the bigger issue is eliminating the widespread educational malpractice associated with broken evaluation systems, which not only stymie teacher development but student achievement.
Myth #5: Merit pay will motivate teachers to teach more effectively.
Research Realities: In the most rigorous study to date, scholars from Vanderbilt University and the RAND Corporation plainly conclude that “rewarding teachers with bonus pay, in the absence of any other support programs, does not raise student test scores.” Performance pay plans can make a difference for student achievement when they are designed to improve the school climate and encourage teacher collaboration. Studies of effective performance pay systems tell us that: (1) teachers must be involved in the design and implementation; (2) costs need to be known and made public prior to program launch; (3) the system cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach – districts and schools need to be able to adapt based on local contexts; and (4) one or two direct measures of student learning (like standardized test scores) cannot be the only basis for rewards.
These myths drive today’s teaching policies and continue to ground solutions in yesterday’s challenges. They distract us from the demands that teachers already face today and that will only intensify tomorrow. We need to identify our most effective teachers, using fair, rigorous and valid measures, and let them lead the way in removing ineffective colleagues. Most important, we need to invest far more in teacher education and school redesign policies reflective of 21st century demands on our public schools. More than anything else today’s policy focus must spread the expertise our best teachers, in and out of cyberspace.
In TEACHING 2030, a new book I’ve authored with 12 outstanding teachers, we build a compelling case that for teachers to be effective now and in the future, they must know how to:
(1) teach the Googled learner, who has grown up on smartphones and virtual reality games and can find information (if not understanding) with a few taps of the finger;
(2) work with a student body that’s increasingly diverse (by 2030, 40 percent or more will be second-language learners);
(3) prepare students to compete for jobs in a global marketplace where communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creative problem solving are the “new basics”;
(4) help students monitor their own learning – using sophisticated tools to assess whether students meet high academic standards and fine-tuning instruction when they don’t; and
(5) connect teaching to the needs of communities as economic churn creates family and societal instability, pushing schools to integrate health and social services with academic learning.
As described in TEACHING 2030, far too preparation programs, including both alternative and traditional ones, cultivate teachers with these skills. Even fewer schools are organized to create opportunities for our best teachers — or teacherpreneurs — to teach students regularly as well as lead pedagogical and policy reforms outside their classrooms. Now’s the time to transcend the usual debates over how to make our schools better and our teachers more effective – and break free of the myths that keep us fighting 20th century battles. Instead we need to look hard at the realities, framed by research evidence as well as the challenges teachers face everyday, in pointing the way toward a 21st century teaching profession demanded by our nation’s public schools.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/5_myths_about_teachers_that_are_distracting_policymakers/2011/03/24/ABNuyBMB_blog.html?wprss=answer-sheet
The Myth of the bad teacher
From Truth out.org
by: Adam Bessie
In this political season of faux anti-establishment anger born of very real economic desperation, public educators have become the villain du jour, their reputations collateral damage in the war against "big government." In a remarkable slight of hand, the super rich who imploded the economy, manufacturing the recession which now enrages the public, have successfully misdirected the public's justifiable anger away from them and toward teachers.
This anti-teacher rage is focused on the mythical cartoon character the "Bad Teacher," who - according to the recent explosion in press on education generated by the documentary "Waiting for Superman" - plagues our public schools. The Bad Teacher is no one specific, but rather, a sort of free-floating, ill-defined stereotype: he is an inept, uncaring, self-interested bureaucrat waiting for his pension, not only disinterested in students, but actively engaged in standing in the way of student achievement, rather than encouraging it. I imagine the Bad Teacher as slovenly dressed, with stains on his shirt, showing up to class late, and once there, reading the newspaper while his students throw paper airplanes at each other. He looks up at the clock occasionally, waiting for his time to be up in order get out of school as fast as possible, so he can get home and watch "Glee" on his plump, faux-leather couch. Or he could be a really "Bad Teacher," such as the one soon to be depicted in a 2011 movie of the same name, which is focused on a "foul-mouthed, junior high teacher who, after being dumped by her sugar daddy, begins to woo a colleague - a move that pits her against a well-loved teacher."
