Goldstein: Why Cities Increasing Faster Than Suburbs Is Good For Education

It appears that, for the first time since World War II, major American ubran cities are increasing at a higher rate than those of suburban areas.  There seems to be a number of reasons for this that has taken place.  There are also a number of reasons to be skeptical that this is just a temporary statistical "blip" and not a long-term trend.  Here is an exert from Will Oremus of Slate:

This shift has been in the making for over a decade. As early as 1999, a Brookings report noted that “declining crime statistics, falling unemployment rates, balanced municipal budgets, and a resurgence in downtown living have cities across the country claiming that they are in the midst of a renaissance.” Back then, though, those claims were undermined by Brookings’ finding that suburbs were still outpacing cities in job growth. According to Frey’s new analysis, just five of the largest metropolitan areas saw greater urban than suburban population growth between 2000 and 2010. (One caveat: The U.S. Census itself can't confirm Frey's numbers, since it doesn't break down the data in this way.)

The question now is whether the past year’s reversal is a blip or a leading indicator of America’s urban future. If you think it’s the former, you blame the housing bust and the economy for the suburbs’ short-term slowdown, and predict that they’ll resume their growth when the market clears.

In any case, let's suppose this is a long-term trend.  If that is a case, than this means potential benefits for American education and the cause for integration of public schools, according to Dana Goldstein:

We know school segregation is a major social crisis because—despite the good performance of some high-poverty schools—poor children tend to have better academic outcomes when they attend school alongside middle class students.There is also some evidence that highly effective teachers prefer working in integrated schools.And it is my own strongly held belief that all children benefit from exposure to other children whose backgrounds are different from their own.

With more middle and upper-income young families now showing a predilection for urban living, city school districts have a wonderful opportunity to create more integrated schools. There are several ways they can do this:

1. By purposefully drawing school enrollment boundaries to encompass both high-income and low-income housing stock. My small Brooklyn neighborhood of Cobble Hill/Boerum Hill contains multimillion dollar, single-family brownstones, as well as a large housing project. Yet only one of the local elementary schools is truly diverse while the other two—both in easy walking distance—are segregated.

2. By asking charter schools to embrace diversity as part of their mission statements, and recruit students from across all races and classes, instead of focusing solely on poor children.

3. By creating magnet schools that draw students from across the city, and that do not require high test scores for enrollment. (Chris Hayes’ new book, Twilight of the Elites, is eloquent on the problem of frantic, expensive test-prep contributing to urban school segregation.)

4. And by attacking residential segregation head-on, in part through the sort of housing policies that Slate’s Matt Yglesias proposes in his book, The Rent is Too Damn High.

All of these suggestions have merit to them, and should at least be up on the table for debate in policy and political circles.  I do have one suggestion for the second proposal above regarding charter schools, assuming they are part of this picture to begin with.  Right now, they do more to hurt the cause of integration in public schools than help.  And it is one thing to "ask" charter schools to embrace diversity, but I think they will.  I am uneasy about how selective charters would become if they are given the ability to recruit white, middle-class students.  The one fear I have is that they may overrecruit white, middle-class students who tend to perform better on standardized tests.  School boards and politicians have to make sure that in such a scenario as Goldstein is proposing, that such selectivness doesn't take place.

I would also add that redrawing boundary lines is a good suggestion, but good luck getting the public and local politicans (especially in more, white suburban districts) to agree to it.  Here in the Kansas City metro area on the Kansas side for example, I have a hard time imagining Johnson County schools (Shawnee Mission, De Soto) agreeing to share students with Wyandott County schools (Turner, KCK).  Goldstein expresses similar skepticism at the end of her post:

Sadly, no American governor or big city mayor I know of has committed to school integration as a central, clearly articulated facet of his or her education reform agenda. In part, this is because so many middle and upper class parents still feel skittish about sending their children to school with poor kids, and so “school choice” policies have evolved, in many cities, as a way to de facto segregate the children of the creative class. If we continue down this road, we simply won’t be taking advantage of the social, civic, and academic upsides of our rapidly diversifying cities. That would be a national shame. 

Our Education System

From Urban Juke Joint via Facebook

Teachers, Doctors, and Professionalism

 Photo from Professorbaker's blog

Diane Ravitch shares a fascinating story a reader sent her:

A reader sent in a comment about holding teachers accountable for test scores.

He attended a “question and answer” luncheon hosted by the Lafayette, Louisiana, Chamber of Commerce, where Governor Bobby Jindal was the speaker. Jindal came late, spoke fast, and left without answering any questions. The reader, possibly the only educator in the audience, turned to the CEO of a hospital sitting next to him and asked “if he ever pondered posting his hospital’s mortality rate outside its door.”

