Ummmmm?
"Staff at a high school in the US state of Texas had students settle their differences by fighting inside a steel cage, a local newspaper has reported." - BBC
Mais Quoi?
Diversity Conversations Lacking in Our Schools
The talk focused on the ways the high school failed to adequately address the issues of race class and gender clearly present at a diverse urban school. Chikkatur's research and talk focused mainly on the teaching of an African-American history class, which was interpreted as a way for the school to diversify its curriculum. The teacher, however, was ill equipped to teach the class as she had not studied African-American history and did not feel comfortable discussing race.
Here are a couple of Chikkatur's findings that I find most provocative:
Diverse schools should offer opportunities for students to discuss and critique race class gender and sexuality and critique systems of oppression in the US.
Schools right now often ignore the two "foundational holocausts" of the formation of the US: the genocide of the Native American people's land and lives, and the enslavement and transfer of Africans to American soil to drive the nascent American economy.
I certainly agree that diverse schools need to do more to get their students talking about what is going on in their schools and how that reflects forces and systems in the wider society. I know, from having attended diverse high schools in Atlanta and Cleveland where practically no attempt was made to address diversity, that this can have disastrous consequences for students of all backgrounds.
I was also interested by Chikkatur's insistence on a hierarchy of oppression, arguing that the Eastern European immigrant experience and the hardships experienced by that community can not be compared with those of the enslaved African peoples.
I wonder if we can come up with a way of talking about oppression and domination that doesn't equate oppressions that are obviously difference in scope and effect and yet doesn't denigrate the real experiences of people, communities, and histories.
Some great commentary on recent issues by Gerald Bracey and Pedro Noguera
Spent some time skimming blogs for good commentary on Obama's ed speech.
This one, from Gerald Bracey on the Huffington Post, is great.
Gerald Bracey: On Education, Obama Blows It, Part II
Posted using ShareThis
Favorite line:
"I voted for Obama. I canvassed for him. I registered voters for him. But on education, he has yet to hit the basket. Diane Ravitch, never once called a bleeding-hear liberal and assistant secretary of education for George H. W. Bush, recently said that, from what she's seen, Obama is a third term for George W. Bush and Arne Duncan is Margaret Spellings in drag. She was not doling out compliments to either man. (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2009/02/is_arne_duncan_really_margaret.html."
Pedro Noguera's is great as well.
Favorite Line:
"The most successful charter schools -- and let's be clear, not all charters are successful -- have demonstrated that increased autonomy, combined with site-based decision-making over the use of resources, can sometimes contribute to greater effectiveness. There is no reason why similar strategies cannot be deployed in regular public schools."
Obama on Education
Obama finally made a policy speech on education today. From the Washington Post, New York Times, and Education Week coverage of the speech a few things are clear.
Barack Obama cares about our children and their eduction. And for that we should be very grateful. These are not the Bush years, where pure cynicism and business interests were the rule of the day. Bush did not care about children or their education. He simply cared about pushing for the reforms that would benefit his friends in the business-style reform industry.
According to the white house website, Obama supports:
1) "Investing in early childhood initiatives" like Head Start;
2) "Encouraging better standards and assessments" by focusing on testing itineraries that better fit our kids and the world they live in;
3) "Recruiting, preparing, and rewarding outstanding teachers" by giving incentives for a new generation of teachers and for new levels of excellence from all of our teachers.
4) "Promoting innovation and excellence in America’s schools" by supporting charter schools, reforming the school calendar and the structure of the school day.
My Responses:
Much of Obama's rhetoric on education has stressed the need for America to be the best. Echoing jingoistic , conservative ideology of the Reagan years and the anti-Russian 50's and 60's before them, Obama is rehearsing a kind of America is best exceptionalism that we need to get away from. We live in an interdependent, globalized world. What we need is for every student to be educated to the best of their ability and in a way that allows them to be critical actors within the world in which they exist. Why is the level of education in Africa not as important as that our students score better on tests than Chinese ones? What we don't need is a kind of test-driven arms race between the students of the United States and China? What does that accomplish? Who wins? And what to they win? A medal?
The four pillars:
1) okay, all good people in education support early childhood initiatives, no controversy there, good move Barry.