All alone, the Bad Teacher is single-handedly, with one lazy bound, destroying a generation.
The corporate media has unabashedly promoted this myth as fact. According to Oprah, the Bad Teacher is everywhere, royally screwing up classrooms across America. In "The Shocking State of Our Schools," a promotional piece on Oprah's web site for the documentary, she claims that the students featured in the film are "eager to get an education," but have to fight their way through a "system riddled with ineffective teachers." NBC stalwart Tom Brokaw echoes Oprah, though he broadens the Bad Teacher to a sort of systematic educational conspiracy to ensure students don't learn, in a recent report for Education Nation. Doing his best impression of Glenn Beck, he asks a new teacher if she has met resistance from "the teacher establishment," authoritatively confirming to any naysayers that "there is one," consisting of "unions" and veteran teachers. In Brokaw's "balanced" view, the teacher establishment is set firmly against students, not there to serve them.
Bill Gates, interviewed approvingly by Brokaw in that report, expresses the same message in his speech to the American Federation of Teachers, though far less explicitly. He notes that public schools have been "struggling for decades," and then a few paragraphs later, claims, "the single most decisive factor in student achievement is excellent teaching." In other words, the single most decisive factor for public schools' failures is the teachers. Gates has committed $500 million of his own money, through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to more definitively identify the precise ingredients that compose a good teacher and, thus, by contrast, the Bad Teacher, who will then be fixed as though he's an annoying bug to be rooted out in the latest edition of Windows.
"In the past five years, that attack on public education has ratcheted up to dimensions that were unthinkable 30 years ago," observes educator Bill Ayers (yes, the same Ayers vilified by the right-wing media to prove Obama was really a "terrorist" in the 2008 elections). "And so people talk about the public schools in a way that is disingenuous and dishonest and also frightening in its characterization: they say the schools are run by a group of self-interested, selfish, undertrained, under-committed teachers, who have a union that protects them." This misguided characterization, as Brokaw, Gates and Oprah show us, is no longer a far-right argument, but an accepted fact, a commonplace not subject to dispute.
The myth is now the truth.
The Bad Teacher myth, Ayers admits, is appealing, which is why it's spread so far and become so commonly accepted. Who can, after all, disagree that we "need to get the lazy, incompetent teachers out of the classroom?" Even Ayers agrees that he, like all of us, "nods stupidly" along with this notion. As a professor at a community college and former high school teacher, I nod stupidly as well: I don't want my students held back, alienated, or abused by these Bad Teachers.
This myth is also seductive in its simplicity. It's much easier to have a concrete villain to blame for problems school systems face. The fix seems easy, as well: all we need to do is fire the Bad Teachers, as controversial Washington, DC, school chancellor superstar Michelle Rhee has, and hire good ones, and students will learn. In this light, Gates' effort to "fix" the bug-riddled public school operating system by focusing on teacher development makes perfect sense. The logic feels hard to argue with: who would argue against making teachers better? And if, as a teacher, you do dare to, you must be "anti-student," a Bad Teacher who is resistant to "reforms," who is resistant to improvements and, thus, must be out for himself, rather than the students.
The only problem with the Bad Teacher myth, as anyone involved with education is intimately aware of, is that problems in education are anything but simple. "The discourse of these so-called educational reformers is simplistic and polarizing," as Henry A. Giroux claims in a recent, comprehensive essay on the subject here at Truthout. "It lacks any understanding of the real problems and strengths of public education, and it trades in authoritarian tactics and a discourse of demonization and humiliation." The debate has been reduced to a superhero comic, a simplistic battle between good and evil, a cartoon version of a complex reality. The debate has been reduced to a minor plot point in this election cycle's "anti-establishment" political narrative.