The reader was “a little surprised at how firmly his ‘no’ response was—-it was as if I asked him to jump off of a bridge. I was merely trying to make a comparison to cohort grad rates and letter grading systems in our state to the business community.” The reader concluded that “accountability as educators know it will never be applied to any other type of profession much less within the business community despite their unwavering support of accountability for public schools. That CEO’s firm ‘no’ response was all the proof I needed that accountability the way we know it will not make anything better….and the business world knows this.”

Another reader liked that comment and added: “had the CEO offered more than his terse response, I suspect his explanation would include that although doctors play a role in a patient’s health, there are a number of other factors that doctors have no control over–patient’s genetics, prior medical history, willingness to follow the doctor’s prescriptions, environment, how far an illness has progressed before the doctor sees the patient, etc. And, of course, his explanation is perfectly valid. For some reason, though, when teachers make the same point regarding students’ test scores, corporate ed reformers are quick to accuse them of making excuses.“

Now it is true that doctors absolutely HAVE to go to school for a much longer time than teachers do given the amount of life-saving information they must know, sometimes right off the top of their head without being able to look it up.  And let's be honest, as important as the purpose of being a teacher is, the purpose of being an MD is much more important when all things are considered.  I can even see this being a valid justification for doctors making a lot more money than teachers (though, of course, public school teachers are still highly underpaid).

But the overall point Diane and these readers are making are absolutely true.  For whatever faults the teaching profession may have, teachers are still highly trained professionals.  Education, like medicine, is an area that is unconditionally paramount to a healthy, successful society.  Accountability - whether in education, medicine or elsewhere - is certainly important.  But accountability in any profession that serves such an important purpose should not be reduced down to an agenda-driven panacea (i.e. testing), while trying to factor in other such complexities of said profession are considered making excuses.  Accountability, especially when it is for a highly critical profession dealing with significant complexity, should be reflective of that complexity.  Here is what Ken Jones of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has to say about teacher accountability:

We most certainly need teacher accountability. But it should be the kind that builds capacity, not the kind that creates fear. It should look at complexities, not simplicities. Teachers should be accountable for grounding professional practices in the best available research, for maintaining a modern vision of what constitutes important mathematics, for providing students with engaging and relevant lessons and equitable opportunities to learn. This type of accountability must focus on individual responsiveness and interpersonal dynamics within specific contexts. It must be local in implementation and of high resolution in the light it sheds on teachers’ practice and students’ learning.

High-resolution accountability is a far cry from the new trend for high-stakes teacher accountability. It emphasizes information feedback and continuous improvement, not false and degrading “incentive” systems. It takes time, leadership, attention to the many details of practice, and a culture of reflective practice. Let’s face it—there are no shortcuts to improving education

Professor Thomas Baker of the English Department at Colegio Internacional SEK in Santiago, Chile also an a piece of teachers and doctors on his blog that is worth a read.  He sums the issue up this way:

Society is pretty darn lenient with doctors. We don’t hold them accountable for things which they could be reasonably expected to perform a lot better, for society as a whole.

On the other hand, society, in general, gets pretty riled up about teachers. People get angry when they talk about the performance of the teaching profession.

There is even, “strong empirical evidence that suggests teachers are the most important aspect in the educational achievement of students.”

And so, society is very upset with these so-called “Teacher Professionals”.

“Why can’t teachers be more like doctors?”, society asks.

This teacher, myself, asks the reverse question:

“What if doctors were treated like teachers?”

If We Really Want To Close The Achievement Gap . . .

There are other factors that must be taken into account besides test scores and teacher quality.  

Picture from My Favorite Quotes Digitized II

Andrew Hutman, Teach for America and the case against the "reform" movement

Everyone who cares even the slightest about education policy in the United States needs to read this article by Illinois State History Professor, Andrew Hutman on the Jacobin Magazine website.  It is entitled "Teach for America: The Hidden Curriculum of Liberal Do-Gooders", and has recently gained much more traction in education circles with it's reprint in Valerie Strauss's Washington Post education blog, The Answer Sheet under the title "Teach for America: Liberal mission helps conservative agenda".

It is an article that primarily discusses the fact that the Teach for America (TFA) program, and the influence it has had on this newest "education reform" movement.  Hutman talks about how TFA, and the reform movement as a whole, seems to care about the education of poverty-stricken students in the United States (and many in the reform movement, including Wendy Kopp, probably do care in their deep down).  But the reality of what their policies actually do is to push for "reforms" in favor of austerity and business-friendly interests.  Most of those involved in public education, including those who have been involved in the SOS movement, already know this.  But for those who don't, Hutman has done an amazing job of essentially laying out the case against the so-called "education reform" movement like no one else has since Diane Ravitch in The Death and Life of the Great American School System.