2) Now, this one is complicated. It all depends on the specifics of how these policices play out. If by "testing itineraries that better fit our kids and the world they live in," we are talking about culturally relevant pedagogy that accoutns for race class gender sexuality literacy and locale, then I'm totally down. If we are talking about alternative assesment strategies like portfolios and teacher assesment, then I am oh, so down. But if we are talking about simply tweaking tests, then, yes, okay, do what the research says, but I am not so down. We have established that testing is detrimental to students' education and students' self concept. Why are we rushing to continue the same test-based reform ideology of the Republicans?
3) Again, sounds great right? This third pillar has some really good things and some not so good ones. The idea of creating a teaching corps, creating new incentives and routes to recruitment is all great. The more the merrier. Let's make sure they get the training they need, but seriously this is all awesome.
Now the problem I have, and it is a big one, is a merit-pay based system, which is essentially what Obama is proposing, and by the way he has indicated his willingness to go up agains teachers' unions, the very ones that worked their buts off to get him elected, to push through this reform. Under a merit based system, outstanding teachers could get paid much more. Now since I plan on being an amazing teacher, this sounds great to me! Right?
But think about this. Imagine two rubrics under which performance could be measured:
1. Standardized testing. If raises are linked to score increases on tests, then this could encourage cheating by teachers at the worst and an even more dreary test-driven slave master approach at the best.
2. Selection or assesment by superiors. Imagine school politics. How in the world could this be done effectively without encouraging favoritism?
Obama says we need to find a way to move bad teachers out of the classroom. I agree. But how are we defining bad teachers? Who gets to define it? What happens when a teacher who is pursuing a politically unorthodox curriculum that stimulates his students but offends his superiors is characterized as "ineffective"? That's why the tenure system we have is crucial.
4. Okay, the school calendar thing I'm not really going to touch. I don't know enough about it. Charters. Charters. Charters.
Positive aspects of charters:
1. sometimes they work.
2. sometimes really cool charters get created, like all black afrocentric curriculum charters.
3. having a self-concious mission can often create results.
Negative aspects:
1. they skim the best students and resources away from the surrounding schools, moving the cream of the crop away to islands of excellence (a phrase obama used). But EVERY student deserves excellence.
2. they often use recruitment policies to keep out special ed students and students with behavioral problems.
3. they are notoriously unstable and can have their charter revoked at any time, effectively ending all the work and promise that created the charter and put the students their in the first place.
4. they are often a site for pofit seeking, business interest, direct-instruction education types to pursue their goals.
We should learn from the positive aspects of succesful charters and incorporate those into our system of education. but Charters are by nature provisional and therefore can never be a long term solution to the woes of our education system.
Which brings me to my strongest criticism of Arne Duncan and Obama:
They have no systematic, comprehensive, long-term vision of a succesful school system. They piece meal embrace policy solutions that may or may not work. What we need is VISION.
Bush and the Republicans. They had a vision. It was evil. But at least they had one. That is what we need from Obama. And I'm afraid we will be waiting for quite some time.
My Responses:
Much of Obama's rhetoric on education has stressed the need for America to be the best. Echoing jingoistic , conservative ideology of the Reagan years and the anti-Russian 50's and 60's before them, Obama is rehearsing a kind of America is best exceptionalism that we need to get away from. We live in an interdependent, globalized world. What we need is for every student to be educated to the best of their ability and in a way that allows them to be critical actors within the world in which they exist. Why is the level of education in Africa not as important as that our students score better on tests than Chinese ones? What we don't need is a kind of test-driven arms race between the students of the United States and China? What does that accomplish? Who wins? And what to they win? A medal?
The four pillars:
1) okay, all good people in education support early childhood initiatives, no controversy there, good move Barry.
2) Now, this one is complicated. It all depends on the specifics of how these policices play out. If by "testing itineraries that better fit our kids and the world they live in," we are talking about culturally relevant pedagogy that accoutns for race class gender sexuality literacy and locale, then I'm totally down. If we are talking about alternative assesment strategies like portfolios and teacher assesment, then I am oh, so down. But if we are talking about simply tweaking tests, then, yes, okay, do what the research says, but I am not so down. We have established that testing is detrimental to students' education and students' self concept. Why are we rushing to continue the same test-based reform ideology of the Republicans?
3) Again, sounds great right? This third pillar has some really good things and some not so good ones. The idea of creating a teaching corps, creating new incentives and routes to recruitment is all great. The more the merrier. Let's make sure they get the training they need, but seriously this is all awesome.