Problems in education don't just rest on the teachers' shoulders, as Gates suggests, just as issues of health don't rest solely on doctors' shoulders (After all, we don't blame doctors for the obesity epidemic, but rather, look to the greater culture, the conditions that encourage overeating and inactivity). This is not to say we shouldn't focus on teacher development. Gates' efforts to systematically improve teacher performance make sense, though they should be led by education professionals, not CEOs.
Yet, this lopsided, cartoonish focus on teachers' performance distracts us from looking at education holistically, as an institution situated in an economy and culture. The myopic focus on eliminating the Bad Teacher obscures the greater problems in the socio-economic fabric - the fabric torn by the super rich in ways that bear directly on student achievement.
As Giroux observes:
Real problems affecting schools such as rising poverty, homelessness, vanishing public services for the disadvantaged, widespread unemployment, massive inequality in wealth and income, overcrowded classrooms and a bankrupt and iniquitous system of school financing disappear in the educational discourse of the super rich.
The Bad Teacher is an effective myth, a convenient scapegoat for ignoring these greater systemic problems that would require real, substantive reform, reform that would threaten the super rich like Gates and others who are bankrolling the corporatization of public education. This myth, while appealing, stands in the way of real educational reform, by misdirecting the public's attention from the socio-economic conditions that make for a poor learning - and living - environment.
http://www.truth-out.org/the-myth-bad-teacher64223
by: Adam Bessie
In this political season of faux anti-establishment anger born of very real economic desperation, public educators have become the villain du jour, their reputations collateral damage in the war against "big government." In a remarkable slight of hand, the super rich who imploded the economy, manufacturing the recession which now enrages the public, have successfully misdirected the public's justifiable anger away from them and toward teachers.
This anti-teacher rage is focused on the mythical cartoon character the "Bad Teacher," who - according to the recent explosion in press on education generated by the documentary "Waiting for Superman" - plagues our public schools. The Bad Teacher is no one specific, but rather, a sort of free-floating, ill-defined stereotype: he is an inept, uncaring, self-interested bureaucrat waiting for his pension, not only disinterested in students, but actively engaged in standing in the way of student achievement, rather than encouraging it. I imagine the Bad Teacher as slovenly dressed, with stains on his shirt, showing up to class late, and once there, reading the newspaper while his students throw paper airplanes at each other. He looks up at the clock occasionally, waiting for his time to be up in order get out of school as fast as possible, so he can get home and watch "Glee" on his plump, faux-leather couch. Or he could be a really "Bad Teacher," such as the one soon to be depicted in a 2011 movie of the same name, which is focused on a "foul-mouthed, junior high teacher who, after being dumped by her sugar daddy, begins to woo a colleague - a move that pits her against a well-loved teacher."
All alone, the Bad Teacher is single-handedly, with one lazy bound, destroying a generation.
The corporate media has unabashedly promoted this myth as fact. According to Oprah, the Bad Teacher is everywhere, royally screwing up classrooms across America. In "The Shocking State of Our Schools," a promotional piece on Oprah's web site for the documentary, she claims that the students featured in the film are "eager to get an education," but have to fight their way through a "system riddled with ineffective teachers." NBC stalwart Tom Brokaw echoes Oprah, though he broadens the Bad Teacher to a sort of systematic educational conspiracy to ensure students don't learn, in a recent report for Education Nation. Doing his best impression of Glenn Beck, he asks a new teacher if she has met resistance from "the teacher establishment," authoritatively confirming to any naysayers that "there is one," consisting of "unions" and veteran teachers. In Brokaw's "balanced" view, the teacher establishment is set firmly against students, not there to serve them.