Here are some excerpts from Hutman's article.  First, his take on the true identity of TFA:

TFA is, at best, another chimerical attempt in a long history of chimerical attempts to sell educational reform as a solution to class inequality. At worst, it’s a Trojan horse for all that is unseemly about the contemporary education reform movement.

On the myth that TFA would "enhance the image of the teaching profession":

On the contrary, the only brand TFA endows with an “aura of status and selectivity” is its own. As reported in The New York Times , 18 percent of Harvard seniors applied to TFA in 2010, a rate only surpassed by the 22 percent of Yale seniors who sought to join the national teacher corps that year. All told, TFA selected 4,500 lucky recruits from a pool of 46,359 applicants in 2010. [In 2011 the acceptance rate was 11 percent.]

Although many applicants are no doubt motivated to join out of altruism, the two-year TFA experience has become a highly desirable notch on the resumes of the nation’s most diligent strivers. The more exclusive TFA becomes, the more ordinary regular teachers seem. TFA corps members typically come from prestigious institutions of higher education, while most regular teachers are trained at the second- and third-tier state universities that house the nation’s largest colleges of education. 

Whereas TFA corps members leverage the elite TFA brand to launch careers in law or finance — or, if they remain in education, to bypass the typical career path on their way to principalships and other positions of leadership — most regular teachers must plod along, negotiating their way through traditional career ladders. These distinctions are lost on nobody. They are what make regular teachers and their unions such low-hanging political fruit for the likes of Christie, Walker, and Kasich.

Hutman on the idea of how programs and reforms fix the problem of "teacher quality" by kicking out bad teachers, and bringing in good ones:

Following the economic collapse of 2008, which contributed to school revenue problems nationwide, massive teacher layoffs became the new norm, including in districts where teacher shortages had provided an entry to TFA in the past. Thousands of Chicago teachers, for instance, have felt the sting of layoffs and furloughs in the past two years, even as the massive Chicago Public School system, bound by contract, continues to annually hire a specified number of TFA corps members. In the face of these altered conditions, the TFA public relations machine now deemphasizes teacher shortages and instead accentuates one crucial adjective: “quality.” In other words, schools in poor urban and rural areas of the country might not suffer from a shortage of teachers in general, but they lack for the quality teachers that Kopp’s organization provides.

After twenty years of sending academically gifted but untrained college graduates into the nation’s toughest schools, the evidence regarding TFA corps member effectiveness is in, and it is decidedly mixed. Professors of education Julian Vasquez Heilig and Su Jin Jez, in the most thorough survey of such research yet, found that TFA corps members tend to perform equal to teachers in similar situations —that is, they do as well as new teachers lacking formal training assigned to impoverished schools. Sometimes they do better, particularly in math instruction. 

Yet “the students of novice TFA teachers perform significantly less well,” Vasquez Heilig and Jin Jez discovered, “than those of credentialed beginning teachers.”  It seems clear that TFA’s vaunted thirty-day summer institute—TFA “boot camp”—is no replacement for the preparation given future teachers at traditional colleges of education.

 On how successful most Charter Schools are:

But successful charter schools, Kopp maintains, also stop at nothing to remove bad teachers from the classroom. This is why charter schools are the preferred mechanism for delivery of education reform: as defined by Kopp, charter schools are “public schools empowered with flexibility over decision making in exchange for accountability for results.” And yet, “results,” or rather, academic improvement, act more like a fig leaf, especially in light of numerous recent studies that show charter schools, taken on the whole, actually do a worse job of educating students than regular public schools.

On Teacher Unions and the reform movement:

Rather, crushing teacher’s unions — the real meaning behind Kopp’s “flexibility” euphemism — has become the ultimate end of the education reform movement. This cannot be emphasized enough: the precipitous growth of charter schools and the TFA insurgency are part and parcel precisely because both cohere with the larger push to marginalize teacher’s unions.

On TFA, Race to the Top, and the "business" of High-Stakes Testing:

TFA’s complicity in education reform insanity does not stop there. From its origins, the TFA-led movement to improve the teacher force has aligned itself with efforts to expand the role of high-stakes standardized testing in education. TFA insurgents, including Kopp and Rhee, maintain that, even if imperfect, standardized tests are the best means by which to quantify accountability. 