Now the problem I have, and it is a big one, is a merit-pay based system, which is essentially what Obama is proposing, and by the way he has indicated his willingness to go up agains teachers' unions, the very ones that worked their buts off to get him elected, to push through this reform. Under a merit based system, outstanding teachers could get paid much more. Now since I plan on being an amazing teacher, this sounds great to me! Right?
But think about this. Imagine two rubrics under which performance could be measured:
1. Standardized testing. If raises are linked to score increases on tests, then this could encourage cheating by teachers at the worst and an even more dreary test-driven slave master approach at the best.
2. Selection or assesment by superiors. Imagine school politics. How in the world could this be done effectively without encouraging favoritism?
Obama says we need to find a way to move bad teachers out of the classroom. I agree. But how are we defining bad teachers? Who gets to define it? What happens when a teacher who is pursuing a politically unorthodox curriculum that stimulates his students but offends his superiors is characterized as "ineffective"? That's why the tenure system we have is crucial.
4. Okay, the school calendar thing I'm not really going to touch. I don't know enough about it. Charters. Charters. Charters.
Positive aspects of charters:
1. sometimes they work.
2. sometimes really cool charters get created, like all black afrocentric curriculum charters.
3. having a self-concious mission can often create results.
Negative aspects:
1. they skim the best students and resources away from the surrounding schools, moving the cream of the crop away to islands of excellence (a phrase obama used). But EVERY student deserves excellence.
2. they often use recruitment policies to keep out special ed students and students with behavioral problems.
3. they are notoriously unstable and can have their charter revoked at any time, effectively ending all the work and promise that created the charter and put the students their in the first place.
4. they are often a site for pofit seeking, business interest, direct-instruction education types to pursue their goals.
We should learn from the positive aspects of succesful charters and incorporate those into our system of education. but Charters are by nature provisional and therefore can never be a long term solution to the woes of our education system.
Which brings me to my strongest criticism of Arne Duncan and Obama:
They have no systematic, comprehensive, long-term vision of a succesful school system. They piece meal embrace policy solutions that may or may not work. What we need is VISION.
Bush and the Republicans. They had a vision. It was evil. But at least they had one. That is what we need from Obama. And I'm afraid we will be waiting for quite some time.
Personal Attention
I was checking out this article on the experience.com education site... Interesting that the public school teachers say they only spend 4 % of their time giving personal attention to students! How can we fix this?
Powershift
(Youth educating youth at Powershift...)
This weekend I attended a unique educational opportunity. The conference Powershift.
The conference brought 12,000 youth climate activists from all over the country to build the movement to end the climate crisis and lobby congress for change. There were panels, presentations, workshops, films, a career fair, grad school fair, lobbying training, and lobby day on Monday.
For my part, I opted to train participants in the ins and outs of Lobbying. The training was put together by Wellstone Action. These types of training programs, outside the standard curriculum of colleges and high schools are so powerful, that they tempt me to seek a career doing workshops and trainings rather than a career within the imprisoning halls of a high school. We shall see.
Some provocative questions stay with me whenever I go to conferences like this. What happens when you bring together are large amount of people around a specific issue, who may have very different ideas of what change needs to be made or how to make it. Thinking specifically about Powershift, what happens when the participants (and remember the whole idea of the conference is about empowerment) shift the power away from the organizers and come up with their own agendas? For example, a brilliant young woman fiercely questioned the environmental advocates who led our legislative briefing questions, saying the platform we were asking for was not bold enough to stop the most catastrophic effects of climate change. What happens when conference participants on their own organize direct action tactics that were not sanctioned or organized by the conference?
Furthermore, one of the major goals of powershift was social justice, equality, and dismantling of opression within the movement. To that end, there was strong representations of oppressed commnities at the conference, African-American youth from ecocnomically depressed areas, Native American reservation youth, to name two examples. But what was to stop the dynamic of having a mostly white participant body from continuing oppression. The occasional workshop on race or class privelege or dismantling oppression would most likely only be attended by people who are already allies. Even more, on the lobby day, where it would certainly be possible to have groups of 60 people meeting with 1 congressperson for 10 minutes, and factual knowledge and appropriate political discourse is prized, who is given voice, who takes voice, and what does this mean?
To learn morea bout the organizations involved with powershift check out:
Green For All-- pushing for "green the ghetto"...aka Van Jones
Energy Action Coalition--Youth led coalition of climate activist organizations
Sierra Student Coalition-Student run arm of the Sierra Club
National Wildlife Federation--one of the oldest conservaqtion orgs in the US
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