Bill Gates, interviewed approvingly by Brokaw in that report, expresses the same message in his speech to the American Federation of Teachers, though far less explicitly. He notes that public schools have been "struggling for decades," and then a few paragraphs later, claims, "the single most decisive factor in student achievement is excellent teaching." In other words, the single most decisive factor for public schools' failures is the teachers. Gates has committed $500 million of his own money, through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to more definitively identify the precise ingredients that compose a good teacher and, thus, by contrast, the Bad Teacher, who will then be fixed as though he's an annoying bug to be rooted out in the latest edition of Windows.
"In the past five years, that attack on public education has ratcheted up to dimensions that were unthinkable 30 years ago," observes educator Bill Ayers (yes, the same Ayers vilified by the right-wing media to prove Obama was really a "terrorist" in the 2008 elections). "And so people talk about the public schools in a way that is disingenuous and dishonest and also frightening in its characterization: they say the schools are run by a group of self-interested, selfish, undertrained, under-committed teachers, who have a union that protects them." This misguided characterization, as Brokaw, Gates and Oprah show us, is no longer a far-right argument, but an accepted fact, a commonplace not subject to dispute.
The myth is now the truth.
The Bad Teacher myth, Ayers admits, is appealing, which is why it's spread so far and become so commonly accepted. Who can, after all, disagree that we "need to get the lazy, incompetent teachers out of the classroom?" Even Ayers agrees that he, like all of us, "nods stupidly" along with this notion. As a professor at a community college and former high school teacher, I nod stupidly as well: I don't want my students held back, alienated, or abused by these Bad Teachers.
This myth is also seductive in its simplicity. It's much easier to have a concrete villain to blame for problems school systems face. The fix seems easy, as well: all we need to do is fire the Bad Teachers, as controversial Washington, DC, school chancellor superstar Michelle Rhee has, and hire good ones, and students will learn. In this light, Gates' effort to "fix" the bug-riddled public school operating system by focusing on teacher development makes perfect sense. The logic feels hard to argue with: who would argue against making teachers better? And if, as a teacher, you do dare to, you must be "anti-student," a Bad Teacher who is resistant to "reforms," who is resistant to improvements and, thus, must be out for himself, rather than the students.
The only problem with the Bad Teacher myth, as anyone involved with education is intimately aware of, is that problems in education are anything but simple. "The discourse of these so-called educational reformers is simplistic and polarizing," as Henry A. Giroux claims in a recent, comprehensive essay on the subject here at Truthout. "It lacks any understanding of the real problems and strengths of public education, and it trades in authoritarian tactics and a discourse of demonization and humiliation." The debate has been reduced to a superhero comic, a simplistic battle between good and evil, a cartoon version of a complex reality. The debate has been reduced to a minor plot point in this election cycle's "anti-establishment" political narrative.
Problems in education don't just rest on the teachers' shoulders, as Gates suggests, just as issues of health don't rest solely on doctors' shoulders (After all, we don't blame doctors for the obesity epidemic, but rather, look to the greater culture, the conditions that encourage overeating and inactivity). This is not to say we shouldn't focus on teacher development. Gates' efforts to systematically improve teacher performance make sense, though they should be led by education professionals, not CEOs.
Yet, this lopsided, cartoonish focus on teachers' performance distracts us from looking at education holistically, as an institution situated in an economy and culture. The myopic focus on eliminating the Bad Teacher obscures the greater problems in the socio-economic fabric - the fabric torn by the super rich in ways that bear directly on student achievement.
As Giroux observes:
Real problems affecting schools such as rising poverty, homelessness, vanishing public services for the disadvantaged, widespread unemployment, massive inequality in wealth and income, overcrowded classrooms and a bankrupt and iniquitous system of school financing disappear in the educational discourse of the super rich.
The Bad Teacher is an effective myth, a convenient scapegoat for ignoring these greater systemic problems that would require real, substantive reform, reform that would threaten the super rich like Gates and others who are bankrolling the corporatization of public education. This myth, while appealing, stands in the way of real educational reform, by misdirecting the public's attention from the socio-economic conditions that make for a poor learning - and living - environment.
http://www.truth-out.org/the-myth-bad-teacher64223
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)