Prior to the enactment of Bush’s bipartisan No Child Left Behind in 2001, high-stakes standardized testing was mostly limited to college-entrance exams such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). But since then, the high-stakes testing movement has blown up: with increasing frequency, student scores on standardized exams are tied to teacher, school, and district evaluations, upon which rewards and punishments are meted out. Obama’s “Race to the Top” policy — the brainchild of Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, the former “CEO” of Chicago Public Schools — further codifies high-stakes testing by allocating scarce federal resources to those states most aggressively implementing these so-called accountability measures.

The multi-billion dollar testing industry — dominated by a few large corporations that specialize in the making and scoring of standardized tests — has become an entrenched interest, a powerful component of a growing education-industrial complex.

On Testing and Cheating:

More recently, cheating scandals have likewise discredited several celebrated reform projects. In Atlanta, a TFA hotbed, former superintendent and education reform darling Beverly Hall is implicated in a cheating scandal of unparalleled proportions, involving dozens of Atlanta principals and hundreds of teachers, including TFA corps members. Cheating was so brazen in Atlanta that principals hosted pizza parties where teachers and administrators systematically corrected student exams. Following a series of investigative reports in USA Today , a new cheating scandal seems to break every week. Cheating has now been confirmed not only in Atlanta, but also in New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Orlando, Dallas, Houston, Dayton, and Memphis, education reform cities all.

On TFA, inequality and corporate money:

In contrast to such “success,” the TFA insurgency has failed to dent educational inequality. This comes as no surprise to anyone with the faintest grasp of the tight correlation between economic and educational inequality: TFA does nothing to address the former while spinning its wheels on the latter. 

In her writings, nowhere does Kopp reflect upon the patent ridiculousness of her expectation that loads of cash donated by corporations that exploit inequalities across the world — such as Union Carbide and Mobil, two of TFA’s earliest contributors — will help her solve some of the gravest injustices endemic to American society.

Kopp shows some awareness of the absurdities of her own experiences — including a “fundraising schedule [that] shuttled me between two strikingly different economic spheres: our undersourced classrooms and the plush world of American philanthropy” — but she fails to grasp that this very gap is what makes her stated goal of equality unachievable. In short, Kopp, like education reformers more generally, is an innocent when it comes to political economy. She spouts platitudes about justice for American children, but rarely pauses to ask whether rapidly growing inequality might be a barrier to such justice. She celebrates 20 years of reform movement success, but never tempers such self-congratulatory narcissism with unpleasant questions about why those who have no interest in disrupting the American class structure — such as Bill Gates and the heirs to Sam Walton’s fortunes, by far the most generous education reform philanthropists — are so keen to support the TFA insurgency. Kopp is a parody of the liberal do-gooder.

 The philosophy of TFA:

In working to perfect their approach to education, TFA insurgents miss the forest for the trees. They fail to ask big-picture questions. Will their pedagogy of surveillance make for a more humane society? Having spent their formative years in a classroom learning test-taking skills, will their students become good people? Will they know more history? Will they be more empathetic? Will they be better citizens? Will they be more inclined to challenge the meritocracy? Or, as its newest converts, will they be its most fervent disciples? What does it mean that for children born in the Bronx to go to college they must give up their childhoods, however bleak?

 

Obama, Matt Damon, Education Policy, and Electoral Politics

 Photo from Huffington Post

In the past year, Matt Damon's support for the Save Our Schools movement has made him a favorite of teachers all over the country who are opposed to the hurtful policies implemented by so-called "education reformers" across the country.  I count myself as one of those whose personal fandom of Damon has increased for this very reason. 

Today, I was reading an article on Huffington Post where Damon criticizes Obama's failure to be more audacious and anti-establishment during his first term as president.  One of the policy areas that Damon addresses is his policies on education:

"I really think he misinterpreted his mandate. A friend of mine said to me the other day, I thought it was a great line, 'I no longer hope for audacity,'" Damon told CNN host Piers Morgan. "He's doubled down on a lot of things, going back to education... the idea that we're testing kids and we're tying teachers salaries to how kids are performing on tests, that kind of mechanized thinking has nothing to do with higher order. We're training them, not teaching them."

Everyone who supports the SOS movement, including myself, would certainly agree with Damon's words here.  We do have an over reliance on standardized testing in this country that hurts both students and teachers.  Indeed, the policies that President Obama has implemented on Education since his inauguration are, on the whole, not any better (and possibly worse) than President Bush's were.  These policies include the aforementioned testing procedures, as well as his support for funding charter schools and merit pay, and the destructive and simultaneously inefficient Race To The Top.  But what is most surprising in all of this is not Obama's support for these positions, but rather, that many of those who supported Obama in 2008 are suprised by his education positions. 

This is because President Obama's platform on education in 2008 was essentially an endorsement of the education reform movement.  For instance, he publicly supported the idea of merit pay in a speech to the National Education Association, the nation's largest teacher union, in 2007.  In addition, he was a supporter of both charter schools and school choice.  From USA Today in October, 2008:

[Obama] wants to expand federal funding for charter schools from $236 million to $450 million. He says he'd "work with all our nation's governors to hold all our charter schools accountable," adding: "Charter schools that are successful will get the support they need to grow; charters that aren't will get shut down." He also wants to expand non-profit child care, parenting and education efforts such as the Harlem Children's Zone in New York to other cities.

Just like his support for the Afghan War, Obama proposed policy initiatives on education during the 2008 campaign that are unpopular to many progressives and supporters.  But then (SURPRISE) he ended up mainly keeping his promise when entering office.  I am not sure if those who originally supported Obama thought he would renege on these particular policies when he entered office, or if they were so caught up with "Hope", "Change" and "Yes, We Can", that they didn't notice those particular aspects of his platform to begin with.  In any case, nobody who did pay attention to the Obama campaign in 2008 should be surprised at his current education policies.

To be clear, I supported Obama then (with full knowledge of his platform), and would do it again if I had to.  The prospect of a McCain presidency, or any presidency led by the 2008 GOP contenders, is too unnerving to contemplate.  I supposed I am in the category that hoped he would renege on some aspects of his education platform, but alas, he kept his word (and then some).  In addition, I hope President Obama wins reelection in 2012.  This, however, does not mean I will necessarily vote for him.  Like Damon, I am extremely disillusioned with many of Obama's policies (including education and Afghanistan), as well the continuation of the Democrat's love-affair with pussyfooting and unnecessary compromise. 

This does not mean I will vote for a Republican.  There is not a chance in hell of that given the current lineup of  pitiful and moronic contenders for the nomination, as well as the ignorant and cruel platforms that seems to be considered "mainstream" in today's GOP.  But now that I am a voter in the state of Kansas (as opposed to Missouri, where I am originally from), my vote as a progressive does not really count when voting for the Presidency.  No amount of campaigning or electioneering in the next year and a half will get the state of Kansas to elect a Democrat for the Presidency.  Not unless something happens between now and then of such earth-shattering magnitude, that Kansas electoral support for Obama in simply unavoidable.  I may, based purely on the principals I hold as a liberal, as well as being fed up with Mr. Obama, vote for a third party in the 2012 election (e.g. Green Party).  This is not final decision yet, and the President still has time to win disillusioned liberals such as myself over for an electoral landslide in 2012 (although, admittedly, that support will be more important in key swing states rather than states like Kansas). 

For starters, there is one policy proposal on education that Obama put at the center of his education platform in 2008 that he could start pushing for.  I am referring to his support for the expansion of early childhood education programs.  Here is an excerpt from the same 2008 USA Today article quoted above:

[Obama] proposes a $10 billion "Zero to Five" plan that would quadruple the number of slots in Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve the quality of both; he'd make states compete to create or expand child care and education for pregnant women and children. He'd "encourage" states to adopt voluntary universal preschool; he'd expand the Child and Development Care Tax Credit, making it refundable and allowing low-income families to get up to a 50% credit for child care expenses.

We already know how important the exposure to early childhood education can be to the potential of a young person, and there chances at academic excellence in the long term.  It is somewhat surprising, and unfortunate,  that Obama has yet to pursue such a proposal during his first term (at least, as far as I know).  Perhaps he is fearful that, given the current political environment in favor of austerity and worriment over budget deficits, proposing federal spending for early childhood programs wouldn't pass, at least, without some type of backlash. 

But one thing the President is long-overdue in understanding is that there will be a backlash by Republicans in anything he proposes.  That is what the Republicans do.  He is too worried about compromising with Republicans without ever putting up a fight to begin with.   Although he has shown glimmers of hope in changing this trend in recent months, he needs to keep up, and advance the good fight.  His Presidency, as well as the good of our country, depends upon it.  A comprehensive, early childhood education bill would be a step in the right direction.  Come on, Mr. President, time to get audacious!

Early Childhood Education, Poverty, and Occupy Wall Street

Nicholas Kristoff recently wrote a fascinating piece regarding education and the Occupy Wall Street movement.  He seems generally in favor of what the movement stands for: the desire to change economic inequality in this country.  While Kristoff doesn't belittle ideas such as raising taxes on the rich, or throwing bankers in jail, he says those ideas will not be nearly as effective to fixing the crisis of income inequality as expanding early childhood education:

But although part of the problem is billionaires being taxed at lower rates than those with more modest incomes, a bigger source of structural inequality is that many young people never get the skills to compete.  They're just left behind.

I agree with the importance of funding early childhood education (and public education in general) as a means of changing society.  After all, one of the biggest reasons why many teachers choose the career they do is to make a greater difference in society (I would include myself in this category).  I don't know if it is more important that other policy measures such as raising taxes, and passing more baking and business regulations.  But nonetheless, education is highly important.  Here is another excerpt from Kristof's column:

“This is where inequality starts,” said Kathleen McCartney, the dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, as she showed me a chart demonstrating that even before kindergarten there are significant performance gaps between rich and poor students. Those gaps then widen further in school.

 “The reason early education is important is that you build a foundation for school success,” she added. “And success breeds success.”

Kristof goes onto quote Nobel Prize winning economist James Heckman, who says something I'm not sure I quite agree with.

“Schooling after the second grade plays only a minor role in creating or reducing gaps,” Heckman argues in an important article this year in American Educator. “It is imperative to change the way we look at education. We should invest in the foundation of school readiness from birth to age 5.”

One's early childhood education can determine a lot about how a student will fair in school.  I would even go so far to say that early childhood education does have a bigger impact on a child's education than upper elementary and secondary education does.   But I am skeptical that schooling from grades 3 and up only play a "minor role". 

Admittedly, I have not read Heckman's article, and I am sure he has good data and points to support his assertion.  But how can 10 additional years in school be considered a minor?  How are we defining what important vs less important?  I am not saying Heckman is wrong, I am just skeptical of his assertion.

Kristof also discusses the importance of the Head Start program.  I know multiple educators who like to criticize Head Start (and rightly so to a point) because of the long term ineffectiveness the program seems to have on a child's education.  While Kristoff admits the program has faults, he also shows that it is far better to have Head Start than nothing at all, showing the need for early childhood education:

Take Head Start, which serves more than 900,000 low-income children a year. There are flaws in Head Start, and researchers have found that while it improved test results, those gains were fleeting. As a result, Head Start seemed to confer no lasting benefits, and it has been widely criticized as a failure.

Not so fast.

One of the Harvard scholars I interviewed, David Deming, compared the outcomes of children who were in Head Start with their siblings who did not participate. Professor Deming found that critics were right that the Head Start advantage in test scores faded quickly. But, in other areas, perhaps more important ones, he found that Head Start had a significant long-term impact: the former Head Start participants are significantly less likely than siblings to repeat grades, to be diagnosed with a learning disability, or to suffer the kind of poor health associated with poverty. Head Start alumni were more likely than their siblings to graduate from high school and attend college.

Finally, Kristoff finished his column by discussing President Obama's need to fulfill his 2008 campaign promise of greater funding for early childhood education. 

President Obama often talked in his campaign about early childhood education, and he probably agrees with everything I’ve said. But the issue has slipped away and off the agenda.

That’s sad because the question isn’t whether we can afford early childhood education, but whether we can afford not to provide it. We can pay for prisons or we can pay, less, for early childhood education to help build a fairer and more equitable nation.

It is surprising that no one other columnists or pundits have brought this up.  Not that the Republicans will let him pass new spending on this, but Obama should at least try.  He also needs to quit supporting asinine measures such as Race To The Top and merit pay which only hurts education.  Like a lot of those on the "education reformer" side of the debate, I believe the President has good intentions when it comes to what education in America should look like.  But the reality of his education policies so far only hurt schools because they do so much to hurt teachers and push standardized testing.  This is not the way to fix American education, and it is damn sure not the way to help combat poverty in the long run.

Being Left Behind Never Looked So Good

Cartoon courtesy of Join the Future

Highlight of the Day: 10/5/2011

At my full-time job, it seemed even crazier than usual, but there aren't really any interesting stories to share.  At my part-time job tutoring job however,I had a moment with a student that I would like to share.

I was working with a young girl in middle school, and she was telling me that in a book she is reading, a physically disabled boy was labeled by a doctor as an "idiot", and then hospitalized.  She said, "That is what they called them back in the old days.  Isn't that sad?" 

I agreed with her that is sad, but fortunately, we as a society have gotten a lot better with the way disabled individuals are treated.  She talked about her disabled cousin who is "slow" (I took that to mean he had an intellectual disability), and wondered if he would have been labeled an "idiot" back then (he probably would have).  She then said she wondered if he was autistic. 

With that statement, the conversation took a sudden turn into a new direction.  I was not upset with her as it is quite common for individuals who do not work with the disabled to make that mistake. I explained that an individual with autism doesn't mean that they have an intellectual disability, and that often times, their intelligence is as good as or better than everyone else. 

I didn't spend too long explaining the difference between autism and intellectual disabilities (regretfully, I used the term "mentally challenged with her, which I will try and not do again).  Also, I didn't go into other areas of conversation, such as the fact that many people with autism who do test "mentally retarded" on a normal IQ test may not be so because such tests are not generally suited for the communication issues that go along with autism.  For one, she is in middle school.  And also, we had to get back to the math work we were doing.

Since I am on the topic, here is a great little article by a woman named Sue Robin.  Sue is severely autistic, and back in 2003 (when she was in college), she wrote a short essay about autism myths, including the one that most individual with autism are intellectually disabled.  Here is an exert:

As a really autistic person I am definitely qualified to address the topic of myths about autism and mental retardation.  The first myth I would like to attack is that 75% to 80% of all people with autism are mentally retarded.  Some professionals have reduced that number to 50% because so many of the young children now being diagnosed have Asperger’s Syndrome or High Functioning Autism.  Seventy-five, eighty, or fifty – they are all wrong.  Those of us who don’t speak, or speak echolalically, are counted as retarded.  We also score in the retarded range of I.Q. tests, so it is reasonable that we are assumed to be retarded.  What we have found through use of Facilitated Communication is that these low functioning people have at least normal intelligence with lots of movement problems masking their intellect. 

I am a great example.  Without facilitation I still test as a retarded person because I can’t manipulate objects to pass a non-verbal intelligence test.  When allowed to type, which I can do independently, I can answer the same questions.  For example, when asked to put similar cards together, I couldn’t do it.  But when the cards were labeled A, B, C, D, etc., I was able to type which cards belonged together.  Clearly I understood the task and could answer correctly, but not in the standard way. 

The Message of the SOS March

Of all the events I missed writing about during my 5 month hiatus, the Save Our Schools March that took place in Washington, D.C. was probably the thing I wish I could have covered the most.  I wasn't in D.C., but I would have been there if I could have afforded it.  I ended up watching most of the speeches on the internet.  I thought I would share some of them here.

First, there is the speech from actor Matt Damon, whose Mom is an educator:



Secondly, there is Diane Ravitch, who has become one of my heroes this past year for sticking up for teachers against the so-called "education reform" movement.



Finally, here is a message from John Stewart (another one of my heroes).



The message of this march was an important one.  There are so many problem in education, but the focus of how to fix the problems and the resources that are used all go to the wrong places.  Instead of blaming poverty (and all of it's effects) for the achievement gap, we blame teachers and teacher unions.  Instead of individuals with vast amounts of experience in education to run our schools, we hire individuals with ties to big businesses.  Instead of trying to make society more equitable and secure, we fire teachers and close down schools.  Instead of trying to improve the public schools we have, we open charter schools as a panacea that can refuse to take students who need the most help.  Instead of teaching a holistic curriculum that emphasizes practical application of concepts and critical thinking skills, we narrow our curriculum to reading and math, and teach kids how to take multiple choice tests.  And when that isn't good enough, people get desperate and cheat.

If you want a good summary of what is really wrong with public education today, watch this recent interview with Ravitch and New York City school teacher Brian Jones on Democracy Now.


Oh, and for fun, watch Matt Damon school a reporter from Reason TV on education policy.  You are the man, Jason Bourne!

Highlight of the Day: 3/4/2011

Gave a math test on Geometry today.  Specifically: types of lines, polygons, types of triangles, finding the missing angle in a triangle, perimeters, area of square/rectangle, circumference, and area of a circle.  The scores varied.  What unit shall I cover next?  I will probably work on money and word problems a little bit next week, and then decide from there.

Poverty, PISA, and the Myth About Public Schools in America and Around the World

Photo from Space Goddess

Recently in his Class Struggle blog, Jay Matthews has taken on two conventional myths about public education.  The first myth is that at one time, American schools were great and in recent years, they have greatly declined.  The truth is, as Matthews cites Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institute, is that we were never that great, nor are we now that bad.  American schools have always been mediocre.  We have based traditionally based the success of American schools on test scores like the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).  On such test scores, American students have always scored less than stellar on such comparative tests, even as far back as the 1960s.  While this is not really a good thing, this does not suggest that America, or American schools, are inferior to others around the world.

For the past 50 years, the United States has been one of the world's superpowers.  We have been the world's dominant country in both economics and military power.  While I would argue that there are better ways to measure the success and well-being of a country, it certainly can't be said that because we have never ranked that great on standardized tests, that we are are some how an inferior nation that struggles compared to the rest of the industrialized world. 

Picture from Finland Educational Guide 

The second myth that Matthew's looks at is that other countries around the world have superior schools because they test better.  These countries include schools such as China, India, and the country many consider to have the top education system in the world, Finland.  While there is certainly a lot to laud about Finnish schools, their superiority in test scores is actually something that is of great debate currently in Finland.  

Loveless is less dismissive of Finland, which has been scoring well for several years. But he says Americans who love the Finnish model of paying teachers higher salaries, decentralizing authority over educational decisions and eschewing high-stakes standardized testing should tune into the debate the Finns are having about their schools. 

Finnish children were doing well on international tests before those reforms were adopted. That suggests that cultural and societal factors might be the more likely reason for their success. Many Finnish mathematicians say that the country is catering too much to PISA, which emphasizes word problems and practical applications of math, and neglecting to prepare students for college math. 

Loveless says more than 200 university mathematicians in Finland petitioned the education ministry to complain of students increasingly arriving in their classrooms poorly prepared. "Knowledge of fractions and algebra were singled out as particularly weak areas," Loveless says. 

 So the reason that Finland tests so well on international scores is because there education system is geared towards testing well.  That alone doesn't make their schools more superior than other countries, and in point of fact, is the topic of great debate in Finland.  This same point was made by both Diane Ravitch and the Wall Street Journal a month ago about China's schools.  As Ravitch writes:

In The Wall Street Journal, Jiang Xueqin, the deputy principal of Peking University High School, lamented that those high scores were purchased by sacrificing such qualities as independence, curiosity, and individuality. Even educators in Shanghai, he wrote, recognize that the singular devotion to test scores was "producing competent mediocrity."  

 In the quote from Matthews above on Finnish schools, I highlighted a sentence that he wrote, but really didn't explain.  That being about "cultural and societal factors" as one explanation why Finland does so well in schools.  What are those factors exactly?  Well, I believe Ravitch stumbled upon the problem in her piece:

The other salient factor about U.S. performance on international tests is that we have an exceptional and shameful rate of child poverty. Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution says that more than 20 percent of our children live in poverty, and she expects that proportion to increase to nearly 25 percent by 2014. As poverty deepens, Sawhill writes, we should be strengthening the safety net that protects the lives of the poorest. Robert Reich, the former treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, says that income inequality is higher now than it has been in many decades. Most of the nations (and cities) that compete on PISA have far lower child-poverty rates. 

In recent years, we have become accustomed to hearing prominent reformers like Secretary Duncan, Michelle Rhee, and Joel Klein say that reference to poverty is just making excuses for bad teachers and bad schools. But there is plenty of evidence that poverty affects students' readiness to learn. It affects their health, their nutrition, their attendance, and their motivation. Being hungry and homeless distracts students and injures their health; living in an environment where drugs and violence are commonplace affects children's interest in academics. Living in communities where many stores and homes are boarded up, and where incarceration rates are very high, affects children's sense of possibility and their willingness to plan for the future. 

Researchers for the National Association for Secondary School Principals disaggregated the PISA results by income and made some stunning discoveries. Take a look at this link ("PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid"). It shows that American students in schools with low poverty rates were first in the world when they were compared with students in nations with comparably low poverty levels. Thus, the picture painted by doomsayers about American education is false in this respect. We have many outstanding schools and students, but our overall performance is dragged down by the persistence of poverty. Poverty depresses school achievement because it hurts children, families, and communities.

Picture from China Smack 

 The truth of the matter is that, all things considered, American schools are no worse than most countries around the world.  If anything, our schools as they exist in many neighborhoods are just as capable of outperforming schools in Finland, China, or any other industrialized nation.  There certainly are things that our country can do better to improve the quality of schools and education as a whole.  But the main reason that a school district usually struggles to begin with is poverty.  The reason that inner-city school districts struggles with lower test scores, higher drop-out rates, violence, increased teen pregnancy, and so on is because of the poverty that most of the students and their parents live in.  Everyone knows this is the case, and has known it for years.  For all of the well-being and economic success our country has had compared to the rest of the world, poverty (and all of the societal problems that are linked to it) is the great albatross around America's neck.

I find it interesting that so-called education reformers believe the key to fighting poverty in inner-cities today is battling teacher unions, funding charter schools over public schools, and narrowing the curriculum to focus mainly on reading and math test scores.  While I am sure most of them have good intentions in their actions, their policies will only make things worse for our country.  They are hurting public schools in inner cities, and treating them as if they are the source of so many problems.  True, inner city schools have serious issues, but it is not public schools as a whole that is the source.  Wealthier, suburban districts with low poverty rates don't seem to have the same problems that these school districts have, and those schools have teacher unions, and government regulation.  It seems that so much money and energy that the reformers spend on fighting unions and opening charter schools could go to the root of the problem to begin with.  There are better ways to improve public schools and fight poverty than the current conventional thinking by reformers.